Talk:Psychotronics (parapsychology): Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Protected "Talk:Psychotronics": Persistent block evasion ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 10:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 10:58, 14 July 2...)
(100 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
{{WikiProject Articles for creation|class=C|ts=20121223033528|reviewer=SarahStierch}}
  
{{WikiProject Articles for creation|class=C|ts=20121223033528|reviewer=SarahStierch}}
 
{{WikiProject Parapsychology|class=C}}
  
{{WikiProject Parapsychology|class=C}}
  +
{{merged-from|Psychotronic weapons|7 May 2013}}
   
  +
{{Archive box|
  +
# [[/Archive 1]]
  +
}}
   
−
== Reliable sources ==
 +
== Psychotronic weapons ==
   
  +
The sentence "These campaigns are typically dismissed by psychologists as being a delusional response to auditory hallucinations similar to accounts of alien abductions" in the second paragraph should be removed. The sentence "The scientific community considers psychotronics to be pseudoscience" should be removed as well.
−
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--[[User:Paritto|Paritto]] [[User talk: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. [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk:GDallimore|Talk]]) 20:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  
   
  +
Some victims are subject to harassment and organized stalking in their communities, some victims receive intentional false psychiatric diagnoses and in addition become victims of the systems, from which they are seeking help (medical institutions and law enforcement).
−
::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]]. - [[User:LuckyLouie|LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk:LuckyLouie|talk]]) 03:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  
  +
It is the responsibility to record and alert the world to these horrendous crimes and the extreme danger that these technologies pose to democracy, human rights, privacy, mental and physical freedom, and the health of all people. These are the most horrendous weapons and crimes imaginable."
−
:::'''Redirect''' to [[parapsychology]] as above. [[User:Location|Location]] ([[User talk:Location|talk]]) 04:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  
  +
[[User:Galinakurdina|Galinakurdina]] ([[User talk:Galinakurdina|talk]]) 23:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  +
:The stuff you say 'must be removed' is sourced. The stuff you want to add is at best alarmist claptrap. (Plus, the stuff you want to add is not sourced) [[User:Dbrodbeck|Dbrodbeck]] ([[User talk:Dbrodbeck|talk]]) 23:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
   
  +
Regarding "The stuff you want to add is at best alarmist claptrap". Go to MEDLINE library and read scientific literature about mind and body control. What I want to add is not a claptrap, but an existing reality and testimonies of civilian people, who are used as involuntary human subjects in extreme experiments with psyche, most likely, classified military experiments. Educate yourself a little bit and only after that leave your comments. You look ignorant, Dbrodbeck. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Galinakurdina|Galinakurdina]] ([[User talk:Galinakurdina|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Galinakurdina|contribs]]) 00:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
−
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: [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikifam=.wikipedia.org&wikilang=en&order=-edit_count&page=Parapsychology&grouped=on&ofs=0&max=1000], and its unreliable references [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology#cite_note-127 127]-[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology#cite_note-129 129]... 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 [[User:GDallimore|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.--[[User:Paritto|Paritto]] [[User talk:Paritto|(talk)]] 09:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  
  +
:Please read [[WP:NPA]]. [[User:Dbrodbeck|Dbrodbeck]] ([[User talk:Dbrodbeck|talk]]) 00:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  +
:You would need high quality secondary sources to make such extraordinary claims as the ones you wish to put in the article. [[User:Dbrodbeck|Dbrodbeck]] ([[User talk:Dbrodbeck|talk]]) 00:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
   
