Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:11, 10 June 2009

Telepathy and war

Telepathy and war (edit | 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)

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)

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

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)

• 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 19:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• 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 Misplaced Pages that document advances in Brain-computer interfaceing and cybernetics. Frei Hans (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• 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)
  • 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)
    • Changing back to Delete again. It doesn't appear that this article can be saved. Quantpole (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. I do like your alternative title suggestion. How about Military research into telepathy? Frei Hans (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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

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

• 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 Misplaced Pages - and of course discuss the subject on Misplaced Pages 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)

• Snow delete per S Marshall. Dbrodbeck (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• 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)

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

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages retains many topics, including topics that document controversial subjects - ideally covered in a neutral style. Frei Hans (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages'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)

• 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)

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

I provided two references to reports from reputable sources. The reports cited research on a monkey, at Duke University, in developing the toys. 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 Misplaced Pages pages, instead of simply removing content. Frei Hans (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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

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

• 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)

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 /_Cont 16:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• 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 01:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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_Stalk(P) 11:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 11:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 11:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into Telepathy. Not notable enough on it's own, and fails WP:FRINGE. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete since there is no telepathy there is no telepathy in war. QED.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I knew you were going to say that. Verbal chat 17:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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//_Δ's/ 20:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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//_Δ's/ 11:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment any research that may have been done belongs in Telepathy, this is not an article.  pablo_hablo. 19:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

1. Joel, Garreau (2009.21.05). "Telekinetic devices coming to a toy store near you?". Nashua Telegraph. Retrieved 2009.05.06. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates