Talk:Psychotronics (parapsychology)/Archive 1

Reliable sources

May you help me to identify, which of the references are not reliable? Is there a popular parameter to classify them? By the way, the article Time warp (science fiction) has been accepted without references: neither reliable nor doubtly! Bye--Indiferente1 (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC) 17:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

First WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an irrelevant argument. What is relevent is whether THIS article meets guidelines such as WP:RELIABLE. The problem is that many, many of the sources are from personal websites, which are not reliable. On closer inspection, some of these websites are quoting something else, and the something else MIGHT be reliable. So, quoting the original sources, not personal websites mirroring the original sources would be a step forward in identifying whether there are enough reliable sources in this article. GDallimore (Talk) 20:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The main problem is WP:OR, the article making connections between things like Qi and the The Great Pyramid of Giza. A great many of the sources are fringe websites. The reliable sources cited are irrelevant or misused. The writing is incoherent. WP:TNT: the best thing to do would be to restore the original redirect to parapsychology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to parapsychology as above. Location (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that the article Parapsychology, is still changing since the beggining (17:04, September 29, 2001), even quite naively nowadays, up to a quite prolonged edition, please see: [1], and its unreliable references 127-129... perhaps the article Parapsychology is not the best reference to accude after deleting mine, which has been criticized because of mistakes such as those already mentioned by GDallimore... aside that possibility of deletion, realize that Psychotronics is a topic that deserves special attention due to the extension of the other topic. I insist that Wikipedians must be restricted to the same policies, in order to edit parallely the same Wikipedia.--Indiferente1 (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what any of the above means. But I have removed all of the obviously unreliable sources and re-written the article from scratch based on the two reliable sources I found in your list. GDallimore (Talk) 12:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree to you GDallimore, in starting the article according to your point of view about "Psychotronics"... it was accepted and rated as C-Class by SarahStierch, it wasn't so wrong!.. you already deleted even the patents!.. --Indiferente1 (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that the article was nominated for speedy deletion in its original form, I think consensus is against you that my edits were incorrect. See also the comments here: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Psychotronics.

The problems with the patents were that: (a) they didn't mention "psychotronics" and (b) you were using them to support your own original research that people could put brain-monitoring devices in food. GDallimore (Talk) 13:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Psychotronics is the interaction of electromagnetic (even acoustic) fields with the body and viceversa, related to a set of induced reactions or mind responses to them, respectively. That is not true that Patents have to include the word Psychotronics, to be a reliable source! It's a matter to understand the deep meaning, the goal, the purpose of those designs, to see that all of them are part of the topic. The same disagreement because some of the neglected references are already cataloged by ISBN (10 of them) or OCLC (BBC news:33057671, China Daily:312018018). The people ask for a list of references or reliable sources, becasuse we don't understand at all which set of parameters (numbers) are needed to be accepted.--Indiferente1 (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to read and understand WP:Original research: "to understand the deep meaning, the goal, the purpose of those designs, to see that all of them are part of the topic" is precisely original research and precisely what you did wrong. An ISBN doesn't automatically make it reliable if it was not published by a reliable publisher. GDallimore (Talk) 14:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Now that all the unreliable references have been removed and the article stubbed, it seems the whole thing could fit into one paragraph in parapsychology. Wait a minute, it does! (third paragraph). - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Except, since there are now two reliable sources on psychotronics, this is the perfect opportunity to split some stuff off from that very long article. That's how wikipedia works. Also, the Canadian Medical stuff is not mentioned in parapsychology, nor should it be, since that is an actual scientific investigation. GDallimore (Talk) 15:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources 2

6/26/2014 GDallimore removed validly sourced material from the page 10:25, 27 June 2014‎. Here is the content removed:

Furthermore, government whistleblower Dr. Robert Duncan of Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency, and US Department of Justice employment reports that he personally worked on weapons and surveillance systems for the government that beam voices into the heads of targets, known as "The Voice of God weapon." In a December 2012 appearance on the hit TV series Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura, an episode entitled "Brain Invaders," Duncan described that what was happening on American soil to the targets was worse than abuse, "they're being tortured." Ex-CIA operative and Project MKULTRA participator Mark Phillips, spouse of Cathy O'Brien a confirmed CIA Project MKULTRA mind control victim, backed Duncan up in the episode describing that the modern mind control systems use microwaves to beam voices and thoughts into the heads of targets rather than nose cavity implants as was done in the 1970s, adding that even Occupy Movement protestors had been targeted.

