Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychotronic weapons


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   merge to Psychotronics. J04n(talk page) 01:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Psychotronic weapons

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

POV fork from Psychotronics. Editor engaged in edit warring on both articles to add original research based on sources which don't mention psychotronics at all or do not support the cited facts. Posting on AFD in the hope of a community decision which would lead an uninvolved admin to redirect and lock article. GDallimore (Talk) 20:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, redirect Psychotronics to Psychotronic weapons These users are attempting to censor this material, calling it "POV" despite the fact that it is reflected in hundreds of articles, books published by McMillion and the Harvard Press, and press releases from Vladimir Putin as well as publications from NSA. They are attempting to redirect it to a page about "parapsychology" pseudoscience, which has little or no historical significance for the term.Damonthesis (talk)
 * The Psychotronics page has almost no relevant information to the term, which describes a 50 year weapons program of the USSR. That page obfuscates its meaning, and attempts to hide the fact that the program is ongoing, noted here http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/06/11061093-reality-check-on-russias-zombie-ray-gun-program?lite
 * There is zero original research, all sources are directly related to psychotronics. GDallimore appears to have a bias towards censoring historically significant information.  The page you are attempting to say this is a "POV fork" of is a completely unrelated subject, related more to the U.S. Psychotronics Association which has nothing to do with the Russian program, which is still ongoing.
 * A number of editors have "coopted" the term psychotronics, which has a meaningful historical significance in the realm of military research and technology. There are a number of published U.S. Military, U.S. Congressional, and Russian governmental sources referring to the term in the context of a weapons program which began during the Cold War.  It appears to me that they do not understand the significance of the term, which is clearly expressed in recent 2012 comments by Vladimir Putin and his Defense Secretary.


 * Delete - a clear POV fork of the psychotronics article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 21:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is obviously one of the editors involved in attempting to censor information about the Russian program, and unsigned.  Any normal person reading both articles will see that the psychotronic_weapons article includes globally significant information.  The page you are attempting to say it's "forked" from has absolutely no relevance to modern times.Damonthesis (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect. It's a POV fork created by Damonthesis in response to having their contributions removed from Psychotronics for reasons of synthesis, original research, reliable sources and neutrality. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There was no WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:RS, or WP:NPOV. Point in fact, the sources on the psychotronic_weapons page are much better, and much more interesting than the sources on psychotronics.  The talk page for psychotronics clearly reflects that these editors don't even have an understanding of what the term means, yet they believe their "information" is historically relevant.Damonthesis (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Damonthesis, please assume good faith, remain civil in discussion, and comment on content, not contributors - your personal attacks above are unacceptable, and claims of "censorship" do not help your case. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've had my edits cleared, despite being properly sourced and on topic, and then had the page creation for disambiguation completely defaced numerous times. It hasn't been a happy day. Damonthesis (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep And redirect your efforts to helping people give good human-harassment research advancements to Wikipedia-Are you Aware {Michigan-Public act 257 of 2003} makes it a felony for a person to "manufacture, deliver, possess, transport, place, use, or release" a "harmful electronic or electromagnetic device" for "an unlawful purpose"; also made into a felony is the act of causing "an individual to falsely believe that the individual has been exposed to a... harmful electronic or electromagnetic device." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.196.0.56 (talk • contribs)
 * Also other laws - Do Research Please before gorging 12.196.0.56 (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia deletion discussions are based around Wikipedia policy, not around the existence or otherwise of laws relating to 'electronic or electromagnetic devices'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the user is pointing out significant legislative action related to the topic under discussion. It's further evidence that the weapons exist, and that the biased characterization of the articles should be corrected to follow WP:RS.Damonthesis (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope - the legislation says nothing whatsoever about 'psychotronics', 'mind control' or anything of the sort - a "harmful electronic or electromagnetic device" could include all sorts of things, and we don't engage in speculation as to what is meant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Article clearly differ from the Psychotronics with its own references. It is clearly not a POV fork of Psychotronics This article show usage of Psychotronics other than medical purpose and has enough references to back up its claims.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JIM MAC EGG (talk • contribs) 02:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)  — JIM MAC EGG (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete per nom/above, see WP:FRINGE as well. Ansh666 03:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's almost funny that you are calling sources from the Army, Marines, and NSA WP:FRINGEDamonthesis (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I note that nom (User:GDallimore) and other two delete votes (User:AndyTheGrump and User:LuckyLouie) are actively involved in editing/edit-warring with User:Damonthesis on Psychotronics. Given the above vote by User:JIM MAC EGG, which I'd say is quacking rather loudly, and Damonthesis's very recent (2/3 days ago) account creation, I'm suspicious of socking, not only for JIM MAC EGG but Damonthesis as well. Have you three editors had problems with similar editors in the past? Ansh666 03:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A bit of history This article and similar ones have always been a target for conspiracy theorists. A related article was deleted some time ago at Articles for deletion/Psychotronic (mind control) (on my suggestion), but the topic was recreated through articles for creation here. Although a total mess at the time, I thought the editor in question had found some good sources so I took it on myself to cut the article down to JUST the reliable sources and had good support from several other editors. The resulting article was pretty bare but at least didn't have any original research and had enough reliable sources to be notable. The article has ben quiet until now and this latest edit war actually started over at Stalking, but moved to psychotronics before this pov-fork. GDallimore (Talk) 11:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: What you should be noting is there are three editors ganging up on me, trying to push an article that is clearly substandard and not a representation of the actual entry. I've provided ample sources, from the highest authority, and yet still have my edits deleting, and receive personal attacks from multiple editors.  