Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon

We were on a roll...

We were on a roll with improving this article. Why did it all of a sudden stop? We need to stat discussing the next section now. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to be gone for a few days starting tomorrow. I may be able to drop by, but I likely can't do any major editing. I should be back fully by the 10th or 11th. The article has been pretty stable, so there shouldn't be any reason to hurry. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead para, again

I hardly ever edit the article directly and instead prefer to float ideas on the Talk page, Yet, I observe editors struggling once again over the definition, but missing some significant overarching problems. I believe the present definition does not reflect a world view of the subject. It unnecessarily panders to the AA-EVP paradigm, which presents the subject as a technical proposition having differing explanations. Besides confusion with audio recording and electronics concepts ("Speech-like sounds reportedly not heard at the time of recording" could also describe unwanted crowd background noise during location recording), this approach is greatly at odds with international mainstream cultural coverage of the subject [1] who define it more straightforwardly as something said to be the voices of ghosts, made audible through static on radio, or on recordings. Shouldn't we be looking at ways to describe EVP (at least in the lead) which better conform to wider world views? - LuckyLouie 21:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, there is another issue and that is that some paranormal believers think that EVP is actually the sleeping minds or the unconscious minds of various persons. Also some EVP believers think that EVP are the voices of aliens from other dimensions. The term "discarnate entities" has been used to umbrella the entire category, but I'm not sure that the claimed psychic interaction of a living person is necessarily a "discarnate entity". ScienceApologist 21:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I placed the discarnate entity attribution in the definitions to deal with this issue, but I also placed the dubious template since it isn't clear whether a living person has a mind which is properly termed a "discarnate entity". Input from others would be appreciated. ScienceApologist 22:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think terms like "discarnate entities" are symptomatic of a definition that is trying too hard to stick closely to one world view. I'm suggesting breaking free of the box. - LuckyLouie 22:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Have any ideas? Should we just call them ghosts, perhaps? ScienceApologist 22:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever's an accurate term, free from insider jargon, yet also encyclopedic. I think the BBC news called them ghosts or spirits. - LuckyLouie 23:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal beings? ScienceApologist 23:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ghosts and spirits. That's what's notable. It is my humble opinion, and one of the reasons I declined working on it before, that you should stick with the notable ideas about the topic and list minor theories and ideas separately. I don't believe the definition needs ambiguous terms such as "discarnate beings" to accomodate aliens when the predominant idea is that they're ghosts caught on tape. That's what pop culture (mainstream) thinks of when they think EVP. If you want to add a second sentence saying "others think aliens, etc. etc." that's fine, but it's mostly about the spirits. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with NealParr on the above. - LuckyLouie 00:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! ScienceApologist 00:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Depending on the exact wording, this sounds like it is going in a good direction. Someone should propose a lead on the talk page. Nealparr has the right idea. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

More nonconsensus POV-pushing from ScienceApologist

ScienceApologist has continued to POV-push and make nonconsensus edits to the article, which he has edit warred to keep. Till those edits are reverted or corrected, the process on this page has come to a stop. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What "process on this page" has come to a stop? You mean you won't consider the points raised in my discussion (above) until you get a preferred revert of the article? That's disruptive. You cannot unilaterally stop the consensus/article-building process. - LuckyLouie 21:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus editing cannot live with nonconsensus editing. I'm trying to play by the rules here. If you are really with the project here, you'll start reverting such nonconsensus edits yourself. But one thing we aren't going to do, and that is to yak about consensus on the talk page and meanwhile allow SA to do nonconsensus edits. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What, in your estimation, makes for consensus editing versus nonconsensus editing? If you make an edit is it consensus editing? If I make an edit is it nonconsensus editing? ScienceApologist 22:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Martin, I'm not currently reverting anybody's edits to the article. Please refrain from attempting to suggest that unless I do as you say, I'm not "with the project". - LuckyLouie 22:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Reversions

Do involved editors want to see this page protected for a week? Try to find some common ground, without being forced to do that with a protected page... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But not a version edit-warred in by SA. I'll revert again to the version before his recent disruptive edits. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm simply not allowed to edit the article as long as Martin is here. What do other users think? Were my edits ? ScienceApologist 22:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You got away with 38 nonconsensus edits. We have tried to start a consensus building process. You continue to make nonconsensus edits. And your edits -to the lead no less- were indeed so horrendous that Martin is justified in simply reverting them without discussion. If you are part of the consensus building -which has already made changes to the article- then build consensus before you edit, the way I'm doing. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

How did you determine that they were nonconsensus? ScienceApologist 23:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi, instead of labeling ScienceApologist's editing as "nonconsensus", why don't you try to be constructive and start pointing out some individual changes that he made that you disagree with? We can then review them collaboratively. Antelan ^talk 00:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you acknowledge that his editing style is disruptive? I don't think any of his edits were appropriate. If they are to remain in the article, I think he ought to argue for them. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You would gain some credibility by pointing out the problems. Otherwise this just looks ad hom. Antelan ^talk 04:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I just noticed this - why did you refer to yourself in the third person there ^ - "Martin is justified in simply reverting them"? Antelan ^talk 04:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. One wonders if we're dealing with a role account here. Martin's (or Martins') views and editing style aren't always internally consistent; could be just normal human inconsistency, but it would fit a role account too. Raymond Arritt 22:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, dude, if you want you can like research it or somethin or get one of yr admns to look at the code or somethin. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Raymond and Atelan, its these types of innuendos and posting that causes the waters to muddy in the first place; besides turning editing sour. Why even bring this stuff up? If you think Martin is a role account, then ask him straight up - Martin is your account used by mutiple users in regards to a role account? - I would also advise proceeding to check on this officially if it concerns you. Although, I'd admit his reference to himself in the 'royal' third person is odd, it may very well be a mistake in writing and not all you make it to be. Let's AGF here. --Northmeister 23:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Radio, film and television"

This section needs to distinguish deliberately fictional works from those purporting to be fact. In some cases I can't tell which is which from the descriptions as given here. Could those more familiar with the shows help clarify this point? Raymond Arritt 00:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

These two are cited by links that feel pretty SPAMmy:

Dead Whisper, a film by Ronald James Television and Media in 2006, in which Canadian psychic Robbie Thomas and Indiana Ghost Trackers investigate Manteno State asylum, Rico D's in Illinois, and the Studebaker Mansion in Indiana. Michael Esposito and Mike McDowell use EVP to confirm Robbie Thomas' communications with spirit entities. The film focuses heavily on EVP.[80]

Ghost Radio, An Australian internet radio program featuring Lia and John Ramses offers several archived programs on EVP including interviews by EVP researchers Robert Smith and Michael Esposito. Also archived are interviews with Reverse Speech Researcher David John Oates and Medium Robbie Thomas and Producer Ronald James. Also special interview from Stockholm with Michael Esposito and Leif Elggren during the recording of the EVP/experimental music cd at Emanuel Swedenborg The Summerhouse on Firework Edition Records.[81]

The first is (as far as I can figure) a non-notable doco. The second is a non-notable podcast. They both seem to be placed here to promote this Esposito fellow. - LuckyLouie 01:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if the first is notable, but the second doesn't meet WP:WEB criteria. [2] --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi reverted it, so you can take it up with him/her. I don't see anything that demonstrates its notability. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Suggested:

According to some paranormal researchers, electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are messages from spirits left on electronic recording media. They are reportedly brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase, and sometimes in direct response to the questions of researchers. Researchers say the sounds are inaudible during the recording process, and have been observed on diverse media, including radio, television, tape recorders.

re·search (r-sûrch, rsûrch) n. 1. Scholarly or scientific investigation or inquiry. See Synonyms at inquiry. 2. Close, careful study. v. re·searched, re·search·ing, re·search·es v.intr. To engage in or perform research. v.tr. 1. To study (something) thoroughly so as to present in a detailed, accurate manner: researching the effects of acid rain. 2. To do research for: research a magazine article. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/researcher

The word "research" is very appropriate to the article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"Very appropriate" is stretching things, but I can see how definition n.(2) might not be altogether inapplicable. Raymond Arritt 22:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, even if you don't believe that any of the studies, including Brauss (mainstream), were scientific, then it still meets "Scholarly" in definition 1. I mean, you can be a fundamentalist, and still do "Bible research." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thinking Anew toward a unified article without segregation of science or paranormal

I've reorgnaized the article a bit per the TOC, to try to bring together the various explanations of the phenomena of EVP into one whole rather than pitting paranormal vs. science or skeptics as what existed prior. I also redid the lead a bit to reflect this, with a new emphasis on the Cultural impact of EVP research and use by pop culture as a social phenomena in ghost hunting groups etc. Of course this is just a start. There is much improvement that can be made to clean the sections up and reduce redundancy and increase NPOV. I am open to debate on my changes and to further improvements towards a good article. --Northmeister 03:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent job, Northmeister. Now it reads as a dispassionate description of the subject. Kudos. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The changes are very nice. I guess since you're doing it also, the idea of discussing first is quite dead and needs to be buried- if possible. Much like the cat who died a couple weeks ago inside my wall. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the changes, but there are two problems with the intro that I've identified. The first is that it doesn't explain that people think these are recordings of spirits until the second paragraph. As the most notable thing about EVPs, that really needs to be in the first sentence. Example: "...to explain speech or speech-like sounds that are often believed to be ghosts or spirits..."

The second problem is a timeline issue. The first sentence says the term EVP was coined in the 1970s. The second paragraph says that EVPs have been studied since the 1950s. If studied in the 1950s, they weren't EVPs because that term didn't come about until the 1970s.

I'll fix these problems. This is just an explanation of the changes. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Great. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Approve of the changes, however, I reworked a bit of the first paragraph to bring balance to the second sentence and to include in the lead sentence who coined the phrase. --Northmeister 04:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

To each their own, but I don't really think who coined the term is essential, first sentence, information. IMHO, it makes the first sentence unnecessarily complex. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems another editor agrees; so I'll support his recent edit and your original idea on first sentence. --Northmeister 04:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me now, B+ intro I think. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of combining paragraph two into the end of one? Personally, I think it would look less cluttered. We don't want too many paragraphs in the introduction. --Northmeister 04:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to be a stickler for grammar, so you can change if you want. I separated each paragraph because they technically contain separate thoughts. First is the description of the term, the second is the naming of the term, the third is the history summary, the fourth is explanations, and the fifth is pop culture (though I'd drop the last two sentences off the fifth paragraph if I thought I could get away with it). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me try something else. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I cut out the last sentence per your original comments and move the second to last sentence to the first paragraph. Did so before I read your comments above. Feel free to go with your original thought above. --Northmeister 05:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Reworked it so there's one less paragraph, per your concerns. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Stepping away for now, as it is late here. Thanks for the work thus far. --Northmeister 05:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You too, I prefer it when the criticism is integrated with the claim. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess the editing gates have been thrown open, so I clarified the opening definition a bit. Since EVP is stated as an audio engineering concept, I made it clear that what is being defined (sounds not heard at the time of recording, etc.) is not a recognized technical phenomena, which requires it being described as "reportedly" observed rather than definitively observed. Also, I find no references to subsets of ITC outside of the paranormal literature, hence a clarification was needed as to who considers EVP a subset of ITC. - LuckyLouie 07:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The above edit has been reverted [3] by Martinphi as "original research" with the comment, "If the source is not discussing the subject it is not allowed in Wikipedia". (?) The "subject" is actually a claim about audio recording, and the absence of EVP in technical professional literature on the subject is quite evident. I can only view Martin's revert as a disruptive effort to sway the article away from neutrality. - LuckyLouie 08:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And you reverted the other two edits I made (re: ITC and "observed") with no explanation other than "OR". Why? - LuckyLouie 08:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That is Original research, and isn't allowed in Wikipedia. You need to find sources on the subject, if you want to include this material. As it is, all you have said is that EVP is not mentioned by some sources which do not include EVP. Please read up on the policy. It is very specific and clear about this. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The "subject" of the article makes claims about audio recording concepts. The door is open to clarification of those claims. - LuckyLouie 08:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Compliance with our Verifiability Policy and our cite sources guideline is the best way to ensure that you do not violate our NOR policy. In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately.

