![]() | 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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
We were on a roll with improving this article. Why did it all of a sudden stop? We need to stat discussing the next section now. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I hardly ever edit the article directly and instead prefer to float ideas on the Talk page, Yet, I observe editors struggling once again over the definition, but missing some significant overarching problems. I believe the present definition does not reflect a world view of the subject. It unnecessarily panders to the AA-EVP paradigm, which presents the subject as a technical proposition having differing explanations. Besides confusion with audio recording and electronics concepts ("Speech-like sounds reportedly not heard at the time of recording" could also describe unwanted crowd background noise during location recording), this approach is greatly at odds with international mainstream cultural coverage of the subject [1] who define it more straightforwardly as something said to be the voices of ghosts, made audible through static on radio, or on recordings. Shouldn't we be looking at ways to describe EVP (at least in the lead) which better conform to wider world views? - LuckyLouie 21:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Depending on the exact wording, this sounds like it is going in a good direction. Someone should propose a lead on the talk page. Nealparr has the right idea. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
ScienceApologist has continued to POV-push and make nonconsensus edits to the article, which he has edit warred to keep. Till those edits are reverted or corrected, the process on this page has come to a stop. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Do involved editors want to see this page protected for a week? Try to find some common ground, without being forced to do that with a protected page... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
This section needs to distinguish deliberately fictional works from those purporting to be fact. In some cases I can't tell which is which from the descriptions as given here. Could those more familiar with the shows help clarify this point? Raymond Arritt 00:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Suggested:
According to some paranormal researchers, electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are messages from spirits left on electronic recording media. They are reportedly brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase, and sometimes in direct response to the questions of researchers. Researchers say the sounds are inaudible during the recording process, and have been observed on diverse media, including radio, television, tape recorders.
re·search (r-sûrch, rsûrch) n. 1. Scholarly or scientific investigation or inquiry. See Synonyms at inquiry. 2. Close, careful study. v. re·searched, re·search·ing, re·search·es v.intr. To engage in or perform research. v.tr. 1. To study (something) thoroughly so as to present in a detailed, accurate manner: researching the effects of acid rain. 2. To do research for: research a magazine article. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/researcher
The word "research" is very appropriate to the article. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I've reorgnaized the article a bit per the TOC, to try to bring together the various explanations of the phenomena of EVP into one whole rather than pitting paranormal vs. science or skeptics as what existed prior. I also redid the lead a bit to reflect this, with a new emphasis on the Cultural impact of EVP research and use by pop culture as a social phenomena in ghost hunting groups etc. Of course this is just a start. There is much improvement that can be made to clean the sections up and reduce redundancy and increase NPOV. I am open to debate on my changes and to further improvements towards a good article. -- Northmeister 03:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
That is Original research, and isn't allowed in Wikipedia. You need to find sources on the subject, if you want to include this material. As it is, all you have said is that EVP is not mentioned by some sources which do not include EVP. Please read up on the policy. It is very specific and clear about this. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Compliance with our Verifiability Policy and our cite sources guideline is the best way to ensure that you do not violate our NOR policy. In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately.
No, the door isn't open. That's because no one disputes that EVP happen -that there are variations in white noise for example. They are only interpreted differently by paranormalists and others. So if you can find a source saying "the paranormalists interpret it this way, and we don't," then you've got something. Till then, you haven't. That's the reason for the policy. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
care should be taken to not "go beyond" what is expressed in the sources, nor use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using the information out of context. In short, stick to the sources.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinphi ( talk • contribs)
How about this
[4] for the framing of the subject as not-mainstream? --
Nealparr (
talk to me)
15:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I felt the Edison material was necessary for historical temporal perspective. Otherwise, it seemed to be a new idea in the 50s. We don't need to say much, but we need to have some bit of info to give the article a proper timeline. There are things in between the 20s and 50s, and I think before Edison also, but not really notable enough. But just acting as if it came out of thin air in the 50s doesn't work. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I was never attached to that specific episode. I only wanted to establish the depth of historical context, and that was one way to do it. The problem was merely the invalid reason for knee-jerk reverting. If other reasons had been offered, that would have been different. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, there exist paranormal researchers, including a few self-described "parapsychologists" who do not believe EVP to exist as we describe in this article. The best we can say is some paranormal researchers. Even so, I would say that it is relatively few researchers, per se, who actually believe in EVP. The far greater contingent of believers are from the amateur community who try to make EVP on their own. This should be reflected in the article. ScienceApologist 19:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
What we're not keeping in mind here is that per the ArbCom, we don't need all this stuff. We can simply define it without tying ourselves into knots, as long as we frame the article well. That's what the ArbCom decided, and there is really no reason to do otherwise.
Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include "mythical", "fictional", "a belief", and in the present case "paranormal", "psychic", "new age", "occult", "channeling". or "parapsychological researcher". "UFO", "Bigfoot", "Yeti", "alien abduction", and "crop circle" serve the same function. It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing.
So going out of our way to attribute is simply not necessary, and words such as "claimed" are not either. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Once we have said that we are defining it as a paranormal subject and according to paranormal researchers, we shouln't need to keep saying it. But that lead isn't bad. Agree with Nealparr just above. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
To recap: "No documentation" is a hardline statement that is extremely difficult to verify. You'd have to go through every mainstream scientific journal to prove none of them have ever mentioned EVPs. Practically speaking it is impossible, but here is why it's unlikely that it's correct. I can easily imagine that in mainstream psychology journals, when they are talking about audio intepretation, that they have at some point used EVPs as an example of where someone has interpreted audio as a familiar sound. The interpretation of EVPs as normal phenomena is still documentation. When EVP is explained away as Rorschach Audio or something or another, that is documentation.
What's more is that it is not supported by the source. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 04:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
...implies that there are few who feel that way, when the percentage is probably leaning towards most. It should be changed to "many" if we use a qualifier at all (I don't think we need one). -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 17:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It does seem obvious that the word "researcher" should be contextualized. Since the context is EVP, we need in general to discern between those who are mere ghost hunters, and those who, for instance, did research that appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, or carefully recorded enough to write a book. But in general, just say researchers. You could even say enthusiasts when talking about the culture of ghost hunting.
