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

The result was Delete . OR fringe science thesis with many cherry-picked but wholly irrelevant sources. The early comments to this fact are not negated by the addition of different cherry-picked, irrelevant sources, as noted by pablomismo and Luckylouie. The kernal of fact here is already covered in Brain-computer interface#Military applications. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire - past ops) 20:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Telepathy and war

Telepathy and war (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View log)

Article is a mass of WP:OR and violates WP:NPOV quite fundamentally. Uses Slashdot as a source. Eg: "Considering that toy manufacturers are testing the market for the release of telepathic toys to children, it is likely that telepthic (sic) technologies have been in existance (sic) for years already and have been extensively tested on a wide range of people" Verbal chat 19:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply

The redirects associated with this page include Silent Talk, Computer-mediated telepathy, and Synthetic Telepathy.

That is right, those redirects were all terms mentioned in the magazine Wired, and phrases which Darpa itself appears to have used in explaining the research to Wired reporters. New research, particularly cutting edge research, often generates new names and terms. Frei Hans ( talk) 09:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• delete- Poor references of fringe subject with paranoid conclusions not based on the references used. Aunt Entropy ( talk) 19:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Wired, the BBC and the National Geographic Magazine are poor references? Foxnews and CNN are a fringe references? Duke University and the University of California, Los Angeles, ( UCLA) who have been conducting brain-computer interface research on monkeys are poor references? Frei Hans ( talk) 09:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete: A lot of it isn't sourced and the sources aren't supporting the conclusions being drawn. Cut out the unsourced stuff and there isn't anything coherent left worthy of an article. The article's subject isn't coherent and it attempts to prove that telepathic mind controlling technologies exist and are a imminent threat and will create an "Orwellian nightmare" based on the fact that scientists and the government are researching and trying to develop technologies to interpret brain waves and brain-computer interfaces. The article goes so far as to recommend adjustment of privacy laws. It reads like an argumentative paper instead of an encyclopedia article. Sifaka ^talk 19:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I struck my older explanation since the content of the article has changed since I last looked at the article. I merged the remaining section onto the main article telepathy as a new section.

Hey, these aren't attempts of mine to convince you that these technologies exist! I am only the Wikipedian researcher documenting related articles published in mainstream media. Wired reported that the National Research Council and the Defense Intelligence Agency have released material about research into the field of 'Synthetic Telepathy'. I was startled myself to find how many articles there are on Wikipedia that document advances in Brain-computer interfaceing and cybernetics. Frei Hans ( talk) 09:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete; however I have to say that I did laugh reading it...-- Garrondo ( talk) 07:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

You laughed? Well then I have done my job in presenting these reports fearlessly! Frei Hans ( talk) 09:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete. If there is an article worth writing on this subject, it needs to be from a fresh slat, because this is a horrible mess. Quantpole ( talk) 19:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. The now changed article is a reasonable starting point. In terms of whether it should be merged with Telepathy, I am ambivalent. That can be discussed separately to the AfD. Quantpole ( talk) 10:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I should add that the article title needs to be changed to something more encyclopedic if it is kept. Quantpole ( talk) 11:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Changing back to Delete again. It doesn't appear that this article can be saved. Quantpole ( talk) 12:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, I am the author of the initial entry. If you have particular suggestions for improvement or would like to write another draft please do so. However, I do not feel the topic should be deleted - it is a field of research and US military funds are going into it. Frei Hans ( talk) 09:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete. A strange jumble of elements, Its author seems to have no idea of the difference between neuroscience technologies and telepathy. Hopelessly confused and pure WP:SYN. Paul B ( talk) 20:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Aha, an expert in the difference between neuroscience technologies and telepathy. Could telepathy be considered the wireless application of software and neuroscience technologies to communicate without words or other outward signals and without the use of electrode implants? Because that is what Darpa is proposing. Frei Hans ( talk) 09:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete- The text isn't salvageable, and the name of article isn't either. Should an article with a similar topic but good writing ever be created it should be at Military research into psychic abilities or something more like that. Telepathy and war is kind of like Siamese cats and cheese... any encyclopedic info about cats eating cheese (or whatever) would make more sense in another article entirely. DreamGuy ( talk) 21:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Cats do like cheese. I can't believe we don't have an article about it. Fences and windows ( talk) 21:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I think I'll start the stub Siamese cats-cheese relations. Oh, man, the possibilities for innumerable stubs of food/animal relations are endless! Aunt Entropy ( talk) 20:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Such a harsh critique DreamGuy! I haven't written an article as controversial as this before, covering recently reported research in science and technology. The US government hopes to apply this research to 'telepathic' soldiers on the battlefield. The research does sound absurd but reports in legitimate sources do document it and I am interested in covering the subject on Wikipedia. I do like your alternative title suggestion. How about Military research into telepathy? Frei Hans ( talk) 09:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This article hangs together several loosely connected issues to make an argument for needing to be worried about military applications of telepathy and mind control. The parts about children's toys, Orwellian nightmares and torture are irrelevant, and the last part is pure opinion. The article is nothing but a POV fork of Brain-computer interface#Military applications. Fences and windows ( talk) 21:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for pointing me to Brain-computer interface#Military applications. The article is related, but begins to deviate in that it seems the interfacing that Darpa has been researching has become wireless and increases the 'telepathic' element of sending messages through the power of thought over long distances without electrode implants and without laptops or handheld devices. Whew, a mouthful - 'telepathy' sums it up with so much more simplicity! Frei Hans ( talk) 09:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Snow delete under WP:NOR, WP:SYN, WP:FRINGE and WP:COMMON.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 23:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply

A lot of revisions to the article since, and a lot of subsequent discussion. I have read the revised article and the discussion, and I wanted to say that I'm still very firmly in the "delete" camp for the reasons I originally gave.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 00:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete per S Marshall. -- Brangifer ( talk) 02:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete for all the good reasons already mentioned. Niteshift36 ( talk) 07:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Hi, I am the author of the article. I have posted a more in depth reply on another noticeboard, where mention of this new article has also generated some comment. I thank all of you for your suggestions, and will take them on board in improving the article. I agree that it could sound far-fetched but considering that the science and technology magazine Wired recently published articles about research into telepathic applications for the battlefield, as funded by the US government and taken on by Darpa (a Pentagon division), then I am willing to open my mind a little to document articles of this nature through Wikipedia - and of course discuss the subject on Wikipedia discussion pages where Wikipedians feel the need. Essentially the intent of the article is to document advances related to the use of wireless cybernetics and 'telepathy' as funded by the US government for use on the battlefield (or by any other governments where evidence emerges that they have been researching 'telepathic' applications). The National Research Council and the Defense Intelligence Agency, as documented in the article, have been providing material to promote work in this field. The National Research Council and the Defense Intelligence Agency's material, and related articles about the control of robots through the power of thought, have recently been reported by Wired and other science publications. Frei Hans ( talk) 09:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Snow delete per S Marshall. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 10:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• I would like to keep the article because it's so funny. Unfortunately the voices in my head tell me to !vote delete. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 11:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• I found it hard not to correct the spelling in the quote at the top... Verbal chat 11:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm also inclined to vote delete, but I'm having a quick skim through to see if there's anything salvageable. The level of paranoia in the article is overwhelming! Papa November ( talk) 11:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

OK, I've chopped out all the unreferenced, irrelevant or POV material. I suggest that we merge the remainder into brain-computer interface and then delete. Papa November ( talk) 12:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Papa November, I appreciate your assistance but you chopped out a referenced quote, and replaced it with the same quote and no block quote tag. I'll leave it for now but we should consider putting the content in block quotes because the original quote should be attributed unless it is reworded (which journalistically speaking would mean careful rewording that retains accuracy). Please be careful in editing because the whole article was well referenced from the outset - I deliberately made certain to footnote the content and would be sad to see references cut out by a user who complained the article was unreferenced! I would like to thank you for your contributions but I cannot see why anyone feels the article contains paranoid content. The article covers research into wireless 'telepathic' technology funded by the military. What is so paranoid about covering an interesting subject that has been recently reported in reputable science and technology publications? Perhaps I might be younger than some older critics here and have grown up in a world with wireless technology, and perhaps to an older user reporting these advances might seem strange and intimidating. I would like to steer clear of scaring anybody and am only updating Wikipedia with new and genuine reports into 'telepathic' technologies. However, if the content is scary for some users than I would be the last person to say they are not justified in questioning new technological advances funded by the army. Thanks again for your edits, I liked the reworking of the first introduction line. Frei Hans ( talk) 12:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I would prefer keeping the article on a separate page as the topic exceeds brain-computer interfacing. I am considering a number of new options for renaming the article, including Military research into telepathy (based on suggestion from 'DreamGuy'), Telepathic technology, and Telepathic applications. Alternatively the topic could be moved to Computer-mediated telepathy or Synthetic Telepathy. Frei Hans ( talk) 12:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Papa November, you just deleted content including 17 verifiable references from 17 separate legitimate sources. Why? Frei Hans ( talk) 14:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Delete Agree with reasons cited above. -- nemonoman ( talk) 13:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Merge the edit by Papa November into brain-computer interface and then Delete. I'm not intimidated by the subject, but I am scared of someone WP:SYNTH'ing a couple of WIRED articles into a highly personal essay. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

There were originally 19 references to 19 different sources related to this research, published by a number of well known and reputable news organisations and science publications including National Geographic, the BBC, and the websites of the universities where research was carried out on monkeys (the monkeys were trained to operate robotic arms remotely through the power of thought). 'Papa November' has gone ahead and deleted all but two of those original 19 references. Frei Hans ( talk) 14:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Arbitrary break

I removed several sections which have absolutely nothing to do with the use of telepathy in warfare. Yes, they were referenced but they had nothing to do with the subject matter. The referencing/paranoia issues have already been spelt out in some detail above, but I'll summarise a couple of the worst issues here:

• The Duke and Pittsburgh primates research were not military projects, nor were they funded nor connected in any way with the military. Has any reliable source ever stated that they were?

• The Orwellian section was totally unreferenced and hence removed.

• The entire section about the toys had not been linked to the use of telepathy in warfare by any reliable source. Blogs/forums do not count. Has any reliable publication ever talked about such a connection?

• "White torture" has nothing to do with telepathy. There are already several articles about torture here. The numerous statements you made in the section, which start "it is likely that", "it is possible that", "it is logical that" etc... are all original research and therefore forbidden from appearing in Wikipedia articles.

I read the page original research and nowhere does it state that the phrases "it is likely that", "it is possible that" and "it is logical that" are forbidden from appearing in Wikipedia articles. In fact, the page on original research itself uses the phrases "likely" and "possible" in the course of maintaining a neutral tone. The phrases are widely regarded as representing a neutral stance. They are neutral phrases in themselves, signifying caution, particularly when accompanied by referenced material or in neutral commentary covering a range of potentially controversial related reports and ideas. They are completely legitimate phrases to use when writing with neutrality. However, I am happy to consider replacing these with other phrases if other phrases can be shown to improve the page. I would like to add that a topic that might cover controversial research can still be considered neutral if presented fairly and in a neutral style. Wikipedia retains many topics, including topics that document controversial subjects - ideally covered in a neutral style. Frei Hans ( talk) 05:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

In summary, the article may only contain material which is relevant to the subject, as stated directly by reliable sources. If it involves you coming to your own conclusion, it cannot be included. If you think I have removed any specific sections unfairly then please let me know. Papa November ( talk) 14:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

