Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon

Problem with "specialist"

There is not consensus as to who is a "specialist" in the paranormal or EVP. Therefore, we should not use that term. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That was already changed by Martinphi when you reverted it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed it back, due to it's having been a mistake. SA changed it back to "specialist." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

False Claims

I don't understand why the article states that EVP are static interpreted by some paranormal believers as voices. Many examples of alleged EVP are clearly voices. The only debate about these examples is whether they are in any way paranormal, or whether they have a more earthly origin. I said a while ago that the intro just made the article look silly and it still does. Why not just say that some alleged cases of EVP are voices?????LionelStarkweather (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The examples I've heard aren't clearly recognizable as voices without coaching. Can you point to some examples (preferably available on the web) that unambiguously are voices? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a selection of samples from the Ghost Orchid CD (mentioned in the article) [1]. These might be the stray radio or outright hoaxes, but they're offered as examples of EVP and they're definitely voices. LionelStarkweather (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And here's a link to the whole of the Ghost Orchid [2].LionelStarkweather (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

LionelStarkweather, here is the issue: voice has many definitions. One of these many is, the sound made by the vibration of vocal folds modified by the resonance of the vocal tract. Many people have something like this in mind when they see the word "voice" - it implies that someone has spoken. To say that these sounds are actually "voices" is to beg the question and imply that they are generated by someone/something that can speak. This isn't necessarily the truth, and in fact is probably not true. Antelan ^talk 21:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If the examples cited above are not voices, then perhaps you could tell us what you take them to be. LionelStarkweather (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that many EVP are likely due to picking up stray radio signals, I'd be far more surprised if there weren't examples that obviously were voices. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So why does the article baldly state they are mere "static". That is what makes the claim false.LionelStarkweather (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeesh!!! I had it as "voice or voice-like sounds" for a long time. Antelan and others kept changing it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand Antelan's point, but it seems that the sense of "voice" used in the article is simply a contrast with "mere static only taken to be a voice because of auditory pareidolia". In that sense, the examples are surely voices. On this point Raymond seems to agree as well and so I think it should be reasonable to rewrite the intro without the "static" claim.LionelStarkweather (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If you explain why you don't understand or don't agree with my discussion of voices above, I can reword in a way that will make sense. Antelan ^talk 22:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I sort of just did. I said "it seems that the sense of "voice" used in the article is simply a contrast with "mere static only taken to be a voice because of auditory pareidolia". In that sense, the examples are surely voices". If I have misunderstood your point, then you could clarify in what sense you would be reluctant to call the examples I provided "voices".LionelStarkweather (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying that you know these voices are not coming from static? Where are they coming from, and how does one know this? Antelan ^talk 22:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where they're coming from. I don't know whether they're hoaxes, or stray radio broadcasts or the voices of the dead. I never claimed I did. What I do know is that they are voices. Are you seriously saying that you think they are mere static that only happen to resemble language by chance. Have you actually listened to them - these are not muffled EVP of the two-syllable variety that sounds like someone saying "mother".LionelStarkweather (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's say I hear someone expertly play a trumpet or a saxophone in such a way that it sounds human. Would you say that it is a voice, or would you say that it sounds like a voice? Antelan ^talk 23:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say "it sounds like a voice but is actually a trumpet/saxophone". But this largely beside the point, the point here is that while it's perfectly possible for static to sound like a muffled voice saying a word or two, it's quite impossible for one man (e.g., Raymond Cass) to regularly record sections of static that by chance happen to sound exactly like very clear five or six word sentences. LionelStarkweather (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The sounds in the Orchid thing definitely are voices. They're obviously voices broadcast using amplitude-modulated radio, either shortwave or medium-wave (AM), but that's beside the point for this purpose. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that until about two minutes ago the article boldly stated that EVP were simply static-interpreted-as-voices, and now states that they are voice-like-sounds-interpreted-as-voices (i.e., still not voices), the fact that some examples of alleged EVP are obviously voices would seem to be about as pertinent as it gets. The point being that the first sentence of the article mischaracterises the very phenomenon the article is about.LionelStarkweather (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Dudes, look at the skeptical explanations: they say it is radio interference. Thus, some of them, according to the skeptics and certainly according to the believers, are radio- and thus voices. Some of them, according to the skeptics, are noise mistaken for voices- and thus voice-like sounds. We had that part of the intro fine at one point, and I suggest we go back to that. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

See EVP online listening trials [3] I know you do not much like to use AA-EVP references, and here, I agree that my putting it in the article would be COI. The examples used are from a number of individuals, so it would be necessary to accuse all of them of fraud if you want to go that rout to discredit the examples used in the trials. The results are repeatable and show that website visitors are able to correctly identify 34% of the words. That is about average for untrained listeners who have no coaching. Tom Butler (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a question: so far as I can tell, the main problem with proving EVP is not proving that it is not, say, radio, but in the question of just how much white noise you'd have to listen to (given no spirit/psychic influence) to get a word or answer to a question. If that could be answered, then the discussion would probably be over, because experiments like you mention are easily done, and one could tell it they are statistically significant per the ammount of raw noise from which the samples are taken. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"White noise" is just a figure of speech these days, and we discourage people from using it because the objective is to provide audio-frequency energy in the range of human voice. We also strongly discourage the use of radio and encourage the use of control recorders with at least one designed well enough to reject RF contamination. We reject responses to questions that do not occur before the next question. Most others have similar practices, but in radio sweep and EVPMaker, there is clearly a problem with the experimenter arbitrarily linking a comment to a question asked much earlier in the sound stream, so it is important to be sufficiently educated to know when a fact or report does not apply to all forms of these phenomena.

All of these issues have been addressed but the one objection that has been offered in the past is that the research is mostly only one or two experiments deep, not whether or not the research has been done.

I like Nealparr's point about content being "sticky." There is hardly anything in this article that can be called sticky. The same design of the article has been used since its origin, that is, casting one side against the other in a winner take all approach. I gave a list of facts and I can support every one of them with good, but few references. The snide response I received should be sufficient warning to all of you that this argument will go on indefinitely unless a different approach is taken. Just provide the facts and stop questioning whether or not the subject is real. Most of you simply do not have the wherewithal to make that decision and this is not the place for settling the issue. Tom Butler (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If we could only agree on what the "facts" are. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

All this interesting original research aside, everyone agrees that these are sounds, which is what the intro sentence should make clear. What is not agreed upon is the interpretation of these sounds as voices. This should be made clear in the lead. Antelan ^talk 01:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they're -ahem- voices or voice-like sounds (-: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and it's agreed that some of them are voices, since RF interference is one of the skeptical explanations. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That "RF interference" = "voices" is incorrect. Antelan ^talk 06:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have it, one station can interfere or bleed into another, and also broadcasts can be picked up on unintended devices sometimes. It isn't all like power lines. So it can be voices. Maybe wrong. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would be wrong to equate "RF" with "voices" as you have done. And since that's the basis of your argument, that's an important part to get wrong. In other words, "Oh, and it's agreed that some of them are voices, since RF interference is one of the skeptical explanations. " is not correct. Antelan ^talk 06:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It was Arritt's argument: "Given that many EVP are likely due to picking up stray radio signals, I'd be far more surprised if there weren't examples that obviously were voices. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)" So argue with him et al....... ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Antelan, you say "What is not agreed upon is the interpretation of these sounds as voices." This seems a bit disingenuous if all you mean is that there is a disagreement about some EVP being voices because, while true, that ignores many of the other cases where nobody disputes it. The sceptical explanations for EVP are roughly as follows: 1) the ones that are voices are stray radio pick ups, hoaxes, or ordinary speech recorded when, eg., the EVP researcher left the recorder in an empty room and it captured some people talking as they passed; and 2) many other examples of alleged EVP are not voices at all but are mere voice-like sounds interpreted as voices due to auditory pareidolia. So, while there is a dispute about whether many cases of alleged EVP are voices (and the article should deal with that), there is no dispute about many other cases of alleged EVP which all agree are voices (and the article should make that clear). This dual (at least) nature of the brute phenomenon is what makes makes it wrong to say that EVP are static/sounds interpreted as voices since that only tells half the (sceptical) story. Far better to go with a dual description right at the start or to go for a neutral decsription such as "sonic events interpreted by some as voices of paranormal origin".LionelStarkweather (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources for "researchers"

