Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:19, 21 November 2007

	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.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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)

Lead para, again

I hardly ever edit the article directly and instead prefer to float ideas on the Talk page, Yet, I observe editors struggling once again over the definition, but missing some significant overarching problems. I believe the present definition does not reflect a world view of the subject. It unnecessarily panders to the AA-EVP paradigm, which presents the subject as a technical proposition having differing explanations. Besides confusion with audio recording and electronics concepts ("Speech-like sounds reportedly not heard at the time of recording" could also describe unwanted crowd background noise during location recording), this approach is greatly at odds with international mainstream cultural coverage of the subject who define it more straightforwardly as something said to be the voices of ghosts, made audible through static on radio, or on recordings. Shouldn't we be looking at ways to describe EVP (at least in the lead) which better conform to wider world views? - LuckyLouie 21:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, there is another issue and that is that some paranormal believers think that EVP is actually the sleeping minds or the unconscious minds of various persons. Also some EVP believers think that EVP are the voices of aliens from other dimensions. The term "discarnate entities" has been used to umbrella the entire category, but I'm not sure that the claimed psychic interaction of a living person is necessarily a "discarnate entity". ScienceApologist 21:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I placed the discarnate entity attribution in the definitions to deal with this issue, but I also placed the dubious template since it isn't clear whether a living person has a mind which is properly termed a "discarnate entity". Input from others would be appreciated. ScienceApologist 22:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think terms like "discarnate entities" are symptomatic of a definition that is trying too hard to stick closely to one world view. I'm suggesting breaking free of the box. - LuckyLouie 22:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Have any ideas? Should we just call them ghosts, perhaps? ScienceApologist 22:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever's an accurate term, free from insider jargon, yet also encyclopedic. I think the BBC news called them ghosts or spirits. - LuckyLouie 23:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal beings? ScienceApologist 23:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ghosts and spirits. That's what's notable. It is my humble opinion, and one of the reasons I declined working on it before, that you should stick with the notable ideas about the topic and list minor theories and ideas separately. I don't believe the definition needs ambiguous terms such as "discarnate beings" to accomodate aliens when the predominant idea is that they're ghosts caught on tape. That's what pop culture (mainstream) thinks of when they think EVP. If you want to add a second sentence saying "others think aliens, etc. etc." that's fine, but it's mostly about the spirits. --Nealparr 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with NealParr on the above. - LuckyLouie 00:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! ScienceApologist 00:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Depending on the exact wording, this sounds like it is going in a good direction. Someone should propose a lead on the talk page. Nealparr has the right idea. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

More nonconsensus POV-pushing from ScienceApologist

ScienceApologist has continued to POV-push and make nonconsensus edits to the article, which he has edit warred to keep. Till those edits are reverted or corrected, the process on this page has come to a stop. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What "process on this page" has come to a stop? You mean you won't consider the points raised in my discussion (above) until you get a preferred revert of the article? That's disruptive. You cannot unilaterally stop the consensus/article-building process. - LuckyLouie 21:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus editing cannot live with nonconsensus editing. I'm trying to play by the rules here. If you are really with the project here, you'll start reverting such nonconsensus edits yourself. But one thing we aren't going to do, and that is to yak about consensus on the talk page and meanwhile allow SA to do nonconsensus edits. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What, in your estimation, makes for consensus editing versus nonconsensus editing? If you make an edit is it consensus editing? If I make an edit is it nonconsensus editing? ScienceApologist 22:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Martin, I'm not currently reverting anybody's edits to the article. Please refrain from attempting to suggest that unless I do as you say, I'm not "with the project". - LuckyLouie 22:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Reversions

Do involved editors want to see this page protected for a week? Try to find some common ground, without being forced to do that with a protected page... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But not a version edit-warred in by SA. I'll revert again to the version before his recent disruptive edits. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm simply not allowed to edit the article as long as Martin is here. What do other users think? Were my edits ? ScienceApologist 22:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You got away with 38 nonconsensus edits. We have tried to start a consensus building process. You continue to make nonconsensus edits. And your edits -to the lead no less- were indeed so horrendous that Martin is justified in simply reverting them without discussion. If you are part of the consensus building -which has already made changes to the article- then build consensus before you edit, the way I'm doing. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

How did you determine that they were nonconsensus? ScienceApologist 23:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi, instead of labeling ScienceApologist's editing as "nonconsensus", why don't you try to be constructive and start pointing out some individual changes that he made that you disagree with? We can then review them collaboratively. Antelan 00:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you acknowledge that his editing style is disruptive? I don't think any of his edits were appropriate. If they are to remain in the article, I think he ought to argue for them. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You would gain some credibility by pointing out the problems. Otherwise this just looks ad hom. Antelan 04:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I just noticed this - why did you refer to yourself in the third person there ^ - "Martin is justified in simply reverting them"? Antelan 04:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. One wonders if we're dealing with a role account here. Martin's (or Martins') views and editing style aren't always internally consistent; could be just normal human inconsistency, but it would fit a role account too. Raymond Arritt 22:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, dude, if you want you can like research it or somethin or get one of yr admns to look at the code or somethin. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Raymond and Atelan, its these types of innuendos and posting that causes the waters to muddy in the first place; besides turning editing sour. Why even bring this stuff up? If you think Martin is a role account, then ask him straight up - Martin is your account used by mutiple users in regards to a role account? - I would also advise proceeding to check on this officially if it concerns you. Although, I'd admit his reference to himself in the 'royal' third person is odd, it may very well be a mistake in writing and not all you make it to be. Let's AGF here. --Northmeister 23:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Radio, film and television"

This section needs to distinguish deliberately fictional works from those purporting to be fact. In some cases I can't tell which is which from the descriptions as given here. Could those more familiar with the shows help clarify this point? Raymond Arritt 00:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

These two are cited by links that feel pretty SPAMmy:

Dead Whisper, a film by Ronald James Television and Media in 2006, in which Canadian psychic Robbie Thomas and Indiana Ghost Trackers investigate Manteno State asylum, Rico D's in Illinois, and the Studebaker Mansion in Indiana. Michael Esposito and Mike McDowell use EVP to confirm Robbie Thomas' communications with spirit entities. The film focuses heavily on EVP.

Ghost Radio, An Australian internet radio program featuring Lia and John Ramses offers several archived programs on EVP including interviews by EVP researchers Robert Smith and Michael Esposito. Also archived are interviews with Reverse Speech Researcher David John Oates and Medium Robbie Thomas and Producer Ronald James. Also special interview from Stockholm with Michael Esposito and Leif Elggren during the recording of the EVP/experimental music cd at Emanuel Swedenborg The Summerhouse on Firework Edition Records.

The first is (as far as I can figure) a non-notable doco. The second is a non-notable podcast. They both seem to be placed here to promote this Esposito fellow. - LuckyLouie 01:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if the first is notable, but the second doesn't meet WP:WEB criteria. --Nealparr 01:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi reverted it, so you can take it up with him/her. I don't see anything that demonstrates its notability. --Nealparr 04:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Suggested:

According to some paranormal researchers, electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are messages from spirits left on electronic recording media. They are reportedly brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase, and sometimes in direct response to the questions of researchers. Researchers say the sounds are inaudible during the recording process, and have been observed on diverse media, including radio, television, tape recorders.

re·search (r-sûrch, rsûrch) n. 1. Scholarly or scientific investigation or inquiry. See Synonyms at inquiry. 2. Close, careful study. v. re·searched, re·search·ing, re·search·es v.intr. To engage in or perform research. v.tr. 1. To study (something) thoroughly so as to present in a detailed, accurate manner: researching the effects of acid rain. 2. To do research for: research a magazine article. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/researcher

The word "research" is very appropriate to the article. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"Very appropriate" is stretching things, but I can see how definition n.(2) might not be altogether inapplicable. Raymond Arritt 22:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, even if you don't believe that any of the studies, including Brauss (mainstream), were scientific, then it still meets "Scholarly" in definition 1. I mean, you can be a fundamentalist, and still do "Bible research." ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thinking Anew toward a unified article without segregation of science or paranormal

I've reorgnaized the article a bit per the TOC, to try to bring together the various explanations of the phenomena of EVP into one whole rather than pitting paranormal vs. science or skeptics as what existed prior. I also redid the lead a bit to reflect this, with a new emphasis on the Cultural impact of EVP research and use by pop culture as a social phenomena in ghost hunting groups etc. Of course this is just a start. There is much improvement that can be made to clean the sections up and reduce redundancy and increase NPOV. I am open to debate on my changes and to further improvements towards a good article. --Northmeister 03:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent job, Northmeister. Now it reads as a dispassionate description of the subject. Kudos. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The changes are very nice. I guess since you're doing it also, the idea of discussing first is quite dead and needs to be buried- if possible. Much like the cat who died a couple weeks ago inside my wall. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the changes, but there are two problems with the intro that I've identified. The first is that it doesn't explain that people think these are recordings of spirits until the second paragraph. As the most notable thing about EVPs, that really needs to be in the first sentence. Example: "...to explain speech or speech-like sounds that are often believed to be ghosts or spirits..."

The second problem is a timeline issue. The first sentence says the term EVP was coined in the 1970s. The second paragraph says that EVPs have been studied since the 1950s. If studied in the 1950s, they weren't EVPs because that term didn't come about until the 1970s.

