This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 18 |
On invitation, I've perviewed the article. I think your on your way to good article status. I've made some slight changes to the TOC, which you may change back if you feel it is necessary or better the other way. My main concern here and elsewhere is readability. The word 'paranormal' is used way to much as is 'hypothesis'. The opening paragraphs should focus first on the general concept and then go into skepticism by science or others. The article as a whole should focus on the general research and concept with the skeptics or scientific view holding its own in its own section which pretty much exists for the most part. I'm open to your thoughts on my observations and to working with the editors here to achieve a 'good article' status as you desire. On references - article seems well referenced. -- Northmeister 00:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Changed some words and tried to link Jurgenson - to no avail. We must not have an article on this person. Feel free to change what you like if you feel the original was better. Not sure if the Edison stuff works where it is. But, not sure what to do with it either. -- Northmeister 22:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone please format the refs. ASAP. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant references. Not EL's. I've changed it. The References need formating. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I've begun work on the history section. The Spricom subsection should mention George Meek [creation of the machine or at least contain more on him]. Right now I am using internet sources - but there must be better references to use instead. Here is something from Professor David Fontana on
ITC Journal website:
This seems like a reasonable guide for our history section, in so much as covering the research done in the EVP or ITC field. From what I've read, its becoming apparent that although EVP is more commonly known, it is considered a sub-field of ITC now; rather than as I thought; the other way around. We might want to consider moving everything to ITC with EVP as a subsection - but not sure of this. We should look into Bonner, Alsop, Schenider, Senkowski, Koenig etc. to see if they are worthy of inclusion in the history of this subject. -- Northmeister 00:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
[6] —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to expand into the topic of communicating with the dead with any technological means through electronic communication. I would propose that this article's name be changed to correspond to that. I would suggest that we also expand on attempts to communicate with the dead via television, computers, etc as well. I previously suggested merging this article with 'Instrumental transcommunication' but that's pretty unclar. Per the naming conventions we should use the most encompassing and popular name. What is the most common term used to communicate with the dead and is also most encompassing? Wikidudeman (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Whats other users thoughts on "Organizations" and "Popular Interests" sections? I feel they should simply be summarized much like "Organizations" at the Parapsychology article. Gives a better feel to the article. -- Northmeister 01:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and nominated for GA status [8]. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I've gone over the references extensively, and I do not see any problems. Fontana is the very least problematic source in the entire article. The other sources, such as the AA-EVP, are used with attribution, as are the critical sources such as those for Rorschach Audio. There are only a few sources I haven't gone over. Personally, I think it is amazing that an article on EVP has been sourced this well. Although there are quite a few EVP experts out there who haven't been sourced, I don't think the article needs them. If that is the only objection, I'll leave it up for GA. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Many of the sources cited in this article don't seem to meet the guidelines of reliable sources. One of the most cited sources is a book called "Is There an Afterlife: A Comprehensive Review of the Evidence." by someone named "David Fontana". How is this a reliable resource? What credentials does the author have that makes it reliable to be used as a source for all of the claims it's being used for? Wikidudeman (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
"His interest in psychical research goes back to boyhood. He was co-opted to the Council of the British Society for Psychical Research in 1992, elected to Council in 1993, served as President from 1996 to 1999, and is now a Vice-President and Chairman of the Society's Survival Research Committee. He has been investigating mediumship for many years, and takes a particular interest in poltergeist cases and in physical phenomena, writing widely on the subject. He worked with Montague Keen and Arthur Ellison on the extensive investigation of the phenomena witnessed at Scole in Britain, and was one of the co-authors of 'The Scole Report' (Proceedings of the society for Psychical Research 58, Part 220). " —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 14:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Baffling is a good word. I'll get the page numbers and/or ranges later, with quotes if needed. There is one error I'll correct immediately- I think it was mine, because I thought telegraph when Fontana said wireless. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 16:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know of any, But If anyone has his book they could just use the source he used (if he used one). Wikidudeman (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The reference to Fontana 366, while the page # isn't needed in the article, refers to
"These initial efforts included seances and other non-technological methods.[5] With the creation of the wireless, this concept of communication with the dead expanded to the use of modern technology to achieve contact. Concerted research on technical means of communication grew rapidly in the latter part of the 20th century (Fontana, p. 366).[6]"
Fontana is a secondary source, a monograph, and is WP:RS per:
"Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims. A journalist's story about a traffic accident or a Security Council resolution is a secondary source, assuming the journalist was not personally involved in either. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, is a secondary source." [12]
This is really the end of the issue as far as I am concerned. Comments from editors who are uninvolved in the article would be welcome. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the obvious issues with reliable sources and fringe sources being framed as objective, I see three major problems with the present article.
The article lead erroneously defines EVP as legitimate technological/scientific phenomena, rather than a claim or fringe belief.
There is no recognition of "Electronic Voice Phenomena" as "speech or speech-like sounds heard on electronic devices, but not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded" found in any professional technical journals of the audio recording industry, signal processing, or electrical engineering. Neither is the term found in current academic textbooks on the subjects, such as Speech and Audio Signal Processing: Processing and Perception of Speech and Music by Ben Gold, Nelson Morgan, Nelson Morgan Instead, engineering texts refer to the condition claimed by proponents as "EVP" as Rorschach Audio, a subset of Psychoacoustics.
Outside of the paranormal community, EVP is not recognized as a legitimate phenomena. So the term "EVP" must be clearly framed in the lead as a term originated and used specifically by its proponents and researchers.
Per WP:FRINGE, article weighting must reflect majority mainstream sources treatment of the subject. Mainstream reliable sources overwhelmingly characterize EVP as a claim, not as a legitimate phenomena.
Fringe journals call EVP "purported" rather than a legitimate phenomenona. Journal of Scientific Exploration: "(EVP) refers to the purported manifestation of voices of the dead and other discarnate entities through electronic means."
It's clear that EVP is not a legitimate observable phenomena and is not recognized outside of the paranormal milieu. Presenting the subject as a controversial "phenomena" and offering competing "explanations" is not appropriate and highly misleading. Rather, the proponents beliefs should be accurately reported as beliefs and opinions which are at odds with mainstream majority views on the subject.
The article inexplicably omits a Criticism section. There are plenty of WP:RS critics of "EVP", from Scientific American to James Randi. I suggest an appropriate criticism section be written.
-- LuckyLouie 01:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that was a GA review? Sorry, but you have been greatly involved in this article. We need someone to review who hasn't been involved- and who isn't biased. I'm hoping to bring in someone who is neutral on the issue of EVP, rather than someone who is part of the Rational Skepticism project which has as a goal to bring Skeptic's Dictionary into Wikipedia.