Plenty, including Skeptical Inquirer and mainstream news sources. Take your pick [4]. Those are recent articles, here's the archives [5] --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rracecarr, if you'd like to talk about treating this article as a religious article, where researchers are called "adherents" and "believers", I'd be more than happy to discuss that with you. However, just changing every instance of "researcher" to "believer" does not make for good encyclopedia entry. Like I pointed out after your first edit, even the Skeptical Inquirer refers to paranormal researchers as researchers. It's about as neutral as it gets. Framing it as a religious belief is not neutral. Repeatedly doing this doesn't help to make the edits "sticky". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The links you provided contain phrases such as "Members, who call themselves paranormal researchers..." That's more like it. A researcher is someone whose job it is to find out about the world. Which agency funds EVP grants? Putting in "paranormal researchers" without qualification lends a subtle legitimacy to the whole idea that is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. It is written in language that the delusional crazies who believe in this stuff would use. Just because some wackos might do "reseach" on the Easter Bunny does not mean the Easter Bunny article should start off with "The Easter Bunny, an egg-hiding rabbit, which some researchers credit with the concealment of over a billion eggs, ..." An encyclopedia article should make it clear when an article is about a made-up subject. The minor changes I've made do not succeed in doing this entirely, but they're a step in the right direction. Also, the changes are not mine. They were made by Science Apologist who is currently blocked for an unrelated reason. I just think the changes are an improvement. I can see using "paranormal researchers" if the first time the term is used, it is made clear that it's a self-applied label. Rracecarr (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your reading way too much into the term, and putting too much emphasis on the people involved. Take your Easter Bunny example:

"The Easter Bunny, an egg-hiding rabbit, which some researchers credit with the concealment of over a billion eggs, ..."

The first problem that should be fixed is that the Easter Bunny needs framing as folkloric or mythical creature, ie. not in nature.

"The Easter Bunny, an egg-hiding rabbit in folklore and mythic traditions, is said by some researchers to have concealed over a billion eggs, despite all evidence of the Easter Bunny being completely anecdotal ..."

That's where your encyclopedic wording comes in. Let's take a more relevant example:

"Bigfoot, a creature in folkloric traditions, is said by Bigfoot researchers to inhabit the Pacific Northwest."

Here we have a mythological creature, or to use your words a "made-up subject", but one that some people believe really does exist. These "believers" conduct "research" ranging from collecting anecdotal folklore surrounding the creature, making casts of supposed footprints, collecting hair samples that are probably from bears, and so on. Are they nuts for wanting to research something that probably doesn't exist in the real world? Who knows, or more accurately, who cares? The topic of their research is already framed as folkloric. In other words, the reader is already informed that what they're researching probably doesn't exist in nature.

On "paranormal researcher", "researcher" is framed by the qualifier "paranormal", which means (depending on the dictionary) "not normal", or "not explained by science", "not explainable by science", "not in nature", and so on. In other words, "paranormal researcher" literally means "people who research something not accepted by science as existing in the natural world".

The fallacy in your argument (or ScienceApologist's argument if they were his edits) is that it's mis-focused on the people who are interested in the subject and not focused on the subject itself, which is already framed as something myth (sacred story) related. EVP researchers study audio clips they believe are created by some disembodied entity. You don't have to spend a single second on the "research" part because the qualifier before it involves "spirits", already something mythological, folkloric, supernatural, paranormal, etc., ie. something that is not accepted by science as existing in the natural world. It's not, again, about the realness of the subject of the research. It's still research, even if it's research about something that doesn't actually exist. Religious scholars conduct research all the time on Bible-related things, stories about angels and demons and all sorts of mythological story-based characters. It's still research.

The argument was that "researcher" isn't neutral because it implies that the subject of the research does exist. That is in no way true. A Catholic who knows the name of every angel in the Bible as a result of his research on Biblical names doesn't make any of the angels any more or any less real. It doesn't give any angel any legitimacy at all.

"Research" is about as neutral as it gets, simply because research is always framed by the subject of the research. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 08:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of what you say makes sense. I guess my concern is that I'm not sure how well a naive reader, coming to the article as it stands, would understand that EVP is not the subject of serious mainstream scientific research. Trusting readers to divine from the statement "Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are sections of voice-like sounds on the radio or other electronic recording media that are interpreted by paranormal researchers as voices speaking words," that those paranormal researchers are not taken seriously by scientific researchers seems to be asking a lot. The sentence doesn't include anything about folklore, mythology, spirits, etc. I'm not sure just the word "paranormal" makes it clear enough.Rracecarr (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. "Paranormal" is a technical sounding term, so a lot of people would just gloss right over it. I wonder how many people simply assume that a "paranormal research" is a specialization within science, like physical chemistry or nuclear physics. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And the article clearly states that EVP research is not a topic in science, and has gained no support in science, in several places. So if one reads "Mainstream science has generally ignored EVP..." or "...gained no notability within the scientific community, and is not accepted within science" (both statements already in the article), and walks away thinking EVP is a topic in science like physical chemistry or nuclear physics, I'm sorry, but Wikipedia can't help them. They have other issues. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Arritt, I'm sure you'll be interested in this. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Researcher is an unacceptable term because people who "research" EVP are not just people who believe in EVP. The problem with using "researcher" is that it doesn't convey the fact that the "researchers" in question are true believers in EVP. That's an important distinction that was left out of the discussion above. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is partly about how true believers (see example on Bigfoot researchers and Biblical researchers) are still researchers. Besides, you've advocated using the term "paranormal researchers" as a neutral alternative before. I'm busy, but I can pull them from the archives at various articles if you'd like. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I'm not disputing that every wacko with access to a library is a researcher. I'm saying that when we use the term in our article we almost always are talking about a true believer. By using the term "researcher" we miss the fact that the "researcher" in question is a true believer. Get it? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I get what you'd like to do. It's just not something a neutral encyclopedia does. Unbiased mainstream sources (newspapers, etc.) who have no reason to promote EVP researchers call them researchers. I've yet to see one unbiased, un-derogatory, un-personal-essay source call them "true believers". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it another way, because it's really not about the sources. Neutrality is stating clearly that science doesn't accept these ideas, so that Wikipedia does not advance their position beyond what it actually is. Neutrality is not attacking the people themselves with derogatory terms like true believers, etc. or the seriousness in which they take their interest by calling them "enthusiasts" (hobbyists). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Neal, obviously you don't think that indicating that the people believe in EVP is problematic. Using the term "researcher" without appropriate qualification doesn't indicate that adequately enough. As is pointed out below, we use the term "skeptic" which indicates succinctly that the people dispute the existence of EVP. "Researcher" doesn't go far enough indicating that the person "researching" isn't just researching from the standpoint of neutrality but actually believes in EVP. This is important. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

To put this another way, I'm fine with using a term like "resesarcher who believes in EVP" or something similar to this. Their belief in EVP is obviously relevant to their research. This is something that needs to be pointed out as is normally pointed out on any fringe article. We need to be able to indicate clearly sentence-by-sentence who believes in the idea and who doesn't. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Spiritualism roots

Nealparr, in the article you said, "...and has its roots in the turn of the century Spiritualism movement (1840s-1920s)." can you give a reference for that? As a Spiritualist and familiar with EVP, I see no connection, other than that both are interested in communicating with discarnate entities. Are you saying that Jürgenson, who was given an award by the Pop, was actually a Spiritualist? Tom Butler (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Spiritualism begat mediums begat Attila Von Szalay

or

Spiritualism begat spirit photography begat spirit recordings

or

(The connection you draw in your own book) Spiritualism begat the methodology used in early EVP research... "The two constructed a cabinet that von Szalay sat in while trying to generate the voices. A microphone was placed in the opening of a trumpet, a device used by Spiritualist mediums to amplify spirit voices, and then placed in the cabinet..."[6]

Whichever way you want to go. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I could definitely get that out of Tom's book. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point Nealparr. That is in the history section. All people knew of transcommunication at the time was from spiritualist practices, so that is what some used at the time. Sarah Estep did not, for instance. We attribute the beginning of EVP to the accidental recording of voices. It is true that we encourage meditation and development of a "space" for recording, but these are recognition of what works and it is only an accident of history that some religions tend to use the same or similar practices. What you have written is the equivalent of saying that submarines evolved from rockets because they both began with pointed shapes. In fact, they are both designed to accommodate fluid dynamics which produces similar shapes. Tom Butler (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a statement about the roots of interest in spirit recordings. It's meant to be a historical statement. Since interest in spirit recordings came right at the decline of Spiritualism, and Von Szalay was a medium using spiritualist practices in pursuing that interest, the "interest in spirit communication through electronic recording has its roots in the turn of the century Spiritualism movement". What you're saying about Estep and modern day practices don't have anything to do with the roots of it all. Estep came four decades after the roots and current practices are almost seven decades after the roots. While modern day submarines don't look anything like modern day aircraft carriers, they all have their roots in the propeller driven steamboats designed by James Watt. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they both have roots in the physical principles involved with action-reaction or thrust. if you were to make a connection like the riverboat, you should go back to the oarsman. The connection is there, but it is irreverent to the subject of the design of a submarine.