I'll fix these problems. This is just an explanation of the changes. --Nealparr 03:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Great. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Approve of the changes, however, I reworked a bit of the first paragraph to bring balance to the second sentence and to include in the lead sentence who coined the phrase. --Northmeister 04:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

To each their own, but I don't really think who coined the term is essential, first sentence, information. IMHO, it makes the first sentence unnecessarily complex. --Nealparr 04:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems another editor agrees; so I'll support his recent edit and your original idea on first sentence. --Northmeister 04:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me now, B+ intro I think. --Nealparr 04:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of combining paragraph two into the end of one? Personally, I think it would look less cluttered. We don't want too many paragraphs in the introduction. --Northmeister 04:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to be a stickler for grammar, so you can change if you want. I separated each paragraph because they technically contain separate thoughts. First is the description of the term, the second is the naming of the term, the third is the history summary, the fourth is explanations, and the fifth is pop culture (though I'd drop the last two sentences off the fifth paragraph if I thought I could get away with it). --Nealparr 05:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me try something else. --Nealparr 05:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I cut out the last sentence per your original comments and move the second to last sentence to the first paragraph. Did so before I read your comments above. Feel free to go with your original thought above. --Northmeister 05:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Reworked it so there's one less paragraph, per your concerns. --Nealparr 05:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Stepping away for now, as it is late here. Thanks for the work thus far. --Northmeister 05:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You too, I prefer it when the criticism is integrated with the claim. --Nealparr 05:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess the editing gates have been thrown open, so I clarified the opening definition a bit. Since EVP is stated as an audio engineering concept, I made it clear that what is being defined (sounds not heard at the time of recording, etc.) is not a recognized technical phenomena, which requires it being described as "reportedly" observed rather than definitively observed. Also, I find no references to subsets of ITC outside of the paranormal literature, hence a clarification was needed as to who considers EVP a subset of ITC. - LuckyLouie 07:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The above edit has been reverted by Martinphi as "original research" with the comment, "If the source is not discussing the subject it is not allowed in Misplaced Pages". (?) The "subject" is actually a claim about audio recording, and the absence of EVP in technical professional literature on the subject is quite evident. I can only view Martin's revert as a disruptive effort to sway the article away from neutrality. - LuckyLouie 08:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And you reverted the other two edits I made (re: ITC and "observed") with no explanation other than "OR". Why? - LuckyLouie 08:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That is Original research, and isn't allowed in Misplaced Pages. You need to find sources on the subject, if you want to include this material. As it is, all you have said is that EVP is not mentioned by some sources which do not include EVP. Please read up on the policy. It is very specific and clear about this. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The "subject" of the article makes claims about audio recording concepts. The door is open to clarification of those claims. - LuckyLouie 08:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Compliance with our Verifiability Policy and our cite sources guideline is the best way to ensure that you do not violate our NOR policy. In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately.

No, the door isn't open. That's because no one disputes that EVP happen -that there are variations in white noise for example. They are only interpreted differently by paranormalists and others. So if you can find a source saying "the paranormalists interpret it this way, and we don't," then you've got something. Till then, you haven't. That's the reason for the policy. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Audio recording is "not directly related" to the topic? - LuckyLouie 08:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Not per the policy on OR. The source must mention the subject. Lead is (was) related to pencils, but that doesn't mean I can go and make a case that pencils should not be used, or might be poisoning children, just because I can find sources that mention lead poisoning. I'd have to find a source that said that pencils give poisoning to children. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You interpret the policy on OR quite wrongly. No one is making "a case" as suggested by your lead pencil example. I am helping to frame EVP as a technical recording concept which is not supported by mainstream authority on the subject. It simply does not exist as a subject in the IEEE or AES glossaries. I can see no reason to withold this information from the article lead. - LuckyLouie 09:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And you are spectacularly wrong about lead poisoning not being "allowed" to be mentioned in an article about pencils by the way. - LuckyLouie 09:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent. I said you'd have to have a source. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 09:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So do you think that we should also say that religions generally don't recognize the subject, and also include every other related field which does not mention the subject? No, we aren't in the business of doing OR to see who doesn't mention a subject. Rather, we have to have sources which are talking about the subject (that is why the words in the quote are emphasized). Otherwise, people can simply add POV. The policy on OR is strict because it is a slippery slope. Shall we say that SETI doesn't recognize it, that the PEAR lab doesn't, that the Pope has not yet confirmed that it is spirits, though the Vatican smiles on the research? The policy is strict because it has to be, and it applies here.

care should be taken to not "go beyond" what is expressed in the sources, nor use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using the information out of context. In short, stick to the sources.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinphi (talk • contribs)

How about this for the framing of the subject as not-mainstream? --Nealparr 15:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is no documentation in "mainstream" scientific journals. There was a total of one paper in a parapsychology journal. Rather than stretch this into "little" (and when Baruss says 'lack' he means 'none') say there is none. - LuckyLouie 18:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the opening lead to be in line with mainstream coverage of the subject. It's an article written by Hu Williams, head of research for the BBC. The problem with the "speech like sounds detected..." etc. definition you had in there previously is the use of a minority source (the AA-EVP) to give a minority/fringe definition of the subject to make it sound like it's a scientific or technical concept. The def should not be misleading or confusing or unattributedly pseudoscientific sounding, as it was formerly. I compromise on the term "researchers" even though it gives many amateurs undue credibility, and the "documentation" line (which is an extremely generous way of saying EVP is not part of science). I hope that works for you - LuckyLouie 19:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"No documentation" is a hardline statement that is extremely difficult to verify. You'd have to go through every mainstream scientific journal to prove none of them have ever mentioned EVPs. Practically speaking it is impossible, but here is why it's unlikely that it's correct. I can easily imagine that in mainstream psychology journals, when they are talking about audio intepretation, that they have at some point used EVPs as an example of where someone has interpreted audio as a familiar sound. The interpretation of EVPs as normal phenomena is still documentation. --Nealparr 20:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

How would you phrase it, keeping in mind that words like "little", "some", "many", etc. are effectively weaseling away accurate descriptions (see discussion below about "paranormal researchers")? ScienceApologist 20:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think "lack of documentation" says it all and adequately frames it as fringe. It's also compatible with the source. --Nealparr 20:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a problem with "lack of documentation" in that it assumes that there should be documentation but that it is absent. The word "lack" implies a wanting absence and seems to border on POV. I submit that most scientists do not think the mainstream "lacks" documentation because there is no want for it. ScienceApologist 20:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "there is a lack of documentation", placed the way it is in the article, seems to infer a shortcoming or maybe even an injustice. I think you can find a clearer way of expressing the idea that EVP, as it is defined by its proponents, is absent from mainstream science. - LuckyLouie 20:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I placed in an idea. Do what you want to with it. ScienceApologist 20:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why I originally used "little". The important thing is that the statement needs to be sourced or else it's synthesis. This is what I came up with based on the source that I had. If you can find a better source saying something, let's look at that, but what SA put in isn't exactly in this source. --Nealparr 20:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

My problem with "little" is that it is a confirmation that there is "some" (unspecified amount) of documentation in mainstream science journals. Surely this isn't what you intended? Baruss's actual statement is clearly him using "lack" to describe why he had to go to fringe sources rather than mainstream ones. (Given the lack of documentation of EVP in mainstream scientific journals, a review of its history is given based on English language information found in psychical research and parapsychology periodicals and various trade publications and newsletters. ) One could wikilawyer this to death, but perhaps Baruss shouldn't be burdened with carrying the load of adequately framing the subject. Where is the source for the previous "science has ignored EVP" line? Is that also Baruss? - LuckyLouie 20:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this guy is only one source. The point we need to get across in the lead is that mainstream science wholly denigrates the subject ontologically. This shouldn't be too hard to source. We can use skeptics dictionary or something similar. ScienceApologist 20:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This source was used because the intro didn't previously have a fringe framing statement. I wanted to put one in, and this is the first source I found that actually said there is a lack of documentation of EVP in mainstream science. I am completely open to other sources and would like to remind you guys that I only put in what you guys asked for in the first place. If you don't like my source, please feel free to provide another one. It's hard finding dismissive statements by science which tends to ignore rather than dismiss. --Nealparr 22:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Edison

I felt the Edison material was necessary for historical temporal perspective. Otherwise, it seemed to be a new idea in the 50s. We don't need to say much, but we need to have some bit of info to give the article a proper timeline. There are things in between the 20s and 50s, and I think before Edison also, but not really notable enough. But just acting as if it came out of thin air in the 50s doesn't work. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it is absolutely OR to say what Edison did is related to EVP. Antelan 05:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to tell that to the Skeptic's Dictionary and many other sources on EVP. But please don't revert merely because you haven't read the sources of an entry. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the Skeptic's Dictionary entry and I do not believe that the connection they try to draw is anywhere near sufficient to truly implicate Edison in the origins of early research in this field. It's an interesting anecdote about life in general, but it does not belong here. Someone else please revert Martinphi, because apparently I can't edit here. Antelan 06:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Then you'd better tell all the authors on the subject of EVP. No, Edison did not know the term EVP, he was however talking about exactaly the same concept. Even if he was not, the sources have claimed him, and that is enough for WP. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you can let that one go Martinphi. The prior interest is established by linking it to the Spiritualism movement that dates back to the 1840s. In other words, since then (and really since "spirit photography") spiritualists have been trying to use technology to capture spirits. Readers can get a clear idea that people have been trying to contact spirits before the 1950s, and that the 1950s is when they decided they were successful. The sources indicate that actual trying to record is firmly established in 1941, since Edison didn't actually try. It's true that the Skepdic makes the link, but we don't have to since earlier stuff is already established in the article. Since it's a point of disagreement, I say just drop it. --Nealparr 15:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I was never attached to that specific episode. I only wanted to establish the depth of historical context, and that was one way to do it. The problem was merely the invalid reason for knee-jerk reverting. If other reasons had been offered, that would have been different. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Edison's recorders mechanical, not electronic. They recorded sound by making physical impressions and did not use electromagnetism. Thus it's hard to see the relation to EVP, since the E means "electronic." Raymond Arritt 01:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This article also covers ITC. But like I say, my only interest is in creating a sense of historical depth. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem with "paranormal researchers" as a general term