  +
[[Dbrodbeck]], once again, read books and articles from the list of literature about mind and body control in MEDLINE that I put above in this section. Enough sources. There are hundreds and thousands of articles and books about brain-machine interface, neuroengineering, neural interfacing, neuromechanical systems, neuroinformatics, neuroimaging, neural prostheses, artificial and biological neural circuits, neural control, neural signal processing, neural modeling in MEDLINE library.
−
: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. [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk:GDallimore|Talk]]) 12:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  
  +
If you want to read something more popular than scientific, you can read articles:
  +
1. Microchip Implants, Mind Control, and Cybernetics by Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde, MD, Former Chief Medical Officer of Finland, SPEKULA, 1999
  +
2. ‘Matador’ With a Radio Stops Wired Bull Modified Behavior in Animals Subject of Brain Study By John A. Osmundsen
  +
Reported in New York Times
  +
3. We are moving ever closer to the era of mind control by Steven Rose reported in the Observer on February 05 2006 on p31 of the Comment section.
  +
You can watch documentaries about mind control, broadcasted for millions of people on main TV channels in the USA and Russia :
  +
1. Jesse Ventura’s video “Brain Invaders”
  +
2. Mind Control Documentary: The Golden Dream of the World’s Masters.
  +
You can find on YouTube testimonies of victims of Psychotronic (mind/body control) weapons before the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical issues in USA in 2011.
  +
But, first of all, I refer you to literature in MEDLINE library, approved by scientific community. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Galinakurdina|Galinakurdina]] ([[User talk:Galinakurdina|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Galinakurdina|contribs]]) 01:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
   
  +
: I have removed some of Galinakurdina's spam, it is copyrighted material from a fringe website, found here [http://www.organizationofmindcontrolvictims.com/petition]. [[User:HealthyGirl|HealthyGirl]] ([[User talk:HealthyGirl|talk]]) 01:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
−
I disagree to you [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]], in starting the article according to your point of view about "Psychotronics"... it was accepted and rated as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Grading_scheme#Quality_scale C-Class] by [[User:SarahStierch|SarahStierch]], it wasn't so wrong!.. you already deleted even the patents!.. --[[User:Paritto|Paritto]] [[User talk:Paritto|(talk)]] 12:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  
  +
[[HealthyGirl]], what copyright infringements? It is my Petition, since I wrote it, and my web site that I made for Organization of victims of Psychotronic (mind control) weapons. Why did you move this section to a new archive? Give explanations and restore my stuff in the previous archive. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.244.167.144|99.244.167.144]] ([[User talk:99.244.167.144|talk]]) 00:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
   
  +
:: Wikipedia is not a dumping ground to spam in your crackpottery. There is no proof you are the owner of the petition but even if you were it is not the idea of Wikipedia to spam in such huge amounts of text onto articles or talk-pages. [[User:HealthyGirl|HealthyGirl]] ([[User talk:HealthyGirl|talk]]) 01:03, 7 June 2016 (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. [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk:GDallimore|Talk]]) 13:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  
   
  +
:: -Galinakurdina, I have only just joined this discussion. Do you have a particular reliable source that you would like to integrate into the article? I also believe that there is real covert targeting happening, but being extremely sophisticated and advanced it is difficult to put anything much about it into this mainstream encyclopedia.[[User:Jed Stuart|Jed Stuart]] ([[User talk:Jed Stuart|talk]]) 03:53, 8 June 2016 (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.--[[User:Paritto|Paritto]] [[User talk:Paritto|(talk)]] 14:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  
   
  +
== ELETRON SPOIN EFFECTS AND PHOTOPSYCHROTRONICS? ==
−
: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. [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk:GDallimore|Talk]]) 14:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  
   
  +
There is an effect in Biomagnetic known as the "X" Effect crossing of two differting magnetic pole(North and South) Biological organisms int he center of this cross X effect are eventualy destroyed! Tragically MIT experiments found this out way back in 1950s early Magntic control of Fusion in tests! Workers placing Perminate magnets in a control chamber exposed to this CROSS X effect and died!Now, maybe Psychrotronic effects Crossed in an "X" effect can also be so destructive? And LIGHT used to "Carry:" psycgrontronic effects too(Laser beams?) Thanks Dr. Edson Andre' Johnson D,D.ULC. Founder Tesla Global Energy Independence Day Jul.10th.(teslas birthday!) Worked as a researcher for the late Dr. Albert Roy Davbis PhD Pioneeer Biomagnetic researcher! Thanks again21:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC) <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/64.134.238.214|64.134.238.214]] ([[User talk:64.134.238.214|talk]]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
−
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, [[Parapsychology#The_1970s_and_1980s|it does!]]'' (third paragraph). - [[User:LuckyLouie|LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk:LuckyLouie|talk]]) 14:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  
   
