Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Status of EVP section

In response to the recent editing of this section (without discussion here):

"Mixed results" is an opinion, not a fact. Since there were two studies published in peer reviewed journals, it's better to just list both and let the reader decide
Context is needed for these results - without info about where they are published, the reader has no way to evaluate the claims
Direct quotes from the researcher are preferable to paraphrase

--Milo H Minderbinder 17:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

1)Mixed is "fact", one for, one against. That's an even mix 2)Context is given, both sources are clearly cited to their source publications. Anything else would be POV pushing. 3)So long as they aren't made to stand out. Giving them greater prominance implies greater importance, which is pov pushing.

perfectblue 10:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggested lead paragraph

After reviewing the above comments, I took another shot at reworking the lead paragraph:

Electronic Voice Phenomena or EVP, is a term used to refer to a class of paranormal phenomena, most commonly defined as speech or speech-like sounds which have been reported to manifest on blank recording media or through electronic audio devices.
The phenomena has largely been ignored by mainstream science, and existence of EVP remains controversial. Proponents believe EVP is due to paranormal factors such as messages from spirits, psychokinesis, extraterrestrials, or beings in other dimensions. Skeptics say that what is perceived as EVP is probably radio interference or pareidolia (mistakenly perceiving random sounds as speech).
Whichever it is, the concept of EVP often captures public imagination, and references to it have appeared throughout pop culture, such as in the TV shows The Ghost Whisperer and Supernatural, and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense.

How's that sound? Does it address most people's concerns? If not, please suggest alternate wording. El on ka 20:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty good. Although it may look to the contrary above, I have no objection to the paranormal sense of EVP being used as the definition as long as we are careful when writing the article to stick to that one sense. The problem with it though is that it will make the article harder to write and it will have to be hedged about everywhere EVP appears with words like "alleged" etc. The advantage of using the defintion of EVP as simply the brute phenomenon whatever it is, is that it removes the need for such constant hedging.Davkal 21:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not bad. I think my version says it a bit clearer. Here's a combination:

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) is a term for speech or speech-like sounds, which have been reported to manifest on blank recording media or through electronic audio devices. Many who experiment with EVP believe it is of paranormal origin. Existence of the phenomena remains controversial, especially as the scientific literature concerning it is very sparse, and it has been ignored by mainstream science. Those who experiment with EVP often say that it is probably due to paranormal factors such as messages from spirits, psychokinesis extraterrestrials, or beings in other dimensions. Skeptics say that what is perceived as EVP is probably radio interference or pareidolia (mistakenly perceiving random sounds as speech).

EVP often captures public imagination, and references to it have appeared throughout pop culture, such as in the TV shows The Ghost Whisperer and Supernatural, and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense.

The reason I reproduce it here again, is that I think the only objection to it was whether or not one should say "mainstream science does not accept" EVP. I think that was dealt with by Zoe.R. I think it takes into account other concerns, such as Davkal's. And I think LuckyLouie nearly agreed to it above (slight change since then to put in the reference to "mainstream"). So I'm putting it up again for objections and comment. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Elonka's version is much clearer. Firstly, the version just above muddies the paranormal/brute pohenomenon distinction I metioned above. That is, it initially defines EVP as the brute phenomenon and goes on to talk about it as if it definitely exists (e.g, "many who experiment with EVP" does this because you can't experiment with something that doesn't exist) but then uses the phrase "reported to manifest..." which then casts some doubt on whether something is there it all, which would only make sense if the paranormal sense is used. Secondly, it has words like "many" which are regarded as weasel. And finally, it introduces a distinction between science and mainstream science that is not explained and would leave me puzzled if I hadn't been party to the discussion here but had merely read the article. Davkal 23:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The word "many" could be sourced just fine, I think, to the AA-EVP site. I intended the word "reported" to modify the word "manifest," so that Wikipedia wouldn't be saying they did manifest. When people "experiment with EVP," they are experimenting with what you might call an "alledged phenomenon," something which we haven't said does or does not exist. But they do perform experiments, even though EVP may not exist at all, except in their heads (that's the skeptic POV). I would agree to Elonka's version; but I dunno if others will. Mine was to try and accomodate the skeptical POV W/O violating NPOV. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, I liked your earlier version better, it was a more neutral POV and a more accurate description of the status of EVP, the update seems more vague. As for Martin's version: 1) describing it as "speech or speech like sounds" presents it as accepted fact, which it isn't. There are a number of wordings that would be more accurate and acceptable, "alleged speech", "said by proponents to be speech", even saying just "voice like sounds" would be an improvement over that. 2) "Many" is a weasel word, better off just saying "EVP experimenters believe..." and "reported" is a word to avoid as well. 3) The description of the scientific literature is inaccurate and violates NPOV. There is no mention in mainstream, general scientific literature, the only (two) scientific articles have appeared in publications specializing in the paranormal. The intro needs to make clear that the current view of EVP, which is that there is no mainstream scientific acceptance of EVP. 4) Presenting the "paranormal" explanation first violates undue weight since it is the minority view. There are a number of versions at Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/sandbox, feel free to add Elonka's new one there if there's interest (as well as any other proposals or comments). --Milo H Minderbinder 02:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The first Elonka version (earlier version) is a more accurate description of EVP than any I've seen yet. And sorry Davkal, as I said before, skeptics questioning believers perception of "voices" is not evidence that "EVP are voices" (in the same way than skeptics questiong believers perceptions of a "humanoid creature" is not evidence that "a hairy humanoid creature is Bigfoot"). To avoid confusion we need to make it crystal clear that EVP is not just any strange voices or sounds -- it's voices or sounds which only certain people interpret as being anomalous, unexpected, or paranormal. --- LuckyLouie 03:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The one big problem is the use of "some" in the opening sentence, it's a weasel word and vague. Who says it? I'd be fine with "proponents" or similar. Any other suggestions for a more specific word there? "yet" in the second line is also questionable since it seems to imply that mainstream academia may/will publish a study on it in the future - the sentence is fine without it. I also think "suddenly" isn't quite right - I'd just leave it out, but I could live with it if there's a consensus it's necessary. --Milo H Minderbinder 03:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have the same specific issues, but I thought I'd start with the overall framework first. Check out the variation I posted at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_voice_phenomenon/sandbox#Draft_proposal_for_new_intro_.28Proposed_1.29) --- LuckyLouie 03:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Louie, skeptic's are not questioning believers' perceptions that some alleged EVP are voices. Only you are doing this. Sceptics clearly accept that some cases of alleged EVP are voices. That's why they invoke the hoax and stray radio transmission arguments. The gist of which is: yes they are voices, but they probably have a mundane origin. The question, then, is not whether any are voices but whether any are paranormal in origin. And your refusal to accept this point, or to even go to youtube and listen to one minute of obvious voice EVP suggests that you are trying to remain deliberately ignorant of the subject matter of this article in order to push your POV from that chosen position of ignorance. It is simply not good enough to keep saying "I don't know anything about it" and then trying to force everyone to write the article in line with what you (don't) know. The claim that no cases of alleged evp are, or even sound like, voices, is simply your (mis)take on a subject about which you admit you know next to nothing. As such, it has no place in an encyclopedia.Davkal 16:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

(moved comment for order/indent) It seems like you two are just quibbling over semantics. Whether it's "alleged EVP are voices" or "EVP are alleged voices" or "EVP is believers' perceptions of voices" there's not much of a difference. Davkal, could you check out the specific wordings at Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/sandbox and see if there are any that work for you? We need to decide on a wording for the page, could we focus discussion on that? Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Milo, the point is not a semantic one at all. Louie is claiming that no cases of alleged EVP sound like voices to anyone other than believers in the paranormal hypothesis, and I am saying that this is clearly not the case. That is, some are so obviously voices, or extraordinarily voice-like, that nobody with any integrity could claim that they can't hear anything that sounds like a voice. Thus even hard-line sceptics put forward the hoax and radio transmission hypotheses to take account of these cases while Louie simply pretends they don't exist. The article simply cannot be written accurately from Louie's point of view because it ignores a large class of the most compelling cases of alleged EVP. Davkal 04:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Davkal - please cease your extended speculation about who I am, what I think, what my motives are, why I am ignorant, a super-skepticetc. That is known as a personal attack. We all may engage in a wisecrack now and then, but YOU are clearly crossing the line. --- LuckyLouie 19:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Louie, for about the last six months you have been told repeatedly that many cases of alleged EVP are clearly voices and that nobody really disputes this. Not only have you failed to take this on board but you are now insiting that none even sound like voices except to believers in the paranormal hypothesis. On no occasion, depite being repeatedly asked, have you provided a single source for this bizarre viepoint. I now belive that you are intent on maintaining this position of wilful ignorance regarding the subject matter of this article merely to push an ultra-sceptical pov than not even ultra-sceptics hold. My reason for this is that your response to virtually every specific point that is raised about EVP is to say that you don't about it (e.g. I am not familiar with raymond cass) as if that in some way negated the point that was raised. Then, when you are invited to learn about raymond cass by, for example, going to youtube and listening to some of the actual examples of EVP he recorded you refuse without any explanation and without even acknowledging that such a request was made. This, to me, is unacceptable behaviour.Davkal 04:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What I think, or have thought, or what website I haven't visited is a non-issue with regard to editing this article. Have you seen Proposed Version 1A? Comment on that, and stop comenting on me, please. Thanks. --- LuckyLouie 04:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to edit an article on a particular subject it is surely reasonable to expect you to know something about that subject. We are not merely talking here about the logic of certain arguments but about specific claims. For example, you claim that no examples of EVP even sound like voices to anyone but believers in the paranormal hypothesis. I have asked you for sources for this claim - you have refused to provide them. I have offered arguments against the claim - you have refused to adress them. I have offered examples of EVP that clearly show the claim to be false - you have refused to listen to them. In what sense, if any, is this supposed to be a reasonable manner in which to proceed. Davkal 04:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

One problem with your view Milo, is that it is accepted even by sceptics that many cases of alleged EVP are voices. Nobody is suggesting that all of them are mere voice like sounds, or non-voice-like sounds as Louie would have it. This is the purpose of the sceptical hoax hypothesis and the stray radio signal hypothesis. The sceptical point being, that what are alleged to be EVP are voices alright, but voices from an ultimately mundane, albeit possibly unidentifiable, source. Another problem is that you keep insisting that we say that there is no mainstream scientific acceptance of EVP because that point is true. It is also true to say no example of alleged EVP has ever been contested in the mainstream scientific literature. The problem with both is that they are misleading, as has been pointed out numerous times. That is, to say mainstream science has not accepted something implies quite strongly that it has looked into it and not accepted, ie.e rejected, it, rather than merely never having looked into it at all. I fail to see why, unless there is an intention to mislead, it is so problematic to say that mainstream science has not considered EVP at all. This means that science has not accepted the phenomenon but does not imply that it has rejected it. I also don't see a problem with using the exact wording from WP, and saying that "EVP has never been considered or accepted by mainstream science". This keeps in the point about no acceptance, but qualifies it in exactly the right way so as not to mislead. Davkal 02:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have actually been suggesting we say "EVP has not been considered or accepted by general scientific publications or the overall scientific community." and I'd be fine with the wording you just listed as well. I'm glad to hear you support that wording. If WP guidelines recommend saying that, I don't see what can be safer than just using the exact wording as the guideline. Check out Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/sandbox, and see if there are any proposals there that work for your (or suggest your own alternative). --Milo H Minderbinder 02:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've only recently returned to this page and so may have missed some points. It seems to me though that the entire debate above on the point of acceptance hinged on the use of acceptance and acceptance only. This is what would make it misleading and look like a possible rejection of EVP. Once "no consideration" has been added that misunderstanding isn't really possible anymore because if they haven't considered it they can't have rejected it. I therefore cannot see how anyone objecting above to the sole use of acceptance would still obect when consideration is added. I certainly don't.Davkal 02:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"EVP has never been considered or accepted by mainstream science" This is fine. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If that is acceptable, what are your objections to proposal 3 on the sandbox page? --Milo H Minderbinder 02:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

1A proposal

Proposed Version 1A....