In the same way, EVP is related to spiritualism but both are related to shamanism, animism and on back. The connection is the apparent principle of communicating with discarnate entities. If you are going to use the spiritualism reference, then I think it is only right to include all of the other -isms that have ever contacted the dead. Von Szalay is just one of many early experimenters, and others, more historically important experimenters were decidedly not associated or trained in spiritualism. Your association only serves to put EVP in a religious context, and that does not serve the good of the article. Tom Butler (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom, I'm not going to go around in circles with you about this again. Spiritualism is all over the sources in connection with the roots, shamanism and animism aren't. If you'd like to add shamanism and animism to the article as well, go for it, but the notable one is Spiritualism. Von Szalay isn't just one of experimenters, he's the first to claim success. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I don't want you to "go round and round" about it. Let me try it this way. As far as I can tell, you are the only one who wants it in. You added it without discussion, and now you are defending it as if it is a deal breaker for the article. Go ahead and leave it in, but that, along with the continued efforts to link EVP with religion and faith by you, SA and his supporters puts me in a difficult position.

My job is to offer guidance about EVP/ITC on aaevp.com and I am tired of trying to explain how well intended you all really are. We receive emails asking about this article, such as "is it plural or not" and "You can't seriously expect scientists to study EVP if it is a religion." A few months ago, I had actually thought I might be able to endorse the article on aaevp.com, but now I have no choice put to point out the differences in the way EVP is studied by the majority of experimenters and researchers, and how the subject is portrayed in Wikipedia.

And before you all get excited and call this a threat, stop and actually think about it for a change. You do not work in a privileged environment in which you get to say anything you want without consequence. I have responsibilities which I will not abdicate just because some of you feel it is un Wikipedia-like to talk about articles outside of Wikipedia. Tom Butler (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom, barely any of that applies to my edit. My edit is about the roots of the interest in spirit recordings and has nothing to do with modern day research, the AA-EVP, or any type of modern-day religion, modern-day science, or modern-anything. I'm into history, know a lot about the history of paranormal topics especially, and that's where most of my contributions on this article center around, aside from general neutrality checks. Doesn't have anything to do with you or your organization. If you want to add a sourced statement that divorces modern-day research from its roots, I won't object. Lack of discussion? This whole section discusses it. Only one who supports it? You're the only one who's commented about rejecting it. Sorry, historical framing is important in encyclopedic articles and the non-history-related stuff is what you're talking about. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated

---

Antelan, you don't like it when I archive stuff. Would you mind archiving as much of this pages as you can? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

---

So long as you don't archive sections with active discussions, there's no problem. The last time you archived, several people had responded in a thread no more than 12 hours before you moved it to the annals of history. That's why I wanted you to de-archive, although you never acted on that request. Antelan ^talk 06:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. No one but you seemed to care, and you didn't want to post. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You do recognize that archiving current, active discussions isn't a Good Thing, right? Antelan ^talk 06:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And you do realize that capitalizing Good Thing means that Good is an absolute, and a Thing, and it would be hard not to get God out of that? Yeah, I realize. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about with that last edit, but like I said, feel free to carefully archive. Antelan ^talk 18:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Change the tone a little

Will the real ScienceApologist please stand up? Isn't there a reason for blocks? Rracecarr, you are following in SA's footsteps by calling ITC researchers "delusional crazies." And you all wonder why I am confrontational in Wikipedia.

It is not necessary to characterize the subject beyond what is evident. For instance, why not write the article in the tone of "Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are described as sections of voice-like sounds on electronic recording media that are interpreted by paranormal researchers as voices speaking words." I have taken out the "EVP enthusiasts" part and added "are described as." Also, radios do not record, so I removed it as a technical inaccuracy.

By the way, in the third paragraph, "deceased spirits" is an oxymoron. If you have to use "spirit" then please recognize that in a religious context, spirits are what survives the physical body and are therefore consided to be living. Tom Butler (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine changes, the whole lot. Antelan ^talk 18:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The opening sentence to this article reads:

"Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are sections of voice-like sounds [A] on the radio or other electronic recording media that are interpreted by EVP enthusiasts who call themselves paranormal researchers [B & C] as voices speaking words[D]."

A) "Voice like sounds" is a mischaracterisation of the phenomenon for the reason cited above - ie. many examples of alleged EVP are voices.

B)"enthusiasts who call themselves" is misleading and pejorative because to say "X calls himself a Y" implies that there is some dubiety about X being a Y (it actually means X isn't really a Y). But as Nealparr has shown above with copious sources "paranormal researchers" is how the people being referred to are described everywhere else one cares to look.

C) "interpreted by EVP enthusiasts who call themselves paranormal researchers" is misleading because the vast majority of people who believe that EVP are of paranormal origin (if we ever actually get to the paranormal point - which is the nub of the issue) are just ordinary members of the public who happen to believe in paranormal phenomena.

D)"interpreted [...] as voices speaking words" is misleading because: a) many are voices and so are correctly identified as such rather than interpreted; b) because it lodges the issue of interpretation/belief in the wrong place. That is it lodges it against the "voice/not voice" claim which is a very poor second behind the "paranormal/non-paranormal" claim which is actually what the whole issue is surrounding EVP. And c) because if the point you really want to make is only ythe one about interpretation as voices then this will extend the numbers of those who interpret them that way into almost everyone who has ever heard them, e.g., Raymond above who accepts that the examples I provided are "obviously voices".

This is a really horrible way to start an article.LionelStarkweather (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Then propose an alternative. Antelan ^talk 23:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed- got an alternative? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

How about something like this:

Electronic Voice Phenomenon (EVP) refers to the purported manifestation of voices and sounds of paranormal origin on electronic media such as radios and tape recorders (Baruss). Proponents of EVP commonly attribute the phenomenon to communication from ghosts or spirits (Baruss), although others have suggested alien communications or psychokinesis from the living as possible explanations (whatever source the article currently uses). Skeptics of the paranormal have offered radio interference, hoaxes, artifacts due to low quality equipment and auditory pareidolia as more likely explanations for the apparent phenomenon. (skepdic)

We could also then get rid of the repetitive third paragraph which can now be left to the "explanations" section.LionelStarkweather (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is fine, but leave out the word "purported," as everything "paranormal" is purported- see the adequate framing section of the paranormal ArbCom, and also where they specifically address that word. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the current lead to a version I think is best. It is better than the proposed versions because it clarifies that EVP is found in noise and it focuses on the major explanations (ghosts). ScienceApologist (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, I not that you have changed the intro back to the false claim that alleged EVP are actually static. How do you account for the examples of alleged EVP identified above that are obviously not static but voices. There is quite a bit of discussion of this point above and virtually everyone is in agreement that to claim EVP is mere static is false. LionelStarkweather (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no examples which skeptic and believer alike believe to be actual voices. See below. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Baruss, as a sceptical scientist, said that he found "voices on tapes" during his experiment. So we have both proponents and sceptical scientific researchers acknowledging that at least some potential EVP are voices. Please also note that my intro doesn't explicitly claim that EVP are voices, but it removes the obvious falsehood that they are all static (see below).LionelStarkweather (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. He found them in static. We don't need to call these things voices any more than we need to call UFOs "spacecraft". ScienceApologist (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The EVP equivalent of UFO=ET Spacecraft is not EVP=Voice, but EVP=Paranormal Voice. So just as skeptics claim that some alleged UFOs are misidentified air/spacecraft (ie. craft but just not ET spacecraft), they also claim that some alleged EVP are misinterpreted voices of mundane origin (i.e. voices but not paranormal voices). And so just as we should not begin the UFO article, "UFOs are clouds interpreted as craft" (one explanation for part of that phenomenon), so we should not begin the EVP article, "EVP are sections of static". In both cases we would be mischaracterising the phenomenon in order to accommodate one partial skeptical explanation at the expense of all the others. Not only does this underplay the skeptical assessment of the phenomenon and make them look silly, it would also make the articles look silly. I therefore still don't understand why you are so intent on opening the article with an obvious falsehood.LionelStarkweather (talk) 09:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say "ET Spacecraft". I said "spacecraft". ScienceApologist (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I know but I added that so your argument made sense, without the addition of ET we could have safely said that some UFOs were (misidentified) spacecraft, e.g, the shuttle.LionelStarkweather (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I was saying. Does anyone ever say that UFO are unequivocally spacecraft? No. Because in the case where everyone agrees they are spacecraft they magically become IFOs. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Voice versus not voices red herring

Resolved

 – There are no reliable sources indicating that there exists even one EVP example that everyone agrees is a voice.

