Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:35, 10 February 2007

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.

Electronic voice phenomenon received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives
1
2

Further Reading

I know that 2 Percent looks professional enough, but it is just a platform for armatures to blog, or in this case, rant close to the edge of misinformation. I see no problem showing a dissenting view here, but there is no qualitative difference between the two articles, except the one I posted Random Noisemaker] clearly steps over the line with unfounded examples. The point is that people should be able to see the dynamics of what makes this entry and the Further Reading sections does that. Tom Butler 20:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference #4

Is the same reference as #20--it is repeated, redundant.-MsHyde 21:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Colin Smyth

Is not mentioned in the first three references. A publishing company called Colin Smythe, with an e on the end, is mentioned. It does not state that the publisher coined any terms. Also, the source is self-published.-MsHyde 21:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Colin Smythe publishing company claims that they coined the term--is there a relaible third party publication which confirms this?-MsHyde 00:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Order of St. Gregory

According to this reference, Jorgensen received this commendation for his documentary film work. http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/194_evp1.shtml-MsHyde 22:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Audio sample

Where is the documentation regarding who made this sample? The only documentation provided is that it came from Misplaced Pages user GMaxwell. Unless it was publlished elsewhere, it is original research. Please leave the tag until the matter of publication is confirmed or not confirmed.-MsHyde 00:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to click the file info before adding tags ignorantly. Image:EVP sample.ogg – Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The sample was recorded then by Tom and Lisa Butler, who self-published it on their website. It is orginal research. It has not been published by a relaible third party publication. I will submit a request for comment.-MsHyde 00:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not original research because they are not Misplaced Pages editors. It is original research to draw conclusions based on source material. It is not original research to objectively record noise. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not is is an audio recording of any voices has not ben confirmed by a reliable third party source--it was self-published. That is original research. The recorder and the publisher were the same. It could be a recording of their dishwasher gurgling for all we know.-MsHyde 01:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I notice you've been on a spree of this kind of behavior. It's not helpful. Who's to say any EVp recording has been faked? Maybe it's all nonsense. We're not here to make that kind of judgement. The audio sample is just that, a sample of what EVP commonly sounds like. It makes no judgements as to its validity and therefore is not original research. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is original research because the recorder and the publisher are the same (and it was published on a website). I will request outside input.-MsHyde 01:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is "Original Media", not "Original Research". WP:OR requires that suppositions or conclusions be made that were not first published in an external source. This page is presenting an audio file as being an example of what is commonly presented as EVP. It is not placing any weight on the sample as being real EVP, fake EVP or background noise. Therefore it cannot be an OR violation.

perfectblue 10:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

How do we know it is EVP, or an example of what is commonly presented as EVP?-MsHyde 10:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it's on the EVP page would be a good hint to most people. The source beig an EVP website would be another.

perfectblue 15:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

MsHyde, images & other media are largely exempt from WP:NOR so long as they don't present new/unpublished ideas (thats what is sais in WP:NOR. Otherwise we'd never be able to ilustrate any article with abstract or complicated ideas. Since this is an article about sound it needs to be ilustrated with sound.

The sample is quite similar to many EVP-type samples published in mainstream media (see the White Noise movie?) and as such it isn't presenting a any new or unpublished ideas. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue with the audio sample is not that it's OR, but that it comes from a questionable source, and there's no real rigor to demonstrate that it is what it claims to be. If it's going to stay, it should be labled as "An alleged sample of EVP..." or something similar. We have no evidence that it's an actual recording of EVP (appearing on this article or on a website somewhere doesn't prove anything). And if EVP samples are really published in the mainstream media, we should provide or link to one actually published in the mainstream media. And isn't the White Noise movie fictional? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a different EVP example on the same page covered by the open use release. Please look at the bottom of http://aaevp.com/examples/examples_voice11.htm. One of the objections here was that the current example was posted by the same people who recorded it. Okay, Vicki Talbott recorded this new one and did not post it. I did.