The problem is, there exist paranormal researchers, including a few self-described "parapsychologists" who do not believe EVP to exist as we describe in this article. The best we can say is some paranormal researchers. Even so, I would say that it is relatively few researchers, per se, who actually believe in EVP. The far greater contingent of believers are from the amateur community who try to make EVP on their own. This should be reflected in the article. ScienceApologist 19:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I really do not like the use of "some" or "most" in articles, as it says nothing that can be verified. I would prefer to keep these arbitrary judgements out of articles, and stay within the boundaries of WP:NPOV, describing significant viewpoints, and attributing them to these that make them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Simply saying "paranormal reserachers" unqualified gives the impression of unanimity when it doesn't exist. I too am not a fan of weaseling away the numerical descriptions, so perhaps someone can come up with a wording that doesn't mislead the reader into any false impressions.... ScienceApologist 20:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the word "certain"? ScienceApologist 20:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I forget who said it, but we had the same problem over in parapsychology when we were working on it. One of the editors who assist in getting articles to GA and FA status suggested calling specific researchers and critics by name versus "some" or "many". For example, "Some researchers such as parapsychologist John Smith say..." That helps to put a face on the claim. --Nealparr 20:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably a good way of doing it, though I think "certain researchers" may conform to NPOV better. ScienceApologist 20:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Researchers such as... blah blah". Doesn't actually need "some" or "certain". --Nealparr 20:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. By saying "such as" it properly attributes the claim made. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's do it. ScienceApologist 21:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Use most notable researchers, like Raudive for instance. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What did Raudive say in regards to these subjects? ScienceApologist 23:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to point out that when attributing the belief to a notable person/researcher, there needs to be a source demonstrating that they actually feel that way. For example, there's no source in the article that I saw demonstrating that John Zaffis supports EVP (though he probably does). (Nevermind, saw it towards the end. The source link should be duplicated in the intro.) This is because of WP:ATT and especially WP:ATT#Living persons. --Nealparr 00:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What we're not keeping in mind here is that per the ArbCom, we don't need all this stuff. We can simply define it without tying ourselves into knots, as long as we frame the article well. That's what the ArbCom decided, and there is really no reason to do otherwise.

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.

So going out of our way to attribute is simply not necessary, and words such as "claimed" are not either. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If this discussion results in a neutral lead that fully informs the reader, I see no reason to complain or to stop the discussion by invoking "ArbCom". Of course we will stay within their guidelines, but that is no reason to cut off discussion. Antelan 02:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Martin I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the particular Arbcom statement. I doubt it's meant to subvert WP:FRINGE which requires very clearly written attributions accompany fantastic/unusual claims. Flatly defining EVP as the voices of ghosts or spirits isn't helping to build the encyclopedia as a serious reference work. And using the word "paranormal" doesn't automatically create a reality-free zone in this article lead. You need to say "who" defines it as the voices of ghosts and spirits. If you still disagree, you might want to expose your version of the article lead to a RfC (a request for comment on a content issue) to get wider feedback. - LuckyLouie 03:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. - This quote from the previous Arbcom case is nothing but clear. If an article is on a subject related to fiction, it is proper to attribute in the opening that this is the case and it is unncessary to continually used words such as 'claimed' or 'purported' or whatever to constantly define the subject. The reader is clearly informed by the use of the term that it is a fictional subject. The same is also true of 'religious' or 'occult' topics and may we say 'paranormal' topics. "Defining the epistemoligical" status of an article is highly important. This article is NOT related to mainstream science - it does not have to be constantly scrutinized as if it is a scientific article. Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia, it is not for advocacy, it is not many things WP:NOT. To insist on an untoward position that each and every statement within the lead contain a persons name is also not acceptable by summary standard; all we need is a proper link to a proper source. The source to be proper needs to be clearly verifiable, preferably published, and by those who have concerns in the subject. I see here, once again, a divergence that is attempting to define "EVP" as what it is not and attempting to fill the article up with too much of what it is not. EVP, is not a particular subject of mainstream science, but it is a subject of a limited number of scholars who have devoted their time to its study such as Dr. Konstantine Raudive. It is not for us to decide whether these scholars were right or wrong; nor is it for us to critique their work - it is rather for us to provide veriable well sourced material that does this in the proper manner. If there is not a proper source indicating criticism of the subject, that criticism should not be in the article. If the topic is framed per Arbcom, it should be written with that in mine - in a balanced NPOV manner regardless of our opinions as editors. The present opening lead is horrendous in my opinion. It ignores the previous Arbcom and attempts to address EVP as if it is a subject of mainstream science to be criticized but without proper sources indicating this criticism per WP:V and WP:NOR. We can not move forward without proper acceptance that this article is a 'paranormal' one because those who have researched the topic, those who gave it its original definition, and those who continue to research the topic are operating in the 'paranormal' or 'parapsychological' area and not in the mainstream scientific one. --Northmeister 04:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Given your personal interpretation of the previous Arbcom and WP:FRINGE, what do you feel is wrong with this proposed lead? --

Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are said to be the voices of ghosts or spirits made audible through static on the radio, or on electronic recording media. According to paranormal researchers such as Konstantin Raudive, the "voices" are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase and are sometimes said to be answers to questions asked during the taping. EVP has been reportedly observed on diverse media, including: radio, television, tape recorders, video recorders, and digital recording devices. EVP are considered by paranormal researchers as a subset of the broader field of instrumental transcommunication. There is no documentation of EVP apparent in mainstream scientific journals.

--LuckyLouie 05:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I would combine the third and second to last sentence because we repeat EVP and it reads awkward. Otherwise as long as what is stated is backed by reliable sources then it is ok. If the second sentence frames the article for the reader, then we are fine. I would prefer to mention that the term is used by the paranormal community in the first sentence for framing purposes and to attribute this as a fringe and not mainstream subject - this informing the reader first hand. --Northmeister 05:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Somthin' like this?

Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are said by paranormal researchers to be the voices of ghosts or spirits made audible through static on the radio, or on electronic recording media. According to authors such as Konstantin Raudive and Tom Butler, the "voices" are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase, observed on diverse media, including: radio, television, tape recorders, video recorders, and digital recording devices, and sometimes said to be answers to questions asked during the taping. EVP are considered by paranormal researchers as a subset of the broader field of instrumental transcommunication. There is no documentation of EVP apparent in mainstream scientific journals. - LuckyLouie 05:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence needs to be replaced. See below. Otherwise, I don't see any red flags and honestly think that a lot of this stuff is nitpicking : ) --Nealparr 05:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, you changed it. Not sure if I like the wording exactly, but at least it's true. --Nealparr 05:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem, and would suggest you make the edit. As far as the last sentence, if the source indicates that there is 'no documentation' then it is fine to stay. If it says something else then we should change the sentence, find another reliable source, or remove it. --Northmeister 05:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I recommend changing it to say something like "mainstream science hasn't accepted EVP research". That can be sourced easily. Even the AAEVP has made statements about the lack of acceptance by mainstream science. They're a reliable source in the context of making a statement about their own level of acceptance, especially if it is negative. --Nealparr 05:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I go with that, however it'd be best to find a source which is outside the paranromal community. Otherwise it's just the AA-EVP's opinion, as they are not a reliable source for mainstream science views. - LuckyLouie 05:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with LuckyLouie here on sourcing and it is best to consider this in regards to the rest of the article as well. --Northmeister 05:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Once we have said that we are defining it as a paranormal subject and according to paranormal researchers, we shouln't need to keep saying it. But that lead isn't bad. Agree with Nealparr just above. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as the source supports the statement I have no problem with it. I would prefer something like "Mainstream science hasn't accepted EVP and to date there is no documentation apparent in scientific journals." or something like that. I also have no problem with the original. The most important thing is to consider the reader, to inform the reader that this subject is paranormal (thus fringe), that it is not covered by mainstream science, so the reader will take this into consideration when reading the article as a whole. All this of course, backed by verifiable sources and reflecting what the sources say. --Northmeister 05:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Stylistic point if we go with the "no document to date" approach - instead of saying "to date", we can say "through 2007" or "as of 2007". This is a minor point - just a WP:MOS consideration. Antelan 05:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Would be fine, but if we go with '2007' we'd have to continually change the date; but I have no issues with this. The last sentence is highly important to inform the reader of EVP's status in mainstream science. --Northmeister 05:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Any objections to how it is right now? I think LL's wording closely matches the source and makes the sentence work well. --Nealparr 05:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion since it doesn't break the sentence, but the "as of 2007" part isn't needed. As everyone's always saying, Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball and doesn't have to document future events. By saying "as of 2007," it implies that maybe in 2008 that may change. Maybe, but unlikely, or even if likely, Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. --Nealparr 06:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the "as of 2007" adding anything. It might be applicable if literature existed in previous years, or there was an imminent spate of articles due any moment. - LuckyLouie 06:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove it. Technically it should be 2002 anyway, since that's when the article was written. Then I'm done for the day. --Nealparr 06:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No documentation needs source

To recap: "No documentation" is a hardline statement that is extremely difficult to verify. You'd have to go through every mainstream scientific journal to prove none of them have ever mentioned EVPs. Practically speaking it is impossible, but here is why it's unlikely that it's correct. I can easily imagine that in mainstream psychology journals, when they are talking about audio intepretation, that they have at some point used EVPs as an example of where someone has interpreted audio as a familiar sound. The interpretation of EVPs as normal phenomena is still documentation. When EVP is explained away as Rorschach Audio or something or another, that is documentation.

What's more is that it is not supported by the source. --Nealparr 04:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed a tough one. "No" documentation is extreme, though it appears to be correct as far as we can tell. The previous statement was that "little" documentation existed, which implies there are at least a few examples. But none of the refs I checked out mentioned any. So we're left with a choice between two versions that we can't tightly support. Can you see a way to finesse this? Raymond Arritt 04:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not going to try. The source said "lack of documentation", but that's contested. I put in "little documentation", that's contested. Since it was my addition to the article, I'm just going to remove it altogether and let someone else find a source and a framing statement. --Nealparr 04:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably it was the wrong approach anyway. Maybe there's a source that states its level of "acceptance" vs. "documentation". You can't verify that there is no documentation out there anywhere, but you can verify that it's not well accepted. Just needs a source. --Nealparr 05:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe...