Resolved

 – There are no reliable sources indicating that there exists even one EVP example that everyone agrees is not of clear paranormal origin. So what!

That some reported EVP may be stray radio signals is true. That there are examples of EVP that people claim to be EVP even after verifying the fact that they are stray radio sources is not true. Therefore, there are no verifiable reports of EVP which are simultaneously believed by skeptic and believer alike to be "voices" (that is, once it can be verified that the EVP is a radio source, there aren't very many EVP believers who will pretend that their proposed example is an honest-to-god EVP). Most EVP, in fact, are just examples of people listening to static under weird enough conditions and for long enough for them to decide that they hear voices in the noise. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, using Joe Banks' Ghost Orchid CD as an example of something that somebody actually thinks is EVP is disingenuous. From what I understand of Rorschach Audio Project, they were trying to debunk EVP by providing examples of the stuff for which they knew the source. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

First, the Ghost Orchid isn't by Joe Banks! It's a collection of recordings from various EVP researchers including Raymond Cass and Raudive. Banks only wrote one section of the sleeve notes. Second, my intro doesn't actually say EVP are voices, it leaves this question open but moves away from the obviously false claim that they are in fact static (see, for example, the samples identified above). That intro, your intro, simply takes one part of the sceptical explanation (an explanation for only part of the phenomenon) and defines EVP in terms of that. The voice argument above (and the samples - have you listened to them) is only meant to show why doing this makes the article look silly. That is, it is silly to open an article with an obvious falsehood. Thus my improved intro above.LionelStarkweather (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody claim that the Ghost Orchid CD is still an accurate representation of EVP samples? In other words, do people listening to the rf interference really believe it is not rf interference? If so, can you point me in the direction of these people so I can determine whether their weird opinion deserves accommodating in this encyclopedia? If not, then stop this argument. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The examples on the Ghost Orchid are by Raymond Cass and Konstantin Raudive. Two of the foremost researchers in the history of the topic. As such their samples form an integral part of the phenomenon's back catalogue. That being said, the samples were only intended to show that the opening unsourced statement is obviously false - Tom Butler has provided further links to "obvious voice" examples as well, so we now have even more evidence for its falsity. It is therefore not clear why anyone would prefer an inaccurate, false and unsourced claim over a true, accurate and reputably sourced one.LionelStarkweather (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a poor argument. You need to provide a source for your claim. Your opinion that things are "obvious voices" is irrelevant. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The article on Raudive asserts that he was a scientist but hardly presents much evidence for this claim; that for Cass is hilarious (His work with electronic voice phenomenon (EVP) helped him make friends all over the world who had interests in this field). If these are two of the foremost researchers, I don't expect to see any breakthrough announced in Nature any time soon. -- Hoary (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hoary, what is your point here? That a couple of Wiki articles aren't very good and so we should start a further article with an obvious falsehood!LionelStarkweather (talk) 09:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the resolution to this discussion is as follows: LionelStarweather thinks that some EVP are actually voices. Therefore he thinks that the lead should indicate that some EVP are actually voices. Unfortunately, his only source to back this up is a CD that includes recordings from people studying EVP in the past and there is no indication that people today believe these examples are EVP. I consider the matter resolved. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have said repeatedly that my intro DOES NOT say any are voices. However, the article already has the acknowledgement from skeptics that some alleged EVP are voices so even if the intro did say this there would be no problem. I have also explained that the examples are from Raudive and Cass which nobody to my knowledge has even claimed that they are no longer considered examples of alleged EVP.LionelStarkweather (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You have pointed to no sources which state under no uncertain terms that both EVP believer and skeptic attribute the alleged EVP to voices. None. All you've done is pointed us to examples and posited that skeptics and believers alike find them to be voices. This is not good enough. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's already in the article under the mainstream explantions: "Certain EVP recordings, especially those recorded on devices which contain RLC circuitry, represent radio signals of voices or other sounds from broadcast sources.[34]" I had already pointed this out but you were too busy being right to notice it. LionelStarkweather (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but it's not clear that the EVP enthusiast thinks that anything verified to be a radio signal really is an EVP (since that's no longer in the noise). We had this issue earlier where EVP-proponents argued that this isn't an explanation for EVP. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The skeptics are not claiming to have discovered the actual broadcast source of specific examples of EVP. They are offering a theoretical explanation for those cases that are clearly voices and are recorded in a certain way. That is, they are saying that certain examples of EVP are almost certainly from broadcast sources (Occam's Razor) and they don't need to track down the source to show this. All they need show is the possibility of it happening. Proponents on the other hand reject this explanation. So we have both sides agreeing that some EVP are voices but disagreeing about the origin. Exactly the same argument applies to the hoax and the "ordinary voice picked up by accident" explanations. That is, no skeptic is claiming that example A is a hoax and example B is an accident. They are simply saying that even where EVP are obvious voices there is no need to invoke the paranormal. They do this in exactly the same way they can accept that a UFO eyewitness saw a structured craft and offer misidentification of known aircraft without having to track down the craft itself.LionelStarkweather (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Enthusiast

Is a word used for hobbyists [7] Before entering that word, imagine it said "hobbyist" instead, and think how unencyclopedic it sounds. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is unencyclopedic about that word; in fact, that's probably the most appropriate word to use in some situations, this article among them. Antelan ^talk 02:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is unencyclopedic about the term when you're talking about snowboarding, parachuting, or rock climbing. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Our terminology is asymmetric: paranormal adherents are "researchers," while others are mere "skeptics." Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with you changing skeptic to something more explanatory. I'm only checking this particular set of weird POV words. At least skeptic is something skeptics self-describe as. If you'd like to call it audio engineers, audio scientists, or whatever else, won't be me complaining. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The word skeptic is a proud thing, not something that can denigrate when put in the wrong context. Arritt must have a very low opinion of skeptics, else there would be no question about calling them that. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Skeptic is just like any other word. Some people are best described as skeptics, and when it's the best word for the job, let's use it. There are better words here. Antelan ^talk 04:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The point here is that while "skeptic" clearly lets the reader know the POV of the person/groups we are talking about, "researcher" is ambiguous. Find a better term. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I was involved in conversations here but have to get back to a wiki-break. I stand by my points above, but can't support them while I'm gone. Go wild : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

New Intro

I have changed the intro because in three days of pointless off-topic arguing nobody has yet come up with, or even tried to come up with, any reason why the article should start with an unsourced falsehood.LionelStarkweather (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. You're going to have to do better than simply posit a falsehood. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because something is false doesn't mean it should be included on that basis alone. I have also pointed out you have no source. So, neither true, nor verifiable.LionelStarkweather (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have plenty of sources. All you need to do is read the AAEVP's page on best-practices for collecting EVP and you realize that they are listening in the static. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an article about the AAEVP or their methods of recording. It is an article about EVP and all the methods used to record alleged samples. You cannot simple splice off one method and then define the whole phenomenon in terms of that.LionelStarkweather (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source that indicates any other methods currently in use by EVP believers? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Macrae for one that is currently in the article.LionelStarkweather (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And Meek with his spiricom - please note there is no need for this to be current since the article is not about current EVP research alone but about EVP.LionelStarkweather (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

