Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:28, 1 November 2007

Template:ActiveDiscussMC

	Electronic voice phenomenon was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 23, 2004 Articles for deletion Kept January 22, 2007 Peer review Reviewed February 12, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept October 10, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Paranormal This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article was a past project collaboration. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Spirituality This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18

We were on a roll...

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

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

Failed GA

After reading the article, User:LuckyLouie's comments this talk page and some news articles it's clear that this article is not up to the GA standard.

While it is reasonably well written, appears to be largly accurate and verifyable it fails on a few counts

• Neutral point of view - not only is the article tagged as disputed but the balance in the article does not reflect the view of the larger world. The article does not adequately present the mainstream viewpoint on EVP and the lead in particular is not neutrally written. At the very least I would expect an entire paragraph of the lead presenting the mainstream view that this is a fringe, unreal phenomenon. The lead for Flat Earth is not a bad guide (though not a great one either )
• Well written - there are lots of convoluted parts that need copyediting. Sentences like The question of whether or not audio recordings thought to be EVP are just noise mistaken by an individual listener to be words, or actually form words, has been addressed with the use of listening panels' are unduly difficult to read.
• Factual - the Criticism section appears to be a synthesis of viewpoints created in wikipedia. There are other sections that also seem to suffer from this problem
• Style - at the least the references need to follow a common style.

I do suggest that the balance between proponents and criticism be clearly looked at. The article needs to settle down, the article made neutral then best to go to peer review. --Peripitus (Talk) 11:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, we will take your points into consideration.

The article lead already has 1/3 space devoted to the skeptical point of view, as you suggest- a full paragraph. The lead is already much more devoted to being skeptical than Flat Earth, in my reading. The difference here is that the Flat Earth idea has been specifically (sourcably) studied and refuted by science, and EVP has not.

We do need to make the sentences easier to understand, I can see that.

Our problem here is that we can find lots of sources for EVP, and almost none for skepticism. The article is factually written, and I believe that it is NPOV in the sense that the paranormality of EVP is not promoted. But the skepticism section is probably OR as you say.

If you think there is a POV expressed in the article, could you tell us how to fix it? We have been unable to source the "view of the larger world" you speak of, because EVP is ignored by nearly everyone except proponents. Thus, there just isn't any view at all, that we can source, anyway. That's why the skepticism section has OR. What would you suggest we do? Should we perhaps be more clear than we already are when we say that

"Mainstream science has generally ignored EVP, but there are a number of non-paranormal explanations, which account for EVP by such mechanisms as radio interference or the tendency of the human brain to recognize patterns in random stimuli. These include:"

This has been one of the main quandaries of the article, and anything you can think of to solve this problem would be welcome. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a problem ... and looking at the talk page battle+mediation case not one that will be simple to fix. I've browsed through a few pages of google books/scholar with no enlightenment as mainstream science seems to ignore it. It seems treated the same way as the Flat Earth theory but without the timespan that would allow reliable sources. This complete lack of interest or comment by the science establishment or the press needs to the made clear in the article. Although this needs work the following reads far better as a NPOV lead:

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds, inaudible during recording, that some paranormal researchers claim to detect on electronic recordings. There is no mainstream scientific support for the claim although reporting of EVP in relation to hauntings is common in the press. As claimed by the paranormal community they are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase and are sometimes claimed to be in direct response to the questions of researchers. The phenomena has been reported on diverse media, including: radio, hamradio, television, tape recorders and videorecorders. The term was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. Previously the term “Raudive Voices” was used, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive, an early researcher. References to EVP have appeared in the reality television show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense as well as literature including the novels Legion and Pattern Recognition. EVP are a subset of the paranormal field of instrumental transcommunication.

Bits that are not well suited to a neutral point of view in the lead:

• Critics of Electronic voice phenomena - implies that there is an argument and criticism rather than proposition on on hand and dismissal as a nonscientific fringe theory on the other.
• The phenomena has been observed - implies that something has really been observed. As claimed by the paranormal community states the case far better
• The entire third paragraph of the lead reads as Original research

--Peripitus (Talk) 07:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (: Your lead is accurate in a lot of ways, but doesn't quite get to the heart of the matter, which is that everyone agrees that the sounds are detectable. And that they sound like speech to some people. The only controversy in connection with EVP is whether it is paranormal. So the way you have it written, it's as if only paranormal researchers detect the sounds, and that's not true.