I suggest "EVP researchers," instead of "certain researchers." The percentage of EVP researchers who think it's ghosts is nearly 100% -I can't source that, but it is obvious, and not something we need to shy away from in the lead. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Are there any proposed explanations for how the ghosts or spirits go about producing amplitude-modulated radio waves, or magnetizing bits of iron oxide? I would think that many of our readers would be interested in such hypotheses. Raymond Arritt 02:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but nothing we can source, as far as I know. Here's the idea: it is a form of mediumship, in which the spiritual body which normally translates from our own spirits/minds to our bodies is used by other spirits in such a way as to psychokinetically influence the tapes. That's why it works better for some people than others. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Raymond's question is intriguing; as I would be interested in this as well; and if it is the case then we should inform the reader. Atelan is right about the subject, regarding elephants and rooms but not in application to this article. As far as 'researchers', such persons as Raudive, Dr. Peter Bander, Father Gemelli and Dr. Frye and others are more than enthusiasts from what I've read; they actually conducted 'research' on the topic and in Bander's case under controlled conditions witnessed by sound egineers, reporters, and others. I think we are being straight and true with the reader by using the term 'researcher' regarding such notable individuals in this field; though no doubt 'enthusiasts' among paranormal groups exist. -- Northmeister 23:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Martinphi, please quote to me the source that you feel makes the Edison bit appropriate to put in this article? Ante lan talk 07:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
electronic voice phenomenon (EVP)
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.--Paul Simon, "The Boxer"
Electronic voice phenomenon is the alleged communication by spirits through tape recorders and other electronic devices. The belief in EVP in the United States seems to have mushroomed thanks to Sarah Estep, president of the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena, which claims to have members in some 40 states and publishes a newsletter. Estep claims that in the 1970s she started picking up voices on her husband's Teac reel-to-reel recorder. She is sure that the voices are spirits, proving there is life after death. Estep also claims to hear voices of aliens on some of her tapes. She says she has taped some 20,000 ghosts and aliens. Aliens don't speak English, however, so she is not sure what they are saying.
Interest in EVP apparently began in the1920s. An interviewer from Scientific American asked Thomas Edison about the possibility of contacting the dead. Edison, a man of no strong religious views, said that nobody knows whether “our personalities pass on to another existence or sphere” but
it is possible to construct an apparatus which will be so delicate that if there are personalities in another existence or sphere who wish to get in touch with us in this existence or sphere, this apparatus will at least give them a better opportunity to express themselves than the tilting tables and raps and ouija boards and mediums and the other crude methods now purported to be the only means of communication. (Clark 1997: 235)
There is no evidence, however, that Edison ever designed or tried to construct such a device. And he probably did not foresee spirits communicating with our tape recorders and television sets.
— [10]
As to LL's other point, where do we claim in the article that Edison was involved with EVP? We simply accept the word of the sources that Edison is part of EVP history. Or are you actually claiming that we can't make the, ah, "leap" from the source's inclusion of Edison in a history of EVP, and the relevance of Edison to the history of EVP, because the source does not say "Edison is relevant to the history of EVP?" That would go down well with a neutral party. Very creative interpretation of the rules.
And in all fairness, you might be right that sound recording texts would be relevant if we were truly presenting EVP as a topic of sound recording. But we are not: EVP are well-know anomalies -flaws- in the recordings, which are interpreted as paranormal. The flaws and variations in white noise are acknowledged to sometimes exist. So what you need is a source which addresses the interpretation as paranormal. You can't just say that sound researchers have no term for EVP, because they do: they call them flaws or RF or whatever (else there would be no skeptical explanations). So I could go do OR and say that sound engineers have confirmed the existence of EVP. It would be very easy. But no: the source has to draw the connection between the sound variations and the interpretations. Then you could include it. The policy is there so we don't go have OR wars like that. See you Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 09:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't know what you mean Antelan. I objected to your reverting for invalid reasons. I think that is a bad way to act, and even though you hound me all over Wikipedia, I don't revert you for invalid reasons. I believe the Edison stuff is valuable in the article, but I'm not set on it, as I said before. If you had just said that you don't think it goes well in the article, I would have been fine with taking it out. But as it is, you seem to have reverted it for a reason which, now, you seem to be saying you knew was invalid. If that is so, your reverts, in addition to being unnecessary, were disruptive. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm of the same opinion as Atelan and Nealparr, and support removal of the Edison material. -- Northmeister 22:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Heh, when Antelan was, editing the article on Psychic surgery, I should have remembered he is a medical student. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
In the spirit of Northmeister's previous WP:BOLD rewrite and reorganization of the article and Martin's original addition of the material, I have attempted to properly frame the "Spirits of the deceased" section, which appeared to be a cut and paste of large portions of text from the AA-EVP site. - LuckyLouie 20:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been quite unhappy with the present lead's source and phrasing. I've changed the lead sentence and used a better reference to indicate meaning. The use of the term 'certain' was unnecessary in my opinion originally and made the article start off in an improper manner. Hence, my change. The referenced used was published in the "Journal of Scientific Exploration" in 2001 and is by Imants Baruss, who conducted a scientific study of EVP - concluding that although there was evidence of the 'weak' kind (voices could be heard), he could not replicate voices of the 'strong' kind. His work is a standard by which I see this article going - together with those of Raudive and others which Baruss commented on in his history portion of the report. -- Northmeister 23:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I know this has been covered before, but the opening paragraph is just not coherent as written.
The last sentence, is necessary, but reads rather out of place for the paragraph. Using "According to..." is unnecessary in my opinion; although it is ok. The "Later authors have said:" doesn't read well. The paragragh could be improve substantially to be more precise and clear I think. Here is a proposed paragraph I crafted prior to our present rewrite:
I'm not saying we need to go with the above; but it reads in a more straight-forward manner in parts. I propose we take the present and rewrite it in the manner above using the presents wording as agreed upon and that we find a way to include the final sentence to the present into the opening paragraph that actually works. Maybe I'm being to much a stickler for detail, so I'll move on if others are satisfied with the present opening paragragh. -- Northmeister 00:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Howabout:
This is a starting point. Note that I prefer active voice and simple declarative sentences whenever possible, so as to produce clear and readable text. Raymond Arritt 00:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
"It wasn't ever presented as a mystery effect that has alternate explanations" Actually, that's not true: that's where the paranormal part comes in. That is the alternate explanation. In terms of this article, that is the primary explanation, and the interference is the alternate.