The Wikipedia:Good article candidates page says "Anyone who shows understanding of the criteria and the instructions below can review an article, as long as you are not a major contributor to the article being reviewed." —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I suppose you were trying to respond to the above, which was a response to WDM. You are quite wrong that I have caused chaos in this article. Nor have I attacked you. I made it plain that for reasons of bias and authorship, your GA review wasn't applicable to this article. Please also note that when I say "you are biased" that is merely shorthand for saying your suggestions and editing have been biased. That's all I'll say on this subject, except to ask you to read WP:NPA. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
PARANORMAL ARBCOM: The lead, and all subsequent portions of the article must adhere to the recent ArbCom on the paranormal.
WEIGHT: the article is about EVP, and will be mostly about EVP -intrinsically a paranormal subject- not about skepticism or about mainstream reactions to EVP.
NPOV: The article must be written in such a way as to not make up the reader's mind on the issue, except by presentation of evidence; that evidence must be presented in its proper sections. The actual status of EVP must be presented, which is that it has been pretty much ignored by the mainstream. EVP has not been rejected by the mainstream, because it has not been considered (or no one can find the studies). The one mainstream study (Brauss), is equivocal.
OR: There should be no OR in the article. Criticisms must adhere strictly to the OR policy, as must the other sections of the article.
CHANGES INSERTED: Changes should only be inserted with full consensus.
If Northmeister will lead this process, I accept it. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the present and proposed lead or opening to EVP. It is in this section that the entire article should be summarized for the reader. All comments are welcomed and all suggested changes should be placed in italics below ones comments so others can peruse that change. All concerned editors should acknowledge whether they feel any change suggested is OK or offer their own version to advance discussion. We can keep updating the Lead until we have consensus for it. If consenus exists for the lead at any time - then we can move on. Here is the lead or opening:
Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds believed by EVP researchers to be of paranormal origin. They are detected on electronic recording media, and while the sounds are not present at the time of the recording, they are detected upon playback. They are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase, and are sometimes said to be in direct response to questions. EVP has been observed in diverse media, including but not limited to radio, shortwave radio ( hamradio), television, tape recorders and videorecorders. [1] They are typically recorded using audio recording devices or audio recording computer software.
Various ways of explaining EVP have emerged. Some who research EVP prefer paranormal hypotheses, such as that EVP are produced by spirits, psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, or in rare instances, thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. Non-paranormal explanations include ordinary noise mistaken as voices, flaws in the recording devices which produce voice-like sounds, and radio frequency contamination. Most investigations of EVP have been conducted by people with few academic credentials, and the scientific literature regarding EVP is very sparse. EVP are a subset of instrumental transcommunication.
Paranormal investigators use EVP as a tool in contacting the souls of loved ones and in haunting investigations. The term was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. [2] Previously the term “Raudive Voices” was used, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience. [3] [4] References to EVP have appeared in the reality television show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense. -- Northmeister 02:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I see no criticism section in that lead draft. There needs to be at least a paragraph dedicated to the criticism of EVP and it should likely be placed at the end of the lead. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds believed by EVP researchers to be of paranormal origin. They are detected on electronic recording media, and while the sounds are not present at the time of the recording, they are detected upon playback. They are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase, and are sometimes said to be in direct response to questions. EVP has been observed in diverse media, including but not limited to radio, shortwave radio ( hamradio), television, tape recorders and videorecorders. [5] They are typically recorded using audio recording devices or audio recording computer software. EVP are a subset of instrumental transcommunication.
Various ways of explaining EVP have emerged. Some who research EVP prefer paranormal hypotheses, such as that EVP are produced by spirits. They say that answers to questions are often recieved by EVP. Experiments show that differet people often interpret EVPs the same way, and that EVP can occur when radio interference has been blocked. Other paranormal explanations include psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, or in rare instances, thoughts of aliens or nature spirits.
Non-paranormal explanations include ordinary noise mistaken as voices, flaws in the recording devices which produce voice-like sounds, and radio frequency contamination, apophenia, processing artifacts, capture errors, and hoaxes. Psychological expectation may also play a role in perception of EVP. Critics say that EVP as a paranormal phenomenon does not exist. Most investigations of EVP have been conducted by people with few academic credentials, and the scientific literature regarding EVP is very sparse.
Paranormal investigators use EVP as a tool in contacting the souls of loved ones and in haunting investigations. The term was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. [6] Previously the term “Raudive Voices” was used, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience. [7] [4] References to EVP have appeared in the reality television show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense.
This version addresses WDM's suggestion above. Note that per WP:LEAD, the sections of the intro should be approximately in proportion to coverage in the article [13]. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds believed by some to be of paranormal origin. They are detected on electronic recording media, and while the sounds are not present at the time of the recording, they are detected upon playback. They are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase, and are sometimes said to be in direct response to questions. EVP has been observed in diverse media, including but not limited to radio, shortwave radio ( hamradio), television, tape recorders and videorecorders. [8] They are typically recorded using audio recording devices or audio recording computer software. EVP are a subset of instrumental transcommunication. Some individuals believe that Electronic voice phenomena are paranormal in origin and are produced by ghosts, psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, or thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. (Source needed)
Paranormal investigators use EVP as a tool in an attempt to contact the souls of dead loved ones and in [Ghost hunting]]. The term was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. [9] Previously the term “Raudive Voices” was used, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience. [10] [4] Today numerous organizations exist dedicated to EVP and included The American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena [11], The International Ghost Hunters Society [12], as well as The Rorschach Audio project. [13] References to EVP have appeared in the reality television show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense as well as literature including The Legion as well as Pattern Recognition.
Critics of Electronic voice phenomena contend that the sounds heard are due to non-paranormal phenomena such as fraud, misidentification or lack of quality of equipment. [14] Critics assert that the human brain is naturally evolved to interpret familiar patterns from sound and that this phenomena accounts for many instances of Electronic voice phenomena. The condition known as Auditory pareidolia (or Rorschach Audio) is said by critics to cause humans to interpret random sounds into voices in their own language which might otherwise sound like random noise to a foreign speaker. [15] Critics offer other alternative explanations for Electronic voice phenomena including low quality equipment used by those who hear voices in sound recordings. Sound engineers who use equipment at a much higher quality than that which is used by many EVP recorders have stated that they have never heard voices after years of listening to tape and hard disk recordings and that the low quality of the equipment used could account for a lot of the apparent voices. [14] Other explanations have also been put forward and include Apophenia (finding of significance or connections between insignificant or unrelated phenomena) [16] as well as hoaxes or pranks. [14]
(Please don't edit this draft). This version is one that I just wrote up. I would accept this as a lead to the article. Please add input. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Northmeister, Don't edit my proposal, Make a new one based off of mine and I'll read it and add my input. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds detected on electronic recording media, that are not present at the time of the recording, but detected upon playback. They are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase and are at times in direct response to questions. They are recorded using audio recording devices or audio recording computer software. The phenomena has been observed in diverse media, including: radio, shortwave radio ( hamradio), television, tape recorders and videorecorders. The term was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. Previously the term “Raudive Voices” was used, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience. EVP are a subset of the paranormal field of instrumental transcommunication.