It's a very difficult definition, and I don't know how to modify your intro really. To be purely NPOV, we'd have to say it this way:

There has been no mainstream scientific investigation or support of EVP, although reporting of EVP is common in the press.

There are critics, such as Randi and Carroll, but they are not scientists. So there is indeed argument and criticism, but not within science.

The phenomena has been observed, there is no argument about that. The argument is over whether it is paranormal, or just various forms of normal or psychological stuff.

I'm not responsible for the 3rd paragraph. But as far as I can see it isn't OR, and is supported by skeptical sources- I think. See this. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Martin, you're wrong about a few things. Peripitus is right when he describes EVP as a proposition, not a fact. The human brain's pattern recognition abilities and psycho-acoustic paradolia effects are not called "EVP" by the scientific community. EVP is a fringe claim of paranormal enthusiasts, as described by mainstream news treatment of the subject. - LuckyLouie 05:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Minus the superciliousness- that's correct. To be very clear about it, EVP is a paranormal interpretation of anomalies. I proposed a nice lead which made this very clear, but it was not accepted. We could say something like this, it would be fine with me. But the anomalies exist, and there is no dispute about that- the dispute is over whether they are paranormal.... which is exactly what I said above.

Note to Peripitus: the whole thing has often gotten mixed up. In my opinion, EVP is a paranormal interpretation of anomalies, but the language often gets messed up to where we're arguing over whether EVP exist or not, and defining EVP as the anomalies themselves. Sorry for any confusion. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Anomalies" imply things abnormal, or difficult to classify. There is no discussion of audio recording "anomalies" or abnormalities in electrical engineering, audio recording, or physics journals or textbooks. And those publications would be the kind of authoritative sources we'd need to reference if Misplaced Pages was to state that some particular type of audio anomalies exist and can be interpreted as paranormal or normal. However, it would be OK to state that these EVP experimenters believe that they are finding audio anomalies in sound recordings which they interpret as EVP. - LuckyLouie 09:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That might be one reason why we simply call them "speech or speech-like sounds." An anomaly is "a deviation from the common rule, type, arrangement, or form." In this case, that is to say that there are sounds, flaws, or differences where normally they would not be any. This doesn't mean they are really strange or paranormal, but they do meet the definition. However, a different word might be better. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Louie is saying that experts don't consider them to even be "anomalies". Experts would consider them confusion, delusion or bad tech quality opposed to actual anomalies, since for instance bad instrument quality isn't an anomaly. Wikidudeman 20:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, so we need a better word. It is now only used as the POV of a researcher and an organization (and in those cases it is fine), and also in the Criticism section. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. The article mentions capture error and cross modulation as anomalies. Are the EVP'ers saying these things are what they are interpreting? Use of the word by an EVP proponent is fine with me, as long as it is stated as a claim. - LuckyLouie 20:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I just took your word for it that they weren't considered anomalies, and pointed to where the word is located. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see what you're saying. Discovering feedback in a signal processing circuit under test could be considered anomalous within the context of the test. But there are certainly no competing paranormal explanations for that type of condition. "Anomalous" is a word IMO, often misused by the paranormal community in order to lend an appearance of credibility to claims. Which is why we should take pains to clearly describe what it is the EVP experimenters are reacting to rather than use an ambiguous but technical-sounding blanket term like "anomalous". The experimenters claim to detect speech or speech-like sounds inaudible during recording, which is how the text reads. I don't see that we have any conflict here. - LuckyLouie 00:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see any conflict (: ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No, there's no conflict about the use of the word "anomalous" since it isn't in the present lead or proposed one. IMO Peripitus lead is a vast improvement. The article is far from GA status and requires much work in areas such as those suggested by Peripitus, Wikidudeman and NealParr, as well as polishing overall prose style. The article needs to abandon the concept of "competing scientific explanations" and simply explicate EVP's influences and origins, what EVPers believe, who they are, what the critics say, etc. - LuckyLouie 18:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no major argument with what you say here. It has been my past experience that what we need to watch out for is bias and original research- for instance, taking textbooks or other sources which don't mention EVP and giving their explanations of flaws in recording (or whatever you want to call them).

It's interesting to note that while you would include what the critics of the paranormal explanation say, you would eliminate what the proponents of the paranormal explanation say about why they believe it is paranormal. That would bias the article. You have:

Influences

Origins

Beliefs

Criticism

But you leave out the basis or attempts at proof of the beliefs (a very large part of the literature). Interesting.