Do you have a WP:GANGINGUPONPEOPLE?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs) 03:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:GANG? See this section. Ansh666 09:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to psychotronics, of which it is an obvious POV fork. I'm not, in principle, opposed to an article on mind control weapons -- but unless there's evidence that meets Wikipedia's evidentiary standards that such a thing exists, it would have to be written in terms of mind control weapons as being a hypothetical technology that has been the subject of discussion, in the same way as time machines or teleportation. -- The Anome (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's only an obvious POV fork after the AfD, when numerous editors, including myself, worked to merge prior to this discussion. The information contained in Psychotronic weapons was removed completely prior to the creation of that article.  I think a mind control weapons article is a good idea, however the Soviet Psychotronics program, which is at least as significant as MK ULTRA deserves to be prominently displayed in its own article, or in Psychotronics.  This group has actively attempted to push information related to the Soviet program to the "nether regions" of that page, despite the fact that it is the predominantly known use of the term today. Damonthesis (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)  The "version" of Psychotronics which caused the new article to be created (after numerous reversions of well sourced MIlitary additions to that page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychotronics&oldid=552867941) Damonthesis (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into psychotronics if there is anything worth keeping, otherwise delete. I don't see any reason to have the two separate articles.  Peacock (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect per POV fork and WP:FRINGE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge into psychotronics. I have no expertise in this area. From reading the article and several of the sources, I perceive that there is a notable topic here, but I also perceive a good bit of original research needing to be excised from the article. Furthermore, the topic can be effectively covered within the scope of the psychotronics article, which already covers much of the territory. (Question: Should The Men Who Stare at Goats be treated as related?) --Orlady (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge into Psychotronics and expand the scope of that article to include the history of such devices (such as the research and patent by the US Government for a microwave device which can project recognizable speech into a human's head, as described in the Washington Post article) and the reported work on psychotronic weapons by the Soviets.Do not just replace this article with a redirect and leave the target article unchanged. Include also the referenced fact that many psychotic people imagine that "the government" is using such devices to beam speech into their heads, even though such beliefs were common many decades ago,such as 1908, 1884, 1819 long before there was any technology to begin to actually do it. Belief in such modern alleged practices is a notable delusional belief system. Edison (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yer comments are interesting. None of your examples show anyone thinking the government is responsible for their voices.  Actually, not one of them thinks its humans at all.  You have succeeded in proving that people have heard voices in the past though.   Here is a good example that goes with your idea James Tilly Matthews. ObjectiveConsciousness (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that a full 90% of the sources being used to back up this claim of a long research programme do not make even a passing mention of pscyhotronics. The Washington Post article makes two mentions of psychotronics, neither in connection with things you describe. The Psychotronics article already talks at length about delusional beliefs and that was a key problem the disruptive editor in question had at both the stalking article and the psychotronics article: it wasn't in line with his POV. GDallimore (Talk) 22:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Then let's make sure the "10%:" source is included in the merged article. If there is a better and more common term, then perhaps a separate article is actually needed to discuss the weapons research described in the WP, with a mention of the popular delusion of those hearing voices that it is some government agency at work. Do you accept that the microwave research program was real, and the delusion is a common and notable one? Where should it be in Wikipedia, or should we not mention it because we don't like it? Edison (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try to be clearer since you appear to be missing something: the delusion aspect is now described at length in the psychotronics article thanks largely to my efforts and using the 10% of good sources. The sources for the microwave research you're referring to form part of the 90% that fails to mention psychotronics, which is the problem with including them in the psychotronics article - it is relying on a definition of psychotronics only supported by the delusional people who think they are victims of such devices rather than on definitions supported by reliable sources. In particular, it's giving credence to the conspiracy theories that any form of brain–computer interface (such as the microwave technology you're describing) can be used for mind control and therefore falls under the fringe definition of psychotronics. That article and the more general purpose directed-energy weapon already cover some of these ideas without the blatant original research required to add them to psychotronics or ascribing unsupported mind control connotations to them. GDallimore (Talk) 00:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thought to share with you, this made it to reddit.com ObjectiveConsciousness (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * reddit is in no way an indicator of notability, nor even close to a reliable source. Ansh666 02:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This mean this discussion. Agreed, it is not notable.  