![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I've went ahead and archived the talk page since it has had no action for about a month now and I wanted to create room for new discussions. I want to create a Electronic voice phenomenon rewrite project to rewrite this article and turn it into a Good article and possibly a Featured article soon. For those of you unfamiliar with how this will work Please see the Parapsychology article for more information. What will happen is I will create a subpage on my namesake and will invite all major contributors of this article as well as anyone else who wants to contribute to come to the namesake to discuss the article. I haven't definitely decided to invest time into this yet, however if I get a positive reaction from most editors to this page then I will do so. I will rewrite this article and create a subpage on my namesake and invite all major contributors to come make proposals to change the article. To prevent edit wars, no one will be able to edit the draft except for me, however once everyone agrees on the page, we can replace it with this one and then anyone interested can improve it themselves. Major edits should be posted prior to being made to check consensus though. Based on the answers to the following questions, I will decide whether or not I will invest time to rewrite this article. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Here are a few questions for the major editors of this page. Anyone who has in the past and plans to contribute in the future can answer these questions. The questions will be very simple and the answers should be very simple. Please put a * right below each question if you are the first to answer and right below each answer after that. Here are the questions.
Do you believe EVP as a whole, including it's methods and basis, is controversial both within and outside the scientific community(Controversial doesn't necessarily mean invalid or fraudulently)?
Do you believe that in order to follow NPOV, Wikipedia must represent the relevant criticisms corresponding to the amount of criticisms existing as a whole?
For the sake of the article, are you willing to make compromises?
Please answer all questions right beside the * and use a new * below each answer for new answers. Please keep your answers short. Maximum 3 sentences. Preferably a "Yes" or "No though. I'm going to wait a few days for a lot of people to respond to these answers before I start taking time to work on a new version of this page. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Now that we have the recent Arbitration under out belts, let's try and edit this article in the normal way. At least give it a chance. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I did find the exercise on Wikidudeman's page for parapsychology pretty one-sided. It was interesting to me that there were no or few drop-in editors during that process. There are skeptical editors who will use extreme measures to keep their viewpoint in this article, and going off to a corner to agree on a re-write amongst a few editors will only delay their actions.
The recent arbitration does seem to have included points applicable to EVP. For instance, Adequate framing 6a) should apply to this article. Also, the article currently contains brief mention of what EVP are thought to be and a large section on what it is not including quotes from all sorts of skeptical "experts" in the field. (I assume they are EVP experts ... right?) I personally think that, as written, the article will continue to invite attack and at least the "Explanations" need to be rewritten. I also think the work should be done here. Tom Butler 17:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I've made some changes which generally serve to make the article more readable. In addition, I've included more linked words which frame the subject for the reader, such as psychic paranormal and aliens, where it says "Extraterrestrial life is life originating outside of the Earth. Its existence remains theoretical; there is no evidence of extraterrestrial life that has been widely accepted by the scientific community."
The general gist of my edits has been to strengthen the skeptical side of the article, by framing it better (per recent ArbCom). I believe that we need more discussion of paranormal explanations, to balance the section on normal explanations, per WP:WEIGHT. Aside from that, while there may be factual errors I'm missing, the article seems OK, and with only minor changes I think it can be left as it is. After all, it has been stable for a long time now. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I took that tag out. I have a hunch it was put there by Davkal, and he isn't here. I don't see any major POV bias in the article, except a small WEIGHT issue in one section. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Just so everyone is clear on WP:V, a fundamental policy on Wikipedia:
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."
Per policy, let's make sure that we're accurately reflecting what the sources say and that we're using reliable sources. Ante lan talk 21:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
If you are, then that's fine. Not exactly knowledgeable about the subject, though. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I combined the one-sentence second paragraph explaining the non-paranormal viewpoint with the first paragraph. This way, all of the explanations are given in one place. Martinphi, you reverted this change; however, I believe my version to be more neutral. Martinphi, if you actually believe that separating those explanations is truly neutral, then let's rearrange them and put the non-paranormal explanations first since doing so would be equally neutral. Do you see my concern with separating them now? Ante lan talk 21:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Antelan, what you just did is non-consensual, disruptive editing. If you keep this up, that tag is going to be on the article forever and ever. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
For god's sake, Davkal, I'm glad you're here, but get some civility.