-"Psychologist Imants Baruss reported an apparent lack of documentation regarding EVP in mainstream scientific literature"

-"There is reportedly a lack of documentation regarding EVP in mainstream scientific literature" - LuckyLouie 05:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Both true, and both work, but I think it's a lot easier just to go the acceptance route, or maybe two statements, lack of acceptance and then one of the above. I'd go with the second because I really don't know if Baruss is notable enough to call by name. --Nealparr 05:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I kludged a temp solution together. I still feel "lack" is a problem as it implies that the article feels the documentation should be there. When it was actually Baruss saying he searched for literature for his paper and found none, so he went to fringe sources. - LuckyLouie 05:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Forget temp solution, that was a great change in wording and should be permanent. "Absence" doesn't necessarily mean "none whatsoever" and according to MW, means "want" or "lacking". Great job! --Nealparr 05:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. I wish it had a nice bridging phrase to lead into it though. Kinda hangs out there by itself as it is. But I won't quibble, as I don't want to fuck up the nice collegial atmosphere we temporarily have going here, - LuckyLouie 06:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It needs a "however" transition, honestly. The line preceeding it talks about the fringe view and "however" would transition into the mainstream view. I feel that would sufficiently frame the topic as it actually is framed in the real world. --Nealparr 06:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree about a bridge to the sentence with another or with 'however'. However that is to be achieved. --Northmeister 06:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Not bad, Nealparr. - LuckyLouie 06:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, till tommorrow when I log in and everything's changed again : ) C-Ya. --Nealparr 06:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's hope not. I'm going as well for now, as it is quite late here. Thanks for all the work Nealparr, Luckylouie, and Martin. --Northmeister 06:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

- LuckyLouie 06:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Certain" paranormal researchers

...implies that there are few who feel that way, when the percentage is probably leaning towards most. It should be changed to "many" if we use a qualifier at all (I don't think we need one). --Nealparr 17:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact,

"Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are said by certain paranormal researchers to be the voices of ghosts or spirits made audible through static on the radio, or on electronic recording media."

can probably be reduced to,

"Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are said to be the voices of ghosts or spirits made audible through static on the radio, or on electronic recording media."

because the article clearly spells out who's doing the saying. --Nealparr 17:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I originally had "said to be" alone, but it got reverted to "defined as", which started the cycle of attribution, removal of attiribution, addition of specific attribution, etc. Also Raudive likely didn't say it was observed on digital devices (not many around in1970), which is why I threw Butler in there as an author. I think I see the reason for "certain" though. I'm not sure you can make a definitive statement about the number of paranormal researchers who say EVP are ghosts, etc. If anyone from your Mom to Dean Radin can call themselves a "paranormal researcher" then finding a reliable source of "how many believe what" is virtually impossible. - LuckyLouie 18:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the Raudive thing, good observation. On the other thing, are you recommending that we reduce the sentence (as above), or try and justify our qualifier? Either one's fine with me. I justify "many" instead of "certain" because we don't need know the definitive amount of researchers to know that many say it is ghosts. It makes more sense than "certain" which implies that there is a select group of people who feel that way. As you pointed out, when amateur ghost hunters hanging out in grave yards are thrown in with Radin, it's not a "certain" group. --Nealparr 18:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think "many" will be challenged, so not sure it's viable, as it's a matter of opinion. And since there's no standards in the "field" to consult, it's problematic. Also I think it'd be wise to avoid standalone sentences which begin, "Other researchers say...", or "Researchers have found..." etc. The use of the word researchers to describe amateur ghostbusters is rather generous. "Paranormal researchers" helps specify it as a fringe effort. I thought the scientology article was a pretty good style sheet for 1000 ways to attribute unusual fringe claims without misleading in either direction, you might check it out. - LuckyLouie 18:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, it keeps getting brought up, but I don't get why "researchers" is being made out to be a sacred title reserved only for scientists. My Mom is actually a genealogical researcher. Not much science to it. Charles Fort never did any science, but he did a lot of research, pouring through scientific journals looking for reports of anomalies. There's nothing strictly scientific about the term. Now, if we went around calling them empiricists, that'd be different. --Nealparr 19:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Context, context, context. If we're talking about "families researching their genealogy" then the word is appropriate. Conversely if we're discussing current trends in condensed-matter physics, referring to your little brother doing experiments in the kitchen as a "researcher" would be misleading at best. Raymond Arritt 19:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason the context is problematic in this case is because of parapsychology research. Since there exist people who are actively doing parapsychological research, referring to paranormal research seems generally to refer to that idea. However, from my understanding, most who do parapsychology research never touch the subject of EVP. ScienceApologist 19:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The entire article spells out exactly what's being researched. Ghosts and spirits and weird stuff showing up on a tape. It's very clear that they are "paranormal researchers" already. That doesn't have to be repeated everytime the word "researchers" appears in the article. Nobody is going to see the term "researcher" and accidentally think the guy is a particle physicist. The most obvious reason why is because when we talk about specific people we state their title. Jürgenson, for example, is a film producer. Raudive is a psychologist. Szalay is a photographer. We give those titles when we get into specifics, so why is there such worry that the reader is going to get the wrong idea when we talk abstractly about them as a whole? I don't think it's necessary at all. Abstract statements are supposed to be abstract. --Nealparr 21:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how lessening ambiguity could harm the article in general. The article includes a series of technological propositions using phrases like,"portable recording devices and modern digital technologies", "RF-screened laboratories", "experiments using forensic-quality audio analysis software" etc. I think it's important to make sure everything is attributed as unambiguously as possible. - LuckyLouie 21:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Some things lose meaning the more ambiguous it gets, but that doesn't mean that it needs to be spelled out in every instance it is used. "Device" imparts nothing. "Recording device" doesn't convey the meaning that the convenience of being portable gave rise to popularity. "Portable recording device" only needs to be mentioned once and then you can start saying "these devices" without the extra wording. That's what I am talking about. "Paranormal researchers" only needs to be mentioned once, not every single time. It gets unnecessarily repetitive. --Nealparr 22:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it works using "these researchers" after the researchers have been identified as EVP researchers (for example) previously within the same para. - LuckyLouie 23:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What makes a paranormal researcher, then? If Jürgenson is a film producer, Raudive is a psychologist, and Szalay is a photographer, why are we trying to say that they all belong to this ambiguous family of "paranormal resesarchers"? Who decides who is and isn't a "paranormal researcher"? Are skeptics "paranormal researchers"? Why or why not? ScienceApologist 22:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A paranormal researcher is one who researchers paranormal topics. That seems so obvious that I'm not sure what you expected as a response or why you asked. It's not a job title. It's an abstract term used to refer to people collectively. If I were to make the statement "Skeptics say...", I am collectively bunching science writers (Shermer) along with psychologists (Alcock) along with magicians (Randi) along with ethologists (Dawkins) into a collective group so that I don't have to say "A couple of science writers and this one magician and a few psychologists and that ethologist guy all said...". It's basic writing 101. The actual term "paranormal researcher" is sourced all over the place. --Nealparr 22:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It does seem obvious that the word "researcher" should be contextualized. Since the context is EVP, we need in general to discern between those who are mere ghost hunters, and those who, for instance, did research that appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, or carefully recorded enough to write a book. But in general, just say researchers. You could even say enthusiasts when talking about the culture of ghost hunting.

I suggest "EVP researchers," instead of "certain researchers." The percentage of EVP researchers who think it's ghosts is nearly 100% -I can't source that, but it is obvious, and not something we need to shy away from in the lead. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist: What makes a paranormal researcher, then?

Northmeister: He who devotes his time and energy to study that which is 'beyond the normal' or paranormal. For example, he who conducts research into 'Electonic Voice Phenomena' is by definition a 'paranormal researcher'. We are concerned however, with notable researchers in the subject of EVP.

ScienceApologist: If Jürgenson is a film producer, Raudive is a psychologist, and Szalay is a photographer, why are we trying to say that they all belong to this ambiguous family of "paranormal resesarchers"?

Northmeister: Jurgenson studied EVP, a paranormal concern; Raudive did the same; Szalay the same. Thus they conducted paranormal research, published works on their research, and hence in that mode are paranormal researchers, although they may have been other things in other realms of life.

ScienceApologist: Who decides who is and isn't a "paranormal researcher"?

Northmeister: The researchers do, obviously, as do their published works.

ScienceApologst:Are skeptics "paranormal researchers"? Why or why not?

Northmeister: Which skeptics?

Northmeister: Look to WP:NOR and WP:POINT for further elucidation and reflection. --Northmeister 00:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

How are NOR or POINT relevant here? Alcock and Randi are two reasonable examples where the (skeptic = paranormal researcher?) question might come up. Antelan 00:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologst:Are skeptics "paranormal researchers"? Why or why not?

A researcher does research. An armchair critic isn't a researcher, but if one is feeling generous, one might call Blackmore and Randi and Hyman and Wiseman paranormal researchers. They haven't done nearly as much research as many, but they have done some. Some of them, such as Blackmore, are known as parapsychologists. Others fit the definition. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Atelan, my own opinion is that to use the term 'paranormal researcher' we should have a reliable source that indicates its definition. Much better than our own - which relates to NOR. --Northmeister 00:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Antelan 01:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Moi aussi. Since the title of "paranormal researcher" is often self-proclaimed, I'd go with mainstream coverage of the term as a RS guide which seems to indicate everybody from ghosthunters to parapsychologists is included. - LuckyLouie 01:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be. Also, we know the definition of researcher, so I don't think it's OR to apply it to those who study the paranormal. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

How Do You Do It?