EVP has been studied primarily by paranormal researchers since 1959. Notable researchers include Friedrich Jürgenson, Sarah Estep, and George Meek whose 'Spiricom' machine claimed to faciliate communication between this world and the spirit world, among others. These researchers have theorized that the phenomena may be: ghosts, psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, or thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. Paranormal investigators have used EVP in various ways including, as a tool in an attempt to contact the souls of dead loved ones and in Ghost hunting.
Critics of EVP have theorized that the sounds heard are of a non-paranormal nature. They explain that the human brain is naturally evolved to interpret familiar patterns from sound and that this phenomena accounts for many instances of apparent 'voices' or 'voice-like' sounds. The condition known as Auditory pareidolia (or Rorschach Audio) is said by critics to cause humans to interpret random sounds into voices in their own language which might otherwise sound like random noise to a foreign speaker. Sound engineers who use equipment at a much higher quality than that which is used by many EVP researchers have stated that they have never heard voices after years of listening to tape and hard disk recordings and that the low quality of the equipment used could account for many of the apparent voices. Critics have also concluded that certain cases might be Apophenia (finding of significance or connections between insignificant or unrelated phenomena), misidentification, or hoaxes.
Today numerous organizations exist dedicated to EVP and included the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena, the International Ghost Hunters Society, as well as the Rorschach Audio project. References to EVP have appeared in the reality television show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense as well as literature including the novels Legion and Pattern Recognition.
I've changed each paragraph, and tried to focus the opening on my vision of the article in addition to what we already have there. I took out references for now, and they can remain out if one feels that is necessary. I am open to any criticism of what I propose above. The basic structure is based upon Wikidudeman's proposal above. -- Northmeister 01:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to propose that we stick nearer to the version we already have. We can re-write it as much as necessary, and add or subtract. But if the only concerns here are NPOV, then it might be better to simply discuss additions or subtractions to the current lead. The current lead is better written than the replacements. This isn't to insult anyone, it's just that the lead in the article has had a lot more combing. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudeman (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are sounds thought to be speech or speech-like which are inaudible during recording but detected by some on electronic recording media and are a subset of the paranormal field of instrumental transcommunication. They are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase and are sometimes claimed to be in direct response to the questions of researchers. The phenomena has been observed on diverse media, including: radio, hamradio, television, tape recorders and videorecorders. The term was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. Previously the term “Raudive Voices” was used, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive, an early researcher. References to EVP have appeared in the reality television show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense as well as literature including the novels Legion and Pattern Recognition.
EVP has been studied primarily by paranormal researchers since the 1950s, who have concluded that the most likely explanation for the phenomena is that they are produced by the spirits of the deceased. In 1959, Attila Von Szalay first claimed to have recorded the 'voices of the dead', which lead to the experiments of Friedrich Jurgenson. The 1970s brought increased interest and research including the work of Konstantine Raudive. In 1980, William O'Neill backed by industrialist George Meek built a 'Spiricom' device which was said to facilitate very clear communication between this world and the spirit world. Research continues today through the work of many, including Sarah Estep and Alexander McRae. In addition to spirits, paranormal researchers have claimed that EVP could be due to: psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, or the thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. Paranormal investigators have used EVP in various ways including, as a tool in an attempt to contact the souls of dead loved ones and in Ghost hunting. Today numerous organizations exist dedicated to EVP and included the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena, the International Ghost Hunters Society, as well as the skeptical Rorschach Audio project.
Critics of Electronic voice phenomena contend that the sounds heard are due to non-paranormal phenomena such as fraud, misidentification or lack of quality of equipment. They explain that the human brain is naturally evolved to interpret familiar patterns from sound and that this phenomena accounts for many instances of apparent 'voices' or 'voice-like' sounds. The condition known as Auditory pareidolia (or Rorschach Audio) is said by critics to cause humans to interpret random sounds into voices in their own language which might otherwise sound like random noise to a foreign speaker. Sound engineers who use equipment at a much higher quality than that which is used by many EVP researchers have stated that they have never heard voices after years of listening to tape and hard disk recordings and that the low quality of the equipment used could account for many of the apparent voices. Critics have also concluded that certain cases might be Apophenia (finding of significance or connections between insignificant or unrelated phenomena), misidentification, or hoaxes.
The above is an altered version based upon the observations of Martin and Wikidudeman. I've moved material to conform to three paragraghs - organizations have been placed at the end of the second paragraph per Wikidudemans observation - the second sentence has been revised as well as the first using 'claimed' based upon the observations of Martin and Wikidudeman - the historic info has been expanded a little - and the first paragraph now includes popular interests to end it. -- Northmeister 15:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand where the "lack of quality equipment criticism comes from. EVPers use low-quality equipment, because it makes the white noise of which EVP are formed. To criticize that "equipment which doesn't have the prerequisites for EVP does not produce EVP" rather misses the point. And where is that from in the article? I don't see it, but maybe I have been too focused on particular sections? —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
My question was, what is the source for saying that critics say that EVP is the result of low quality equipment?