GDallimore said to come here to discuss why these are valid sources of information, claiming he would keep removing the content in his 10:25, 27 June 2014‎ edit. #1 Coast to Coast AM is a nationally broadcast radio show. They have millions of listeners. The show has been on the radio for decades. Their website lists more details including the biographies of guests. Dr. Robert Duncan worked for the DOD/CIA/US DOJ out of Harvard, has degrees from MIT/Harvard/Dartmouth/Stanford. He designed a variety of weapons systems for the government. He has been on TV, routinely does radio interviews, and has written 4 books (one is unpublished/hidden due to publisher censorship). This guy is the source for what's real and not. He is a whistleblower. He spent over $100,000 of his own cash to investigate this problem and write his books (according to his website). He has interviewed over 650 TIs and went to over 23 congressional offices seeking help and he works with CIA and other professors at major universities around the country (see his website). This information has been vetted. It collaborates with patent and other information. The second source. #2 This is Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura, broadcast on TruTV, with over a million views per episode in the ratings when it was on. It's hosted by Jesse Ventura; they have experts, doctors, and perform private investigations and have testimony from witnesses and experts. The testimony of CIA operative Mark Phillips and DOD/CIA/US DOJ whistleblower Dr. Robert Duncan on the show is proof. They worked for the government. Their statements are proof this is real and going on because they themselves worked in the programs responsible for peoples torture. Jesse Ventura calls Dr. Robert Duncan's statements a confession on the show.

Explain yourself why these are not valid sources of information. Also here are additional resources to prove why these are valid sources. Dr. Robert Duncan's website archived by archive.org (he shut it down after 2008 when his publisher flaked out on him): https://web.archive.org/web/20080517114418/http://www.thematrixdeciphered.com/

Dr. Robert Duncan's three published books including free ebook: The Matrix Deciphered: http://oregonstatehospital.net/d/websites/freedomfchs.com-DocumentsArchive/thematrixdeciph.pdf Project: Soul Catcher: Secrets of Cyber and Cybernetic Warfare Revealed How to Tame a Demon: A short practical guide to organized intimidation stalking, electronic torture, and mind control

The full episode for free to listen to of the Coast to Coast AM show is on archive.org. https://archive.org/details/RobertDuncanc2c20071205 Tell me why these are not valid sources. These sources come from experts and whistleblowers. They are evidence. You are not. BTW the radar technology used to attack people is fully patented by US DOD contractor Robert Malech: http://www.google.com/patents/US3951134 - Dorne & Margolin Inc. original assignee, company sold to EDO Corporation, later sold to ITT Corporation, and parts later spun off to Exelis Inc.. These companies manufacture military radar and electronic warfare systems for the DOD. 2602:306:CE65:9470:9927:F5E:CF45:6DE8 (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I actually want to offer all these as sources for others to help implement into the page. Wikipedia's pages on these weapons are bare bones and need heavy revision. There are whitepapers and more credible links written by doctors at this website: http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/story.html#links . Dr. Carole Smith wrote a great whitepaper on the need to revise the diagnostic criteria for psychosis because the criteria has never taken into account the governments technical abilities to actually do this. It's hosted on GlobalResearch.ca, a credible source for research and information on the governments operations. 2602:306:CE65:9470:9927:F5E:CF45:6DE8 (talk) 09:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing you have said is even remotely relevant to the question of whether the sources are WP:Reliable sources. Your comments therefore border on talk page WP:Soapboxing in breach of WP:NOTFORUM and, while I will refrain from deleting them from this talk page (although I invite any uninvolved editor to do so if they agree with me) I will delete future talk page comments which do nothing but promote your personal views. GDallimore (Talk) 16:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:Reliable Sources mentions (the writer, journalist) is a source. Dr. Robert Duncan is a writer and a journalist. But he's also an actual government employee or past employee. This fits then perhaps as an interview, where he gives certain statements about government operations. CIA Mark Phillips is in the same boat. He's both a past government employee and an author of two books. The source of the documentary where he makes the statements and appearance is Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura. A website is definitely a source. If one wanted to use the books as sources that is another way to do it; Duncan repeats the same material in his books. Mark Phillips documents the legal case against the government when he and his wife sued in relation to the governments mind control program. 2602:306:CE65:9470:9927:F5E:CF45:6DE8 (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Article beyond salvation, but saving reliable sources here

Woods, David (1976). "Psychotronics: the new science once the preserve of ancient Eastern philosophy". Can Med Assoc J. 114 (9): 844. Retrieved 27 December 2012. - discusses psychotronics in non-paranormal terms as an early forerunner of some stuff that is now being investigated seriously.