Some of the suggestions of Peripitus did not take account of the actual unstudied status of EVP. The article does not at this time have any concept of competing scientific explanations. It simply reports the POV and activities (some of them an attempt at scientific proof), of both proponents of the paranormal explanation and proponents of the non-paranormal explanation. This is what the literature on EVP is all about, and must be reported in the article.

Let us go about things from this perspective: gradual change, or change which is easy to follow, with good edit summaries. An agreement to revert and then discuss on the talk page, if anyone has a problem with new edits. Discussion of large-scale change before it occurs, if such change would be at all hard to follow in the diffs. Consensus.

I think we are very near to GA status, and I'll be improving from the suggestions fo Peripitus. I do not think there is a need for a major re-write or re-organization, as most of the writing and content can stand.

I think that the skepticism section especially needs improvement, and I urge you to do the research and focus on that- it is the worst part of the article. We could also use more material on the culture of ghost hunting with EVP, and other pop culture items. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't advocate leaving out "the basis or attempts at proof of the beliefs", as long as they are phrased as claims by specific persons or organizations. - LuckyLouie 22:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Great, then there is no disagreement here either. Do you think there are places in the current article which are not properly attributed? ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. "Various explanations have been put forward for EVP by paranormal experimenters who have attempted to rule out non-paranormal explanations for their origins", is just the tip of the iceberg. Especially in fringe science articles, WP can only report "who said what about what". It can't publish as fact that they attempted specific protocols just because they said they attempted them. - LuckyLouie 23:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So, "According to the AA-EVP, and experimenters such as Raudive, MacRae...."

See any others? ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What the h*** is this?

File:Evp1.png

What are the axes? What was the conditions under which it was collected? Who determined it was an EVP? How do we know it wasn't doctored? How do we know it was actually recorded?

In short, is this image relevant at all to our article or the encyclopedia? Delete it?

ScienceApologist 19:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's think of the kids and avoid strong language please. --Northmeister 01:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You're joking, right? What "kids" are going to be damaged by reading "hell" instead of "h***"? Are you one of those people who wrote into the FCC over nipplegate? ScienceApologist 18:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The image caption says "A self generated image of "an EVP voice" and surrounding background noise. Released to all who want to use it on the understanding that the image itself has no scientific value and does not represent proof of anything." So apparently it was made from scratch under unknown conditions. Most likely original research if indeed it was self-made. Wikidudeman 01:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't OR, because it's not research. It's an illustration. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:OR. The caption claims that it's an example of EVP. Where is the proof of this? Wikidudeman 02:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Change the caption. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The caption doesn't even claim that, it has scare quotes around "EVP voice". Davkal 13:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The caption says ""EVP voice" & surrounding background noise." Thus it is claiming that it's EVP voice, or is ersatz EVP voice. Either way, unless it's actually purported to be EVP from some organization then it's not relevant as it's just random noise. Wikidudeman 15:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The scare quotes mean there are obvious ambiguities/problems attached to the term and show that it is being used here as a simple expedient. Davkal 17:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What does it add? It's not claimed to be a picture of EVP in a reliable source. If it were a picture of Bigfoot or a UFO, it would at least offer users a picture of what's being argued about, real or fake, but there's no way to tell from that picture whether the associated sound could even be argued to be EVP, and not, say, clearly incoherent noise or Alice Cooper singing.

Even if it were a hotly disputed, highly notable, piece of EVP, I'm still not sure what good a picture of the sound is supposed to do for the article.--Prosfilaes 00:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It does offer readers a picture of what is being argued about. In about the only way sound can be pictorially illustrated it surely does just thatDavkal 00:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's not bother arguing about it. There are other pics we can use, I'll see about uploading them soon. If you really have a problem with it, delete it. There will be others which look about the same and are indeed claimed to be EVP. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems a sensible solution to me - albeit a totally unnecessary one.Davkal 00:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the new image is better (: ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic edit Martinphi, what a difference this makes. Maybe we can go for good article status.Davkal 00:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It would not be wise to prematurely seek a GA nomination with this article. It needs a lot of work done to it. Wikidudeman 00:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That was what we in Scotland call "a joke". Davkal 01:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

New image

The new image should be attributed to AAEVP. ScienceApologist 15:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

left the attribution & removed the unnecessary hedging. Davkal 15:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, images are more or less immune from OR problems. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrongo. Here's a relevant quote: "Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader." In other words, Perfectblue's sayso that something is an EVP is not allowed. ScienceApologist 22:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me

Please tell me this is a mistake, Martin. ScienceApologist 22:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I also changed the caption on the image to "A self generated illustration of "an EVP voice" and surrounding background noise. Released to all who want to use it on the understanding that the image itself has no scientific value and does not represent proof of anything." Illustrations are allowed. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The image is OR as described above. Please remove it. ScienceApologist 23:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The caption was changed. Illustrations are allowed. See WP:OR. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader." In other words, Perfectblue's sayso that something is an EVP is not allowed.