There is no criticism that I know of stating that the anomalies do not exist at all. Rather, the critics say they exist in all white noise (read the section), and are not paranormal. If you want to say this, we need a source that says so. Further, a source which is significant enough to change the article to such an extent that the summary should also be changed. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I have a suggestion for the second paragraph, which puts in a little more information and takes out a little stuff I don't think is very notable:
Especially since the 1950s, EVP has been studied by paranormal researchers, who usually said that the best explanation for EVP is that they are produced by spirits of the deceased. In 1959, Attila von Szalay first claimed to have recorded the voices of the dead on magnetic tape, and in 1980, William O'Neil constructed a Spiricom device which was said to faciliate very clear communication between this world and the spirit world. Researchers such as Sarah Estep and Alexander MacRae continue to do EVP research today, using varied means to produce the effect. Investigators also use EVP for such things as contacting the souls of dead loved ones and in Ghost hunting. Today numerous organizations dedicated to EVP exist, including the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena, the International Ghost Hunters Society, as well as the skeptical Rorschach Audio project. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:FRINGE: Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance for the idea among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted or labeled as mainstream unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. This is very important because unless we can find reliable sources that clarify the standing of EVP in the academic or scientific community then we need to assume that it has not received consideration or acceptance. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the present and proposed History within the TOC. It is in this section that the historic research of EVP phenomena should be presented. It is important to be precise, to summarize material as much as we can although in more detail than the lead, and to back up the material with reliable sources. All comments are welcomed and all suggested changes should be placed below ones comments so others can peruse that change. All concerned editors should acknowledge whether they feel any change suggested is OK or offer their own version to advance discussion. We can keep updating the History section until we have consensus for it. If consenus exists for the History section at any time - then we can move on as we did with the lead to produce the rough copy. Here is the present History section:
Following on the Spiritualist movement in the 1840s, there has been a concerted effort to communicate with the otherside. These initial efforts included seances and other non-technological methods. [17] With the creation of the wireless, this concept of communication with the dead expanded to the use of modern technology to achieve contact. Concerted research on technical means of communication grew rapidly in the latter part of the 20th century. [18]
In the 1920s, Thomas Edison told a reporter with Scientific American that he was working on a machine that could contact the dead. This story spread to numerous newspapers around the world. A few years later, Edison announced that he had been making a joke at the reporter's expense, and that he had not been working on such a device. [19] Though Edison did not attempt to create such a device [20], he did believe that spirits might make contact in the future through the advent of better technology. [21]
Attila von Szalay was among the first to claim to have recorded the voices of the dead. Working with Raymond Bayless, von Szalay conducted a number of recording sessions with a custom-made apparatus, consisting of a microphone in an insulated cabinet connected to an external recording device and speaker. Szalay reported finding many sounds on the tape that could not be heard on the speaker at the time of recording, some of which were recorded when there was no-one in the cabinet. He believed these sounds to be the voices of discarnate spirits. Von Szalay and Bayless' work was published by the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research in 1959. [22] Bayless later went on to co-author the 1979 book, Phone Calls From the Dead.
In 1959 Swedish film producer Friedrich Jürgenson captured, while recording bird songs, what appeared to be the discarnate voice of a man speaking Norwegian. He went on to make several more recordings, including one that he claimed contained a message from his late mother. [23]
Dr. Konstantin Raudive, a Latvian psychologist who had taught at the University of Uppsala, Sweden and who had worked in conjunction with Jürgenson, made over 100,000 EVP recordings. Some of these recordings were conducted in a RF-screened laboratory and contained identifiable words according to Raudive. [18] [24] In an attempt to confirm the content of his collection of recordings, Raudive invited listeners to hear and interpret them. [18] [25] [26] [27] [28] He believed that the clarity of the voices heard in his recordings implied that they could not be readily explained by normal means. [18] Raudive's research was formally published into his first book, "Breakthrough - An Amazing Experiment in Electronic Communication with the Dead" originally released in 1968 and translated into English in 1971. [29]
Since their release, Raudive's interpretations of his recordings have been criticized as being highly subjective, [30] and for the fact that the speech they are said to contain is often unrelated to questions that investigators posed during their recording. [31] Both Jürgenson and Raudive's recordings were said to contain sentences that were made up of several languages. [31]
In 1980, William O'Neil constructed an electronic audio device called "The Spiricom". O'Neil claimed the device was built to specifications which he received psychically from Dr. George Mueller, a scientist who had died six years previously. [32] [18] At a Washington, DC, press conference on April 6, 1982, O'Neil stated that he was able to hold two-way conversations with spirits through the Spiricom device, and provided the design specifications to researchers for free. However, nobody is known to have replicated O'Neil's results using their own Spiricom devices. [33] [34] O'Neil's partner, retired industrialist George Meek, attributed O'Neil's success, and the inability of others to replicate it, to O'Neil's psychic abilities forming part of the loop that made the system work. [32] [35]
In 1982, Sarah Estep founded the "American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena" in Severna Park, Maryland, a nonprofit organization with the purpose of increasing awareness of EVP, and of teaching standardized methods for capturing it. Estep began her exploration of EVP in 1976, and says she has made hundreds of recordings of messages from deceased friends, relatives, and other individuals, including Konstantin Raudive, Beethoven, a lamplighter from 18th century Philadelphia, PA, and extraterrestrials whom she speculated originated from other planets or dimensions.
In 1997, Imants Barušs, of the Department of Psychology at the University of Western Ontario, conducted a series of experiments using the methods of EVP investigator Konstantin Raudive, and the work of Instrumental Transcommunication (ITC) researcher Mark Macy, as a guide. A radio was tuned to an empty frequency, and over 81 sessions a total of 60 hours and 11 minutes of recordings were collected. During recordings, a researcher either sat in silence or attempted to make verbal contact with potential sources of EVP. [32] Barušs did record several events that sounded like voices, but they were too few and too random to represent viable data and too open to interpretation to be described definitively as EVP. He concluded: "While we did replicate EVP in the weak sense of finding voices on audio tapes, none of the phenomena found in our study was clearly anomalous, let alone attributable to discarnate beings. Hence we have failed to replicate EVP in the strong sense." The findings were published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration in 2001, and include a literature survey. [32]
In 2005 the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research published a report by paranormal investigator Alexander MacRae. MacRae conducted recording sessions using a device of his own design known as ALPHA. [36] MacRae reported that ALPHA is able to convert electrodermal responses into noise, which is then examined for EVP. In an attempt to demonstrate that different individuals would interpret EVP in the recordings the same way, MacRae asked seven people to compare some selections to a list of five phrases he provided, and to choose the best match. MacRae said his results indicated that the selections were not a form of Rorschach Audio, but were of paranormal origin. [37] [25] [38]
In addressing this section, it might be best to offer critiques under each subheader and simply update the material as we go along and can agree. Once each sub-section is agreed to we can then move it back in. Any new format here or subsection of History should be proposed below as we did with the lead and we can address this by placing it into the above proposal as necessary once we all agree. -- Northmeister 21:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Try to alter it and I'll tell you what I think. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
How about :"MacRae's opinion of the results were that the selections were not a form of Rorschach Audio but rather genuine voices with paranormal origins." Wikidudeman (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
New proposal: "Attila von Szalay (Sealay) was among the first to claim to have definitively recorded the voices of the dead."
Wikidudeman
(talk)
16:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
On the MacRae sentence: I find it a good rule of thumb to always think of the word "said" whenever these situations come up. So the sentence would be:
MacRae said his results indicated that the selections were not a form of Rorschach Audio, but were of paranormal origin.
This also stays closer (in the second half), to MacRae's actual quote above. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Implement it. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help) Cite error: The named reference "fontana1" was defined multiple times with different content (see the
help page).