ALPHA generates its static through use of white noise fluctations in electrodermal responses (much the same way an e-meter does). Again, that's looking at static. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And Spiricom also takes static and simply resamples it. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing one aspect of the means of producing a phenomenon with the definition of the phenomenon. What EVP is, and why there is an article about it, is that is is the purported manifestation of paranormal voices on electronic media. How such purported manifestations are caused to appear on the media is for another section but not for the introductory definition. This is especially so when that aspect of the means of production looks indistinguishable from an offered explanation for some cases of the phenomena. Please note that there is nothing inconsistent in my definition inasmuch as it doesn't say static is not involved. LionelStarkweather (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In any event, all I ever started editing this article for was that I had read a little about EVP after watching White Noise and thought the intro here made the article look stupid - after all, many alleged examples of EVP are VOICES and not static. After wasting nearly a week of my life on stupid arguments with stupid people with stupid axes to grind I don't think I'll be troubling you any more here. I simply don't believe that all you (ScienceApologist) are trying to do is write an accurate introduction. I looked at your talk page and it is evident that what you want to do here is define EVP in terms of one skeptical explanation for a part of that phenomenon so that that view is presented before a reader even gets a chance to find out what EVP are supposed to be. That you choose to pretend by a variety of deliberate point missing, half truths, and arrogant disingenuity that that is not what you are doing simply doesn't wash. For the record, I don't believe EVP is paranormal, and nothing I tried to write in any way supported the notion that it was. My definition could virtually have been lifted direct from Skepdic, "Electronic voice phenomenon is the alleged communication by spirits through tape recorders and other electronic devices", but you're so busy with your agenda that you probably didn't even notice this. Happy editing.LionelStarkweather (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Moving on

Given that Lionel has stated above that he has given up, are there any objections to reverting to the other version after protection ends? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

At the moment your version looks a bit messy (no doubt a consequence of too many disputes), and doesn't take into account evp's which are the result of fakery or interference rather than just white noise. Other than that I'm reasonably happy. Jefffire (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, can you propose an alternative sentence? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

From an outside observer, the ScienceApologist intro is pretty badly POV- the general tone seems to suggest that it is only considered real by a fringe group. Example:

"that are interpreted by some people who believe in the subject and call themselves paranormal researchers"

This can't be determined from just one source. The citation in the lead is certainly a debunking report, but if you look on the internet, you'll find plenty of claims to the contrary. The current version (as of the moment it was locked) is much more NPOV as it states what EVP is, and gives a couple of sentences explaining the theory and rebuff. If you go with the alternate lead, it's almost certainly going to wind up with an NPOV tag. 130.101.100.106 (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This topic is pretty ridiculous, almost to the point of patent nonsense. Almost everyone who believes in this stuff is basically a moron or an absolute wacko, so it's a little difficult to write an intro that they would find fair. Nevertheless, we are instructed by Wikipedia to write an article with wording that follows NPOV. That's our goal. The perceived slights by those who believe in EVP is not our concern. Since there is no "theory" to speak of, nor is their really anything more to this than the pop-culture significance of it, we are basically charged with writing an article about something that is simply so preposterous that it's "not even wrong". We'll continue to pursue a neutral wording given that we must maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(same anon as above) Well just as much as you think they're a moron or a wacko, an EVP believer would just as quickly say you're refusing clear evidence (clear to them, that is). One side accusing the other side of being stupid for believing or not believing will send you around in circles. The thing I see with the non-current version is this: it had changed the definition to something along the lines of "EVP is a pattern of white noise". That's not really accurate. EVP is the capturing of a voice on an audio recording; the disagreement is whether it actually occurs. To rephrase, it doesn't come down to what EVP is, it's whether there's any actual evidence to put it beyond the stage of someone's idea. A better way of phrasing it would be something like "EVP is the idea of capturing voices through audio recording. No scientific evidence has been presented that it exists." Of course, substitute "no evidence" with unclear evidence, debatable evidence, etc., whatever the consensus can reach. The article details the alternate explanations quite well. I know things have been deadlocked here, just thought I'd throw in the idea. 130.101.90.31 (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course they would dispute me. That's their problem, though. The issue is that EVP believers are a fringe belief. This article falls under our guidelines for covering such theories. As such, we aren't bound by their peculiar promotionalism. EVP is looking in static for noise that resembles voices to the person looking for the EVP. That's it's honest to goodness definition. I don't think anyone even disagrees with this. This is how we will put it in the lead of this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Outdent It depends on what supports it being a fringe belief- of course, all the skeptic journals say it's fake and all the paranormal journals say it's real. A hypothesis isn't automatically a fringe idea from the day it's thought up. It really comes down to how many people stand on each side of the debate. If that could be quantified I think we could end a lot of the tug-of-war that goes on over the wording. Has a poll ever been done (by a third party, not one that purports or denies EVP) that tells what percentage of the population believes it is real? If it's a tiny minority, then of course it's a fringe idea, but if it's even close to 50/50 then it's at least not fringe thinking, even if it's not accepted by everyone. Of course, the argument can be made that the general public is gullible, etc., but for the purpose of an encyclopedia, that's about the best neutral indicator we could go by.

Come to think of it, having a numerical statistic in the article could eliminate some of the "generally accepted"/"generally refuted" type of word bickering, since we'd have it quantified.

It would really be great to get the initial wording down in an NPOV way due to how much the article contains already. There is a great deal of information included for both sides, with good sources, it just comes down to which side is right and which side is wrong, and that's personal opinion. And thought I'd point out about the definition, clearly some people disagree, because it started an edit war. It stands to reason that if a neutral ground isn't struck it will never be anything but an edit war. 130.101.90.31 (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, paranormal journals are hardly independent reliable sources on the matter. I'm not sure what you mean by "skeptical journals". Most journals I know of have never had an article on the subject at all. I don't really think "sides" is an appropriate way to frame this discussion. Rather, what we should be thinking about is what is verifiable and what is neutral, keeping in mind that this is not a walled garden. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

By sides, I mean finge/doesn't exist vs. not fringe/real. Neutral should encompass both proportional to how many believe either way, unless it's an overwhelming majority, in which case the tiny minority would fit under WP:FRINGE. For example, if it could be determined that 60% of the population believes it's made up, and 40% thinks it's real, the article should balance what is included on either side based on that, rather than an overwhelming slant in either direction (real or fake). The major thing is, it shouldn't be considered fringe unless there is some way to support that. If it's simply a lack of reliable evidence, but much of society thinks it's real regardless, it's unfounded and unproven, but not a fringe idea, and the article should reflect that.

A neutral wording would go along the line of the phenomenon being proposed to exist- EVP is an idea that may or may not be real. It would then presenting evidence or purported evidence as well as other explanations that can logically explain what we're hearing. The evidence and logical explanations are already in place in this article; it really comes down to how many people believe it. 130.101.90.31 (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there seriously any sizable group that actually claim EVP collection is not a fringe activity? I've yet to see one person who believes in EVP so deluded that they don't recognize their own marginalization. Neutrality isn't about balancing proportional to the number believing a certain way. If that were the case, the evolution article would look far different. No, rather, the way we achieve neutrality is by considering reliable sourcing. There is a sincere lack of reliable sourcing on this matter: almost to the point where the very existence of the article is questionable. Nevertheless, we have been able to tease enough reliable 3rd party sources out to establish some modicum of independence for adequate sourcing and framing.

