Talk:Microwave auditory effect

*Talk:Microwave auditory effect/Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2020

PLEASE CHANGE Electronic warfare SECTION FROM "an MAE system they called MEDUSA" TO a Military Aerospace Electronics system they called MEDUSA THANK YOU 49.197.59.191 (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it not referring to the subject of this article, "Microwave auditory effect"? The acronym should be expanded in any case, as it would be clearer. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Nope. The source says it's microwave auditory effect. I also don't see any mention of it being deployed from the sky. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 16:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

A recent edit to the article mentioned the report by the NASEM, citing the NYTimes, which took the report pretty seriously. Another editor reverted their addition, suggesting that the report was too low-key to be taken as seriously as the Times took it. I disagree with this assessment, not having read the report, only the Times article, which states:

"Though couched in careful, scientific language, the new report reveals strong evidence that the incidents were the result of a malicious attack. It attributes the illnesses to “directed” and “pulsed” — rather than “continuous” — energy, implying that the victims’ exposure was targeted and not the result of more common sources of microwave energy, such as, for example, a cellphone."

It also said the committee found the immediate symptoms that patients reported — including strange sensations of pain, pressure and sound that often appeared to emanate from a particular direction, or occurred in a specific spot in a room — were more consistent with a directed “attack” of radiofrequency energy."

Is the Times not considered a WP:RS on the subject of the report? I would like to reinstate User:Steve hoge's edit, linked above. What think ye?--Quisqualis (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The report hasn't been released yet, see WP:TOOSOON -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out that even the NYT reporters say that the report cannot rule out other causes. To me, that intimates that the interpretation the NYT puts on the report may not be the wikipedia interpretation, and we should not be writing based on the NYT as yet. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 19:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The NYTimes attributed the facts of the article as "according to a copy of the report obtained by The New York Times." At the time I searched the NASEM site for the report and couldn't find it, and inferred that it might not ever be publicly available, and that the Times article could be the best we'd get. However, in fact it was WP:TOOSOON: the report HAS now been released at https://www.nap.edu/read/25889/chapter/1 so the reference to the NYTimes article may be completely superfluous and this entry might better point directly to the NASEM report. Steve hoge (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I have just downloaded the article as well. Agree sourcing to the report will be ideal.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It is a matter of balance to edit the Summary part of the RF status here.

Summary: The committee finds that many of the acute, sudden-onset, early phase signs, symptoms and observations reported by DOS employees are consistent with RF effects. In addition, many of the chronic, nonspecific symptoms are also consistent with known RF effects, such as dizziness, headache, fatigue, nausea, anxiety, cognitive deficits, and memory loss. It is not necessary for RF energy sources to produce gross structural damage to cause symptoms. Rather, as with the Frey effect or potential thermoelastic pressure waves, RF sources may trigger symptoms by transiently inducing alterations in brain functioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.87.232.193 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2021

How is auditory effect defined in EU legislative?

   • 1998 ICNIRP guidelines, page 14: "People with normal hearing can perceive pulse-modulated fields with frequencies between about 200 MHz and 6.5 GHz. The auditory sensation has been variously described as a buzzing, clicking, or popping sound, depending on the modulation characteristics of the field." https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf
   • Non-binding guide to good practice for implementing Directive 2013/35/EU, page 87: "The first indication of exposure to high frequency fields may be the sensation of warmth. However, this may not always be the case and feeling warm is not a reliable warning signal. It is also possible to 'hear' pulsed fields between 300kHz to 6Ghz, so clicking, buzzing or hissing noises may be heard by exposed workers."

http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=14741&langId=en&usg=AOvVaw2pm_f1PoHltXjnkj3uqgc3 Petenka (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If you have questions about this topic, this isn't the place for that. Try WP:RD, or, you know, an actual lawyer? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Electronic warfare section, Kenneth Foster quotes

I'm taking issue with this quote from Kenneth Foster, as it does not accurately reflect the power levels needed:
"Experts, such as Kenneth Foster, a University of Pennsylvania bioengineering professor who published research on the microwave auditory effect in 1974, have discounted the effectiveness of the proposed device. Foster said that because of human biophysics, the device 'would kill you well before you were bothered by the noise'. According to former professor at the University of Washington Bill Guy, 'There’s a misunderstanding by the public and even some scientists about this auditory effect,' and 'there couldn’t possibly be a hazard from the sound, because the heat would get you first'."