Are there any proposed explanations for how the ghosts or spirits go about producing amplitude-modulated radio waves, or magnetizing bits of iron oxide? I would think that many of our readers would be interested in such hypotheses. Raymond Arritt 02:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That's the elephant in the room as far as this article goes. Antelan 02:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"How," is a bigger idea than people think: science is a description of what, not an explanation of how in most respects. There are speculations, but I doubt there is much published. You'd have to start with how they survived death in the first place. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, "how" is the most important part of what science is about: "The scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way, and to use these reproductions to make useful predictions." Raymond Arritt 04:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said. It describes but does not explain beyond correlation. Anyway, I don't think there are any sources. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no consensus and everyone has their own pet theories. In other words, no idea is anymore notable than another so there's nothing really to include in the article beyond "paranormal" -- which means not explained by science. Speaking generally, though, it doesn't really matter. Science doesn't support ghosts, so an idea of how ghosts got their voice onto tape wouldn't be supported either. --Nealparr 06:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Do any of these "researchers" have any data that point in a certain direction? I put the term in quotes because data would point to a "how". If they're not gathering or critically analyzing data, they're not doing research. Or, they are doing research to the same extent that looking for grocery coupons in the newspaper might be considered research. If this is the case, "enthusiasts" might be a better term. Antelan 06:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but nothing we can source, as far as I know. Here's the idea: it is a form of mediumship, in which the spiritual body which normally translates from our own spirits/minds to our bodies is used by other spirits in such a way as to psychokinetically influence the tapes. That's why it works better for some people than others. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the description. Just a quibble - that is not a "how". Does the 'spiritual body' used by the spirits have electromagnetic character? Is it acting on the tapes or is it actually a sound being transmitted via the normal recording apparatus? These are the sorts of things that a researcher would take interest in. If they've got info on that, let's talk about it. If they don't, then we're mislabeling them, and enthusiasts or something similar should be applied. Antelan 07:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the logic that because there's no consensus of how it happens that they are not researchers. You said: "If they're not gathering or critically analyzing data, they're not doing research." They do gather so-called "data" and come to their so-called "conclusions", like I said everyone has a pet theory. There's just not a general agreement on anything. But the reason we call them "researchers" is because the sources do. I don't have a problem with the word "enthusiasts", but if we went through and replaced every instance of "researcher" with "enthusiast", because of our own sense of what makes a researcher, that would actually be orginal research because many sources use the term researcher.

Side note: When typing the words "orignal research", I am again wondering why "research" is being made out to be a sacred term reserved for scientists. What we do here at Misplaced Pages isn't science. We gather information. If a bunch of EVP researchers gather audio files and interpret segments of it as ghosts or whatever, it may not be science (sounds more like art), but it's not any less research than what we do here. --Nealparr 18:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Raymond's question is intriguing; as I would be interested in this as well; and if it is the case then we should inform the reader. Atelan is right about the subject, regarding elephants and rooms but not in application to this article. As far as 'researchers', such persons as Raudive, Dr. Peter Bander, Father Gemelli and Dr. Frye and others are more than enthusiasts from what I've read; they actually conducted 'research' on the topic and in Bander's case under controlled conditions witnessed by sound egineers, reporters, and others. I think we are being straight and true with the reader by using the term 'researcher' regarding such notable individuals in this field; though no doubt 'enthusiasts' among paranormal groups exist. --Northmeister 23:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There is speculation and small ammounts of data. But I'm not sure but what that is beyond the range of an article like this. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

We should say something about it, because it's an obvious question for the reader to ask. If there's an accepted hypothesis (which there doesn't seem to be, from what you say) we should mention it. If there are competing hypotheses we should mention the most prominent ones. Even if the matter is considered out-of-bounds for EVP investigation we should let the reader know that, because otherwise the reader will be left wondering. Raymond Arritt 00:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Edison, redux

Martinphi, please quote to me the source that you feel makes the Edison bit appropriate to put in this article? Antelan 07:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What you have to understand is that our sources on EVP claim this episode as part of the package. That is enough for WP. Here is your quotation:

electronic voice phenomenon (EVP)

Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.--Paul Simon, "The Boxer"

Electronic voice phenomenon is the alleged communication by spirits through tape recorders and other electronic devices. The belief in EVP in the United States seems to have mushroomed thanks to Sarah Estep, president of the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena, which claims to have members in some 40 states and publishes a newsletter. Estep claims that in the 1970s she started picking up voices on her husband's Teac reel-to-reel recorder. She is sure that the voices are spirits, proving there is life after death. Estep also claims to hear voices of aliens on some of her tapes. She says she has taped some 20,000 ghosts and aliens. Aliens don't speak English, however, so she is not sure what they are saying.

Interest in EVP apparently began in the1920s. An interviewer from Scientific American asked Thomas Edison about the possibility of contacting the dead. Edison, a man of no strong religious views, said that nobody knows whether “our personalities pass on to another existence or sphere” but

it is possible to construct an apparatus which will be so delicate that if there are personalities in another existence or sphere who wish to get in touch with us in this existence or sphere, this apparatus will at least give them a better opportunity to express themselves than the tilting tables and raps and ouija boards and mediums and the other crude methods now purported to be the only means of communication. (Clark 1997: 235)

There is no evidence, however, that Edison ever designed or tried to construct such a device. And he probably did not foresee spirits communicating with our tape recorders and television sets.

— 

The other sources would be just as good better. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And so for example, if a source on EVP claims radio frequency interference as part of the package, then a sourced explanation of how electronic circuits are liable to resonate via radio reception is extremely appropriate. And yet, curiously, this completely contradicts what you did here- LuckyLouie 08:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Just so. The source almost certainly did not mention EVP, therefore was not a source on EVP. The source I'm talking about is Physics for Scientists and Engineers: Electricity, Magnetism, Light, and Elementary Modern Physics (5th ed.) The passage seems to be synthesis. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

But you're simultaneously arguing for inclusion of the Edison source , which doesn't mention EVP at all, and, to quote you, "therefore, was not a source on EVP". - LuckyLouie 08:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Where does that source, or the quotation you have provided, claim that Edison was involved in EVP? The Skepdic piece first says that interest in EVP began in the 1920s, but then says that there is no evidence that Edison ever designed or tried to design such a device. That piece really does not justify inclusion. What about the other sources? Antelan 08:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do the sources mention Edison? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, I'm really confused. Here he says,"If the source is not discussing the subject, it is not allowed in Misplaced Pages". There are dozens of examples in FA's that prove his notion is quite wrong. This is sadly yet another example of his highly eccentric interpretation of Misplaced Pages policies. - LuckyLouie 08:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Take the source out, it isn't necessary.

As to LL's other point, where do we claim in the article that Edison was involved with EVP? We simply accept the word of the sources that Edison is part of EVP history. Or are you actually claiming that we can't make the, ah, "leap" from the source's inclusion of Edison in a history of EVP, and the relevance of Edison to the history of EVP, because the source does not say "Edison is relevant to the history of EVP?" That would go down well with a neutral party. Very creative interpretation of the rules.

And in all fairness, you might be right that sound recording texts would be relevant if we were truly presenting EVP as a topic of sound recording. But we are not: EVP are well-know anomalies -flaws- in the recordings, which are interpreted as paranormal. The flaws and variations in white noise are acknowledged to sometimes exist. So what you need is a source which addresses the interpretation as paranormal. You can't just say that sound researchers have no term for EVP, because they do: they call them flaws or RF or whatever (else there would be no skeptical explanations). So I could go do OR and say that sound engineers have confirmed the existence of EVP. It would be very easy. But no: the source has to draw the connection between the sound variations and the interpretations. Then you could include it. The policy is there so we don't go have OR wars like that. See you Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 09:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are not reading that source critically. Yes, the source discusses Edison, but it later clarifies that what he was involved with was nothing like EVP. It did not descend linearly from him, he didn't attempt anything like it, etc. It's just an extraneous but entertaining introduction into the material that they are about to present. It does not implicate Edison as the grandfather of EVP. It does not implicate Edison in EVP. Edison. EVP. Not linked. This is why I ask, "What about your other sources?" As far as I can tell, they don't even contain "EVP" and "Edison" within the same article, making this whole enterprise based entirely upon one article that doesn't even connect the two. Antelan 18:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

First let me say that I don't care if the Edison segment is removed. I don't think it really adds anything. However, I do feel that it could be included if there were a consensus to do so (doesn't look like there is). Edison didn't do anything with EVP. However, Edison is sometimes associated with EVP through sources such as SkepDic and others. This is "synthesis", or the pairing of two otherwise unrelated items. Misplaced Pages forbids "original synthesis" in the WP:OR guides. In other words, I couldn't make the connection on my own. However, if an outside source published a connection between the two, it is not original synthesis. Edison didn't do any EVP research. Edison is, however, associated with the EVP story through independent sources, and is therefore fair game for inclusion. That said, dump the segment. There's no consensus for it and I think, personally, it's a distraction in the history section and belongs more in a trivia section which would be useless as well. --Nealparr 19:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but we've had this discussion before, came to this conclusion, and Martinphi still added the section back. Antelan 19:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "yes," Antelan? Are you admitting that your reasons for edit warring that section out were wrong? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more inflammatory or off-topic? And just so you don't get the idea that a null reply is a "yes", my answer is emphatically, "no." Not even just "no, I'm not wrong," but also "no, that's a total mischaracterization of my actions and statements."Antelan 19:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean Antelan. I objected to your reverting for invalid reasons. I think that is a bad way to act, and even though you hound me all over Misplaced Pages, I don't revert you for invalid reasons. I believe the Edison stuff is valuable in the article, but I'm not set on it, as I said before. If you had just said that you don't think it goes well in the article, I would have been fine with taking it out. But as it is, you seem to have reverted it for a reason which, now, you seem to be saying you knew was invalid. If that is so, your reverts, in addition to being unnecessary, were disruptive. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My reason for removing the section was legitimate - as I've maintained this entire time - because we are synthesizing Edison into the EVP story when he does not belong there. Must I remind you that, since you are on the AA-EVP committee with Tom Butler, you do have extrinsic interest in this article, thus running the risk of having a conflict of interest with regard to the encyclopedia? Why is it, I wonder, that you are veering into commenting on me instead of providing better sources for the Edison claim that you would like to make? Or can we conclude that you concede that the Edison piece should remain out of this article?Antelan 20:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Antelan, I consider the argument over, because Nealparr and I have made our case. I encourage you to refrain from disruptive reverting in the future. And I also encourage you to enforce WP rules by taking the COI claims to a higher level. If you are not willing to do this, then please note that I will ignore such claims in the future. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi, the point of reminding you about COI is to avoid taking it to a higher level. Antelan 03:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the same opinion as Atelan and Nealparr, and support removal of the Edison material. --Northmeister 22:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of making Nealparr feel that I am overlooking the discussion, I have to interject a point. Antelan, you said, "Must I remind you that, since you are on the AA-EVP committee with Tom Butler, you do have extrinsic interest in this article, thus running the risk of having a conflict of interest with regard to the encyclopedia?" Your are obviously trying to concoct a reason to disqualify an opposing editor. In fact, Edison is not considered an EVP pioneer by people who have bothered to research the history. He, like many inventors, tried to develop a psi detector that has never been shown to work. Otherwise, there is no evidence that he had never recorded an EVP and he is not considered a person who has contributed to the body of knowledge associated with EVP.