Milo H Minderbinder, I am going to assume your reference to White Noise is a joke--right?:-)

The AA-EVP is about as close you are going to get to a mainstream organization or publisher when it comes to publishing EVP examples. You can say "alleged" all you want, but fact is, too many such comments pushes the point of view way over to the skeptical side and that cannot be allowed to stand. You decide how you want to fight this battle because this entry is not going to become a skeptic's platform. Tom Butler 17:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Milo. Time Magazine or some other mainstream source would never identify an audio sample as "EVP. To force Misplaced Pages to endorse an audio sample as EVP is outrageous. See WP:Conflict of interest. This article will not become a platform for the AA-EVP. --- LuckyLouie 18:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The website for the fringe group can be included in external links, and readers can follow the link to hear alleged audio samples if they like. Highlighting the "audio sample" in the article as an illustrative example strongly implies endorsement that EVP exists, and that this is an example of it. Mr. Butler is not a scientist, and his self-proclaimed credentials are "metaphysical." His self-published website is not a reliable source, and he has a conflict of interest. The inclusion, placement, and highlighting of the audio sample is not neutral, rational, or objective. If TIME magazine publishes an audio sample and asserts it is an alleged example of EVP, then I think it might be ok to include it in the way Mr. Butler's website publication is included now. Including the sample from its present source is equal to including a sample of a psychic reading from 1-800 Psychic, and labelling it as a credible example of a psychic reading and proof that psychics exist and are psychcic. Mr. Butler's examples were not derived from laboratory study, but are original research published on a website. There is absolutely no reliable third party verification or factchecking or peer review on his website.-MsHyde 18:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the "joking" comment, another editor mentioned it in reference to "mainstream media". "Close as you are going to get" doesn't make a source reliable. So I guess it means no truly reliable sources are available? Also, if you're affiliated with the organization, you're not in a position to make a decision on the reliability of it as a source. In the absence of real proof, "alleged" is appropriate for both the audio example and the introductory paragraph: "...speech-like sounds of allegedly paranormal origin..." I also have a problem with the "Status of EVP" section in that it implies that the "others" doing studies are in the same category as the scientists who failed to find anything. In the absence of scientific verification of the phenomenon, the article should probably lean to the skeptical side. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with "An alleged sample of EVP" type language in theory, but I think it's important to have an audio sample so readers can get an idea about whats being discussed. The source is unimportant for that issue... I could make one at home and use it here... the idea is to let the reader here for themselfs what proponents claims is an EVP.

I used "white noise" as an example of what is being accepted in the mainstream (not mainstream media... maybe I misspoke) as EVP. I'd love to take a clip from the movie, but it wouldn't qualify as Fair User (under wikipedia's limited criteria). ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

content policies tag

"You tag too much" is an ad hominem argument and I have never placed this particular tag before. There are now open requests for comments at Original Research, and at science projects. I am concerned not only about the original research, but the refusal at this article to acknowledge that science does not need to disprove negatives. It is not objective to state that something hasn't been substantiated or disproved by a lack of scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is required to assert that something exists. It is fine to say that psychcic enthusiasts believe in it, that is all. There also does not seem to be at this article an objective idea of what a researcher is. A woman who runs a website is a psychic enthusiast, not a researcher. Also, it needs to be clearly stated that all instances of EVP are *claimed* instances. WP:V is not being observed at this article, I believe.-MsHyde 04:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments you have added to various places do not make it suddenly an issue. You need to find something else to do besides tag articles. Since you've registered that's basically all you've done. This article is written just fine, and your actions are nothing but harmful at the moment. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have requested comment at wikiquette alerts.-MsHyde 06:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