These figures are from James Lin's recently released "Auditory Effects of Microwave Radiation":
"The auditory effect RF energy thresholds were observed at 16 +/- 4 millijoules per pulse. The auditory threshold of RF pulse widths greater than 200 microseconds occurred at an average peak power level as low as 20W for surface coils."

16 millijoules per pulse, even with longer pulse bursts, does not make the RF/microwave source into some kind of heat ray. These pulses are high peak power, but the pulse lengths are so short that there's low average power. For someone with published research on the subject, Kenneth Foster does not seem to know that the RF energy threshold above would not cause a perceptible dielectric heating sensation.

Also consider the following quote from Don Justesen's "Behavioral and psychological effects of microwave radiation":
"the radiofrequency hearing effect depends on an energy dose three orders of magnitude below the threshold of detectable warming"

References:

RrabEkim (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I see Foster's opinions in the cited IEEE article are specifically discussing audio/heating effects of an MAE system called MEDUSA, and they are properly attributed to him rather than stated in WP's voice. Finding generalized sources in order to refute someone's attributed opinion would be WP:OR. You'd need a source specifically discussing the MEDUSA system that contradicts or offers an opinion differing from Foster. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I suppose what I'm suggesting is that Foster should not be quoted at all. Proper attribution really has nothing to do with the fact that his quotes are stating things that don't align with the established thresholds, and are misleading. The same generalized energy density thresholds apply to the MEDUSA system, just like they apply to any system based on the microwave auditory effect. Unless Foster is saying they specifically designed the MEDUSA to also cause intentional heating, somewhat like the Active Denial System? When what Foster is saying about the heating effect from the microwave auditory effect is not accurate at all, he should not be used as a primary source for that section of the article. RrabEkim (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I reread the source [1]. There are apparently 3 experts quoted, Foster, Bill Guy, and James Lin. Maybe you should correspond with IEEE to discuss your problems with their article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2021

I read this information about microwave hearing written by "like an echo in the forest" and it is not written from a neutral point of view in my opinion. Sincerely

wtkqb Wtkqb (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Publish Wtkqb (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Voice to skull technology is a very real thing

Lol

Yet it's mentioned as some crazy conspiracy theory

I can show you the patent as it sits in the patent database. Not on some conspiracy website, the Google patent database 75.138.186.215 (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

True, but it’s not following you around beaming thoughts into your head because you’re so special and important that the government will spend billions of dollars to make you sound crazy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The existence of a patent isn't proof of working technology. [2] Or that the person filing the patent is necessarily sane, and not abusing the patent process for the purposes of satire. [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

V2K is/was an experimental transducer system for military pilot comms that literally has to be mounted in the helmet within millimeters of the skull to have any efficiency. The conspiracy theory is (a) that it can somehow work at miles-long distances, and (b) that governments are using it to victimize ordinary people. And BTW, I noticed [this] exists. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

This isn't true of the microwave audio effect, why would it be true of v2k? It works really well on the high-end at WiFi router frequencies, I know how far my router reaches, and my router is way less powerful at -30dBm to -60dBm, and anything below 2.4 would just travel further 2601:18C:4200:3E0:84B0:2196:6BB2:8AA7 (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

They literally had people understanding words from the microwave auditory effect in the early 1970s. That said, the only sources I trust are academic papers on the Microwave Auditory Effect, and there are plenty 2601:18C:4200:3E0:84B0:2196:6BB2:8AA7 (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2023

The United States Air Force has a patent on Microwave Auditory Effect or Radio Frequency Hearing Effect number 6470214. 2607:FB91:8CAB:4CBF:84F7:9399:1DB8:66EE (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2023 (2)

The United States Air Force had a patent on Microwave Auditory Effect or Radio Frequency Hearing Effect from 1996 to 2016 number 6470214 named "Method and device for implementing the radio frequency hearing effect". 2607:FB91:8CAB:4CBF:84F7:9399:1DB8:66EE (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2023 (3)

The United States Air Force had a patent on Microwave Auditory Effect or Radio Frequency Hearing Effect number 6470214 named "Method and device for implementing the radio frequency hearing effect" from 1996 to 2016.

It states:

"Abstract

A modulation process with a fully suppressed carrier and input preprocessor filtering to produce an encoded output; for amplitude modulation (AM) and audio speech preprocessor filtering, intelligible subjective sound is produced when the encoded signal is demodulated using the RF Hearing Effect. Suitable forms of carrier suppressed modulation include single sideband (SSB) and carrier suppressed amplitude modulation (CSAM), with both sidebands present.