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) is a term describing what proponents say are anomalous voices of paranormal origin which manifest on blank recording media or through electronic audio devices.

Existence of the phenomena remains controversial, especially as the scientific literature concerning it has only appeared in publications specializing in topics outside mainstream science. EVP has not been considered or accepted by general scientific publications or the overall scientific community. Critics say that what is perceived as EVP is radio interference or pareidolia (mistakenly perceiving random sounds as speech). Proponents say that EVP is due to paranormal factors such as messages from spirits, psychokinesis extraterrestrials, or beings in other dimensions.

The concept of EVP often captures public imagination, and references to it have appeared throughout pop culture, like Reality TV shows such as Ghost Hunters, fictional TV shows, such as Supernatural, and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense.

Above, a hybrid version. --- LuckyLouie 19:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have seen several versions of the opening that I felt would work and not attract very much sniping. I like this version (Proposal 1A) because it does not maintain that only mainstream science is scientific by saying, "Existence of the phenomena remains controversial, especially as the scientific literature concerning it has only appeared in publications specializing in topics outside mainstream science." As I read it, studies of EVP that may have been conducted following the practices of good science, have not been published in mainstream scientific journals. Sounds pretty neutral to me.

"EVP has not been considered or accepted by general scientific publications or the overall scientific community." is pretty accurate.

Here, I would like to see a third option, although I do not know how it would be worded to avoid making claims that would attract snipers later on. The statement, "Critics say that what is perceived as EVP is radio interference or pareidolia (mistakenly perceiving random sounds as speech)." is fine. "Proponents say that EVP is due to paranormal factors such as messages from spirits, psychokinesis extraterrestrials, or beings in other dimensions." is only part of what those of us who study EVP say. The third view is that people who do study EVP with the intention of learning what it is, hypothesis that it may be etheric to physical communication, but that all explanations can only be hypotheses without further research. Wording for this might be, "Researchers remain open for whatever future research will show." I would say "serious researchers," but that would probably cause trouble.

I think the paragraph would work as it is, but it does paint a black or white world when in reality, most of us are just testing hypothesis. Tom Butler 23:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think 1a is appalling. It is clumsy, long winded, says next to nothing, and hedges everything in so many ways that it is almost impossible to see what is actually meant. For example, it says "anomalous voices of paranormal origin" - what would a non-anomalous voice of paranormal origin be like???? If I read that opening paragraph I would look for another website.Davkal 04:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There are others proposed at Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/sandbox. Are there any that you like? If not, go ahead and propose your own version, I'd like to hear a suggestion from you. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tom's comment: Maybe instead of "Proponents say that EVP is due to paranormal factors such as messages from spirits, psychokinesis, extraterrestrials, or beings in other dimensions." we could say something like "Among proponents, some say that EVP is due to paranormal factors such as messages from spirits, psychokinesis, extraterrestrials, or beings in other dimensions. Others actively conduct research with the intention of discovering which of a number of hypothesis might be correct."

Speaking as an editor, I think that to expand any further on AA-EVP's perspective (other than I have suggested above) would be inappropriate in the introductory summary, as it is meant to represent a wide range of EVP proponent views. However, I don't see any reason why the section on AA-EVP couldn't include a quote ("Director Tom Butler says,...") that briefly expresses the AA-EVP's relevant views on the subject of EVP. --- LuckyLouie 05:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to include a line about "discovering which of a number of hypthersis..." and since the proponents line says "such as" that gets across that the reasons given are not all inclusive. We need to keep the intro concise, and that means we can't list every view of EVP there. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

1A/75221XDG Proposal

I propose this as the whole intro

Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are alleged voices of paranormal origin which manifest on recording media or through other electronic audio devices. EVP are typically brief, usually lasting the length of a word or short phrase, although longer segments have also been recorded. EVP has not been considered or accepted by mainstream science and its existence remains controversial. What little scientific literature exists has all appeared in publications dealing with topics outside of the mainstream.

There is, however, a significant debate surrounding EVP involving proponents and sceptics. Most commonly, proponents claim that EVP are communications from discarnate entities such as spirits, although others have suggested they may be psychic projections from the researchers themselves, or communications from alien entities. Sceptics, however, argue that there are probably far more mundane explanations for the phenomena such as cross-modulation or interference from nearby radio sources. Sceptics have also suggested that many alleged examples of EVP are probably not actually voices at all, but are the result of pareidolia – the human propensity to find familiar patterns amongst random stimuli.

The term EVP itself was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. Previously the phenomena had been known as “Raudive Voices” after early EVP pioneer Konstantin Raudive, whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject into the public domain. Since then EVP has often captured the public imagination, and references to it have appeared throughout pop culture, for example, in Reality TV shows such as Ghost Hunters, fictional TV shows, such as Supernatural, and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense.

Davkal 15:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons I like Version 1A is that it avoids terms, such as "alleged." "Alleged" is defined as "Represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved; supposed." in my American Heritage Dictionary. 1A also clearly says that there may have been research that is "good science" but that it has not been published in the mainstream. That is true and takes us away from science against proponents.

For some reason, IA shined a pretty bright light on the assumption that you either believe or you don't. In fact, MacRae was not a believer at first. Although certainly well informed about metaphysics, (I was writing the Handbook of Metaphysics when my wife began recording for EVP) I was extremely doubtful about the remotest possibility of EVP. My research has come to the point that I think it is necessary to include concepts of the Survival Hypothesis when studying EVP, but it is not reasonable to say that EVP can only be explained by it. We just do not know yet. Our working hypothesis includes the Survival Hypothesis because it answers more of the evidence. We have become a little too aggressive in pushing that view because it seems the only way to get past the brick wall of the conservative skeptics who do not want us to even consider the possibility of an etheric explanation. Someone has to frame the discussion in terms that reasonably addresses the experimental evidence--or at least allows us to consider all of the theories.

So my point is, is it necessary to say that you have black and white opposing views? Is it possible to say that "these are the proposed explanation for EVP but more research is necessary to know"? The "proposed exaltations" would naturally include all of the above without saying one is skeptical and one is made by proponents. "Pareidolia" is the official "EVP is not real, but only imaginary" explanation, so stating it as one of the proposed theories allows for a completely null result. Tom Butler 17:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really agree with much of that. 1A says "EVP is a term describing what proponents say are anomalous voices of paranormal origin which manifest on blank recording media or through electronic audio devices."

Th things I don't like about it follow, some of your (tom's) points will be addressed.

1. "EVP is a term..." well of course it is, and this makes it superfluous to say so.

2. "a term that describes..." It doesn't really describe what proponents think EVP is, it merely refers to the thing proponents have such thoughts about. If it actually described what proponents say EVP is then would be something like "paranormal voices caught on tape" or some such thing.

3. "What proponents say.." is simply a very long-winded way of saying alleged and so nothing is gained from its exclusion.

4. There is no such thing as a non-anomalous voice of paranormal origin, so it is superfluous, and probably meaningless, to say "anomalous voices of paranormal origin". Again long-winded.

5. "manifest on blank recording media..." As far as I am aware EVP primarily manifests on non-blank recording media. That is, the voices only manifest on playback after recording has taken place and when the medium is no longer blank. As it is currently written, it makes it look like you could buy a blank tape from a shop and get EVP when you playback the blank tape without having first recorded anything.

And this is only the first sentence.Davkal 18:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty OK with this version. I don't think the bit about EVP being typically brief and the history of the name are really necessary for an intro, but that's not a big deal. Also, while there is debate over it, is it really "significant"? --Milo H Minderbinder 18:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Had written this before I saw your point Milo so thaey are not intended as a response.

Things I like about mine.

1. It gives a straightforward definition of EVP in much the same way as 1A but avoids the long-winded phrasing.

2. It describes what EVP are typically like in terms of the length and content, e.g, single words, short phrases. I think it is important in an encyclopedia to describe what the thing is like so that readers who don't know get the ooprtunity to learn

3. It covers the same points about there being no acceptance/consideration from mainstream science, and keeps the point about there being some scientific literature in fringe publications. It does this though in a much shorter and more coherent way.

4. It details the fact that there is a debate and a controversy which 1A does not do.

5. It covers the theories about EVP in a more accurate way. For example, it doesn't make the sceptics look ridiculous by atrributing to them the view that all EVP are pareidolia. That is, it treats the skeptical explanations as complimentary - some hoaxes, some radio interefrence, some not really voices at all.

6. It gives a brief history of the term and the subject, e.g., the publisher who coined the term and Raudive and his book. 1A does none of this. Again, in an encyclopedia I think a brief history in the introduction is essential.

7. It covers the same point about pop culture that 1A does.

In short, I think my version covers everything that 1A does but covers it better; excludes/amends the errors in 1A; and includes essential encyclopedic information not included in 1A. But I am biased.

Davkal 18:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with Dakval's version. I think the editorial "There is, however, a significant debate..." might be modified to simply say "There is debate...". --- LuckyLouie 18:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with removing significant, it was only a leftover from a previous draft where I had written "a significant amount of non-scientific literature..." as the start to that section anyway.Davkal 19:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I should also say that I take on board Tom's point above about the black and white issue thing. However, in almost all the literature on EVP on the web, in magazines, and from what appears on TV things are painted pretty muck black/white, beliver/skeptic, hoax, radio, pareidolia/ghosts, spirits aliens. I therefore think that is fine for the intro, but also think that Tom's point can get fairly good coverage in the main body of the article when we cover ongoing research etc.Davkal 19:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd support this version, minus "significant". --Milo H Minderbinder 19:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I support this version too. — BillC^talk 02:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I object to "alleged," and I feel the tone of Davkal's version is a little unbalanced but it does hit all of the points. It will draw a lot more sniping that LuckyLouies version, partially because it is pretty wordy. Tom Butler 02:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Support version 1A/75221XD using "is what proponents say are" or "alleged". --- LuckyLouie 03:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Alleged, claimed, purported, supposed etc. Any way you look at it we have to include something of the sort since we can't just write - EVP are voices of paranormal origin... Given this, and given that "what proponents say.." is just a longer way of saying the exact same thing I think we should just pick a word and stick with it. My own choice if we have to go for the longer version is "said by proponents to be..." but I don't really see what the longer version gains over, say, purported. Both cast the same degree of doubt in my book.Davkal 03:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Davkal, the semantic difference is substantial. Outside of a legal context, "alleged" is what a person says when wishing to cast doubt on the subject. "Said by proponents to be" is what a person says when stating a fact. Had you reviewed previous discussions on this, you would know that the semantic intent of words has been part of the problem from the beginning.