The University of California research using monkeys to control robotic arms remotely with their minds was funded by Darpa - the Pentagon division that Wired reported was carrying out research into 'Synthetic Telepathy'. All of this was referenced in the page I created, with links to reputable publications. The Orwellian section was referenced. The toys were developed by the military - an early version was developed in the 1970's and even has a Wikipedian entry of its own that I linked to. I referenced the news article about the toys that Mattel and Uncle Milton Industries were considering releasing. I have already made clear that I am happy to accept edits that conform to Wikipedia's style - but you have simply deleted entire referenced sections and quotes. The technology is being developed with the collaboration of the Defense Intelligence Agency - the Wired article referred to Defense Intelligence Agency material and specifically wrote that Darpa intended to use the technology on the battlefield and to intercept and influence 'enemy' command. White torture descriptions of sensory deprivation clearly echo research into brain-computer interfacing and EEG mapping. I believe most of the article, including block quotes and 17 references, has been removed unfairly. I would appreciate it more if you seemed to be helping to improve the article - but that is not the impression I am receiving. Frei Hans ( talk) 15:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• The Orwellian section was not referenced. You wrote "The research points to tremendously disturbing implications including invasion of privacy and considerations formerly discussed only in science fiction. From 'thought police' to physical abuse that 'leaves no external marks', and outright attempts to influence and manipulate other peoples thoughts, this research tells the world that an Orwellian future has arrived and been surpassed by collaborations of media, propaganda and mind control that previously were considered delusions of the insane" title=Telepathy_and_war&oldid=295149789#Orwellian_future_surpassed Here is the link. Which references are you talking about? Papa November ( talk) 16:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

The section was referenced, along with a sub-section referencing the toys. Frei Hans ( talk) 02:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

The toys subsection had one reference - I did not ask you about that. Specifically, the "lead" of the Orwell section was totally unreferenced? None of your cited references mentions Orwell, "thought police" or any of the rest of it. I suspect you came to your own logical conclusion. Right? Papa November ( talk) 09:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• I did not ask anything about the recent UCLA research. You did indeed provide a reference for this and I left that information in the article. However, the Duke and Pittsburgh research was nothing to do with the military. Papa November ( talk) 16:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

University research is funded by the US government. Very similar research was carried out on all of the campuses. The research is clearly connected, and documented. After original criticism I actually rewrote and added more references - which you didn't even seem to see in your haste to remove content. Although the style was neutral to begin with, I wrote in the edit summary of a rewrite of one section (that took into consideration talk from yourself and others) 'convert to more neutral language', in another 'rework intro' and in a third edit summary 'rewrite section about telepathic technology and law'. You never paused once to check content that I was refining as you proceeded to remove almost everything. Might you not have looked for more references yourself instead of simply deleting everything ad hock without pausing? What is more, as I was rewriting content based on criticism, I was warned by 'Verbal' that he thought I was par-taking in an edit war (even as I worked to take into account suggestions made by other users!). Frei Hans ( talk) 02:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Not all university research is funded by the US government. Even if it is, most of it is not funded by the US military! Having checked all your references, not one of them explicitly says that the Duke and Pittsburgh research was funded by or connected to the US military. Papa November ( talk) 09:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Which reference states that the toys were developed by the military? The reference you provided says no such thing. Papa November ( talk) 16:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I provided two references to reports from reputable sources. The reports cited research on a monkey, at Duke University, in developing the toys. ^[1] I also provided wiki links to Mindball and Will Ball. Will Ball has its origins in brain-computer interfacing and biofeedback research. Some early biofeedback research related to the game was conducted through the Menninger Foundation. Dr. Will Menninger, of the Mennigers involved in the Menniger Foundation, served as Chief of the Army Medical Corps' Psychiatric Division during World War II. You could have researched and added extra links related to this information, all documented on other undisputed Wikipedia pages, instead of simply removing content. Frei Hans ( talk) 02:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

You can't make such tenuous links in articles. Put simply, if a reliable source says it directly, then you can include the material. You are not allowed to come to conclusions yourself. Once again, you haven't provided any evidence that the Duke research was a military contract. Also, if the civilian company Mattel happened to build upon some old research from an ex-military researcher, that doesn't make their product a military project! Did you know that one of the first major purchasers of teflon was the US government funded Manhattan Project? I can provide a reference to a reliable source. I used a teflon frying pan to make an omelette yesterday. By your rationale, I guess that means that my dinner was a US military inspired project, connected to nuclear proliferation? Papa November ( talk) 09:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Who says that white torture clearly echoes BCI research? I don't see any reliable sources. Papa November ( talk) 16:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

All of the sources describing white torture were reliable and referenced. The descriptions describe sensory deprivation - a method used in research into brain-computer interfacing and biofeedback research. The idea is to isolate the mind from interfering data, so that the mind can be mapped using EEG in combination with selected stimulus of parts of the brain. It is a very simple research concept that helps to isolate some brain activities from a diverse array of other brain activities - so that select brain activities can be analysed more easily. The technique has been adapted for use during interrogation and torture, particularly of journalists and political activists (whose minds are of great interest to some interrogators). Frei Hans ( talk) 02:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, there were references explaining what white torture and sensory deprivation are, and completely separate references explaining what BCI is, but that isn't what I asked. Where is the reference which states explicitly that the two are connected? Papa November ( talk) 09:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Once again, take a look at all the delete votes above. I have taken the time to salvage some bits of your article and now, thanks to my edits, a few people are talking about keeping the content I rescued. I think that constitutes "helping". Papa November ( talk) 16:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Wikipedian policy relating to content disputes points out that surveys and votes of this sort are poor ways of resolving editorial conflict. They can avoid conflict resolution or ignore mediation and are unreliable, particularly in an online environment. I should add that the Wikipedian community is made up of thousands of users and contributors and that only a handful have emerged to critique the article. Interestingly, the article was nominated for deletion by a user who was recently banned for edit warring. More strangely, the nominator was involved in an editorial war for trying to 'salvage' content that was un-referenced - yet here is trying to remove content that was very well referenced. Even stranger still, in purporting to 'salvage' and 'rescue' content, you actually deleted block quotes and 17 verifiable references from reputable sources. I appreciate help, but this seems to me to be an issue that has now become one of good editing and bad editing, in combination with users keen to provoke an edit war. Frei Hans ( talk) 02:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Dont let these shakes go on / Its time we had a break from it / Its time we had some leave / Weve been living in the flames / Weve been eating up our brains / Oh, please dont let theses shakes go on. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 14:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment A discussion has been opened on this at WP:EAR#Telepathy and war. SpinningSpark 14:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete and snow per WP:NOR, WP:SYN, WP:FRINGE and WP:COMMON. ukexpat ( talk) 15:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete as original research and synthesis. I would like to gently chide my colleagues here, though, for being a tad "bitey" (a weakness I myself am somewhat prone to) with the creator of this article. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, that's true. I take that criticism fully on board, and wish to revise my !vote from "Snow delete" to "Snow delete politely".— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 16:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I merged the content from this version post Papa November onto the main telepathy article. In retrospect, some of it could have gone to Brain-computer interface#Military applications. Sifaka ^talk 01:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I read the merge and found it a clumsy edit that sits awkwardly within the body of the rest of the article. How about taking responsibility for the edit and doing a job that can convince me this is a viable alternative - because now it appears the telepathy article needs a clean-up. Frei Hans ( talk) 02:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

