Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:02, 16 February 2007

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Paranormal B‑class

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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article was a past project collaboration.

This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. The only thing that benefits from doubt is truth.

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

Scientist or Skeptic

"Scientist" is defined as, "A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences" American Heritage. Using the term in place of "Skeptics" is just a subtle way of enlisting science to speak for skeptics and is both misleading and biased to the skeptical side. Tom Butler 19:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You've got it backwards--psychic enthiusiasts are skeptical of science. Saying that scientists are "skeptical" of EVP implies that EVP has any scientific validity whatsoever, and is not the hobby of psychic enthusiasts, which is what it is.-MsHyde 19:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In this case, there are no scientists (at least nobody has shown any) who seem to believe in EVP - it's perfectly reasonable to say that the view that they don't exist is held by scientists. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

MsHyde, did you read what I wrote? First, you have absolutely no foundation to paint all people who study these phenomena as "skeptical of science." A fair number of them are academically trained scientists. Also, I said that you should stop trying to hide behind scientists for your argument. Be honest and say "Skeptic."

Finally, saying "hobby of psychic enthusiasts" is pretty clearly a deliberate attempt to denigrate serious researchers and honest experimenters. Should I begin referring to you all as "religiously skeptical"?

You are just saying what come to mind to win an argument rather than to communicate quite wasting our time! Tom Butler 19:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable to you, perhaps. The point is that using "Scientist" as it has been used here implies authority that does not exist. Tom Butler 20:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not think you can make the argument that I have a conflict of interest when you are in the Skeptics Club sponsored by Misplaced Pages. You are as dedicated to foisting skeptical nonsense on the public as I am dedicated to making sure whatever is said about EVP is factual. I cannot accept equating skeptical to Scientific any more than I can accept EVP researchers and experimenters to psychic enthusiasts. I will take the issue to whoever is supposed to be running this encyclopedia. Tom Butler 20:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It has been repeatedly explained to you what a conflict of interest is on your talkpage.-MsHyde 20:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Being a member of a wikiproject isn't a COI. And if you have an issue with her pointing out your COI, I'll be more than happy to do it. It doesn't really matter what you accept, you and your organization have an interest in how this article is worded so you're not in a position to make POV decisions about it. If you want to appal to higher authority, go right ahead - I think this article would benefit greatly from more scrutiny. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Being an expert in the field doesn't necessarily create a conflict of interests, and if he does have a COI, it doesn't suddenly make his concerns invalid. Dismissing him like that is highly incivil. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

He is not an expert in a field, he's an advocate for his hobby. He has a clear COI, and he has been very disruptive. Making threats, POV pushing, telling editors they are not qualified to edit the article if they do not share his hobby, etc. I think he should be barred from the talkpage even, if he cannot stick to citing sources and stating why this or that is factually inaccurate, rather than arguing his opinions. This is not a forum for opinions.-MsHyde 22:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand your point Lucky, I learned to live with the label "Proponent" months ago. That is not the argument. The argument is two fold. First, those who are professed members of the Misplaced Pages skeptics club are proponents of the established view and doing all they can to bias the EVP article in that direction. I have negotiated in good faith to find an acceptable middle ground. For instance, accepting the title of proponent, yet we keep having new editors come along with more changes pushing the article away from the middle. Who here is not with a conflict of interest?

MsHyde, I will say one more time, the issue is not that we are arguing that science and EVP are on the same level. You are apparently saying that as a diversion. We are arguing that EVP simply is an observed phenomena. Sufficient proof has been produced to at least verify that it is an observable phenomena. It still needs research and all--all--theories designed to explain it are no more than hypotheses. Science has not passed judgment on EVP in a scientific way, meaning that it has not been studies by mainstream science and implying that it has is misleading. You are, in fact, arguing that the public should be mislead.

I am only matching my increasing aggressiveness with your increasing determination to make this a Skeptic platform. Just you describing me as a hobbyist is a demeaning remark that insults thousands of people. If you were educated in the subject, you would know that. Since you insist that you do not have to be educated in the subject, then I must assume that your choice of words is deliberate.

Since I will not stop editing, I am going to remove all mention of the AA-EVP from the article since that seems to be your main argument for my conflict of interest. Tom Butler 22:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, something has been observed, and therefore is perfectly open to inclusion. What the cause of the observed anomalies is is still up for debate, but they do exist.

perfectblue 12:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"Just you describing me as a hobbyist is a demeaning remark that insults thousands of people."

Q: Is there any money to be made in this field, or is it just a hobby for you?

LISA and TOM: It’s a hobby.

From White Noise: An Interview With Tom and Lisa Butler

--- LuckyLouie 06:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

JSmith, as has been pointed out, the conflict of interest isn't being "an expert in the field" it's that Tom here is mentioned in the article along with the organization he runs. It's the equivalent of Bill Gates arguing that the Microsoft article is unfair and should be more positive. I suspect it may take a block to stop his COI edits, if that's the case so be it. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Curb your incivility everyone. I've seen tom and AA-EVP referenced in 3 books.... and thats just the three books I have on the subject.

Tom, don't do that. I'll revert you myself. Your orgonisation is notable in the field.