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); templatestyles stripmarker in |isbn=
at position 1 (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
Baruss
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 18 |
On invitation, I've perviewed the article. I think your on your way to good article status. I've made some slight changes to the TOC, which you may change back if you feel it is necessary or better the other way. My main concern here and elsewhere is readability. The word 'paranormal' is used way to much as is 'hypothesis'. The opening paragraphs should focus first on the general concept and then go into skepticism by science or others. The article as a whole should focus on the general research and concept with the skeptics or scientific view holding its own in its own section which pretty much exists for the most part. I'm open to your thoughts on my observations and to working with the editors here to achieve a 'good article' status as you desire. On references - article seems well referenced. -- Northmeister 00:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Changed some words and tried to link Jurgenson - to no avail. We must not have an article on this person. Feel free to change what you like if you feel the original was better. Not sure if the Edison stuff works where it is. But, not sure what to do with it either. -- Northmeister 22:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone please format the refs. ASAP. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant references. Not EL's. I've changed it. The References need formating. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I've begun work on the history section. The Spricom subsection should mention George Meek [creation of the machine or at least contain more on him]. Right now I am using internet sources - but there must be better references to use instead. Here is something from Professor David Fontana on
ITC Journal website:
This seems like a reasonable guide for our history section, in so much as covering the research done in the EVP or ITC field. From what I've read, its becoming apparent that although EVP is more commonly known, it is considered a sub-field of ITC now; rather than as I thought; the other way around. We might want to consider moving everything to ITC with EVP as a subsection - but not sure of this. We should look into Bonner, Alsop, Schenider, Senkowski, Koenig etc. to see if they are worthy of inclusion in the history of this subject. -- Northmeister 00:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
[6] —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to expand into the topic of communicating with the dead with any technological means through electronic communication. I would propose that this article's name be changed to correspond to that. I would suggest that we also expand on attempts to communicate with the dead via television, computers, etc as well. I previously suggested merging this article with 'Instrumental transcommunication' but that's pretty unclar. Per the naming conventions we should use the most encompassing and popular name. What is the most common term used to communicate with the dead and is also most encompassing? Wikidudeman (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Whats other users thoughts on "Organizations" and "Popular Interests" sections? I feel they should simply be summarized much like "Organizations" at the Parapsychology article. Gives a better feel to the article. -- Northmeister 01:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and nominated for GA status [8]. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I've gone over the references extensively, and I do not see any problems. Fontana is the very least problematic source in the entire article. The other sources, such as the AA-EVP, are used with attribution, as are the critical sources such as those for Rorschach Audio. There are only a few sources I haven't gone over. Personally, I think it is amazing that an article on EVP has been sourced this well. Although there are quite a few EVP experts out there who haven't been sourced, I don't think the article needs them. If that is the only objection, I'll leave it up for GA. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Many of the sources cited in this article don't seem to meet the guidelines of reliable sources. One of the most cited sources is a book called "Is There an Afterlife: A Comprehensive Review of the Evidence." by someone named "David Fontana". How is this a reliable resource? What credentials does the author have that makes it reliable to be used as a source for all of the claims it's being used for? Wikidudeman (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
"His interest in psychical research goes back to boyhood. He was co-opted to the Council of the British Society for Psychical Research in 1992, elected to Council in 1993, served as President from 1996 to 1999, and is now a Vice-President and Chairman of the Society's Survival Research Committee. He has been investigating mediumship for many years, and takes a particular interest in poltergeist cases and in physical phenomena, writing widely on the subject. He worked with Montague Keen and Arthur Ellison on the extensive investigation of the phenomena witnessed at Scole in Britain, and was one of the co-authors of 'The Scole Report' (Proceedings of the society for Psychical Research 58, Part 220). " —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 14:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Baffling is a good word. I'll get the page numbers and/or ranges later, with quotes if needed. There is one error I'll correct immediately- I think it was mine, because I thought telegraph when Fontana said wireless. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 16:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know of any, But If anyone has his book they could just use the source he used (if he used one). Wikidudeman (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The reference to Fontana 366, while the page # isn't needed in the article, refers to
"These initial efforts included seances and other non-technological methods.[5] With the creation of the wireless, this concept of communication with the dead expanded to the use of modern technology to achieve contact. Concerted research on technical means of communication grew rapidly in the latter part of the 20th century (Fontana, p. 366).[6]"
Fontana is a secondary source, a monograph, and is WP:RS per:
"Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims. A journalist's story about a traffic accident or a Security Council resolution is a secondary source, assuming the journalist was not personally involved in either. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, is a secondary source." [12]
This is really the end of the issue as far as I am concerned. Comments from editors who are uninvolved in the article would be welcome. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the obvious issues with reliable sources and fringe sources being framed as objective, I see three major problems with the present article.
The article lead erroneously defines EVP as legitimate technological/scientific phenomena, rather than a claim or fringe belief.
There is no recognition of "Electronic Voice Phenomena" as "speech or speech-like sounds heard on electronic devices, but not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded" found in any professional technical journals of the audio recording industry, signal processing, or electrical engineering. Neither is the term found in current academic textbooks on the subjects, such as Speech and Audio Signal Processing: Processing and Perception of Speech and Music by Ben Gold, Nelson Morgan, Nelson Morgan Instead, engineering texts refer to the condition claimed by proponents as "EVP" as Rorschach Audio, a subset of Psychoacoustics.
Outside of the paranormal community, EVP is not recognized as a legitimate phenomena. So the term "EVP" must be clearly framed in the lead as a term originated and used specifically by its proponents and researchers.
Per WP:FRINGE, article weighting must reflect majority mainstream sources treatment of the subject. Mainstream reliable sources overwhelmingly characterize EVP as a claim, not as a legitimate phenomena.
Fringe journals call EVP "purported" rather than a legitimate phenomenona. Journal of Scientific Exploration: "(EVP) refers to the purported manifestation of voices of the dead and other discarnate entities through electronic means."
It's clear that EVP is not a legitimate observable phenomena and is not recognized outside of the paranormal milieu. Presenting the subject as a controversial "phenomena" and offering competing "explanations" is not appropriate and highly misleading. Rather, the proponents beliefs should be accurately reported as beliefs and opinions which are at odds with mainstream majority views on the subject.
The article inexplicably omits a Criticism section. There are plenty of WP:RS critics of "EVP", from Scientific American to James Randi. I suggest an appropriate criticism section be written.
-- LuckyLouie 01:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that was a GA review? Sorry, but you have been greatly involved in this article. We need someone to review who hasn't been involved- and who isn't biased. I'm hoping to bring in someone who is neutral on the issue of EVP, rather than someone who is part of the Rational Skepticism project which has as a goal to bring Skeptic's Dictionary into Wikipedia.