References for fiction section

Here is one for the Gibson novel:http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A147108 A relaible third party reference should be provided for each claim, specifically stating that the work refers to EVP. I am going to replace the references tag.-MsHyde 06:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And its removed again. That section does not need references. The texts they reference are references in and of themselves. Furthermore, the links themselves lead to articles futher substantiating this fact. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, references are needed to show that these items are included because a reliable third party source says they reference EVP. Otherwise, it is opinion. Who says they are about EVP or refer to EVP? The works are not references in themselves. The list also borders on trivia, and is probably too long. -MsHyde 08:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The works are references in themselves because they refer to the phenomenon by name or definition. You're just trying to pick at whatever you can because you hate the article, and your complaining across the help boards and policy boards is clear evidence of this. They do not need references. The material to which they refer is the source. It is available to anyone to check for its validity. You do not get to tag that section simply because you are too lazy to check for yourself. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A work of fiction only really requires referencing when it is being analyzed, compared or contrasted. A description of its contents is self referencing.

perfectblue 10:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and stating that a work of fiction is about EVP is comparing, contrasting it, making a synthetic argument, unless a reliable third party publication says it is about EVP. EVP is a specific term, and the title of this article. Claiming fictional works are about EVP is opinion, if there is no reference. I have provided one reference, showing that it can be done for some of them, probably. A self-reference, such as a book jacket synopsis, is still fact checked by the publisher. If no review or description of a work claims it includes EVP, it is only opinion.-MsHyde 18:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Stating fiction is about EVP is synthesis if the reader/viewer has to decide if it meets the criteria. If a work of fiction actually uses the term EVP, the work itself is sufficient as a source. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree--if there is a book jacket which uses the term (and the book is sufficiently notable). But there should still be a reference, the book should be cited, for example. Also, it is extremely unlikely that if a work refers to EVP and is notable, that there would be no review or description of the book or film to cite.-MsHyde 18:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

They do not need a reference when the term is used both clearly and obviously throughout the work in question. They source themselves. They would only need a reference if it were vague or debatable. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As Milo says directly above, "Stating fiction is about EVP is synthesis if the reader/viewer has to decide if it meets the criteria." Demonstrate that each example is not synthesis.-MsHyde 21:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In basically every example, the term is used specifically. They don't need a ref if that's the case, because the reader doesn't have to guess at it. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not what I see in Google research. There is no use of term EVP for Philip K. Dick or Ghost in the Machine, for example--they are retroactive claims for the term.-MsHyde 21:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I:ll give you those two and recommend something: remove them. If they really don't apply, take them out. Surely it's not difficult and it's far more productive than insisting on tagging everything. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Tagging is more polite than removing--it gives editors who may have background knowledge a chance to fix things. It also alerts other people besides you, who may want to participate or have something to add. I have just read WP:OWN. Have you read it? Also, you are still being insulting--to both Milo and I. "You have been told this" is not appropriate, and the lack of discrimination between scientists and non-scientists is a major point of inaccuracy and POV, which will continue until it complies with policy.-MsHyde 22:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Tagging is not more polite, especially when you do it indiscriminately. There's more than enough messages on your talk page to this effect, so I'd expect you to have an understanding of this point. It only makes it seem as if you're trying to dsiparage the article. Being bold is the polite alternative. Just doing something without warning is perfectly acceptable, and it is a far more potent motivator of change than templated messages. Try it once, you might be surprised. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, tagging is more polite, it gives people time. Also as I said, it alerts people besides you, and you have an ownership problem with this article. Continued ad hominem attacks of me are just more rudeness. As you can see from my talkpage, there have been very few complaints, and only from other article owners, who inappropriately take tags personally. This is not your article, and it is not about you. Taking tags personally or telling anyone that they may not place them is not your prerogative.-MsHyde 22:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get into another argument with you, because the myriad times you've been warned on your tag page haven't helped. I didn't even know this article existed till stumbling on your tagging rampage. I have a problem with your tagging, because it improves nothing. Be bold and try fixing things yourself. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Why was the EVP in fiction section moved back to this article? Wasn't it split up? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If it was, it doesn't exist anymore. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Tests done by...