A COI is only aplicable if TOM edits a section about himself or his orgonisation for anything more then cosmetic fixes. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be more like Bill Gates editing the article on Operating Systems. 22:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The entirety of this article has a potential effect on the reputation of his organization as well as books for sale on this topic. Any edits he does anywhere on this article shouldn't be anything more than cosmetic fixes. I don't think removing mention of AAEVP really solves much either, at least just removing references to the organization while still leaving the statements referenced from it. Removing himself and his organization is just as much a COI as any other edit he does on it. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Further, Tom does not grasp that the talkpage isn't a forum for his opinions, and he lacks objectivity about his hobby/org/website. EVP is not an observed phenomenon, for example. It is claimed to exist by an extreme minority. Tom does not appear to understand that no one has to negotiate with him about whether science is the majority view, and that it is not a matter of opinion. He should only be participating on the talkpage, and only to provide cited sources to back up suggestions that something should be changed because it is factually inaccurate. Endless aggressive arguing from a POV standpoint about matters which do not refer to factual inaccuracy, issuing threats and demands is disruptive. and it has gone on cyclically--he is warned, then returns.-MsHyde 23:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

COI would apply if he cited himself, a book that he was involved in, was writing about his own organization. Citing anybody like Macrae would mean that he was citing his competition. Stopping him from doing that would be like stopping Bill Gates from writing something good about the Mac OS on the grounds that it helped the entire computer industry.

perfectblue 12:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's COI whether he cites himself or not, actually according to WP:COI, Gates shouldn't be editing the Mac articles either. From COI: "avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with" and later: "Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, family members, or associates may place the author in a conflict of interest." There's no question that edits that make EVP sound more credible promote the interests of Tom and his organization. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Being an AA-EVP member and fellow Spiritualist, MacRae does not appear to be Tom's competition, but rather a fellow proponent of EVP and life after death (or "the survival hypothesis" as they term it). Furthermore, I have nothing against MacRae or Spiritualists, but since only those with strong beliefs seem to get any positive experimental results, we must be careful not to represent such work as "science" when it really is more an example of "pathological science", i.e. cases where there is no dishonesty involved, but where people are tricked into false results by a lack of understanding about what human beings can do to themselves in the way of being led astray by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions. --- LuckyLouie 19:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"since only those with strong beliefs seem to get any positive experimental results"

1) Mostly, it's only people with strong beliefs who are actually experimenting/dabbling. They get the results because they are the ones recording data. 2) No offense, but if you give a believer and a non-believe the exact same results, the chances are that the believer will say that they hear voices, and the non believer will either say that they don't hear them, or that they are the result of something prosaic like a radio interference

"people are tricked into false results by a lack of understanding about what human beings can do to themselves"

This actually works both ways. If you put a man in a lab coat up on stage tomorrow, and he tells people that he's got a pocket full of Phds from Harvard, people will often take any science that comes out of his mouth at face value, even if he's twisting it. Look at all of the problems that we have with people using distorted statistics to prove things.

The fact is many claimed paranormal elements are dismissed by science based on premise, rather than invalidated through experiments. It's one thing to say that UFOs are weather balloons based on the premise that it would take an alien X thousand years to get here, but it is another to run a UFO picture through a computer enhancement program and to find the channel 9 weather logo on the side.

perfectblue 09:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I have nearly NPOVed the article. There were some claims which were not supported by the sources, and other which were contradicted by the sources. I fixed those errors, and removed weasels. I believe that this article should either remain NPOV or be deleted. Tom Butler had some points on the deletion page. This page comes under WP:FRINGE where it says:

Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance for the idea among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled as pseudoscience, unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources...the purpose of Misplaced Pages is not to "debunk" notable ideas which the mainstream scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy.

This has not been followed in this article up to now. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The enlargement and highlighting of selected quotes from MacRae seems a bit pushy and intended to weight the section toward a particular POV. --- LuckyLouie 07:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree, feel free to return those to normal paragraphs. Martin, I think you're going overboard with your "weasel" accusations. In this sort of article, there is no proven evidence of the topic so we can only present the info as what individuals believe. The term "claim" is completely appropriate since we are spelling out what people are claiming (and I don't see it as much different than "says"). Same goes for "proponents". This is a topic that has few who support it, is there another word for those who believe that EVP exists? I think the article is still slanted pretty heavily toward a pro EVP point of view, since most of the article is devoted to "evidence" and the complete lack of support from the scientific community is way at the end with a tiny mention. Based on FRINGE, the lack of consideration and acceptance by the scientific community should be made much more clear, and it should be made very clear that most of the studies listed didn't have the scrutiny of the scientific community. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm also a little concerned about what I see as overuse of the word "weasel". I appreciate that WP:Words to avoid is a guideline on the appropriateness of language intended to avoid the in-creep of subtle point of view. But excessive use of the words "weasel", "weaseling", "weasel-whacking", and so forth, seems antagonistic to and disparaging of other editors. — BillC 00:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

He's referring to Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel words. Probably the best way to avoid those in this case is to use direct quotes often and attribute claims to specific people. I agree that the term has been way overused in this case, and based on WP:FRINGE, the so called "weasel words" might be the most appropriate way to describe this. Scientists for the most part don't accept this as fact, and a small group of proponents/supporters/whatever do believe it is real. That's just the way it is. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely that this is a fringe topic, which has been largely ignored by serious science. But the peer-reviewed science we can actually cite, (Baruss, and Macrae's article in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research) or other authoritative sources such as the website of the PA, say that it is inconclusive whether EVP exists or not. However much we may feel that it doesn't, we can't say it doesn't, nor can we make the reader feel it doesn't by the manner of writing.

I also agree that under normal circumstances, the word "claimed", would be OK. Where I find it, I don't always edit it out! However, I feel that it has been abused on Misplaced Pages, in order to discredit. Therefore, I would rather completely eliminate it. Words like "proponents" are even worse. How do you get around using such leading words? Well, you almost answered your own question: "This is a topic that has few who support it, is there another word for those who believe that EVP exists?" Could simply be changed to "those who say EVP is real" or something. With a little care, there is no need for weasel words. I whack weasels not because they are weasels, but because they are used to discredit. I don't eliminate them because of what they are, but because they are not NPOV.

As far as the MacRae quote, it is from a peer-reviewed journal, and could be balanced by another quote from a peer reviewed journal. I though it would be good to actually let the reader see what we're describing, sort of a direct teaser from a WP:V source.

To sum up, I believe that the more fringe the article, the more closely it should adhere to the NPOV and WP:WTA guidelines. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The quotations from the MacRae article were "highlighted" merely to set them off as a quotation. I usually use that form instead of blockquotes. But in response to your concerns, I've put them in blockquote.