No, the door isn't open. That's because no one disputes that EVP happen -that there are variations in white noise for example. They are only interpreted differently by paranormalists and others. So if you can find a source saying "the paranormalists interpret it this way, and we don't," then you've got something. Till then, you haven't. That's the reason for the policy. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Audio recording is "not directly related" to the topic? - LuckyLouie 08:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Not per the policy on OR. The source must mention the subject. Lead is (was) related to pencils, but that doesn't mean I can go and make a case that pencils should not be used, or might be poisoning children, just because I can find sources that mention lead poisoning. I'd have to find a source that said that pencils give poisoning to children. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You interpret the policy on OR quite wrongly. No one is making "a case" as suggested by your lead pencil example. I am helping to frame EVP as a technical recording concept which is not supported by mainstream authority on the subject. It simply does not exist as a subject in the IEEE or AES glossaries. I can see no reason to withold this information from the article lead. - LuckyLouie 09:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And you are spectacularly wrong about lead poisoning not being "allowed" to be mentioned in an article about pencils by the way. - LuckyLouie 09:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent. I said you'd have to have a source. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 09:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So do you think that we should also say that religions generally don't recognize the subject, and also include every other related field which does not mention the subject? No, we aren't in the business of doing OR to see who doesn't mention a subject. Rather, we have to have sources which are talking about the subject (that is why the words in the quote are emphasized). Otherwise, people can simply add POV. The policy on OR is strict because it is a slippery slope. Shall we say that SETI doesn't recognize it, that the PEAR lab doesn't, that the Pope has not yet confirmed that it is spirits, though the Vatican smiles on the research? The policy is strict because it has to be, and it applies here.

care should be taken to not "go beyond" what is expressed in the sources, nor use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using the information out of context. In short, stick to the sources.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinphi (talk • contribs)

How about this [4] for the framing of the subject as not-mainstream? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is no documentation in "mainstream" scientific journals. There was a total of one paper in a parapsychology journal. Rather than stretch this into "little" (and when Baruss says 'lack' he means 'none') say there is none. - LuckyLouie 18:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the opening lead to be in line with mainstream coverage of the subject. [5] It's an article written by Hu Williams, head of research for the BBC. The problem with the "speech like sounds detected..." etc. definition you had in there previously is the use of a minority source (the AA-EVP) to give a minority/fringe definition of the subject to make it sound like it's a scientific or technical concept. The def should not be misleading or confusing or unattributedly pseudoscientific sounding, as it was formerly. I compromise on the term "researchers" even though it gives many amateurs undue credibility, and the "documentation" line (which is an extremely generous way of saying EVP is not part of science). I hope that works for you - LuckyLouie 19:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"No documentation" is a hardline statement that is extremely difficult to verify. You'd have to go through every mainstream scientific journal to prove none of them have ever mentioned EVPs. Practically speaking it is impossible, but here is why it's unlikely that it's correct. I can easily imagine that in mainstream psychology journals, when they are talking about audio intepretation, that they have at some point used EVPs as an example of where someone has interpreted audio as a familiar sound. The interpretation of EVPs as normal phenomena is still documentation. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

How would you phrase it, keeping in mind that words like "little", "some", "many", etc. are effectively weaseling away accurate descriptions (see discussion below about "paranormal researchers")? ScienceApologist 20:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think "lack of documentation" says it all and adequately frames it as fringe. It's also compatible with the source. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a problem with "lack of documentation" in that it assumes that there should be documentation but that it is absent. The word "lack" implies a wanting absence and seems to border on POV. I submit that most scientists do not think the mainstream "lacks" documentation because there is no want for it. ScienceApologist 20:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "there is a lack of documentation", placed the way it is in the article, seems to infer a shortcoming or maybe even an injustice. I think you can find a clearer way of expressing the idea that EVP, as it is defined by its proponents, is absent from mainstream science. - LuckyLouie 20:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I placed in an idea. Do what you want to with it. ScienceApologist 20:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why I originally used "little". The important thing is that the statement needs to be sourced or else it's synthesis. This is what I came up with based on the source that I had. If you can find a better source saying something, let's look at that, but what SA put in isn't exactly in this source. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

My problem with "little" is that it is a confirmation that there is "some" (unspecified amount) of documentation in mainstream science journals. Surely this isn't what you intended? Baruss's actual statement is clearly him using "lack" to describe why he had to go to fringe sources rather than mainstream ones. (Given the lack of documentation of EVP in mainstream scientific journals, a review of its history is given based on English language information found in psychical research and parapsychology periodicals and various trade publications and newsletters. ) One could wikilawyer this to death, but perhaps Baruss shouldn't be burdened with carrying the load of adequately framing the subject. Where is the source for the previous "science has ignored EVP" line? Is that also Baruss? - LuckyLouie 20:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this guy is only one source. The point we need to get across in the lead is that mainstream science wholly denigrates the subject ontologically. This shouldn't be too hard to source. We can use skeptics dictionary or something similar. ScienceApologist 20:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This source was used because the intro didn't previously have a fringe framing statement. I wanted to put one in, and this is the first source I found that actually said there is a lack of documentation of EVP in mainstream science. I am completely open to other sources and would like to remind you guys that I only put in what you guys asked for in the first place. If you don't like my source, please feel free to provide another one. It's hard finding dismissive statements by science which tends to ignore rather than dismiss. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Edison

I felt the Edison material was necessary for historical temporal perspective. Otherwise, it seemed to be a new idea in the 50s. We don't need to say much, but we need to have some bit of info to give the article a proper timeline. There are things in between the 20s and 50s, and I think before Edison also, but not really notable enough. But just acting as if it came out of thin air in the 50s doesn't work. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it is absolutely OR to say what Edison did is related to EVP. Antelan ^talk 05:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to tell that to the Skeptic's Dictionary and many other sources on EVP. But please don't revert merely because you haven't read the sources of an entry. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the Skeptic's Dictionary entry and I do not believe that the connection they try to draw is anywhere near sufficient to truly implicate Edison in the origins of early research in this field. It's an interesting anecdote about life in general, but it does not belong here. Someone else please revert Martinphi, because apparently I can't edit here. Antelan ^talk 06:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Then you'd better tell all the authors on the subject of EVP. No, Edison did not know the term EVP, he was however talking about exactaly the same concept. Even if he was not, the sources have claimed him, and that is enough for WP. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you can let that one go Martinphi. The prior interest is established by linking it to the Spiritualism movement that dates back to the 1840s. In other words, since then (and really since "spirit photography") spiritualists have been trying to use technology to capture spirits. Readers can get a clear idea that people have been trying to contact spirits before the 1950s, and that the 1950s is when they decided they were successful. The sources indicate that actual trying to record is firmly established in 1941, since Edison didn't actually try. It's true that the Skepdic makes the link, but we don't have to since earlier stuff is already established in the article. Since it's a point of disagreement, I say just drop it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I was never attached to that specific episode. I only wanted to establish the depth of historical context, and that was one way to do it. The problem was merely the invalid reason for knee-jerk reverting. If other reasons had been offered, that would have been different. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Edison's recorders mechanical, not electronic. They recorded sound by making physical impressions and did not use electromagnetism. Thus it's hard to see the relation to EVP, since the E means "electronic." Raymond Arritt 01:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This article also covers ITC. But like I say, my only interest is in creating a sense of historical depth. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem with "paranormal researchers" as a general term

The problem is, there exist paranormal researchers, including a few self-described "parapsychologists" who do not believe EVP to exist as we describe in this article. The best we can say is some paranormal researchers. Even so, I would say that it is relatively few researchers, per se, who actually believe in EVP. The far greater contingent of believers are from the amateur community who try to make EVP on their own. This should be reflected in the article. ScienceApologist 19:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I really do not like the use of "some" or "most" in articles, as it says nothing that can be verified. I would prefer to keep these arbitrary judgements out of articles, and stay within the boundaries of WP:NPOV, describing significant viewpoints, and attributing them to these that make them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Simply saying "paranormal reserachers" unqualified gives the impression of unanimity when it doesn't exist. I too am not a fan of weaseling away the numerical descriptions, so perhaps someone can come up with a wording that doesn't mislead the reader into any false impressions.... ScienceApologist 20:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the word "certain"? ScienceApologist 20:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I forget who said it, but we had the same problem over in parapsychology when we were working on it. One of the editors who assist in getting articles to GA and FA status suggested calling specific researchers and critics by name versus "some" or "many". For example, "Some researchers such as parapsychologist John Smith say..." That helps to put a face on the claim. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably a good way of doing it, though I think "certain researchers" may conform to NPOV better. ScienceApologist 20:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Researchers such as... blah blah". Doesn't actually need "some" or "certain". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. By saying "such as" it properly attributes the claim made. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's do it. ScienceApologist 21:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Use most notable researchers, like Raudive for instance. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What did Raudive say in regards to these subjects? ScienceApologist 23:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to point out that when attributing the belief to a notable person/researcher, there needs to be a source demonstrating that they actually feel that way. For example, there's no source in the article that I saw demonstrating that John Zaffis supports EVP (though he probably does). (Nevermind, saw it towards the end. The source link should be duplicated in the intro.) This is because of WP:ATT and especially WP:ATT#Living persons. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What we're not keeping in mind here is that per the ArbCom, we don't need all this stuff. We can simply define it without tying ourselves into knots, as long as we frame the article well. That's what the ArbCom decided, and there is really no reason to do otherwise.

Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include "mythical", "fictional", "a belief", and in the present case "paranormal", "psychic", "new age", "occult", "channeling". or "parapsychological researcher". "UFO", "Bigfoot", "Yeti", "alien abduction", and "crop circle" serve the same function. It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing.

So going out of our way to attribute is simply not necessary, and words such as "claimed" are not either. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If this discussion results in a neutral lead that fully informs the reader, I see no reason to complain or to stop the discussion by invoking "ArbCom". Of course we will stay within their guidelines, but that is no reason to cut off discussion. Antelan ^talk 02:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Martin I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the particular Arbcom statement. I doubt it's meant to subvert WP:FRINGE which requires very clearly written attributions accompany fantastic/unusual claims. Flatly defining EVP as the voices of ghosts or spirits isn't helping to build the encyclopedia as a serious reference work. And using the word "paranormal" doesn't automatically create a reality-free zone in this article lead. You need to say "who" defines it as the voices of ghosts and spirits. If you still disagree, you might want to expose your version of the article lead to a RfC (a request for comment on a content issue) to get wider feedback. - LuckyLouie 03:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. - This quote from the previous Arbcom case is nothing but clear. If an article is on a subject related to fiction, it is proper to attribute in the opening that this is the case and it is unncessary to continually used words such as 'claimed' or 'purported' or whatever to constantly define the subject. The reader is clearly informed by the use of the term that it is a fictional subject. The same is also true of 'religious' or 'occult' topics and may we say 'paranormal' topics. "Defining the epistemoligical" status of an article is highly important. This article is NOT related to mainstream science - it does not have to be constantly scrutinized as if it is a scientific article. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, it is not for advocacy, it is not many things WP:NOT. To insist on an untoward position that each and every statement within the lead contain a persons name is also not acceptable by summary standard; all we need is a proper link to a proper source. The source to be proper needs to be clearly verifiable, preferably published, and by those who have concerns in the subject. I see here, once again, a divergence that is attempting to define "EVP" as what it is not and attempting to fill the article up with too much of what it is not. EVP, is not a particular subject of mainstream science, but it is a subject of a limited number of scholars who have devoted their time to its study such as Dr. Konstantine Raudive. It is not for us to decide whether these scholars were right or wrong; nor is it for us to critique their work - it is rather for us to provide veriable well sourced material that does this in the proper manner. If there is not a proper source indicating criticism of the subject, that criticism should not be in the article. If the topic is framed per Arbcom, it should be written with that in mine - in a balanced NPOV manner regardless of our opinions as editors. The present opening lead is horrendous in my opinion. It ignores the previous Arbcom and attempts to address EVP as if it is a subject of mainstream science to be criticized but without proper sources indicating this criticism per WP:V and WP:NOR. We can not move forward without proper acceptance that this article is a 'paranormal' one because those who have researched the topic, those who gave it its original definition, and those who continue to research the topic are operating in the 'paranormal' or 'parapsychological' area and not in the mainstream scientific one. --Northmeister 04:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Given your personal interpretation of the previous Arbcom and WP:FRINGE, what do you feel is wrong with this proposed lead? --

Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are said to be the voices of ghosts or spirits made audible through static on the radio, or on electronic recording media. According to paranormal researchers such as Konstantin Raudive, the "voices" are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase and are sometimes said to be answers to questions asked during the taping. EVP has been reportedly observed on diverse media, including: radio, television, tape recorders, video recorders, and digital recording devices. EVP are considered by paranormal researchers as a subset of the broader field of instrumental transcommunication. There is no documentation of EVP apparent in mainstream scientific journals.

--LuckyLouie 05:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I would combine the third and second to last sentence because we repeat EVP and it reads awkward. Otherwise as long as what is stated is backed by reliable sources then it is ok. If the second sentence frames the article for the reader, then we are fine. I would prefer to mention that the term is used by the paranormal community in the first sentence for framing purposes and to attribute this as a fringe and not mainstream subject - this informing the reader first hand. --Northmeister 05:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Somthin' like this?

Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are said by paranormal researchers to be the voices of ghosts or spirits made audible through static on the radio, or on electronic recording media. According to authors such as Konstantin Raudive and Tom Butler, the "voices" are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase, observed on diverse media, including: radio, television, tape recorders, video recorders, and digital recording devices, and sometimes said to be answers to questions asked during the taping. EVP are considered by paranormal researchers as a subset of the broader field of instrumental transcommunication. There is no documentation of EVP apparent in mainstream scientific journals. - LuckyLouie 05:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence needs to be replaced. See below. Otherwise, I don't see any red flags and honestly think that a lot of this stuff is nitpicking : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, you changed it. Not sure if I like the wording exactly, but at least it's true. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem, and would suggest you make the edit. As far as the last sentence, if the source indicates that there is 'no documentation' then it is fine to stay. If it says something else then we should change the sentence, find another reliable source, or remove it. --Northmeister 05:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I recommend changing it to say something like "mainstream science hasn't accepted EVP research". That can be sourced easily. Even the AAEVP has made statements about the lack of acceptance by mainstream science. They're a reliable source in the context of making a statement about their own level of acceptance, especially if it is negative. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I go with that, however it'd be best to find a source which is outside the paranromal community. Otherwise it's just the AA-EVP's opinion, as they are not a reliable source for mainstream science views. - LuckyLouie 05:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with LuckyLouie here on sourcing and it is best to consider this in regards to the rest of the article as well. --Northmeister 05:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Once we have said that we are defining it as a paranormal subject and according to paranormal researchers, we shouln't need to keep saying it. But that lead isn't bad. Agree with Nealparr just above. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as the source supports the statement I have no problem with it. I would prefer something like "Mainstream science hasn't accepted EVP and to date there is no documentation apparent in scientific journals." or something like that. I also have no problem with the original. The most important thing is to consider the reader, to inform the reader that this subject is paranormal (thus fringe), that it is not covered by mainstream science, so the reader will take this into consideration when reading the article as a whole. All this of course, backed by verifiable sources and reflecting what the sources say. --Northmeister 05:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Stylistic point if we go with the "no document to date" approach - instead of saying "to date", we can say "through 2007" or "as of 2007". This is a minor point - just a WP:MOS consideration. Antelan ^talk 05:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Would be fine, but if we go with '2007' we'd have to continually change the date; but I have no issues with this. The last sentence is highly important to inform the reader of EVP's status in mainstream science. --Northmeister 05:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Any objections to how it is right now? [6] I think LL's wording closely matches the source and makes the sentence work well. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion since it doesn't break the sentence, but the "as of 2007" part isn't needed. As everyone's always saying, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and doesn't have to document future events. By saying "as of 2007," it implies that maybe in 2008 that may change. Maybe, but unlikely, or even if likely, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the "as of 2007" adding anything. It might be applicable if literature existed in previous years, or there was an imminent spate of articles due any moment. - LuckyLouie 06:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove it. Technically it should be 2002 anyway, since that's when the article was written. Then I'm done for the day. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No documentation needs source

To recap: "No documentation" is a hardline statement that is extremely difficult to verify. You'd have to go through every mainstream scientific journal to prove none of them have ever mentioned EVPs. Practically speaking it is impossible, but here is why it's unlikely that it's correct. I can easily imagine that in mainstream psychology journals, when they are talking about audio intepretation, that they have at some point used EVPs as an example of where someone has interpreted audio as a familiar sound. The interpretation of EVPs as normal phenomena is still documentation. When EVP is explained away as Rorschach Audio or something or another, that is documentation.

What's more is that it is not supported by the source. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed a tough one. "No" documentation is extreme, though it appears to be correct as far as we can tell. The previous statement was that "little" documentation existed, which implies there are at least a few examples. But none of the refs I checked out mentioned any. So we're left with a choice between two versions that we can't tightly support. Can you see a way to finesse this? Raymond Arritt 04:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not going to try. The source said "lack of documentation", but that's contested. I put in "little documentation", that's contested. Since it was my addition to the article, I'm just going to remove it altogether and let someone else find a source and a framing statement. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably it was the wrong approach anyway. Maybe there's a source that states its level of "acceptance" vs. "documentation". You can't verify that there is no documentation out there anywhere, but you can verify that it's not well accepted. Just needs a source. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe...

-"Psychologist Imants Baruss reported an apparent lack of documentation regarding EVP in mainstream scientific literature"

-"There is reportedly a lack of documentation regarding EVP in mainstream scientific literature" - LuckyLouie 05:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Both true, and both work, but I think it's a lot easier just to go the acceptance route, or maybe two statements, lack of acceptance and then one of the above. I'd go with the second because I really don't know if Baruss is notable enough to call by name. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I kludged a temp solution together. I still feel "lack" is a problem as it implies that the article feels the documentation should be there. When it was actually Baruss saying he searched for literature for his paper and found none, so he went to fringe sources. - LuckyLouie 05:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Forget temp solution, that was a great change in wording and should be permanent. "Absence" doesn't necessarily mean "none whatsoever" and according to MW, means "want" or "lacking".[7] Great job! --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. I wish it had a nice bridging phrase to lead into it though. Kinda hangs out there by itself as it is. But I won't quibble, as I don't want to fuck up the nice collegial atmosphere we temporarily have going here, - LuckyLouie 06:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It needs a "however" transition, honestly. The line preceeding it talks about the fringe view and "however" would transition into the mainstream view. I feel that would sufficiently frame the topic as it actually is framed in the real world. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree about a bridge to the sentence with another or with 'however'. However that is to be achieved. --Northmeister 06:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Not bad, Nealparr. - LuckyLouie 06:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, till tommorrow when I log in and everything's changed again : ) C-Ya. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's hope not. I'm going as well for now, as it is quite late here. Thanks for all the work Nealparr, Luckylouie, and Martin. --Northmeister 06:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[8] - LuckyLouie 06:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Certain" paranormal researchers

...implies that there are few who feel that way, when the percentage is probably leaning towards most. It should be changed to "many" if we use a qualifier at all (I don't think we need one). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact,

"Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are said by certain paranormal researchers to be the voices of ghosts or spirits made audible through static on the radio, or on electronic recording media."

can probably be reduced to,

"Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are said to be the voices of ghosts or spirits made audible through static on the radio, or on electronic recording media."

because the article clearly spells out who's doing the saying. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I originally had "said to be" alone, but it got reverted to "defined as", which started the cycle of attribution, removal of attiribution, addition of specific attribution, etc. Also Raudive likely didn't say it was observed on digital devices (not many around in1970), which is why I threw Butler in there as an author. I think I see the reason for "certain" though. I'm not sure you can make a definitive statement about the number of paranormal researchers who say EVP are ghosts, etc. If anyone from your Mom to Dean Radin can call themselves a "paranormal researcher" then finding a reliable source of "how many believe what" is virtually impossible. - LuckyLouie 18:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the Raudive thing, good observation. On the other thing, are you recommending that we reduce the sentence (as above), or try and justify our qualifier? Either one's fine with me. I justify "many" instead of "certain" because we don't need know the definitive amount of researchers to know that many say it is ghosts. It makes more sense than "certain" which implies that there is a select group of people who feel that way. As you pointed out, when amateur ghost hunters hanging out in grave yards are thrown in with Radin, it's not a "certain" group. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think "many" will be challenged, so not sure it's viable, as it's a matter of opinion. And since there's no standards in the "field" to consult, it's problematic. Also I think it'd be wise to avoid standalone sentences which begin, "Other researchers say...", or "Researchers have found..." etc. The use of the word researchers to describe amateur ghostbusters is rather generous. "Paranormal researchers" helps specify it as a fringe effort. I thought the scientology article was a pretty good style sheet for 1000 ways to attribute unusual fringe claims without misleading in either direction, you might check it out. - LuckyLouie 18:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, it keeps getting brought up, but I don't get why "researchers" is being made out to be a sacred title reserved only for scientists. My Mom is actually a genealogical researcher. Not much science to it. Charles Fort never did any science, but he did a lot of research, pouring through scientific journals looking for reports of anomalies. There's nothing strictly scientific about the term. Now, if we went around calling them empiricists, that'd be different. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Context, context, context. If we're talking about "families researching their genealogy" then the word is appropriate. Conversely if we're discussing current trends in condensed-matter physics, referring to your little brother doing experiments in the kitchen as a "researcher" would be misleading at best. Raymond Arritt 19:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason the context is problematic in this case is because of parapsychology research. Since there exist people who are actively doing parapsychological research, referring to paranormal research seems generally to refer to that idea. However, from my understanding, most who do parapsychology research never touch the subject of EVP. ScienceApologist 19:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The entire article spells out exactly what's being researched. Ghosts and spirits and weird stuff showing up on a tape. It's very clear that they are "paranormal researchers" already. That doesn't have to be repeated everytime the word "researchers" appears in the article. Nobody is going to see the term "researcher" and accidentally think the guy is a particle physicist. The most obvious reason why is because when we talk about specific people we state their title. Jürgenson, for example, is a film producer. Raudive is a psychologist. Szalay is a photographer. We give those titles when we get into specifics, so why is there such worry that the reader is going to get the wrong idea when we talk abstractly about them as a whole? I don't think it's necessary at all. Abstract statements are supposed to be abstract. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how lessening ambiguity could harm the article in general. The article includes a series of technological propositions using phrases like,"portable recording devices and modern digital technologies", "RF-screened laboratories", "experiments using forensic-quality audio analysis software" etc. I think it's important to make sure everything is attributed as unambiguously as possible. - LuckyLouie 21:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Some things lose meaning the more ambiguous it gets, but that doesn't mean that it needs to be spelled out in every instance it is used. "Device" imparts nothing. "Recording device" doesn't convey the meaning that the convenience of being portable gave rise to popularity. "Portable recording device" only needs to be mentioned once and then you can start saying "these devices" without the extra wording. That's what I am talking about. "Paranormal researchers" only needs to be mentioned once, not every single time. It gets unnecessarily repetitive. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it works using "these researchers" after the researchers have been identified as EVP researchers (for example) previously within the same para. - LuckyLouie 23:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What makes a paranormal researcher, then? If Jürgenson is a film producer, Raudive is a psychologist, and Szalay is a photographer, why are we trying to say that they all belong to this ambiguous family of "paranormal resesarchers"? Who decides who is and isn't a "paranormal researcher"? Are skeptics "paranormal researchers"? Why or why not? ScienceApologist 22:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A paranormal researcher is one who researchers paranormal topics. That seems so obvious that I'm not sure what you expected as a response or why you asked. It's not a job title. It's an abstract term used to refer to people collectively. If I were to make the statement "Skeptics say...", I am collectively bunching science writers (Shermer) along with psychologists (Alcock) along with magicians (Randi) along with ethologists (Dawkins) into a collective group so that I don't have to say "A couple of science writers and this one magician and a few psychologists and that ethologist guy all said...". It's basic writing 101. The actual term "paranormal researcher" is sourced all over the place. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It does seem obvious that the word "researcher" should be contextualized. Since the context is EVP, we need in general to discern between those who are mere ghost hunters, and those who, for instance, did research that appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, or carefully recorded enough to write a book. But in general, just say researchers. You could even say enthusiasts when talking about the culture of ghost hunting.

I suggest "EVP researchers," instead of "certain researchers." The percentage of EVP researchers who think it's ghosts is nearly 100% -I can't source that, but it is obvious, and not something we need to shy away from in the lead. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist: What makes a paranormal researcher, then?

Northmeister: He who devotes his time and energy to study that which is 'beyond the normal' or paranormal. For example, he who conducts research into 'Electonic Voice Phenomena' is by definition a 'paranormal researcher'. We are concerned however, with notable researchers in the subject of EVP.

ScienceApologist: If Jürgenson is a film producer, Raudive is a psychologist, and Szalay is a photographer, why are we trying to say that they all belong to this ambiguous family of "paranormal resesarchers"?

Northmeister: Jurgenson studied EVP, a paranormal concern; Raudive did the same; Szalay the same. Thus they conducted paranormal research, published works on their research, and hence in that mode are paranormal researchers, although they may have been other things in other realms of life.

ScienceApologist: Who decides who is and isn't a "paranormal researcher"?

Northmeister: The researchers do, obviously, as do their published works.

ScienceApologst:Are skeptics "paranormal researchers"? Why or why not?

Northmeister: Which skeptics?

Northmeister: Look to WP:NOR and WP:POINT for further elucidation and reflection. --Northmeister 00:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

How are NOR or POINT relevant here? Alcock and Randi are two reasonable examples where the (skeptic = paranormal researcher?) question might come up. Antelan ^talk 00:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologst:Are skeptics "paranormal researchers"? Why or why not?

A researcher does research. An armchair critic isn't a researcher, but if one is feeling generous, one might call Blackmore and Randi and Hyman and Wiseman paranormal researchers. They haven't done nearly as much research as many, but they have done some. Some of them, such as Blackmore, are known as parapsychologists. Others fit the definition. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Atelan, my own opinion is that to use the term 'paranormal researcher' we should have a reliable source that indicates its definition. Much better than our own - which relates to NOR. --Northmeister 00:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Antelan ^talk 01:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Moi aussi. Since the title of "paranormal researcher" is often self-proclaimed, I'd go with mainstream coverage of the term as a RS guide [9] which seems to indicate everybody from ghosthunters to parapsychologists is included. - LuckyLouie 01:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be. Also, we know the definition of researcher, so I don't think it's OR to apply it to those who study the paranormal. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

How Do You Do It?