If it is true what the researchers say, that the voices answer questions and the words are agreed upon by multiple listeners, then this is not merely a belief. It can in fact be scientifically investigated. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
From what I hear in this discussion, the present lead paragragh is fine - and that is good enough for me. I do request one change - to the last sentence to make it fit better - thus:
::::Although
parapsychological research has been conducted into the phenomena, there is an absence of documentation for EVP in
mainstream scientific literature. --
Nealparr (
talk to me)
04:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe someone else can extract a better wording from my source to frame the lack of mainstream acceptance. It seems there's some material to work with when you actually read the full text rather than the abstract that I skimmed earlier. Here's the relevant part of the source
Now, what text to actually use... discuss. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 05:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Sources for the quoted parts:
Seems Antelan is right, parapsychologists don't care much for the scientific practices of EVP researchers either.
And to answer ScienceApologist's earlier question on "what makes a paranormal researcher?", baring academic parapsychologists, pop culture paranormal research is closely aligned with MacRae's description: “The ‘field’ seemed to proceed in the most unscientific manner, nothing was ever measured, although the words ‘research’ and ‘expert’ were bandied around like tokens in a game of ‘let’s play scientists’.” Still, Wikipedia aims to chronicle pop culture so we give them a fair shake. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 05:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a big problem with that. However, 1., some people will have a problem with you calling them parapsychologists. 2. you are talking about a result of their lack of qualificatinos. I doubt their lack of qualifications made it impossible for them to study it. On the whole, I think it will be challenged in the future. Personally, however, I'm OK with it.
There is just one thing: you don't need qualifications or facilities to conduct scientific EVP research. Change to
"Mainstream science ignores electronic voice phenomena, leaving the topic to be studied by a handful of parapsychologists and, more often, amateur researchers who made little attempt to follow scientific procedure."
You'll get far less flack on that, and it is more accurate. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I've added Nealparr's suggested sentence(s) to replace what we had, as there seems to be agreement on them. -- Northmeister 12:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The reference for "According to the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena, communications from discarnate entities is one paranormal hypothesis to explain EVP. The Association says that these spirits,[22] ..." does not say anything about "spirits."
Please change the statement to something like: "According to the Shadowlands Ghosts and Hauntings website, [16] "EVP is a way of communicating with spirits."
Some people do refer to the communicators in EVP as "spirits;" however, the AA-EVP generally does not. (It is true that the "Big Circle" subdomain has references to spirits but we do not hold those members to the same standard as we do for the rest of the association.) You can find plenty of websites about EVP that are less concerned with semantics. Please change the statement to something like: "According to the Shadowlands Ghosts and Hauntings website, [17] "EVP is a way of communicating with spirits." Tom Butler 00:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
No one was editing for five days. I made some edits to the lead to get closer to NPOV. ScienceApologist ( talk) 05:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
"Mainstream science ignores such claims...The result is an absence of documentation for EVP in scientific literature."[4] Is the second sentence really necessary? In other words, if mainstream science ignores the subject, it naturally follows that there can't be any documentation. Conversely, if there were documentation, obviously that would mean the topic wasn't ignored. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 05:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't we put the paranormal explanations and the scientific explanations under separate headings? Raymond Arritt ( talk) 05:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The intro sentence is "Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are said to be manifestations of voices of ghosts or spirits made audible through static on the radio, or on electronic recording media." By whom are they said to be such? Let's add that to clarify. Ante lan talk 04:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
In reading over the first sentence, I noticed that it's totally unobvious what EVP is based on how this article is written. The first sentence says, "Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are said to be manifestations of voices of ghosts or spirits made audible through static on the radio, or on electronic recording media." However, that's not a description of the phenomenon itself - it's a description of what some people say is the cause of the phenomenon. We should resolve this by making the intro sentence give our readers an idea of what the phenomenon is, then deal with its origins later. Ante lan talk 22:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Martinphi, the WP:MOS guides naming conventions: "Only the first letter of the first word, letters in acronyms, and the first letter of proper nouns are capitalized; all other letters are in lower case (Funding of UNESCO projects, not Funding of UNESCO Projects)." Please undo the hasty move. Ante lan talk 02:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. I recently added this to policy, so if we are wrong here, they should provide feedback.... yes, here. So the question is rather open. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:NAMING is also specific about pluralization. Try googling "electronic voice phenomenon" if there is discomfort with this term - you'll see it is in common usage. Clearly this term is not only used in the plural, and therefore ought to be named in the singular per WP policy. Ante lan talk 07:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I should warn people against taking out sourced material, especially material which directly reflects previous consensus, and directly reflects the view of a mainstream scientist. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the edit by StevenJacobs: "Most notably, Sandra Belanger, who during the height of the Laci Peterson disappearance published EVP transcripts on the internet, which received a great amount of attention; the contents have been disproved in court testimony." Please do not put it back without supporting reference.
I will not address the sensibility of Belanger's actions, but I believe it can be shown that she sincerely believed she had recorded evidence in the case via EVP, and as a concerned person, brought that evidence to the authorities. As such, the material may be a good example of how EVP can produce misleading information--it sometimes does, but there is no basis to call the incident evidence of fraud. Tom Butler ( talk) 23:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
In the introduction it says that EVP are sections of static that some people interpret as voices. Some of them may be static, but all of them are not! Many examples of alleged EVP are clearly voices (see for example the CD The Ghost Orchid, which has many alleged EVP from Raymond Cass and Raudive). The interpretation bit is that people interpret the voices as voices of the dead. To claim that all EVP are is static, and to have this is as the opening definition, just makes the article look really stupid. LionelStarkweather ( talk) 00:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You know, I'm willing to allow statements of OR in the article -per Ignore All Rules-, but only in the case that we stop belaboring things like attribution beyond what is necessary to inform the reader. It is good to be strict- but if you have to write things strictly according to a wiki lawyer's interpretation of "the rules," then the rules must be applied across the board.
I refer to sentences like "American photographer Attila von Szalay was among the first to try recording what he believed to be voices of the dead."
The "believed to be" should not be there, as it is double qualification.