I think we need to make it quite clear that many skeptics think this is bunk, that the scientific community has ignored it, and that it is a very fringe theory. But we can't say that the scientific community has rejected it, if they have ignored it. Has this been made clear to your satisfaction? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This article absolutely needs to follow NPOV. But NPOV doesn't mean presenting both sides equally, or even giving both sides equal space in the article. If something is a view held by a minority (and in this case I don't think there's any debating that), it should be presented as the minority view and presented secondary to the majority view. "Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." And the fact that the scientific community has almost completely ignored EVP means that the scientific community doesn't accept EVP. In addition to balancing the MacRae statements with Baruss statements, the article needs to say that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance. As WP:FRINGE says: "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance." Per NPOV we can't just have an article filled with quotes from those supporting EVP without balancing it by mentioning the lack of acceptance and absence of publishing in mainstream scientific publications. To be honest, I have my doubts that this even meets notability requirements to have an article - there's one article in a general science journal, one in a psychic specific science journal, and the rest are self published or niche publications.

The best thing for this article is to use direct quotes as much as possible, with clear attribution. The opening paragraph should quote the two peer reviewed studies, and the Status of EVP section should probably just be combined with the intro - the standing of EVP is one of the most important pieces of information and should be in the opening. I also think the article doesn't need to go into nearly as much detail on individual studies, particularly ones that weren't peer reviewed, were self published, etc. Right now the article cites every source and about EVP regardless if they meet RS or not.

By the way, the Baruss study doesn't say it's "inconclusive" it says it failed to find evidence of real EVP, and while they heard voices and sounds during the test, they felt they were explainable by science and didn't consider anything they observed anomalous. Science has no obligation to disprove conjectures, if "proof" doesn't stand up to scrutiny that's enough to not accept the idea. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Both JSPR and JSE admit to being vehicles for topics that are, for various reasons, ignored within mainstream science. A credibility contest pitting MacRae against Baruss is artificial and pointless, since both their papers represent a minority subject interest within minority niche publications. If these works have truly been "peer-reviewed", I would like to see the comments from peers; references to their papers in mainstream journals where physical scientists support, discuss, or challenge their conclusions. Failing this, I think slanting the article one way or another based on Baruss or MacRae is ill-advised. Per NPOV, the article can only reflect what the majority scientific view of EVP is, and describe what proponents believe about it. The real status of EVP has already been determined by its absence of acceptance from the scientific community. The article should not be weighted so that "ignored" can be interpreted as "unjustly ignored" or "deserves further examination". --- LuckyLouie 18:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And to think that I had been assuming that was a mainstream publication, shame on me. Based on that, is there a single article about EVP in a mainstream publication? Looking at the list of citations, every single one seems to be from a publication that deals in "fringe" subjects. In the absence of mainstream and general scientific sources, does this article even meet the standards of notability and avoid deletion? Is there a reliable source asserting notability that I've missed? "Any non-mainstream theories should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual." I don't see evidence of that. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I might also point out that the subject of EVP is visible in popular culture, most notably on reality-based TV shows like Ghost_Hunters and Most_Haunted, and also a frequent ingredient of psychic, ghost-hunting, and paranormal TV shows like DSC's "A Haunting" and Travel Channel's "Haunted Destinations". Also EVP proponents like Lou Gentile have been the subject of discussion by James Randi, most notably Lou's $1 Million Dollar Challenge application and withdrawal. For some reason, this article has chosen to ignore the pop culture positioning of EVP in favor of presenting it as a "scientific" subject. --- LuckyLouie 19:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That certainly is a potential argument to keep the article, but shows like that aren't mentioned or cited in the article. If the only argument for notability is references in fiction and TV shows, the article should be written from that slant since the scientific claims don't seem to be notable. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."

Well, yes, but since most of the people who are experts on the subject or are concerned parties probably believe EVP is paranormal, this is actually an argument for presenting it as paranormal.

And the fact that the scientific community has almost completely ignored EVP means that the scientific community doesn't accept EVP

It means that it does not accept it, and we must make that quite clear. But it hasn't rejected it either. See my above quotation of WP:FRINGE.

In addition to balancing the MacRae statements with Baruss statements, the article needs to say that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance

Agreed completely. I thought it did say there isn't acceptance?

I also doubt whether it is notable enough to include. That's why I was complaining about their having shut down the vote on deletion so quickly.

the standing of EVP is one of the most important pieces of information and should be in the opening

ScienceApologist and I had huge disputes about this. It depends on how it is done. I would agree with the statement on the surface, but SA, for instance, wanted to make out as if science had rejected what it has merely ignored. He wanted to make negative scientific claims.

I also think the article doesn't need to go into nearly as much detail on individual studies, particularly ones that weren't peer reviewed, were self published, etc. Right now the article cites every source and about EVP regardless if they meet RS or not.

Well, it's fringe. Might as well give the information, as long as the status is clear.

By the way, the Baruss study doesn't say it's "inconclusive" it says it failed to find evidence of real EVP

Well, yes, but it did find something spooky. So I'd say it's fair to say it was inconclusive about the paranormal status. The paranormality just didn't come up to the needed level to say it was probably paranormal.

they felt they were explainable by science and didn't consider anything they observed anomalous

Rather say, they felt they couldn't say they were paranormal, but they could not explain them.

the article can only reflect what the majority scientific view of EVP is, and describe what proponents believe about it.

In what way do you believe the article is slanted? Perhaps it needs sort of a better summation which makes it plain that it isn't accepted?

There is no majority scientific view on this subject.

The article should not be weighted so that "ignored" can be interpreted as "unjustly ignored" or "deserves further examination".

Neither should it be weighted so that a person could not think that. The subject has simply been ignored. Period.

In the absence of mainstream and general scientific sources, does this article even meet the standards of notability and avoid deletion?

Well, let's delete it! You-all closed the vote too quick!

For some reason, this article has chosen to ignore the pop culture positioning of EVP in favor of presenting it as a "scientific" subject.