One of the reasons I like 1A is that it states the fact without embellishment. You said, "4. It details the fact that there is a debate and a controversy which 1A does not do." There is only a debate between people who study EVP and conservative skeptics. I do not think such a debate warrants noting because it is not one based on research, only theory with the intent to make it go away. There is an ongoing feud between two leading members of the Society for Psychical Research--pro and con, but that is an isolated situation. Otherwise, there is no debate and saying so is misleading.

As for stating characteristics, there is an old rule of writing indicating that once you begin a list, you have to put all of the items in the list. The "single words, short phrases" is just one of the important characteristics. Probably the most important to help people tell the difference between mundane sounds and possible EVP is that the suspected vocalization is not heard at the time of the recording. To avoid mistaking radio signals as EVP, another very important characteristic is that the utterance should be a complete phrase that is appropriate to the circumstance. Where will you be able to reasonably stop?

Your version will work, but it is not as eloquent and true to the subject as 1A. I will stop harping on it, however. Tom Butler 17:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested to get to the bottom of the disagreement here and there are few points I don't understand.

Firstly, "alleged" and "said by proponents to be" are identical with regard to their truth conditions in all relevant respects. That is, both stand or fall entirely on the basis of whether someone did actually say/allege something and have no implications at all for the truth of what it being said/alleged. They also both make it plain that the truth of what is being said/alleged is in doubt in some way otherwise there would be no need for such caveats. I really don't see any difference here and therefore have no objection to your way of putting things other than it a longer way of putting it.

Secondly, above I put forward five problems with the first sentence of 1A covering ammbiguity, superfluous words/phrases, cumbersome construction, and (potentially) misleading claims. I am therfore unclear in what way 1A is more eloquent, when eloquence was, in my opinion, one of 1A's major failings.

Thirdly, you suggest that 1A is truer to the subject. I am struggling to understand this because my version says pretty much exactly the same thing as 1A but in what I believe to a clearer manner. The only difference is that the "debate" is covered in mine, and while I agree that debate may not be the best word (perhaps "disagreement over the nature and origins of alleged EVP" may be better); when one steps back and tries to take in the whole subject, it is clear that there is at times bitter disagreement between sceptics and proponents in this, as in almost every paranormal, field. I therefore think it has to be mentioned, but I have tried to cover it in about as non-confrontational way as possible so that only the mere fact of disagreement is mentioned before looking at the various theories/thoughts that currently exist.

Lastly, I agree with your point about lists, but nonetheless feel that some description must really be included in the introduction of an encyclopedia entry for the benefit of those who read, rather than write, the thing. I had forgotten about the not-heard-during-recording key feature and think it should be included too. The other point about complete phrase and relevance being required to rule out radio interference is not a central feature of EVP per se, although it may well be a central feature of certain strands of research. I therefore think it should not go in the introduction but would be more suitably placed in a section dealing with research/evidence/proof issues. Davkal 18:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

New introduction

Were I a skeptic, I would say that the new introduction has Wikipedia saying that the phenomenon exists. If I were a believer, I'd say you weaseled it. Furthermore, it doesn't even make sense. "Alleged voices" indeed. What did you mean, "voices alleging"? Voices alleging what? The introduction just went from bad to worse, and it is now totally screwed. This is why I feel this article does not belong on Wikipedia, or needs to be part of parapsychology. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

1. There are plenty of sceptics here so we don't need to imagine what you'd say if you were a sceptic. We can simply ask them. And since they agreed the wording and didn't say anything like what you said you'd say, I think we can safely assume that you've got the wrong end of the stick somewhere.

2. Here is where you've got the wrong end of the stick. The first line is actually pretty straightforward, makes perfect sense, and doesn't say anything like what you seem to think it does. It says that "evp are alleged voices of parnormal origin". That is, it's "EVP-are-paranormal-voices" that is alleged, and not the voices themselves that are alleging anything. If we'd wanted to say that we could have written "voices of paranormal origin which allege such and such". But we didn't, and the fact that in your criticism above you have to turn the words around to generate this ambiguity (ie. from "alleged voices" to "voices alleging") shows this point clearly.

3. The conclusion that this imagined ambiguity/nonsensical introduction would automatically be resolved if EVP was part of paraspychology is, firstly, a non-sequitur inasmuch as the (non) ambiguity does not point towrds a conclusion of that sort at all; secondly, it is false inasmuch as how can merely moving an article fom one place to another resolves an ambiguous or nonsensical claim (even if that latter point were valid); and thirdly, it is misguided inasmuch as EVP is not really part of parapsychology as it currently stands.

Davkal 13:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No offense intended, Davkal. I do disagree, and I see now this is your version, or something like that.

Well, if I were a skeptic, I'd say that "which manifest on recording media or through other electronic audio devices" indicates that they do manifest as though they come from beyond. And I'd say that "longer segments have also been recorded." indicates that something has been recorded- something which has "manifested."

I think that what you say in number 2 is an interpretation of what is there. Not what it actually says. It says "(alledged voices) + (of paranormal orignin), in other words, the alledged can be for the voices, or for the whole rest of the sentence. You'd have to put the alledged in a different place to have it make sense no matter how someone reads it.

When I said we might make it part of parapsychology, I meant that if it is part of parapsychology, it would present the scientific consensus in that field. So there wouldn't have to be so much weaseling, though the skeptical view would still be fully represented: "In the field of parapsychology, EVP is defined as...".

"There is, however, debate surrounding EVP involving proponents and sceptics." Can you site this?

The whole thing is dreadfully weaseled: proponents, claim, however, alleged.

I don't want to be mean, I just think this intro needs a lot of work. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

1. The whole clause is: Evp are alleged voices-of-paranormal-origin-which-manifest-on-recording-media. There is simply no way that that sentence can be taken to mean that the voices are alleging something unless "allege" comes after "voices" or you put the word "by" in between them, e.g., "EVP are alleged by paranormal voices to be...". It simply doesn't/can't mean anything like you claim.

2. If you make it part of parspychology that is not going to magically make there be scientific consensus on the subject where none exists. What you are suggesting here totally ecapes me.

3. It's no more weaseled than anything that was there before. Here are a few phrases from that version "they felt were of paranormal origin ", "reported", "reported" again, "Others believe them to be", "skeptic's say". It is simply impossible to write about a subject that is made up 99% by unsubstantiated claims without such words. Also, "however" is not ncessarily a weasel word, in the way it is used here it just mean "by contrast". Davkal 21:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Which words specifically are supposedly "weasel"? Note that WP:WEASEL says "It is acceptable to use some of these phrases, if they are accompanied by a citation that supports the claim". As far as I can tell, the intro is supported by citations - some hold one position, while others hold another, and both positions are cited to specific examples of those holding the positions. This "weasel" complaint seems like a euphemism for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's all try to assume good faith here. If the tags aren't warranted, then they will be removed. It looks like there is honest concern behind them. Discussion is good. Edit warring is not... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 21:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

...and neither is adding tags without consensus. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A single editor can add a tag, it does not require consensus. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the only person who thinks there is any incoherence is Martinphi and, I'm sorry, but he's just plain wrong. First he turns the words about and puts "alleged" after "voices" in order to show an ambiguity that simply isn't there, then he ties the word "alleged" to half the sentence and cites the rest of it as if it was supposed to be a statement of fact when it is the very presence of the word "alleged" at the start of the sentence that qualifies the lot. Another point here is that we have broad consensus amongst about 7 out of 8 editors from all sides of the debate (only Tom really wants a bit more tinkering and I'm happy for most of his suggested changes to be included - even if I don't really agree with this reasons), and the only person who is complaining is a non-sceptic claiming that if he was a sceptic it wouldn't be sceptical enough for him when all the actual sceptics are happy with it as it is. Davkal 21:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally understand. One person is sufficient to add these tags, then discuss the issues on the talk page. Let's give Martin a chance to explain furhter, perhaps giving a short list of weasely words and anything he finds incoherent. Then we'll address those and go from there! It shouldn't take too long?

I do agree that the opening sentence could be better worded for clarity, "Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are alleged voices of paranormal origin which manifest on recording media or through other electronic audio devices." It is unclear exactly what is "alleged". It should probably read something like "Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are allegedly the voices of paranormal origin which manifest on recording media or through other electronic audio devices." We're tying to say that it may not be voices at all, and if they are, they are claimed to be of paranormal origin. Not an easy task writing such a sentence from that perspective, while casting doubt on each component. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I might actually prefer Tom's now: "Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are said by proponents to be voices of paranormal origin which manifest on recording media or through other electronic audio devices."Davkal 21:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

One thing I would say on the weasel word front, is that this is exactly the reason that I, and a few others, favoured the "brute-phenomenon" defintion of EVP. That is, "EVP are anomalous voices or voice-like sounds which manifest on recording media etc." By using this defintioon we can talk about EVP without having to constantly hedge it's very existence. This is because EVP will still be EVP even if it turns out to be God, ghosts or nothing but stray radio broadcasts, hoaxes, and pareidolia.Davkal 21:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with either switching alleged to allegedly OR "are said by proponents to be". I don't think it really changes anything, but if it makes people more happy, whatever. We also need specifics on what "weasel" supposedly applies to, it's useless to put a tag up and not say specificly what is wrong. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've read through the weasel words section and I don't really think it appplies. The main concern there is to avoid statements of opinion being put forward as fact or not really being attributed to anyone. I don't think that is happening in this article/introduction.Davkal 21:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A small example of what could be considered weasel wording is actually in the first sentence, saying something is "alleged" without identifying who is doing the alleging. That's actually an example of weasel wording in WP:WEASEL.Dreadlocke ☥ 21:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So is the more wordy and awkward "are said by proponents to be" an improvement? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, no. I think putting in the actual definition of EVP is the best solution, the statement about "propoments" and "skeptics" is taken care of by the second paragraph. A definition similar to what has been stated above: "EVP are anomalous voices or voice-like sounds which manifest on recording media etc." It's what EVP is, then the debate on the reality or lack of such can follow. I mean would EVP actually be EVP if it were just cross-modulation or RF noise - wouldn't it then just be called "interference" or "crosstalk?" Why not just give the actual definition?

I say, just give the definition, because it looks like the problem is being caused by the hedging going on trying to make sure the skeptical side is represented in every word. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That would give the impression that EVP is being presented as fact, which is inaccurate and NPOV. EVP is something that is believed by some, not a universally accepted concept. It's defined as something some people accept, and we need to say that to avoid misleading readers. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have had a look round other paranormal articles to see what is done there. In many cases alleged or claimed is used as I have used it, in others "defined" is used as a means of casting doubt. I quite like "defined" but am not so sure it works well in this case.Davkal 22:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

I didn't mean to make you guys angry. But I really have to stand by it when I say that the intro just goes from bad to worse, mainly because people want to make so sure that no one could ever ever ever get the idea that EVP has the least shred of credibility. They just pound on that, as if each sentence needs to be NPOV in itself. We could easily write a good intro if one sentence could modify another.

