Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-13 Electronic Voice Phenomenon

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Electronic Voice Phenomenon
Status	open
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	ScienceApologist, LuckyLouie, Milo H Minderbinder, Martinphi, Tom Butler, SheffieldSteel
Mediator(s)	—— Eagle101 Need help? 21:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment	Opening case, see if parties will accept me.

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab active cases|Electronic Voice Phenomenon]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Electronic Voice Phenomenon]]

Mediation Case: 2007-03-13 Electronic Voice Phenomenon

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

Request made by: Davkal 08:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

...

Electronic Voice Phenomenon

Who's involved?

...Myself, User:ScienceApologist, User:LuckyLouie, User:Milo H Minderbinder, User:Martinphi, User:Tom Butler, User:SheffieldSteel

What's going on?

...Group of editors are now making unrestrained POV changes to article and deleting discussion page comments. An edit war has developed and Wiki policies are being interpreted in a highly selective way to block content/sources conflicting with one group of editors' views on the subject.

What would you like to change about that?

...Would like the debate to be mediated by a neutral party so that NPOV edits can be made and policies clarified.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

...use the talk page is fine

Mediator response

Hello I'm willing to be your mediator, will you all accept me? I've read over the proposed guideline of WP:SCI and the guideline of WP:FRINGE. I'm going to state right off the bat I'm not an expert on this topic. :) My job is to simply play referee. What I would like to see is everyone make a statement as to what they believe is correct. From there I will work on trying to get 3rd party input, and helping you all find a compromise. I am going to ask that we keep this to the facts, and try to keep an open mind as to possible compromises. If we can build a consensus, the changes to the article are likely to stick. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me if you will accept me below, and then make your case in the Discussion section. For clarity I do ask that we give everyone a chance to say what they might, and try not to rebuttal them at this time. I would like to have a clear overview of the issue. Thanks! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I accept (below where?). I accept anyone who is not prejudiced for or against the paranormal. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

AcceptDavkal 11:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Accept SheffieldSteel 13:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

I agree with SheffieldSteel on the point of the definition. I have long argued (previously) that it would be better to define EVP as the brute phenomenon (whatever it turns out to be). I think that significant improvements could be made at a stroke if we could do away with the need to qualify every time we use the term "EVP". I know others are very much against this though.Davkal 17:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not really against this. However, the only interest in EVP is that it is, or said to be, paranormal. Otherwise, it is something wrong with your equipment. But, defining it as a phenomenon in itself seperate from explanations could work well. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The EVP article should not be seen as a battleground to have Wikipedia prove once and for all that paranormal subjects are just experienced by delusional people and have no existence in reality. My personal view is that any compromise producing a simple and honest article is welcome. I certainly do not need Wikipedia to prove anything for me, but I do need it to not cause me to explain why the article is expressing things that simply are not true. So yes, a bare-bones approach (say what it is define das and stop) is a good idea.

Also, "...the general mission of the encyclopedia to portray the mainstream and conventional in the most neutral (that is to say, most conformist) fashion...." seems to indicate that Wikipedia is the bastion of the "status quo." "Most conformist" is a slippery slope which I do not think the founders wanted. That is the same kind of thinking that pitched the church against Galileo Galilei. Tom Butler 18:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. If Wikipedia were being written at the time of Galileo, we would have likely included much of the scathing critiques he endured. Being right is impossible to verify. We can only document the status quo. Attempting anything else is asking for trouble. --ScienceApologist 18:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. LuckyLouie, you are trying to use the encyclopedia to show that people are doing something that you and SA do not approve of. What people are doing or not doing has nothing to do with what EVP is defined to be. If you are afraid people are trying to use Wikipedia to promote EVP, then the best way to prevent that is to say as little as possible in the article and stick to the cold facts. Definition, theories and so on. Again, as soon as you begin characterizing those theories as right or wrong, you get into a never-ending argument.

For instance, of course you like the article as it stands now. It is strongly slanted toward Skeptical Dictionary views. I see that you have glorified Baruss and completely eliminated MacRae. You have included the quote from that sound engineer in the Skeptical Dictionary EVP page, but managed to skip the part where he states that he has better equipment than we do. Why didn't you include his self-disqualifying statement?

The reason we are here is that the Skeptics are trying to make science policy in the absence of science at the expense of a consensus in the EVP article. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Tom Butler 00:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI Tom: I hold no personal animosity toward people who attempt to contact the dead or other dimensions. They have a right to their personal beliefs. --- LuckyLouie 00:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The heading of this section aside- There is no conventional opinion to cite concerning EVP. It is the opinion of some editors that conventional science disproves EVP. This is not the case. There is actually nothing in conventional science which speaks to it (nor to the survival hypothesis); the most that can be said is that it has not been proved. This is the actual state of affairs: no proof, opinion, and also no contradiction.

The most important thing to note here is that it is Original Research for us to make up positions saying what conventional scientists, or science, would say if they noticed EVP at all. We don't have the right to make this up.

I would like to re-state that we must not mis-represent the undue weight rule. We should not give undue weight to a minority opinion. This is a rule which works well with debates such as that between Creationism and evolution. But what should we do here? An opinion is not in the majority because it is conventional. The majority opinion here is that EVP is of paranormal origin.