Antelan, don't make non-consensual changes, and don't edit war. You are being a disruptive editor. Please see above for content issues. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm unwatching this for now. Ante lan talk 23:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Should this article go through a re-write the same way the Parapsychology article did? By this I mean I re-write the article and then invite everyone to the talk page of the draft to propose changes. Who is willing to do this?
Please just sign your name under "Willing" or "Not willing" if you're willing or not willing to go through re-write similar to Parapsychology, in order to get this to at least a Good Article. Thanks Wikidudeman (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I can appreciate Wikidudeman's attempt to steer discussions, but since edit warring has already broken out, I'm for dealing with the situation at present. (Not to mention the fact that my experience with wholesale rewrites of articles, particularly in the absence of someone acting as a mediator, is not encouraging.) In general, I tend to prefer the version that Antelan is seeking to preserve, than the one Davkal is reverting to. I think it's of more value to the lay reader. That's not to say that there aren't worthwhile things (or less than useful things) in each version, but taken as a whole I prefer Ant's. — e. ripley\ talk 00:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
SheffieldSteel just made some very nice changes, which I think, for one thing, took care of the objection Antelan had. Paranormal should be contrasted with normal, and natural should be contrasted with supernatural. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
"Electronic voice phenomenon (EVP)" is a term used to refer speech or speech-like sounds that are captured on recorded media or other electronic devices. As a definition, this is absurd. It covers song, and speech in the ordinary non-paranormal sense. I recognize the difficulties of saying first whether it is paranormal or normal misinterpreted, but something more meaningful is needed. DGG ( talk) 01:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Electronic voice phenomenon (EVP) is a term used to refer speech or speech-like sounds of uncertain origin which are captured on recorded media or other electronic devices. They are believed by some to be of paranormal origin, for example the voices of spirits. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't my post, but:
Anyone have anything to say about my latest suggestion? Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the current article as trying to prove it either way. I see it as describing the controversy- which is good. There is an issue of
WP:WEIGHT because the paranormal explanations are so much smaller than the normal explanations. But I don't see the article as trying to prove anything. We're trying to work out the first sentence now. What do you think of this latest version:
Electronic voice phenomenon (EVP) is a term used to refer speech or speech-like sounds of uncertain origin which are captured on recorded media or other electronic devices. They are believed by some to be of paranormal origin, for example the voices of spirits. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I see very little wrong with that. I'd use the word "deceased" and link to soul instead of "discarnate," which is jargon. Here:
'Electronic voice phenomenon (EVP) is defined as speech or speech-like sounds that occur on electronic devices, but are not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded. They are thought by some to be of
paranormal origin. The term itself was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s, [5] replacing the term “Raudive Voices”, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive. [6][2] References to EVP have appeared in pop culture such as in the Reality TV show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense.
Normal hypotheses designed to explain EVP include ordinary sounds mistaken as voices, flaws in the recording devices which produce voice-like sounds, and radio frequency contamination. Paranormal hypotheses include psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis of the living, thoughts of deceased people, and in rare instances, thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. EVP are a subset of Instrumental TransCommunication which also includes visual anomalies.
EVP are typically short, usually the length of a word or short phrase. Paranormal investigators use EVP as a tool for such purposes as hauntings investigations, and contacting spirits. The basis in fact for these uses are anecdotal and not necessarily empirically supported by science. Most investigation of EVP has been conducted by people with few academic credentials. The current status of EVP is that there has not yet been sufficient study by academically trained scientists to characterize it in scientific terms.
Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds that occur on electronic devices, but are not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded. They are thought by some to be of paranormal origin. The term itself was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. [1] Previously the term “Raudive Voices”, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience, was used. [2] [3] References to EVP have appeared in pop culture such as in the Reality TV show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense.
Normal hypotheses designed to explain EVP include ordinary sounds mistaken as voices, flaws in the recording devices which produce voice-like sounds, and radio frequency contamination. Paranormal hypotheses include psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, thoughts of spirits, and in rare instances, thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. EVP are a subset of Instrumental TransCommunication which also includes visual anomalies.
EVP are typically short, usually the length of a word or short phrase. Paranormal investigators use EVP as a tool for such purposes as haunting investigations, and contacting the souls of loved ones. The basis in fact for these uses are anecdotal and not necessarily scientifically supported. Most investigation of EVP has been conducted by people with few academic credentials. The current status of EVP is that there has not yet been sufficient study by academically trained scientists to characterize it in scientific terms.