It is weaseled. I would go with Dreadlocke's suggestion, or Tom's. The only problem with the coherence of the first sentence was that one could interpret it to mean "alleged voices," which don't exist, or "alleged voices" which "alleged voices" are of "paranormal origin," or as "alleged voices of paranormal origin" whatever those might be, "voices which are alleged to be of paranormal origin." I gave a list of the weasel words above. I never knew really what people had against the intro I suggested, especially as this intro is equally pro-EVP. It was a lot tighter:

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) is a term for speech or speech-like sounds, which have been reported to manifest on blank recording media or through electronic audio devices. Many who experiment with EVP believe it is of paranormal origin. Existence of the phenomena remains controversial, especially as the scientific literature concerning it is very sparse, and it has been ignored by mainstream science. Those who experiment with EVP often say that it is probably due to paranormal factors such as messages from spirits, psychokinesis extraterrestrials, or beings in other dimensions. Skeptics say that what is perceived as EVP is probably radio interference or pareidolia (mistakenly perceiving random sounds as speech). Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Are there any other weasel words or incoherencies you feel need to be addressed, Martin? Dreadlocke ☥ 22:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

How about something like this: "Electronic voice phenomenon is defined as the communication by spirits through tape recorders and other electronic devices." This is followed up by the whole "debate" paragraph, which is quite sufficient for NPOV concerns. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be great if that was what it's defined as. But it's only defined as that by those who believe in it, those who aren't convinced define it as an alleged phenomenon. With some topics, there just isn't agreement on a definition so we present it in the context of level of acceptance.--Milo H Minderbinder 22:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, now the truth is out. Now the reason for the tags become clear.Davkal 22:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I was going to say this: It's very hard to explain why, and so probably won't convince anyone who is set against it, but I don't think Wiki's weasel rules apply in these cases. The paranormal is by definition not agreed upon, so the use of what would be weasel words in other articles seems to me to be a perfectly valid way of marking the special status that things like EVP, the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot and UFOs have. For example, it seems perfectly fair to me to say "some people (a weasel phrase if ever there was one) think UFO's are alien spacecraft", but here it is ludicrous to ask, which people, who thinks this? Indeed, attributing it to one source (Mr Johnstone, for example) is to fundamentally mischaracterise the nature of the belief. Similarly, to ask who alleges that EVP are paranormal voices is to miss that same point. In short, belief in a phenomenon that has not been conclusively demonstrated is part and parcel of paranormal phenomena in a way that, for me, necessitates the use of what would otherwise be construed as weasel words.Davkal 22:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't actually have to attribute some weasel words, in some cases, such as with "allegedly", a citation will do: "It is acceptable to use some of these phrases, if they are accompanied by a citation that supports the claim, for example: "Research has shown that Rabies can be cured by acupuncture (Wong et al, 1996)"." Dreadlocke ☥ 22:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Since we're actively addressing Martin's concerns, and with his approval, I'll go ahead and remove the tags for now. He can put them back up again if his concerns aren't addressed...but it looks like we're making headway! Dreadlocke ☥ 22:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Davkal, excellent post. The whole point of weasel words is that they shouldn't be used to get around citing sources. In this case, the statements are all sourced and the words are only used to summarize and avoid unnecessary "Joe Shmoe defines it as..." type statements. WEASEL has a number of exceptions, and this is one of them. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest being cautious, especially in opening statements. It's far better to be clear. A clear definition easily remedies all concerns. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with Martin's version.

1. The definition hedges things (e.g, is a term for, reported) as if what was coming was the paranormal definition but then it doesn't actually appear. There is therefore no need to hedge at all if you're going to allow EVP to simply be voices or voice like sounds that manifest on recording media since pareidolia are voice-like sounds that manifest on recording media, and radio interefrence are actual voices that manifest on recording media.

2. On a related point, we've already agreed that we have to use the paranormal defintion and so an intro that doesn't use it, or muddies it, won't be agreed. This version muddies it by saying, eg.,"Many who experiment with EVP believe it is of paranormal origin", and then going on to say that the existence of EVP is in doubt. EVP's existence can only be in doubt if it is paranormal. That is, if it might be paranormal but then again might be radio interference then it can't really not exist. Under that defintion EVP exists alright, we just don't know what it is.

3. The bit about the existence of the phenomena where the word "especially" appears is just a clumsy way of saying exactly what I said in mine.

4. It doesn't give any description of EVP so that readers may not have the foggiest what kind of thing is being talked about.

5.It weasels worse than mine, e.g, many who experiment... Now, even given my plea for the allowability of weaseling in paranormal articles, that's a point where it really should be stated who we're talking about.Davkal 22:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis, Davkal. Besides asking "why?" Martin also said he agreed with my and Tom's versions. I think a strict definition will do the trick. What say you? Dreadlocke ☥ 22:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What specifically would those two versions be? --Milo H Minderbinder 23:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

We can work with your version, Davkal. If I could be allowed without inciting wrath, I could make some changes to it, and see what people think. As with a normal page, one can make changes directly. The problem is that just about anything on this page incites wrath, or goes toward someone's big POV. Question: could we have the intro balanced overall, but not in each sentence? That would make the writing a lot easier. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably best to make a proposal here on the talk page. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

We have an entire sandbox to play in, as well! Dreadlocke ☥ 23:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, try this- One thing I wanted to do was to make it tighter.

:Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are  speech or speech-like sounds of paranormal origin . EVP are typically brief, usually lasting the length of a word or short phrase, although longer segments have also been recorded. EVP appears on blank recording media such as magnetic tape or through electronic audio devices, and its source is unknown. Most people who experiment with EVP say it is of paranormal origin , such as [[ghost| spirits]], psychokenetic projections from the researchers themselves, or communications from alien entities. Sceptics, argue that there are probably normal explanations for the phenomena such as cross-modulation, interference from nearby radio sources, or pareidolia (the human propensity to find familiar patterns amongst random stimuli).  From here on out, the same as Davkal's.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, I don't think it is factual that they are always speech, but it is factual that either they are speech, or they are sounds like speech. Even if they are paranormal, a lot of them are only speech-like sounds. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's far worse than any of the recent suggestions. "Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds of paranormal origin"? So the fix for weasel words is a statement that's factually untrue and blatant NPOV violation? There certainly isn't agreement that "they are something" considering that there isn't evidence that they exist, much less agree that they are paranormal. And that certainly doesn't reduce the number of weasel words, assuming you still consider that a problem. I thought you were going to suggest tweaks, not rewrite to say the opposite. Let's fix what's there (and was put there with consensus) if we can, not declare it hopeless as an excuse to have another shot at getting your preferred version in. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Technically speaking, if Martin is objecting, then you don't really have consensus.

I think the best starting point is a definition, such as

"Electronic voice phenomenon is defined as the communication by spirits through tape recorders and other electronic devices."

Giving the definition avoids any NPOV issues. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't require unanimity. The version that's in now has the widest agreement we've seen for any of the recent proposals. I don't agree with the "is defined as" wording because it only seems to be defined that way by those with one point of view. Even among EVP proponents, there isn't agreement on "spirits". --Milo H Minderbinder 00:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The "other" pov gets it's definition too, so there's no NPOV violation. Every sentence does not require both sides to be presented, that view in itself violates NPOV. You have to present both sides fairly. EVP has a definition, and then that definition is disputed. There is no consensus on this issue. As you have stated, this may require dispute resolution to resolve. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, "my" version using "sprits" is from the most oft quoted skeptic site around: skepdic.com on EVP, sans "alleged". It's a starting point on the road to a compromise. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Part of NPOV is undue weight. So to have NPOV "presenting both sides fairly" means presenting each side in proportion to the prominence of each. Presenting the minority view as The Definition violates WP:Undue weight. While every sentence doesn't require both points of view, the article should start with the majority point of view, especially if that sentence is the one defining the term. I don't see a definition with no qualifiers working. So let's find qualifiers that are the most acceptable and least "weasel". And if you want to use the skepdic definition as a starting point, taking "alleged" out would seem do defeat the whole purpose. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that was not my purpose with the skepdic.com phrase, I intended it as as a starting point for my version, and I said that's where the phrase 'spirits' comes from - a skeptical source. As for NPOV and it's component, Undue weight, it applies to the entire article, not a single sentence. EVP doesn't even exist without it's supporters, so that is the starting point of the article - not some presumed "majority" - that's not the way it works. EVP is what it is, and the dispute follows. I believe we're now arguing around in circles, you with your view of what is NPOV and me with mine. Let's see what others have to say, then perhaps we'll take this up the chain. I really like the paradigm shift you're proposing, "majority rules", because that will change the tenor of every single paranormal article in Wikipedia. I wish I could agree with you, but unfortunately...can't. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to sort out one basic issue before we can proceed.

1. Martin, do you understand the difference between the paranormal sense of EVP (the one we agreed to use) and the brute-phenomenon sence (which we agreed not to use)?

2. Milo, do you understand why it only makes sense to doubt the existence of EVP if we are using the paranormal sense. And therefore why it makes no sense to say " There certainly isn't agreement that they are something considering that there isn't evidence that they exist, much less that they are paranormal"?

The point is that once you divorce EVP from paranormality, it is an absolute stonewall certainty that they exist. There are tapes, there are sounds on those tapes, some of the sounds are voices or at the very least sound very like voices - no one disputes this. It's the origins of the sounds that is in dispute. Conversely, when you define EVP as paranormal voices it makes no sense to say "everyone agrees they exist, whatever they are" because by defining them as paranormal voices you have already, to all the extent that is needed, decided exactly what they are. We really need to understand these two sense of the term and stop using them interchangeably. They are not interchangeable - there is all the difference in the world between the two senses. Davkal 00:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points, Davkal! Dreadlocke ☥ 01:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good points Davkal. I'm going to respond as I read down the page:

"So the fix for weasel words is a statement that's factually untrue and blatant NPOV violation?" This is what I tried to say, the intro has to be NPOV, but not each sentence of the intro. We have to consider it as a whole paragraph.

"there isn't evidence that they exist" There is evidence that something is heard in some cases. There is a question about the origin. Not the fact that some of the things sound like voices to some people.

EVP isn't always defined as communication by spirits, or even speech- sometimes people can't figure out what it says, and it doesn't sound much like voices, more like modulations of static, I think. Seriously Dreadlocke, looking at skepdic for facts, lol (:. Its definition is that is some type of speech or sounds which are of paranormal origin. That's what it is. And it is something, it is some phenomenon, whether or not it is paranormal. So, it exists, but if it is EVP, it is paranormal. If it is not paranormal, it is not EVP.

So, EVP may not exist. But the definition of EVP is paranormal.

Ok, please consider me to be yelling now: the majority view, not the minority view but the majority view, is that EVP is paranormal.

"As for NPOV and it's component, Undue weight, it applies to the entire article, not a single sentence." Precisely, or at least the entire lead.

Oops, maybe I didn't have to yell there. Let's go with the majority, no need to stress the point, just go with the majority viewpoint...

"Martin, do you understand the difference between the paranormal sense of EVP (the one we agreed to use) and the brute-phenomenon sence (which we agreed not to use)?" Perhaps not. There seems to be no real dispute that some people hear the voices (and perhaps no dispute that the voices or sounds occur). And I think that if it is "really" EVP, it is paranormal. So the definition of EVP would be that it is X, and X is of paranormal origin, and X is really EVP if and only if X paranormal.

Let's go with the paranormal definition, and then we can doubt that EVP really exists at all. Then we can say "Skeptics believe that EVP is really just you imagining things etc."