Meanwhile Brauss, a critic, is given a carte blanch:
"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"
Instead of:
"Barušs claimed to record several events that sounded like voices, but he believed they were too few and too random to represent viable data and too open to interpretation to be described definitively as EVP"
Meanwhile in the next paragraph, a paranormal researcher is treated thus:
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.
See what I mean? (And BTW, I didn't go through the whole article, I just looked lightly around). That's called POV, and it needs to go- at least, if we aren't going to apply the rules consistently. In which case, this is OR:
Instrumental transcommunication has gained no notability within the scientific community, and is not accepted within science. [22]
—— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. "Original research" is a claim for which no reliable source can be found. Producing a reliable published source that advances the same claim taken in context is the only way to disprove an assertion that a claim constitutes original research. If there is a source, but the source or claim is disputed, that is not original research but rather of a question of reliable sourcing or undue weight. However, using information from references out-of-context or to forward claims not directly supported by the sources is original research."
From WP:FRINGE "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 unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." In keeping with this, I did not say that it has been rejected. However, as there is no scientific acceptance of the idea, I also noted that there is no acceptance. Ante lan talk 07:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so now you are using wiki rules and Google to tell people who study EVP how they are supposed to write the terms they use. I am impressed by your arrogance in assuming that we do not know how to read and apply style guides. With all due respect for the hundreds of ghost hunting clubs on the Internet, most are still learning about EVP and their take on the subject should be considered in that light.
Electronic Voice Phenomena is capitalized by those who study the subject because it is used as a proper noun by convention. It is common for interest groups to capitalize words that have special significance for them and it is appropriate for others to respect such conventions when writing about those subjects in the context of a discussion about that field of interest. Instrumental TransCommunication is the same way. Properly, it should have been "IT" rather than "ITC" because the C" would not normally be capitalized. However, as it was coined, "transcommunication" was used as a compound word with the prefix "trans-" used as a word "trans." The capitalized "Communication" was to signify its importance. There is tradition for this since the naming requirements of the early computer programs that did not allow spaces but eventually did allow upper and lower case in the same string. Thus, "YouTube" would not normally be considered proper but now it is accepted as a style. WikiPedia treats the naming convention with respect at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube.
Electronic Voice Phenomena is plural as the name of a category of phenomena. Anyone who has bothered to study the subject should know this. For instance, I am currently drafting an article for aaevp.com that explorers the difference between EVP recorded using internally generated audio frequency energy and EVP formed from bits of sound generated by either weeping a radio spectrum or sampling a single stream of words. There is also what is known as Direct Voice Radio (DVR) which may eventually turn out not to be EVP at al, but s currently considered so in the community. Central office voice message storage and telephone answer machine EVP is a different type of EVP which may be formed with different physics and is almost always spontaneous.
My point is that, at least in the AA-EVP since 1982, EVP is used as a proper name for a category of phenomena, and is therefor capitalized and is plural. If you want us to change this usage to meet Wiki standards, then I suggest you become involved in our research, otherwise, kindly stop telling us that you know better. It is very irritating. Tom Butler ( talk) 18:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Nealpar, now you sound like LuckyLouie with this "Gotcha!": "Hate to bring it up, Tom, but in your own book you quote the singular use..." Once again, if you look at the context of the use in that reference, it was used in the history section concerning the current understanding, and in fact, it specifically addresses tape recorder EVP, which as we know today, is a type of EVP but not the entire expression of the phenomena. Smythe coined it as the singular because that is what was known at the time.
Sure, you may find a few places that we use the plural or singular of EVP incorrectly. We try to follow grammatical rules, especially when we are speaking of one instance of EVP. I am also probably guilty of habitually using the plural when singular is correct. It can be complicated and that is why we feel it is important that any widely viewed media with encyclopedic authority get it right. Your statement, "... where's the harm?" tells me that you do not share that desire.
Seeing the extent some editors are willing to go to avoid accurately portraying paranormal subjects is revealing. Saying, "What I cannot tolerate is this attack on grammatical number in the English language" appears to be a simple effort to avoid the real issue. Since it is such obvious nonsense, I assume you are attempting humor.
Look, I really do not have time for this so let's cut to the point. I know that many editors think EVP is impossible, and consider it a personal responsibility to make sure readers do not go away thinking it is possible. The usual arsenal of caveats have been frowned on by the Administrators, but weasel words that subtly deriding people who believe in the possibility are not nearly as damaging as finding ways to relate paranormal articles to spiritual subjects. How can any rational thinker believe something is possible if it is clearly an article of religious faith? Thus, communicating with spirits is much more effective than communicating with entities. I wonder. Is it possible that you all are so determined to make EVP singular because making it plural suggests that, if there is more than one form, then there must really be something going on? Is that why you all are so obstinate?
Well, consider that a rhetorical question. I have work to do, so have your way with the article. Tom Butler ( talk) 00:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The treatment of explanations has been stable for some time, and I believe the previous version was widely agreed on. For SA to unilaterally change the treatment can only be seen as vandalism.
As for COI, you can make that accusation when I begin adding content. So far, all I have done is restore the article to a previous version and changed the way people who study EVP are referred to. It is simply incorrect to cast all who study EVP into the category of believers. If you do, then you must be saying that you have not studied EVP. Tom Butler ( talk) 23:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
SA had every reason to know that his edit would be unpopular, and to make it anyway is clearly a provocation. Call it otherwise as you wish, but the very long history of instability in this article and contentious editing, of which SA has been a part, makes it all the more important to have open discussion before such moves.
I am not interested in who owns what after an edit. When I start adding material such as the AA-EVP is great or you cannot know EVP without reading the Butler's book, then you have reason to complain. I am not adding content beyond what was previously agreed to during discussions. Had SA opened a dialog before making the edits, I probably would not have even contributed an opinion. As it is, I have seen that, if they are not questione, the skeptical community takes inch by inch until the article is a James Randi billboard.
I cite Conflict of interest 10.1) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest strongly cautions but does not forbid an editor from working in subject areas where the editor is strongly invested. Such editing must be done responsibly. Other editors are expected to respond diplomatically even when they believe a conflict of interest may exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed_decision#Conflict_of_interest Tom Butler ( talk) 01:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into the AGF issues, but seriously "EVP believers" doesn't even sound encyclopedic, so what's the point in using it? -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 01:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The reason I am so concerned with SA's unilateral edit of the proposed explanations is that, as a flat list, it is possible to address the theories from the same perspective of evidence, but as a proponent vs. skeptic division, important theories are relegated to irrelevant references or the word of skeptical authors who have virtually zero authority in the subject. The proponent section is based on research while the skeptic section is based on possibilities. It makes skeptic authors look silly and that hurts Wikipedia's credibility ... it hurts all of us.