The Wikipedia:Good article candidates page says "Anyone who shows understanding of the criteria and the instructions below can review an article, as long as you are not a major contributor to the article being reviewed." —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I suppose you were trying to respond to the above, which was a response to WDM. You are quite wrong that I have caused chaos in this article. Nor have I attacked you. I made it plain that for reasons of bias and authorship, your GA review wasn't applicable to this article. Please also note that when I say "you are biased" that is merely shorthand for saying your suggestions and editing have been biased. That's all I'll say on this subject, except to ask you to read WP:NPA. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
PARANORMAL ARBCOM: The lead, and all subsequent portions of the article must adhere to the recent ArbCom on the paranormal.
WEIGHT: the article is about EVP, and will be mostly about EVP -intrinsically a paranormal subject- not about skepticism or about mainstream reactions to EVP.
NPOV: The article must be written in such a way as to not make up the reader's mind on the issue, except by presentation of evidence; that evidence must be presented in its proper sections. The actual status of EVP must be presented, which is that it has been pretty much ignored by the mainstream. EVP has not been rejected by the mainstream, because it has not been considered (or no one can find the studies). The one mainstream study (Brauss), is equivocal.
OR: There should be no OR in the article. Criticisms must adhere strictly to the OR policy, as must the other sections of the article.
CHANGES INSERTED: Changes should only be inserted with full consensus.
If Northmeister will lead this process, I accept it. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the present and proposed lead or opening to EVP. It is in this section that the entire article should be summarized for the reader. All comments are welcomed and all suggested changes should be placed in italics below ones comments so others can peruse that change. All concerned editors should acknowledge whether they feel any change suggested is OK or offer their own version to advance discussion. We can keep updating the Lead until we have consensus for it. If consenus exists for the lead at any time - then we can move on. Here is the lead or opening:
Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds believed by EVP researchers to be of paranormal origin. They are detected on electronic recording media, and while the sounds are not present at the time of the recording, they are detected upon playback. They are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase, and are sometimes said to be in direct response to questions. EVP has been observed in diverse media, including but not limited to radio, shortwave radio ( hamradio), television, tape recorders and videorecorders. [1] They are typically recorded using audio recording devices or audio recording computer software.
Various ways of explaining EVP have emerged. Some who research EVP prefer paranormal hypotheses, such as that EVP are produced by spirits, psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, or in rare instances, thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. Non-paranormal explanations include ordinary noise mistaken as voices, flaws in the recording devices which produce voice-like sounds, and radio frequency contamination. Most investigations of EVP have been conducted by people with few academic credentials, and the scientific literature regarding EVP is very sparse. EVP are a subset of instrumental transcommunication.
Paranormal investigators use EVP as a tool in contacting the souls of loved ones and in haunting investigations. The term was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. [2] Previously the term “Raudive Voices” was used, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience. [3] [4] References to EVP have appeared in the reality television show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense. -- Northmeister 02:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I see no criticism section in that lead draft. There needs to be at least a paragraph dedicated to the criticism of EVP and it should likely be placed at the end of the lead. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds believed by EVP researchers to be of paranormal origin. They are detected on electronic recording media, and while the sounds are not present at the time of the recording, they are detected upon playback. They are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase, and are sometimes said to be in direct response to questions. EVP has been observed in diverse media, including but not limited to radio, shortwave radio ( hamradio), television, tape recorders and videorecorders. [5] They are typically recorded using audio recording devices or audio recording computer software. EVP are a subset of instrumental transcommunication.
Various ways of explaining EVP have emerged. Some who research EVP prefer paranormal hypotheses, such as that EVP are produced by spirits. They say that answers to questions are often recieved by EVP. Experiments show that differet people often interpret EVPs the same way, and that EVP can occur when radio interference has been blocked. Other paranormal explanations include psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, or in rare instances, thoughts of aliens or nature spirits.
Non-paranormal explanations include ordinary noise mistaken as voices, flaws in the recording devices which produce voice-like sounds, and radio frequency contamination, apophenia, processing artifacts, capture errors, and hoaxes. Psychological expectation may also play a role in perception of EVP. Critics say that EVP as a paranormal phenomenon does not exist. Most investigations of EVP have been conducted by people with few academic credentials, and the scientific literature regarding EVP is very sparse.
Paranormal investigators use EVP as a tool in contacting the souls of loved ones and in haunting investigations. The term was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. [6] Previously the term “Raudive Voices” was used, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience. [7] [4] References to EVP have appeared in the reality television show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense.
This version addresses WDM's suggestion above. Note that per WP:LEAD, the sections of the intro should be approximately in proportion to coverage in the article [13]. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds believed by some to be of paranormal origin. They are detected on electronic recording media, and while the sounds are not present at the time of the recording, they are detected upon playback. They are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase, and are sometimes said to be in direct response to questions. EVP has been observed in diverse media, including but not limited to radio, shortwave radio ( hamradio), television, tape recorders and videorecorders. [8] They are typically recorded using audio recording devices or audio recording computer software. EVP are a subset of instrumental transcommunication. Some individuals believe that Electronic voice phenomena are paranormal in origin and are produced by ghosts, psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, or thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. (Source needed)
Paranormal investigators use EVP as a tool in an attempt to contact the souls of dead loved ones and in [Ghost hunting]]. The term was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. [9] Previously the term “Raudive Voices” was used, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience. [10] [4] Today numerous organizations exist dedicated to EVP and included The American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena [11], The International Ghost Hunters Society [12], as well as The Rorschach Audio project. [13] References to EVP have appeared in the reality television show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense as well as literature including The Legion as well as Pattern Recognition.
Critics of Electronic voice phenomena contend that the sounds heard are due to non-paranormal phenomena such as fraud, misidentification or lack of quality of equipment. [14] Critics assert that the human brain is naturally evolved to interpret familiar patterns from sound and that this phenomena accounts for many instances of Electronic voice phenomena. The condition known as Auditory pareidolia (or Rorschach Audio) is said by critics to cause humans to interpret random sounds into voices in their own language which might otherwise sound like random noise to a foreign speaker. [15] Critics offer other alternative explanations for Electronic voice phenomena including low quality equipment used by those who hear voices in sound recordings. Sound engineers who use equipment at a much higher quality than that which is used by many EVP recorders have stated that they have never heard voices after years of listening to tape and hard disk recordings and that the low quality of the equipment used could account for a lot of the apparent voices. [14] Other explanations have also been put forward and include Apophenia (finding of significance or connections between insignificant or unrelated phenomena) [16] as well as hoaxes or pranks. [14]
(Please don't edit this draft). This version is one that I just wrote up. I would accept this as a lead to the article. Please add input. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Northmeister, Don't edit my proposal, Make a new one based off of mine and I'll read it and add my input. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds detected on electronic recording media, that are not present at the time of the recording, but detected upon playback. They are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase and are at times in direct response to questions. They are recorded using audio recording devices or audio recording computer software. The phenomena has been observed in diverse media, including: radio, shortwave radio ( hamradio), television, tape recorders and videorecorders. The term was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. Previously the term “Raudive Voices” was used, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience. EVP are a subset of the paranormal field of instrumental transcommunication.