German, Erik (July 5, 2000). "Is Czech Mind Control Equipment Science-Fiction or Science-Fact?". The Prague Post. Retrieved 16 December 2012. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) - interesting article on cold war paranormal paranoia.

GDallimore (Talk) 11:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added some content from the articles you use, but it is patently clear that the opening sentence is absurd. A Canadian physician did not invent psychotronics. Essentially it is a term that derives from Czech psychiatrists in the mid-twentieth century. While the sources for the original article were problematic, it did at least give us some idea of the actual history of concept, rather than its rather marginal history in Canada. Clearly there is a mixture of parapsychology, quasi-Freudian psychodynamics and even proto Cognitive Behaviour Therapy aspects to the history of this, which will be very difficult to disentangle. Paul B (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I felt that that definition does also encompass the paranormal side of things from the russian research. GDallimore (Talk) 15:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources indicate there's also a strong connection to pseudoscience worth mentioning. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a reasonable-looking article on Zdeněk Rejdák, who is claimed to have coined the term, but I can't judge the sources which are in Czech. Paul B (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Biofeedback is not pseudoscience. Paranormal research is pseudoscience almost by definition so it hardly needs mentioning. What would be useful would be getting hold of that source to improve this article should you actually wish to make a positive contribution. GDallimore (Talk) 16:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you're saying, do you mean the link to the Slovak paper published by Studia Psychologica and cited by the American Psychological Association is not a positive contribution? Also if psychotronics = biofeedback, shouldn't it be mentioned at that article? (It isn't) - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Who is "you"? I'm sure we are all trying to make positive contributions. But finding satisfactory sources is not something that can be done in the blink of an eye. Paul B (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

