Please be calm and civil when you make comments or present evidence, and avoid personal attacks. Please be patient as we work toward resolution of any issues in a peaceful, respectful manner.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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)
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)