Yeah, that's true. It should be presented as both, perhaps.

And to think that I had been assuming that was a mainstream publication, shame on me.

It doesn't matter at all whether the publication is mainstream, as far as I know the Misplaced Pages rules. It matters whether it is peer-reviewed- which we must determine as per below. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE says "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance." Based on that, it seems fair to describe the idea as not just "ignored" but "not accepted" by the general scientific community. Also based on that I think it's too narrow to limit "experts on the subject" to researchers of the paranormal. Equal weight means it should be presented as science overall considers the topic. While "rejected" isn't appropriate, I think saying science has failed to accept it is better than just saying science has ignored it (based on WP:FRINGE). The level of detail isn't appropriate because of undue weight - "might as well include it" doesn't respect NPOV, nor does it respect RS in the case of experiments not scrutinized or published in reliable sources.

You're still misrepresenting the Baruss study, they don't say anything about finding "spooky" things, nor that it was "inconclusive about the paranormal status", nor that "they could not explain them" (they said the opposite in they said they found nothing anomolous). Your highly spun statements are a perfect example why we should be using direct quotes as much as possible instead of paraphrasing.

I believe the article is slanted because the mention that the majority of scientists (and FRINGE says we can interpret lack of mention as lack of acceptance) don't accept it is late in the article and far outbalanced by the amount of info detailing the specifics of proponents of the theory. There's undue weight given to a minority view that has had zero mainstream coverage and comes mostly from non RS. And too much of the article is paraphrasing instead of direct quotes attributed to specific individuals.

"Mainstream" isn't crucial for RS, but it is for notability. And peer review isn't automatically enough, from FRINGE: "...while peer review is a necessary feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, it is not sufficient. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Misplaced Pages as representing scientific consensus or fact. Subjects that are sourced solely and entirely on the basis of singular primary sources (even when they are peer reviewed) may be excluded from Misplaced Pages on notability grounds." If the article stays, and if it does it will probably be on the grounds of notability in fiction, the fictional coverage should be the primary focus of the article and the scientific aspect secondary. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Baruss did find several "spooky things". But the experiment was looking for substantial and replicateable instances, and the "spooky things" that they found were not replicateable, and were far to open to conjecture, so they were automatically excluded from the results. In short, they were looking "to shake hands with dead people", but got "bumps in the night" instead. Plus, what they did find was far too small a sample (a few seconds out of several hours) for them to even begin to reach any conclusions on.

perfectblue 15:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Calling what they observed "spooky things" is POV and spin since Baruss never used that term. Your post is a great example of why we should use direct quotes instead of coming up with our own terms for what we think they found. Any interpretation on our part of a study is OR - the researcher's description of results is the description we should use. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a TALK PAGE where we are having an INFORMAL DISCUSSION. Please be realistic, I wouldn't dream of using a term like that on the article itself.

I invite you to re-read Baruss's paper. He clearly states that they found a number of non-speech anomalies that "believers associate with EVP", and that they found couple of samples that were open to interpretation as speech, but which were neither repeated nor unambiguous enough to be credible data. In short, he found "something that was anomalous", but it wasn't convincing or credible enough to be useful.

perfectblue 08:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Credentials of Alexander MacRae

The article currently refers to Alexander MacRae as a scientist - is there a reference for his credentials and other research? Where has he been published other than the JSPR? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I was unable to find anything in either PubMed or Google Scholar. There were several papers on Occupational Therapy topics authored by one A MacRae in the 1980's, but so far as I know, that is not the same individual who is associated with EVP. The papers written in the JSPR did not show up. — BillC 21:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no definition of "scientist," save perhaps that they have done research which is in accord with the scientific method, there is no reason to change this. However, another definition of "scientist" might be that one has had work published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Under this definition, MacRae qualifies. However, I can't find the place you mean, so maybe it was changed. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd still like to see a source on his credentials. Even a verification that he actually did publish in that journal would be a start - where did that info come from, does someone have a copy of it? --Milo H Minderbinder 23:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a link to it in the article citation already: Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a primary source, we need a secondary RS for that since anyone can make whatever claims they want on their own website and we have no way of knowing if they are true. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And looking at the link, it doesn't even say in the article that it was published in the JSPR, although it does mention another article as "date TBA" in the JSPR. Are we sure the JSPR actually published the article (or the one mentioned in that article)? The JSPR website doesn't have abstracts online after 2003, and I couldn't find any reliable mention of it being published. And the article on his website is supposedly the same as the published one, right? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

After the above post I also saw that the date was TBA, and I tried to cofirm actual publication, but haven't been able to yet. Any ideas how we might confirm it was actually published without, gasp, any of us actually having to go to a library and get them to get the journal for us? I live too far away to do library research. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have just 100% confirmed that Alexander Macrae DID indeed publish a report in the JSPR in October 2005. The title is different, HOWEVER the contents are the same. The published title is "Report of an Electronic Voice Phenomenon Experiment inside a Double-Screened Room".

If anybody doubts this they can contact the SPR themselves. The number is (international) 44 2079378984. The UK is about 5 hours ahead of EST.

If anybody here is a British student or lecturer and a member of that library thing that they do, you should be able to get a copy through your campus library.

perfectblue 10:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

EVP primarily as a cultural phenomenon, rather than a scientific debate

Milo H Minderbinder commented, If the article stays, and if it does it will probably be on the grounds of notability in fiction, the fictional coverage should be the primary focus of the article and the scientific aspect secondary.

In my opinion the notability of EVP is not primarily fictional, nor scientific. It is cultural. As mentioned previously, TV shows like SciFi Channel's Ghost_Hunters present EVP within the context of "reality TV entertainment". Others, like Discovery Channel's A Haunting present it within the context of "dramatic recreations based on statements of witnesses". Mainstream-published and reviewed books like "Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife" by Mary Roach (http://www.amazon.com/Spook-Science-Afterlife-Mary-Roach/dp/0393059626), contain accounts of experiences with EVP proponents such as Dave Oester (Roach not only interviews these people, but gamely joins them, searching for electronic voice phenomena with the International Ghost Hunters Society -IGHS).