ScienceApologist 00:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read Illustration. And Wp:or#Original_images. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What's your problem? I have quoted to you twice why this image is problematic and you simply are ignoring me. ScienceApologist 01:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

SA makes a clear point here Martin. Read the last line of the OR link you provided and SA mentioned. I second the movement that the image needs to go. Baegis 01:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've put the image up for deletion. I don't see how it belongs anywhere in this encyclopedia. ScienceApologist 01:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

New image

I've uploaded an image which is in all respects captioned as purely illustrative, and makes no claims to be EVP. It meets all WP rules on images. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is not EVP (ie/ makes no claims to be EVP) then it fails weight and notability. It probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia if it is purely illustrative. Either it is pertinent to the subject or not. It seems that there is an each-way bet to keep it in by claiming "it is purely illustrative" to avoid WP:OR. BTW, it doesn't matter how "illustrative" something is, if it is OR, it is OR. Using "illustrative" comments in the narrative is correctly called "editorialising" which is OR. This is no different. Why not have a real EVP scan/picture/image? Shot info 07:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

We could use another. But why not read what WP:OR has to say about illustration? You may be right, but if you are, the the rules need to be re-written. Further, articles like Will-o'-the-wisp need to have their images taken out also, and I'm sure there are many articles across WP with such images. For instance, the one on the human buttocks, if I recall, has an "OR" pic or 3. But I believe you are not right according to WP:OR. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sighh, have you heard of WP:CONSENSUS and the Misplaced Pages Community? I don't really care about other articles, I'm (personally) commenting on this one. If you feel that the other articles have OR images, then I suggest that you go to their talkpage(s), and seek some consensus for their removal. As I stated "Why not have a real EVP scan/picture/image?" surely one exists? Shot info 22:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have put both of the images (EVP2 and EVP_Illustration) up for deletion, per the same logic as SA. Baegis 21:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose asking that you leave a perfectly good image alone because it is in accordance with the rules and improves the article would be useless here. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is judged to be in agreement with the rules, it will be kept. If it is not, it will be deleted. Unfortunately, I don't think they will be sticking around too long. Baegis 01:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah. Rules have nothing to do with it, as no one has dealt with what OR actually says. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the images do violate OR - as they can't be traced to a reliable source and thus used under Fair Use standards - but are a private image that claims to be something and thus prone to interpretation as Original Research. Originally I thought otherwise, but after soliciting advice from an editor involved at that policy page for sometime; I've changed my mind and concur with the general consensus here about the images. The image in the box is sufficient and meets criteria under fair use; the others should be deleted. --Northmeister 01:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My position is based purely on reading the OR article, and the exception made for illustrative pictures. Under normal circumstances it would indeed be OR. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom on constant hedging

Here is the relevant finding from the recent arbcom:

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

It therefore seems perfectly reasonable to say things like "example of EVP" without weasel words like "alleged" or "supposed" or "claimed". That is, arbcom decided that articles about obviously paranormal topics, once properly framed, should not have these words inserted everywhere as readers would understand full well what is going on without them. Davkal 23:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You forgot the "Cultural artifacts" one, and maybe others also. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be perfectly reasonable if you were not trying to push towards the viewpoint that this is an actual EVP. It is only a claim of an EVP. Please stop changing it. Baegis 23:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's only a claimed EVP in the same way a psychic is a claimed psychic. Arbcom decided that such weasel words add nothing to the article and should not be used.Davkal 23:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a faulty attempt to apply incredulity to a credulous statement. In point of fact, there is no such thing as an "example of EVP". There are only artifacts which are said by certain individuals to be examples of EVP. If we can attribute to a reliable source the claim that the artifact being represented is an example of EVP, then the issue is moot because it becomes the say-so of the source rather than the say-so of the encyclopedia. This is different than writing prose about the subject which is arguably what the arbcomm rulings are dealing with. As soon as you enter into the realm of offering "evidence", the burden of proof that it is actually what the claimant says it is shifts to reliablity and verifiability rather than incredulity of the term. ScienceApologist 02:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether EVP are 'voices' or whatnot I'm not sure - in fact I am quite skeptical at the moment. But, it is established fact that electonic voice phenomena do exist, and have been shown in graphical image. Are you disputing this? Seems to me that your arguing from your point of view (maybe close to mine I don't know) that EVP is something else besides what those in the paranormal community claim it is; which is inappropriate here and original research on your part. EVP is a defined paranormal topic; it has case studies by several individuals, there are images purporting to be EVP, recording purporting to be EVP - and that material if from a reliable source that is traceable and not original research on an editors part is completely acceptable by Misplaced Pages standards. Please save us the agenda, as your not helping to improve the article but hinder its progress as a neutral NPOV presentation of a paranormal topic. --Northmeister 02:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