Davkal is right, of course. We have to distinguish between saying "EVP are voices, who knows from where." And saying "EVP is paranormal voices but EVP may not exist." to simplify. Did I get what you were saying Davkal? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, there won't be any need for any weasel words at all, if we can consider the entire paragraph at once, and expect the reader to also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martinphi (talk • contribs) 01:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Martin, yes you did get it, this "and X is really EVP if and only if X paranormal" is exactly right re the sense we want (have agreed)to use. I know it makes writing quite cumbersome but if you, me, all of us, can always bear this sense in mind then there should be less arguments. Also, if someone does lapse (or does not know we have agreed this sense) and says "of course EVP exist we just don't know what they are" it will be helpful to remember that they're probably not wrong, or mad, they're probably just using the other sense of the term. That way we don't get the recurring argument when all that is happening is that people are talking about two quite different things. Davkal 02:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The intro is a complete disgrace. Please see WP:WTA.

perfectblue 14:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the one you just added, that's why I removed it. Davkal 14:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

New, new introduction

Yes, Davkal, agreed, if I understand right. We should define it as being paranormal (and we can just say that is what it actually is, and then say it may or may not exist). Right?

So is "Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds of paranormal origin" bad or good in this sense? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's good in that sense, and we could write it that way, but it will look too much like wiki is saying they definitely exist. And the sceptics won't go for that. That's probably why we have to use something like the definition intro so that we can state plainly that that's what the term means without appearing to support EVP's existence. Davkal 02:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I originally had "is defined as", but someone didn't like that either. I think we should agree that the definition of EVP is that it's paranormal. And take the paragraph as a whole, in which we say it may not exist. I really hate to weasel it, because while it might be technically allowed, that is really just Wikipedia deciding that people deserve to be called "proponents," or something. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, skeptics don't need to be treated as babies who can't understand more than one sentence at a time. I don't see why a skeptic wouldn't allow a POV sentence in an NPOV paragraph. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, certainly not the lead sentence, or the sentence that defines the term in a POV manner. And it certainly doesn't help that the statement isn't factually correct either. Undue weight includes prominence in the article, and making the first, defining sentence a POV, minority view is a big violation of that. Don't forget, the intro sets the context for the rest of the article and thus is most crucial to be NPOV. Your best shot at that kind of wording would be something like "EVP is defined by those that study the paranormal as..." and end the sentence with "...but its existence isn't considered or accepted by..."

"Majority rules" as you put it, isn't a paradigm shift, or something I propose, it's a key part of NPOV. The NPOV guidelines all mention majority/minority views and that they should be presented as such. WP:NPOVFAQ: "the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." And "majority" truly means majority, specifically all scientists and not just the majority of a niche group. I wouldn't be surprised if there are other paranormal articles that overstate the minority view.

"the majority view, not the minority view but the majority view, is that EVP is paranormal" I'm not sure what would give you that impression, unless you include people with the view that EVP is a nonexistent phenomena defined by proponents as paranormal. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by majority view. The majority view of EVP if you asked everyone in the world would be "EVP, what's that?". Of those that have heard of it or have an interest in it, the majority view probably is that it is paranormal. In this case science, as has already been admitted, doesn't have a view, since it hasn't actually considered it at all. So it would be strange to say the scientific view is the majority view and present that since it is merely the absence of a view. I am also not clear about which part of the opening statement you (milo) think is factually incorrect.Davkal 13:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Anybody who's been watching White noise etc will known what EVP is.

perfectblue 14:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Big in China was it? Davkal 14:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Available on DVD and VCD, as well as for download. All with nice Chinese subtitles I might add. It might have even been shown on TV by now (China has HBO too)

Contrary to what gets into the media, China isn't a Red commie wasteland populated by illiterate rice eaters and baby killers. Western movies are commonplace.

perfectblue 14:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of the world's population won't have heard of EVP. Davkal 14:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be more careful

There are currently three orphaned entries in the reference section (one of which is cited in three different places).

When user delete references, please BE CAREFUL. They may be used further down the page. Deleting them without first checking leave huge blanks in the citations for this page.

perfectblue 14:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Perfectblue, it's just taking the piss to ignore the discussion page for days and then come in and rewrite the introduction extensively.Davkal 14:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Davkal is breaking WP:AGD, WP:Civility and WP:NPA by posting the above. Continued breaches will result in blocking.

perfectblue 14:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And how many rules (written and unwritten) are you breaching by ignoring the discussion totally and then making wholesale changes to the very section that is being discussed here.Davkal 14:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Re you edit summary (which breaks NPA BTW), I never said you were taking the piss out of me, you are taking the piss out of all the editors who have contributed, and tentatively agreed to the current introduction, by simply replacing it with your own version without discussion and then pointing off to some guidlines somewhere without the faintest indication of how they are supposed to appply. Davkal 14:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And if you're going to put your version in and start edit warring with it, at least correct the dodgy grammar. There are at least 5 errors in there now.14:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Perfectblue, it's just taking the piss", is breach of WP:AFG and WP:Civility that I can take to any admin any day of the week. As for other guidelines. WP:WTA, states that words like claimed and alleged are POV pushing. That's as clear as day.

I'll also point out that users generally criticize spelling and grammar used in a passages a last resort when they are unable to find a genuine argument against the actual content of the passage. It is not an action that adds to a users credibility.

perfectblue 16:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Just stop the quarrel. You two ought to be able to get along. You aren't fundamentally opposed. You are both right in some ways. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Fair enough Milo, I didn't think there was disagreement on that. Re that point though, I think that "defined" is OK since it is a statement of fact about how it's defined, even by sceptics, and doesn't presuppose EVP's existence in any way.Davkal 14:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's defined by proponents that way, but a skeptic's definition would still include alleged or similar wording - just saying "defined as" makes it sound like WP is presenting it as fact.

And in a case like this where there's no discussion in mainstream scientific publications, per 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." We can't present a topic as if it is generally agreed that it is factual just because science hasn't publically disputed it. This is a topic that has only appeared in specialist paranormal publications, and we need to take that into account that we are presenting and defining a topic that has no mainstream support. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

To the points about using "is defined as" that defines EVP as what it is presumably from "the proponents perspective", I don't see any problem with it. Naturally, skeptics will have a problem with it, because it's a clear statement, without skeptical qualifieres; but a clear statement from all views is absolutely necessary for NPOV - and since the actual basis for EVP is indeed from the view that it exists, and is from a paranormal source - that is the significant definition to start the article with. From the skeptical viewpoint, EVP is a mirage, false, and so EVP doesn't exist, thus there would be no article. Secondly, EVP hasn't been proven false. You can't base an article on those negative assumptions. That's what the skeptical side's entire argument started with, "nothing in science, therefore only popular culture can be used". Well, pop culture thinks it exists. Dreadlocke ☥ 16:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Milo. Presenting/defining something as fact and then mentioning that skeptics disagree with it is POV. It's promoting the minority view over the majority view. It is defining EVP from the proponents perspective without telling the reader that only proponents believe this defintion. (Also, the word "paranormal" is not a substitute for "alleged", "said by proponents to be"). --- LuckyLouie 16:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, I'm glad you agree that version is "the proponent's perspective". Since the statement presents one opinion (and a minority one at that) seemingly as fact, it's unacceptable and skewed POV. If we can avoid qualifiers, that's great but if the only way to avoid qualifiers is with a sentence that is biased and misleading then maybe qualifiers are a necessary evil. I don't see the problem with defining EVP and including the skeptical (majority) view with qualifiers - the result is something that is factually correct and presents both sides of the issue. And if pop culture is the main justification for this article not getting deleted (which it seems to be), then maybe the article should begin "EVP is an idea appearing in pop culture defined as..." --Milo H Minderbinder 16:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The definition is fact. Giving both sides is indeed NPOV, you cannot state both in the same sentence without sacrificing one or the other. You avoid qualifiers by adding detailed content to the article, not by making long wordy convoluted sentences, which is definite qualification for WP:WEASEL. And Milo, quit twisting what I say. Read my words again slowly, you'll note qualifiers in there, such as "presumably". Dreadlocke ☥ 16:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out:

1) skeptics don't actually have a definition of EVP (other than bunkuss) because they don't believe that it is a phenomona. 2) "Proponents" of EVP are a disparate group that cannot be pinned down, I think that the word that people are looking for is "Parapsychology".

perfectblue 16:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

perfectblue, you just seem to be intent on making one ridiculous change after another based on few comments here that appear to think are beyond dispute when they are, in fact, nonsense. 1. Of course sceptics have a definition. It's what makes their claims that EVP don't exist meaningful. That is, it only makes sense to say X doesn't exist, if you take a fairly strong paranormal definition of X. 2. You simply can't just substitute parapsychology for proponents of EVP without further explanation. Some paraspychologists are hardline sceptics (e.g Richard Wiseman). If it's OK to attribute that view to him then we can just go down the straight "defined as/said to be" route without further ado. 3. re (2), I think the word you were looking for was "disparate".Davkal 17:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, let's keep this discussion civil! No need for insults. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Davkal

1)If skeptics have a definition, let's here it. A good strong cite from a WP:RS source would be welcome about know

2) You're not seriously suggesting that we start quoting old ladies with tape recorders who think that they can hear their old cats in the emergency broadcast static, are you? If you want this to have any semblance of credibility you've got to use people who at least try to make things scientific, and that's parapsychologist. You can keep White noise and the kooks for yourself, I'm going to continue to use parapsychologists. At least they write up their experiments, not like the dabblers.

perfectblue 18:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has not made any real progress since I began watching last November. One problems is that, about the time the opening is halfway agreed on, someone comes along and makes massive changes.

Also, there really is no debate between scientists or skeptics and "proponents." The only debate is here and it is just over words and point of view pushing. I have been working in this field since the 1980s and communicate with people about the subject around the world. The only place I have seen "debate" is skeptical web sites making fun of us (not debate), a few pretty good books by people who disagree but don't count here because they are parapsychologists and in Wikipedia. Since there are so many skeptics in Wikipedia vowing to push skeptical web site views, I think considering Wikipedia logically takes me back to a few skeptics which does not make a real argument--no debate and no majority. Those who have business debating us are ignoring us.

So lets be true to the facts and simply say what it is and who is saying it, how it is described, a little of how it got here and how the culture is using it, without warring sides, I think it would be a more stable entry. For instance, "EVP is defined by those who seek to collect example as short phrases found in recording media that are not heard at the time the recording is made." That is a simple fact. To go on, "Explanations for the source of the phrases include: noise being mistaken as voice; radio signal contamination; fraud; intelligently caused in an as yet unknown way." These are simple facts without pitching one side against the other.

You could go on to talk about culture, but the less you say in the beginning the better--I would put the origin of the name in the history. Tom Butler 17:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we at least agree on this?

One spelling of Skeptic/sceptic.

perfectblue 18:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles shouldn't be a mix of Oxford spelling and American spelling. Choose one. --- LuckyLouie 23:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"Define first"

Personally, I consider the description of what the two sides say EVP actually is more of a "definition" than the history of who invented the word and what it used to be called. I think the paragraph explaining the views of the two sides should come before the "naming" paragraph. Perfectblue, could you please discuss changes like this on the talk page instead of revert warring over them? Also, it looks like you might be getting close to 3RR on this article, be careful. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I changes the paragraph order because it's academic convention to define your terms of reference before you discuss them, what's there to discuss?