Leave it as it is, but the same research that shows EVP is not necessarily pareidolia (for instance) could be used to show that it sometimes is. That is hard to do with two sides pitched against each other. Tom Butler ( talk) 16:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The term "researchers" implies a coordinated and recognized research effort. It is debatable that there is anyone actively "researching" EVP and certainly those who research it do not represent a coherent academic community. The problem with using "researcher" is that it doesn't convey the fact that the people we are referring to are actually supporters of the existence of this nonsense. The only way "researcher" works would automatically include skeptics who do not share the opinions that the people we are describing have. So what we need to do is find a phrase that indicates the true belief of these people in a way that is NPOV without sacrificing the reliability of the sentence to terms that (perhaps unintentionally) lend more credibility to the proponents than they actually have.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Raymond, you are making a joke ... right? If not, all you are doing is blowing smoke in an effort to obscure the facts in evidence.
You can add anything you want to the above, but using weasel words to make it sound like the above are not facts is misleading the public and may be self-serving. In view of the evidence available in the references--and more coming every day--if you can show us that the above is not true, then the article should be written as such. But using innuendo, explanations only supported by some skeptical writer of uninformed sound engineer does not amount to evidence, only a reference.
I would be happy to see the entire article changed to show the above facts are all observations and as reported, and not explored by mainstream science. That is also a fact. You do not have to write this article as proof of EVP just say what is in evidence without characterization and then state the reservations which are properly expressed by others. That sound like something we all might be able to support. Tom Butler ( talk) 18:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Antelan, I noted that one earlier. I have highlighted the part I think you have missed. Conflict of interest 10.1) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest strongly cautions but does not forbid an editor from working in subject areas where the editor is strongly invested. Such editing must be done responsibly. Other editors are expected to respond diplomatically even when they believe a conflict of interest may exist.
There is not consensus as to who is a "specialist" in the paranormal or EVP. Therefore, we should not use that term. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:08, 14 January 2008 (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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
We were on a roll with improving this article. Why did it all of a sudden stop? We need to stat discussing the next section now. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I hardly ever edit the article directly and instead prefer to float ideas on the Talk page, Yet, I observe editors struggling once again over the definition, but missing some significant overarching problems. I believe the present definition does not reflect a world view of the subject. It unnecessarily panders to the AA-EVP paradigm, which presents the subject as a technical proposition having differing explanations. Besides confusion with audio recording and electronics concepts ("Speech-like sounds reportedly not heard at the time of recording" could also describe unwanted crowd background noise during location recording), this approach is greatly at odds with international mainstream cultural coverage of the subject [1] who define it more straightforwardly as something said to be the voices of ghosts, made audible through static on radio, or on recordings. Shouldn't we be looking at ways to describe EVP (at least in the lead) which better conform to wider world views? - LuckyLouie 21:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Depending on the exact wording, this sounds like it is going in a good direction. Someone should propose a lead on the talk page. Nealparr has the right idea. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
ScienceApologist has continued to POV-push and make nonconsensus edits to the article, which he has edit warred to keep. Till those edits are reverted or corrected, the process on this page has come to a stop. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Do involved editors want to see this page protected for a week? Try to find some common ground, without being forced to do that with a protected page... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
This section needs to distinguish deliberately fictional works from those purporting to be fact. In some cases I can't tell which is which from the descriptions as given here. Could those more familiar with the shows help clarify this point? Raymond Arritt 00:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Suggested:
According to some paranormal researchers, electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are messages from spirits left on electronic recording media. They are reportedly brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase, and sometimes in direct response to the questions of researchers. Researchers say the sounds are inaudible during the recording process, and have been observed on diverse media, including radio, television, tape recorders.
re·search (r-sûrch, rsûrch) n. 1. Scholarly or scientific investigation or inquiry. See Synonyms at inquiry. 2. Close, careful study. v. re·searched, re·search·ing, re·search·es v.intr. To engage in or perform research. v.tr. 1. To study (something) thoroughly so as to present in a detailed, accurate manner: researching the effects of acid rain. 2. To do research for: research a magazine article. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/researcher
The word "research" is very appropriate to the article. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I've reorgnaized the article a bit per the TOC, to try to bring together the various explanations of the phenomena of EVP into one whole rather than pitting paranormal vs. science or skeptics as what existed prior. I also redid the lead a bit to reflect this, with a new emphasis on the Cultural impact of EVP research and use by pop culture as a social phenomena in ghost hunting groups etc. Of course this is just a start. There is much improvement that can be made to clean the sections up and reduce redundancy and increase NPOV. I am open to debate on my changes and to further improvements towards a good article. -- Northmeister 03:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
That is Original research, and isn't allowed in Wikipedia. You need to find sources on the subject, if you want to include this material. As it is, all you have said is that EVP is not mentioned by some sources which do not include EVP. Please read up on the policy. It is very specific and clear about this. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Compliance with our Verifiability Policy and our cite sources guideline is the best way to ensure that you do not violate our NOR policy. In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately.
No, the door isn't open. That's because no one disputes that EVP happen -that there are variations in white noise for example. They are only interpreted differently by paranormalists and others. So if you can find a source saying "the paranormalists interpret it this way, and we don't," then you've got something. Till then, you haven't. That's the reason for the policy. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
care should be taken to not "go beyond" what is expressed in the sources, nor use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using the information out of context. In short, stick to the sources.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinphi ( talk • contribs)
How about this
[4] for the framing of the subject as not-mainstream? --
Nealparr (
talk to me)
15:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I felt the Edison material was necessary for historical temporal perspective. Otherwise, it seemed to be a new idea in the 50s. We don't need to say much, but we need to have some bit of info to give the article a proper timeline. There are things in between the 20s and 50s, and I think before Edison also, but not really notable enough. But just acting as if it came out of thin air in the 50s doesn't work. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I was never attached to that specific episode. I only wanted to establish the depth of historical context, and that was one way to do it. The problem was merely the invalid reason for knee-jerk reverting. If other reasons had been offered, that would have been different. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, there exist paranormal researchers, including a few self-described "parapsychologists" who do not believe EVP to exist as we describe in this article. The best we can say is some paranormal researchers. Even so, I would say that it is relatively few researchers, per se, who actually believe in EVP. The far greater contingent of believers are from the amateur community who try to make EVP on their own. This should be reflected in the article. ScienceApologist 19:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
What we're not keeping in mind here is that per the ArbCom, we don't need all this stuff. We can simply define it without tying ourselves into knots, as long as we frame the article well. That's what the ArbCom decided, and there is really no reason to do otherwise.
Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include "mythical", "fictional", "a belief", and in the present case "paranormal", "psychic", "new age", "occult", "channeling". or "parapsychological researcher". "UFO", "Bigfoot", "Yeti", "alien abduction", and "crop circle" serve the same function. It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing.
So going out of our way to attribute is simply not necessary, and words such as "claimed" are not either. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Once we have said that we are defining it as a paranormal subject and according to paranormal researchers, we shouln't need to keep saying it. But that lead isn't bad. Agree with Nealparr just above. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
To recap: "No documentation" is a hardline statement that is extremely difficult to verify. You'd have to go through every mainstream scientific journal to prove none of them have ever mentioned EVPs. Practically speaking it is impossible, but here is why it's unlikely that it's correct. I can easily imagine that in mainstream psychology journals, when they are talking about audio intepretation, that they have at some point used EVPs as an example of where someone has interpreted audio as a familiar sound. The interpretation of EVPs as normal phenomena is still documentation. When EVP is explained away as Rorschach Audio or something or another, that is documentation.
What's more is that it is not supported by the source. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 04:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
...implies that there are few who feel that way, when the percentage is probably leaning towards most. It should be changed to "many" if we use a qualifier at all (I don't think we need one). -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 17:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It does seem obvious that the word "researcher" should be contextualized. Since the context is EVP, we need in general to discern between those who are mere ghost hunters, and those who, for instance, did research that appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, or carefully recorded enough to write a book. But in general, just say researchers. You could even say enthusiasts when talking about the culture of ghost hunting.
I suggest "EVP researchers," instead of "certain researchers." The percentage of EVP researchers who think it's ghosts is nearly 100% -I can't source that, but it is obvious, and not something we need to shy away from in the lead. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Are there any proposed explanations for how the ghosts or spirits go about producing amplitude-modulated radio waves, or magnetizing bits of iron oxide? I would think that many of our readers would be interested in such hypotheses. Raymond Arritt 02:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but nothing we can source, as far as I know. Here's the idea: it is a form of mediumship, in which the spiritual body which normally translates from our own spirits/minds to our bodies is used by other spirits in such a way as to psychokinetically influence the tapes. That's why it works better for some people than others. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Raymond's question is intriguing; as I would be interested in this as well; and if it is the case then we should inform the reader. Atelan is right about the subject, regarding elephants and rooms but not in application to this article. As far as 'researchers', such persons as Raudive, Dr. Peter Bander, Father Gemelli and Dr. Frye and others are more than enthusiasts from what I've read; they actually conducted 'research' on the topic and in Bander's case under controlled conditions witnessed by sound egineers, reporters, and others. I think we are being straight and true with the reader by using the term 'researcher' regarding such notable individuals in this field; though no doubt 'enthusiasts' among paranormal groups exist. -- Northmeister 23:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Martinphi, please quote to me the source that you feel makes the Edison bit appropriate to put in this article? Ante lan talk 07:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
electronic voice phenomenon (EVP)
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.--Paul Simon, "The Boxer"
Electronic voice phenomenon is the alleged communication by spirits through tape recorders and other electronic devices. The belief in EVP in the United States seems to have mushroomed thanks to Sarah Estep, president of the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena, which claims to have members in some 40 states and publishes a newsletter. Estep claims that in the 1970s she started picking up voices on her husband's Teac reel-to-reel recorder. She is sure that the voices are spirits, proving there is life after death. Estep also claims to hear voices of aliens on some of her tapes. She says she has taped some 20,000 ghosts and aliens. Aliens don't speak English, however, so she is not sure what they are saying.
Interest in EVP apparently began in the1920s. An interviewer from Scientific American asked Thomas Edison about the possibility of contacting the dead. Edison, a man of no strong religious views, said that nobody knows whether “our personalities pass on to another existence or sphere” but
it is possible to construct an apparatus which will be so delicate that if there are personalities in another existence or sphere who wish to get in touch with us in this existence or sphere, this apparatus will at least give them a better opportunity to express themselves than the tilting tables and raps and ouija boards and mediums and the other crude methods now purported to be the only means of communication. (Clark 1997: 235)
There is no evidence, however, that Edison ever designed or tried to construct such a device. And he probably did not foresee spirits communicating with our tape recorders and television sets.
— [10]
As to LL's other point, where do we claim in the article that Edison was involved with EVP? We simply accept the word of the sources that Edison is part of EVP history. Or are you actually claiming that we can't make the, ah, "leap" from the source's inclusion of Edison in a history of EVP, and the relevance of Edison to the history of EVP, because the source does not say "Edison is relevant to the history of EVP?" That would go down well with a neutral party. Very creative interpretation of the rules.
