Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:33, 20 March 2007

Misplaced Pages Mediation Cabal
Article	Electronic Voice Phenomenon
Status	open
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	ScienceApologist, LuckyLouie, Milo H Minderbinder, Martinphi, Tom Butler, SheffieldSteel
Mediator(s)	—— Eagle101 21:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment	Opening case, see if parties will accept me.

]]

Mediation Case: 2007-03-13 Electronic Voice Phenomenon

Please observe Misplaced Pages:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

Request made by: Davkal 08:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

...

Electronic Voice Phenomenon

Who's involved?

...Myself, User:ScienceApologist, User:LuckyLouie, User:Milo H Minderbinder, User:Martinphi, User:Tom Butler, User:SheffieldSteel

What's going on?

...Group of editors are now making unrestrained POV changes to article and deleting discussion page comments. An edit war has developed and Wiki policies are being interpreted in a highly selective way to block content/sources conflicting with one group of editors' views on the subject.

What would you like to change about that?

...Would like the debate to be mediated by a neutral party so that NPOV edits can be made and policies clarified.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

...use the talk page is fine

Mediator response

Hello I'm willing to be your mediator, will you all accept me? I've read over the proposed guideline of WP:SCI and the guideline of WP:FRINGE. I'm going to state right off the bat I'm not an expert on this topic. :) My job is to simply play referee. What I would like to see is everyone make a statement as to what they believe is correct. From there I will work on trying to get 3rd party input, and helping you all find a compromise. I am going to ask that we keep this to the facts, and try to keep an open mind as to possible compromises. If we can build a consensus, the changes to the article are likely to stick. —— Eagle101 21:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me if you will accept me below, and then make your case in the Discussion section. For clarity I do ask that we give everyone a chance to say what they might, and try not to rebuttal them at this time. I would like to have a clear overview of the issue. Thanks! —— Eagle101 21:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I accept (below where?). I accept anyone who is not prejudiced for or against the paranormal. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

AcceptDavkal 11:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Accept SheffieldSteel 13:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

I agree with SheffieldSteel on the point of the definition. I have long argued (previously) that it would be better to define EVP as the brute phenomenon (whatever it turns out to be). I think that significant improvements could be made at a stroke if we could do away with the need to qualify every time we use the term "EVP". I know others are very much against this though.Davkal 17:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not really against this. However, the only interest in EVP is that it is, or said to be, paranormal. Otherwise, it is something wrong with your equipment. But, defining it as a phenomenon in itself seperate from explanations could work well. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any mediator will have to have considerable familiarity with WP:SCI, WP:FRINGE and related policies and guidlelines. Preference should be given to those who have dealt with cases involving science and against the mainstream topics in the past either as editors or as mediators/administrators. I will agree to mediation only if the mediator affirms this is the case. --ScienceApologist 11:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I would refer Eagle to the ArbCom decission on pseudoscience, and to the many mentions of the above editor in that case. I do this not to attack the editor, but to explicate the need for mediation. I don't know what SA means by "against the mainstream." Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Let us not focus on users, but rather on finding an acceptable compromise to the current situation :). —— Eagle101 04:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, I should have said that the ruleing is highly relevant to the case, also. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

State your position

Please state your position below, try to make it as clear as possible, and keep it to the facts. Thanks. —— Eagle101 21:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

We have a case here where there is likely nothing to the phenomenon, or if there is, it has not been proven to scientific standards. Mainstream science has not considered EVP.

I believe the article should be written according to the following:

1. Few or no mainstream scientists have studied EVP. No matter how much they know about their fields, they know little or nothing about EVP. We cannot therefore state that EVP has been rejected or accepted by mainstream science, nor can we imply that it has. We can state that it has not been considered. To state or imply otherwise is to editorialize, to do OR.
2. It is not for us to choose which peer-reviewed sources are better or worse. This would be pure OR.
3. Because of (1) we cannot cite mainstream science as a majority opinion. The majority of science has no opinion on EVP; what opinions they have are likely to be uneducated.
4. We could cite a majority opinion among those who know the most about EVP, that EVP is of paranormal origin. But since we must remain conservative, we should not cite this as a majority opinion (at least in the context of truth).
5. Thus we should not write the article as if the case for, or the case against EVP has been decided or even considered. We should write the article to state exactly
   1. What research has actually been done
   2. By whom the research has been done (avoiding characterization)
   3. What the researchers said about their results (avoiding characterization)
   4. What the state of the evidence actually is (avoiding characterization). In this case, we would almost certainly say that there is so little scientific research that reality of EVP has not been determined.
6. We should avoid characterization at all costs (such as calling those who experiment with EVP "enthusiasts"). This can be done with clever writing.
7. We should scrupulously avoid WP:WTAs.
8. We should work on the principle that we are not here to tell the reader what to believe, by any means, overt or by innuendo. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is good, you have stated what you would like to see happen. I hope to see the other 6 versions of this, and then we can go on from there. I'm going to ask again, please just state what you want to see happen, don't bother with countering each other yet. I would rather see 7 versions of what everyone wants to see, then we can work on trying to find a compromise. —— Eagle101 05:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My first thoughts on this.