The problem with claiming the phenomenon is "proposed" to exist is that the people doing the "proposing" are not qualified in the academic sense to make such a proposal. There aren't any reliable sources who make any sort of testable proposal. While the scientific method can be applied to anything, no matter how outlandish, Wikipedia is not designed to simply parrot the wild accusations of a few nutjobs. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide "evidence" either: it's to report on what is verifiable and reliably sourced. As it is, the most reliable sources we have on this so-called "phenomenon" consign it nearly to patent nonsense.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It certainly makes sense that WP can't cater to every proposal, it just comes down to how many people believe in it. We don't need RS to determine it is real, just that people perceive it to exist. The question of if it really occurs is a separate matter. 130.101.152.70 (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy on the number of people that must believe in an idea in order for Wikipedia to "cater" to the idea. We need reliable sourcing to describe it. Whether people perceive this or that supposed phenomenon's existence is immaterial. The material question is one which necessarily concerns us -- especially when we are dealing with something that is fringe. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It is material- if a decent number of people believe it, it's not fringe. I've yet to see anything that can conclusively declare it a fringe science. The question of whether it's scientifically proven should be in the article, but we shouldn't shun the existence of a concept if it's widely recognized. There isn't scientific evidence behind creationism, but it has quite the impact nonetheless, e.g. the political battles that surround it. Because of that, it would be wrong to ignore it completely. Politicians certainly don't argue over EVP, but if it's a widely accepted concept, it should be stated as such. I would argue the labeling of this as fringe science is a rush to judgment unless we can quantify it. If we can't, in the name of neutrality, we should assume it's about half and half, believers and non-believers. In that case, it needs to be equally presented. That's why I like the idea of calling it a concept, idea, etc., because it doesn't support or deny its reality.

To put it simply, we shouldn't say it doesn't even qualify as a real concept, unless it can be proven that the general public is in agreement with that statement. Most people in the world don't believe the Holocaust deniers, but look at that article's opening: "Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II...did not occur..." EVP may be all in people's heads, but if enough people believe it, it's notable in that regard.

As for WP:RS, sources need to demonstrate that a sizable number of people at least think it's real. Searching for "EVP" in YouTube pulls 2,780 hits (I count less than five in the first 100 that referred to a different meaning of "EVP"). These aren't all by a couple of users, either; I only see a couple of user names that pop up more than once in the search results. Clearly a large number of people believe it exists, even if it amounts to their mind playing tricks. If people believe it, it's notable, and if it's notable, it shouldn't be discarded. 130.101.152.30 (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what all the fuss is about the introduction. At the moment it is line with, almost verbatim, the one essentially scientific source that is cited in the article (Imants Baruss). In his article he says that "Electronic voice phenomenon (EVP) refers to the purported manifestation of voices of the dead and other discarnate entities through electronic means." That seems much fairer than to say that EVP are sections of static that some people who believe in EVP believe to be voices. Additionally, Baruss, a skeptical scientist, even acknowledges that in his experiments he found "voices" on his tapes, and while he rejects a paranormal explanation for those voices, this fact alone would seem to put paid to the idea that they can neutrally be described as nothing more than static interpreted as voices. Zeticulan (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the analogy I thought of with this: you can define "automobile" two ways. 1) A mode of transportation; 2) A 2,000 pound steel object. Both are technically correct, but the second leaves out, basically, the whole point of the word we're defining. 130.101.20.159 (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please DO NOT revert the intro without discussion. Thank you. 130.101.152.5 (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Spiricom, again

Are there any sources in existence which can prove the success either way of the Spiricom? I've listened to the Spiricom MP3s and I'm totally unconvinced. Jonah Lark's comment in the archives regarding vocal fricatives made interesting reading and made me further doubt the authenticity of the Spiricom recordings. The page in it's current form seems to only support the theory for other devices not working as down to the operator's lack of "psychic abilities", rather than the very credible possibility that the original Spiricom was a blatant hoax. Also, other pages and sound recordings on the WorldITC website which purport to be of Mark Macy talking in the 90s to Konstantin Raudive (who died 20 years earlier) makes me think the entire website (not the whole of EVP, but just worlditc.org and The Spiricom) is just a massive hoax. Can someone prove me wrong, as I like to have an open mind on these things... Davetibbs (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

edit request

How about including the classes ghost hunters use to rate EVPs based on clarity? This seems to be brought up frequently when they are posted online, e.g. Youtube (including a proliferation of "class C" EVPs that are totally undiscernable). Source: [8] (Google cache because their server was down last time I checked). 130.101.20.161 (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A bit unreliable as a source. Wikipedia is not for something made up in school one day. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well there are more out there:

• [9]
• [10] (this link especially as the site is dedicated to EVP)
• [11]
• [12] (bottom of page)
• [13] (middle of page)

These are all sites by "paranormal researchers"/"ghost hunters"/whatever you want to refer to them as, but they're all in agreement. This would also be useful for the denial of EVP existance, as many claimed class-C EVP's basically amount to wind noise (the definition in these sites blatantly states that class-C do not have discernable words; in fact, class B is defined as not quite discernable). Personally, I'd think this would help bridge the debate on this article, as it shows the various levels of how much people will believe- do they need to hear every word with perfect clarity or will they jump at the slightest hiss or pop? Just my two cents. 130.101.90.31 (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately we'll do that, yes, at least down to class C. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd rather see something that wasn't a primary source per our guidelines on sourcing. Anyone can make up "classes" and then others might love it, but primary sources don't tell us whether this is something worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. There needs to be evidence that people elsewhere have taken note of this classification scheme. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense; this is one of those things that you see used on TV and youtube but it isn't brought up much in the print world. Did the person the article lists as popularizing the idea write any books about it? If it was their idea, that's where it would be. 130.101.90.31 (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is a recent invention, but I'm willing to be shown to be wrong. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You know I think it might be all right by WP:PSTS- it's describing the primary source, not synthesizing from it. After all, we'd be looking at wording to the tune of "EVP recorders use a classification scheme...". It's really about how many sources need to say that before it's considered to generally apply. Sounds like something people should chime in on, and let the consensus decide. 130.101.90.31 (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the primary sources we use seem a bit parochial. It would be better to have a source that is referenced by an outsider. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of good sources for the classification scheme, in print and also at authoritative websites. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

How about this about.com link. Many of About's pages are WP mirrors but this one is not. It is, however, from a source that is not a paranormal association. 130.101.152.30 (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

One could, but there are much better sources for what EVP experimenters believe and practice, such as the AA-EVP, or the printed books by experimenters. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

AAEVP is not quite good enough to source this. They make up all kinds of things at their website. What would be best is if we found someone who didn't believe in EVP reporting on the classification scheme (per WP:FRINGE#Independent sources). Barring that, if we could find one of the people mentioned in our article (like Raudive, for example) who used the classification scheme, at least that would be more authoritative than some website that Tom Butler made up one day. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The section cited says that "fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe", and only says that independent sources are needed "when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories". The issue here is about something that proponents do (that is, they categorize EVP in a certain way) and so the AAEVP is, according to that particular section, an "excellent source" for this information.Zeticulan (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You're correct. Are you the same editor as the IP above? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. I've only made the two comments here. Zeticulan (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So is there a suggestion of exactly what to put in? There are plenty of good sources for this, as it is a statement of what EVPers believe. The AA-EVP, Tom Butler's book, etc. etc. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we could say that "Many researchers categorize EVP in terms of the clarity of the recordings. For example, according to the AAEVP [substitute source here], Class A EVP are X, Class B are Y, and Class C are Z." I think that is fairly uncontroversial although some might object to the idea that any supposed EVP are clear at all (see the discussion above). We might want to make it very clear that this is a classification system used by a specific group. Unsure if that would suffice.Zeticulan (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Those aren't independent sources. We need independent sources to determine if this classification scheme is worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm the person using the IPs above, User:Zeticulan is not me, but thanks for the input. As for independent sources, that's why I suggest the about.com link- they aren't a paranormal organization. However, I agree with MartinPhi and Zeticulan that if it's a rating scheme used by paranormal researchers, those researchers should be a good source. I think SA's question is whether or not this system is used often enough to take the paranormal researcher's word on it. If that's the case, the About link should suffice; however, we need a ref from a paranormal source as well, such as AA-EVP, to show that this isn't something created by non-believers that believers don't actually use. If we use two links in that way, it demonstrates it as both in-world usage and general usage. 130.101.20.159 (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