As noted by Hrafn, the edited content would fit like a glove in the appropriate section of brain-computer interface. I recommend removing it from telepathy where it's clearly a bad fit. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Isn't the SNOW (hint, hint) getting a bit deep? Can't some admin stop this before we all freeze to death?  ;-)-- Brangifer ( talk) 03:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep Not so fast. I just got here but, so far, am not seeing enough of a problem to justify deletion. The title seems a reasonably NPOV way of referring to this notable matter. There is no doubt much scope for improvement but peremptory deletion seems unhelpful. I shall look into the matter further, as time permits, and request that we use the full 7 days for discussion so that it may be properly evaluated. Colonel Warden ( talk) 09:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

It may be that we are nearing a resolution. Papa November, who was involved in heavy deletion of references, has made a tagged draft which I have moved back to the original article - where it remains open for work on further citation and content. This version contains more reference material for editors to work with. When all parties involved in discussing this have had a chance to take a look, I would like to move on to discussing removing some of the banners at the top. It might pay to keep the tagged for rescue banner for a while. Frei Hans ( talk) 04:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Strong (& snow) delete: main topic is WP:FRINGE lacking (apparently any) mainstream sources. Should become part of a 'Military-sponsored research into fringe science' (or similar) article if/when RSs emerge. Tenuously-related computer-mediated telepathy section is too thinly documented to survive on its own, and should be merged/redirected to Brain-computer interface. WP:ASTONISH would appear to indicate that we should distinguish between the parapsychology & technology and avoid article-titles that apply the word 'telepathy' to the latter. Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk^{( P)} 11:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 11:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 11:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Telepathy. Not notable enough on it's own, and fails WP:FRINGE. Paranormal Skeptic ( talk) 14:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete since there is no telepathy there is no telepathy in war. QED. Bali ultimate ( talk) 16:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I knew you were going to say that. Verbal chat 17:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I don't know what Colonel Warden expects us to rescue - an article on this topic is fundamentally flawed, as writing an article on telepathy and war required large amounts of original search, improper synthesis and POV writing. I support moving the material from Telepathy into Brain-computer interface, and then removing this article. It has no merit. Fences and windows ( talk) 17:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Presumably the Colonel suspects something can be done to save the article. I would suggest giving the benefit of the doubt and letting the AfD run full length. A few extra days won't hurt anything. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 20:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
    • All it takes is a little experience with AFDs and you'll see that Colonel Warden thinks all sorts of truly awful articles can be "rescued" by tacking on some links that fail WP:RS standards and making a lot of aggressive and misleading comments on the AFD about how great a job he thinks he did. DreamGuy ( talk) 22:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Guess I've been out of actual AfDs long enough that things have changed. In any case, considering there is near-unanimity to not keep, I don't see the harm in just letting the discussion run its course. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 11:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Random section break 1

• Comment any research that may have been done belongs in Telepathy, this is not an article.  pablo _hablo. 19:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

It sounds like you might be saying we should try to squeeze all the information relating to telepathy into the one article? I hope not, its a vast field of human experience. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 12:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Nope, I wasn't saying that. I meant that if there has been specific research into the use of telepathy in warfare ^{dubious – discuss} then that would be best presented in the article of telepathy.  pablo _hablo. 13:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Update: appear to have resolved some issues
• At least three users are now working to improve this article. Papa November provided a new draft, Colonel Warden has made constructive edits. I am working to convert a neutral point of view style to an even more neutral style, and over time to work on citation and references.
• Other users have begun working in favour of merging some content with other articles.
• A user has flagged the page for rescue.
• The article falls within the scope of WikiProject Rational Skepticism.
• Verbal is par-taking by reverting content to a version with far fewer references and barely any citation and by posting "edit-war" messages on my user page. I have invited him to discuss the article on the article page and drop me a note if he does so.

Frei Hans ( talk) 07:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

It's still a strong delete. Papa November moved the bad article into userspace so it could be improved, not simply moved back by edit warring. CW has simply tagged the article and then reverted a policy and talk supported removal of the OR. It is very much still a strong delete, as supported by the snowfall above. Verbal chat 08:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment: Despite my attempts to remove all the POV/OR/SYN, the article has now been reverted back almost to its original form. I'm not going to waste my time trying to help rescue the content any longer. All the useful content has already been merged into Telepathy. I think the rest of the article is irredeemable for all the reasons stated above. I'm changing my vote to delete. Papa November ( talk) 09:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I suspect some users seem to misunderstand the process of this discussion. These are not votes that users are casting, they are comments on an article. AfDs are "a place for rational discussion... The debate is not a vote". Consensus to delete has not been reached because the article is valid, is within the scope of WikiProject Rational Skepticism, can be referenced and cited, and is of interest to some users who have been editing it (and whose edits I have been taking in "good faith"). Again, I will point out that the move for deletion came from Verbal, who it seems is intent on generating "edit wars" by deliberately provoking other editors (he kept posting "edit war" notices on my user page). I also suspect sock puppetry from some of those moving deletion. Shortly after Verbal attempted to revert content to an almost unreferenced state, a user with the IP 160.103.2.223 blank tagged the article. The blank tag was removed within a minute by a bot that cited possible vandalism. To me it seems some users involved are more intent on disrupting and vandalising content then in working collaboratively. The article is far from what it was in "its original form". It is awkward taking on suggestions from users who seem only to want to destroy work and not build it. Frei Hans ( talk) 13:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