We thus have a problem which is not covered by the policy: a field which is notable enough to be in Wikipedia, but has been ignored by the mainstream to such an extent that there is no majority scientific opinion about it.

I know with surety that if a lot of scientists suddenly paid some attention to EVP, that they would call it bunk (whether from prejudice or not I leave to your mind). But we cannot cite this, and we should not make it up, as I just did.

We cannot, however, cite the majority opinion of those who are educated in this field. This is for practical reasons of Wikipedia, because we are supposed to be too conventional, and because the field does not have the infrastructure of a science.

Thus, what can we do? I suggest that we merely state the facts, without characterization. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any mediator will have to have considerable familiarity with WP:SCI, WP:FRINGE and related policies and guidlelines. Preference should be given to those who have dealt with cases involving science and against the mainstream topics in the past either as editors or as mediators/administrators. I will agree to mediation only if the mediator affirms this is the case. --ScienceApologist 11:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I would refer Eagle to the ArbCom decission on pseudoscience, and to the many mentions of the above editor in that case. I do this not to attack the editor, but to explicate the need for mediation. I don't know what SA means by "against the mainstream." Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Let us not focus on users, but rather on finding an acceptable compromise to the current situation :). —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, I should have said that the ruleing is highly relevant to the case, also. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

State your position

Please state your position below, try to make it as clear as possible, and keep it to the facts. Thanks. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

---

We have a case here where there is likely nothing to the phenomenon, or if there is, it has not been proven to scientific standards. Mainstream science has not considered EVP.

I believe the article should be written according to the following:

1. Few or no mainstream scientists have studied EVP. No matter how much they know about their fields, they know little or nothing about EVP. We cannot therefore state that EVP has been rejected or accepted by mainstream science, nor can we imply that it has. We can state that it has not been considered. To state or imply otherwise is to editorialize, to do OR.
2. It is not for us to choose which peer-reviewed sources are better or worse. This would be pure OR.
3. Because of (1) we cannot cite mainstream science as a majority opinion. The majority of science has no opinion on EVP; what opinions they have are likely to be uneducated.
4. We could cite a majority opinion among those who know the most about EVP, that EVP is of paranormal origin. But since we must remain conservative, we should not cite this as a majority opinion (at least in the context of truth).
5. Thus we should not write the article as if the case for, or the case against EVP has been decided or even considered. We should write the article to state exactly
   1. What research has actually been done
   2. By whom the research has been done (avoiding characterization)
   3. What the researchers said about their results (avoiding characterization)
   4. What the state of the evidence actually is (avoiding characterization). In this case, we would almost certainly say that there is so little scientific research that reality of EVP has not been determined.
6. We should avoid characterization at all costs (such as calling those who experiment with EVP "enthusiasts"). This can be done with clever writing.
7. We should scrupulously avoid WP:WTAs.
8. We should work on the principle that we are not here to tell the reader what to believe, by any means, overt or by innuendo. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is good, you have stated what you would like to see happen. I hope to see the other 6 versions of this, and then we can go on from there. I'm going to ask again, please just state what you want to see happen, don't bother with countering each other yet. I would rather see 7 versions of what everyone wants to see, then we can work on trying to find a compromise. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

---

My first thoughts on this.

1. We need to decide on the reliability of individuals/sources in a non-pejorative way. The current way of doing this is entirely based on whether certain individuals/sources agree or disagree with various editors' opinions.

2. We need to agree on whether mere doubt on the part of an editor is enough to block well sourced content from the article. Currently editors can simply say "I contest this" and that is taken to be enough of a reason for exclusion.

3. We need to decide whether a majority (scientific) viewpoint exists in this case, and what weight various other viewpoints should have.

4. We need to decide whether the question of EVP's existence is to be dealt with in one section, or if this point is to dominate the entire article.

Davkal 09:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I think much of our problems stem from a definition of the subject that assumes that it is a paranormal phenomenon, i.e. the definition precludes the possibility of there being a natural cause or a scientific explanation. This has led to some very confrontational editing, and makes it very difficult to discuss elements of the topic.

Therefore, I would like to see the definition of the subject changed to a non-confrontational version (voices of unknown, rather than paranormal, origin), which would enable the rest of the article to discuss the causes and nature of the phenomenon, rather than its existence or nonexistence. It would also clear some of the clouds surrounding the issue of science's attitude to (and lack of research on) the subject.

Another problem is that of describing the little research that has been done on the subject. Research has been done that falls short of the standards required by scientific journals (clearly falls far short, in my opinion), but because of the nature of Wikipedia we are prevented from saying so directly, and we have not found any reliable source to which we can attribute a scientific-standards-based criticism of the research.

Therefore, I think that we need to take great care when presenting this research to avoid giving the impression that there is any objective evidential support for any supernatural or paranormal claims.

Personally I would be happy with any outcome that does not give the impression that scientific methods have been used to support the idea that EVP is of paranormal origin. This strikes me as being at odds with the very nature of the scientific method.

SheffieldSteel 14:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Eagle101, anyone who is dedicated to fighting vandalism and spam is a friend of mine. Thanks for taking your time to help out.