I don't know how to get away from the word "psychic." Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Since you all seem to be making at least some progress in talking, I'll come back in a week or two to see how everything is progressing. If little progress has been made then maybe we can go ahead with my rewrite proposal. I'm going to unwatch this and work on other pages, so if anyone has any questions they should add them to my talk page. See you all around. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
If no one has any objections -it's been 8 or 9 days- I'll install the new version of the intro as the consensus version tonight. Here is is:
Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds that occur on electronic devices, but are not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded. They are thought by some to be of paranormal origin. The term itself was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. [4] Previously the term “Raudive Voices”, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience, was used. [5] [3] References to EVP have appeared in pop culture such as in the Reality TV show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense.
Normal hypotheses designed to explain EVP include ordinary sounds mistaken as voices, flaws in the recording devices which produce voice-like sounds, and radio frequency contamination. Paranormal hypotheses include psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, thoughts of spirits, and in rare instances, thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. EVP are a subset of Instrumental TransCommunication which also includes visual anomalies.
EVP are typically short, usually the length of a word or short phrase. Paranormal investigators use EVP as a tool for such purposes as haunting investigations, and contacting the souls of loved ones. The basis in fact for these uses are anecdotal and not necessarily scientifically supported. Most investigation of EVP has been conducted by people with few academic credentials. The current status of EVP is that there has not yet been sufficient study by academically trained scientists to characterize it in scientific terms.
––– Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
1.Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds that occur on electronic devices, but are not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded. Too broad a description as there are always recorded sounds not heard by the human recording operator at the time of recording, and in any case, such a textbook definition would have to be verified and attributed to an authoritative source dealing specifically with audio, a technical body such as the Audio Engineering Society. What defines EVP is They are thought by some to be of paranormal origin. I suggest the two sentences be connected: Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds that occur on electronic devices, not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded, and thought by some to be of paranormal origin.
2. "The current status of EVP is that there has not yet been sufficient study by academically trained scientists to characterize it in scientific terms." There is no authoritative source backing this statement. If it is the opinion of an individual or a group, it must be stated as such and properly attributed.
-- LuckyLouie 23:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Revised in line with criticism:
Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds that occur on electronic devices, but are not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded, and thought by some to be of paranormal origin. The term itself was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. [6] Previously the term “Raudive Voices”, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience, was used. [7] [3] References to EVP have appeared in pop culture such as in the Reality TV show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense.
Normal hypotheses designed to explain EVP include ordinary sounds mistaken as voices, flaws in the recording devices which produce voice-like sounds, and radio frequency contamination. Paranormal hypotheses include psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, thoughts of spirits, and in rare instances, thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. EVP are a subset of Instrumental TransCommunication which also includes visual anomalies.
EVP are typically short, usually the length of a word or short phrase. Paranormal investigators use EVP as a tool for such purposes as haunting investigations, and contacting the souls of loved ones. The basis in fact for these uses are anecdotal and not necessarily scientifically supported. Most investigation of EVP has been conducted by people with few academic credentials. EVP is has not been thoroughly studied by academically trained scientists.
I think the last sentence is self evident, does anyone disagree? ––– Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds that occur on electronic devices, but are not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded, and thought by some to be of paranormal origin. The term itself was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. [8] Previously the term “Raudive Voices”, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience, was used. [9] [3] References to EVP have appeared in pop culture such as in the Reality TV show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense.
Normal hypotheses designed to explain EVP include ordinary sounds mistaken as voices, flaws in the recording devices which produce voice-like sounds, and radio frequency contamination. Paranormal hypotheses include psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, thoughts of spirits, and in rare instances, thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. EVP are a subset of Instrumental TransCommunication which also includes visual anomalies.
EVP are typically short, usually the length of a word or short phrase. Paranormal investigators use EVP as a tool for such purposes as haunting investigations, and contacting the souls of loved ones. The basis in fact for these uses are anecdotal and not necessarily scientifically supported. Most investigation of EVP has been conducted by people with few academic credentials, and the scientific literature regarding EVP is very sparse.