All AAEVP content is soapboxing

Explicitly, on the AAEVP website that is clamboring for Misplaced Pages recognition the following statement is made:

"This is a EVP example placed here specifically for Misplaced Pages: one not recorded by the same people posting it on the web site. Thanks to Vicki Talbott for releasing this example."

This means that the AAEVP is basically using Misplaced Pages as a shill for promoting their wares regarding this so-called "phenomenon". Since the group is of dubious notability, in any case, I find this to be a fairly clear case of vanity. The sounds and images from this particular website should be removed as per WP:SOAP and WP:VANITY.

ScienceApologist 00:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I hereby accuse the links on this page to AAEVP to be effectively acting as spam and an advertisement and I have tagged the article to that effect. ScienceApologist 00:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The AAEVP is about as relevant a group as there can be in an article about EVP. To flag the entire article as simply spam or an advertisement for AAEVP is surely ludicrous. The AAEVP exists and you cannot simply exclude mention of them in an article about EVP simply because you would rather they didn't. Davkal 00:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not arguing that AAEVP is irrelevant. I'm arguing that AAEVP is using Misplaced Pages to spam and advertise. I think the quote taken directly from their website proves that they are trying to use Misplaced Pages to do this. We need to be wary. ScienceApologist 00:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

But there's only one small section about them in the article (the largest EVP society in the world I believe), and then a few references to their website for content as well as a link to their website in the links section. This is, I think, no different to what you will find in thousands of other wiki articles.Davkal 00:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The size of the section is irrelevant. I think that they are posting content on their website for the sake of incorporating it into the article. As Misplaced Pages grows in stature, these people have taken notice and are trying to influence the content away from the policies and guidelines of this encyclopedia: effectively they are taking us for the proverbial ride. I'm not saying that AAEVP should be completely excised from this article necessarily, I'm saying that the way they are currently treated in the article and the fact that all the images and sounds come from them is unacceptable. ScienceApologist 01:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

We aren't using the example they have up. They are the main organization for EVP. You have no case. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if we aren't using the "example they have up". The very fact that they are posting examples for us to use means that I think we need to think very hard as to whether to use any examples from them. Misplaced Pages is not a personal ad service for Tom and Lisa. ScienceApologist 01:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

SA, your suspicions are your own and I don't really want to comment. The point here is really about the content of the article. And the content of the article is much the same as many, many articles in Wiki, and much better than some re the points you make. Here, for example, are some articles that are simply advertisements for fairly obscure books.], ], ] Davkal 01:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

We aren't talking about the adverts/spamming going on at other articles. If you have issue with them, make it there. But be careful to read point before doing so. ScienceApologist 01:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am pointing out that, by precedent, the article here is no cause for concern and, again by precedent, much better than many. I am allowed to make points on the talk page that's the point of it.Davkal 01:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no precedent established at those pages. No one at those pages has accused outside organizations of using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox. ScienceApologist 01:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what the precedent shows! No one has. And those articles are much, much worse. If the aa-evp is using this article (or Wiki) as a soapbox then they're not making a very good job of it. I see, for example, no article about the aa-evp itself, I see no article about either Tom or Lisa Butler, and I don't see a whole article devoted to any (let alone all of their books). In this respect there seems no case to answer.Davkal 01:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone has here and since no one has there the precedent is non-existent vis-a-vis those articles. Whether those articles are "much, much worse" is irrelevant because they establish no precedent. By your logic, any article that hasn't been tag with an advert notice would be precedent for this dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) 01:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think precedent works like this. If a motorist is arrested for speeding for doing, say, 61mph in a sixty zone while many others drive past him doing 75mph then he is entitled to ask why he was arrested rather than them. To point out that they were not arrested, and therefore there is no precedent, is to miss the point that the precedent in that case is set by lack of action.Davkal 01:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Try that argument out the next time your stopped for speeding. See how far it gets ya. ScienceApologist 02:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if 99% of their site is set up specifically to influence WP. As long as they are the major organization, their site can be used as a source for opinion. And it can be mentioned as the organization it is. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It actually does matter, Martin. There are rules about this, as I pointed out above. There is WP:SOAP and WP:SPAM. ScienceApologist 01:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, you said, "... As Misplaced Pages grows in stature, these people have taken notice and are trying to influence the content away from the policies and guidelines of this encyclopedia: effectively they are taking us for the proverbial ride." Thank you for making that point. It is exactly the point I have made about skeptical editors many times. Never before have you all had so much access to the minds of people.