Martinphi, could you explain your objection to my edit? Are you saying that they are scientists, and if so could you provide a reference demonstrating that? And if they are not scientists but you feel it's an "incorrect implication" (whatever that means, an explanation would be appreciated), what term would you suggest instead? The current wording is unacceptable as it implies that both sets of experiments were done by scientists, which doesn't seem to be the case. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like a response to my question above. As a follow up, scientists/psychic enthusiasts was reverted with the edit summary "weasel words". In fact, some/others is much more vague and "weasel" than the more specific terms. If "psychic enthusiasts" is objectionable, please suggest an alternative. The facts seem to indicate that reputable research has found no evidence, while those who believe to have found evidence have not had their work peer reviewed. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Words that don't disparage their subject would be helpful. Those two phrases instantly convey the impression that one side knows what they're doing while another side is just some random group of inexperienced people. I'm fine with the use of scientists, but a more professional term than "psychic enthusiasts" needs to be found for the opposing side, since the section above clearly indicates that some of these people actually take such research seriously. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a question of accuracy. They are not scientists, and that needs to be clearly stated. It is not merely that the psychcic enthusiasts have not had their work peer reviewed. They are not scientists. No one will ever peer review their work, because it is not science. Pretending that they are equal is a violation of due weight. Misplaced Pages is not the appropriate place to advance fringe theories as if they were not fringe theories.-MsHyde 22:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, your assumptions are just that, and have no place in determining how these people should be viewed. EVP is far from a "fringe theory." Find a phrase that accurately describes these people without making them seem incompetent or inexperienced, as it is clearly not the case. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict..... Hi, I was mostly responding to the "allegedly" weasels. The last sentence in that paragraph was added since I wrote it, and I'm not sure but what it weasels in favor of EVP.

This:

Scientific experiments did not find any anomalies that fulfill the characteristics of EVP,<ref name="Baruss"/>

seems good. However,

Others recorded anomalies, and via analysis and listening tests, determined that they "… must have been in some way paranormal".<ref>#5 http://www.skyelab.co.uk/review/bb.htm</ref>

could be changed to

Informal experiments recorded anomalies, which seemed upon analysis and listening tests to "have been in some way paranormal".<ref>#5 http://www.skyelab.co.uk/review/bb.htm</ref>

Or, "less controlled experiments."

What do you think Minderbinder?

My objection was basically that "Tests done by non-scientists" may not be right for two reasons: one, there isn't a definition of "scientist" which involves university degrees. Rather, a scientist is one who carries out scientific experiments. Also, it cuts extremely close to the appeals to the "scientific mainstream" which is often used by pseudoskeptics. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this is not a subject which requires purely peer-reviewed sources. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I like that. It doesn't disparage either side but also notes the difference in experience. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not appropriate, per WP:FRINGE. It needs to be made very clear that they are not scientists, and that what they say and what their findings are are completely nonscientific. All of the claims that they make need to be very clearly contextualized as the point of view of non-scientists:

"Including such a controversial quote needs to be carefully contextualized as a particular point-of-view. Simply including such a statement in the lead or in a section on scientific evaluation of bigfoot claims is potentially misleading, non-neutral, and lacking in verifiability. The quote should only be included if it can be contextualized in a verifiable and neutral sense as a point-of-view of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Association and not necessarily a factual statement."-MsHyde 22:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually fine with "informal experiments" as I think the meaning is pretty clear. I do take issue with "at the very least produced questionable results" which is unsupported as far as I can tell, the article referenced in that sentence doesn't say that. And I do think the article has a major problem overall in that it attributes statements to a number of people but never says who those people are, what their credentials are, or why their statements belong in an encyclopedia. While it's true that an article like this doesn't need peer reviewed sources, any statements supported by sources that haven't been subjected to some scrutiny should be presented as that, not as fact nor concepts that have the support of the scientific community. I also disagree with the notion that the unexplained sounds categorized as EVP are defined as paranormal. People have heard sounds, and some believe they are of paranormal origin while some accept scientific explanations. The current opening makes it sound like EVP is accepted fact, which is unacceptable. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"or at the very least produced questionable results" still isn't supported, the Baruss source doesn't say that. I also don't think the phrase "Experiments have also produced mixed results." is appropriate since it lumps together scientific experiments and informal experiments which is misleading and POV. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You all may be fine with "informal experiments," but the phrase is not accurate.