I am speaking from the perspective of a person who has studied EVP for 20 years and has collected/seen substantial evidence for its objective existence. I am an Engineer and a metaphysician, giving me a fair understanding of need for good science and how good science is currently unable to address the subject without peer ridicule for the scientist.

Given the operating rules of Wikipedia, all EVP research is "original research," virtually all EVP experimenters/researchers have a conflict of interest and none of the related publications are acceptable as substantive references. There is also a well organized pseudoskeptic club, apparently sponsored by Wikipedia, and members have taken an interest in making sure an "impossible thing" is clearly shown to be impossible. With this atmosphere, Wikipedia should not have an entry for EVP in the first place.

One of the problems is that the subject is difficult to study without at least considering the possibility of survival of the personality after physical death. If the article even hints of dead people talking other than as just one of the theories, you can count on a steady stream of offended editors trying to make it right for them. On the other side, when I came to the article last November, it was discounting the AA-EVP because of our association with Spiritualism. There is no foundation evidenced in the administration of the AA-EVP showing that it is a Spiritualist instrument and it is simple propaganda. You can count on people who study EVP to fight for balance, as you have seen so far. (My wife and I are AA-EVP Directors and ordained Spiritualist ministers. We wrote most of what is on that nsacphenomena.com now being referenced in the article. Becoming a Spiritualist is a good way to understand Spiritualism, and if you did, you would understand that it was founded on very good research for its time.)

My point is that the very nature of the subject assures that the article will never be stable unless it is written more as advocated above. I want it gone, but if not, then I want it stable and to do that, it should not say anything more than what it is defined to be, a list of explanations considered by both sides without attributing to normal or not. (That, by the way, will help get past the lack of real research by both sides--just theories.) Possibly when it was discovered and a little about EVP in the media. If you can't protect the page, then anything added to that by passing editors, without discussion and informed consensus, should be routinely deleted. Tom Butler 16:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

---

EVP belongs in the encyclopedia because of certain movies and references in popular culture. There are plenty of true believers who want to see the article written as "balanced" as possible, but what they really intend to do is marginalize the mainstream opinion of paranormal topics. This is in direct contravention to Wikipedia's NPOV policy and the general mission of the encyclopedia to portray the mainstream and conventional in the most neutral (that is to say, most conformist) fashion. As far as I'm concerned the article needs to have the following form:

• Attribute the claims of EVP researchers to EVP researchers.
• Explain the relevant scientific concepts and critique the EVP researcher claims.
• Attribute the claims of EVP skeptics to EVP skeptics
• Explain the relevant scientific concepts and critique the EVP skeptics claims.

However, the only critique that should be available is that which is based on reliable sources. What is reliable is textbook understandings of science. That is textbook understandings of electronics, radio transmission, signal processing, psychology, etc. That these textbook understandings happen to be in-line with the skeptical perspective on the subject is, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, an accident. Survival hypotheses and the like are opinions which contradict textbook science and so this can be pointed out. Likewise, all psychic phenomena are in contradiction to textbook science and so can be labeled and discussed as such. When science is uncontroversial, there is nothing wrong about using it as a means to critique. There are many true-believers who disagree with this. They need to be told that according to the relevant policies when subjects make scientific claims, those claims are subject to critique by the mainstream even if there is no direct discussion of the particular subject. Much hay is attempted to be made out of the fact that science ignores EVP. However, science hasn't ignored the subjects that EVP claims to address, and so in fact science hasn't ignored EVP and we should not shy-away from describing what science has to say on the subject.

--ScienceApologist 18:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

---

This article is essentially about a technique which some believe allows contact with the dead, communications from other dimensions, or forms of psychic projection.

Adherents to this belief range from casual amateur "ghost hunters" and serious paranormal enthusiasts -- to full-time members of Survivalist organizations dedicated to disseminating "scientific proof of life after death".

The adherents share in common a number of scientific-sounding claims made by authors, and poorly-substantiated but oft-repeated claims of investigations and research results. In addition, both the claimants and claims exhibit a majority of traits commonly associated with Psuedoscience, among them, clear-cut deviations from proper experimental procedure and the drawing of improper conclusions from data.

I think the article, in its present form (11:25, 20 March 2007), is substantially appropriate and encyclopedic. It...

• Defines EVP as proponents define it
• Describes their beliefs and explanations regarding it
• Summarizes the historical background driving these beliefs and explanations
• Summarizes who current enthusiasts and practitioners are
• Notes the impact that EVP has had on mainstream culture by offering examples of cultural references
• Ofers appropriate and well-sourced criticism on the subject
• Very importantly positions EVP proponents views as minority views according to guidelines found in WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience

In the past, some have interpreted NPOV in such a way as to produce an article which subtly or overtly promotes the idea that EVP is, by default, a mystery unexplored by the mainstream scientific community, or is the subject of a legitimate and ongoing scientific controversy. Especially in cases regarding scientific concepts, NPOV is much more sophisticated than simply giving both sides equal weight, e.g. "Some say that the earth is round, others say that it is flat." (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006653.html) --- LuckyLouie 23:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)