And in all fairness, you might be right that sound recording texts would be relevant if we were truly presenting EVP as a topic of sound recording. But we are not: EVP are well-know anomalies -flaws- in the recordings, which are interpreted as paranormal. The flaws and variations in white noise are acknowledged to sometimes exist. So what you need is a source which addresses the interpretation as paranormal. You can't just say that sound researchers have no term for EVP, because they do: they call them flaws or RF or whatever (else there would be no skeptical explanations). So I could go do OR and say that sound engineers have confirmed the existence of EVP. It would be very easy. But no: the source has to draw the connection between the sound variations and the interpretations. Then you could include it. The policy is there so we don't go have OR wars like that. See you Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 09:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't know what you mean Antelan. I objected to your reverting for invalid reasons. I think that is a bad way to act, and even though you hound me all over Wikipedia, I don't revert you for invalid reasons. I believe the Edison stuff is valuable in the article, but I'm not set on it, as I said before. If you had just said that you don't think it goes well in the article, I would have been fine with taking it out. But as it is, you seem to have reverted it for a reason which, now, you seem to be saying you knew was invalid. If that is so, your reverts, in addition to being unnecessary, were disruptive. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm of the same opinion as Atelan and Nealparr, and support removal of the Edison material. -- Northmeister 22:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Heh, when Antelan was, editing the article on Psychic surgery, I should have remembered he is a medical student. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
In the spirit of Northmeister's previous WP:BOLD rewrite and reorganization of the article and Martin's original addition of the material, I have attempted to properly frame the "Spirits of the deceased" section, which appeared to be a cut and paste of large portions of text from the AA-EVP site. - LuckyLouie 20:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been quite unhappy with the present lead's source and phrasing. I've changed the lead sentence and used a better reference to indicate meaning. The use of the term 'certain' was unnecessary in my opinion originally and made the article start off in an improper manner. Hence, my change. The referenced used was published in the "Journal of Scientific Exploration" in 2001 and is by Imants Baruss, who conducted a scientific study of EVP - concluding that although there was evidence of the 'weak' kind (voices could be heard), he could not replicate voices of the 'strong' kind. His work is a standard by which I see this article going - together with those of Raudive and others which Baruss commented on in his history portion of the report. -- Northmeister 23:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I know this has been covered before, but the opening paragraph is just not coherent as written.
The last sentence, is necessary, but reads rather out of place for the paragraph. Using "According to..." is unnecessary in my opinion; although it is ok. The "Later authors have said:" doesn't read well. The paragragh could be improve substantially to be more precise and clear I think. Here is a proposed paragraph I crafted prior to our present rewrite:
I'm not saying we need to go with the above; but it reads in a more straight-forward manner in parts. I propose we take the present and rewrite it in the manner above using the presents wording as agreed upon and that we find a way to include the final sentence to the present into the opening paragraph that actually works. Maybe I'm being to much a stickler for detail, so I'll move on if others are satisfied with the present opening paragragh. -- Northmeister 00:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Howabout:
This is a starting point. Note that I prefer active voice and simple declarative sentences whenever possible, so as to produce clear and readable text. Raymond Arritt 00:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
"It wasn't ever presented as a mystery effect that has alternate explanations" Actually, that's not true: that's where the paranormal part comes in. That is the alternate explanation. In terms of this article, that is the primary explanation, and the interference is the alternate.
If it is true what the researchers say, that the voices answer questions and the words are agreed upon by multiple listeners, then this is not merely a belief. It can in fact be scientifically investigated. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
From what I hear in this discussion, the present lead paragragh is fine - and that is good enough for me. I do request one change - to the last sentence to make it fit better - thus:
::::Although
parapsychological research has been conducted into the phenomena, there is an absence of documentation for EVP in
mainstream scientific literature. --
Nealparr (
talk to me)
04:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe someone else can extract a better wording from my source to frame the lack of mainstream acceptance. It seems there's some material to work with when you actually read the full text rather than the abstract that I skimmed earlier. Here's the relevant part of the source
Now, what text to actually use... discuss. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 05:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Sources for the quoted parts:
Seems Antelan is right, parapsychologists don't care much for the scientific practices of EVP researchers either.
And to answer ScienceApologist's earlier question on "what makes a paranormal researcher?", baring academic parapsychologists, pop culture paranormal research is closely aligned with MacRae's description: “The ‘field’ seemed to proceed in the most unscientific manner, nothing was ever measured, although the words ‘research’ and ‘expert’ were bandied around like tokens in a game of ‘let’s play scientists’.” Still, Wikipedia aims to chronicle pop culture so we give them a fair shake. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 05:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a big problem with that. However, 1., some people will have a problem with you calling them parapsychologists. 2. you are talking about a result of their lack of qualificatinos. I doubt their lack of qualifications made it impossible for them to study it. On the whole, I think it will be challenged in the future. Personally, however, I'm OK with it.
There is just one thing: you don't need qualifications or facilities to conduct scientific EVP research. Change to
"Mainstream science ignores electronic voice phenomena, leaving the topic to be studied by a handful of parapsychologists and, more often, amateur researchers who made little attempt to follow scientific procedure."
You'll get far less flack on that, and it is more accurate. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I've added Nealparr's suggested sentence(s) to replace what we had, as there seems to be agreement on them. -- Northmeister 12:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The reference for "According to the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena, communications from discarnate entities is one paranormal hypothesis to explain EVP. The Association says that these spirits,[22] ..." does not say anything about "spirits."
Please change the statement to something like: "According to the Shadowlands Ghosts and Hauntings website, [16] "EVP is a way of communicating with spirits."
Some people do refer to the communicators in EVP as "spirits;" however, the AA-EVP generally does not. (It is true that the "Big Circle" subdomain has references to spirits but we do not hold those members to the same standard as we do for the rest of the association.) You can find plenty of websites about EVP that are less concerned with semantics. Please change the statement to something like: "According to the Shadowlands Ghosts and Hauntings website, [17] "EVP is a way of communicating with spirits." Tom Butler 00:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
No one was editing for five days. I made some edits to the lead to get closer to NPOV. ScienceApologist ( talk) 05:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
"Mainstream science ignores such claims...The result is an absence of documentation for EVP in scientific literature."[4] Is the second sentence really necessary? In other words, if mainstream science ignores the subject, it naturally follows that there can't be any documentation. Conversely, if there were documentation, obviously that would mean the topic wasn't ignored. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 05:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't we put the paranormal explanations and the scientific explanations under separate headings? Raymond Arritt ( talk) 05:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The intro sentence is "Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are said to be manifestations of voices of ghosts or spirits made audible through static on the radio, or on electronic recording media." By whom are they said to be such? Let's add that to clarify. Ante lan talk 04:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
In reading over the first sentence, I noticed that it's totally unobvious what EVP is based on how this article is written. The first sentence says, "Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are said to be manifestations of voices of ghosts or spirits made audible through static on the radio, or on electronic recording media." However, that's not a description of the phenomenon itself - it's a description of what some people say is the cause of the phenomenon. We should resolve this by making the intro sentence give our readers an idea of what the phenomenon is, then deal with its origins later. Ante lan talk 22:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Martinphi, the WP:MOS guides naming conventions: "Only the first letter of the first word, letters in acronyms, and the first letter of proper nouns are capitalized; all other letters are in lower case (Funding of UNESCO projects, not Funding of UNESCO Projects)." Please undo the hasty move. Ante lan talk 02:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. I recently added this to policy, so if we are wrong here, they should provide feedback.... yes, here. So the question is rather open. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:NAMING is also specific about pluralization. Try googling "electronic voice phenomenon" if there is discomfort with this term - you'll see it is in common usage. Clearly this term is not only used in the plural, and therefore ought to be named in the singular per WP policy. Ante lan talk 07:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I should warn people against taking out sourced material, especially material which directly reflects previous consensus, and directly reflects the view of a mainstream scientist. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the edit by StevenJacobs: "Most notably, Sandra Belanger, who during the height of the Laci Peterson disappearance published EVP transcripts on the internet, which received a great amount of attention; the contents have been disproved in court testimony." Please do not put it back without supporting reference.