I have made an effort to supply example material that people can hear as a way of supporting Misplaced Pages. I would be happy for you to use Vicki Talbott's example without mention of the AA-EVP. If you can find material elsewhere, then do so. There are many good web sites that include EVP examples. Just get the facts right.

In fact, I would be fine if you removed all of the references to the AA-EVP. If you will try to remember around all of that hate of yours, I tried to delete all of it a while back and got a slap on the wrist--you really threatened me at that time, as I remember. I also put the article up for deletion but it seems that you all need it as a platform to deny phenomena. In your tirade the other day, you again accused me of trying to control content in the EVP article.

I do not care what is written as long as it is factually correct and is not a skeptical platform. So please, punish me by deleting the article. Our trivial little organization has all of the work we can handle so there is little benefit in having more visibility. Do not assume that my wife and I benefit from the success of the AA-EVP in any way other than legacy. The only reason I began editing was because the article was even more pro skeptic than today. I will say again. either take all references to the AA-EVP--including reference links or delete the article, but do not use the article as an excuse to insult me again! Tom Butler 01:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

SA, talk about this article, not the AA-EVP. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

SA has a point about the SPAM. Listen, as it stands now the current image is going to be deleted along with the other images uploaded by Martin. I am all for using an image on this article as long as it is not OR and certainly not from a website that is promoting their images for use. That just reeks of SPAM. And this discussion is about the article, specifically the image currently provided for it. Baegis 01:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think he's talking about the whole article. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Some pertinent points. SPAM is when something is included primarily as an advert or solely as an advert and nothing else. It was SA who originally demanded that we identify the AAEVP as the source of the image ] - prior to that it just said a visualisation of an example of evp. Added to this, Tom has already said you can now remove both the mention of aaevp in the caption and all others in the article. Given this, there is nothing really left to your argument but a general disgruntlement that your attempted caption breaches the arbcom and so now you are trying another tack. This is disruption plain and simple.Davkal 02:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because the AAEVP says it no longer cares if it's name is listed doesn't take away from the fact they were guilty of what SA mentions. Guilt doesn't absolve if you say you are sorry. Baegis 02:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Tom isn't apologising for wrongdoing, he's simply pointing out that your accusations are groundless. Don't forget it was SA who insisted that the aa-evp be mentioned re the picture - not Tom.Davkal 02:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that this image needs to go. If it were a normal situation, attribution to the organization that published the image would be appropriate. But when you are posting things on your website expressly to get them included at Misplaced Pages, we shouldn't be including things from that website. ScienceApologist 02:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please consider WP:AGF before throwing flames on a situation that is presently under Arbcom consideration; the image is credible, traceable, and legitimate to use under fair use. There is no need for attribution in the caption - the image file page does that. --Northmeister 02:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please consisder what AAEVP says directly on their website. They're trying to get Misplaced Pages to shill for them. ScienceApologist 03:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The evidence here: gives pretty solid support to SA on this issue. At the moment, I will not be watching this page, so any personal reply should be left on my talk page. Antelan 03:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonconsensus edits

ScienceApologist, pleas discuss all changes you wish to make to the article on the talk page before you make them, to make sure they have the consensus of the community. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that is futile at the moment; as he has just reverted not three times but seven or eight in violation of 3RR. --Northmeister 03:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

He reverted that many times in one day? Why not post the diffs? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't violate 3RR. In fact, I think I only reverted once, and it was unintentional. ScienceApologist 03:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My diffs

Here is my latest round of edits

The "discarnate entities" section was a travesty. It read like an advert written by Tom Butler. I removed a lot of the soapboxing and the weird phrasing. There is no such thing as an "EVP experimenter" or "EVP research". The best we can do is say "investigator" for a neutral term. Also, any sort of speculative handwaving that is done by AAEVP and other paranormal believers doesn't belong in the article. It is, frankly, not encyclopedic.