1. We need to decide on the reliability of individuals/sources in a non-pejorative way. The current way of doing this is entirely based on whether certain individuals/sources agree or disagree with various editors' opinions.

2. We need to agree on whether mere doubt on the part of an editor is enough to block well sourced content from the article. Currently editors can simply say "I contest this" and that is taken to be enough of a reason for exclusion.

3. We need to decide whether a majority (scientific) viewpoint exists in this case, and what weight various other viewpoints should have.

4. We need to decide whether the question of EVP's existence is to be dealt with in one section, or if this point is to dominate the entire article.

Davkal 09:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think much of our problems stem from a definition of the subject that assumes that it is a paranormal phenomenon, i.e. the definition precludes the possibility of there being a natural cause or a scientific explanation. This has led to some very confrontational editing, and makes it very difficult to discuss elements of the topic.

Therefore, I would like to see the definition of the subject changed to a non-confrontational version (voices of unknown, rather than paranormal, origin), which would enable the rest of the article to discuss the causes and nature of the phenomenon, rather than its existence or nonexistence. It would also clear some of the clouds surrounding the issue of science's attitude to (and lack of research on) the subject.

Another problem is that of describing the little research that has been done on the subject. Research has been done that falls short of the standards required by scientific journals (clearly falls far short, in my opinion), but because of the nature of Misplaced Pages we are prevented from saying so directly, and we have not found any reliable source to which we can attribute a scientific-standards-based criticism of the research.

Therefore, I think that we need to take great care when presenting this research to avoid giving the impression that there is any objective evidential support for any supernatural or paranormal claims.

Personally I would be happy with any outcome that does not give the impression that scientific methods have been used to support the idea that EVP is of paranormal origin. This strikes me as being at odds with the very nature of the scientific method.

SheffieldSteel 14:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Eagle101, anyone who is dedicated to fighting vandalism and spam is a friend of mine. Thanks for taking your time to help out.

I am speaking from the perspective of a person who has studied EVP for 20 years and has collected/seen substantial evidence for its objective existence. I am an Engineer and a metaphysician, giving me a fair understanding of need for good science and how good science is currently unable to address the subject without peer ridicule for the scientist.

Given the operating rules of Misplaced Pages, all EVP research is "original research," virtually all EVP experimenters/researchers have a conflict of interest and none of the related publications are acceptable as substantive references. There is also a well organized pseudoskeptic club, apparently sponsored by Misplaced Pages, and members have taken an interest in making sure an "impossible thing" is clearly shown to be impossible. With this atmosphere, Misplaced Pages should not have an entry for EVP in the first place.

One of the problems is that the subject is difficult to study without at least considering the possibility of survival of the personality after physical death. If the article even hints of dead people talking other than as just one of the theories, you can count on a steady stream of offended editors trying to make it right for them. On the other side, when I came to the article last November, it was discounting the AA-EVP because of our association with Spiritualism. There is no foundation evidenced in the administration of the AA-EVP showing that it is a Spiritualist instrument and it is simple propaganda. You can count on people who study EVP to fight for balance, as you have seen so far. (My wife and I are AA-EVP Directors and ordained Spiritualist ministers. We wrote most of what is on that nsacphenomena.com now being referenced in the article. Becoming a Spiritualist is a good way to understand Spiritualism, and if you did, you would understand that it was founded on very good research for its time.)

My point is that the very nature of the subject assures that the article will never be stable unless it is written more as advocated above. I want it gone, but if not, then I want it stable and to do that, it should not say anything more than what it is defined to be, a list of explanations considered by both sides without attributing to normal or not. (That, by the way, will help get past the lack of real research by both sides--just theories.) Possibly when it was discovered and a little about EVP in the media. If you can't protect the page, then anything added to that by passing editors, without discussion and informed consensus, should be routinely deleted.

  Tom Butler 16:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)