Talk:Psychotronics (parapsychology)

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--Paritto (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.--Paritto (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!.. --Paritto (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.--Paritto (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)

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. 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, meaning 'breath, soul, spirit', and ἤλεκτρον, meaning '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)