IMO, it really is a shame that the highly significant cultural positioning of EVP has been withheld from this WP article in favor of presenting the subject as a "scientific debate", (i.e., listing a timeline of selected "research" and then attempting to draw conclusions for or against EVP). --- LuckyLouie 20:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are correct. I think a section, probably a large one, should be added. I think the article is pretty good as it stands however. In other words, we should have both, not switch to cultural at the expense of the scientific side (which a lot of people would be interested in). My one concern would be that in presenting it culturally, this would be an opportunity for (and I am not accusing anyone here), taking the snide slant that ain't it funny that some people actually believe this ? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of the scientific side isn't based on "what people may be interested in", it's based on whether the science is notable, which it doesn't seem to be. If the subject is notable as a cultural subject but not a scientific one, the article should mostly focus on the cultural aspects and not go into "scientific" details beyond a basic explanation. Louie, can you find a citable source on the cultural references such as TV shows? I agree that this could be a big improvement for the article, but sourcing the "social" claims could be tricky - you want to give it a shot? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The cultural side is only an outgrowth of the scientific/phenomenological side. So what I'm saying is that if b is notable, and b is based on a, then that makes a notable. So just leave what is there, and add to it. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If we leave what is there, it gives the impression that the scientific side is notable (which it's not), and also gives undue weight to scientific ideas that aren't accepted by the mainstream, violating NPOV. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is that the article, as it stands, suffers from extreme cherry-picking. It sets an artificial "MacRae vs. Baruss" equation, impying, by default, that EVP is notable as the subject of an ongoing debate within science -- when there is no such debate. A series of fringe experiments that mainstream science does not recognize as having any significance should not be given the kind of weight that the article now gives it. Rather, they should be mentioned as part of "the big picture". As discussed, I believe the big picture should include a wide spectrum of various contemporary references - what proponents believe about EVP, how it's portrayed in the media, who says what about it, etc. I'm not volunteering for the chore, but we certainly might be able to find reliable sources that reflect how EVP is being portrayed and discussed in the cultural landscape. I'd also like to hear the opinions of more than two editors regarding this concept. --- LuckyLouie 21:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

" how it's portrayed in the media, who says what about it, etc." - <sarcasm>I'm sure that it shouldn't be too hard to WP:RS that. I'll just check my Peer Reviewed cable guide</sarcasm>

perfectblue 16:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Martin. LuckyLouie: I think you're right in that there's a definite need for a cultural facet to this article. And I'm sure it could be expanded on to a great degree, as the influence of EVP on popular culture (especially movies and TV) has been gradually increasing over the past few decades.

But there is an important scientific aspect to the whole EVP topic, even if some of the scientific experiments mentioned in this article are flawed. As for notability: if the experiments trying to prove or disprove the legitimacy of EVP have been featured in fairly respected publications (which several seem to be) then I'd say they are notable. --Careax 22:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"impying, by default, that EVP is notable as the subject of an ongoing debate within science -- when there is no such debate."

You're correct on this. If we're too attached to our work to delete it, then it needs expansion, and I'm sure that the cultural aspect is out of proportion to the scientific aspect. Nevertheless, in an encyclopedia, it should be that we focus on facts as well as culture. We've done the facts, now let's somebody else do the culture. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If there really is "an important scientific aspect", it would be noted by reliable sources. Notability for scientific topics is explained at WP:SCIENCE. It's not good enough to be mentioned in "respected" publications, even peer reviewed ones - the topic needs to be discussed in mainstream publications (scientific or otherwise), which this topic hasn't. And in the absence of that, it's not appropriate to give undue weight to things like details of experiments. I think Louie is on the money with this one.

We can't ever be attached to our work - if undue weight is given to material that is not notable, it's perfectly appropriate to trim out excessive detail that gives the wrong impression of the topic. If the "facts" aren't notable, we shouldn't focus on them - part of being an encyclopedia is excluding (or at least giving reduced weight to) material that isn't encyclopedic. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"If there really is "an important scientific aspect", it would be noted by reliable sources. Notability for scientific topics is explained at WP:SCIENCE."

1) With all due respect, people who believe that a lack of scientific debate is an indicator of anything have their heads in the sand. As those who have attempted to fund or publish a serious scientific analysis of a topic like UFOs or ghosts will know, mainstream scientists and institutions often simply won't touch paranormal topic for fear that even being associated with it would damage their reputations. This topic is stigmatized and this stigma is what is preventing the debate, not the facts of the topic itself. Write a controversial physics paper and you have people falling over themselves to publish or dispute it, attempt to write a serious paranormal paper, the industry simply doesn't want to know.

2) Since we're claiming notability under "Paranormal, not "science", 75% of {] is irrelevant.

perfectblue 07:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Both the scientific view and the cultural view should be included, there is plenty of investigative or responsive work from either side. This is not a scientific article in a scientific journal, (Misplaced Pages:Notability (science)), so mentions of EVP from all reliable sources can and should be included. This includes undue weight concerns, which says "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." EVP is not WP:FRINGE. The scientific community has had a significant response to the subject of EVP, as with most paranormal issues.

