Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:31, 23 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

Status of EVP section

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

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

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

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

perfectblue 10:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggested lead paragraph

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

Electronic Voice Phenomena or EVP, is a term used to refer to a class of paranormal phenomena, most commonly defined as speech or speech-like sounds which have been reported to manifest on blank recording media or through electronic audio devices.

The phenomena has largely been ignored by mainstream science, and existence of EVP remains controversial. Proponents believe EVP is due to paranormal factors such as messages from spirits, psychokinesis, extraterrestrials, or beings in other dimensions. Skeptics say that what is perceived as EVP is probably radio interference or pareidolia (mistakenly perceiving random sounds as speech).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1A proposal

Proposed Version 1A....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1A/75221XDG Proposal

I propose this as the whole intro

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

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

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

Davkal 15:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Things I like about mine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Davkal 18:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New introduction

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

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

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

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

Davkal 13:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's wrong with Martin's version.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are <!--whatever they are, they are something- I think everyone agrees on that. The origin is what is in dispute --> speech or speech-like sounds of paranormal origin <!-- You agreed they are paranormal, whatever they are-->. EVP are typically brief, usually lasting the length of a word or short phrase, although longer segments have also been recorded.<!-- that was directly from Davkal's version --> EVP appears on blank recording media such as magnetic tape<!-- give example to make it clearer--> or through electronic audio devices, and its source is unknown<!--Unknown to Misplaced Pages. We don't say what it is-->. Most people who experiment with EVP say it is of paranormal origin <!--We can source this; no one is going to claim that more than half the people who experiment with it think it is NOT paranormal-->, such as ], psychokenetic projections from the researchers themselves, or communications from alien entities. Sceptics, argue that there are probably normal explanations for the phenomena such as cross-modulation, interference from nearby radio sources, or pareidolia (the human propensity to find familiar patterns amongst random stimuli). <!--We need to keep the intro tight--> From here on out, the same as Davkal's.Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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