ObjectiveConsciousness (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion? dang! links? Ansh666 02:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Here. (Where's that canvassing template?) - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To add, in Ukraine many know of KGB program http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1dgnpq/an_apparent_inner_circle_of_wikipedia_editors/ ObjectiveConsciousness (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) Well, I took one account to SPI, but it was unrelated, as I realized was obvious later (CU still caught some other accounts and IP edits, though). Canvassing is part of Damonthesis's block, but I'll bring this up at the AN/I too, I guess. Ansh666 02:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment This article brings new sources even to the page Articles for deletion/Psychotronic (mind control). It seems Psychotronics_(mind control) page and Psychotronic weapons should be merged with Psychotronics  Topic is significant. ObjectiveConsciousness (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — ObjectiveConsciousness (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * note: Articles for deletion/Psychotronic (mind control) closed around three years ago, so the page doesn't exist anymore. Ansh666 07:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge with psychotronics. The phrase has mentioned by the militaries of two major world powers, not exactly fringe sources.  It's worthy of at least a section in that article. Underpowered (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — Underpowered (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Merge with psychotronics. A section of that article and the whole of the subject one are dealing with the same subject, though apparently using different material.  The whole business may indeed be WP:FRINGE, but the fact that the military of both USA and USSR took an interest in the subject suggests that one article should be kept.  The other is perhaps a fork, but the answer to that issue is often to merge the fork back into the main article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Army 1998 NSA 2004 Russian news 2012 2011 2001 I suggest others read the links, as there is obviously something wrong here. The entry for "psychotronic weapons" is meticulously sourced, and there are two editors w/names similar to "Louie" insisting it be removed- for no discernible reason at all, aside from their moot, and unproven, contentions about the submitter's beliefs. The essay linked to in "the truth" may support the position that the majority opinion is the truth, but what if the majority opinion is, perhaps counter-intuitively, woefully ignorant? Citations from the Army, NSA, Russian President, New York Times, Washington Post, etc aren't Wikipedia-worthy? 23.29.57.247 (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — 23.29.57.247 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Merge into psychotronics as heavily discussed and as per Psychotronic Weapons capitalized. Aggripenae (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Here is an example. This edit reverts a fact clearly described in the cited article, can anybody comment on the words in Wikipedia relative to cite?  Janet Morris did not report anything? ObjectiveConsciousness (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion regarding the proposed deletion of the Psychotronic weapons article. If you have a problem with your badly-worded misrepresentation of a source being deleted from another article, discuss it in the proper place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your edit reversion say "you can't demonstrate a possibility." Thomas article says "There is confirmation from US researchers that this type of study is going on. Dr. Janet Morris, coauthor of The Warrior's Edge, reportedly went to the Moscow Institute of Psychocorrelations in 1991. There she was shown a technique pioneered by the Russian Department of Psycho-Correction at Moscow Medical Academy in which researchers electronically analyze the human mind in order to influence it."  Your reverted to wording: "Thomas saying in 1998 that there was a strong belief in Russia that weapons for attacking the mind of a soldier were a possibility, although no working devices were reported."  Why? ObjectiveConsciousness (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What part of 'discuss it in the proper place' do you find so hard to comprehend? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OC, I'm going to save you the trouble of finding the right place: discuss it here, not in this page. Ansh666 23:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong article, Ansh. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * *eats Twix bar* discuss it here, not in this page. Ansh666 23:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks if this is a merge discussion for 3 pages: Psychotronics, Psychotronic weapons, Psychotronic Weapons Why not discuss here? ObjectiveConsciousness (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't a merge discussion, it's a deletion discussion. (It's been hijacked into a merge discussion, I guess, but that still doesn't make it valid to discuss here). Please take it to the individual article's talk page. Ansh666 23:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Psychotronics and Psychotronic Weapons make no mention of existence of Russian program, but a number of articles cited say this. Change vote to keep to make page just about Russian program ObjectiveConsciousness (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Then just add a mention about the Russian program in the Psychotronics article if you think it has due weight. No reason to keep this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * IAR Speedy Delete - to end this spam-fest by Reddit-canvassed SPAs. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * delete - unless there are real sources found. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Note: I didn't actually add it. User:ObjectiveConsciousness did, but they didn't follow all the instructions.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep/Upmerge but Purge. Much of this article is about alleged use of psychotronic weapons on people who may have been mentally disturbed. First sentence needs to be cited and details of the Soviet Cold War research provided. The focus then needs to be placed on the weapons, not alleged effects of the weapons. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify, do you want to "Keep" Psychotronic weapons or "Upmerge" it to Psychotronics? - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge & Redirect to Psychotronics. Subject appears to be related to suggested redirect target, and falls within its scope. The redirect target is not to large per WP:LIMIT, and as the subject of this AfD falls within the subject of the suggested redirect target and thus a merger and a redirect would be appropriate.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Psychotronics and Psychotronic Weapons. Merge may be acceptable, but the weapons aspect should have its own article. OlavN (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Major content already covered by the other article, this is just an unnecessary POV fork. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and discuss merge on article talk page. Nominating for deletion is not a good approach to merge articles. My very best wishes (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.