The primary basis of the article should definitely not be "fictional", that wouldn't meet WP:NPOV at all. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Where has "the scientific community" had any response to EVP, much less a significant one? The two journals cited are ones that specialize in fringe topics, they're not mainstream scientific publications. With zero mainstream coverage, I don't see how you can argue it is anything but fringe. Where's an article in a mainstream publication about EVP? NPOV doesn't mean to present all opinions as equally valid - the scientific community hasn't accepted EVP so extensive coverage of "scientific" details would violate the undue weight part of NPOV: "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." If the majority view is that EVP is something that appears in reality shows and isn't supported by the scientific community, the article is required to reflect that to maintain NPOV. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Milo H Minderbinder beat me to it. I can't accept that the scientific community has made any real response to EVP. This is a common aspect of research into claims of paranormal phenomena; there is rarely much if anything at all in the mainstream science literature. I'm not aware of any PhD thesis in accredited universities devoted to EVP, no professors of the subject; and it's certainly not a topic studied in grad school. Yet you can name any number of scientific topic under the sun, from protein folding, to semiconductor doping, to the characteristics of HII regions in space, that are. It's not so much a case of mainstream science "ignoring" EVP, as of failing to acknowledge it. — BillC 00:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, unless they want to go into parapsychology, and student who writes their final piece on EVP needs a couple of hours with a good shrink. It will discredit them for the next decade. In science employers and post grad scouts take your final piece very seriously, if I ever had a student wanting to do that, I'd advise against it in the strongest terms, and if I had a grad coming to me having done that I'd pass them over for somebody else unless with a more mainstream topic.

perfectblue 07:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The mere fact that one can state "it isn't supported by the scientific community" shows there is a definite response from that particular community. You cannot just focus on "journals" and "mainstream scientific publications" (I assume you mean peer-reviewed) - as I stated in my above post this is not a scientific article in a scientific journal that depends on such documentation.

Ray Hyman, Richard Wiseman, CSI (formerly CSICOP), Skepdic's Dictionary, Skeptical Inquirer, and many other scientists have written articles, analyzed evidence and commented on EVP. This small group has been sufficient to virtually overwhelm the contents of a number of Misplaced Pages paranormal articles that have a similiar "majority view is something that appears in reality shows and isn't supported by the scientific community..."

With paranormal issues, there are generally millions if not billions of people who 'believe,' and a comparative handful of scientists who write or perform experiments to counter or explain those beliefs away - so if we take a "majority rules" perspective, the scientific view loses out. Is the skeptical Misplaced Pages community willing to support that standard in all paranormal articles? We can't apply one standard to one article and a different one to another; and one cannot compare an accepted mainstream field of science with paranormal subjects when considering scientific articles or school subjects. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite get the impression that the article says there is a big - or even medium-sized {if you'll pardon the pun) scientific debate going on. I think the article makes it pretty clear that mainstream science does not back EVP and really isn't actively pursuing any high-visibility research or discussions. What parts are saying this? I mean, you cannot write the article that (for instance) talks about "Witches", but only uses Bewitched as a "fictional" source for content. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I got an edit conflict on this edit....

Minority and majority status is determined not within the scientific community as a whole. Otherwise, you'd have psychologists having an opinion on, say, genetics, and therefore anything would be a minority opinion. Among those who research or know about EVP, probably the majority opinion is that it is paranormal. The skeptical opinion would be the minority. EVP, scientifically and otherwise, clearly meets the criteria of the proposed guideline here.

It's not good enough to be mentioned in "respected" publications, even peer reviewed ones - the topic needs to be discussed in mainstream publications I have no idea where you got that. There is nothing, so far as I saw, in that proposed guideline, which says anything about "respect" or "mainstream," whatever those words mean.

What the article, which is only a proposed guideline, actually says is:

Research published in a reputable publication passes these thresholds but reflects the point of view of one researcher or research term and, unless it generates a significant outside response by the scientific community or the population at large, fails NPOV, in particular the section on undue weight. This guideline clarifies how the Misplaced Pages community has applied NPOV to articles on scientific topics. It does however not apply to the inclusion of scientific research as authoritative sources within articles. The criterion for such sources is not that they are notable, but that they are reliable.

The notability for the science on EVP, as I said, is not that it is notable as a scientific subject, but that it is the basis for the cultural notability, which is not disputed. Thus, it should be included as part of an expanded article (or the article deleted). I think no one here denies that the scientific notability of EVP is near zero.

Yes, we can't be attached to the work! Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on all points, Martinphi. Never, never get attached to work on Misplaced Pages and its ever-shifting sands of time and content. Heck, my major exposure to EVP is from the Ghost Hunters - gotta love those folks from TAPS....!! Dreadlocke ☥ 01:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is excellent discussion. It's good to see so many thoughtful and civil comments. Sorry I haven't been able to contribute more extensively, but I wanted to draw attention to the original Vfd. It is significant to me that the majority of opinions for Keep appear to reflect the notability of EVP as a cultural phenomenon rather than a scientific one: (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Electronic_voice_phenomenon/Archive1#VfD_discussion) --- LuckyLouie 02:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the civility is a lot better now! MsHyde was banned as a previously banned user. I see what you mean about it being kept only because of the cultural significance. So that's why we keep it.Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to throw in 2 points

1) I'd really hate to see this page being changed into a cultural page, on the grounds that it sounds awful like a POV fork intended to portray EVP as being a fictional or semi fictional topic.

2) Wouldn't a cultural page be EVP in popular culture?

perfectblue 07:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you, perfectblue. The current article just needs a cultural section added to the existing content; it does not need to become a total "cultural article" or any type of fictional article - semi or full. Dreadlocke ☥ 08:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you guys actually read wikipedia guidelines? WP:FRINGE refers to respected publications and "mainstream", those are some of the main criteria for notability. Also, read Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience, it says "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article." Martinphi admits "the scientific notability of EVP is near zero" - since that is the case, discussion of the topic from a scientific point of view should be proportional (near zero). Perfectblue said "Since we're claiming notability under "Paranormal, not "science", 75% of {] is irrelevant." Nope, since you're claiming notability under social/cultural and not "science", the article should be mostly about social/cultural, not "science". Let me quote WP:NPOV again: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." EVP as a "scientific" phenomenon is a view held by a minority. The majority doesn't accept it, but it is notable as a social/cultural/fictional concept. Therefore, we must give the "scientific" opinion of it less weight (less emphasis, and even less text) or we are violating NPOV. "Turning this into a cultural page" (or at least one with that as the primary emphasis) is the only way to get this page to NPOV.