About.com is not really a reliable source. I think we should do better than that. What we really need is a third-party source that describes the prominence of the system. Just because people believe in it doesn't mean that it deserves detailed mention on Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Let us be perfectly clear, and get it out once and for all- and not have to talk about it any more: there is no need for independent sources or reliable sources for saying something that EVPers believe. All we have to do is have sources that say they say they believe it. We do not need to have sources which independently gave them lie detector tests to prove they really believe it. In fact, we do have sources which state that this is what they believe and the ranking method they use, and that is completely and totally sufficient. 130.101.20.159 stated it well (and you should get a username (-: ). I can also provide print sources for the ranking system. Also, the AA-EVP is a good source for stating the prominence of the method within EVP circles. If they don't state it directly, then Estep's book and a few others should do- we don't need to have a statement of prominence of the method, if a lot of the best sources, like Estep, Butler, the AA-EVP etc. use it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment MartinPhi! I have a username actually. I didn't use it often to start with, then I came across the paranormal articles and related furor. As I stated at the SA suspected sock report that I and zeticulan are socks of a user named Dakval, I didn't want to use my name in this mess for fear of wikistalking and off-wiki harassment. I edit a lot of articles on other subjects and can just picture them getting invaded. 130.101.152.6 (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My, my, Davkal's using a New York State Dept of Transportation computer? Be glad he isn't a terrorist, we'd all be dead. You're being very wise in being circumspect. I'm retired from WP. For now anyway, till things have turned around. As far as I can see at WP:FRINGE, the prominence of a fringe subject, once established, may be fleshed out with in-universe sources so long as proper WP:ATT attribution is used. One does not have to establish from a mainstream source that a particular part of a fringe idea is notable to the mainstream- merely that the fringe idea as a whole is so notable. Take if from there for me! ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 09:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi seems to be under the impression that Wikipedia can serve as an "in-universe" clearinghouse for the beliefs of paranormal promoters. This is plainly not what Wikipedia is. We discuss things on Wikipedia relative to their notability, prominence, and verifiability to reliable sources. It is clear that the believers in the paranormal have a hard time producing sources that are reliable: it's their lot in life to be relegated to the fringes of mainstream society and academia (the places where Wikipedia relies most heavily for research to be conducted). As such, we are under a specific mandate by the content guidelines and policies to make sure that what we write about in this encyclopedia that is relevant to WP:FRINGE is covered using the best editorial techniques we have available. There is nothing intrinsically wrong about using a paranormal believer's personal website to source that particular paranormal believer's ideas about the world: but we absolutely must establish that the particular paranormal believer's beliefs are necessary for inclusion. We can only use such sources to provide a full "explanation" of the subject in question if we also take into consideration that no original research is allowed. Self-published works and websites are essentially original research when they begin to talk about things beyond the personal opinions of the author. Unfortunately, almost everything that the AAEVP includes beyond their statements about the history of their organization and their particular outlook is that sort of original research and will sooner or later be removed from this article. This article is standing right now as a soapbox for the beliefs of a select few of those who think that ghosts live in their radios and believe counterfactually to have a legitimate research group studying this supposed phenomenon. They are free to believe this and publish about this to their heart's content on their own web-servers. This is not, however, the point of Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's ultimately a question of whether EVP has enough of a following to be notable. This article was AfD'ed way back in 2004, and there was a unanimous opinion that it was notable enough. One "keep" was based on 6510 g-hits of "electronic voice phenomenon" being enough to warrant inclusion. I'm now getting 61,800. Obviously, this is catching paranormal sites like AA-EVP, but I also found an article on an independent news site; a page on a website that isn't paranormal, but seems to be predicting the end of the world due to global warming and other ideas (this one also mentions class A,B,C); and an article on an online newsletter that deals mainly with Islam issues. "EVP" gets 7.7 million g-hits; I count about half a dozen in the first four results pages that aren't about electronic voice phenomena, proving at least that this is the most common meaning of "EVP". As I mentioned before, "EVP" also throws 3,156 google video hits; I see three in the first forty results that aren't related, and after clicking every video in the first results page (ten per page), found all ten to be from different people (all were YouTube, all different user names). Also, I'll point out the television show Ghost Hunters; while someone who doesn't believe in ghosts would consider the show complete garbage, they record for EVPs in every episode. Surely usage on a nationally televised program would demonstrate some notability. (Unless, of course, they invented it, but webpages, various EVP-related groups (e.g. AA-EVP), and even the AfD predate the show by some time). I would definitely argue that, regardless of it's scientific verifiability, it still has a large enough following to satisfy WP:N.

I'll stress, however, that we've got a bit off-topic here. The article survived the AfD, so we don't need to assert notability on this one; there's already been a consensus. It does mean, however, that paranormal-related sources should be valid for describing things such as the class system. Your soapbox comment about AA-EVP is valid. The AA-EVP should not be cited to support a statement that EVP is real; however, it should be fine in regards to methods of recording purported EVPs, the ranking system used, etc. 130.101.20.144 (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not arguing that this page should be deleted. I am arguing that we should find people other than EVP-believers to source our text. As it is, I have yet to see a source from a non-believer discussing "classes" of EVP. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Noted. I'll point out that it would be pretty pointless for a non-believer to classify something they don't believe in. From a non-believer standpoint, all EVPs are false, so why split them into classes? Therefore, only a source that is at least by a believer (though not necessarily a group devoted to EVP, like AA-EVP) is going to use such a system. I'd personally like to see the classes included because it shows the spectrum of believability. I believe that EVPs happen, and I've heard a few class-A ones that I find convincing. I've also heard more than one class-C, that by no means of imagination could I pick out any sound that even remotely resembled a human voice. (A bit like ghost photos, I've seen some real ones, but 99.99% of the time "orbs" are dust, plain and simple.) As I pointed out with the about.com link and the Armageddon link in my last post, the best independent sources that seems to be out there are based off of summaries of pro-EVP sources. 130.101.100.108 (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Even a simple acknowledgement by independent sources that different classes exist would suffice. The problem is, we don't want the article to become more of a soapbox. However, I'm not holding my breath. I think the classificaiton system was invented simply to create the appearance of believability -- a common feature of pseudoscientific promotionalism. By the way, are you sure the class A you heard wasn't radio interference? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've heard a few. What usually convinces me is when the voice comes as an answer to a question, e.g., the ghost hunter asks if anyone is in the room, we hear "yes"; the ghost hunter asks for the name of a person believed to be in the room, we hear a common name. It's possible it's interference, but it would be a huge coincidence to coincide with the question. Something like this (around 42/43 second mark) or this, an EVP labeled as class "A" where a girl is yelling at her brother, and the purported EVP says "all sisters mean". That's my opinion, of course.

I can understand the concern of it being a recent invention. I found one page on a paranormal website that traces the classes to Sarah Estep, who founded AA-EVP. The AA-EVP actually says she got it from someone else. Estep first published it in 1988, in her book Voices of Eternity, which another AA-EVP page (see bottom) has a PDF download of (classes are on page 14). Amazon.com confirms the date of publication as 1988. The page above listing Estep's source credits it to Konstantin Raudive. Raudive published it in a paper, Breakthrough, which is linked to in the above page. The wikipedia page for Raudive says he published Breakthrough in 1971. The sources of that article aren't great, but the source that is there lists his date of death as 1974, so it can't be newer than that. 130.101.100.108 (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is source hockey. We need that actual cite to Raudive if we're going to proceed. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Outdent Fair enough. I tried to point out, but maybe wasn't clear, that a large portion of Raudive's Breakthrough is at one of the above links. It's linked to from this one; the direct link is here. The mention of the classes is in section 4.1, "Microphone Recording", starting at the sixth paragraph. He goes into pretty good detail about what each category entails. 130.101.152.66 (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Good. Now we need to establish that this classification scheme by Raudive is worthy of inclusion in this article. We need some editorial reason as to why these three classifications are more relevant than other parts of Raudive's exhaustive book. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

First, most in-universe sources mention it already, including AA-EVP, which hits at the top of a google search for EVP and electronic voice phenomenon. Additionally, we have the about.com link, which is an internet "overview" type of website. Also there's the mentioned link here and helium.com, which is a new site to me.

For a general look, searching google for "EVP class" (unquoted) gets 288,000 g-hits. As stated above, searching for EVP hits almost exclusively electronic voice phenomenon related links. At least ³/₄ of the 288,000 are related to electronic voice phenomenon. 130.101.152.17 (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This really isn't what I'm asking for. What I want is an outside (not in-universe) source that establishes that this part of Raudive's book is somehow relevant to this subject. I also don't want a search engine test. I want a secondary or tertiary source. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clear things up: 130.101.152.17, I don't know how much experience you've had, but here is the principle: once the notability of a subject is established by a mainstream source, in that the source gives the subject extensive coverage:

"In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory."

After that,

"fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe."