The literature in the scientific journals as regards EVP as defined -paranormal- is very sparse. ––– Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I've went ahead and archived the talk page since it has had no action for about a month now and I wanted to create room for new discussions. I want to create a Electronic voice phenomenon rewrite project to rewrite this article and turn it into a Good article and possibly a Featured article soon. For those of you unfamiliar with how this will work Please see the Parapsychology article for more information. What will happen is I will create a subpage on my namesake and will invite all major contributors of this article as well as anyone else who wants to contribute to come to the namesake to discuss the article. I haven't definitely decided to invest time into this yet, however if I get a positive reaction from most editors to this page then I will do so. I will rewrite this article and create a subpage on my namesake and invite all major contributors to come make proposals to change the article. To prevent edit wars, no one will be able to edit the draft except for me, however once everyone agrees on the page, we can replace it with this one and then anyone interested can improve it themselves. Major edits should be posted prior to being made to check consensus though. Based on the answers to the following questions, I will decide whether or not I will invest time to rewrite this article. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Here are a few questions for the major editors of this page. Anyone who has in the past and plans to contribute in the future can answer these questions. The questions will be very simple and the answers should be very simple. Please put a * right below each question if you are the first to answer and right below each answer after that. Here are the questions.
Do you believe EVP as a whole, including it's methods and basis, is controversial both within and outside the scientific community(Controversial doesn't necessarily mean invalid or fraudulently)?
Do you believe that in order to follow NPOV, Wikipedia must represent the relevant criticisms corresponding to the amount of criticisms existing as a whole?
For the sake of the article, are you willing to make compromises?
Please answer all questions right beside the * and use a new * below each answer for new answers. Please keep your answers short. Maximum 3 sentences. Preferably a "Yes" or "No though. I'm going to wait a few days for a lot of people to respond to these answers before I start taking time to work on a new version of this page. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Now that we have the recent Arbitration under out belts, let's try and edit this article in the normal way. At least give it a chance. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I did find the exercise on Wikidudeman's page for parapsychology pretty one-sided. It was interesting to me that there were no or few drop-in editors during that process. There are skeptical editors who will use extreme measures to keep their viewpoint in this article, and going off to a corner to agree on a re-write amongst a few editors will only delay their actions.
The recent arbitration does seem to have included points applicable to EVP. For instance, Adequate framing 6a) should apply to this article. Also, the article currently contains brief mention of what EVP are thought to be and a large section on what it is not including quotes from all sorts of skeptical "experts" in the field. (I assume they are EVP experts ... right?) I personally think that, as written, the article will continue to invite attack and at least the "Explanations" need to be rewritten. I also think the work should be done here. Tom Butler 17:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I've made some changes which generally serve to make the article more readable. In addition, I've included more linked words which frame the subject for the reader, such as psychic paranormal and aliens, where it says "Extraterrestrial life is life originating outside of the Earth. Its existence remains theoretical; there is no evidence of extraterrestrial life that has been widely accepted by the scientific community."
The general gist of my edits has been to strengthen the skeptical side of the article, by framing it better (per recent ArbCom). I believe that we need more discussion of paranormal explanations, to balance the section on normal explanations, per WP:WEIGHT. Aside from that, while there may be factual errors I'm missing, the article seems OK, and with only minor changes I think it can be left as it is. After all, it has been stable for a long time now. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I took that tag out. I have a hunch it was put there by Davkal, and he isn't here. I don't see any major POV bias in the article, except a small WEIGHT issue in one section. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Just so everyone is clear on WP:V, a fundamental policy on Wikipedia:
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."
Per policy, let's make sure that we're accurately reflecting what the sources say and that we're using reliable sources. Ante lan talk 21:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
If you are, then that's fine. Not exactly knowledgeable about the subject, though. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I combined the one-sentence second paragraph explaining the non-paranormal viewpoint with the first paragraph. This way, all of the explanations are given in one place. Martinphi, you reverted this change; however, I believe my version to be more neutral. Martinphi, if you actually believe that separating those explanations is truly neutral, then let's rearrange them and put the non-paranormal explanations first since doing so would be equally neutral. Do you see my concern with separating them now? Ante lan talk 21:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Antelan, what you just did is non-consensual, disruptive editing. If you keep this up, that tag is going to be on the article forever and ever. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
For god's sake, Davkal, I'm glad you're here, but get some civility.