We require direct and explicit sourcing for the proposed etymology: none has been provided. Further discussion at this point is disruptive. Topic closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"undo" last change... of course User:Bhny... that's the purpose of the template etymology, to signal that proper linguistic source, in the sense that the phenomena psychotronics has to do with that relationship: breath/soul/spirit+electricity.--Paritto (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC) While the greek "psycho" is to do with the soul, and "electron" is to do with amber/electricity, that would be psychoelectronics, not psychotronics, so the etymology is slightly dubious. Because of that, the etymology needs a source. GDallimore (Talk) 01:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC) 0 realy, may you indicate me some Wikipedia page where it happens? etymologies is just a matter of general culture... if not, any word of each article would have to be cited! Please, see Template:Etymology, that is not true that it is requested a source!--Paritto (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC) OK, about the etymology of sychotronics (from Ancient Greek ψυχή 'breath, soul, spirit' and ἤλεκτρον 'amber, electron'), you can start considering List of Greek and Latin roots in English, [2], Amber:History_and_etymology.--Paritto (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC) AS I have already explained to you at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Etymology of Psychotronics and a technicism about it?, if you want to give an etymology, you must cite the source you got it from, per Wikipedia:Verifiability. This is basic Wikipedia policy - it isn't open to negotiation. If there is no verifiable source for the etymology, we aren't going to include one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC) First of all Please do not bite the newcomers. Then, I already gave it a triad of references: two of Wikipedia and one external, by the way please, remember something like already asked at Wikipedia a reliable source?, Wikipedia is neither reliable nor verifiable one yet (this is not Britannica).--Paritto (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC) You have cited no reliable source that gives an etymology for the word 'Psychotronics'. The only external source you provide does not include the word at all - and as for not biting newcomers, we do on occasion exclude them entirely, particularly if they show no sign whatsoever of being able to communicate in the English language to the degree required to be a useful contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC) OK, it could be (I always consult Google Translator and/or Merriam Webster), but don't reject me as if this be the best encyclopedia of the world, writing good English is not the answer to editing/obtaining a marvelous Wikipedia, as it has been already said... please, visit Parapsychology and you will see, that the article has not been finished yet after 11 years! (it started 17:04, September 29, 2001).--Paritto (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC) It's your apparent unwillingness to listen which is the problem. You're still unwilling to listen about what constitutes a relevant reliable source and what constitutes original research, you're still complaining about other articles as if that makes a difference here, and now you've completely failed to read and understand my original comment. What I SAID was that the derivation you provide would be for the word psychoELECtronics so it is a dubious etymology, so it needs a source. I don't for one second dispute the greek meanings of the words "psycho" (or "pscyhe") and "electron" - my physics background actually gives me a fair knowledge of the greek alphabet. But it is the combination of these word parts into one word which is problematic and which is original research - see, we're back to your failure to communicate and listen over what constitutes original research again. And if you don't communicate effectively, then people will just ignore you and revert you on sight. If Merriam Webster or any other well-known dictionary were to give that etymology for the word "psychotronics", of course that would be a reliable source. GDallimore (Talk) 12:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC) OK man, I'm just learning, is that a big trouble? I'm trying to follow honestly the rules of this Wikipedia... I do like Wikipedia in some sense, that's why I'm still here... Etymologies are not definitions; they're explanations of what our words meant 600 or 2,000 years ago. Think of it as looking at pictures of your friends' parents when they were your age. People will continue to use words as they will, finding wider meanings for old words and coining new ones to fit new situations. In fact, this list is a testimony to that process. Online Etymology Dictionary&Wikipedia:Online Etymology Dictionary. That is not true that any word owing Greek has to be declined exactly like the roots are... You can easily confirm that it is not easy to find a book/web page having the full words ad hoc in the world, and that does not mean that one of them in specific—not included—, be impossible to get derived since Greek language.--Paritto (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Paritto, you have been repeatedly told that we will not include an etymology based on original research in the article. This is not open to negotiation. I strongly advise you to let the matter drop - it isn't going into the article unless a source that expressly provides an etymology for the exact word 'Psychotronics' can be found - and you are becoming disruptive, which may result in you being blocked from editing entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Thank you for the link to the etymology dictionary. It's a truly fascinating resource which I'd never come across before. I note it doesn't include the word "psychotronics". Nor are there any obvious words which have a "tronic" suffix without the "elec". This just points to the fact that it's just a made up word which the progenitor thought sounded good rather than something specifically derived from latin or greek roots. This makes your etymology claim seem even more unlikely than I'd thought and I'm now totally convinced that it would be inappropriate to put it in the article. Thanks for clearing that up. GDallimore (Talk) 15:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC) OK, it seems that in this case/article, you are trying to be more strict at the time of accepting a new proposal, in the sense that every day are accepted articles of lower level quality: non-reliable and non-verifiable sources. Please, have a look to that, I promess you that there are hundreds of articles that do not satisfy your high quality standards (just by the side of etymologies). By the way, the original idea of the topic Psychotronic is mine, that's why I want to know more in detail, why you are not accepting anything from that side? Finally, I don't use to do this, but your reputation is not so good in other way, because of this set of incidents: [3], [4], and [5]. Please be patient to me.--Paritto (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC) OK, that's it. I give up with you. You are now on my ignore list for having nothing of interest or value to contribute. GDallimore (Talk) 16:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is this article supposed to be about?

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, we don't have articles on the meanings of words, we have articles about subjects. Can someone please provide a clear, sourced definition of the subject of this article, covering all the subject matter - because without one, it is hard to see why the article should be here at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I personally think the definition is defined by newspaper articles and current information operation literature (some created in conjunction with NSA) to be technology primarily derived from Cold War interest in mind control. It has been used by the U.S.S.R. in their academia, and by our government to describe their mind control program. Since the end of the Cold War, many of these researchers have come to the US. This CV has a definition, realize it's written by a Russian, in English: http://www.uk.metatron-nls.ru/main.php?id=45

"Starting from 1970’s on S.P. Nesterov’s initiative systematic researches of a new sphere of natural science – psychophysics has begun. Psychophysics is a science researching influence of physical fields on mental functions of a human."