Are there any proposed explanations for how the ghosts or spirits go about producing amplitude-modulated radio waves, or magnetizing bits of iron oxide? I would think that many of our readers would be interested in such hypotheses. Raymond Arritt 02:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That's the elephant in the room as far as this article goes. Antelan ^talk 02:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"How," is a bigger idea than people think: science is a description of what, not an explanation of how in most respects. There are speculations, but I doubt there is much published. You'd have to start with how they survived death in the first place. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, "how" is the most important part of what science is about: "The scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way, and to use these reproductions to make useful predictions." Raymond Arritt 04:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said. It describes but does not explain beyond correlation. Anyway, I don't think there are any sources. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no consensus and everyone has their own pet theories. In other words, no idea is anymore notable than another so there's nothing really to include in the article beyond "paranormal" -- which means not explained by science. Speaking generally, though, it doesn't really matter. Science doesn't support ghosts, so an idea of how ghosts got their voice onto tape wouldn't be supported either. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Do any of these "researchers" have any data that point in a certain direction? I put the term in quotes because data would point to a "how". If they're not gathering or critically analyzing data, they're not doing research. Or, they are doing research to the same extent that looking for grocery coupons in the newspaper might be considered research. If this is the case, "enthusiasts" might be a better term. Antelan ^talk 06:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but nothing we can source, as far as I know. Here's the idea: it is a form of mediumship, in which the spiritual body which normally translates from our own spirits/minds to our bodies is used by other spirits in such a way as to psychokinetically influence the tapes. That's why it works better for some people than others. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the description. Just a quibble - that is not a "how". Does the 'spiritual body' used by the spirits have electromagnetic character? Is it acting on the tapes or is it actually a sound being transmitted via the normal recording apparatus? These are the sorts of things that a researcher would take interest in. If they've got info on that, let's talk about it. If they don't, then we're mislabeling them, and enthusiasts or something similar should be applied. Antelan ^talk 07:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the logic that because there's no consensus of how it happens that they are not researchers. You said: "If they're not gathering or critically analyzing data, they're not doing research." They do gather so-called "data" and come to their so-called "conclusions", like I said everyone has a pet theory. There's just not a general agreement on anything. But the reason we call them "researchers" is because the sources do. I don't have a problem with the word "enthusiasts", but if we went through and replaced every instance of "researcher" with "enthusiast", because of our own sense of what makes a researcher, that would actually be orginal research because many sources use the term researcher.

Side note: When typing the words "orignal research", I am again wondering why "research" is being made out to be a sacred term reserved for scientists. What we do here at Wikipedia isn't science. We gather information. If a bunch of EVP researchers gather audio files and interpret segments of it as ghosts or whatever, it may not be science (sounds more like art), but it's not any less research than what we do here. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Raymond's question is intriguing; as I would be interested in this as well; and if it is the case then we should inform the reader. Atelan is right about the subject, regarding elephants and rooms but not in application to this article. As far as 'researchers', such persons as Raudive, Dr. Peter Bander, Father Gemelli and Dr. Frye and others are more than enthusiasts from what I've read; they actually conducted 'research' on the topic and in Bander's case under controlled conditions witnessed by sound egineers, reporters, and others. I think we are being straight and true with the reader by using the term 'researcher' regarding such notable individuals in this field; though no doubt 'enthusiasts' among paranormal groups exist. --Northmeister 23:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There is speculation and small ammounts of data. But I'm not sure but what that is beyond the range of an article like this. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

We should say something about it, because it's an obvious question for the reader to ask. If there's an accepted hypothesis (which there doesn't seem to be, from what you say) we should mention it. If there are competing hypotheses we should mention the most prominent ones. Even if the matter is considered out-of-bounds for EVP investigation we should let the reader know that, because otherwise the reader will be left wondering. Raymond Arritt 00:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Edison, redux

Martinphi, please quote to me the source that you feel makes the Edison bit appropriate to put in this article? Antelan ^talk 07:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What you have to understand is that our sources on EVP claim this episode as part of the package. That is enough for WP. Here is your quotation:

electronic voice phenomenon (EVP)

Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.--Paul Simon, "The Boxer"

Electronic voice phenomenon is the alleged communication by spirits through tape recorders and other electronic devices. The belief in EVP in the United States seems to have mushroomed thanks to Sarah Estep, president of the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena, which claims to have members in some 40 states and publishes a newsletter. Estep claims that in the 1970s she started picking up voices on her husband's Teac reel-to-reel recorder. She is sure that the voices are spirits, proving there is life after death. Estep also claims to hear voices of aliens on some of her tapes. She says she has taped some 20,000 ghosts and aliens. Aliens don't speak English, however, so she is not sure what they are saying.

Interest in EVP apparently began in the1920s. An interviewer from Scientific American asked Thomas Edison about the possibility of contacting the dead. Edison, a man of no strong religious views, said that nobody knows whether “our personalities pass on to another existence or sphere” but

it is possible to construct an apparatus which will be so delicate that if there are personalities in another existence or sphere who wish to get in touch with us in this existence or sphere, this apparatus will at least give them a better opportunity to express themselves than the tilting tables and raps and ouija boards and mediums and the other crude methods now purported to be the only means of communication. (Clark 1997: 235)

There is no evidence, however, that Edison ever designed or tried to construct such a device. And he probably did not foresee spirits communicating with our tape recorders and television sets.

— [10]

The other sources would be just as good better. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And so for example, if a source on EVP claims radio frequency interference as part of the package, then a sourced explanation of how electronic circuits are liable to resonate via radio reception is extremely appropriate. And yet, curiously, this completely contradicts what you did here- LuckyLouie 08:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Just so. The source almost certainly did not mention EVP, therefore was not a source on EVP. The source I'm talking about is Physics for Scientists and Engineers: Electricity, Magnetism, Light, and Elementary Modern Physics (5th ed.) The passage seems to be synthesis. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

But you're simultaneously arguing for inclusion of the Edison source [11], which doesn't mention EVP at all, and, to quote you, "therefore, was not a source on EVP". - LuckyLouie 08:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Where does that source, or the quotation you have provided, claim that Edison was involved in EVP? The Skepdic piece first says that interest in EVP began in the 1920s, but then says that there is no evidence that Edison ever designed or tried to design such a device. That piece really does not justify inclusion. What about the other sources? Antelan ^talk 08:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do the sources mention Edison? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, I'm really confused. Here he says,"If the source is not discussing the subject, it is not allowed in Wikipedia". There are dozens of examples in FA's that prove his notion is quite wrong. This is sadly yet another example of his highly eccentric interpretation of Wikipedia policies. - LuckyLouie 08:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Take the [12] source out, it isn't necessary.

As to LL's other point, where do we claim in the article that Edison was involved with EVP? We simply accept the word of the sources that Edison is part of EVP history. Or are you actually claiming that we can't make the, ah, "leap" from the source's inclusion of Edison in a history of EVP, and the relevance of Edison to the history of EVP, because the source does not say "Edison is relevant to the history of EVP?" That would go down well with a neutral party. Very creative interpretation of the rules.

And in all fairness, you might be right that sound recording texts would be relevant if we were truly presenting EVP as a topic of sound recording. But we are not: EVP are well-know anomalies -flaws- in the recordings, which are interpreted as paranormal. The flaws and variations in white noise are acknowledged to sometimes exist. So what you need is a source which addresses the interpretation as paranormal. You can't just say that sound researchers have no term for EVP, because they do: they call them flaws or RF or whatever (else there would be no skeptical explanations). So I could go do OR and say that sound engineers have confirmed the existence of EVP. It would be very easy. But no: the source has to draw the connection between the sound variations and the interpretations. Then you could include it. The policy is there so we don't go have OR wars like that. See you Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 09:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are not reading that source critically. Yes, the source discusses Edison, but it later clarifies that what he was involved with was nothing like EVP. It did not descend linearly from him, he didn't attempt anything like it, etc. It's just an extraneous but entertaining introduction into the material that they are about to present. It does not implicate Edison as the grandfather of EVP. It does not implicate Edison in EVP. Edison. EVP. Not linked. This is why I ask, "What about your other sources?" As far as I can tell, they don't even contain "EVP" and "Edison" within the same article, making this whole enterprise based entirely upon one article that doesn't even connect the two. Antelan ^talk 18:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

First let me say that I don't care if the Edison segment is removed. I don't think it really adds anything. However, I do feel that it could be included if there were a consensus to do so (doesn't look like there is). Edison didn't do anything with EVP. However, Edison is sometimes associated with EVP through sources such as SkepDic and others. This is "synthesis", or the pairing of two otherwise unrelated items. Wikipedia forbids "original synthesis" in the WP:OR guides. In other words, I couldn't make the connection on my own. However, if an outside source published a connection between the two, it is not original synthesis. Edison didn't do any EVP research. Edison is, however, associated with the EVP story through independent sources, and is therefore fair game for inclusion. That said, dump the segment. There's no consensus for it and I think, personally, it's a distraction in the history section and belongs more in a trivia section which would be useless as well. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but we've had this discussion before, came to this conclusion, and Martinphi still added the section back. Antelan ^talk 19:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "yes," Antelan? Are you admitting that your reasons for edit warring that section out were wrong? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more inflammatory or off-topic? And just so you don't get the idea that a null reply is a "yes", my answer is emphatically, "no." Not even just "no, I'm not wrong," but also "no, that's a total mischaracterization of my actions and statements."Antelan ^talk 19:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean Antelan. I objected to your reverting for invalid reasons. I think that is a bad way to act, and even though you hound me all over Wikipedia, I don't revert you for invalid reasons. I believe the Edison stuff is valuable in the article, but I'm not set on it, as I said before. If you had just said that you don't think it goes well in the article, I would have been fine with taking it out. But as it is, you seem to have reverted it for a reason which, now, you seem to be saying you knew was invalid. If that is so, your reverts, in addition to being unnecessary, were disruptive. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My reason for removing the section was legitimate - as I've maintained this entire time - because we are synthesizing Edison into the EVP story when he does not belong there. Must I remind you that, since you are on the AA-EVP committee with Tom Butler, you do have extrinsic interest in this article, thus running the risk of having a conflict of interest with regard to the encyclopedia? Why is it, I wonder, that you are veering into commenting on me instead of providing better sources for the Edison claim that you would like to make? Or can we conclude that you concede that the Edison piece should remain out of this article?Antelan ^talk 20:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Antelan, I consider the argument over, because Nealparr and I have made our case. I encourage you to refrain from disruptive reverting in the future. And I also encourage you to enforce WP rules by taking the COI claims to a higher level. If you are not willing to do this, then please note that I will ignore such claims in the future. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi, the point of reminding you about COI is to avoid taking it to a higher level. Antelan ^talk 03:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the same opinion as Atelan and Nealparr, and support removal of the Edison material. --Northmeister 22:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of making Nealparr feel that I am overlooking the discussion, I have to interject a point. Antelan, you said, "Must I remind you that, since you are on the AA-EVP committee with Tom Butler, you do have extrinsic interest in this article, thus running the risk of having a conflict of interest with regard to the encyclopedia?" Your are obviously trying to concoct a reason to disqualify an opposing editor. In fact, Edison is not considered an EVP pioneer by people who have bothered to research the history. He, like many inventors, tried to develop a psi detector that has never been shown to work. Otherwise, there is no evidence that he had never recorded an EVP and he is not considered a person who has contributed to the body of knowledge associated with EVP.

It appears that Martin and I are at odds with that point because i would delete any mention of him in the article, and so, your argument that his association with Etheric Studies automatically places him in a position of conflict of interest is unfounded. Find anotherred herring to wave about! Tom Butler 02:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I do consider it to be a conflict of interest, although editors are not proscribed from editing articles in which they have a COI. The Edison name carries a lot of cachet, and it could be seen as an appeal to authority. This is especially delicate because there is no real connection, a point upon which we agree. Antelan ^talk 02:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh, when Antelan was, editing the article on Psychic surgery, I should have remembered he is a medical student. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Spirits of the deceased section

In the spirit of Northmeister's previous WP:BOLD rewrite and reorganization of the article and Martin's original addition of the material, I have attempted to properly frame the "Spirits of the deceased" section, which appeared to be a cut and paste of large portions of text from the AA-EVP site. - LuckyLouie 20:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems of attributing things to specific sources is that it makes it look like that may be THE ONLY source for the claim. For example, the article surrently tells us that,

According to author and AA-EVP Director Tom Butler, questions have been asked during EVP recording sessions, and the audio recordings made during those sessions have contained utterances properly answering the questions

But his could just as easily say, According to author and AA-EVP Director Tom Butler, and Raudive, and Cass, and Bander, and Meek, and many others, questions have been asked.... Is there no way to make the point that many people make this claim. Indeed, this claim is one of the key claims regarding EVP, i.e., not just words, also interactiveness.LutherFlint 20:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. That could be a refinement of that particular section. As I see it, the article has taken the lazy (and unbalanced) route of simply citing the AA-EVP for large sections of material. In a more balanced rewrite at some future date, an editor might be able to present a more accurate picture of the widespread beliefs and practices cited from varied sources. - LuckyLouie 20:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The lead

I've been quite unhappy with the present lead's source and phrasing. I've changed the lead sentence and used a better reference to indicate meaning. The use of the term 'certain' was unnecessary in my opinion originally and made the article start off in an improper manner. Hence, my change. The referenced used was published in the "Journal of Scientific Exploration" in 2001 and is by Imants Baruss, who conducted a scientific study of EVP - concluding that although there was evidence of the 'weak' kind (voices could be heard), he could not replicate voices of the 'strong' kind. His work is a standard by which I see this article going - together with those of Raudive and others which Baruss commented on in his history portion of the report. --Northmeister 23:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the phrasing of your lead, however I think it is a bit unorthodox to use a WP:FRINGE source [13] (the JSE) to represent the mainstream view of the subject. - LuckyLouie 23:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the source itself covers the fringe, but the personage in the report from what I read conducted his research in a scientific manner and backs the basic understanding of the term in both communities a least according to the definition. I'm open to other sources of course. I wished to avoid 'certain' and other statements as such, as it is not entirely accurate per the literature of the subject. Baruss' study is from my reading a good source for covering this topic alongside others and together with others and gives a balanced view of the topic from an actual scientific study of the phenomena.--Northmeister 23:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I know this has been covered before, but the opening paragraph is just not coherent as written.

• Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) refers to the purported manifestation of voices of ghosts or spirits made audible through static on the radio, or on electronic recording media.[1] According to psychologist Konstantin Raudive, who popularized the phenomena,[2] the "voices" are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase.[3] Later authors have said that they are observed on diverse media, including: radio, television, tape recorders, video recorders, and digital recording devices, and are sometimes answers to questions asked during the taping. EVP are considered by paranormal researchers as a subset of instrumental transcommunication. There is an absence of documentation regarding EVP in mainstream scientific literature.[4]

The last sentence, is necessary, but reads rather out of place for the paragraph. Using "According to..." is unnecessary in my opinion; although it is ok. The "Later authors have said:" doesn't read well. The paragragh could be improve substantially to be more precise and clear I think. Here is a proposed paragraph I crafted prior to our present rewrite:

• Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP), a term used in the paranormal research community, describes speech or speech-like sounds, which are inaudible during recording but detected on electronic recording media upon playback. These sounds are often believed to be ghosts or spirits, although there are various other explanations for the phenomena. The apparent 'voices' are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase and are sometimes said by researchers to be answers to questions asked during the taping. EVP has been observed on diverse media, including: radio, television, tape recorders, video recorders, and digital recording devices. EVP are considered a subset of the broader field of instrumental transcommunication.

I'm not saying we need to go with the above; but it reads in a more straight-forward manner in parts. I propose we take the present and rewrite it in the manner above using the presents wording as agreed upon and that we find a way to include the final sentence to the present into the opening paragraph that actually works. Maybe I'm being to much a stickler for detail, so I'll move on if others are satisfied with the present opening paragragh. --Northmeister 00:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're trying to improve the lead but unfortunately must state my view that the suggested change is not an improvement because it is vague ("are often believed to be" -- by whom?) and it accepts the existence of EVP at face value. I fully agree that the current lead is a mess. Let's keep trying. Raymond Arritt 00:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestion that we might work with? --Northmeister 00:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you are unhappy with the Baruss definition, I moved the lead back to the BBC definition as a basis for discussion. - LuckyLouie 00:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not Baruss' definition that I have a problem with, otherwise I would not have made the change. It is the readability and coherence of the rest of the paragragh I have concerns with. --Northmeister 00:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Howabout:

• Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are purported manifestation of voices of ghosts or spirits made audible through electronic media.[1] According to paranormal researchers such as Konstantin Raudive, who popularized the phenomena,[2] the "voices" are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase.[3] EVP purportedly have been detected on diverse media, such as radio, television, tape recorders, video recorders, and digital recording devices. Those who accept the existence of EVP have stated that they are sometimes answers to questions asked in recording sessions. EVP are considered by paranormal researchers as a subset of instrumental transcommunication. Documentation of EVP in mainstream scientific literature is absent.[4]

This is a starting point. Note that I prefer active voice and simple declarative sentences whenever possible, so as to produce clear and readable text. Raymond Arritt 00:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Northmeister. I'm confused. You added the Baruss definition to the article, then (above) proposed a version which did not include it, but did not explain why you propose its exclusion. If you actually DO want the Baruss defintion as a permanent part of the lead, I urge you to revert back to the previous version, with my apologies - LuckyLouie 00:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A misunderstanding of my intentions - thats all. I made the suggested revert. The text I wrote prior to our present work, and was to indicate the sort of coherence I was suggesting for the opening paragraph. I offered it as an example only. Per Raymonds suggestion above - I think we can work with some of his material. I'll re-read it and offer my opinion thereof or any improvements I see it needs as a working proposal. --Northmeister 01:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In reponse to Raymond's proposed here is my reworking of his material and the present material.

• Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are the purported manifestation of voices of ghosts or spirits made audible through electronic media.[1] These reported 'voices' are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase and are sometimes said by researchers to be answers to questions asked during the taping. (here we place reference to Raudive source) The phenomena has been detected, by various individuals (here we place a good reference to indicate this), on diverse media, including: radio, television, tape recorders, video recorders, and digital recording devices. Although research has been conducted into the phenomena (here we place the study of Baruss), there is presently no documentation of EVP in mainstream scientific literature (here we place the present reference indicating this). EVP is considered by paranormal researchers as a subset of instrumental transcommunication.

Whether the above is acceptable or an improvement I'll leave to individual editors. If others wish to take this, and work from it as we have done above - feel free. All comments are welcomed. My concern is readability and coherence - trying to work all into a logical lead paragragh. --Northmeister 01:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't we spend a lot of time the other day hammering out an intro we could all agree on? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently all do not agree. Although I have no problem with what we hammered out - it has been changed since. The last sentence in particular that does not fit with the present paragragh - thus my attempts to do this above. As far as WP:WTA, you do have a good point. I was working from the definition given by the researcher. After our agreement, there was much debate about who a paranormal researcher was etc. per the original wording. Thus my observations on the text. I have no problem keeping what we can agree to - but we must work out a proper synthesis for that last sentence with the rest of the paragragh. What do you think of my proposed sentence (not entire paragragh) as means to this end?

• Although research has been conducted into the phenomena (here we place the study of Baruss), there is presently no documentation of EVP in mainstream scientific literature (here we place the present reference indicating this). --Northmeister 02:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have no major problem with the first paragraph of the lead as it is. It could be better, as per Raymond's suggestions. And I do appreciate Northmeister's concern with accurately stating the level of scientific acceptance of EVP in the lead. It would be good to see comments from lots of editors on this subject. Someone correct me if I am wrong here; I think every single editor involved with this article understands that EVP and the concept of communication from the dead on electronic devices is not supported by the mainstream scientific community. However, strict quotations of available sources have resulted in a series of ambiguous and unclear statements in the lead which are inadequate to properly frame the article as fringe views of a fringe subject. Without clear language, the article hovers back and forth in an artificial grey area where EVP appears to be "maybe science...yet science is not addressing it". I don't think such ambiguity and confusion is in the best interests of Wikipedia as a serious reference work which attempts to give a fair treatment to fringe subjects without unintentionally aggrandizing them. I don't think ambiguous wording is the solution here (and proposed phrases to introduce views as those of "researchers" rather than "paranormal researchers" doesn't help). This article failed GA once already, and (among other things) one of the major reasons for failing the article was expressed by the reviewer with, "At the very least I would expect an entire paragraph of the lead presenting the mainstream view that this is a fringe, unreal phenomenon". It may be time to look at other articles which cover similar fringe theories and concepts to see how they handle the question. If that isn't an option, it may be helpful to seek wide input from the community at the Village Pump or other appropriate venue to help resolve the matter. - LuckyLouie 03:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The current article has "" the quote "At the very least I would expect an entire paragraph of the lead presenting the mainstream view that this is a fringe, unreal phenomenon" was extremely strange, given that we had such a paragraph, written by WDM, in place.

How about "There is an absence of documentation regarding EVP in mainstream scientific literature, but it has had a very small ammount of coverage in journals outside the mainstream, such as the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

That should really give the context fully, I would think, when combined with the cultural part. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go back to my original statements from months ago. The most notable part of this whole topic is that it's interpretive, very much like pseudo-backmasking where people play a recording backwards and think they hear satanic messages. All you have to say is that science doesn't cover it, like science doesn't have much to do with other mostly-interpretive things, and call it a day. It doesn't have to be defined as not-scientific. It's not a field of study. It's just a phenomenon. It doesn't have to be defined as an unreal phenomenon because it is very much real. People really hear a real part of a real clip, and from there it's all interpretation. All of that "not real" stuff doesn't need to be there. Place a statement that eloquently says people hear what they want to hear, throw in a science doesn't cover it statement, and call it done. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That could be good or not. I don't have enough information to interpret how you'd actually write that. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Nealparr, that doesn't work. What makes this phenomenon manifestly fringe is that people think they're hearing voices from beyond the dead, etc. That also happens to be what makes this notable. Take that out and you're left with a very basic physical phenomenon of interference, etc., that can be addressed in a couple paragraphs at most. If you introduce even the notion that this may be paranormal, you have to dedicate a significant amount of this article to describing its fringe nature. Antelan ^talk 16:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, the "man hears what he wants to hear" articles are already written; pareidolia and observer-expectancy effect. What makes EVP fringe is that it's a term created by a book publisher to describe communication with the dead. It wasn't ever presented as a mystery effect that has alternate explanations. The latter part is just AA-EVP promotional spin, and should be covered, but as their belief, not a fact. - LuckyLouie 16:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No one's suggesting dropping the fact that they interpret these sounds to be the voices of ghosts and spirits, because that is the notable feature. I never said take that out, just that it is an interpretation. It is a fringe belief. It's not fringe science. Science doesn't cover subjective interpretations, beliefs, and conclusions, which is why parapsychology avoids making any. Here, the interpretation, not the collection of the sounds, is the notable part. However scientific they say the collection of the sounds is (RF-screened laboratories for example), ultimately it's the interpretation that makes it not related to science, even in a fringe way. That's purely the realm of belief because there's no way of disproving it. Honestly, I don't see what was wrong with the earlier intros that everyone briefly agreed upon. They were fine with no significant problems. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Mostly agree with you NealParr, my comment above was intended as a more general observation. - LuckyLouie 18:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I know LL. Regarding the intro, though, I'm of the opinion that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't think there's anything seriously wrong with the current version of the intro. The other sections need more work. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree the other sections need more work. Go for it. - LuckyLouie 18:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"It wasn't ever presented as a mystery effect that has alternate explanations" Actually, that's not true: that's where the paranormal part comes in. That is the alternate explanation. In terms of this article, that is the primary explanation, and the interference is the alternate.

If it is true what the researchers say, that the voices answer questions and the words are agreed upon by multiple listeners, then this is not merely a belief. It can in fact be scientifically investigated. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I was watching the Maury Show the other day around Halloween and they had some AA-EVP clips on. One of them was from the AA-EVP, and they said it clearly said "Big Circle". Nobody that I was watching with, nor myself, thought it sounded anything like "Big Circle". Since "Big Circle" is an AA-EVP term [14] it makes sense that they were more likely to hear that than something else. Trust me, even when the voice is in answer to a question, there's a lot there open to interpretation. Even if everyone agreed that it sounds like "Big Circle" (which we didn't), the alternate interpretation is that it's just a coincidence that it sounds like that, and isn't meaningful. It's the subjective conclusions which can't be proved one way or the other that makes it not related to science. At best, it's statistics, as in let's poll people and see how many think it sounds like "Big Circle". The reason that isn't really science is because it only shows how popular an opinion is, versus revealing a fact. It's totally interpretive. Of course that's all my OR and doesn't have much to do with the actual article unless it's sourced. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Nealparr, your explanation of the phenomenon right there was far more cogent of a treatment of what's going on than this article gives right now. Antelan ^talk 23:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"It's the subjective conclusions which can't be proved one way or the other that makes it not related to science." They haven't been proved, but they could be. If you ran an experiment for 1 hour and asked question X, got what you thought was an answer, then ran it by 100 people who nothing of the experimental situation and 30 of them agreed with your interpretation. And, if the answer was something complex or unusual and fit the situation in a very specific way. And this experiment is repeated. Then you have hard science. So saying you can't do science on this seems an unjustified assertion.

In fact, science has been done on it. You can say it is bad science, wasn't properly done, or that ghosties just don't exist so there must be a problem with the data and everyone who would even consider the experiment is a crazy. But you can't say that scientific experiments of some quality or other have not been done. And you can't say it is not possible to do science on the subject. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's possible to do a meaningful scientific experiment on the topic, but it would have to be very carefully designed. I've not seen evidence that any of the experiments done to date qualify as "scientific" in a meaningful sense (well designed, adequate sample size, carefully controlled, double-blind, and so on). Richard Feynmann's essay on cargo cult science describes some of the likely pitfalls. Raymond Arritt 01:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You guys are missing my point. It's not the experiments or the research that is the notable here, it's the conclusion -- ghosts caught on tape. The conclusion isn't based on research or experiments, it's a totally subjective interpretation. You can do the most scientific of experiments, have all the controls in place, have everyone 100% agree on what they heard, and still the source of the sound that everyone 100% agrees on is pure speculation. Already in the article you have people interpreting it as ghosts, extraterrestrials, echoes from the past, and living people through PK. Every one of those interpretations is not based on evidence, but solely someone's preconceived opinion of what they want it to be. Even if the EVP said "I come from Mars", that's not proof that the source is extraterrestrial, because it could always be a ghost lying : ) "I'm Bob" doesn't scientifically mean that your dead brother contacted you, because it could always be an extraterrestrial messing with your head. These are conclusions based on anecdotes, not scientific, and are drawn from speculation. And it's the conclusions that it is disembodied voices that makes EVP what it is. The term has conclusions embeded in the definition. That's why the topic itself is not really related to science in any way shape or form, even fringe, except maybe the part of psychology that deals with how people interpret things. Again, my observations, nothing to do with the article itself, except that the article is about a belief topic, not a science topic, and should be framed as such. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I hear in this discussion, the present lead paragragh is fine - and that is good enough for me. I do request one change - to the last sentence to make it fit better - thus:

• Although research has been conducted into the phenomena (here we place the study of Baruss), there is presently no documentation of EVP in mainstream scientific literature (here we place the present reference indicating this). This would allow us to show it has been studied (and could not be replicated) and it is not documented in mainstream scientific literature. Both, I might add correct statements. I agree with LuckyLouie and Nealparr above, that once we get past this, we shold begin to move onto other sections - for improvement. Given the number of qualified editors here; I don't see why we can't have a cohesive, comprehensive, and neutral article on this topic - call me an optimist. --Northmeister 01:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"Although research as been conducted". How much research? One study? Ten studies? What kind of research? Mainstream research? Fringe research? Amateur research? Rather than remain mysteriously ambiguous, the phrase "research" would need to be made textually explicit, if used. And the use of "although" creates more ambiguity, seeming to put forward some kind of unclear proposition about why there is no mainstream literature. Good try, but seriously flawed. - LuckyLouie 02:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Here a qualifier would be appropriate because you are drawing a distinction between that research and mainstream research. "Parapsychological research" is the correct term. Baruss publishes in parapsychology journals. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

::::Although parapsychological research has been conducted into the phenomena, there is an absence of documentation for EVP in mainstream scientific literature. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

However, even most parapsychologists dismiss EVP. Antelan ^talk 04:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion incorporating what is currently in the paragraph:

EVP are considered by paranormal researchers as a subset of instrumental transcommunication, and parapsychological research has been conducted on the subject.[source] However, there is an absence of documentation regarding EVP in mainstream scientific literature.[source] --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that Baruss has published on EVP in a Parapsychological journal? Antelan ^talk 05:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Journal of Scientific Exploration, yes. (Baruss, I. (2001). Failure to replicate electronic voice phenomenon. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 15, 355-367.) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A yeoman's job, Nealparr. Though troubling that one very limited and essentially failed experiment published in the JSE is portrayed as some unspecified amount of past "parapsychological research". The Baruss paper is notable as a minor beat in the EVP story. Trying to squeeze a definitive statement about mainstream acceptance of EVP out of "he couldn't find any papers in mainstream journals" strikes me as misguided. I yearn for clarity. Check out Hollow_earth. Slim on referenced citations, it treats the fringe view fairly, yet not as an equal. The other thought I had is a process thing. Setting the lead in stone and then writing the article around it is, well, strange. I suppose it's one way of doing it, but it wouldn't be my first choice. - LuckyLouie 05:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Raudive and Bayless were also published in parapsychology journals. The notable fringe research is definitely parapsychological. As for framing the lack of mainstream acceptance, I'm still open to other sources. Like I said before, that's the best I found on my own. On writing from a lead, I agree. I think the basics of this lead were written based on the current article. Except for framing, I don't think it's all that bad though. It presents a pretty good overview of the topic. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Lack of mainstream acceptance source

Maybe someone else can extract a better wording from my source to frame the lack of mainstream acceptance. It seems there's some material to work with when you actually read the full text rather than the abstract that I skimmed earlier. Here's the relevant part of the source

---

Notwithstanding repeated searches over a number of years, no scientific literature could be found concerning EVP in mainstream English-language scientific journals, although some information concerning EVP was found in psychical research and parapsychology periodicals and various trade publications and newsletters. This previous lack of involvement on the part of the scientific community has created problems for research in this subject area.

As EVP is widely ignored by the scientific community, the exploration is left to amateur researchers who lack the expert qualifications (not to mention funds and facilities) to resolve the enigma. In addition, their field research is often hampered by a remarkable lack of critical judgement, amplified by the various subjective notions that motivate amateurs experimenting with unknown phenomena. (Heinzerling, 1997, p. 28)

“The ‘field’ seemed to proceed in the most unscientific manner, nothing was ever measured, although the words ‘research’ and ‘expert’ were bandied around like tokens in a game of ‘let’s play scientists’” (MacRae, 1984, p. 36).

The net result is that there is no reliable history of research protocols and results upon which the current study could be based. The following summary of the history of EVP has been taken from some of the English-language sources that I was able to obtain. No effort has been made to review information in languages other than English or to review information available on the Internet. For an alternate historical overview see Uphoff et al. (1988).

---

Now, what text to actually use... discuss. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources for the quoted parts:

• Heinzerling, J. (1997). All about EVP. Fortean Times: The Journal of Strange Phenomena, November, 26–30.
• MacRae, A. (1984). Some findings relating to the electronic voice phenomenon. Psi Research, March, 36–46.

Seems Antelan is right, parapsychologists don't care much for the scientific practices of EVP researchers either.

And to answer ScienceApologist's earlier question on "what makes a paranormal researcher?", baring academic parapsychologists, pop culture paranormal research is closely aligned with MacRae's description: “The ‘field’ seemed to proceed in the most unscientific manner, nothing was ever measured, although the words ‘research’ and ‘expert’ were bandied around like tokens in a game of ‘let’s play scientists’.” Still, Wikipedia aims to chronicle pop culture so we give them a fair shake. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the great quote as that's a large part of what bothers me about this whole thing. If it were just a matter of faith I wouldn't be nearly so critical, but if they're going to pretend to be scientists they should be judged at least in part from a scientific perspective. Raymond Arritt 06:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff Nealparr. I hope however that MacRae isn't going to be the linch-pin for this deal. In the quote above, he's sounding objective. But in his "research", he states that EVP emanates from entities in the er, 5th dimension [15] (His site is down, hence the Internet Archive link) - LuckyLouie 07:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the 5th dimension, they tended to use good studio musicians like Joe Osborn. Oh, you meant... Raymond Arritt 07:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say he wasn't actually being objective when he made that statement. He was being critical of other researchers and implying that he was more scientific than them. Of course he's partial to his own research. The sources I'd use in making a statement that mainstream science ignores EVP research is Heinzerling, Baruss, and Carroll (SkepDic article). It would say something like:

"Mainstream science ignores electronic voice phenomena, leaving the topic to be studied by a handful of parapsychologists and, more often, amateur researchers who lack the facilities and qualifications to conduct scientific research. The result is an absence of documentation for EVP in scientific literature."

Then I would go on to fairly (and less critically) describe the history of EVP and the beliefs associated with them, knowing that the topic has been adequately framed. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Best I've heard yet. - LuckyLouie 07:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you frame it strongly like that, you make it clear that what is about to be described is essentially rejected by the scientific community. Then the article may proceed in describing the topic's pop-culture relevance. So long as people don't try to "hem" in details that later make it sound scientific, you won't really have to "haw" with more descriptions of the scientific rejection, leaving the article much more peaceful and clearcut in describing a cultural, not physical/etc, phenomenon. Antelan ^talk 07:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The rest of the article would still conform to WP:FIVE, the same as this statement. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as it must. Antelan ^talk 08:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a big problem with that. However, 1., some people will have a problem with you calling them parapsychologists. 2. you are talking about a result of their lack of qualificatinos. I doubt their lack of qualifications made it impossible for them to study it. On the whole, I think it will be challenged in the future. Personally, however, I'm OK with it.

There is just one thing: you don't need qualifications or facilities to conduct scientific EVP research. Change to

"Mainstream science ignores electronic voice phenomena, leaving the topic to be studied by a handful of parapsychologists and, more often, amateur researchers who made little attempt to follow scientific procedure."

You'll get far less flack on that, and it is more accurate. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi, the handful of parapsychologists are the parapsychologists ["some information concerning EVP was found in psychical research and parapsychology periodicals"], they wouldn't object to being called that.

The qualifications and facilities part is reliably sourced ["the exploration is left to amateur researchers who lack the expert qualifications (not to mention funds and facilities) to resolve the enigma"]. The source doesn't mention anything about the degree in which amateurs attempt to follow scientific procedure. It says they lack the expert qualifications to know what the procedures are. And yes, you actually do need qualifications to conduct scientific EVP research. I'm not qualified. I don't know crap about sound engineering.

I don't mind it being challenged because it is reliably sourced and accurate to the source. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. But say "expertise," not "qualifications," because that's what the source means, and the way you have it makes it sound like academic credentials are necessary to do science. I wouldn't bet on no objections to being called parapsychologist. Heh. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 09:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Both mean "skill set", so I don't have a objection to that (in fact, you could use that wording, "skill set"). It's not the PhD after the name that's the issue. It's the ability to do the job right. If someone objects to the word parapsychologist, I'll just point to the place where it talks about the parapsychologists. Again, all the notable (published in journals) research in this article comes from parapsychology (Szalay & Bayless, Raudive & Jürgenson, Barušs, MacRae). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added Nealparr's suggested sentence(s) to replace what we had, as there seems to be agreement on them. --Northmeister 12:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing references to "spirits" as associated with the AA-EVP

The reference for "According to the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena, communications from discarnate entities is one paranormal hypothesis to explain EVP. The Association says that these spirits,[22] ..." does not say anything about "spirits."

Please change the statement to something like: "According to the Shadowlands Ghosts and Hauntings website, [16] "EVP is a way of communicating with spirits."

Some people do refer to the communicators in EVP as "spirits;" however, the AA-EVP generally does not. (It is true that the "Big Circle" subdomain has references to spirits but we do not hold those members to the same standard as we do for the rest of the association.) You can find plenty of websites about EVP that are less concerned with semantics. Please change the statement to something like: "According to the Shadowlands Ghosts and Hauntings website, [17] "EVP is a way of communicating with spirits." Tom Butler 00:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Does this [18] work for you? - LuckyLouie 01:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. Thanks!

We are trying to make it okay for academically trained researchers to study these things and terms like "spirits" sends them running for the door. Tom Butler 02:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(1) What are "discarnate entities"? (2) Editing the article to assist the aspirations of AA-EVP (or any other organization) is utterly inappropriate. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It was an "according to the AA-EVP..." statement that was misquoted. Tom was explaining what the AA-EVP actually says. So it wasn't editing the article to assist the AA-EVP. It was editing to be accurate to the source. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Moribund editing jumpstarted

No one was editing for five days. I made some edits to the lead to get closer to NPOV. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Department of Redundancy Department

"Mainstream science ignores such claims...The result is an absence of documentation for EVP in scientific literature."[4] Is the second sentence really necessary? In other words, if mainstream science ignores the subject, it naturally follows that there can't be any documentation. Conversely, if there were documentation, obviously that would mean the topic wasn't ignored. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should just say that electronic voice phenomena is not considered a real phenomena by mainstream science and leave it at that. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

To say it is not considered a real phenomenon is to imply it is considered to be not real rather than just not considered. The same point would apply if we wrote "mainstream science does not consider evp to have been satisfactorily explained by skeptics". It's just playing with words and we shouldn't really do it.LutherFlint (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs and Explanations

Shouldn't we put the paranormal explanations and the scientific explanations under separate headings? Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

By whom?

The intro sentence is "Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are said to be manifestations of voices of ghosts or spirits made audible through static on the radio, or on electronic recording media." By whom are they said to be such? Let's add that to clarify. Antelan ^talk 04:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What wording do you propose? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking we take the same sentence and change "said to be" to "said by _____ to be." Antelan ^talk 05:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The AA-EVP. "According to the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena and researchers in the field, Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are manifestations of voices of ghosts or spirits made audible through static on the radio, or on electronic recording media." Then source the AA-EVP and Brauss and any others necessary. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Take out "researchers in the field" and I'm with you 100%. Antelan ^talk 05:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd change it to "EVP researchers." But we shouldn't act like it isn't the general view. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking it should be sourced to someone or some group, not some imagined construct like "EVP researchers" but a real group like "members of the AA-EVP". Antelan ^talk 22:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Intro sentence articulates what the cause of the phenomenon may be, not what the phenomenon is

In reading over the first sentence, I noticed that it's totally unobvious what EVP is based on how this article is written. The first sentence says, "Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are said to be manifestations of voices of ghosts or spirits made audible through static on the radio, or on electronic recording media." However, that's not a description of the phenomenon itself - it's a description of what some people say is the cause of the phenomenon. We should resolve this by making the intro sentence give our readers an idea of what the phenomenon is, then deal with its origins later. Antelan ^talk 22:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that would be very very nice, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, all intros which actually describe the phenomenon run into the little problem that if you describe it, you have to act for half a second as if it exists (else you're describing nothing), and that, people say, is POV-pushing. If you can do better than all the other editors since the beginning of the article without resorting to deprication or weaseling, that would be extremely nice. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Trouble is, the definition is bound up in the interpretation. Otherwise we just have static on the rabio. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why we're more or less stuck with a lame definition. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi, that's a misunderstanding. Editors have not called into question whether there is a social phenomenon of trying to interpret random bits of noise that show up on electronic media. This is EVP, and this is fine. Instead, what people have a problem with is when the lead states that the cause is ghosts/spirits/etc. So my point is that this current lead actually is problematic. A way to resolve the problem is to introduce EVP by describing the social phenomenon of interpreting noise found on electronic media, not by making claims about spiritual causes. That can come later. Antelan ^talk 00:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Martinphi, the WP:MOS guides naming conventions: "Only the first letter of the first word, letters in acronyms, and the first letter of proper nouns are capitalized; all other letters are in lower case (Funding of UNESCO projects, not Funding of UNESCO Projects)." Please undo the hasty move. Antelan ^talk 02:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That does not apply to names, or other things which are traditionally capitalized, such as EVP. There is some leeway here in the sources, but the majority capitalize. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Acronyms such as EVP are explicitly exempted from that convention. However, the title of this article is Electronic voice phenomena, which is not. Antelan ^talk 00:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is it not? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The first letter of the title is capitalized because that's the way Wikipedia likes it. Everything else falls under standard grammar [19]. If sources are out there capitalizing it as "Electronic Voice Phenomena" in their prose, they're breaking grammar rules. It's a term and should be written as "electronic voice phenomena". Briefly scanning the article, "Rorschach Audio" is messed up too. It should be "Rorschach audio". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Compare e.g., Pauli exclusion principle. Each word in the term follows the normal rules of grammar: "Pauli" is capitalized because it's a proper noun, while the noun as adjective "exclusion" and the common noun "principle" aren't. So it's "electronic voice phenomenon" (adverb, noun as adjective, common noun). Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This is all correct if and only if Wikipedia corrects (majority) standard usage, such as found on the AA-EVP home page and other places. Which is fine if it does, I just can't quote the policy. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't correcting "their grammar". If a direct quote is used, then it should be presented exactly as written. Otherwise it follows standard grammar rules because it's "our grammar". If it's in a direct quote it's the other guy's problem. If not in a quote, it's our problem.

