 |
Electronic voice phenomenon was one of the good article nominees, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. |
|
|
|
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
 B |
This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| ??? |
This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
|
[edit] Instrumental Transcommunication (ITC)
I think wikipedia needs an Instrumental Transcommunication section (since its related to EVP). I'm a poor writer. Maybe someone with more talents than me can write an article about it.
--Bill--
Sunday December 7, 2008
[edit] Use of this article for Ghostwire trailer
Just a quick note: A screenshot of what appears to a slightly altered version of the first few paragraphs of this article laid out in a similar way to a Wikipedia page were used in the trailer for Ghostwire. superlusertc 2009 August 26, 03:31 (UTC)
[edit] Really?
The intro starts with ...... EVP are electronically generated noises that resemble speech....., an unambiguous, explicit and direct claim if ever I saw one. Surely we must state that some people believe it resembles speech, not that it actually does so which is what the intro says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.60.55 (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
-
- You probably should sort out the name first. Most of us refer to EVP in the plural, but the dominant editors exhibited superior understanding and made the title singular. it is both ways here.
-
- We have evolved how EVP is described and currently say they "are anomalous, intelligible speech produced in electronic devices." There is more in this White Paper.
-
- For the unsigned editor, I would refer to one of the Online Listening Study. It shows that about 25% of the words in what we consider very clear EVP are correctly reported by participating website visitors. A doctorate from Duke conducted a similar study and found about 20% word recognition, so it appears we may be closing in on an expected norm for understanding by untrained listeners.
-
- By themselves, these studies do not say that the voices are paranormal, only that they are objective. We are funding other studies in an attempt to better understand how the voices are formed. The rest of the story is that we know the voices can be recorded under circumstances that preclude all of those silly explanations in the article--rf and acoustically shielded enclosures, multiple recorders with EVP on only one and so on, eliminates virtually all of the mundane explanations we--and you can imagine. There is supporting material for all of this but little of it is acceptable to Wikipedia.
-
- This is to long but I need to make this point: the existence of EVP does not by itself prove the existence of survived personality or a greater reality. For EVP to exist, all it requires is the existence of a biofield that is influenced by intentionality. The super-psi hypothesis may still be correct. There is much research showing that such a field exists as seen in remote viewing and biofield therapies. The EVP article can and should be written in a way that explains current understanding without endorsing any view. Tom Butler (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- You totally failed to actually address my point. Wiki is saying that EVP resemble speech. No matter that many people might say they don't resemble speech, and are merely products of wiishful imagination, Wiki boldly makes the statement they resemble speech. Not everyone would accept that, and the intro should say "EVP are electronically generated noises that some people claim resemble speech....." . What ever happened to NPOV and balance? Poor Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.205.5 (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Then make the edit. Tom Butler (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- That is the definition of EVP. Rather than saying "some people say," perhaps it would be more appropriate to say something like "EVP is a developing theory that anomalous, intelligible speech is sometimes produced in electronic devices." I see that terminology used in String theory, a subject that really needs a "some people" caveat. Tom Butler (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
-
- I fail to understand how stating that a sound "resembles" speech is misleadingly implying that e everyone who listens to the sound will think that it resembles speech. I see this similar to saying that an inkblot that resembles a face may not look like a face to everyone. This seems like an obvious an unneeded clarification to me. Can someone explain why we need to hedge "resembles" which is already a hedge? It's not as though we're saying that EVP is speech. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Wiki is unequivocally stating EVP resemble speech. A lot of people would say that is hogwash. But Wiki rules, OK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.205.5 (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Who says it's hogwash that EVP resemble speech? A source would be nice. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