So, psychotronics are weapons or technology which "exploits" psychophysics.Damonthesis (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This book "Armistead, Leigh in conjunction with the Joint Forces Staff College and the National Security Agency". "Information Operations: Warfare and the Hard Reality of Soft Power". p. "198"" references two books written by Major Vladimir Lopatin, Chief of Information Security (a subsection of the Security Committee of the Duma) and V.D. Tsigankov titled "Psychotronic Weapons and the Security of Russia" as well as "Secret Weapons of Information Warfare."

There's an article here that says its from a US Military publication, it looks a little fringe, though. http://dprogram.net/2009/07/01/the-mind-has-no-firewall-army-article-on-psychotronic-weapons/

Russian Views on “Psychotronic War”

The term “psycho-terrorism” was coined by Russian writer N. Anisimov of the Moscow Anti-Psychotronic Center. According to Anisimov, psychotronic weapons are those that act to “take away a part of the information which is stored in a man’s brain. It is sent to a computer, which reworks it to the level needed for those who need to control the man, and the modified information is then reinserted into the brain.” These weapons are used against the mind to induce hallucinations, sickness, mutations in human cells, “zombification,” or even death. Included in the arsenal are VHF generators, X-rays, ultrasound, and radio waves. Russian army Major I. Chernishev, writing in the military journal Orienteer in February 1997, asserted that “psy” weapons are under development all over the globe.

“The Mind Has No Firewall” by Timothy L. Thomas. Parameters, Spring 1998, pp. 84-92.

If anyone can get that article, I'd love to see it. Damonthesis (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit: this is an actual article, published by the United States Military. http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/Articles/98spring/thomas.htm Damonthesis (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, can we not get back into an argument over deleting this article again. People will come and go and wreak vengeance on this article for not saying what they want it to say about their favourite mind-control topic, but that has never been a valid reason to delete an article on a topic that is undeniably noteworthy. The people without a silly agenda just have to repair the damage. GDallimore (Talk) 09:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you call a silly agenda. It appears to me removing references to a 30 year long Russian research program, and attempting to provide the world with 1 "scientist" working on "paranormal" research is the actual agenda here. Damonthesis (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The lead paragraph is a bit of a tortured mess, I suspect because we have no reliable sources that will allow the encyclopedia to plainly state, "psychotronics is the supposed science of influencing, controlling, or harming the human mind via electronic devices". - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Sharon Weinberger article in the Washington Post might be useful to allow the lead to clarify that "psychotronic weapons (are) another common term for mind-control technology". The vague and confusing parapsychology stuff is valid background, but the mind-control-technology context seems to be the most notable use of the term and probably should come first. However, per Weinberger, we could specify this interpretation of 'psychotronics' is primarily used among conspiracy theorists, fringe writers, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The use of "pschotronics" on this page has nothing to do with the words most common meaning, which is referring to a well documented Russian weapons program. I've taken out the comments about "mind control" and forwarded them to a new page. The "US Psychotronic Assosiaction," along with the meaning presented on this page, has absolutely nothing to do with "mind control." There is plenty of source material to write a new article. I've created [[Psychotronic Weapons" to document the history of the Russian program. Damonthesis (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source for your assertion as to what is "the words most common meaning"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

We don't need a source for the "most common meaning." I created a separate page. This group honestly has no idea what the subject matter is about. If you want this page to be about one Czech doctors machine, so be it. There is so much literature on the internet pointing to a broad Russian research program that this page is a joke. I will move my research to Psychotronic Weapons and we can create a disambiguation. There are definitely two meanings of the word. The one used in [the US Psychotronics Assocation] has nothing to do with the Russian program.

Also, the previous user deleted numerous citations saying the sources "didn't reference psychotronics" at least two of those were taken from articles with "psychotronics" in the title. I'm not sure why this community demands to provide the most useless information possible, but you cannot honestly consider this page a reflection of the information provided last night, on the talk page, from the NSA and Russian Security Services.Damonthesis (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Content forking - you can't create another article on the same subject because you don't like this one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

See comments above, it's not the same subject. You have an article about 1 doctor, and have spent the last 4 hours removing well sourced material from Military journals, and NSA textbooks referring to a 30 year long research program. This article is about "parapsychology," and has no relevance to a well documented multi-decade research program driven primarily by the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War. Damonthesis (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Leigh Armistead's mention of reported Russian research programs isn't notable enough to have its own article. And you've taken selected bits of Sharon Weinberger's article out of context in order to add weight to your own point of view of the subject. That's a classic WP:POVFORK. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Just 2 comments.