You guys are entitled to your opinions, but you simply don't have policy on your side. You want to give undue weight to minority opinions, you want to give "scientific" detail (and lots of it) on a topic we seem to agree isn't notable from a scientific perspective, you want to twist WP guidelines to favor fringe coverage and disregard mainstream coverage (or lack of it). In short, the arguments favoring leaving in the "scientific" text, especially in its current size and detail, simply want to ignore NPOV and have a biased article that gives EVP more credibility than it actually has overall. In the short term, you may be able to get enough proponents here to block changes, but in the long term I don't think wikipedia is willing to keep an article that violates policy like this one does. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your argument might have weight if it wasn't for one important thing. We are recording a paranormal phenomena "within the context of the paranormal", not "the science (or claimed science) behind the phenomena". As it is, only select part of this page even touches on scientific concepts, and half of that IS "mainstream science" finding no proof of EVP's existence.

perfectblue 16:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If the article supposedly isn't going into "science", what do you call all the technical detail on "experiments"? For an article that doesn't talk about science, it uses an awful lot of "scientific" sounding jargon. If the intent is that it's not supposed to seem like a "scientific" discussion, it's doing a poor job and needs a major rewrite.

And I'm not sure what you consider "mainstream science" in the article, I don't see anything in the article sourced to a mainstream publication. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a big difference between using scientific terms or describing the equipment that people used (it's called maintaining the right tone), and claiming actual scientific conclusions. Besides, the source material here is cited clearly as per wiki-policy. If something is from the JSPR then everybody can see that it is from the JSPR, there is no pretense whatsoever that it comes from a mainstream journal.

FYI, Auditory pareidolia is fully accepted as a part of mainstream science, as are the principles behind EM interference. Artifacts and capture/enhancement errors are also fully accepted in the mainstream of the audio/visual industry. If you think that these are not mainstream, then I'm not certain what dictionary you are using to define mainstream.

perfectblue 18:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

So the article uses mainstream terms (which aren't used by the cited sources to discuss EVP), that doesn't make the article "mainstream science". And I believe it's inconsistent to write the article to sound as "scientific" as possible then turn around and insist that it's not a scientific article. As written, the article tries to make the topic sound scientific and credible, which misrepresents the consensus view of the topic. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, EVP in culture is a BAD IDEA. Next time you've got a snow day turn your TV on to Discovery and watch the garbage-passing-for-documentary that is "EVP in culture". It's mostly either sensationalized trash that believes EVP based on no scientific evidence whatsoever, or sensationalized trash that dismisses EVP based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. Why do you think nobody here is even attempting to use programs like Ghost Hunter or Critical Eye as WP:V?

As for the effect of EVP and belief in EVP on people, I'm not even going to try to WP:RS that.

At most we can get something about "EVP in fiction".

perfectblue 16:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If editors are unwilling to cover cultural coverage in this article, it's probably risks being a deletion candidate. If the article is written mostly from a "scientific" point of view, it will probably be judged by those standards of notability (which it fails). --Milo H Minderbinder 17:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

PB commented, "Why do you think nobody here is even attempting to use programs like Ghost Hunter or Critical Eye as WP:V?" - (Let me clarify first, I understand that programs and people such as you mention should not be used as sources to back up/cite facts about EVP). I had gotten the impression that one editor with a COI desperately wanted to exclude any reference to EVP that did not sound academic, credible, and scientific. That meant no mention of A Haunting, Ghost Hunters, no mention of Mary Roach's book, no mention of Lou Gentile, no mention of Dave Oester and IGHS, the Coffee Pot Ghost Lady, etc.-- these are not fiction - these are all the people who are out there practicing, believing, and commenting on EVP. Like I said, I thought only one editor was here who wanted to use WP to promote an artifically inflated view of EVP. Was I wrong? --- LuckyLouie 17:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith here, and I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but just wanted to say that statements like "I thought only one editor was here who wanted to use WP to promote an artifically inflated view of EVP. Was I wrong?" can be seen as somewhat inflammatory and accusational. We were just being complimented on the newfound civility on this page, let's please try our best to keep that on-track by not commenting on the contributors, but on the content of the article. Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 19:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, of course I wasn't accusing anybody of bias. And yes, the newfound civility is good. However it seems to break down as suddenly as it appears. The fact that there are strong feelings on the subject of EVP isn't neccessarily a comment on contributors. --- LuckyLouie 19:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think that the arguments over page content are bad now, you just see what happens if you try to introduce sources from the world of entertainment along side Parapsychology. I'm also rather concerned that people will start quoting Ghost hunter and white noise and this page into an "EVP in fiction page"

perfectblue 18:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone here has stated that they are "unwilling to cover cultural coverage in this article", just the oppostite in fact, let's add a section on that subject! The objection raised is that we do not believe the article should focused or based only on "fiction" or "cultural aspects", it should contain a fair and balanced view from all sides, per WP:NPOV. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As a reader, I would want to know about the details of any scientific investigations or opinions of EVP, I wouldn't want just a "fluff" article about tv shows and fictional information. I would want to read about the real deal. We can't skew the article that way, it would be a disservice to our readers and ourselves. From the other side, we don't want to make it seem as though there is a serious scientific effort or debate about the issue. It's a fine line, and a roughshod approach that tries to cut out one side or the other would be terrible. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Investigations (scientific or otherwise) should be covered to some degree, but it's not necessary to list many of them or go overboard on details. We have to be careful not to give undue weight to the investigations (which I believe is the case now). "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." If the primary notability is tv shows and fiction, presenting that isn't "skew", it's proportionally presenting viewpoints. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm in a real hurry right now, but if I understand this so far, given my hurried reading, the issue is how much to include science. But, the issue is not the amount of the science to include, but how much of it there is relative to the cultural. Since we don't know how large a cultural section would be till we write it, this is a discussion to be resolved when the cultural section is written. Then we can discuss how much of the science we can actually cut without misrepresenting its nature or the history of EVP. However, at this point, I doubt there will be any reason to cut, only to add culture. And this should be a section, not an article, coming after the science. Perhaps we need a "scientific history" and a "cultural history" (mixing them would be a really bad idea). Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If editors are unwilling to cover cultural coverage in this article, it's probably risks being a deletion candidate. If the article is written mostly from a "scientific" point of view, it will probably be judged by those standards of notability (which it fails).