There is no foundation for any of you to exclude information or attempt to dilute its meaning because you hope that MacRae is not scientific enough. If you want to get down to qualifications, Baruss is just a professor of psychology, and not a person we would consider qualified to pass judgment on EVP. I know the preparations he made for the experiment, how little research he did to educate himself and I know that his experimental procedure would never pass peer review of experienced EVP experimenters.

If you keep going after the qualifications of MacRae, I will be happy to reintroduce the qualifications of the people quoted in your skeptical references. Tom Butler 00:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, we have no idea what the qualifications of MacRae are, if any. If MacRae is a professional scientist, just provide a source saying that. Tom, I'd also like to reiterate the WP:COI warning I gave you on your user talk page - since your organization is heavily referenced in this article, it's a conflict of interest for you to edit it. Please stop. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you do not know the qualifications of almost all of the references in this article. The fact that you do not know MacRae's should suggest to you why you are not qualified to edit this subject.

It would be convenient for you if I stopped editing the page, but how can you think I will ignore misinformation about a subject I teach to be left in the article. As long as you all use terms like "psychic enthusiasts" or whatever that was, there is a need for someone to represent the facts.

Also, concerning the subject below, if you are looking for a monitory motive for our work with EVP, forget it. MacRae is way in the hole financially when it comes to EVP research and selling a few copies of his book will never cover the cost of him flying to California on his one ticket for the experiment. Even the few research grants he has earned provide only token money.

All of the proceeds from our book go to the operation of the AA-EVP, Etheric Studies, and hopefully, to research. So again, stop casting aspersions on people. That is simply liable. Tom Butler 00:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Judith Chisholm

Is not a researcher of any kind. She is a retired journalist whose son died. The entirety of her experiements consist of using tape recorders and interpreting the sounds herself (And selling subscriptions on her website to her club). By her own admission, she cannot convince any parapsychologists to study EVP. She has a clear disclaimer on her club's website. http://www.worlditc.org/h_18_chisholm_0.htm See also Fortrean Times.-MsHyde 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not once does the article mark her as such. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, then it should, shouldn't it? If an article is going to attribute claims to people, it should inform readers about the person making that claim so that they can judge whether the source is reliable. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to her being a researcher. I'll agree that her profession would be appropriate. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Both Judith Chisholm and Alexander MacRae are members of the AA-EVP, which might be worth noting, as it indicates their status as proponents of EVP. --- LuckyLouie 00:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So, they are proponents of EVP who benefit from it financially, and whose "research" consists entirely of making tape recordings which they interpret themselves.-MsHyde 00:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the AA-EVP?

The American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena (AA-EVP) is a nonprofit educational association that is dedicated to the support of people who are interested in or who are studying Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) and Instrumental TransCommunication (ITC). This web site offers examples, techniques and concepts concerning Phenomena.

Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) concerns unexpected voices found in recording media. It is a form of after death communication. ITC is a newer term that includes all of the ways these unexpected voices and images are collected through technology, including EVP. Of the many hypotheses designed to explain these phenomena, the Survival Hypothesis has been found to be most effective in answering the evidence.

You assume too much. They do not profit in any way. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Chisholm and MacRae do not cause the AA-EVP to profit financially. Since one of the stated goals of the AA-EVP is to increase awareness of EVP, their research is in line with these goals. Also one must take into account that they are both authors who do benefit financially from their respective book sales. --- LuckyLouie 00:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-profit does not mean there is no money in it, it means they get a tax break--the Butlers appear to be employed by the organization and get paid. Also, it appears likely they were paid by the marketing department of White Noise to promote the film. It's a very very clear case of COI.-MsHyde 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Note - Judith Chisholm is referred to as a member of AA-EVP in the AA-EVP NewsJournal 20-4 according to the Google cache (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=judith+chisholm+aa-evp+member&btnG=Search) which was apparently posted in 2002. I was mistaken in assuming she was a current member of the organization. --- LuckyLouie 00:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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