It appears that Martin and I are at odds with that point because i would delete any mention of him in the article, and so, your argument that his association with Etheric Studies automatically places him in a position of conflict of interest is unfounded. Find anotherred herring to wave about! Tom Butler 02:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I do consider it to be a conflict of interest, although editors are not proscribed from editing articles in which they have a COI. The Edison name carries a lot of cachet, and it could be seen as an appeal to authority. This is especially delicate because there is no real connection, a point upon which we agree. Antelan 02:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh, when Antelan was, editing the article on Psychic surgery, I should have remembered he is a medical student. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Spirits of the deceased section

In the spirit of Northmeister's previous WP:BOLD rewrite and reorganization of the article and Martin's original addition of the material, I have attempted to properly frame the "Spirits of the deceased" section, which appeared to be a cut and paste of large portions of text from the AA-EVP site. - LuckyLouie 20:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems of attributing things to specific sources is that it makes it look like that may be THE ONLY source for the claim. For example, the article surrently tells us that,

According to author and AA-EVP Director Tom Butler, questions have been asked during EVP recording sessions, and the audio recordings made during those sessions have contained utterances properly answering the questions

But his could just as easily say, According to author and AA-EVP Director Tom Butler, and Raudive, and Cass, and Bander, and Meek, and many others, questions have been asked.... Is there no way to make the point that many people make this claim. Indeed, this claim is one of the key claims regarding EVP, i.e., not just words, also interactiveness.LutherFlint 20:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. That could be a refinement of that particular section. As I see it, the article has taken the lazy (and unbalanced) route of simply citing the AA-EVP for large sections of material. In a more balanced rewrite at some future date, an editor might be able to present a more accurate picture of the widespread beliefs and practices cited from varied sources. - LuckyLouie 20:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The lead

I've been quite unhappy with the present lead's source and phrasing. I've changed the lead sentence and used a better reference to indicate meaning. The use of the term 'certain' was unnecessary in my opinion originally and made the article start off in an improper manner. Hence, my change. The referenced used was published in the "Journal of Scientific Exploration" in 2001 and is by Imants Baruss, who conducted a scientific study of EVP - concluding that although there was evidence of the 'weak' kind (voices could be heard), he could not replicate voices of the 'strong' kind. His work is a standard by which I see this article going - together with those of Raudive and others which Baruss commented on in his history portion of the report. --Northmeister 23:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the phrasing of your lead, however I think it is a bit unorthodox to use a WP:FRINGE source (the JSE) to represent the mainstream view of the subject. - LuckyLouie 23:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the source itself covers the fringe, but the personage in the report from what I read conducted his research in a scientific manner and backs the basic understanding of the term in both communities a least according to the definition. I'm open to other sources of course. I wished to avoid 'certain' and other statements as such, as it is not entirely accurate per the literature of the subject. Baruss' study is from my reading a good source for covering this topic alongside others and together with others and gives a balanced view of the topic from an actual scientific study of the phenomena.--Northmeister 23:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I know this has been covered before, but the opening paragraph is just not coherent as written.

• Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) refers to the purported manifestation of voices of ghosts or spirits made audible through static on the radio, or on electronic recording media. According to psychologist Konstantin Raudive, who popularized the phenomena, the "voices" are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase. Later authors have said that they are observed on diverse media, including: radio, television, tape recorders, video recorders, and digital recording devices, and are sometimes answers to questions asked during the taping. EVP are considered by paranormal researchers as a subset of instrumental transcommunication. There is an absence of documentation regarding EVP in mainstream scientific literature.

The last sentence, is necessary, but reads rather out of place for the paragraph. Using "According to..." is unnecessary in my opinion; although it is ok. The "Later authors have said:" doesn't read well. The paragragh could be improve substantially to be more precise and clear I think. Here is a proposed paragraph I crafted prior to our present rewrite:

• Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP), a term used in the paranormal research community, describes speech or speech-like sounds, which are inaudible during recording but detected on electronic recording media upon playback. These sounds are often believed to be ghosts or spirits, although there are various other explanations for the phenomena. The apparent 'voices' are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase and are sometimes said by researchers to be answers to questions asked during the taping. EVP has been observed on diverse media, including: radio, television, tape recorders, video recorders, and digital recording devices. EVP are considered a subset of the broader field of instrumental transcommunication.

I'm not saying we need to go with the above; but it reads in a more straight-forward manner in parts. I propose we take the present and rewrite it in the manner above using the presents wording as agreed upon and that we find a way to include the final sentence to the present into the opening paragraph that actually works. Maybe I'm being to much a stickler for detail, so I'll move on if others are satisfied with the present opening paragragh. --Northmeister 00:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're trying to improve the lead but unfortunately must state my view that the suggested change is not an improvement because it is vague ("are often believed to be" -- by whom?) and it accepts the existence of EVP at face value. I fully agree that the current lead is a mess. Let's keep trying. Raymond Arritt 00:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestion that we might work with? --Northmeister 00:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you are unhappy with the Baruss definition, I moved the lead back to the BBC definition as a basis for discussion. - LuckyLouie 00:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not Baruss' definition that I have a problem with, otherwise I would not have made the change. It is the readability and coherence of the rest of the paragragh I have concerns with. --Northmeister 00:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Howabout:

• Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are purported manifestation of voices of ghosts or spirits made audible through electronic media. According to paranormal researchers such as Konstantin Raudive, who popularized the phenomena, the "voices" are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase. EVP purportedly have been detected on diverse media, such as radio, television, tape recorders, video recorders, and digital recording devices. Those who accept the existence of EVP have stated that they are sometimes answers to questions asked in recording sessions. EVP are considered by paranormal researchers as a subset of instrumental transcommunication. Documentation of EVP in mainstream scientific literature is absent.

This is a starting point. Note that I prefer active voice and simple declarative sentences whenever possible, so as to produce clear and readable text. Raymond Arritt 00:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Northmeister. I'm confused. You added the Baruss definition to the article, then (above) proposed a version which did not include it, but did not explain why you propose its exclusion. If you actually DO want the Baruss defintion as a permanent part of the lead, I urge you to revert back to the previous version, with my apologies - LuckyLouie 00:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A misunderstanding of my intentions - thats all. I made the suggested revert. The text I wrote prior to our present work, and was to indicate the sort of coherence I was suggesting for the opening paragraph. I offered it as an example only. Per Raymonds suggestion above - I think we can work with some of his material. I'll re-read it and offer my opinion thereof or any improvements I see it needs as a working proposal. --Northmeister 01:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In reponse to Raymond's proposed here is my reworking of his material and the present material.

• Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are the purported manifestation of voices of ghosts or spirits made audible through electronic media. These reported 'voices' are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase and are sometimes said by researchers to be answers to questions asked during the taping. (here we place reference to Raudive source) The phenomena has been detected, by various individuals (here we place a good reference to indicate this), on diverse media, including: radio, television, tape recorders, video recorders, and digital recording devices. Although research has been conducted into the phenomena (here we place the study of Baruss), there is presently no documentation of EVP in mainstream scientific literature (here we place the present reference indicating this). EVP is considered by paranormal researchers as a subset of instrumental transcommunication.

Whether the above is acceptable or an improvement I'll leave to individual editors. If others wish to take this, and work from it as we have done above - feel free. All comments are welcomed. My concern is readability and coherence - trying to work all into a logical lead paragragh. --Northmeister 01:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't we spend a lot of time the other day hammering out an intro we could all agree on? --Nealparr 02:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently all do not agree. Although I have no problem with what we hammered out - it has been changed since. The last sentence in particular that does not fit with the present paragragh - thus my attempts to do this above. As far as WP:WTA, you do have a good point. I was working from the definition given by the researcher. After our agreement, there was much debate about who a paranormal researcher was etc. per the original wording. Thus my observations on the text. I have no problem keeping what we can agree to - but we must work out a proper synthesis for that last sentence with the rest of the paragragh. What do you think of my proposed sentence (not entire paragragh) as means to this end?