For example, it would be pointless for me to declare that calculating a bayse factor incorrectly leads to confirmation bias before you know what a bayse factor is.

perfectblue 19:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph in question doesn't define EVP, it just says where the name came from, which I don't consider particularly useful in understanding the topic. Do you really have such an objection to giving other editors a chance to discuss potential changes? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

History section

The history section is huge, overly detailed, and takes up the bulk of the article. Looking further down the road, maybe we can summarize the essential information about Von Szalay, Bayless, Raudive, and Jürgenson, Spiricom, AA-EVP, Baruss, and MacRae in 3-4 paragraphs. Then the detail from Raudive and AA-EVP can be transfered into their own articles. Jurgenson, Spiricom, Baruss, MacRae might have their own articles using the info to create stubs. Also, "EVP in fiction" should be changed to "EVP in popular culture". Thoughts? --- LuckyLouie 18:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. These sections are overly detailed in the context of the article and some of the sources are questionable for "scientific" detail (some of the studies may not even merit inclusion in wikipedia). Summarizing would be a big improvement - you want a take a stab at it? --Milo H Minderbinder 18:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps when consensus is reached re: the opening. --- LuckyLouie 18:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless we start including things that aren't from journals, there isn't exactly much more that we can write other than the history.

1) EVP in popular culture, fine with me. 2) "Jurgenson, Spiricom, Baruss, MacRae", I'll sing the song if you play the tune 3) Only 2 of the studies have any scientific detail.

perfectblue 19:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If there isn't much to say, there's nothing wrong with a more consise article. We don't have to bulk up the article with unnecessary detail (particularly details from questionable sources) just to make it longer for longer sake. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

..Or maybe another Peer Review. See if others think it's too long, helpful, not helpful, etc. --- LuckyLouie 20:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Perfectblue, part of the problem with EVP is that it is not a subject of interest in parapsychology. Probably our most educated critics are parapsychologists, yet the majority of them have never really examined the subject. Probably the best way to describe the difference is to say that mainstream science is physical studies, parapsychology is psi studies and concepts involved in the Survival Hypothesis are etheric studies.

Another way of looking at it is that parapsychology is the study of extraordinary human potential. They have little interest in anything having to do with a dual aspect of mind and survival. The study of EVP is what I refer to as etheric studies. Summing that all three are real--physical, psi and etheric studies--then they are complementary.

Your insistence in putting EVP under the umbrella of parapsychology is simply unjustified and certainly inaccurate.

On the point of the history, it is that old problem of lists. Rather than starting the list just show its pedigree. EVP was brought to the world's attention by Jürgenson and to the English language people by Raudive. That is all you need. I would take out all of the rest. (you would do me a favor by deleting the AA-EVP entry here and in the stub.) Tom Butler 01:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it change your mind if I told you that if we approach EVP from a parapsychologies angle wikipolicy and guideline allow us to approach it from the perspective of those researching it as a science (all be it a fringe one). If we don't approach it as parapsychology, wikipolicy and guidelines require us to take a mainstream/skeptical perspective. The latter of which means virtual surrender to a skeptical perspective (eg, EVP is bunk), or as, basically, and urban legend within the paranormal.

perfectblue 08:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The devil's choice you offer only confirms that EVP should be deleted.

You can say that research into the nature of EVP is being conducted by people who seek to follow the scientific method, just as Parapsychological researchers study psi phenomena. That would be a true statement.

Since it is not true that EVP falls under the purview of parapsychology, I do not see how an accurate encyclopedic entry can say it does--even to rescue it from the clutches of the skeptic view.

Think of it for a moment. Parapsychology can study EVP, but when a psychologist studies something, they are looking for a human cause. Other than establishing that EVP is not "pathological science" as luckyLouie would have it, EVP research is going to be mostly about how it happens and that looks like a problem in physics. Parapsychologists may have physics credentials, but physics is not part of Parapsychological training. At this moment, there is no organized field of study for the kind of research EVP suggests. That is one of the reasons we are having so much trouble agreeing. That sounds like original research. Tom Butler 17:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not?

Tom Butler's version is NPOV. What's wrong with it? Discuss this, because that is the first fresh idea to come along for a while. There are facts which can be stated. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom's version is only one proponent's POV. For example, there are number of non-AA-EVP proponents (just a sample: http://www.mcmsys.com/~brammer/ http://www.angelsghosts.com/ghost_evp.html http://theshadowlands.net/ghostwav.htm http://www.ghostweb.com/realghostvoices.html http://www.the-atlantic-paranormal-society.com/evp.html) who define EVP as voices of ghosts. We just can't represent one view. --- LuckyLouie 02:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite sure Tom has a POV. Don't we all. But what I meant was this:

"EVP is defined by those who seek to collect examples as short phrases found in recording media that are not heard at the time the recording is made." That is a simple fact. To go on, "Explanations for the source of the phrases include: noise being mistaken as voice; radio signal contamination; fraud; intelligently caused in an as yet unknown way."

That looked NPOV to me. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to this contribution of Tom's:

"EVP is defined by those who seek to collect examples as short phrases found in recording media that are not heard at the time the recording is made."

That same definition also fits motion picture soundtrack dialogue editors. There's no good reason to be so vague.

"Explanations for the source of the phrases include: noise being mistaken as voice; radio signal contamination; fraud; intelligently caused in an as yet unknown way"

There's no good reason to avoid clearly stating that the most common belief among proponents is that EVP are noncorporeal entities, spirits, ghosts, etc.

--- LuckyLouie 05:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's right. But one can add to it in the next sentences. What do you think of this proposition: that we are never going to get a satisfactory intro if we keep on acting as if every single sentence, even the first, has to be totally NPOV? How about an NPOV paragraph? We could do that. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see what's the problem with the current version. NPOV, and it explains the concept and what explanations are proposed. This one just doesn't explain it very well. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, read my proposal again: "EVP is defined by those who seek to collect example as short phrases found in recording media that are not heard at the time the recording is made."

The definition is technically correct and is not my POV. The fact that it is a definition of something "voice," "electronic" and "phenomenal," and that it is not heard at the time pretty much rules out " motion picture soundtrack dialogue editors." Was that really a serious comment?

Also, "Explanations for the source of the phrases include: noise being mistaken as voice; radio signal contamination; fraud; intelligently caused in an as yet unknown way." includes the range of explanation currently in the article. You can add "psychokinetic" is you want, but a little study about what PK is, would show you that it is a mechanism for how EVP might be formed and not a source for EVP.

"...intelligently caused in an as yet unknown way." includes your ghosts and the ETs you have been so determined to have in the article, as well as people still in the flesh. As such, your point about my POV is not valid.

This brings up a concern. LuckyLouie, you are a good researcher and you have made some important contributions to this discussion, but looking back, I see that you frequently try to push the article as far into the outrageous as you can. It is true that ETs, ghosts and spirits are thought to be amongst the possible sources for EVP, but why is a member of the WikiProject Rational Skepticism so determined that they be included?

There are several posts in which you have attempted to undermine me, personally. In others, such as these recent posts, you have made a spectacular point about my POV concerning other groups possibly having other ideas, yet what you were arguing against clearly does not exclude those points of view. If we are to reach consensus for this article, it is necessary that we all find ways to compromise and saying as little about EVP as we can seems to be the only way to finish this. Tom Butler 17:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see it that way. It appears we disagree about everything, Tom, including your personal opinions about me. --- LuckyLouie 18:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no personal opinion about you LuckyLouie. The only reason I mentioned it at all is that posts, such as that last one about ghosts serves no purpose other than to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Tom Butler 18:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Milo, the current version makes a false claim. There is no "...debate surrounding EVP involving proponents and skeptics" except on this page. By making the claim, it elevates the skeptical community to represent the rest of the world, which is POV pushing at the extreme. Back when MS Hyde was hear, it was clear that the intention was to have skeptics represent all of science. I am pretty sure this discussion is going to continue to go in circles as long as we pitch groups against each other. It makes more sense to simply state the facts. Tom Butler 17:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

MsHyde was the sock of a banned user here to harass me by attacking this article. Milo fell for it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If there's objection to "...debate surrounding EVP involving proponents and skeptics" I'd recommend suggesting an alternative to that sentence. If that's a problem, I don't see that as reason to scrap the whole intro. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have already said that "debate" is probably not the best word because of it's connotations of two sides actually engaging with one another. However, what is clear is that there is profound disagreement between proponents and sceptics over the nature and origins of EVP. So, change "debate" to "disagreemment" and this particular problem disappears.Davkal 18:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I did. I proposed, "Explanations for the source of the phrases include: noise being mistaken as voice; radio signal contamination; fraud; intelligently caused in an as yet unknown way." to replace the second paragraph.

Davkal, certainly "Disagreement" is better than "debate," but it still indicates dialogue between two groups hold opposing viewpoints. While that is technically true, it is more in the form of a few people throwing rocks over the wall at each other. The people who have any foundation of knowledge from which to debate or even intelligently disagree are simply not communicating. To make it seem as if the skeptic represent the view of the larger community glorifies the skeptical community when it does not actually represent that group. Tom Butler 18:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The present introduction is the best we've had for a long time. Opposition for the proponent view of EVP does exist and needs to be noted. Editorial comments questioning the validity of the opposition are not appropriate. One option is to simply drop the line ("There is, however, debate surrounding EVP involving proponents and skeptics") entirely. The rest of the paragraph contrasts proponent views with skeptics views, which shows that there is debate without having to define the extent or character of the debate. --- LuckyLouie 18:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Dropping "There is, however, debate surrounding EVP involving proponents and skeptics. Most commonly," would help. The fact that you are able to cite Baruss, rather than skeptic's dictionary is also a plus because Baruss has at least examined the subject. Of course, the object is to show alternative explanations and the new edit would be more to that point. Tom Butler 19:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

We could just drop the line, but what about something like "There are, however, differing explanations of EVP from proponents and skeptics"? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Just changing the word "debate" to "disagreement" is the simplest, least controversial edit. --- LuckyLouie 23:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My whole complaint is that there is a special interest advocacy group who are known as skeptics with a capital "S." They do not represent science, yet such concepts as cross-modulation or interference from nearby radio sources and pareidolia are necessarily science-based theories. I would have no problem with the term, "skeptic" were it not for the confusion caused by this advocacy.

It would be better to simply state the theories. For instance, I read Baurss' Failure to Replicate article again and see that he has some excellent references that can be cited for Pareidolia, even though the word was never used in his article. For instance, Baruss wrote on page 4, "When B. F. Skinner (1936) played repeated nonsense sequences of vowels to subjects after instructing them to “[listen] with care” and to report at once as soon as “anything with meaning flashes through your mind”" Skinner, B. F. (1936). The verbal summator and a method for the study of latent speech. The Journal of Psychology, 2, 71–107. Baruss went on to say, "he found that “the distortion proved to be very great and in many cases a point-to-point comparison of the vowels in sample and response impossible” (p. 83). Furthermore, subjects were usually convinced of the correctness of their responses including, in some cases, the identification of specific consonants that were, of course, not present in the recorded sequences of vowels (pp. 79–80).

Baruss also said on page 4, "More recently, psychologists have studied the verbal transformation effect whereby subjects tend to give a number of different meanings to the same repeated auditory stimulus when asked to report whenever “the voice seemed to change what it was saying”" (Warren, 1968, p. 262). Smith, E. L. (1974). The Raudive voices–Objective or subjective? A discussion. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 68, 91–100.

