Talk:Voice to skull

Voice-to-skull

This page should redirect to Voice-to-skull. I have created an entirely new sourced article on the subject. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Given that your article is a clear attempt to subvert the recent AfD, I have amended it to a redirect to Electronic harassment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Revert back to previous redirect

The microwave auditory effect is a real thing, it actually occurs and has been researched in some detail. If you look into the science enough it is very quickly found that the power levels needed to actually beam an audible voice into someone's skull would also kill them or at least cause serious burns and other injuries (not the minor irritation in the testicles that some "victims" claim). Hence, the concept of voice to skull is entirely imaginary.

I therefore think it is inappropriate to redirect this article to MAE, even to the "conspiracy theories" subsection, since it conflates a wholly imaginary conspiracy theory with real science and thus reinforces the delusional thinking that has caused us so many problems over the last week. Redirecting to electronic harassment immediately illustrates the overwhelming evidence in the reliable sources: only delusional, paranoid people use the phrase voice to skull. GDallimore (Talk) 21:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable independent sources. Do you have sources substantiating your claims that the science shows so-called voice to skull technologies are impossible? Also The microwave auditory effect article says in it very first sentence that "it consists of audible clicks (or, with modulation, whole words) induced by pulsed/modulated microwave frequencies" so I wonder why you aren't making corrections if our articles are completely wrong. Electronic harassment appears to be an entirely unrelated subject. I can't see why we would resirect there. Do you have a source discussing so-called V2K in the context of electronic harassment? Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

That complicated messages are impossible at safe microwave levels is already mentioned and sourced in the MAE article. That V2K is a phrase used by people claiming to be victims of electronic harassment is scattered throughout this source, as just one example. The fact you're arguing over this and similarly blindingly obvious points is part of the reason you've been warned about the discretionary sanctions for fringe articles. GDallimore (Talk) 10:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but asking for sources to support your content arguments is reasonable and not fringey. And I pointed out that the opening sentence of our article contradicts you, so either you are wrong or the article needs fixing. Keep your smears to yourself. Let's focus on getting the content right and making sure it's consistent with the very best sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

We have no sources which state that "so-called voice to skull technologies" even exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

GDallimore the Washington Post article you mentioned does in fact discuss so-called V2K in the context of people who think the government is engaged in mind control activities against them. But it covers a lot of ground and it actually supports the current redirect. In addition to noting that people who hear voices use the terminology V2K it also says, "V2K -- the official military abbreviation stands for "voice to skull" and denotes weapons that beam voices or sounds into the head". The article also explains that "In 2002, the Air Force Research Laboratory patented precisely such a technology: using microwaves to send words into someone's head" and that "the Air Force released unclassified documents surrounding that 2002 patent -- records that note that the patent was based on human experimentation in October 1994 at the Air Force lab, where scientists were able to transmit phrases into the heads of human subjects, albeit with marginal intelligibility. Research appeared to continue at least through 2002." It also says "Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center, tagged microwave attacks against the human brain as part of future warfare in a 2001 presentation to the National Defense Industrial Association about "Future Strategic Issues." So it's perfectly appropriate we cover the technologies, research and the related psychological issues as per the reliable coverage in independent sources such as the one you've provided. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't, since to treat everything that uses or allegedly uses microwaves as being part of the MAE is not supported by the source and is therefore synthesis. V2K is anything that people suffering from mental illnesses call alleged technologies that might be causing them to hear voices, whereas MAE is one real, specific effect. It's a sad fact that most of the MAE article is synthesis, but every now and again someone comes along and chops out the worst of the rubbish. I haven't got the patience to go through it all myself. GDallimore (Talk) 16:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the source you provided contradicts your arguments ie. that's not what was reported in the Washington Post. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Your statement is wrong. Neither the WaPo article nor the technical reports say ALL the "microwave technology" being discussed makes use of the "microwave auditory effect". To the contrary, you have already quoted the (unofficial) military definition of the term "V2K" as: "weapons that beam voices or sounds into the head". And that's just one example.

So, to say that any v2k technology is MAE is obvious synthesis, which is the root of the problem here.

The only contradictory statements in the WaPo article or anywhere else are those made by people who claim to be targeted, but their statements are not reliable. GDallimore (Talk) 21:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)