Antelan, don't make non-consensual changes, and don't edit war. You are being a disruptive editor. Please see above for content issues. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm unwatching this for now. Ante lan talk 23:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Should this article go through a re-write the same way the Parapsychology article did? By this I mean I re-write the article and then invite everyone to the talk page of the draft to propose changes. Who is willing to do this?
Please just sign your name under "Willing" or "Not willing" if you're willing or not willing to go through re-write similar to Parapsychology, in order to get this to at least a Good Article. Thanks Wikidudeman (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I can appreciate Wikidudeman's attempt to steer discussions, but since edit warring has already broken out, I'm for dealing with the situation at present. (Not to mention the fact that my experience with wholesale rewrites of articles, particularly in the absence of someone acting as a mediator, is not encouraging.) In general, I tend to prefer the version that Antelan is seeking to preserve, than the one Davkal is reverting to. I think it's of more value to the lay reader. That's not to say that there aren't worthwhile things (or less than useful things) in each version, but taken as a whole I prefer Ant's. — e. ripley\ talk 00:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
SheffieldSteel just made some very nice changes, which I think, for one thing, took care of the objection Antelan had. Paranormal should be contrasted with normal, and natural should be contrasted with supernatural. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
"Electronic voice phenomenon (EVP)" is a term used to refer speech or speech-like sounds that are captured on recorded media or other electronic devices. As a definition, this is absurd. It covers song, and speech in the ordinary non-paranormal sense. I recognize the difficulties of saying first whether it is paranormal or normal misinterpreted, but something more meaningful is needed. DGG ( talk) 01:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Electronic voice phenomenon (EVP) is a term used to refer speech or speech-like sounds of uncertain origin which are captured on recorded media or other electronic devices. They are believed by some to be of paranormal origin, for example the voices of spirits. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't my post, but:
Anyone have anything to say about my latest suggestion? Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the current article as trying to prove it either way. I see it as describing the controversy- which is good. There is an issue of
WP:WEIGHT because the paranormal explanations are so much smaller than the normal explanations. But I don't see the article as trying to prove anything. We're trying to work out the first sentence now. What do you think of this latest version:
Electronic voice phenomenon (EVP) is a term used to refer speech or speech-like sounds of uncertain origin which are captured on recorded media or other electronic devices. They are believed by some to be of paranormal origin, for example the voices of spirits. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I see very little wrong with that. I'd use the word "deceased" and link to soul instead of "discarnate," which is jargon. Here:
'Electronic voice phenomenon (EVP) is defined as speech or speech-like sounds that occur on electronic devices, but are not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded. They are thought by some to be of
paranormal origin. The term itself was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s, [5] replacing the term “Raudive Voices”, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive. [6][2] References to EVP have appeared in pop culture such as in the Reality TV show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense.
Normal hypotheses designed to explain EVP include ordinary sounds mistaken as voices, flaws in the recording devices which produce voice-like sounds, and radio frequency contamination. Paranormal hypotheses include psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis of the living, thoughts of deceased people, and in rare instances, thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. EVP are a subset of Instrumental TransCommunication which also includes visual anomalies.
EVP are typically short, usually the length of a word or short phrase. Paranormal investigators use EVP as a tool for such purposes as hauntings investigations, and contacting spirits. The basis in fact for these uses are anecdotal and not necessarily empirically supported by science. Most investigation of EVP has been conducted by people with few academic credentials. The current status of EVP is that there has not yet been sufficient study by academically trained scientists to characterize it in scientific terms.
Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds that occur on electronic devices, but are not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded. They are thought by some to be of paranormal origin. The term itself was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. [1] Previously the term “Raudive Voices”, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience, was used. [2] [3] References to EVP have appeared in pop culture such as in the Reality TV show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense.
Normal hypotheses designed to explain EVP include ordinary sounds mistaken as voices, flaws in the recording devices which produce voice-like sounds, and radio frequency contamination. Paranormal hypotheses include psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, thoughts of spirits, and in rare instances, thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. EVP are a subset of Instrumental TransCommunication which also includes visual anomalies.
EVP are typically short, usually the length of a word or short phrase. Paranormal investigators use EVP as a tool for such purposes as haunting investigations, and contacting the souls of loved ones. The basis in fact for these uses are anecdotal and not necessarily scientifically supported. Most investigation of EVP has been conducted by people with few academic credentials. The current status of EVP is that there has not yet been sufficient study by academically trained scientists to characterize it in scientific terms.
I don't know how to get away from the word "psychic." Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Since you all seem to be making at least some progress in talking, I'll come back in a week or two to see how everything is progressing. If little progress has been made then maybe we can go ahead with my rewrite proposal. I'm going to unwatch this and work on other pages, so if anyone has any questions they should add them to my talk page. See you all around. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
If no one has any objections -it's been 8 or 9 days- I'll install the new version of the intro as the consensus version tonight. Here is is:
Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds that occur on electronic devices, but are not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded. They are thought by some to be of paranormal origin. The term itself was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. [4] Previously the term “Raudive Voices”, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience, was used. [5] [3] References to EVP have appeared in pop culture such as in the Reality TV show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense.
Normal hypotheses designed to explain EVP include ordinary sounds mistaken as voices, flaws in the recording devices which produce voice-like sounds, and radio frequency contamination. Paranormal hypotheses include psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, thoughts of spirits, and in rare instances, thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. EVP are a subset of Instrumental TransCommunication which also includes visual anomalies.
EVP are typically short, usually the length of a word or short phrase. Paranormal investigators use EVP as a tool for such purposes as haunting investigations, and contacting the souls of loved ones. The basis in fact for these uses are anecdotal and not necessarily scientifically supported. Most investigation of EVP has been conducted by people with few academic credentials. The current status of EVP is that there has not yet been sufficient study by academically trained scientists to characterize it in scientific terms.
––– Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
1.Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds that occur on electronic devices, but are not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded. Too broad a description as there are always recorded sounds not heard by the human recording operator at the time of recording, and in any case, such a textbook definition would have to be verified and attributed to an authoritative source dealing specifically with audio, a technical body such as the Audio Engineering Society. What defines EVP is They are thought by some to be of paranormal origin. I suggest the two sentences be connected: Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds that occur on electronic devices, not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded, and thought by some to be of paranormal origin.
2. "The current status of EVP is that there has not yet been sufficient study by academically trained scientists to characterize it in scientific terms." There is no authoritative source backing this statement. If it is the opinion of an individual or a group, it must be stated as such and properly attributed.
-- LuckyLouie 23:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Revised in line with criticism:
Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds that occur on electronic devices, but are not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded, and thought by some to be of paranormal origin. The term itself was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. [6] Previously the term “Raudive Voices”, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience, was used. [7] [3] References to EVP have appeared in pop culture such as in the Reality TV show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense.
Normal hypotheses designed to explain EVP include ordinary sounds mistaken as voices, flaws in the recording devices which produce voice-like sounds, and radio frequency contamination. Paranormal hypotheses include psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, thoughts of spirits, and in rare instances, thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. EVP are a subset of Instrumental TransCommunication which also includes visual anomalies.
EVP are typically short, usually the length of a word or short phrase. Paranormal investigators use EVP as a tool for such purposes as haunting investigations, and contacting the souls of loved ones. The basis in fact for these uses are anecdotal and not necessarily scientifically supported. Most investigation of EVP has been conducted by people with few academic credentials. EVP is has not been thoroughly studied by academically trained scientists.
I think the last sentence is self evident, does anyone disagree? ––– Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds that occur on electronic devices, but are not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded, and thought by some to be of paranormal origin. The term itself was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. [8] Previously the term “Raudive Voices”, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience, was used. [9] [3] References to EVP have appeared in pop culture such as in the Reality TV show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense.
Normal hypotheses designed to explain EVP include ordinary sounds mistaken as voices, flaws in the recording devices which produce voice-like sounds, and radio frequency contamination. Paranormal hypotheses include psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, thoughts of spirits, and in rare instances, thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. EVP are a subset of Instrumental TransCommunication which also includes visual anomalies.
EVP are typically short, usually the length of a word or short phrase. Paranormal investigators use EVP as a tool for such purposes as haunting investigations, and contacting the souls of loved ones. The basis in fact for these uses are anecdotal and not necessarily scientifically supported. Most investigation of EVP has been conducted by people with few academic credentials, and the scientific literature regarding EVP is very sparse.
The literature in the scientific journals as regards EVP as defined -paranormal- is very sparse. ––– Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)