These two references should properly be used, rather than Baruss' article although his is more available than the old articles. My point is that this is clearly not a skeptical advocacy group talking. Both references are very good and on-point. We do, in fact have a problem with that sort of indiscretion and these proposed explanations are certainly accurate for some examples. Tom Butler 22:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

List?

Maybe we could make a list of things -facts- we agree on. Then put them in order for a summary? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Needed improvements

Here are some of the places where I see the current version needs improvement:

Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are said by proponents (A) proponents of what? Who are these proponents?to be voices of a paranormal origin(B)they are more accurately described as "speech or speech-like sounds which appear on blank recording mediarecording media or through appear? through? (C)Are we assuming the reader knows that ghosts are said to speak "through" people, and can make the connection here?other electronic audio devices. They are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase, although longer segments have also been recorded(D)Then they really have been recorded, and they are paranormal. Hmmmmm.^[1] EVP has not been considered or accepted by mainstream science and its existence remains controversial. What little scientific literature exists has all appeared in publications dealing with topics outside of the mainstream such as parapsychology.(E)This makes out that the mainstream is the source of truth and light- I doubt this is NPOV

There is, however, debate surrounding EVP involving proponents and skeptics.(F)as Tom says, there isn't any debate to speak of Most commonly, proponents(G)proponents of what? Proponents of experimenting to record EVP? Proponents of the paranormal explanation? say that EVP are communications from discarnate entities,^[2] such as spirits,^[3] although others have suggested they may be psychic projections from the researchers themselves, or communications from alien entities.^{[citation needed]} Skeptics, on the other hand, say that there are probably far more mundane explanations for the phenomena such as cross-modulation or interference from nearby radio sources. Skeptics have also said that many alleged examples of EVP are probably not actually voices at all, but are the result of pareidolia – the human propensity to find familiar patterns amongst random stimuli.^[4] Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

a) proponents of EVP I think is the fairly obvious answer.

b) there is a debate/disagreement concerning EVP's existence, and the particulars that make it's existence questionable. Have a look on the internet, you might see some of it.Davkal 02:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Davkal, what is a "proponent of EVP?" I genuinely don't know. It sounds like either you mean that the person thinks it is paranormal, or that they think it is a good idea to record it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it wasn't my phrase. I only reluctantly agreed to it in after the complaints about "alleged". My choice now would be "EVP are said to be voices..." or, my first choice, "EVP are purported voices...". My arguments against these being weasel in this particular case were presented above. Davkal 13:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have marked Martin's comments on the intro with letters to make it possible to discuss them without haveing to repeat the text.

Re (A) I have said we can do without this phrasing which wasn't the first choice of many editors anyway.

(B) "Speech" versus "voices", given the phenomena is called EVP rather than E S P I think we hould stick to voices. And, given that we are explaining the paranormal point of view (tying EVP to paranormal given our agreed definition) it is not more accurate to say the are speech-like sounds. Finally, EVP do not manifest on blank recording media - they manifest on non-blank recording media. That is, you don't buy a blank tape and find EVP on it. You record for a while and find EVP on playback.

(C) I don't know hat you mean by (C) and don't think we are assuming much. We can certanly assume that people will know that paranormal voices (Ghost voices if you will) are said to manifest through recording media and other audio devices after we have just said exactly that explicitly in the intro. It is unclear what connection you suggest we are asking the reader to make with and unclear what you think we are assuming the reader will know.

(D) I think it's reasonable to leave this unqualified (but am happy to qualify also) since it is followed immediately with the bit about the existence being controversial.

(E) How does it do that? I don't think it does it at all.

(F) Yes there is although it has already been agreed that disagreement is a better word.

(G) Same as (A) in some respects, but also here it is immediately contrasted with "sceptics" and so the sense is pretty clear, ie., proponents of the existence of EVP as paranormal in origin. We could amend this though in anumber of ways. Davkal 14:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"Proponents" would be those arguing that EVP exists, and a number of examples of them are given later in the article. I think it's clear, although I'd have no objection to changing it to "proported" or "alleged" if it's agreed that one of those is better. "said to be" is problematic without specifying who says it. The "debate" phrase has been discussed above and alternatives have been suggested. In the sentence about brevity, I'd support adding "allegedly/proportedly recorded" or a similar qualifier. As for the "mainstream" thing, wikipedia generally accepts the mainstream position as a matter of policy - positions are presented in the context of how widely accepted they are. It's up to the reader to decide if "mainstream" equals "truth and light", the article certainly doesn't say that.

And I don't think the intro is overly long, it seems to meet WP guidelines on intros. I'd be OK with moving the history of the name or the bit about being "brief" but those aren't a big deal. Unless we get specific comments on the intro length, I don't see any reason to leave the tag on. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I propose we take the change the first line back to "purported" - I prefer it to alleged. I aslo sugget we change "recorded" to "reported" at the end of the sentence about the length of EVP. I think the deabte section should be rewritten from a different perspective. I am working on that now and will have a draft later today.Davkal 14:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just a draft, it will need some work, but I think it covers the same ground and avoids making a meal of the debate/disagreement point.

Explanations regarding the nature and origin of the phenomenon differ greatly. Paranormal explanations include communications from discarnate entities such as spirits, psychic projections from EVP researchers themselves, or communications from alien or trans-dimensional beings. More prosaic explanations include cross-modulation or interference from nearby radio sources, or random noise mistakenly perceived as voices due to pareidolia – the human propensity to find familiar patterns amongst random stimuli.

Davkal 18:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with the latest version of paragraph 2 offered by Davkal. There are two small points to consider.

In the line, "... Paranormal explanations include communications from discarnate entities such as spirits, ..." Is the plural, "communications," more properly in the singular here? I am not sure.

Also, in the American Heritage Dictionary, "discarnate" is defined as "Having no material body or form: a discarnate spirit." As such, "...such as spirits" would seem to be redundant. In popular usage, "spirit" is given so many different meanings that I think "discarnate entity" is more to the point. Using "such as" as a modifier makes "discarnate entity," which is probably the dominant source for EVP, sufficient to make the intended point. Tom Butler 22:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro length

I note the intro length tag has been added to the article. I have reproduced below the opening section of the guidlines.

"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article. Small details that appear in the full article should be avoided in favor of a very brief overview of the article."

The first point to note is that guidlines say "between 1 and 4 paragraphs long". Since the present intro is 4 paragraphs long (really 3 since the last two are one sentence paragraphs which should really be combined), it is hard to see in how this is supposed to be a problem. If any specific points are tro be made please make them here.

I also think that to simply add a tag to an article and say nothing about it in the discussion page is wholly inappropriate. I therefore suggest that the tag be removed until we have some indication of why it was added and how it is supposed to apply.Davkal 01:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The intro should be the shortest it needs to be, whatever that is. Leave the tag, it doesn't hurt anything, and prevents edit wars etc. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I still think that unless the person who put the tag there uses this page in the next day or so to explain why then we should simply remove it since it is not clear at all from the above, how intro length can really be seen as a problem. That is, the intro as it stands pretty much fits exactly with the guidlines in terms of size, form and content and so the tag is, as far as I can see, in no way justified. I am prepared to hear arguments to the contrary, but I am not prepared to invent those arguments myself on the simple basis of someone adding a tag. Davkal 13:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

EVP intro length

You tagged Electronic voice phenomenon for intro length. Could you comment on the talk page to be more specific about why you think it is too long or violates WP intro guidelines? We're not sure what the problem is, it seems to meet the guidelines. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The above was posted to my talk page—I had tagged the article with {{introlength}} because I felt the introductory section of the article was longer than it needed to be. I do think it should be shortened, but you are free to disagree and remove it. — Athænara ✉ 20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been pretty extensive discussion about what specifically the intro should say, and the current version seems to be the best comprimise we've been able to find so far. If you have specific ideas about what could be shortened or cut, we'd like to hear your suggestions. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there way you can tag someone's name for being too poncey - I just felt it could be less ponecy. No particular reason, not even a wiki rule about it. I just felt it so I wanted to tag it with th belessponcey tag. Davkal 04:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggested intro

Hello, you don't know me but I followed an RfC link here. I'd like to suggest a rewrite of the intro as follows:-

Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are apparently vocal sounds which unexpectedly appear on recording media or through electronic audio devices. They are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase, although longer segments have also been recorded.[1] EVP have not been documented by mainstream science and their cause remains controversial. What little scientific literature exists has appeared in parapsychology publications.

Paranormal proponents say that EVP are communications from discarnate entities,[2] such as spirits,[3] although others have suggested they may be psychic projections from the researchers themselves, or communications from alien entities. Skeptics, however, suggest mundane explanations for the phenomena such as cross-modulation, interference from nearby radio sources, or pareidolia (the human propensity to find familiar patterns amongst random stimuli).[4]

...and the third paragraph can either be cut or moved into the History section.

So. I've probably trod on just about everybody's toes here. Perhaps that's a good criterion for NPOV? Anyway, I've tried to make the intro concise and accessible without either losing accuracy or confusing the existence of a phenomenon with the explanation for or cause of that phenomenon - which I felt was a problem with the previous version.

Comments? SheffieldSteel 22:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I support generally shortening, and I'd be fine with moving the first part of the third paragraph (history of the name) later in the article, but there seems to be agreement that the topic is more notable (and has more sources) as a fictional topic, so mention of that should probably stay in the intro. I also wonder about "their cause remains controversial" since it can imply that they do exist - those that believe it is pareidolia (or hoax) would say there is no cause because there is no phenomena. Thanks for your input, it's good to get more opinions on this. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel's intro does not imply EVP exist - it states it categorically. That's because the definition used is the EVP-exist-whatever-they-are definition (in which in makes no sense, not even for ultra-sceptics, to doubt their existence), and not the EVP-only-exist-if-they-are-paranormal definition that we had agreed to use. As I've said many times, I don't mind which definition we use as long as we are clear about the difference and the different things that can and cannot be said depending on this decision. I also think, given that SheffieldSteel's criticism re confusion is simply a failure to understand the constraints of the agreed definition (as predicted numerous times), that something about the two possible definitions of the term should be put into the intro along with a clear statement that we are using one definition only for the remainder of the article.Davkal 00:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. It's a tricky line to walk. If we were going to go that route, best to make it absolutely clear - maybe swap "apparently" with "real or imagined vocal sounds". --Milo H Minderbinder 00:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

To me, the "EVP-only-exist-if-they-are-paranormal" definition is the correct one. If the "EVP-exist-whatever-they-are" defintiion were to be valid (i.e. anomalous voices appear on tape and we don't know what they are), there should be records of "EVP" being mentioned by the recording industry, recording engineers society, the IEEE, and recording equipment manufacturers. So it's pretty clear that this "phenomenon" is only defined by a small fringe minority active with it, and that the paranormal aspect is virtually always associated with "EVP". --- LuckyLouie 00:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Change to Intro