• Although research has been conducted into the phenomena (here we place the study of Baruss), there is presently no documentation of EVP in mainstream scientific literature (here we place the present reference indicating this). --Northmeister 02:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have no major problem with the first paragraph of the lead as it is. It could be better, as per Raymond's suggestions. And I do appreciate Northmeister's concern with accurately stating the level of scientific acceptance of EVP in the lead. It would be good to see comments from lots of editors on this subject. Someone correct me if I am wrong here; I think every single editor involved with this article understands that EVP and the concept of communication from the dead on electronic devices is not supported by the mainstream scientific community. However, strict quotations of available sources have resulted in a series of ambiguous and unclear statements in the lead which are inadequate to properly frame the article as fringe views of a fringe subject. Without clear language, the article hovers back and forth in an artificial grey area where EVP appears to be "maybe science...yet science is not addressing it". I don't think such ambiguity and confusion is in the best interests of Misplaced Pages as a serious reference work which attempts to give a fair treatment to fringe subjects without unintentionally aggrandizing them. I don't think ambiguous wording is the solution here (and proposed phrases to introduce views as those of "researchers" rather than "paranormal researchers" doesn't help). This article failed GA once already, and (among other things) one of the major reasons for failing the article was expressed by the reviewer with, "At the very least I would expect an entire paragraph of the lead presenting the mainstream view that this is a fringe, unreal phenomenon". It may be time to look at other articles which cover similar fringe theories and concepts to see how they handle the question. If that isn't an option, it may be helpful to seek wide input from the community at the Village Pump or other appropriate venue to help resolve the matter. - LuckyLouie 03:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The current article has "" the quote "At the very least I would expect an entire paragraph of the lead presenting the mainstream view that this is a fringe, unreal phenomenon" was extremely strange, given that we had such a paragraph, written by WDM, in place.

How about "There is an absence of documentation regarding EVP in mainstream scientific literature, but it has had a very small ammount of coverage in journals outside the mainstream, such as the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

That should really give the context fully, I would think, when combined with the cultural part. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go back to my original statements from months ago. The most notable part of this whole topic is that it's interpretive, very much like pseudo-backmasking where people play a recording backwards and think they hear satanic messages. All you have to say is that science doesn't cover it, like science doesn't have much to do with other mostly-interpretive things, and call it a day. It doesn't have to be defined as not-scientific. It's not a field of study. It's just a phenomenon. It doesn't have to be defined as an unreal phenomenon because it is very much real. People really hear a real part of a real clip, and from there it's all interpretation. All of that "not real" stuff doesn't need to be there. Place a statement that eloquently says people hear what they want to hear, throw in a science doesn't cover it statement, and call it done. --Nealparr 06:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That could be good or not. I don't have enough information to interpret how you'd actually write that. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Nealparr, that doesn't work. What makes this phenomenon manifestly fringe is that people think they're hearing voices from beyond the dead, etc. That also happens to be what makes this notable. Take that out and you're left with a very basic physical phenomenon of interference, etc., that can be addressed in a couple paragraphs at most. If you introduce even the notion that this may be paranormal, you have to dedicate a significant amount of this article to describing its fringe nature. Antelan 16:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, the "man hears what he wants to hear" articles are already written; pareidolia and observer-expectancy effect. What makes EVP fringe is that it's a term created by a book publisher to describe communication with the dead. It wasn't ever presented as a mystery effect that has alternate explanations. The latter part is just AA-EVP promotional spin, and should be covered, but as their belief, not a fact. - LuckyLouie 16:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No one's suggesting dropping the fact that they interpret these sounds to be the voices of ghosts and spirits, because that is the notable feature. I never said take that out, just that it is an interpretation. It is a fringe belief. It's not fringe science. Science doesn't cover subjective interpretations, beliefs, and conclusions, which is why parapsychology avoids making any. Here, the interpretation, not the collection of the sounds, is the notable part. However scientific they say the collection of the sounds is (RF-screened laboratories for example), ultimately it's the interpretation that makes it not related to science, even in a fringe way. That's purely the realm of belief because there's no way of disproving it. Honestly, I don't see what was wrong with the earlier intros that everyone briefly agreed upon. They were fine with no significant problems. --Nealparr 18:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Mostly agree with you NealParr, my comment above was intended as a more general observation. - LuckyLouie 18:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I know LL. Regarding the intro, though, I'm of the opinion that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't think there's anything seriously wrong with the current version of the intro. The other sections need more work. --Nealparr 18:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree the other sections need more work. Go for it. - LuckyLouie 18:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"It wasn't ever presented as a mystery effect that has alternate explanations" Actually, that's not true: that's where the paranormal part comes in. That is the alternate explanation. In terms of this article, that is the primary explanation, and the interference is the alternate.

If it is true what the researchers say, that the voices answer questions and the words are agreed upon by multiple listeners, then this is not merely a belief. It can in fact be scientifically investigated. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I was watching the Maury Show the other day around Halloween and they had some AA-EVP clips on. One of them was from the AA-EVP, and they said it clearly said "Big Circle". Nobody that I was watching with, nor myself, thought it sounded anything like "Big Circle". Since "Big Circle" is an AA-EVP term it makes sense that they were more likely to hear that than something else. Trust me, even when the voice is in answer to a question, there's a lot there open to interpretation. Even if everyone agreed that it sounds like "Big Circle" (which we didn't), the alternate interpretation is that it's just a coincidence that it sounds like that, and isn't meaningful. It's the subjective conclusions which can't be proved one way or the other that makes it not related to science. At best, it's statistics, as in let's poll people and see how many think it sounds like "Big Circle". The reason that isn't really science is because it only shows how popular an opinion is, versus revealing a fact. It's totally interpretive. Of course that's all my OR and doesn't have much to do with the actual article unless it's sourced. --Nealparr 23:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Nealparr, your explanation of the phenomenon right there was far more cogent of a treatment of what's going on than this article gives right now. Antelan 23:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"It's the subjective conclusions which can't be proved one way or the other that makes it not related to science." They haven't been proved, but they could be. If you ran an experiment for 1 hour and asked question X, got what you thought was an answer, then ran it by 100 people who nothing of the experimental situation and 30 of them agreed with your interpretation. And, if the answer was something complex or unusual and fit the situation in a very specific way. And this experiment is repeated. Then you have hard science. So saying you can't do science on this seems an unjustified assertion.

In fact, science has been done on it. You can say it is bad science, wasn't properly done, or that ghosties just don't exist so there must be a problem with the data and everyone who would even consider the experiment is a crazy. But you can't say that scientific experiments of some quality or other have not been done. And you can't say it is not possible to do science on the subject. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's possible to do a meaningful scientific experiment on the topic, but it would have to be very carefully designed. I've not seen evidence that any of the experiments done to date qualify as "scientific" in a meaningful sense (well designed, adequate sample size, carefully controlled, double-blind, and so on). Richard Feynmann's essay on cargo cult science describes some of the likely pitfalls. Raymond Arritt 01:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You guys are missing my point. It's not the experiments or the research that is the notable here, it's the conclusion -- ghosts caught on tape. The conclusion isn't based on research or experiments, it's a totally subjective interpretation. You can do the most scientific of experiments, have all the controls in place, have everyone 100% agree on what they heard, and still the source of the sound that everyone 100% agrees on is pure speculation. Already in the article you have people interpreting it as ghosts, extraterrestrials, echoes from the past, and living people through PK. Every one of those interpretations is not based on evidence, but solely someone's preconceived opinion of what they want it to be. Even if the EVP said "I come from Mars", that's not proof that the source is extraterrestrial, because it could always be a ghost lying : ) "I'm Bob" doesn't scientifically mean that your dead brother contacted you, because it could always be an extraterrestrial messing with your head. These are conclusions based on anecdotes, not scientific, and are drawn from speculation. And it's the conclusions that it is disembodied voices that makes EVP what it is. The term has conclusions embeded in the definition. That's why the topic itself is not really related to science in any way shape or form, even fringe, except maybe the part of psychology that deals with how people interpret things. Again, my observations, nothing to do with the article itself, except that the article is about a belief topic, not a science topic, and should be framed as such. --Nealparr 04:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I hear in this discussion, the present lead paragragh is fine - and that is good enough for me. I do request one change - to the last sentence to make it fit better - thus:

• Although research has been conducted into the phenomena (here we place the study of Baruss), there is presently no documentation of EVP in mainstream scientific literature (here we place the present reference indicating this). This would allow us to show it has been studied (and could not be replicated) and it is not documented in mainstream scientific literature. Both, I might add correct statements. I agree with LuckyLouie and Nealparr above, that once we get past this, we shold begin to move onto other sections - for improvement. Given the number of qualified editors here; I don't see why we can't have a cohesive, comprehensive, and neutral article on this topic - call me an optimist. --Northmeister 01:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"Although research as been conducted". How much research? One study? Ten studies? What kind of research? Mainstream research? Fringe research? Amateur research? Rather than remain mysteriously ambiguous, the phrase "research" would need to be made textually explicit, if used. And the use of "although" creates more ambiguity, seeming to put forward some kind of unclear proposition about why there is no mainstream literature. Good try, but seriously flawed. - LuckyLouie 02:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Here a qualifier would be appropriate because you are drawing a distinction between that research and mainstream research. "Parapsychological research" is the correct term. Baruss publishes in parapsychology journals. --Nealparr 04:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

::::Although parapsychological research has been conducted into the phenomena, there is an absence of documentation for EVP in mainstream scientific literature. --Nealparr 04:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

However, even most parapsychologists dismiss EVP. Antelan 04:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion incorporating what is currently in the paragraph:

EVP are considered by paranormal researchers as a subset of instrumental transcommunication, and parapsychological research has been conducted on the subject. However, there is an absence of documentation regarding EVP in mainstream scientific literature. --Nealparr 04:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that Baruss has published on EVP in a Parapsychological journal? Antelan 05:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Journal of Scientific Exploration, yes. (Baruss, I. (2001). Failure to replicate electronic voice phenomenon. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 15, 355-367.) --Nealparr 05:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A yeoman's job, Nealparr. Though troubling that one very limited and essentially failed experiment published in the JSE is portrayed as some unspecified amount of past "parapsychological research". The Baruss paper is notable as a minor beat in the EVP story. Trying to squeeze a definitive statement about mainstream acceptance of EVP out of "he couldn't find any papers in mainstream journals" strikes me as misguided. I yearn for clarity. Check out Hollow_earth. Slim on referenced citations, it treats the fringe view fairly, yet not as an equal. The other thought I had is a process thing. Setting the lead in stone and then writing the article around it is, well, strange. I suppose it's one way of doing it, but it wouldn't be my first choice. - LuckyLouie 05:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Raudive and Bayless were also published in parapsychology journals. The notable fringe research is definitely parapsychological. As for framing the lack of mainstream acceptance, I'm still open to other sources. Like I said before, that's the best I found on my own. On writing from a lead, I agree. I think the basics of this lead were written based on the current article. Except for framing, I don't think it's all that bad though. It presents a pretty good overview of the topic. --Nealparr 05:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Lack of mainstream acceptance source

Maybe someone else can extract a better wording from my source to frame the lack of mainstream acceptance. It seems there's some material to work with when you actually read the full text rather than the abstract that I skimmed earlier. Here's the relevant part of the source

Notwithstanding repeated searches over a number of years, no scientific literature could be found concerning EVP in mainstream English-language scientific journals, although some information concerning EVP was found in psychical research and parapsychology periodicals and various trade publications and newsletters. This previous lack of involvement on the part of the scientific community has created problems for research in this subject area.