EVP has been studied primarily by paranormal researchers since 1959. Notable researchers include Friedrich Jürgenson, Sarah Estep, and George Meek whose 'Spiricom' machine claimed to faciliate communication between this world and the spirit world, among others. These researchers have theorized that the phenomena may be: ghosts, psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, or thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. Paranormal investigators have used EVP in various ways including, as a tool in an attempt to contact the souls of dead loved ones and in Ghost hunting.
Critics of EVP have theorized that the sounds heard are of a non-paranormal nature. They explain that the human brain is naturally evolved to interpret familiar patterns from sound and that this phenomena accounts for many instances of apparent 'voices' or 'voice-like' sounds. The condition known as Auditory pareidolia (or Rorschach Audio) is said by critics to cause humans to interpret random sounds into voices in their own language which might otherwise sound like random noise to a foreign speaker. Sound engineers who use equipment at a much higher quality than that which is used by many EVP researchers have stated that they have never heard voices after years of listening to tape and hard disk recordings and that the low quality of the equipment used could account for many of the apparent voices. Critics have also concluded that certain cases might be Apophenia (finding of significance or connections between insignificant or unrelated phenomena), misidentification, or hoaxes.
Today numerous organizations exist dedicated to EVP and included the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena, the International Ghost Hunters Society, as well as the Rorschach Audio project. References to EVP have appeared in the reality television show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense as well as literature including the novels Legion and Pattern Recognition.
I've changed each paragraph, and tried to focus the opening on my vision of the article in addition to what we already have there. I took out references for now, and they can remain out if one feels that is necessary. I am open to any criticism of what I propose above. The basic structure is based upon Wikidudeman's proposal above. -- Northmeister 01:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to propose that we stick nearer to the version we already have. We can re-write it as much as necessary, and add or subtract. But if the only concerns here are NPOV, then it might be better to simply discuss additions or subtractions to the current lead. The current lead is better written than the replacements. This isn't to insult anyone, it's just that the lead in the article has had a lot more combing. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudeman (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are sounds thought to be speech or speech-like which are inaudible during recording but detected by some on electronic recording media and are a subset of the paranormal field of instrumental transcommunication. They are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase and are sometimes claimed to be in direct response to the questions of researchers. The phenomena has been observed on diverse media, including: radio, hamradio, television, tape recorders and videorecorders. The term was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. Previously the term “Raudive Voices” was used, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive, an early researcher. References to EVP have appeared in the reality television show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense as well as literature including the novels Legion and Pattern Recognition.
EVP has been studied primarily by paranormal researchers since the 1950s, who have concluded that the most likely explanation for the phenomena is that they are produced by the spirits of the deceased. In 1959, Attila Von Szalay first claimed to have recorded the 'voices of the dead', which lead to the experiments of Friedrich Jurgenson. The 1970s brought increased interest and research including the work of Konstantine Raudive. In 1980, William O'Neill backed by industrialist George Meek built a 'Spiricom' device which was said to facilitate very clear communication between this world and the spirit world. Research continues today through the work of many, including Sarah Estep and Alexander McRae. In addition to spirits, paranormal researchers have claimed that EVP could be due to: psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, or the thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. Paranormal investigators have used EVP in various ways including, as a tool in an attempt to contact the souls of dead loved ones and in Ghost hunting. Today numerous organizations exist dedicated to EVP and included the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena, the International Ghost Hunters Society, as well as the skeptical Rorschach Audio project.
Critics of Electronic voice phenomena contend that the sounds heard are due to non-paranormal phenomena such as fraud, misidentification or lack of quality of equipment. They explain that the human brain is naturally evolved to interpret familiar patterns from sound and that this phenomena accounts for many instances of apparent 'voices' or 'voice-like' sounds. The condition known as Auditory pareidolia (or Rorschach Audio) is said by critics to cause humans to interpret random sounds into voices in their own language which might otherwise sound like random noise to a foreign speaker. Sound engineers who use equipment at a much higher quality than that which is used by many EVP researchers have stated that they have never heard voices after years of listening to tape and hard disk recordings and that the low quality of the equipment used could account for many of the apparent voices. Critics have also concluded that certain cases might be Apophenia (finding of significance or connections between insignificant or unrelated phenomena), misidentification, or hoaxes.
The above is an altered version based upon the observations of Martin and Wikidudeman. I've moved material to conform to three paragraghs - organizations have been placed at the end of the second paragraph per Wikidudemans observation - the second sentence has been revised as well as the first using 'claimed' based upon the observations of Martin and Wikidudeman - the historic info has been expanded a little - and the first paragraph now includes popular interests to end it. -- Northmeister 15:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand where the "lack of quality equipment criticism comes from. EVPers use low-quality equipment, because it makes the white noise of which EVP are formed. To criticize that "equipment which doesn't have the prerequisites for EVP does not produce EVP" rather misses the point. And where is that from in the article? I don't see it, but maybe I have been too focused on particular sections? —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
My question was, what is the source for saying that critics say that EVP is the result of low quality equipment?