Cheerio.

ScienceApologist 03:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Some changes to the intro

My diff

Two issues:

1. Not all paranormal researchers believe in EVP. I don't know if it's just investigators or not, but I think that resesarcher is stretching it. A researcher is one who is professionally paid to conduct and publish research. I know of no EVP personality who qualifies as such. Certainly Tom Butler doesn't, for example.
2. No EVP have ever been verifiably observed. Therefore we can't just say that EVP have been observed on various media. That's a blatant falsehood.

Cheerio.

ScienceApologist 03:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Another issue

My diff

I believe this diff to be necessary because EVP has been claimed directly. The previous wording was pandering.

Cheerio.

ScienceApologist 03:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And research

My diff

Renewed interest in EVP may be true. However, whether any research at all has happened about this subject is debatable.

ScienceApologist 03:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And I'm spent

Here's my final diff

I beg the indulgence of the assembled to view what I have done and note my agenda:

1. I tried to eliminate the references to EVP research and experiment. EVP is believed to exist by believers and investigators. There are no verifiable third party sources from non-EVP believing sites which call such folks "researchers", "experimenters", etc. Also, EVP is never observed. It's only claimed to be observed.
2. I tried to remove some of the more speculative prose -- especially from the discarnate entities section. Remember verifiability. If we cannot verify the comments through third parties, fringe policy also comes into play.
3. I tried to make things more succinct and clear. Oftentimes, the prose was rambling or worse indecisive. This is unacceptable, in my book.

ScienceApologist 04:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus again

I see ScienceApologist has refused to attain consensus or even discuss his recent thirty six edits to the page, per above requests (which we made soon after he started editing). He also seems to have ignored Northmeister's edit to his talk page. This is not a good way to edit on Misplaced Pages. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a concerted effort by yourself and Davkal to drag your feet in order to prevent change from happening. Editing was stagnant. I was bold. Wikidudeman told me a month ago to let the process work itself out. I judge the process to be dead: mediation has failed. I have edited with good faith. Consensus does not mean that no one is allowed to edit an article. Misplaced Pages policy is clear that this kind of obstructionism is just that, obstructionism. ScienceApologist 04:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing in spite of a clear request to discuss is not good faith. Nor is there a time limit on wiki articles. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am discussing. I'm all over the talkpage. ScienceApologist 13:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This article

I'd not encountered this article before but it's really, really poor. Both the disregard for NPOV and the quality of writing leave much to be desired. Can someone who cares about the topic do a major rewrite? Raymond Arritt 04:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Arritt, we're working on one now (: ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Raymond's right. I am only 10% happier with my version than the previous one. It's still wildly POV and of poor writing quality. ScienceApologist 13:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I think the changes are only a stopgap measure on the road to a comprehensive rewrite. I cleaned up the section on "ITC" as it made several unsupported claims, but the article stll suffers from the AAEVP's slanted framing of the subject (EVP as a mysterious phenomena which requires competing "explanations"). See: Critics" implies that there is an argument and criticism rather than proposition on on hand and dismissal as a nonscientific fringe theory on the other" for more. Also the article approaches the subject from the "inside" believers perspective rather than from the "outside" world's perspective - LuckyLouie 05:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

this was the recent finding of the arbcom on the paranomal.

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

To totally disregard this and insert "claimed" etc throughout the article is not acceptable. Davkal 22:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, first of all I don't see anything about "claimed" in that statement. I also note an important "may" in the first sentence. I agree that language may frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status, but that doesn't mean that paranormal believers don't "claim" things. They obviously do.

Secondly, I'm not sure that this is adequate justification for reverting every single edit I made yesterday. If you really believed that this was a problem, Davkal, why not go through and remove and tweak the wordings on all the instances of use of the verb "to claim"? Why would you simply revert the entirety despite there obviously being a lot more there then just inserting "claim" every other word. Are you just being lazy? Or do you have other reasons for your action?