As EVP is widely ignored by the scientific community, the exploration is left to amateur researchers who lack the expert qualifications (not to mention funds and facilities) to resolve the enigma. In addition, their field research is often hampered by a remarkable lack of critical judgement, amplified by the various subjective notions that motivate amateurs experimenting with unknown phenomena. (Heinzerling, 1997, p. 28)

“The ‘field’ seemed to proceed in the most unscientific manner, nothing was ever measured, although the words ‘research’ and ‘expert’ were bandied around like tokens in a game of ‘let’s play scientists’” (MacRae, 1984, p. 36).

The net result is that there is no reliable history of research protocols and results upon which the current study could be based. The following summary of the history of EVP has been taken from some of the English-language sources that I was able to obtain. No effort has been made to review information in languages other than English or to review information available on the Internet. For an alternate historical overview see Uphoff et al. (1988).

Now, what text to actually use... discuss. --Nealparr 05:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources for the quoted parts:

• Heinzerling, J. (1997). All about EVP. Fortean Times: The Journal of Strange Phenomena, November, 26–30.
• MacRae, A. (1984). Some findings relating to the electronic voice phenomenon. Psi Research, March, 36–46.

Seems Antelan is right, parapsychologists don't care much for the scientific practices of EVP researchers either.

And to answer ScienceApologist's earlier question on "what makes a paranormal researcher?", baring academic parapsychologists, pop culture paranormal research is closely aligned with MacRae's description: “The ‘field’ seemed to proceed in the most unscientific manner, nothing was ever measured, although the words ‘research’ and ‘expert’ were bandied around like tokens in a game of ‘let’s play scientists’.” Still, Misplaced Pages aims to chronicle pop culture so we give them a fair shake. --Nealparr 05:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the great quote as that's a large part of what bothers me about this whole thing. If it were just a matter of faith I wouldn't be nearly so critical, but if they're going to pretend to be scientists they should be judged at least in part from a scientific perspective. Raymond Arritt 06:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff Nealparr. I hope however that MacRae isn't going to be the linch-pin for this deal. In the quote above, he's sounding objective. But in his "research", he states that EVP emanates from entities in the er, 5th dimension (His site is down, hence the Internet Archive link) - LuckyLouie 07:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the 5th dimension, they tended to use good studio musicians like Joe Osborn. Oh, you meant... Raymond Arritt 07:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say he wasn't actually being objective when he made that statement. He was being critical of other researchers and implying that he was more scientific than them. Of course he's partial to his own research. The sources I'd use in making a statement that mainstream science ignores EVP research is Heinzerling, Baruss, and Carroll (SkepDic article). It would say something like:

"Mainstream science ignores electronic voice phenomena, leaving the topic to be studied by a handful of parapsychologists and, more often, amateur researchers who lack the facilities and qualifications to conduct scientific research. The result is an absence of documentation for EVP in scientific literature."

Then I would go on to fairly (and less critically) describe the history of EVP and the beliefs associated with them, knowing that the topic has been adequately framed. --Nealparr 07:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Best I've heard yet. - LuckyLouie 07:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you frame it strongly like that, you make it clear that what is about to be described is essentially rejected by the scientific community. Then the article may proceed in describing the topic's pop-culture relevance. So long as people don't try to "hem" in details that later make it sound scientific, you won't really have to "haw" with more descriptions of the scientific rejection, leaving the article much more peaceful and clearcut in describing a cultural, not physical/etc, phenomenon. Antelan 07:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The rest of the article would still conform to WP:FIVE, the same as this statement. --Nealparr 07:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as it must. Antelan 08:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a big problem with that. However, 1., some people will have a problem with you calling them parapsychologists. 2. you are talking about a result of their lack of qualificatinos. I doubt their lack of qualifications made it impossible for them to study it. On the whole, I think it will be challenged in the future. Personally, however, I'm OK with it.

There is just one thing: you don't need qualifications or facilities to conduct scientific EVP research. Change to

"Mainstream science ignores electronic voice phenomena, leaving the topic to be studied by a handful of parapsychologists and, more often, amateur researchers who made little attempt to follow scientific procedure."

You'll get far less flack on that, and it is more accurate. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi, the handful of parapsychologists are the parapsychologists , they wouldn't object to being called that.

The qualifications and facilities part is reliably sourced . The source doesn't mention anything about the degree in which amateurs attempt to follow scientific procedure. It says they lack the expert qualifications to know what the procedures are. And yes, you actually do need qualifications to conduct scientific EVP research. I'm not qualified. I don't know crap about sound engineering.

I don't mind it being challenged because it is reliably sourced and accurate to the source. --Nealparr 09:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. But say "expertise," not "qualifications," because that's what the source means, and the way you have it makes it sound like academic credentials are necessary to do science. I wouldn't bet on no objections to being called parapsychologist. Heh. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 09:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Both mean "skill set", so I don't have a objection to that (in fact, you could use that wording, "skill set"). It's not the PhD after the name that's the issue. It's the ability to do the job right. If someone objects to the word parapsychologist, I'll just point to the place where it talks about the parapsychologists. Again, all the notable (published in journals) research in this article comes from parapsychology (Szalay & Bayless, Raudive & Jürgenson, Barušs, MacRae). --Nealparr 10:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added Nealparr's suggested sentence(s) to replace what we had, as there seems to be agreement on them. --Northmeister 12:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing references to "spirits" as associated with the AA-EVP

The reference for "According to the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena, communications from discarnate entities is one paranormal hypothesis to explain EVP. The Association says that these spirits, ..." does not say anything about "spirits."

Please change the statement to something like: "According to the Shadowlands Ghosts and Hauntings website, "EVP is a way of communicating with spirits."

Some people do refer to the communicators in EVP as "spirits;" however, the AA-EVP generally does not. (It is true that the "Big Circle" subdomain has references to spirits but we do not hold those members to the same standard as we do for the rest of the association.) You can find plenty of websites about EVP that are less concerned with semantics. Please change the statement to something like: "According to the Shadowlands Ghosts and Hauntings website, "EVP is a way of communicating with spirits." Tom Butler 00:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Does this work for you? - LuckyLouie 01:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. Thanks!

We are trying to make it okay for academically trained researchers to study these things and terms like "spirits" sends them running for the door. Tom Butler 02:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(1) What are "discarnate entities"? (2) Editing the article to assist the aspirations of AA-EVP (or any other organization) is utterly inappropriate. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It was an "according to the AA-EVP..." statement that was misquoted. Tom was explaining what the AA-EVP actually says. So it wasn't editing the article to assist the AA-EVP. It was editing to be accurate to the source. --Nealparr 06:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Moribund editing jumpstarted

No one was editing for five days. I made some edits to the lead to get closer to NPOV. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Department of Redundancy Department

"Mainstream science ignores such claims...The result is an absence of documentation for EVP in scientific literature." Is the second sentence really necessary? In other words, if mainstream science ignores the subject, it naturally follows that there can't be any documentation. Conversely, if there were documentation, obviously that would mean the topic wasn't ignored. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should just say that electronic voice phenomena is not considered a real phenomena by mainstream science and leave it at that. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

To say it is not considered a real phenomenon is to imply it is considered to be not real rather than just not considered. The same point would apply if we wrote "mainstream science does not consider evp to have been satisfactorily explained by skeptics". It's just playing with words and we shouldn't really do it.LutherFlint (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs and Explanations

Shouldn't we put the paranormal explanations and the scientific explanations under separate headings? Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Scienceapologist above mainstream science ignores EVP therefore it is unclear where the scientific explanations come from. You can't really have it both ways - either science has investigated it or it has not.LutherFlint (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Just trying to be concise. If you like, substitute "explanations that do not dictate the complete jettisoning of physical science" for "scientific." Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Or how about "made up be people in their armchairs with ideological objections to paranormal phenomena and after no proper examination of the actual phenomenon." The serious point is that we should not characterize the views of skeptics as science because even their "explanations" are consistent with current scientific thinking there is very often little connection between those explanations and the actual phenomena. LutherFlint (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that there's no possible scientific explanation for how dead people go about speaking into tape recorders, or how spiritual beings generate amplitude-modulated radio waves, or how ghosts digitally encode their speech. That's because the actions of spirits and ghosts and goblins and ghoulies simply are outside the domain of the natural sciences, regardless of the extent to which paranormal "researchers" wrap their "investigations" in the trappings of science. Hence the distinction between paranormal and scientific. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Your first point is circular and your second implies that anything or anyone critical of the paranormal is scientific. Both are equally fallacious.LutherFlint (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest ending this conversation. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4152805.stm BBC News, Ghostly Chatter - fact or fiction?
2. Baruss, I. "Failure to replicate electronic voice phenomenon". Retrieved 2007-08-07.
3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4152805.stm BBC News, Ghostly Chatter - fact or fiction?
4. Baruss, I. "Failure to replicate electronic voice phenomenon". Retrieved 2007-08-07.

• 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