There is no criticism that I know of stating that the anomalies do not exist at all. Rather, the critics say they exist in all white noise (read the section), and are not paranormal. If you want to say this, we need a source that says so. Further, a source which is significant enough to change the article to such an extent that the summary should also be changed. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I have a suggestion for the second paragraph, which puts in a little more information and takes out a little stuff I don't think is very notable:
Especially since the 1950s, EVP has been studied by paranormal researchers, who usually said that the best explanation for EVP is that they are produced by spirits of the deceased. In 1959, Attila von Szalay first claimed to have recorded the voices of the dead on magnetic tape, and in 1980, William O'Neil constructed a Spiricom device which was said to faciliate very clear communication between this world and the spirit world. Researchers such as Sarah Estep and Alexander MacRae continue to do EVP research today, using varied means to produce the effect. Investigators also use EVP for such things as contacting the souls of dead loved ones and in Ghost hunting. Today numerous organizations dedicated to EVP exist, including the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena, the International Ghost Hunters Society, as well as the skeptical Rorschach Audio project. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:FRINGE: Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance for the idea among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted or labeled as mainstream unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. This is very important because unless we can find reliable sources that clarify the standing of EVP in the academic or scientific community then we need to assume that it has not received consideration or acceptance. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the present and proposed History within the TOC. It is in this section that the historic research of EVP phenomena should be presented. It is important to be precise, to summarize material as much as we can although in more detail than the lead, and to back up the material with reliable sources. All comments are welcomed and all suggested changes should be placed below ones comments so others can peruse that change. All concerned editors should acknowledge whether they feel any change suggested is OK or offer their own version to advance discussion. We can keep updating the History section until we have consensus for it. If consenus exists for the History section at any time - then we can move on as we did with the lead to produce the rough copy. Here is the present History section:
Following on the Spiritualist movement in the 1840s, there has been a concerted effort to communicate with the otherside. These initial efforts included seances and other non-technological methods. [17] With the creation of the wireless, this concept of communication with the dead expanded to the use of modern technology to achieve contact. Concerted research on technical means of communication grew rapidly in the latter part of the 20th century. [18]
In the 1920s, Thomas Edison told a reporter with Scientific American that he was working on a machine that could contact the dead. This story spread to numerous newspapers around the world. A few years later, Edison announced that he had been making a joke at the reporter's expense, and that he had not been working on such a device. [19] Though Edison did not attempt to create such a device [20], he did believe that spirits might make contact in the future through the advent of better technology. [21]
Attila von Szalay was among the first to claim to have recorded the voices of the dead. Working with Raymond Bayless, von Szalay conducted a number of recording sessions with a custom-made apparatus, consisting of a microphone in an insulated cabinet connected to an external recording device and speaker. Szalay reported finding many sounds on the tape that could not be heard on the speaker at the time of recording, some of which were recorded when there was no-one in the cabinet. He believed these sounds to be the voices of discarnate spirits. Von Szalay and Bayless' work was published by the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research in 1959. [22] Bayless later went on to co-author the 1979 book, Phone Calls From the Dead.
In 1959 Swedish film producer Friedrich Jürgenson captured, while recording bird songs, what appeared to be the discarnate voice of a man speaking Norwegian. He went on to make several more recordings, including one that he claimed contained a message from his late mother. [23]
Dr. Konstantin Raudive, a Latvian psychologist who had taught at the University of Uppsala, Sweden and who had worked in conjunction with Jürgenson, made over 100,000 EVP recordings. Some of these recordings were conducted in a RF-screened laboratory and contained identifiable words according to Raudive. [18] [24] In an attempt to confirm the content of his collection of recordings, Raudive invited listeners to hear and interpret them. [18] [25] [26] [27] [28] He believed that the clarity of the voices heard in his recordings implied that they could not be readily explained by normal means. [18] Raudive's research was formally published into his first book, "Breakthrough - An Amazing Experiment in Electronic Communication with the Dead" originally released in 1968 and translated into English in 1971. [29]
Since their release, Raudive's interpretations of his recordings have been criticized as being highly subjective, [30] and for the fact that the speech they are said to contain is often unrelated to questions that investigators posed during their recording. [31] Both Jürgenson and Raudive's recordings were said to contain sentences that were made up of several languages. [31]
In 1980, William O'Neil constructed an electronic audio device called "The Spiricom". O'Neil claimed the device was built to specifications which he received psychically from Dr. George Mueller, a scientist who had died six years previously. [32] [18] At a Washington, DC, press conference on April 6, 1982, O'Neil stated that he was able to hold two-way conversations with spirits through the Spiricom device, and provided the design specifications to researchers for free. However, nobody is known to have replicated O'Neil's results using their own Spiricom devices. [33] [34] O'Neil's partner, retired industrialist George Meek, attributed O'Neil's success, and the inability of others to replicate it, to O'Neil's psychic abilities forming part of the loop that made the system work. [32] [35]
In 1982, Sarah Estep founded the "American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena" in Severna Park, Maryland, a nonprofit organization with the purpose of increasing awareness of EVP, and of teaching standardized methods for capturing it. Estep began her exploration of EVP in 1976, and says she has made hundreds of recordings of messages from deceased friends, relatives, and other individuals, including Konstantin Raudive, Beethoven, a lamplighter from 18th century Philadelphia, PA, and extraterrestrials whom she speculated originated from other planets or dimensions.
In 1997, Imants Barušs, of the Department of Psychology at the University of Western Ontario, conducted a series of experiments using the methods of EVP investigator Konstantin Raudive, and the work of Instrumental Transcommunication (ITC) researcher Mark Macy, as a guide. A radio was tuned to an empty frequency, and over 81 sessions a total of 60 hours and 11 minutes of recordings were collected. During recordings, a researcher either sat in silence or attempted to make verbal contact with potential sources of EVP. [32] Barušs did record several events that sounded like voices, but they were too few and too random to represent viable data and too open to interpretation to be described definitively as EVP. He concluded: "While we did replicate EVP in the weak sense of finding voices on audio tapes, none of the phenomena found in our study was clearly anomalous, let alone attributable to discarnate beings. Hence we have failed to replicate EVP in the strong sense." The findings were published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration in 2001, and include a literature survey. [32]
In 2005 the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research published a report by paranormal investigator Alexander MacRae. MacRae conducted recording sessions using a device of his own design known as ALPHA. [36] MacRae reported that ALPHA is able to convert electrodermal responses into noise, which is then examined for EVP. In an attempt to demonstrate that different individuals would interpret EVP in the recordings the same way, MacRae asked seven people to compare some selections to a list of five phrases he provided, and to choose the best match. MacRae said his results indicated that the selections were not a form of Rorschach Audio, but were of paranormal origin. [37] [25] [38]
In addressing this section, it might be best to offer critiques under each subheader and simply update the material as we go along and can agree. Once each sub-section is agreed to we can then move it back in. Any new format here or subsection of History should be proposed below as we did with the lead and we can address this by placing it into the above proposal as necessary once we all agree. -- Northmeister 21:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Try to alter it and I'll tell you what I think. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
How about :"MacRae's opinion of the results were that the selections were not a form of Rorschach Audio but rather genuine voices with paranormal origins." Wikidudeman (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
New proposal: "Attila von Szalay (Sealay) was among the first to claim to have definitively recorded the voices of the dead."
Wikidudeman
(talk)
16:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
On the MacRae sentence: I find it a good rule of thumb to always think of the word "said" whenever these situations come up. So the sentence would be:
MacRae said his results indicated that the selections were not a form of Rorschach Audio, but were of paranormal origin.
This also stays closer (in the second half), to MacRae's actual quote above. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Implement it. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help) Cite error: The named reference "fontana1" was defined multiple times with different content (see the
help page).
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); templatestyles stripmarker in |isbn=
at position 1 (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
Baruss
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)