The reason for the posting of the notices is to try and stop you from getting blocked fro breaking WP:3RR. However, as I pointed out to you, you have gone beyond 3 reverts in 24hrs now. I have not asked for you to be blocked (others may) but have instead tried to discuss this with you and give you helpful advice. In return I get accusations and insinuations. It is currently clear that this article will be deleted, please don't take it personally and it isn't worth getting blocked over. Verbal chat 13:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment - Nothing has been "resolved" by the restoration of the article to its nearly original problematic state. Sadly, Frei Hans clings to an essentially flawed understanding of WP editorial policy despite the efforts of well-meaning editors to guide him. Any useful content has since been merged to another article, so deletion of "Telepathy and war" should follow. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 10:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete — per all teh good points made above; beyond-the-fringe-rubbish. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep but merge into Brain-computer interface, i.e., the section on Military Applications. [1] I have begun distinguishing between " mind control" and telepathy, but further clarification is needed to rescue this article. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 16:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't understand this argument for "merge". Advances in neuroscience that may make it possible through sophisticated brain activity imaging to infer what is going on in the mind of a subject via a brain scan (or allow for the electrical impulses in the brain to become the on-switch for various mechanical processes) is not about telepathy which implies some kind of magical brain-to-brain "mind-reading" nor "telekenisis" which implies some sort of magical ability to move things by "thought." If such technologies are fully developed some day (and why not? Seems within the realm of the possible) they will involve powerful computers, highly sensitive and focused thermal scanners, some kind of radio or microwave transmission, and some sort of recieving/transmitting brain interface, probably installed by surgery. This is all very interesting. Neuroscience in general is fascinating. But it aint "telepathy" and this article as is is an unholy mess of muddled thinking, original research, and synthesis. Information on all of the relevant science is already contained in the article on Brain-computer interface at a level of detail, clarity and reliable sourcing that puts this article to shame. There is nothing here that could be "merged" to that scientific article without degrading its overall quality. This is not only a content fork, but vastly inferior to the appropriate article and misleading to boot. Bali ultimate ( talk) 19:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I am fairly certain a brain-computer interface does not need to be implanted. The material referenced in the article stated that DARPA was investigating placing thoughts into the minds of the enemy and influencing enemy command. A lot of research seems to be going into remote control. If the military can't catch an "enemy", but can trace them - or if they didn't want to "catch" an enemy but did want to "use" them - then the technology would be most powerful if you didn't have to actually capture an enemy mind and implant it with a device. Infrared technology can already track humans without tagging them, and non-invasive EEG reading systems already exist - making "mind reading" without implants feasible. I suspect that if something did need to be introduced to the human body it might be in the form of drugs or mineral elements that could be ingested and that might aid in taking EEG readings - but I believe that existing technology has developed beyond introducing foreign bodies to a person and is based on reading electromagnetic patterns remotely. Frei Hans ( talk) 14:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Nothing is going to rescue this article. It is unsalvageable, particularly as Frei Hans won't let anyone else edit it. What Bali ultimate said too. Fences and windows ( talk) 19:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep and move to Synthetic telepathy. I've changed my mind, based on discussions with User:Bali ultimate. It's not "real telepathy" we're talking about but an artificial imitation. We can describe the military applications (current and hoped for). -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 17:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete Bali ultimate just reverted my edit. I had two verifiiable sources about monkey experiments using electrodes, computer interface(s), and robotic arm(s) and how these monkeys successfully carried out the experiment. I wrote in the Monkey Experiment section about these experiments and their results. Now gone. In the talk page he says this not "telepathy". So, yes, delete for the reason just given. If he is looking for verifiable sources on pure telepathy I doubt he will find any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ti-30X ( talk • contribs) 02:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I forgot to sign this earlier so I will sign this now Ti-30X ( talk) 22:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete for the time being. I have no prejudice against a well-referenced article on this subject being written in theory, but this isn't it: it's one paragraph of actually relevant information together with several more paragraphs of vaguely related synthesis. If it was just reduced to the information about the DARPA funding for 'telepathy research', there wouldn't be enough to justify an article. A search for additional references didn't provide anything further to add; while there may be more to say about this research in the future, at the moment an article isn't warranted. Robofish ( talk) 02:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep and restore to this version then edit to make more encyclopaedic while retaining all the information and as much of the excellent original presentation as possible. It might be worth addressing the fringe POV on offer in this AfD. There are abundant verifiable sources on telepathy and psychic powers. For example Dr Dean Radins demonstrations of precognition have been replicated and verified by labs all round the world. Horizon (a mainstream TV program here in the UK) aired a program almost 18 months back concerning Radins work where they talked about the PSI effects the Pentagon are hoping to utilise for their mind reading binoculars being potentially helpful even for domestic applications like forewarning of accidents while driving. This is far from leading edge stuff. Atheists can bang on about the supernatural not existing as much as they like – in the world of facts that view is shared by less than 5% of the global population. Serious people don't take their preaching seriously even when the atheists happen to be scientists, its well known hard core skeptics will fabricate evidence to cover up findings that confirm supernatural effects. So called mainstream scientists even falsify findings in medical research regardless of the possible consequences for patients. That said you guys are of course entitled believe what you like , but pushing a fringe POV so strongly violates our NPOV policy. I wont push this if my efforts aren't appreciated, but if any you are open to reassessing your position I'll be delighted to point you towards the extensive scientific literature and I could even pray for you to receive a revelation of Gods supernatural Love for us. If you guys are up for a change of heart we might be able to get some sympathetic treatment for this important article. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 12:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Verbal chat 12:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