1. What's interesting about this topic is that none of the sources really agree as to what psychotronics mean, so this article should represent those sources fairly in an NPOV manner and not try to force one meaning onto a word which doesn't have a single meaning. For that reason, I don't think the lead is too bad. It briefly mentions the origins of the term, then explains that the term has been applied in different ways over time - ie, it summarises the article. I agree there's room for improvement, but suggest that improvement should be in working on a better structure to the article body first and then thinking about how the lead can best summarise that.

2. Damonthesis, don't blame me for your actions in spending hours last night adding almost nothing but original research to the article, which had to be removed - and I went through your edits carefully paragraph by paragraph giving reasons for every reversion I made rather than just removing it wholesale. You did, however, find some excellent sources which this article sorely needed. Thank you for that - your work has not been wasted. I tried to represent those sources fairly in the article and you seem to be the only person who has a problem with my edits. GDallimore (Talk) 20:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This page. in its current incarnation is nothing more than disinformation. You are attempting to obfuscate and hide a 50 year old russian research program, which has been noted time and time again in the news, military publications, and government legislation in both Russia and the US with a page about once scientist. This page is a completely inaccurate reflection of the term "psychotronics" and does nothing but confuse the general public into thinking it's something that hasn't been talked about for 50 years. Vladimir Putin, the President of Russian, just released a statement saying they were spending upwards of 100 million dollars on psychotronics research per year until 2016. Do you think they are researching this man's machine? Your edits this morning did not "have to be done" your reasons were not correct. You removed numerous sources noting that 'psychotronics" were not mentioned, yet the names of the articles themselves included the term. You do not have a good concept of what the term means, and thus have created a page that has no historical significance whatsoever. I'm not sure what your intentions are, but what you are doing is called censorship. 21:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs)

Would you care to provide a citation to a reliable source for Putin's statement? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20120322/172332421.html is an original. It's repeated nearly everywhere. CBS etc. It's amazing that this group thinks this page has any relevance at all. If we were in the 60's I'd be calling you commie spies.Damonthesis (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You stated that "Vladimir Putin, the President of Russian, just released a statement saying they were spending upwards of 100 million dollars on psychotronics research per year until 2016" - the article you link was from a year ago, and clearly isn't "just released". Furthermore t says nothing whatsoever about anyone "spending upwards of 100 million dollars on psychotronics research per year until 2016". How about providing sources that actually back up your claims? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

We're talking about a 50 year old program. that this article states "interest in died out" when the original inventor died. Relatively speaking, a 2012 comment from the President of the second most powerful nation on the planet is recent and meritorious for inclusion. You are doing nothing but attempting to deflect from the fact that this information has been removed repeatedly for no reason at all. It is on topic, well sourced, and relevant to history and this article. The edits today have served to completely misrepresent the subject matter, and do nothing but create a false illusion that this program does not exist, which is clearly refuted by the article I linked. Further, you have repeatedly removed references to US knowledge of this program, which is also meritorious, and pertinent to the subject matter. Damonthesis (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

In the Cold War

This section, as well as the entire tone of the article refers to the "generators" which is a completely inaccurate description of what "psychotronics describes." The broad term does not refer only to this person who "may" have coined the use of the term, but rather to the entire Russian program, and anything that came of it. Just as the "generator" is not the whole of psychotronics, interest in them has clearly not "dissipated" since this man's death. Interest has been continually increasing in recent times, and has been publicized in both American and Russian news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs) 22:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I also think the following two pargraphs merit inclusion:

The United States appears to have taken an interest in the program in 1965, when the White House asked the Defense Department to investigate "behavioral and biological effects of low level microwaves," after discovering electromagnetic radiation being beamed into the Moscow embassy. This irradiation spanned from 1953 to 1976, after the White House Request, Project Pandora (and "Bizarre") conducted microwave research on animals and Navy personnel, achieving mixed results. This research was carried out by the psychology division within the psychiatry research section of Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.