A change has been made to the intro. The line saying "EVP has not been considered or accepted by mainstream science [...] and what little scientific literature exists has been published dealing with topics outside of the mainstream." has been replaced with "there is no scientific evidence for EVP". The reasons given were that the roiganl contained weasel words. The poblem with the version now is that it is false, misleading, and it's meaning is far from clear. That is: 1. we have scientific papers published in peer-review journals providing evidence for EVP - whether this evidence is good or not is irrelevant to its existence - on this count, then, the claim is false. 2. It misleads because it is false and because it also makes it look like the evidence, once you know that there is evidence, has been considered and rejected. 3. It is not clear what "scientific evidence" means. Evidence that is intrinsically scientific whatever that might mean; or evidence that was gathered by in a controlled scientific way (we have this); or evidence that has convinced scientists (we might not have this, but that might be because they evidence isn't onvincing or simply because no "mainstream" scientists have yet looked at th evidence). I think, in these circumstances, that the original was a far fairer way to state the actual case re EVP.Davkal 12:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I should also point out that there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about weasel words. Here is how the point is summed up on the relevent Wiki page: "This page in a nutshell: Avoid "some people say" statements without sources." The sections removed from the intro simply did not breach this in any way. The points made were not statements by anyone, nor did they even look like it. They were simple statements of fact about the current scientific state-of-play re EVP. That is, that mainstream science has not considered EVP, and what little scientific literature exists has all been published in journals dealing with topics outside of the mainstream. And it was all sourced.Davkal 12:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There's still a serious problem regarding the position of science with regard to EVP. As I see it, two possibilities exist:-

1. EVP is defined as something unexplained that might have a scientific explanation. In this sense, the electronic voice phenomenon is rather like the UFO phenomenon: we know something is happening, but not why. In this case, I'm sure scientists will be happy to put forward hypotheses explaining EVP, whether or not there is any literature published at this time.
2. EVP is defined as a paranormal phenomenon - in other words, it's more like the Loch Ness Monster than UFOs: either it exists or it does not. In this case, it is meaningless to say that EVP has not been considered or accepted by mainstream science, because it is inherently non-scientific. Peer-reviewed scientific journals will not publish any research concluding that experimental observations are due a supernatural or paranormal cause. All scientists can do in this case is to provide hypotheses explaining the observations which would by definition be an alternative to EVP.

I'm not pushing for either of these definitions, but one of them must be chosen and used consistently throughout the article.

My personal preference is to say, "What an interesting phenomenon, let us study it scientifically and/or consider weird, psychic, or other causes," simply because that gives more scope for discussion. Or it's because at heart I am a scientist, and if we go with definition #2 then my position has to be, "There can be no such thing." (Even if scientific research were to discover and develop a theory accounting for unexpected voice recordings, they would not be EVP because they would no longer be of paranormal origin.) SheffieldSteel 16:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"There is no scientific evidence for EVP" is equivalent to MS Hydes equating skeptics with science. When in the next paragraph, it compares proponent theories with skeptic theories, the reader has no recourse but to see the comparison.

The statement is also unsubstantiated and I doubt that it can be. "scientific" is being used as an equivalent to a proper noun. If it was worded to indicate that a certain community of scientist have not looked for or found evidence for EVP then I think it could stand. But then you would have to acknowledges that fringe science has provided evidence. Science is a discipline following accepted practices and we all agreed long ago that there was some of that going on. Seems to me that version 1A is still the best bet.

Candorwien said, "Science doesn't work this way. It doesn't exist until there is evidence to show it does. This claim is quite valid. It is not up to science to disprove something. It doesn't need citation." Has he never heard of hypothesis? Science routinely approaches new concepts by observation leading to hypotheses which can be tested experimentally. That is science, and that is where EVP is today.

Yes, I have heard of hypothesis. However, hypothesis is not enough to support EVP. Candy 15:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, "There is no scientific evidence for EVP" cannot stand and I am really surprised that other editors have not complained about the changes without discussion. Tom Butler 00:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel, actually all three views are correct at one time or another. EVP is a paranormal phenomena and people routinely collect examples for the excitement of it or to find some understanding about death.

EVP is something that is unexplained because it can be demonstrated but not explained with currently known principles. People have proposed mundane explanations but then ignore, or in the case of Wikipedia, do not allow evidence given by well designed research that decisively proves those mundane explanations are unfounded.

Most of all, EVP is an interesting phenomena that begs to be studied.

The problem we have is not the realness of EVP or its status. The problem is more like a social embarrassment that people wish would go away. The struggle between proponents who think it is an interesting thing that needs studying and skeptics who just want it to go away is probably not going to be resolved here. That is why it is safest to say what EVP is by definition, stop there and request protection for the page. Tom Butler 00:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Candorwien, I am not syaing that EVP has been shown to exist, or that science must show that something doesn't exist before we can say that it has not been shown to exist. What I am saying is that your claim, the claim that there is no scientific evidence for EVP is false, because, in a nutshell, there is. The sourced claims you removed from the intro and replaced with you unsourced opinion demonstrated this point clearly. That is, scientific papers on EVP from peer review scientific journals.Davkal 02:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually Davkal, I didn't, as far as I am aware, remove any sourced claims. Perhaps you could show me wrong. Candy 15:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I note that Candorwien and Gene Pool have been reverting to the "no scientifc evidence" version of the intro. If they have a source for that claim then let it be cited and discussed here. It is simply not up to a few individuals on Wiki to decide that such-and-such a journal is not scientific enough for them, or that certain research papers do not count as science in their eyes, and then to insert a claim as if that view was correct and obvious enough to not need sources of any kind. The point here being that we do have scientific papers from peer-review journals on EVP. We only have one or two but we have them. The concession that has already been made in the intro (for the sceptics) is to accept that these papers are not "mainstream". If some people don't like this word then the solution is to simply call the papers scientific papers and be done with it, or to find some other way to mention them without overstating their scietific status. It is no solution at all to simply pretend these papers don't exist.Davkal 11:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

previous changes discussion

Before being sidetracked, there seemed to be a bit of consensus building for this as the second paragraph.

Explanations regarding the nature and origin of the phenomenon differ greatly. Paranormal explanations include communication from discarnate entities, psychic projections from EVP researchers themselves, or communication from alien or trans-dimensional beings. More prosaic explanations include cross-modulation or interference from nearby radio sources, or random noise mistakenly perceived as voices due to pareidolia – the human propensity to find familiar patterns amongst random stimuli.

I note Tom's comments above about some suggested changes and have incorporated them here. If there is no objection I will put this in later on today.Davkal 11:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's important to put EVP in proper context prior to this (above) paragraph. EVP is a theory or belief held by a very specific group of proponents. There is no recognition of EVP (or unexpected voices or sounds) among professionals in the field of audio technology, e.g.Audio_Engineering_Society. A Google search of "EVP" reveals that the majority of EVP proponents believe that EVP is a paranormal phenomena involving ghosts and spirits, etc. Quoting Baruss and MacRae in the lead without noting that there is no mainstream support or acknowledgement for EVP (i.e. proper context) is subtly misleading and promotes the paranormal POV. --- LuckyLouie 18:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Responsibility for proving a hypothesis

Just to remind everybody. When dealing with a hypothesis, it is up to the person stating the hypothesis to prove that the hypothesis is correct. If a person starts out a hypothesis of existence they must prove existence and if a person starts out with a hypothesis of non-existence, they must prove non-existence.

In this case, it means that if you include a pro-EVP statement, you must support it with a source claiming to prove EVP exists, NOT a source saying that it hasn't been proven not to exist.

This also works the other way round. Meaning that if you include an anti-EVP statement you must provide a source claiming to proving that EVP does not exist. You cannot prove EVP does not exist by saying that no evidence exists to prove that it does because the onus is on you to back up your hypothesis, not to show that other people's hypothesis have not been backed up.

13:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)perfectblue

Actually, if I state that there is no scientific evidence that EVP exists it is not a scientific hypothesis. Also, if I state no scientific evidence exists it is not proof that it doesn't exist. Candy 15:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Simply substitute "hypothesis" for "argument". As per WP:V, you must find a third party source stating "no scientific evidence exists". Your source should also be dated so that anybody can see if it is from 2007, or 1957.

perfectblue 17:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone states "there is no scientifc evidence for X" and there is scientific evidence for X then that person is just plain wrong.Davkal 16:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Perfectblue, your arguments for changing the intro to the 3-almost-identical-definitions version are very convincing. Where are they?Davkal 16:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't made any arguments. I cited two researchers with their own definitions.

perfectblue 17:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I also note that the intro says "Scottish microelectronics and voice recognition Alexander Macrae...", whatever that is supposed to mean.Davkal 16:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Scottish is a western European nationality and ethnicity. It means that Macrae is a British citizen originating from the country "Scotland" (He's not an American).
microelectronics is the study of small scale electronic devices such as circuits and CPUs.
Voice recognition is self explanatory, Macrae used to work for NASA helping to further the recognition of human speech in distorted or degraded signal.

If you find this sentence difficult to understand, then I respectfully suggest that you should seek assistance from a friend to check thing with you.

perfectblue 17:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, please. There's no need to be patronising. — BillC^talk 18:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Not all of us here are American (and even then there are plenty of Hispanics etc whose English isn't so good), and not every user is an adult either.

perfectblue 18:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I know you made no arguments for changing the intro - prior discussion on this page not really being something you like to trouble yourself with. That's why I am questioning why you decided that it was sensible to include three almost identical definitions in the first three lines of the introduction. I don't think it is sensible BTW, and was wondering what your reasoning was here, if any.

Re the second point, it makes no sense to say Scottish microelectronics and voice recognition Alexander Macrae. I see you understand this point since you have now added the word "expert" to the sentence - an addition that makes all the difference. It is not at all clear, then, why you chose to go with the indignant nonsense above about the original sentence making sense, rather than simply admitting the error (your actions making it perfectly clear that you knew precisely why the original was nonsensical). And to know this, I didn't even have to "seek assistance from a friend to check thing with me", whatever that is supposed to mean.Davkal 18:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

1) This page is archived, please check the older version for my part in the old discussions 2) I included two examples, the third was already there, and I've since deleted it 3) You made a blanket statement, I was not able to ascertain whether you knew all of the words, or whether you were referring to the mistake that I made in the sentence (leaving out the last word). It is quite conceivable that, like myself, you are not an American and so might not understand all of the vocabulary used. For example, you included the word "Scottish" in the sentence even though it made sense on it's own given the missing word at the end. Given that many people use the word "Scots" instead of Scottish, it's easily conceivable that a user who doesn't list their nationally might never have been taught it in school, or not have come across it elsewhere.

perfectblue 18:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

^ "EVP Question Time". Fortean Times. Retrieved 2006-12-01. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
^ MacRae, Alexander (October 2005). "Report of an Electronic Voice Phenomenon Experiment inside a Double-Screened Room". Journal of the Society for Psychical Research. Society for Psychical Research. Retrieved 2007-01-28. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Chisholm, Judith (2000). "A Short History of EVP". Psychic World. Retrieved 2006-12-03.
^ Baruss, Imants (2001). "Failure to Replicate Electronic Voice Phenomenon" (PDF). Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 355–367, 2001. Retrieved 2007-01-07. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[fort1-1] "EVP Question Time". Fortean Times. Retrieved 2006-12-01. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[macRae1-2] MacRae, Alexander (October 2005). "Report of an Electronic Voice Phenomenon Experiment inside a Double-Screened Room". Journal of the Society for Psychical Research. Society for Psychical Research. Retrieved 2007-01-28. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[Chisholm-3] Chisholm, Judith (2000). "A Short History of EVP". Psychic World. Retrieved 2006-12-03.

[Baruss-4] Baruss, Imants (2001). "Failure to Replicate Electronic Voice Phenomenon" (PDF). Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 355–367, 2001. Retrieved 2007-01-07. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]