  +
== USEING PSYTRONICS! ==
−
: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. [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk:GDallimore|Talk]]) 15:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  
   
  +
IS PSYTRONICS LIKE RADIOINICS DOES ONE NEED A COIL ETC ON ROBBY LOS PATOS MORT! [[Special:Contributions/64.134.238.214|64.134.238.214]] ([[User talk:64.134.238.214|talk]]) 04:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
−
== Article beyond salvation, but saving reliable sources here ==
  
   
  +
== Merge to parapsychology ==
−
{{cite journal|last=Woods|first=David|title=Psychotronics: the new science once the preserve of ancient Eastern philosophy|journal=Can Med Assoc J.|year=1976|volume=114|issue=9|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957128/|accessdate=27 December 2012|page=844}} - discusses psychotronics in non-paranormal terms as an early forerunner of some stuff that is now being investigated seriously.
  
   
  +
The whole parapsychology part must be merged into a subsection of [[Parapsychology]], because this is what it is. In fact, Zdenek Rejdak said this clearly in the ''[[Impact (journal)|Impact]]'': "The field of study formerly known as parapsychology"[http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0001/000107/010749eo.pdf]. The conspiracy theories may use this term in diffrent meanings, which is rather unimportant per [[WP:FRINGE]]/[[WP:UNDUE]] and may all sit well in [[Psychotronics (conspiracy theory)]]. Other occasional usages, if cannot be merger elsewhere do not belong to wikipedia at all. [[User:Staszek Lem|Staszek Lem]] ([[User talk:Staszek Lem|talk]]) 20:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
−
{{cite news|last=German|first=Erik|title=Is Czech Mind Control Equipment Science-Fiction or Science-Fact?|url=http://www.praguepost.com/archivescontent/32141-mind-machines.html|accessdate=16 December 2012|newspaper=The Prague Post|date=July 5, 2000|month=July|year=2000}} - interesting article on cold war paranormal paranoia.
 
   
  +
*'''Support merge''' I agree, it is a redundant article by itself and the conspiracy theory stuff doesn't belong on this article but elsewhere, the stuff on psychotronics and Zdenek Rejdak should be merged to parapsychology. [[User:HealthyGirl|HealthyGirl]] ([[User talk:HealthyGirl|talk]]) 20:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
−
[[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk:GDallimore|Talk]]) 11:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  
  +
*'''Support merge''' The Zdenek Rejdak stuff should be merged to [[Parapsychology]] and the conspiracy theory stuff should be merged to [[Psychotronics (conspiracy theory)]] which is now [[Electronic harassment]]. - [[User:LuckyLouie|LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk:LuckyLouie|talk]]) 20:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  +
*'''Support merge.''' Per {{u|Staszek Lem}}. Also want to point out [[Psychotronics (therapy)]], which should probably be merged as well. Or maybe just deleted. Thoughts? [[User:Permstrump|<font color="indigo">—'''PermStrump'''</font>]][[User Talk:Permstrump|<font color="steelblue">(<u>talk</u>)</font>]] 23:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
   
  +
: I have never heard of psychotronics in therapy before, I don't think it is notable enough to have an entire article just with one reference, I would suggest an afd or quick redirect. [[User:HealthyGirl|HealthyGirl]] ([[User talk:HealthyGirl|talk]]) 12:22, 25 June 2016 (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. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 15:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  
   
  +
==Beautifulpeoplelikeyou sockpuppeting and vandalism of this article==
−
::I felt that that definition does also encompass the paranormal side of things from the russian research. [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk:GDallimore|Talk]]) 15:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  
   