The problem is that wikipedia is a playground for people who have that approach to reality (i.e. "telepathy is an important part of the human experience...."). We just have someone who argued "keep" for an article with no sources on the topic because apparently medical science is a "fringe pov" and "atheists can bang on about the supernatural not existing as much as they like -- in the world of facts that view is shared by less than 5% of the global population." Member of the ARS too. The whole thing would be cute if it wasn't so sad. Bali ultimate ( talk) 12:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

It is hard to see how anyone’s chosen religion would affect this article, but thanks for sharing, and I'll have a set of those mind-reading binoculars please.  pablo _hablo. 19:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Err yes, the version you preferred had been used as a starting point and "made more encyclopedic" on two separate occasions, by independent editors (the original author reverted it after the first attempt). On both occasions, it ended up in a state similar to its present one. The reason is that all the removed material was totally irrelevant to the subject or was just a set of synthesized opinion by the author. Papa November ( talk) 13:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Its certainly a shame that a lot of time and energy will have be spent in vain on this article, no matter what the result here. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 15:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes I agree it's sad so much time is wasted because some people don't have a grip on what consistitues an acceptable encyclopedic topic. But since some people don't, the time must be wasted. Bali ultimate ( talk) 15:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't think the article got snowed in AfD because of bias against the subject. It got snowed because it made a bunch of paranoid WP:SYNTH connections between ideas and strung them together on a WP:COATRACK, e.g....DARPA wants to read minds....monkeys are being experimented on right now...brain control can lead to brainwashing...subliminal suggestion....psychological torture....we need laws to protect us from what may happen in the future... etc. OK for a tin foil hat website, but not for Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

To paraphrase what LuckyLouie said: This article is a very, very personal document. It may have its place in a medical record, but certainly not on a public server. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 14:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

The article does violate our current synth guideline, but probably fewer be so concerned about if not for the bias issue.

Thats clear Hans, but a little harsh. While the article takes a worse case view, the dangers it warns against are no worse than events which undeniably occurred with MKULTRA . I trust the US government to be essentially benign, but the head doesn't always know what the hands are doing , so it's a shame it looks like this information is going to be covered up. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 15:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep I agree with FeydHuxtable that the older version had some useful content that should be readded. The article could perhaps benefit from a name change, but nothing comes to mind. There are references in Wired magazine, and the American government has done research on this. Dream Focus 15:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

  The American government may have done research into the paranormal. That doesn't justify this article. The American government have done research into Global warming, but that doesn't justify an article on Global warming and cheese.  pablo _hablo. 15:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

  nb: we have Global warming and wensleydale, Cheese, Jack Merridew 15:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Typical Cheese denier tactics. Wikipedia is not a SOAPBOX for your anti-Cheese views. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 16:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

It's worse than that. It's the cheese denier plot. Here's even an article on government cheese research. [2]. Yet Wikipedia continues to suppress Global warming and cheese. CeNSOrshiP!!!! Bali ultimate ( talk) 19:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I think you're right about the name change DreamFocus. I called the article Psi-Tech and war when I copied it to wiki info, as not all the content is strictly about telepathy. Taking pablo’s point on board maybe Military applications of Pisi Tech would be better? FeydHuxtable ( talk) 15:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

No, a title change is not the only thing needed to fix it, unless you propose something like

Research by civilian and US governmental (but mainly civilian) organizations into (non-telepathic) brain-computer interaction hardware, unconnected uses of psychological (non-telepathic) interrogation methods by the US government and an unconnected summary of the non-existence of legislation to deal with unidentified threats from non-existent devices which are not being developed, compiled arbitrarily by a Wikipedia editor

. Papa November ( talk) 16:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

It has plenty of third party news coverage. I just added a link to an MSN news article, and an interesting fact from there, showing a guy using an EEG to send Morse code messages with his brain back in the 1960's. Perhaps a rename to, using brain signals to send messages. Or I believe there are brain machine interface articles, since they teach classes on that at MIT and elsewhere. I've read articles about commercial devices that allow you to play games and interact with the computer with just a 500 dollar device on your head, I getting an email from one of these companies recently, having signed up for information on it. Not buying one until its out, and proven to be working as well as they say though. Dream Focus 19:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

It’s telepathy, not telegraphy.  pablo _hablo. 19:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete Sorry, this is a personal essay and not much more. The Wired references could be used to write a Wikinews article, but I don't see what we've got at present working on any Wikimedia project. In short, this is should be deleted per WP:NOT, specifically WP:SOAP and WP:NOT#OR. Whether the subject itself merits an article is worthy of question, but one which is moot for this specific article and should be answered in userspace. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 15:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep and improve per WP:PRESERVE. Interesting topic, enough sources provided. Granite thump ( talk) 18:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment This AfD is certainly bringing some interesting viewpoints. Might be a good case study for problems with the ARS. Verbal chat 19:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Never seen more work put into editing an article that will undoubtedly be deleted. I admit having gotten sucked into this vortex as well. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Make yourself comfortable, have a deckchair.  pablo _hablo. 19:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

"Might be a good case study for problems with the ARS". As a member of the ARS, can I say that I have no idea what other members think they're doing in tagging this and arguing for keep. This is not an ARS problem, it's a problem with a handful of editors - Granite thump, Colonel Warden, FeydHuxtable, Dream Focus - who seem to have no ability to discriminate between articles on notable topics and synthesis-filled POV content forks like this. Fences and windows ( talk) 20:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I was quite shocked when I realised there is a rescue tag on this article. However, the tag was added by Colonel Warden after Papa November brought the article into a sane state, and before Frei Hans reverted. [3] Similarly, Colonel Warden's keep !vote, and also those by Dream Focus and Granite thump [4], were clearly the result of timing. That only leaves me puzzled what on earth makes Feyd think that a public statement about discontinued medication belongs into an encyclopedia. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 21:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Some mitigating circumstances then! But the stubbified article was still a pointless fork of Brain-computer interface#Military applications. Fences and windows ( talk) 00:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply

As verbal is also a member , he possibly meant to say a case study to highlight our excellence rather than problems. This AfD has several members voting delete, and you yourself haven’t hesitated to robustly criticise folk like myself and even veteran members like the Colonel. Its shows the mighty ARS is no hive mind, with members interpedently working to improve the encyclopaedia as they think best. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 10:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply

No, I meant it hgihlights problems with the ARS - such as certain members. This AfD might give good evidence for evicting members of the ARS who are bringing the group into disrepute. ARS has a fine goal. Saving every article, or in certain case voting keep just because someone else said delete, is not the goal. Verbal chat 12:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply

OK, let me stop you right there. We don't evict people from projects, we work with folks to help them become better Wikipedians. The converse to every ARS is flawed statement is generally that so is AfD. Are there ARS folks who may be faulty in assessment, of course. But so are there those who nom article often faulty in their assessment. We don't evict either or throw anyone out of the process. We work with them so they may improve and become a better voice of reason based in policies, a better Wikipedian. ARS focusses on AfD which is an often heated area of Wikipedia where conflicts, disagreements and polarized opinions are common. All those who are perfect please raise your hands ... okay, seeing no hands I'll posit that none of us are perfect and we all can improve. The goal of ARS is not to "win" anything but to target items tagged for rescue that can be improved. If some of the folks here are working to improve content let them. They are volunteers too and can choose where to invest their energy without undo criticism. If you have constructive criticism for them then let that speak for itself. Let's also agree that as much as ARS has been accused of group think and other unsavory offenses this is yet a perfect example where some ARS folks are in fact putting their words into action and trying to find a path to rescuing content and other ARS folks simply disagree but are happy to let them try and will honor their work with help if they can. Our readers deserve the best encyclopedia possible and this is part of that process. Messy at times but ultimately delivering a better end result. -- Banjeboi 19:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

brilliantly well said Benjiboi! FeydHuxtable ( talk) 15:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Random section break 2

• Fences and windows, do you not believe that the references to third party media sources meet all requirements wikipedia has for an article? Obviously, if others don't believe the same thing you do, then surely it must be them with the problem, and never you, of course. The article needs some work, but AFD is not cleanup. There is plenty of information about this. It is an interesting topic. I saw it today on the Rescue squardon list, wondering why I didn't notice it before. Dream Focus 01:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Why tell me that AfD is not cleanup? I'm arguing that this article is fundamentally flawed and cannot be rescued. The article still stitches together irrelevant info to pad it out. The research on monkeys to help paralysed patients has nothing to do with telepathy or war. Subliminal messages are not telepathy. Reading brain activity using technology is not "telepathy". Telepathy is "apparent communication from one mind to another without using sensory perceptions"; this article has nothing to do with that. As you seem not to have noticed, we already have an article that covers the topic of the Wired article, namely Brain-computer interface#Military applications. Fences and windows ( talk) 02:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Telepathy comes from two Greek words meaning "distance" and "to influence". I added government reports on how to do that, and mentioned the research done by the Air Force to use microwaves to put voices in someone's head, as well as DARPA now funding research to send sound to someone without those around them hearing them. Telepathy in war. Hmm.. Why does it say Telepathy AND war, instead of Telepathy IN war? Using a device in a monkey's brain to move a mechanical arm and legs around from a distance, is quite relevant, since soldiers will do that in the future with killer robots. They will influence them from a distance, using telepathy in war. Dream Focus 03:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply

OK, you win. I am taking back my statement above that your keep !vote was the result of timing. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 12:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I hope you're not trying to imply squad members arrived as a result of some form of borg like telepathy? I know what you're like with your subtle jests, it took me a week to get the jokes in your Kohl and Tucholsky page. The peoples encylopedia is not the place for elite humour! FeydHuxtable ( talk) 13:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't understand your first sentence, but I totally agree with your last sentence and have in the past argued accordingly before Arbcom: "[...] Wikipedia values all contributors equally (especially those with special needs such as a complete lack of judgement or writing abilities). Elitism is against the core principles of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit; [...] Moreover, anyone who uses humour in Wikipedia (and especially in project space) exhibits a severe lack of respect for those of their fellow editors who have no sense for it." [5] -- Hans Adler ( talk) 14:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Dream Focus, would you like a spade to help with that hole you're digging for yourself? Inventing your own definition of a word based on its etymology is a glaring example of original research, and asserting that current research on monkeys will in the future be used by soldiers in killer robots is improper synthesis and crystal ballery.

The referenced articles mentioned the monkey research will be used by soldiers in hazardous situations in the future. Just follow the link. And my definition of it was from the wikipedia article on telepathy. And if the only problem is from the word telepathy, the article's name could be changed, that solving that problem. Dream Focus 21:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Hans, I love this comment: "Wikipedia values all contributors equally (especially those with special needs such as a complete lack of judgement or writing abilities)". You win this thread. Fences and windows ( talk) 18:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete The article has improved to be less of a personal essay, but neither my attempts nor the sources presented delineate a viable article, gee whiz comparisons notwithstanding. I expected to find something around MKULTRA, so a merge might be in order if someone more experienced at finding good sources in that area can turn up some nice independent in depth coverage. - 2/0 ( cont.) 07:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment Please note that the article was merged so we cannot delete per the GFDL. Granite thump ( talk) 18:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Nonesense born out of a misunderstanding of GFDL and various policies here. That similiar information is duplicated in the appropriate place, rather than this content fork, does not mean we can't delete unencyclopedic garbage. Really, Granite Thump, "tktkt so we cannot delete" is just false. Bali ultimate ( talk) 18:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment Reading through the current version I notice that it has little if anything to do with telepathy.  pablo _hablo. 14:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

The "current" version is a heavily censored and crippled one. The last time I worked on it, it had about 26 references including new ones. That has all been cut out again, I suspect by sock puppets belonging to the original "team" who decided in their bias to campaign for the article's deletion. Sadly for them, the article has gathered a number of supporters and generated more interest than I believed it would when I first submitted it. I cannot understand why someone who posted a bunch of tags asking for more references, then went and deleted the whole lot after more information from reputable sources was added. Frei Hans ( talk) 15:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Frei Hans, who is "censoring" the article and why? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 22:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm guessing here but "they" are probably doing the censoring.  pablo _hablo. 23:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