ScienceApologist 22:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with "say"? They obviously say things as well. "Claim" is a WP:WTA and that guideline offers alternatives, like "say". In your edits, you had the skeptics say things, but the only "claimed" things. --Nealparr 23:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with "say", though sometimes using it over and over again gets redundant. I tried to use "say" in most cases, but sometimes I needed a noun and "statement" doesn't work all the time. It has different connotations than "claim". ScienceApologist 23:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It is the connotations that make it a word to avoid. It is an easily avoided word as well, where editors have lots of room to play and create readable, non-redundant text --Nealparr 06:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason I reverted all is because the article was a lot better before and contained a lot less pseudoscience cited as fact. In addition there were tyos galore and hedging almost everywhere. It would take me several weeks to get rid of this lot without breaching 3RR and so the only other option was to start again with discussion her on the talk page.Davkal 23:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that this is very disappointing that you don't make any specific explanations here. If you have a problem, you should at least have the decency to explain what the problem is instead of whitewashing. ScienceApologist 23:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

One example

I will give one example of the worst way in which the article has deteriorated. Previously it said: "They explain that the human brain is naturally evolved to interpret familiar patterns from sound and that this phenomenon accounts for many instances of apparent 'voices' or 'voice-like' sounds.". While this is probably rubbish, it is not nearly as bad as what subsequently went into the article: "The well-understood fact that the human brain has naturally evolved to interpret familiar patterns from sound...". Now, current scientific thinking has it that humans have been anatomically identical (no evolution) since prior to the evolution of language in anything like the form we know it. Note that this is fundamentally different from the situation involving faces, the most easily identifiable cases of pareidolia. It is therefore far from well-understood how the human brain could possibly evolve to recognise language prior to those sound ever having existed - and which language did it evove to undrestand: chinese, german, oe english? This is why it is easy to see faces in curtains (faces have been about for millions upon millions of years in a very recognisable pattern), but very hard to hear a door opening as saying "good morning" or anything else for that matter. So, let the pseudosckeptics extend the notion of pareidolia by evolution to all the sensory modalities, and all the aspects of those modalities, in their pseudoscientific tracts on evp - that is one thing. But only when such findings are presented in peer-review scientific literature can they be stated as "the well understood fact".Davkal 23:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My evidence comes from the technical paper which I won't quote here in case you don't have a university account. I will, however, give you a link to a popular version of the paper: . Where is your cited evidence that the human brain didn't evolve to identify patterns in sound?

I'll also note that Philip Lieberman wrote an excellent book on the subject, Eve Spoke: Human Language and Human Evolution. In it he presents the scientific consensus which is basically the opposite of what you are saying. So are you saying that you are more eminent a scholar than Lieberman?

The rest of your paragraph falls apart as original research. You are free to believe whatever you want, but it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. So since I have demonstrated that these findings are presented in peer-reviewed scientific literature I can only ask for your rebuttal to also have such a grounding. Thanks.

ScienceApologist 23:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit then talk? Talk then edit?

Several parts of the ArbCom would apply here. The one Davkal quoted was only one which applies. If ScienceApologist wants to incorporate changes, why not present them on the talk page first for consensus? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I did present my changes. We can do it in either direction: either present them and talk about them or talk about them then present them. The order doesn't matter. Anyway, you can clearly see what my edits are and I eagerly awaiy your comments. By the way, the arbcomm didn't say anything about whether one should edit then talk or talk then edit. ScienceApologist 23:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's too hard to follow wholesale changes like you made. In addition, you seem to have made a few changes which people might have agreed with, then buried them in changes which would not meet consensus. Under these conditions, I think it is better to discuss the changes first, then insert them when you have consensus. That way, reverting will not be necessary merely in order that people don't have to sift through your multitude of changes to find the few which could meet consensus. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Martin you did pretty much the same thing in September with no "consensus" at all. This latest protest seems to be just more pettifoggery on your part. - LuckyLouie 05:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If so, that was when the article was in less controversy. As of now, go ahead and change the article if you wish- I can't stop you. But WP goes ahead by consensus, and in circles by force. If you want to take the article in circles, go ahead and make non-consensus edits. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You were informed repeatedly on this talk page of the problems in the article that needed addressing. - LuckyLouie 05:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit by the rules and in the spirit of Misplaced Pages, LuckyLouie. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that this is all just sour grapes. ScienceApologist 16:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal Terminology Box

The box seems to serve as an end-run around NPOV. It presents an "in-universe" definition of the "term" and offers a "signature" (how to spot EVP?). Terms don't have "signatures". It's not appropriate- LuckyLouie 17:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We might consider deleting the template altogether. I'll post a notice at the fringe theories noticeboard and get their opinions. ScienceApologist 17:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class paranormal articles
• Unknown-importance paranormal articles
• Past paranormal collaborations
• WikiProject Paranormal articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Mid-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class Spirituality articles
• Unknown-importance Spirituality articles