  +
*{{userlinks|Beautifulpeoplelikeyou}} has been blocked and on his other account
−
:::[http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1995-42869-001 Sources] indicate there's also a strong connection to [[pseudoscience]] worth mentioning. - [[User:LuckyLouie|LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk:LuckyLouie|talk]]) 15:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  
  +
*{{userlinks|Unemployed Golfer}}
   
  +
He is now using these IP addresses (all trace to the same geographical location):
−
::::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. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 15:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  
   
  +
*{{userlinks|87.7.118.128}}
−
: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. [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk:GDallimore|Talk]]) 16:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  
  +
*{{userlinks|87.3.91.201}}
−
::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) - [[User:LuckyLouie|LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk:LuckyLouie|talk]]) 16:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  
  +
*{{userlinks|87.3.91.137}}
−
::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. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 16:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  
  +
*{{userlinks|87.6.112.225}}
  +
*{{userlinks|82.51.51.56}}
  +
*{{userlinks|95.252.92.185}}
  +
*{{userlinks|87.6.191.38}}
  +
*{{userlinks|87.6.112.110}}
  +
*{{userlinks|87.3.90.35}}
   
  +
In this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Unemployed_Golfer&diff=prev&oldid=726837608] he claims "since I have DHCP ISP I'm theorethically [''sic''] allowed to "spam" the whitewashed article on unprotected pages."
−
==Etymology==
  
−
{{collapse top|We require direct and explicit sourcing for the proposed etymology: none has been provided. Further discussion at this point is disruptive. Topic closed. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Paritto|Paritto]] [[User talk:Paritto|(talk)]] 23:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  
   
  +
I am leaving this message here, because this disruptive user is probably going to hop to various accounts/IPs and continue his disruptive editing on this article. If you see this users edits just revert them. [[User:HealthyGirl|HealthyGirl]] ([[User talk:HealthyGirl|talk]]) 22:51, 24 June 2016 (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. [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk: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!--[[User:Paritto|Paritto]] [[User talk:Paritto|(talk)]] 03:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  
−  
−
OK, about the etymology of sychotronics ({{etymology|grc|ψυχή|breath, soul, spirit||ἤλεκτρον|[[Amber#History and etymology|amber]], electron}}), you can start considering [[List of Greek and Latin roots in English]], [https://www.msu.edu/~defores1/gre/roots/gre_rts_afx1.htm], [[Amber:History_and_etymology]].--[[User:Paritto|Paritto]] [[User talk: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. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Archive_D#Wikipedia_a_reliable_source.3F Wikipedia a reliable source?], Wikipedia is neither reliable nor verifiable one yet (this is not Britannica).--[[User:Paritto|Paritto]] [[User talk: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. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk: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''').--[[User:Paritto|Paritto]] [[User talk: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 psycho'''ELEC'''tronics 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. [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|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 <u>old words and coining new ones to fit new situations</u>. In fact, this list is a testimony to that process''. [http://www.etymonline.com/abbr.php?allowed_in_frame=0 Online Etymology Dictionary]&[[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.--[[User:Paritto|Paritto]] [[User talk:Paritto|(talk)]] 14:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  
−  
−
:Paritto, you have been repeatedly told that we will not include an etymology based on [[WP:OR|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. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk: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 <u>your high quality standards</u> (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: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive707#User:_AndyTheGrump], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive752#Proposed_topic_ban_for_AndyTheGrump], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#AndyTheGrump]. Please be patient to me.--[[User:Paritto|Paritto]] [[User talk: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. [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk:GDallimore|Talk]]) 16:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  
−  
−
{{collapse bottom}}
  
−  
−
== 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. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Damonthesis|Damonthesis]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Damonthesis|Damonthesis]] ([[User talk: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
  
−
[[User:Damonthesis|Damonthesis]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Damonthesis|Damonthesis]] ([[User talk: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". - [[User:LuckyLouie|LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:LuckyLouie|LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Damonthesis|Damonthesis]] ([[User talk: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"? [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk: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 [[http://www.psychotronics.org/ 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.[[User:Damonthesis|Damonthesis]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Damonthesis|Damonthesis]] ([[User talk: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]]. - [[User:LuckyLouie|LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk: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) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Damonthesis|Damonthesis]] ([[User talk:Damonthesis|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Damonthesis|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
  
−
:::Would you care to provide a citation to a reliable source for Putin's statement? [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Damonthesis|Damonthesis]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Damonthesis|Damonthesis]] ([[User talk: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. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Damonthesis|Damonthesis]] ([[User talk:Damonthesis|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Damonthesis|contribs]]) 22:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
  
−  
−
I also think the following two pargraphs merit inclusion:
  
−  
−
:The United States appears to have taken an interest in the program in 1965,{{Synthesis-inline|date=April 2013}} 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.<ref>http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1755&dat=19760321&id=vboqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LmcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6828,2196986</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web | title=Mind Games | author=Sharon Weinberger|work=Washington Post | date=January 14, 2007 | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011001399_4.html}}</ref> This research was carried out by the psychology division within the psychiatry research section of Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.<ref>{{cite book | title="The Neuro Revolution: How Brain Science is Changing the World" | author="Lynch, Zach" | publisher="Macmillan" | date="July 21, 2009" }}</ref>
  
−  
−
: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.<ref>{{cite book | title="The Neuro Revolution: How Brain Science is Changing the World" | author="Lynch, Zach" | publisher="Macmillan" | date="July 21, 2009" }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | title=The Mind has No Firewall | first=Timothy | last=Thomas | newspaper = Parameters | date=Spring 1998 | pages=82-92 |url=http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/Articles/98spring/thomas.htm }} </ref>
  
−  
−
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.
  

Revision as of 10:58, 30 June 2016

WikiProject Articles for creation (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis redirect was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.
C-Class article C  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Note icon
This redirect was accepted on 23 December 2012 by reviewer SarahStierch (talk · contribs).
WikiProject Parapsychology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Parapsychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Psychotronic weapons

The sentence "These campaigns are typically dismissed by psychologists as being a delusional response to auditory hallucinations similar to accounts of alien abductions" in the second paragraph should be removed. The sentence "The scientific community considers psychotronics to be pseudoscience" should be removed as well.

Some victims are subject to harassment and organized stalking in their communities, some victims receive intentional false psychiatric diagnoses and in addition become victims of the systems, from which they are seeking help (medical institutions and law enforcement). It is the responsibility to record and alert the world to these horrendous crimes and the extreme danger that these technologies pose to democracy, human rights, privacy, mental and physical freedom, and the health of all people. These are the most horrendous weapons and crimes imaginable." Galinakurdina (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The stuff you say 'must be removed' is sourced. The stuff you want to add is at best alarmist claptrap. (Plus, the stuff you want to add is not sourced) Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding "The stuff you want to add is at best alarmist claptrap". Go to MEDLINE library and read scientific literature about mind and body control. What I want to add is not a claptrap, but an existing reality and testimonies of civilian people, who are used as involuntary human subjects in extreme experiments with psyche, most likely, classified military experiments. Educate yourself a little bit and only after that leave your comments. You look ignorant, Dbrodbeck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galinakurdina (talk • contribs) 00:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
You would need high quality secondary sources to make such extraordinary claims as the ones you wish to put in the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck, once again, read books and articles from the list of literature about mind and body control in MEDLINE that I put above in this section. Enough sources. There are hundreds and thousands of articles and books about brain-machine interface, neuroengineering, neural interfacing, neuromechanical systems, neuroinformatics, neuroimaging, neural prostheses, artificial and biological neural circuits, neural control, neural signal processing, neural modeling in MEDLINE library. If you want to read something more popular than scientific, you can read articles: 1. Microchip Implants, Mind Control, and Cybernetics by Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde, MD, Former Chief Medical Officer of Finland, SPEKULA, 1999 2. ‘Matador’ With a Radio Stops Wired Bull Modified Behavior in Animals Subject of Brain Study By John A. Osmundsen Reported in New York Times 3. We are moving ever closer to the era of mind control by Steven Rose reported in the Observer on February 05 2006 on p31 of the Comment section. You can watch documentaries about mind control, broadcasted for millions of people on main TV channels in the USA and Russia : 1. Jesse Ventura’s video “Brain Invaders” 2. Mind Control Documentary: The Golden Dream of the World’s Masters. You can find on YouTube testimonies of victims of Psychotronic (mind/body control) weapons before the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical issues in USA in 2011. But, first of all, I refer you to literature in MEDLINE library, approved by scientific community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galinakurdina (talk • contribs) 01:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I have removed some of Galinakurdina's spam, it is copyrighted material from a fringe website, found here [1]. HealthyGirl (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