"That has all been cut out again, I suspect by sock puppets belonging to the original "team" who decided in their bias to campaign for the article's deletion." Woah, careful with those accusations! Which editors exactly are you accusing of being sockpuppets? Fences and windows ( talk) 17:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: I am making a note back on the article discussion page (which has been overflowing onto other pages including here) about a method for dealing with all of the constant deleting and rewriting. It might be best to approach the topic as a timeline, adding bullet points summarising reports. Because what seems to be happening is that one or two people are deleting while others are contributing. Because those contributing are constantly having their headings and contributions removed, they are unable to see new content in context and some content is being repeated under new headings while a lot of other content has vanished. A bullet pointed list of reports and publications, ordered by date, could help to prevent this. Frei Hans ( talk) 16:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Hans - I saw the original article, and I can see what you are now doing with it. It is a fact that "war" has always been, and still is, a huge driver for any research. Perhaps the biggest. If any research is being done into anything, telepathy and telekinesis included then governments will be looking at military applications for same. That makes this article as useful as articles based on the other big research drivers. This encyclopedia does not need articles on Telepathy and medicine or Telepathy and pornography - and it certainly doesn't need this one.  pablo _hablo. 17:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment to closer. I'm not sure if anyone from the military history project, which is quite active and likely could offer a more educated perspective from a military view, has been asked. I'm going to ask them now to take a look at the current version to see if this may be useable or possibly redundant to other articles. In either case please allow some time from this post so that they can have some input here. -- Banjeboi 19:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep and rename. Frei Hans seems every bit the newby Wikipedian but has taken on some of the steamy criticisms ans seemingly rewritten the entire article, perhaps a couple times. The current version seems absent of the reasons for the original nom and the subject itself is notable and now referenced to reliable sources. In a quick look I found a few more so I have no doubt plenty exist. To me the outsatnding issue remains a more NPOV and accurate title. Pablomismo has a spot-on comment that of course the military is doing research on this. They research everything. Having stated that this could be a good stand-alone article, for a while at least, focussing on military research of telepathy including the history. I think a note pointing to the main telepathy article concerning popular culture references would suffice but deleting isn't appropriate after the clean-up, pruning and rewrite. -- Banjeboi 20:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep There are whole telivision series didicated to the role that telepthy plays in police work, so why it makes sense then that we should have at least one article on tlelpathy as it relates to war. There are documented cases of psychics being saught for information during war; in fact, the book Secret weapons on the cold war notes that after the appearence of the book psychic discoveries behind the iron curtain the dod sought out psychics and other mind readers as early as the 1970s to assist the united states agains the soviet union. Although I admit that the subject matter compells close and constant monitoring the concept upon which the article was created is in fact sound and true. The article needs to be kept. TomStar81 ( Talk) 21:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I do like an imaginative TV series myself, I was a particular fan of Stargate and Buffy. However I don't think there would be any benefit in articles speculating about how the military are preparing to cope with an invasion from the hellmouth or where they may be hiding the secretly-buried Stargates that are our legacy.  pablo _hablo. 21:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I was not referring to an imaginative TV series, I was referring to Psychic Detectives. As to the fictional events you are discussing: pshychics were used in the cold war with limited success, they located previously unknown nuclear sites and even found a downed soviet bomber. They were also used to locate targets of interest in Desert Storm. I'm not saying that the future will pit psychics against normies, I'm just saying that the article deserves a chance to organize itself before being axed. TomStar81 ( Talk) 21:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I wasn't familiar with Psychic Detectives, but have since learnt that "The series production does not investigate the claims of the psychics showcased or confirm their claims. For entertainment it instead recreates some of the atmosphere surrounding psychic claims" emphasis added - so it's basically fiction then.  pablo _hablo. 21:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

You are missing my point: If they can have a tv show based on bits and pieces of the truth then we should be allowed to create a well written and well cited article on the subject, don't you think? An article can go to afd any number of times (like at GNAA article) but once deleted its odds of coming back are slim to none. At the very least, grant a stay of execution so we can see if anything can be done. If not, then I will be the first to vote delete for the next afd, but I feel that the article has a chance to exist here and I would like a chance to see what new material turns up on the matter. TomStar81 ( Talk) 21:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Bits and pieces of the truth do indeed make for the best kind of fiction. I look forward to see what material turns up, but must admit I expect it to run thus:

• Governments research into telepathy/telekinesis etc - this is a fact.
• If they could get it to work they might do "X", "Y", "monkey's arm" and "Z" with it
• zOMG remote controlled hans-frei hands-free brain-controlled robots are imminent!!!!!!!!!!!!  pablo _hablo. 22:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Telepathy and war in popular culture... [6]. Fences and windows ( talk) 22:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep (temporary stay of execution): I believe the comment that Tom made is correct. I have seen a number of documentaries discussing the use of psychics to 'remote view' locations during the Cold War. I have also seen a documentary on the use of 'psychic warfare' by the Germans and British during the Second World War. Having said of that, as Tom states, we need to keep a close eye on a subject like this as it can quite easily get filled up with outlandish claims, etc. As the article stands at the moment there seems to be a lot of sources cited and I could see the article being developed with some mention of the historic applications of telepathy in Second World War and the Cold War, however, it would need a number of committed contributors to produce this. Perhaps if there are a number of willing people, the article could be rewritten and then a peer review could be conducted. If the article was found not to be up to standard at peer review it could either be fixed, or go to AfD then. Having said all of this, rule number one is never volunteer, so let it be clear I'm not volunteering to work on this article. (That, of course, may be construed as a cop out). — AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

The article now seems to have morphed into a collection of items vaguely related to "Military Psychic Warfare and Spying" that lumps such stuff as remote viewing in with 'monkey's arm' type experiments. We already have a more encyclopedic (and less hysterical) treatment of the subject at Brain-computer_interface#Military_applications. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

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