What is claimed is:

1. A method of encoding an input audio signal a(t) to produce a double sideband output signal having a ωc carrier frequency, which when transmitted to the head of a receiving subject, will by the radio frequency hearing effect induce a thermal-acoustic signal in the bone/tissue material of the head that replicates the input audio signal and is conducted by the bone/tissue structure of the head to the inner ear where it is demodulated by the normal processes of the cochlea and converted to nerve signals which are sent to the brain, thereby enabling intelligible speech to be perceived by the brain as any other nerve signal from the cochlea, the method comprising:

applying an input audio signal a(t) to an audio pre-distortion filter with an As(f) filter function to produce a first output signal a(t)As(f);

adding a very low frequency bias A to the first output signal to produce a second output signal a(t)As(f)+A;

applying the second output signal to a square root processor to produce a third output signal (a(t)As(f)+A)½;

applying the third output signal to a balanced modulator to produce a double sideband output signal (a(t)As(f)+A)½ sin(ωct), where ωc is the carrier frequency; and

transmitting the double sideband output signal to the head of the receiving subject.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the As(f) filter function step further comprises the step of de-emphasizing the high frequency content.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the further step of suppressing one of the sidebands of the double sideband output signal is done resulting in a single sideband modulation transmission."

Inventors: James P. O'Loughlin, Diana L. Loree

Current Assignee: United States Air Force

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6470214B1/en 72.31.62.58 (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

A patent filing doesn't confirm the technology is practical, theoretically sound, or even exists. To include this patent in the article (which I think is what you're asking for) we'd need some indication it is notable, e.g. WP:RS WP:SECONDARY sources that discuss it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The United States Air Force patent 6470214 is very highly notable because it is mentioned by singer/songwriter Jewel in a tweet & discussed in vivid depth & detail by History Channel's television series That's Impossible episode Mind Control.

US patent 6470214 was mentioned by singer/songwriter Jewel in tweet on 11 August 2009: "Wow-gr8 show 'Thats Impossible' on history channel-Patent 6470214- held by navy- mind control tool-wild- Spooky-Tivo this show 4 sure"

History Channel's television series That's Impossible episode Mind Control mentions United States Air Force patent 6470214.

Transcript of show:

Narrator Jonathan Frakes:

"According to this article in the Washington Post magazine, in 1994, the Air Force Research Laboratory carried out experiments where scientists used technology to transmit phrases into the heads of human subjects. How? By burying subliminal messages in microwaves and beaming them into a person’s head. It seems like a weapon torn from the pages of a comic book. The air force denies it’s working on one, but patent number 6470214, issued on October 22, 2002, says otherwise. The patent title, “Method and Device for Implementing the Radio Frequency Hearing Effect.” Patent holder, the U.S. Air Force.

Documents surrounding the development of this secret weapon are classified. But what is known is that microwaves carry energy. When a microwave pulse is absorbed by our body, this energy is converted to heat, causing the tissue to expand slightly, and then contract when it cools. If the microwave were aimed at our head, this expansion and contraction would be heard as a clicking sound that could be encoded into words.

Nick Pope:

With that sort of technology, you could give someone an instruction, or you could perhaps make them think they were going mad. And it quite clearly talks about the military applications of this technology.

Frakes:

Is patent number 6470214 a top secret mind control weapon? According to this passage in the patent documents, this device can beam energy waves that can be, quote, “converted to nerve signals which are sent to the brain, thereby enabling intelligible speech to be perceived by the brain.” The result? The person hears voices that aren’t there, much like the voices reportedly heard by targeted individuals. If this mind control weapon exists, could this technology be deployed on a mass scale? There’s speculation that the government already has."

Sources:

Transcript:

http://mindjustice.org/impossible.htm

Internet Movie Database:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1488987/

That's Impossible television series:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/That%27s_Impossible

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1462795/

Jonathan Frakes:

Twitter @jonathansfrakes

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Jonathan_Frakes

Nick Pope:

Twitter @nickpopemod

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Nick_Pope_(journalist)

http://nickpope.net/

Singer/songwriter Jewel:

Twitter: @jeweljk

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Jewel_(singer)

https://jeweljk.com/ 2607:FB91:8C27:4F8A:55D4:7308:3985:8266 (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes please add above to your article on "Microwave Auditory Effect" thankyou 2607:FB91:8C27:4F8A:55D4:7308:3985:8266 (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes please add above to your article on "Microwave Auditory Effect" thankyou. 2607:FB91:8C27:4F8A:55D4:7308:3985:8266 (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Please add to your article as well anywhere as you feel appropriate: It is addition not edit:

Dr Barrie Trower, an Ex-MI5 (British Military Intelligence, section 5) Microwave Scientist/Whistleblower has stated on video titled "Bigger Than Snowden. Neuro Weapons. Directed Energy Weapons. Mind control. Targeted Individuals." on human rights organization Task Force EU Coalition's website https://cyber-torture.com :

"If you're targeting demonstrators, you make them suicidally depressed, they don't care about demonstrating anymore because they are too upset. With one pulse frequency you can just make people so suicidal they can't be bothered to act like a demonstator anymore, all they want to do is sleep or lay in bed all day."