HealthyGirl, what copyright infringements? It is my Petition, since I wrote it, and my web site that I made for Organization of victims of Psychotronic (mind control) weapons. Why did you move this section to a new archive? Give explanations and restore my stuff in the previous archive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.167.144 (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dumping ground to spam in your crackpottery. There is no proof you are the owner of the petition but even if you were it is not the idea of Wikipedia to spam in such huge amounts of text onto articles or talk-pages. HealthyGirl (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
-Galinakurdina, I have only just joined this discussion. Do you have a particular reliable source that you would like to integrate into the article? I also believe that there is real covert targeting happening, but being extremely sophisticated and advanced it is difficult to put anything much about it into this mainstream encyclopedia.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

ELETRON SPOIN EFFECTS AND PHOTOPSYCHROTRONICS?

There is an effect in Biomagnetic known as the "X" Effect crossing of two differting magnetic pole(North and South) Biological organisms int he center of this cross X effect are eventualy destroyed! Tragically MIT experiments found this out way back in 1950s early Magntic control of Fusion in tests! Workers placing Perminate magnets in a control chamber exposed to this CROSS X effect and died!Now, maybe Psychrotronic effects Crossed in an "X" effect can also be so destructive? And LIGHT used to "Carry:" psycgrontronic effects too(Laser beams?) Thanks Dr. Edson Andre' Johnson D,D.ULC. Founder Tesla Global Energy Independence Day Jul.10th.(teslas birthday!) Worked as a researcher for the late Dr. Albert Roy Davbis PhD Pioneeer Biomagnetic researcher! Thanks again21:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.238.214 (talk)

USEING PSYTRONICS!

IS PSYTRONICS LIKE RADIOINICS DOES ONE NEED A COIL ETC ON ROBBY LOS PATOS MORT! 64.134.238.214 (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge to parapsychology

The whole parapsychology part must be merged into a subsection of Parapsychology, because this is what it is. In fact, Zdenek Rejdak said this clearly in the Impact: "The field of study formerly known as parapsychology"[2]. The conspiracy theories may use this term in diffrent meanings, which is rather unimportant per WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE and may all sit well in Psychotronics (conspiracy theory). Other occasional usages, if cannot be merger elsewhere do not belong to wikipedia at all. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I have never heard of psychotronics in therapy before, I don't think it is notable enough to have an entire article just with one reference, I would suggest an afd or quick redirect. HealthyGirl (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Beautifulpeoplelikeyou sockpuppeting and vandalism of this article

He is now using these IP addresses (all trace to the same geographical location):

In this edit [3] he claims "since I have DHCP ISP I'm theorethically [sic] allowed to "spam" the whitewashed article on unprotected pages."

I am leaving this message here, because this disruptive user is probably going to hop to various accounts/IPs and continue his disruptive editing on this article. If you see this users edits just revert them. HealthyGirl (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Psychotronics_(parapsychology)&oldid=727651895"