In an article from 1998 published by the U.S. Army War College, military analyst Timothy Thomas examined psychotronic weapons, noting that up until that time most American military analysts had only looked at "simple deception" as a way to modify the enemy's rational thought. He notes that neuroscience has reliably proven that electromagnetic and energy waves, like data originating from the endogenous processes of the mind and body are subject to change in a similar manner to computers.

The idea that we've been "completely oblivious" to the fact that the Russians were working on this, as it appears by reading this page, is not the truth. There's significant evidence that we were aware of this program in both the 60's and the 90's. It merits inclusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs) 23:56, 30 April 2013‎

Who is 'we'? As for 'truth', I'm sure you are aware that Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources actually say, not on what contributors consider to be 'the truth' - and vague assertions regarding microwaves, along with meaningless waffle about neuroscience aren't suitable material for inclusion just because you think they are somehow relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

1995 Moscow Times story: full text available?

This article is much improved, both in tone and sourcing. Much thanks to the editors who put in the work required. A question about the quote from "Lopatkin" (mispelling of "Lopatin"?). It's apparently sourced to a news story attributed to Matthews, Owen (July 11, 1995). "Report: Soviets Used Top-Secret 'Psychotronic' Weapons." Moscow Times. I don't doubt the Moscow Times is reliable, but I do wonder in what context the quote was employed in the original story. "Lopatkin", I'm guessing, is Vladimir Nikolaevich Lopatin, a popular figure in fringe conspiracy theory literature such as this. As far as I can tell, Lopatin was a vocal advocate of the notion that psychotronic weapons existed and were able to be used against the population. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Googling the phrase [6] shows that the quote is quite out of context, seemingly an afterthought to Lopatin's beliefs that some sort of pre-emptive legislation was needed in Russia to prevent misuse of psychotronic weapons. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

If the quote has been taken out of context, it's the fault of the source, full copies of which are available if you search hard enough - but can't be linked to as they're copyright infringing. I found the thing you seem to be referring to about pre-emptive legislation, but that seems to be one particular website conflating several separate quotes together in one place, thereby possibly creating a context that didn't exist! It's possible there was an error in translation or transcription in the copy of the article I found, but I promise I didn't take that quote out of context based on the sources I had available. GDallimore (Talk) 00:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly not your fault that the source has been copied in garbled form all over the web and conflated to represent things it wasn't originally intended to. Could be a translation error, though I'd think the original news article would at least have included "Lopatkin's" full name. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think the reason why it's being used at at the POV fork is that it contains language about "revelations" of "secret research" going on for "so many years". - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind that since there are always revelations about secret research in all sorts of fields. It's only the delusional who say that the existence of such research proves their point beyond question and it's only with original research that it can be used to even imply the existence of working mind control weapons. GDallimore (Talk) 16:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Article by Serge Kernbach via ArXiv

Here's an excellent paper by Serge Kernbach, complete with entensive references:

Serge Kernbach (2013). "Unconventional research in USSR and Russia: Short overview". arXiv:1312.1148 [cs.OH].

and here's a medium.com article reporting on it:

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/1b0b3d97df54

I haven't got time to work on this now, but it looks like a very promising overview of the whole field of Soviet attempts to militarize pseudoscience, and a good source of pointers to new WP:RS for this topic.

-- The Anome (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Psychotronique

„Psychotronique" (Psychotronics), French term from the magazine Toute la Rádio, No. 192, pp. 12, 1955 (Rejdák took over the term) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.50.64.137 (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

If you can quote (or link to?) the full text of the magazine piece, it might make something useful for this article. GDallimore (Talk) 15:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

http://www.metapsychique.org/La-parapsychologie-hier-aujourd.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.50.64.137 (talk) 05:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the link is a long way from being a reliable source so there's no way to trust its interpretation of Toute la Rádio and it doesn't seem to quote it directly. GDallimore (Talk) 14:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Zdeněk Rejdák biographical article

See cs:Zdeněk Rejdák for a biographical article on Rejdák himself. -- The Anome (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Zdeněk Rejdák and bionics

Zdeněk Rejdák is considered the person who introduced the term into the parapsychology world. He's not the coiner of the term. This is why yesterday I edited removing his name (just from the lede) and adding nonetheless its real origin which has to do bionics (http://parapsych.org/articles/53/357/psychotronics.aspx). My edit was reverted arguing I did not explain myself despite the fact I did diffusely compile the edit summary. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk page references

References