"We are in a new cold war, and this is why countries are developing this, I mean really developing this, and this is why all of the microwave transmitters are going up everywhere because somebody if they wanted to could use them for other effects. The system is up and running."

"I mean voices are the easiest ones because all you have to do is stimulate the cochlea with a set resonance frequency, its very easy, voices are very easy, and it isn't people imagining voices, they physically hear them. You can physically make people hear voices, certain voices, and it can be any conversation, and it can be anybody you want to hear, it can be a soft angelic voice, it can be a god, it could be something that scares you like a devil, it could be anything."

"If you want to cause a specific psychiatric illness, you would have an infrared device that followed the person and you would link it to a pencil thin microwave source so the microwave beam would always target a specific gland or a specific part of the brain or an eye or a heart. So you would have them being targeted."

"If they want to experiment on you by the thousands they will and you can be driven to insanity and death and you just become a tick in a box without any so much as a feeling, and this is what they do, and this is why they are above the law. One of the experiments was to take an ordinary sane person, cause insanity, and have a psychiatrist who was unknown to everybody diagnose schizophrenia or paranoia or a psychiatric illness, that was a successful outcome, and the person would spend the rest of their life in an asylum in misery but to the government scientists that was a success."

https://www.facebook.com/BarrieTrower 2607:FB91:8C27:4F8A:55D4:7308:3985:8266 (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no need to paste a wall of text onto the Talk page, links suffice. Facebook posts, Tweets by Jewell, History Channel TV entertainment, and mindjustice.org are NOT what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Submission for addition in your article "Microwave Auditory Effect" along with notable secondary discussion of VOICE TO SKULL WEAPON ENTRY IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY WEBSITE.

Federation of American Scientists webpage:

"Source: http://call.army.mil/products/thesaur_e/00016275.htm

Prev Term: voice templates

Next Term: Voivodina

voice to skull devices

Definition/Scope:

Nonlethal weapon which includes (1) a neuro-electromagnetic device which uses microwave transmission of sound into the skull of persons or animals by way of pulse-modulated microwave radiation; and (2) a silent sound device which can transmit sound into the skull of person or animals. NOTE: The sound modulation may be voice or audio subliminal messages. One application of V2K is use as an electronic scarecrow to frighten birds in the vicinity of airports.

Acronym:

V2K

Broader Terms:

nonlethal weapons

Send your comments to: CALL Thesaurus

Last reviewed: 25 Mar 04"

Source:

https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/dod/vts.html

Wired article discussing the United States Army's Voice to Skull webpage:

"Army Yanks 'Voice-To-Skull Devices' Site

The Army's very strange webpage on "Voice-to-Skull" weapons has been removed. It was strange it was there, and it's even stranger it's gone. If you Google it, you'll see the entry for "Voice-to-Skull device," but, if you click on the website, the link is dead.

The entry, still available on the Federation of American Scientists' website reads:

Nonlethal weapon which includes (1) a neuro-electromagnetic device which uses microwave transmission of sound into the skull of persons or animals by way of pulse-modulated microwave radiation; and (2) a silent sound device which can transmit sound into the skull of person or animals. NOTE: The sound modulation may be voice or audio subliminal messages. One application of V2K is use as an electronic scarecrow to frighten birds in the vicinity of airports.