This includes the notability of various perspectives to the adherents of those perspectives. Thus, once WP:NOTABILITY is established by a WP:V source, the article can be fully fleshed out with fringe sources to a level of detail which is equal to that which appears in the sources, as long as we are careful to follow WP:ATT. This is all per WP:FRINGE, from which the quotes are taken. It is true that FRINGE is only a guideline, not a policy, but it should probably be followed in this case. If I am wrong, perhaps a quote from FRINGE or somewhere else can be provided, saying that each subject covered in an article on a fringe subject needs to have its Notability established by a mainstream WP:V source. Otherwise, we are placing un-needed restrictions on this article, and wasting our time doing it.

The AA-EVP is the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena [14]. It is at least the primary American organization for EVP, the in-universe equivalent of, say, the AAAS. It thus speaks for the consensus of the field in general to a considerable degree (as shown by the fact that it has a large, paying member base), and is a good source for the general agreement of EVP practitioners. It is one of the primary sources upon which this article should be based, along with the books from the main experimenters in this field.

In addition, we are quite at liberty to include the original research of others. Those are called "secondary sources" or "primary sources" [15] . In this case, for in-universe information, the AA-EVP is a secondary source for general information, and sometimes a primary source. What we are not allowed to do is include our own research. If Tom Butler came and tried to insert his own opinion in the article, without references outside the AA-EVP, it might be OR on his part. However, if we source to "Tom Butler, Director of the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena," as an expert in the field, we are just doing our job. [16] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom Butler is not an expert in anything but his own opinions. The AAEVP is not a professional organization and has no standards for scholarship. The entire subject suffers from rank amateurism and lack of rigor. This is something that will be addressed in future incarnations of this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi covers my point as does the search engine test. My point is that, with the number of hits from the search engine test, we have notability of this particular class system. Therefore, inside sources should be fine. Besides, I demonstrated a tertiary source. The About.com link is not a reliable source when used as a means of information, but that's not why we would use it here. The point is that About.com, a non-paranormal website, has seen fit to duplicate this class system, as have other non-paranormal and non-EVP websites. As I said before, a non-believer isn't going to classify something they don't believe. You can't expect an intelligent design publication, website, etc. to adhere to evolution terminology, or vise-versa. The only non-paranormal sources that are going to use this are still going to have an inherent bias towards EVP as a real phenomenon. Otherwise, there would be no point. It would certainly be an interestingly worded source that said "EVP is a load of crap, but here's their classification system..." 130.101.100.103 (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not as simple as that. There are a lot of things that get numerous hits that don't deserve mention on Wikipedia (horse porn for example). About.com is a website that has been roundly criticized here as not a reliable source (for example, it has been discouraged for people to link to it as an external link). The point is that, as a fringe topic, this idea does not get to be described on the terms of those who believe in it. Doing so violates the content guidelines and policies of this encyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It does if notability is established, which I think was Martinphi's idea. About.com has been criticized as unreliable for information, but we're not using it to establish that these classes exist; we've got Raudive for that. I'll try to make an analogy- if someone comes up with new "evidence" for a fringe theory, any fringe theory, and publishes it on a blog dedicated to that theory, it's not notable. If, however, Dateline NBC catches wind of it and runs a story on national television, now it's out there.

Besides About.com, however, we have others:

• googobits (never heard of it before now)
• helium.com
• woowoo.org (borderline in-world; not paranormal but in the busniess of researching a lot of oddities)
• Armageddon Online, was mentioned above
• newsbackup.com I retract my above statement, here is a website denouncing EVP but mentioning their classification system.

I especially like the last one; they list each class and say why it's not believable (they attribute the clarity of class-A to being faked; the claim is that class-A EVP's are only "being sponsored by large publicity seeking websites and private groups") 130.101.100.103 (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You are under the mistaken impression that when an article is deemed notable that any content that anyone believes is relevant to the article is fair game for inclusion. This is simply not the case. There are rules for how we must write the article, and the biggest is WP:NPOV. This is why "in-universe" writing is frowned upon: it is simply incapable of providing a neutral outlook. If Dateline NBC talked about the classification system, please let us know. Also, the links you are supporting are not really all that impressive. The last one you love so much is a messageboard, which is generally something excluded entirely on Wikipedia. It might be better if you branched out a bit looked for sources outside of the internet. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Outdent I don't see how it's POV to include descriptive information. Dateline NBC did not (at least as far as I know); that was a hypothetical. 130.101.20.143 (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Descriptions are POV-biased when only certain people describe them in certain ways. An extreme example might be the way Nazis describe the Jews, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the difference here is how the term applies. The Nazis have a specific way of referring to Jews, but there are other views of Jews that are outside the Nazi world. In the case of these classes, it's something that only applies to EVPs. 130.101.152.10 (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is tantamount to claiming that only believers in ghosts are allowed to describe EVP. There are examples of EVP which are clearly not ghosts nor is the arbitrary classification system developed by the ghost-believers relevant to this fact. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't going to go anywhere; I'm going to RFC the issue, and we'll go by consensus. 130.101.152.5 (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Randi

From a less academic point of view, to me the most important thing to be said about things like EVP is that James Randi's million bucks remains uncollected. I would give it at least a "See also" link. Art LaPella (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE#Parity of sources, the amazing Randi's challenge is a really good source for this page. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected and editing advice

This article is now available for editing. Those who edit war may be blocked, even if they do not technically violate 3RR. Please use the talk page or dispute resolution to resolve differences, rather than battling for editorial control. This article appears to have suffered from policy violations. Please be sure to follow WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V. Those who do not will be warned or blocked as appropriate. The current list of external links appears to violate policy. Let me know if there is further spamming and I will provide deterrence as needed. Jehochman ^Talk 18:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree about the ELs; a link to one or two or the largest EVP organizations might be appropriate if they go above Wikipedia:EL#Links normally to be avoided number 1, but this is too much. I don't want to go through every one but I'd bet money they all contain the same information. Also, the EL section is biased as it has EVP organizations and nothing in regards to skeptical/debunking organizations that may have reported on the subject. I'm going to tag it with {{External links}}; maybe we can balance it a bit. 130.101.152.10 (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of the above

Please suggest all changes on the talk page before making them, and make sure there is a consensus of editors here. This article is one of the reasons I said I was not fully retired. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

People are free to edit. There are no special restrictions. Jehochman ^Talk 21:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And if the changes get reverted, who will you block? I'm trying to avoid an edit war. Am I supposed to just accept anything an edit warring editor puts in the article? Go see the history of Bleep. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit proposition- caption

Don't mean to suggest another edit when we're talking about one already, but I just noticed this. The caption seems a little POV against EVP, but it's also an awfully long and roundabout way of saying it. How about "Visualization of a purported EVP recording"? 130.101.152.10 (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok.

I have to be gone for a few days, will rejoin then. There are lots of other problems. The article, if I recall right, was locked because of disruptive editing, and some of the results of that will have to be reversed. I'll go over it when I can, and we can discuss. There are also problems with just bad writing, stuff which should be put better. That was one of the criticisms when I put it up for GA review, before all the disruption began. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

William O'Neil

The William O'Neil in this article is described as a (purported) electronics whiz and spiritual medium. But we have now wikilinked him to William O'Neil, whose article is about the stock market. Is there any evidence that these two are the same person? If not, the founder of Investor's Business Daily probably doesn't want to be associated with EVP. Art LaPella (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost certainly not him; I'll unlink until someone can find something saying they are the same person. 130.101.152.5 (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

The edit in question would add a section to the article including a classification system for the quality of purported EVP recordings. In discussing this edit (see "edit request" above), we have determined this system to have originated from Konstantin Raudive's 1971 essay Breakthrough. The text is here; the classification system is discussed is section 4.1, beginning at paragraph 6. Editors have expressed concern that adding a section for this article would violate WP:NPOV. 130.101.152.5 (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

---

My view- it's in common usage by people who claim to have recorded EVPs. It was popularized in Sarah Estep's 1988 book Voices of Eternity, and (as one would expect) is by the AA-EVP, Estep's organization. It's also used on a number of internet purported EVPs- see this search result. It's usage is basically in-world; as I pointed out above, there would be little use for someone who believes the entire concept to be nonsense to classify these recordings by quality. It does, however, serve to point out that purported EVPs are of varying quality, not all a staticy mess. 130.101.152.5 (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)