This isn't picking on the AA-EVP and saying they alone have grammar problems. Check out CSI's article on the topic.[20] Throughout the page (when not a subtitle), they say "electronic voice phenomena". But then they screw up and capitalize it in two places, one near the first instance of "Jürgenson" and the other further down. All the other times it's lower case. Sort of inconsistent, eh? Probably comes from copy/pasting. Anyway, in our text we try to correct our grammar. In the other guy's text (direct quote), not our problem. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The American Medical Association capitalizes "Medical" and "Association" because those words are part of their name, which in toto is a proper noun, but we do not capitalize those words outside of that context. This is an exact parallel. Antelan ^talk 01:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I recently added this to policy, so if we are wrong here, they should provide feedback.... yes, here. So the question is rather open. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

For future editors who may see this discussion - Per the MOS, and the community rejection of Martinphi's explanation on the MOS, the question is not open. Antelan ^talk 21:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you really explained the situation accurately over there Martinphi. There is not a "convention" or "standard usage" to capitalize "electronic voice phenomena". Certainly some writers do, but you're making it out like it's the way most of them do. Google doesn't show a predominance of capitalization. The first 5 pages of Google Books [21] shows more lower case usage than upper case. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't the intent, but rather to establish the principle. Then we can argue whether it applies here- if we even care. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NAMING is also specific about pluralization. Try googling "electronic voice phenomenon" if there is discomfort with this term - you'll see it is in common usage. Clearly this term is not only used in the plural, and therefore ought to be named in the singular per WP policy. Antelan ^talk 07:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a good source, or just Google? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I should warn people against taking out sourced material, especially material which directly reflects previous consensus, and directly reflects the view of a mainstream scientist. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Need for supporting references

I have removed the edit by StevenJacobs: "Most notably, Sandra Belanger, who during the height of the Laci Peterson disappearance published EVP transcripts on the internet, which received a great amount of attention; the contents have been disproved in court testimony." Please do not put it back without supporting reference.

I will not address the sensibility of Belanger's actions, but I believe it can be shown that she sincerely believed she had recorded evidence in the case via EVP, and as a concerned person, brought that evidence to the authorities. As such, the material may be a good example of how EVP can produce misleading information--it sometimes does, but there is no basis to call the incident evidence of fraud. Tom Butler (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Silly Introduction

In the introduction it says that EVP are sections of static that some people interpret as voices. Some of them may be static, but all of them are not! Many examples of alleged EVP are clearly voices (see for example the CD The Ghost Orchid, which has many alleged EVP from Raymond Cass and Raudive). The interpretation bit is that people interpret the voices as voices of the dead. To claim that all EVP are is static, and to have this is as the opening definition, just makes the article look really stupid. LionelStarkweather (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, suggest a change, how would you put it? The current version is a new change, BTW. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Original research

You know, I'm willing to allow statements of OR in the article -per Ignore All Rules-, but only in the case that we stop belaboring things like attribution beyond what is necessary to inform the reader. It is good to be strict- but if you have to write things strictly according to a wiki lawyer's interpretation of "the rules," then the rules must be applied across the board.

I refer to sentences like "American photographer Attila von Szalay was among the first to try recording what he believed to be voices of the dead."

The "believed to be" should not be there, as it is double qualification.

Meanwhile Brauss, a critic, is given a carte blanch:

"Barušs did record several events that sounded like voices, but they were too few and too random to represent viable data and too open to interpretation to be described definitively as EVP"

Instead of:

"Barušs claimed to record several events that sounded like voices, but he believed they were too few and too random to represent viable data and too open to interpretation to be described definitively as EVP"

Meanwhile in the next paragraph, a paranormal researcher is treated thus:

MacRae reported that ALPHA is able to convert electrodermal responses into noise, which is then examined for EVP. In an attempt to demonstrate that different individuals would interpret EVP in the recordings the same way, MacRae asked seven people to compare some selections to a list of five phrases he provided, and to choose the best match. MacRae said his results indicated that the selections were not a form of Rorschach audio, but were of paranormal origin.

See what I mean? (And BTW, I didn't go through the whole article, I just looked lightly around). That's called POV, and it needs to go- at least, if we aren't going to apply the rules consistently. In which case, this is OR:

Instrumental transcommunication has gained no notability within the scientific community, and is not accepted within science. [22]

——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The instrumental transcommunication portion is directly supported by wp:fringe. Regarding the rest, I don't see simplifying the language as being a problem. Antelan ^talk 07:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate to ask this, but you aren't sourcing your statement by citing something in another Wikipedia page, are you? Because Wikipedia can't cite itself. Now, if we wanted to argue the point- I know of mentions within science. I could say it "has gained very little, though some, recognition within science." So where is your source? You have to have a mighty strong one, too (say, a statement of the scope of science from a major scientific body, specifically stating that EVP is out), since your are actually defining the parameters of science. In other words, ideally, we could write the thing neutrally and factually. But if things are going to be charicterized "paranormal believers," and subject to excessive or restrictive attribution, "Various explanations, theories and beliefs are associated with EVP by the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena," then the standards are too tight to allow OR. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sourcing the statement to Wikipedia itself (if you read wp:fringe, you'd know that). The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that instrumental transcommunication has gained any notability or acceptance within the scientific community. Antelan ^talk 08:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I can only guess that you don't see that your entry is a positive claim. Unless you wish to invoke Ignore All Rules, it must be sourced per WP:OR:

"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. "Original research" is a claim for which no reliable source can be found. Producing a reliable published source that advances the same claim taken in context is the only way to disprove an assertion that a claim constitutes original research. If there is a source, but the source or claim is disputed, that is not original research but rather of a question of reliable sourcing or undue weight. However, using information from references out-of-context or to forward claims not directly supported by the sources is original research."

As skeptics so often make clear -not that it is contested- it up to the claimant to provide proof. You have made a claim, so you need to source it. BTW, much of the article is in fact proof that instrumental transcommunication has gained some notability within the scientific community, unless you are automatically defining away anyone who researches EVP (such as Brauss) as a non-scientist- another sweeping claim you have to source. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

From WP:FRINGE "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." In keeping with this, I did not say that it has been rejected. However, as there is no scientific acceptance of the idea, I also noted that there is no acceptance. Antelan ^talk 07:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

EVP is plural

Okay, so now you are using wiki rules and Google to tell people who study EVP how they are supposed to write the terms they use. I am impressed by your arrogance in assuming that we do not know how to read and apply style guides. With all due respect for the hundreds of ghost hunting clubs on the Internet, most are still learning about EVP and their take on the subject should be considered in that light.

Electronic Voice Phenomena is capitalized by those who study the subject because it is used as a proper noun by convention. It is common for interest groups to capitalize words that have special significance for them and it is appropriate for others to respect such conventions when writing about those subjects in the context of a discussion about that field of interest. Instrumental TransCommunication is the same way. Properly, it should have been "IT" rather than "ITC" because the C" would not normally be capitalized. However, as it was coined, "transcommunication" was used as a compound word with the prefix "trans-" used as a word "trans." The capitalized "Communication" was to signify its importance. There is tradition for this since the naming requirements of the early computer programs that did not allow spaces but eventually did allow upper and lower case in the same string. Thus, "YouTube" would not normally be considered proper but now it is accepted as a style. WikiPedia treats the naming convention with respect at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube.

Electronic Voice Phenomena is plural as the name of a category of phenomena. Anyone who has bothered to study the subject should know this. For instance, I am currently drafting an article for aaevp.com that explorers the difference between EVP recorded using internally generated audio frequency energy and EVP formed from bits of sound generated by either weeping a radio spectrum or sampling a single stream of words. There is also what is known as Direct Voice Radio (DVR) which may eventually turn out not to be EVP at al, but s currently considered so in the community. Central office voice message storage and telephone answer machine EVP is a different type of EVP which may be formed with different physics and is almost always spontaneous.

My point is that, at least in the AA-EVP since 1982, EVP is used as a proper name for a category of phenomena, and is therefor capitalized and is plural. If you want us to change this usage to meet Wiki standards, then I suggest you become involved in our research, otherwise, kindly stop telling us that you know better. It is very irritating. Tom Butler (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If this were an article about AA-EVP, we would follow your spelling and capitalization conventions. For example, YouTube is a corporate name, and thus Wikipedia uses appropriate naming conventions. Electronic voice phenomenon, on the other hand, is an actual phrase that exists beyond your organization's title. Although your group may never use the singular, the singular does exist in frequent use. Telling me that I need to "become involved in our research" or "kindly stop telling us that you know better" because I try to apply Wikipedia's naming conventions, which are apparently in disagreement with your organization's internal pluralization practices, does strike me as an ownership issue. Antelan ^talk 21:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless EVP is trademarked by AA-EVP, it will be spelled according to common usage and the conventions of the English language. Whether AA-EVP as an organization prefers electronic voice phenomena, Electronic Voice Phenomena, or eLECtroNIC VoicE pHenomeNA is utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No one's asking the AA-EVP "to change this usage to meet Wiki standards". It's none of our business what the AA-EVP does. The issue is solely about this article, a Wikipedia article that must conform to Wikipedia standards. It doesn't have anything to do with the AA-EVP. Writers add captilization for emphasis all the time, as I'm sure the AA-EVP does. Wikipedia doesn't, the same as they avoid exclamatory statements. It's not a proper noun because it's not a specific person, place, or thing. It's not a proper name because Wikipedia doesn't add emphasis. It's not special here, sorry. There's no reason to capitalize it at Wikipedia, except when quoted, regardless of what the AA-EVP does. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually Antelan, I should know better than you about EVP but I can see that the Wikipedia disdain for subject matter experts is alive and well here. And yes, I have a sense of ownership in that it is my job to teach how to work with EVP and to study what it actually is. Seeing you argue wiki legalities rather then trying to write an article that reasonably describes the subject is, of course, irritating. I will say again, considering the public appearance of Wikipedia and its accessibility to students, you have a social responsibility to make sure Wiki articles are as factual as possible. Have you even considered asking other specialists in this field for their input?

Capitalization aside, if you are rejecting the notion that EVP is a category of phenomena which includes a number of different types, then I would like to see references for that claim. I can show references for the existence of the types of phenomena that are thought to be EVP. If there is more than one type, then EVP is plural.

The fact that you can find people on the Internet who do not capitalize EVP or use it as a plural does not make either the people or you correct. Before you use them as references, you should probably examine their credentials in the field.

Of course, you all can do what you want. I have learned to expect you to focus on rejecting an AA-EVP claim rather than examining the reasoning behind it. Tom Butler (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Though I don't think I should have to do so, I can tolerate your personal insults and your admission of WP:OWNership of this article. What I cannot tolerate is this attack on grammatical number in the English language. In all seriousness, I disagree that bringing this article's title into compliance with WP guidelines has done it harm. Antelan ^talk 02:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my feelings on the matter, where's the harm? I can understand people getting upset if someone posted something that said all EVP enthusiasts have mental issues or something else derogatory, but this is just about capitalization and singular/plural. What harm is there? The pro-ghosts book, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Ghosts and Hauntings, has electronic voice phenomena in lower case and singular [23]. I'm sure they're not out to present EVP in any negative way. Why would Wikipedia be considered "disdain for subject matter" just for following suit and trying to be grammatically correct without emphasis?

Hate to bring it up, Tom, but in your own book you quote the singular use [24] at least once. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Nealpar, now you sound like LuckyLouie with this "Gotcha!": "Hate to bring it up, Tom, but in your own book you quote the singular use..." Once again, if you look at the context of the use in that reference, it was used in the history section concerning the current understanding, and in fact, it specifically addresses tape recorder EVP, which as we know today, is a type of EVP but not the entire expression of the phenomena. Smythe coined it as the singular because that is what was known at the time.

Sure, you may find a few places that we use the plural or singular of EVP incorrectly. We try to follow grammatical rules, especially when we are speaking of one instance of EVP. I am also probably guilty of habitually using the plural when singular is correct. It can be complicated and that is why we feel it is important that any widely viewed media with encyclopedic authority get it right. Your statement, "... where's the harm?" tells me that you do not share that desire.

Seeing the extent some editors are willing to go to avoid accurately portraying paranormal subjects is revealing. Saying, "What I cannot tolerate is this attack on grammatical number in the English language" appears to be a simple effort to avoid the real issue. Since it is such obvious nonsense, I assume you are attempting humor.