The U.K.-based group Christians Against Mental Slavery first noted the change (they also have a permanent screenshot of the page). A representative of the group tells me they contacted the Webmaster, who would only tell them the entry was "permanently removed." "

Source:

https://www.wired.com/2008/05/army-removes-pa/ 2607:FB91:8C27:4F8A:55D4:7308:3985:8266 (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: A very short Wired article from 2008 about a government web page that has been removed? The author fails to give any context here or make any conclusion, except that "it's strange". If you are requesting this be added as a bit of trivia, it's clearly WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If you are requesting this be added because you feel it indicates some type of government mind control conspiracy, it's clearly WP:FRINGE and subject to WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Also, bear in mind Wikipedia article text must avoid WP:COPYVIO, so we cannot just paste text of a magazine into an encyclopedia article. (Also, please, stop pasting walls of text here on the Talk page. If you have links that you wish considered as part of a request you may post them, but there is no need to paste text from a link) - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2023

One of the protestors in the image is holding a sign mentioning Havana Syndrome and the text below the image says it's from 2009, however, according to the Wikipedia page on Havana Syndrome, the incidents only goes as far back as 2016 meaning the image could not have been from 2009. So remove the date or replace it with the correct one, or explain if I'm wrong. FriedFrenchGuy (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be correct. The upload page on Commons [4] gives the 2009 date too. Very odd. And I don't think it is really appropriate to use a photo with identifiable individuals anyway, given that we state that they are promoting conspiracy theories associated with mental illness. I've removed the photo entirely for now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2024

Please DELETE the following line from this article: California psychiatrist Alan Drucker has identified evidence of delusional disorders on many of these websites and other psychologists are divided over whether such sites reinforce mental troubles, or act as a form of group social support.

I am Alan Drucker, MD and I request this change for the following reason: The statement is factually untrue - I have not 'identified evidence of delusional disorders on many of these websites'. I have not conducted any clinical research on this topic, and I am not an expert on this topic. As such, I believe it is inappropriate to be cited in Wikipedia from a brief clip from a small, local television news story which was a local human interest story many years ago. DrSanePalmSprings (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Please provide a WP:RS reliable source that specifically contradicts our cited sources. You can also contact the foundation directly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: per above comment. Encoded  Talk 💬 00:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Just looking into this a little further...

The statement Dr Drucker objects to above is as follows: Alan Drucker has identified evidence of delusional disorders on many of these websites.

The source cited quotes Dr Drucker observing that "There's no scientific evidence, there's no objective evidence to show that what they believe to be happening is factually true".

And then further saying that "Information I found on many of these websites really confirms or is consistent with what I see in delusional disorders," said Dr. Drucker.

To some extent I'm sympathetic with Dr Drucker's position in his post above that if we say "has identified evidence of" then it very strongly implies (or, really, is equivalent to saying) "has conducted and published research in relation to". I think it is more than reasonable for an academic to object to our current wording if he has not conducted or published such research.

For someone to say that they found information on websites is not the same as conducting and publishing research, and for the current text to imply such is factually untrue and liable to mislead.

I'd therefore suggest that, at the very least, some re-wording in the current article text may be desirable.

I'm going to re-open this COI edit request and hopefully we can get input from a broader range of users with a view to developing a consensus. I trust that neither of the above respondents will object and we can see where things go from here. Axad12 (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

It's fair to say that the 2012 news piece by KMIR is carrying rather too heavy a load. That's the only source we cite naming Drucker, and he's not saying he published scholarly research on the exact topic. The better source for this sort of information is reference number 21 by Sarah Kershaw, the 2008 piece by The New York Times, which names multiple researchers. Binksternet (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion:

Remove California psychiatrist Alan Drucker has identified evidence of delusional disorders on many of these websites and other psychologists are divided over whether such sites reinforce mental troubles, or act as a form of group social support.

Replace with It has been suggested that the content of many of these websites may indicate the presence of delusional disorders, although psychologists are divided over whether such sites reinforce mental troubles, or act as a form of group social support.

So, remove reference to Dr Drucker and replace the potentially rather misleading "Dr Drucker has identified evidence" with the more generalised "It has been suggested that". Also, replace the current source with the source indicated by Binksternet.

How does that sound? Axad12 (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

We already cite the Kershaw piece. I agree that we can remove Drucker's name and just keep it general. Binksternet (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

We don't know who the WP:SPA is. They claim to be Drucker, but could be just another account that is active at the moment trying to remove or equivocate criticism of these conspiracy/fringe theories in various articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think that really makes any difference. Whether Drucker's name is mentioned in the article is neither here nor there, so it might as well be removed. Axad12 (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

This article (and others, see a similar effort) have been vandalized for many years by drive by accounts looking to water down the language or add a loophole in the text that leaves the door open to the possibility that mind control is real. If you must remove Drucker, let's not create wishy washy text please. How about Mental health professionals maintain that many of these websites exhibit evidence of delusional disorders, although they are divided over whether such sites reinforce mental troubles, or act as a form of group social support. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if it said "may exhibit", but I'm okay with your suggested text. Axad12 (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)