Agreed, but not if this means watering down the science. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The article needs to maintain NPOV and avoid undue weight. If that can be done simply by adding material, that's great. But if not, the "science" would need to be "watered down". If you really want to keep the science material, I'd recommend balancing it out. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's exactly what we have in mind, Milo! Adding material without reducing or watering down the science!

The primary notability is that people believe it, or think it is possible, and not TV shows and fiction. What makes reality tv and fictional representations popular, is that underlying belief - so the scientific "real" side needs to be prominently described. That's what I believe readers would want to know about. No one is arguing that the article should not meet NPOV, it's just a matter of degree on how to include both. Are you working on adding the cultural information, or are you attempting to reduce the so-called "scientific" information. I say "so-called" because I just don't see the undue weight concerns if we include - be adding to the existing content - more content about the social and cultural beliefs around EVP. The science is clearly necessary to include, because it primarily disabuses the notion that EVP exists. Decreasing the science would itself violate NPOV. What percentage of scientists are actually in a field that make judgments about EVP? Small, in comparison to the overall field, I would think. This is the same argument in other paranormal articles where the opinions and statements of a small minority of scientists who populate that particular field are pushed to prominence by the scientifically oriented skeptical Misplaced Pages community. If we change that paradigm, that would mean a whole new world for paranormal articles here. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"The primary notability is that people believe it" Can you source that claim? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yessir, I certainly can! . As a side note, your tone seems just a tad bit confrontational, I'm sure you didn't mean it that way...;). Dreadlocke ☥ 23:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

New Article History template

In the new "Milestones" section at the top of the talkpage, I've added links to all of official discussions thus far that I knew about. If there have been other peer reviews, those can be added too if someone points out the links. And if/when this article meets the standard for an official Good article or Featured article status, those discussions can be added too.  :) --Elonka 21:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic addition, Elonka! I like the way it expands when needed, we definitely were beginng to suffer from "too many tags" syndromw. Um, I have no scientific data or citations for that claim, but trust me - just this once!  :) Dreadlocke ☥ 22:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro - proposed rewrite

The intro to the article needs an overhaul, it has some trivial info and minimizes or completely ignores some important points. I believe this is an improvement in terms of POV as it presents both sides and doesn't give undue weight to minority opinion. Info currently in the intro that I've left out may be appropriate elsewhere in the article. Obviously, this needs citations, I'm just working on wording for now. Here's a proposed rewrite of the intro, I'd appreciate comments and suggested improvements to it.

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) is said by proponents to be anomalous voices of paranormal origin heard on blank recording media or through electronic audio devices.

While EVP has been studied, the publication of this research has been in journals specializing in the paranormal and other topics outside the mainstream. The concept has not been accepted by mainstream science. Critics say that what is percieved as EVP is radio interference or pareidolia (mistakenly perceiving random sounds as speech). Proponents say that EVP is due to paranormal factors such as psychokinesis or messages from spirits, extraterrestrials, or other dimensions.

EVP often captures the public imagination, and references to it have appeared in popular culture such as television reality shows, books, and fictional works.

--Milo H Minderbinder 23:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think maybe you should read back through some of the previous discussions about the intro. The current intro is not satisfactory to either proponents or skeptics, but it is the best we could hash out. The intro you suggest seems to be slanted. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What specifically to you consider "slanted"? Don't forget, we need to make clear what are majority views and what are minority views. Feel free to suggest what you feel would make it more neutral. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

And why can't we look at deleting it? Who here really wants it???? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you favor deleting the article, go ahead and nominate it for AfD. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This proposed version looks a bit weasely to me, the current "production" version is very specific. Some of the details in this proposal belong in the body of the article and not the intro per Misplaced Pages:Lead section. Honestly it doesn't read like an intro. Let's take a look at Elonka's version, I think there is some good stuff there. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the Elonka version, for reference:

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) is a term describing what some claim to be anomalous voices of paranormal origin which suddenly manifest on blank recording media or through electronic audio devices.

Existence of the phenomena remains controversial, especially as no formal study has yet appeared about it in mainstream academia, meaning that all of the existing studies have appeared in specialist paranormal publications. Skeptics say that what is perceived as EVP is radio interference or pareidolia (mistakenly perceiving random sounds as speech). Proponents say that EVP is due to paranormal factors such as psychokinesis or messages from spirits, extraterrestrials, or other dimensions.

Whichever it is, EVP often captures public imagination, and references to it have appeared throughout pop culture, especially in TV shows such as <name 1 or 2 of the most famous> and fictional books such as <name one or two of the big ones>

--- LuckyLouie 23:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I split the Elonka version above into paragraphs for more direct comparison. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

EVP often captures public imagination, and references to it have appeared throughout pop culture, especially in TV shows such as <name 1 or 2 of the most famous> and fictional books such as <name one or two of the big ones> I like this part, anyway.

I thought we had put to rest "majority" and "minority" views position in this discussion: The majority opinion among those who know about and study EVP is that it is a paranormal phenomenon. Indeed, if we put this article under the purview of parapsychology (and we could), we would present the scientific consensus in that field, and that is that EVP is paranormal. I personally don't think that is morally justifiable, but that's because I'm something of a skeptic about EVP. However, it is within the rules of Misplaced Pages. If that is the way you want to go, Milo, perhaps we can come to an arrangement. But if it isn't going to present the scientific consensus of parapsychology, then we need merely to present a synopsis of the published peer-reviewed literature on the subject, as far as the science goes.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Old requests for peer review
• B-Class paranormal articles
• Unknown-importance paranormal articles
• Past paranormal collaborations
• WikiProject Paranormal articles