Look, I really do not have time for this so let's cut to the point. I know that many editors think EVP is impossible, and consider it a personal responsibility to make sure readers do not go away thinking it is possible. The usual arsenal of caveats have been frowned on by the Administrators, but weasel words that subtly deriding people who believe in the possibility are not nearly as damaging as finding ways to relate paranormal articles to spiritual subjects. How can any rational thinker believe something is possible if it is clearly an article of religious faith? Thus, communicating with spirits is much more effective than communicating with entities. I wonder. Is it possible that you all are so determined to make EVP singular because making it plural suggests that, if there is more than one form, then there must really be something going on? Is that why you all are so obstinate?

Well, consider that a rhetorical question. I have work to do, so have your way with the article. Tom Butler (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom, what I mean by "where's the harm?" is really "why so combative all the time?" It's like pulling teeth to make any changes in the article without someone complaining, but simple grammatical changes becomes a reason to tell us we've got it all wrong as well? There's dozen of sources that lower case and singularized, so frankly I'm not even sure what you mean by accurately portraying the topic. I don't even get the distinction of it becoming plural when it becomes more than recorded media. I thought that's what ITC is for. But more than all of that, I don't know why you have to argue with people over these things.

You said you don't have time for this, but the only reason we're here is because you took the time to tell us we're wrong (further, for some reason you added that I don't have the desire to "get it right", don't understand that one either). Not every change is done to diminish the possibility of EVP or present it in a negative light. I support the capitalization and singular changes here not because I'm out to slam the topic. I support them because it makes sense and the alternative makes less sense. AGF is something that's thrown around so much it's cliche, but geeze man, AGF. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Discuss changes please

The treatment of explanations has been stable for some time, and I believe the previous version was widely agreed on. For SA to unilaterally change the treatment can only be seen as vandalism.

As for COI, you can make that accusation when I begin adding content. So far, all I have done is restore the article to a previous version and changed the way people who study EVP are referred to. It is simply incorrect to cast all who study EVP into the category of believers. If you do, then you must be saying that you have not studied EVP. Tom Butler (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Responses: (1) When an editor restores deleted content, the content becomes the responsibility of the editor who restored it, regardless of who originally added the material. Therefore COI considerations enter when you restore content that discusses your own work. (2) Wikipedia has a specific definition of vandalism. Please see especially the discussion of What vandalism is not. Spurious accusations of vandalism such as those you have made above are considered personal attacks and may result in temporary or indefinite suspension of editing privileges. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was not vandalism. But Butler did not know that- he hasn't edited much, and is probably working from a common definition of vandalism, rather than from the specialized definition used on WP. COI applies only to POV edits.

Calling them believers is not acceptable, being a highly POV characterization. "Paranormal investigator" is the common usage, "scholar" or "researcher" would also be neutral terms, and verifiable by sources. "Believer," however, is POV because it puts things in the realm of religion, which is specifically rejected by said "believers." "Enthusiast" is also POV for some of the more serious researchers. If we're talking about ghost hunting in the common sense, then that would be fine, but not for the researchers. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"Believer" is hard to justify as there's no possible way of knowing, much less generalizing, the beliefs of everyone involved. Christian doesn't even make that assumption. There are many Christians that just subscribe to Christian tenets without believing in them. "Adherents" is the word used in that article.

Bad example, though, because I also don't agree with the religious connotations objection raised by Martinphi. You can believe that EVP are manifestations of ghosts and not be religious.

Scholar is stretching it a bit. Most EVP researchers don't have an academic degree and I think that's required to be a scholar.

Nothing wrong with saying researcher (preferred), investigator, or enthusiast. And yes, enthusiast applies to the more serious researcher. "In modern ordinary usage, enthusiasm has lost its religious significance, and means a whole-hearted devotion to an ideal, cause, study or pursuit" (from enthusiast).--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Enthusiast is fine with me. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There isn't any requirement of an academic degree to be a scholar!. Anyway, we can easily see what the words really mean by looking at who wants to put them in: those who want to discredit put in "believer," and object to "researcher" or "investigator-" even though that seems to be one of the most widely accepted terms in the area. Enthusiast is OK (with me) as I said, for amateurs, but again that word is like believer, meaning as it does: intense enjoyment, interest, or approval [25]. And it is more likely to be used, if allowed here "in a depreciatory sense, it implies a devotion which is partisan and is blind to difficulties and objections". So both believer and enthusiast are POV. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Enthusiast" is fine, as is "believer." Anyone who accepts that EVP are attributable to "ghosts or spirits" is prima facie a believer in the paranormal, since ghosts and spirits are paranormal phenomena outside the purview of science. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

SA had every reason to know that his edit would be unpopular, and to make it anyway is clearly a provocation. Call it otherwise as you wish, but the very long history of instability in this article and contentious editing, of which SA has been a part, makes it all the more important to have open discussion before such moves.

I am not interested in who owns what after an edit. When I start adding material such as the AA-EVP is great or you cannot know EVP without reading the Butler's book, then you have reason to complain. I am not adding content beyond what was previously agreed to during discussions. Had SA opened a dialog before making the edits, I probably would not have even contributed an opinion. As it is, I have seen that, if they are not questione, the skeptical community takes inch by inch until the article is a James Randi billboard.

I cite Conflict of interest 10.1) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest strongly cautions but does not forbid an editor from working in subject areas where the editor is strongly invested. Such editing must be done responsibly. Other editors are expected to respond diplomatically even when they believe a conflict of interest may exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed_decision#Conflict_of_interest Tom Butler (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith; your contention that SA's edit was a "provocation" rubs against Wikipedia's policies on civility. Comment on the edit, not on the editor. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How would you like to have us refer to Carl Sagan as an ET enthusiast? In fact, he thought the idea of UFOs was foolish. He had an opinion, I assume based on good science of the day but I would not demean his name by calling him a UFO enthusiast. Like Sagan, there are people studying EVP--Baruss, for instance, who cannot seriously be referred to as EVP enthusiasts or believers. Maybe you need to provide references for your characterizations.

As for good faith, the assumption is earned. In fact, I history tells me i should wonder if he is you.

You are hiding behind a lot of wiki rules here. SA went on a rampage in the article. He has done it before. I doubt the rules are intended to protect such behavior. Tom Butler (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

SA, I am not going to revert you again. In fact, I did not add anything and I have no idea what you mean by a "plus." If other editors have no objection to the changes, then I am going to assume discussion would make no difference. Like I say, the skeptics pretty much own Wikipedia now. Tom Butler (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware that the Wikipedia community looks upon baseless accusations of sockpuppetry with rather a jaundiced eye. If you believe that SA is me, then you should file a report to that effect (see WP:SSP). Regarding your previous comment, please read WP:AGF. On Wikipedia the assumption of good faith is not "earned" as you contend above; rather, it is granted until there is convincing evidence to the contrary. If you believe that SA no longer merits the assumption of good faith it is better to pursue Wikipedia's avenues for dispute resolution than to make uncivil remarks or personal attacks. If you need help with the procedures for dispute resolution please let me know. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into the AGF issues, but seriously "EVP believers" doesn't even sound encyclopedic, so what's the point in using it? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

True, it doesn't. I don't like "believers" either, but then "researchers" carries an unmerited connotation of objectivity. Above I argue that anyone who accepts EVP as attributable to "ghosts or spirits" is prima facie a believer in the paranormal. I'm not sure what wording would be most accurate -- perhaps "adherents to paranormal interpretations" or something, but that's awkward. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Researchers is about as neutral as it gets. You don't have to be objective to do research. People do research all the time to support biased opinions. You don't need any special credentials or anything. My Mom is a geneaological researcher and the most she knows is how to use Google. I gotta say, trying to discount "researcher" is a bit overkill. I'm saying that because it keeps coming up in these articles. "Paranormal researchers" is used all the time in newspapers, television, etc. to describe people who research paranormal topics, whatever their credentials may be. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I guess I can buy that. My take on "researcher" is influenced by ideals of scientific integrity (see e.g., Richard Feynman's cargo cult science) which presumably don't apply here. On the other hand the word "specialists" as repeatedly used in the intro rings a bit oddly. Can we replace it with "paranormal researchers"? Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so you don't have to ask me : ) My thing was with the weird "EVP believers". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Flat vs. pro and con categorization of theories

The reason I am so concerned with SA's unilateral edit of the proposed explanations is that, as a flat list, it is possible to address the theories from the same perspective of evidence, but as a proponent vs. skeptic division, important theories are relegated to irrelevant references or the word of skeptical authors who have virtually zero authority in the subject. The proponent section is based on research while the skeptic section is based on possibilities. It makes skeptic authors look silly and that hurts Wikipedia's credibility ... it hurts all of us.

Leave it as it is, but the same research that shows EVP is not necessarily pareidolia (for instance) could be used to show that it sometimes is. That is hard to do with two sides pitched against each other. Tom Butler (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem with "researchers"

The term "researchers" implies a coordinated and recognized research effort. It is debatable that there is anyone actively "researching" EVP and certainly those who research it do not represent a coherent academic community. The problem with using "researcher" is that it doesn't convey the fact that the people we are referring to are actually supporters of the existence of this nonsense. The only way "researcher" works would automatically include skeptics who do not share the opinions that the people we are describing have. So what we need to do is find a phrase that indicates the true belief of these people in a way that is NPOV without sacrificing the reliability of the sentence to terms that (perhaps unintentionally) lend more credibility to the proponents than they actually have.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You're seriously reaching here if you think "researchers", or more accurately "EVP researchers" (which includes the qualifier), is problematic. I have no idea what sort of interpretation of neutrality you're reasoning this under, but it's not WP:NPOV. Seek a consensus or a RfC on it if you feel it is necessary, but the idea that "researcher" needs academic affiliations is the most bizarre thing I've heard you say to date. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Over at psychokinesis you said Claiming that anything paranormal believers do and then classify as "research" or "rigorous" is POV-pushing. Stating that their research is not rigorous is NPOV. On one hand you're saying "can't call it research" and on the other you're saying "their research is not rigorous". You must see how bizarre that is. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

SA, you are showing your ignorance of the subject. There are several organizing groups both conducting research and sponsoring the research of others. One reference is at [26]. The AA-EVP is opening a new research fund which is explained at [27]. You are saying way more than you know about these subjects. Because of that, I have to say that you are writing the NPOV rules to support your narrow view of what is real and what is not. Please stop making unilateral edits. Tom Butler (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Cargo cult science, anyone? Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, you are making a joke ... right? If not, all you are doing is blowing smoke in an effort to obscure the facts in evidence.

• Fact: some people believe they have found voices in recordings that are not explained by known physical principles.
• Fact: some people hypothesize the voices are from discarnate entities. (Yes, some say it is Uncle John speaking and no hypothesis about it, but we do not use them as a reference.)
• Fact: the unexplained voices have been named EVP.
• Fact: the unexplained voices have been shown in well-designed experiments to not be stray radio, sound mistaken as voice, artifacts or fraud.
• Fact: EVP are defined as above, and sounds mistaken as voice or fraudulent examples are, by definition, not EVP.

You can add anything you want to the above, but using weasel words to make it sound like the above are not facts is misleading the public and may be self-serving. In view of the evidence available in the references--and more coming every day--if you can show us that the above is not true, then the article should be written as such. But using innuendo, explanations only supported by some skeptical writer of uninformed sound engineer does not amount to evidence, only a reference.

I would be happy to see the entire article changed to show the above facts are all observations and as reported, and not explored by mainstream science. That is also a fact. You do not have to write this article as proof of EVP just say what is in evidence without characterization and then state the reservations which are properly expressed by others. That sound like something we all might be able to support. Tom Butler (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt your regular scheduled back and forth, but I wanted to point out, again, the veracity of EVP research has nothing to do with whether research is a reliably sourced term as some editors who keep removing it claim. See the sources for "research" below. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. "Fact: the unexplained voices have been shown in well-designed experiments to not be stray radio, sound mistaken as voice, artifacts or fraud." There's the rub. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Raymond Arritt, can you explain "There's the rub"? You can disallow the research references if you want but that is going to take us back to the argument about what references are allowed and that was addressed in the Paranormal arbitration [28]. Tom Butler (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the next entry: [29] . Antelan ^talk 02:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I would consider the notion of conversing with ghosts and spirits (excuse me, discarnate entities) using tape recorders an "exceptional claim." But maybe I'm just being an old fuddy-duddy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Antelan, I noted that one earlier. I have highlighted the part I think you have missed. Conflict of interest 10.1) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest strongly cautions but does not forbid an editor from working in subject areas where the editor is strongly invested. Such editing must be done responsibly. Other editors are expected to respond diplomatically even when they believe a conflict of interest may exist.

Raymond Arritt,of course these are exceptional claims, but there are well-designed, repeatable experiments that have shown a foundation for the technical aspects of the claim and many of them have been published in journals. I would not like to see this article written with the point of view that communication with dead people is a proven fact. Even the AA-EVP tries to keep the perspective of a hypothesis which needs more research. But before you can write this article from the point of view that some people have shown that at least some of the voices have been forensically match with "living" samples by experts in the field of forensics, you first have to write it to allow for the existence of voice-like sounds. If you allow no research, then you are simply misleading the public. As I read your comments, you want to just make it go away with sarcasm. You choice.Tom Butler (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

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) [30]. 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 [31].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 [32] 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 [33]. Those are recent articles, here's the archives [34] --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..."[35]

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 [36] 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)

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: [37] (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:

• [38]
• [39] (this link especially as the site is dedicated to EVP)
• [40]
• [41] (bottom of page)
• [42] (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)