Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Electronic voice phenomenon was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.


Instrumental Transcommunication (ITC)[edit]

I think wikipedia needs an Instrumental Transcommunication section (since its related to EVP). I'm a poor writer. Maybe someone with more talents than me can write an article about it.

--Bill--

Sunday December 7, 2008

Use of this article for Ghostwire trailer[edit]

Just a quick note: A screenshot of what appears to a slightly altered version of the first few paragraphs of this article laid out in a similar way to a Wikipedia page were used in the trailer for Ghostwire. superlusertc 2009 August 26, 03:31 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute Opened[edit]

This article is heavily biased in favor of skeptics, to the point of almost ridiculing the paranormal altogether. Please re-consider the language and the perspective. No pro-paranormal explanations are featured at all- only the voices of skeptics are heard here. The explanations all insinuate that the entire phenomenon is wishful thinking at best, fraud at worst. To remove the James Randi bit would be a decent start. Randi is hardly known for his respectful and open tone when dealing with those of us who claim paranormal experiences.Rd66c6 (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that accurately reflects the general consensus of the world: most paranormal claims are ridiculous. I don't see any problem with the language; what is it, specifically, that you don't like? The article presents the history at length, and before the discussion of explanations. The language used is measured and respectful. The James Randi foundation is well-regarded as a source for investigating all manner of paranormal claims. If this article presents claims that EVP is paranormal in origin, there has to be significant discussion of the mainstream claim that paranormal claims don't exist. Maybe the reason this article seems biased towards a skeptical viewpoint, is because the paranormal claims are wrong, and the reliable sources reflect that? I'm taking the disputed tag off given that there have been no comments here for months, but I don't object to someone putting it back if there are genuine concerns. MrHarambe (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)