I will not address the sensibility of Belanger's actions, but I believe it can be shown that she sincerely believed she had recorded evidence in the case via EVP, and as a concerned person, brought that evidence to the authorities. As such, the material may be a good example of how EVP can produce misleading information--it sometimes does, but there is no basis to call the incident evidence of fraud. Tom Butler ( talk) 23:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
In the introduction it says that EVP are sections of static that some people interpret as voices. Some of them may be static, but all of them are not! Many examples of alleged EVP are clearly voices (see for example the CD The Ghost Orchid, which has many alleged EVP from Raymond Cass and Raudive). The interpretation bit is that people interpret the voices as voices of the dead. To claim that all EVP are is static, and to have this is as the opening definition, just makes the article look really stupid. LionelStarkweather ( talk) 00:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You know, I'm willing to allow statements of OR in the article -per Ignore All Rules-, but only in the case that we stop belaboring things like attribution beyond what is necessary to inform the reader. It is good to be strict- but if you have to write things strictly according to a wiki lawyer's interpretation of "the rules," then the rules must be applied across the board.
I refer to sentences like "American photographer Attila von Szalay was among the first to try recording what he believed to be voices of the dead."
The "believed to be" should not be there, as it is double qualification.
Meanwhile Brauss, a critic, is given a carte blanch:
"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"
Instead of:
"Barušs claimed to record several events that sounded like voices, but he believed they were too few and too random to represent viable data and too open to interpretation to be described definitively as EVP"
Meanwhile in the next paragraph, a paranormal researcher is treated thus:
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.
See what I mean? (And BTW, I didn't go through the whole article, I just looked lightly around). That's called POV, and it needs to go- at least, if we aren't going to apply the rules consistently. In which case, this is OR:
Instrumental transcommunication has gained no notability within the scientific community, and is not accepted within science. [22]
—— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. "Original research" is a claim for which no reliable source can be found. Producing a reliable published source that advances the same claim taken in context is the only way to disprove an assertion that a claim constitutes original research. If there is a source, but the source or claim is disputed, that is not original research but rather of a question of reliable sourcing or undue weight. However, using information from references out-of-context or to forward claims not directly supported by the sources is original research."
From WP:FRINGE "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 unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." In keeping with this, I did not say that it has been rejected. However, as there is no scientific acceptance of the idea, I also noted that there is no acceptance. Ante lan talk 07:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so now you are using wiki rules and Google to tell people who study EVP how they are supposed to write the terms they use. I am impressed by your arrogance in assuming that we do not know how to read and apply style guides. With all due respect for the hundreds of ghost hunting clubs on the Internet, most are still learning about EVP and their take on the subject should be considered in that light.
Electronic Voice Phenomena is capitalized by those who study the subject because it is used as a proper noun by convention. It is common for interest groups to capitalize words that have special significance for them and it is appropriate for others to respect such conventions when writing about those subjects in the context of a discussion about that field of interest. Instrumental TransCommunication is the same way. Properly, it should have been "IT" rather than "ITC" because the C" would not normally be capitalized. However, as it was coined, "transcommunication" was used as a compound word with the prefix "trans-" used as a word "trans." The capitalized "Communication" was to signify its importance. There is tradition for this since the naming requirements of the early computer programs that did not allow spaces but eventually did allow upper and lower case in the same string. Thus, "YouTube" would not normally be considered proper but now it is accepted as a style. WikiPedia treats the naming convention with respect at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube.
Electronic Voice Phenomena is plural as the name of a category of phenomena. Anyone who has bothered to study the subject should know this. For instance, I am currently drafting an article for aaevp.com that explorers the difference between EVP recorded using internally generated audio frequency energy and EVP formed from bits of sound generated by either weeping a radio spectrum or sampling a single stream of words. There is also what is known as Direct Voice Radio (DVR) which may eventually turn out not to be EVP at al, but s currently considered so in the community. Central office voice message storage and telephone answer machine EVP is a different type of EVP which may be formed with different physics and is almost always spontaneous.
My point is that, at least in the AA-EVP since 1982, EVP is used as a proper name for a category of phenomena, and is therefor capitalized and is plural. If you want us to change this usage to meet Wiki standards, then I suggest you become involved in our research, otherwise, kindly stop telling us that you know better. It is very irritating. Tom Butler ( talk) 18:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Nealpar, now you sound like LuckyLouie with this "Gotcha!": "Hate to bring it up, Tom, but in your own book you quote the singular use..." Once again, if you look at the context of the use in that reference, it was used in the history section concerning the current understanding, and in fact, it specifically addresses tape recorder EVP, which as we know today, is a type of EVP but not the entire expression of the phenomena. Smythe coined it as the singular because that is what was known at the time.
Sure, you may find a few places that we use the plural or singular of EVP incorrectly. We try to follow grammatical rules, especially when we are speaking of one instance of EVP. I am also probably guilty of habitually using the plural when singular is correct. It can be complicated and that is why we feel it is important that any widely viewed media with encyclopedic authority get it right. Your statement, "... where's the harm?" tells me that you do not share that desire.
Seeing the extent some editors are willing to go to avoid accurately portraying paranormal subjects is revealing. Saying, "What I cannot tolerate is this attack on grammatical number in the English language" appears to be a simple effort to avoid the real issue. Since it is such obvious nonsense, I assume you are attempting humor.
Look, I really do not have time for this so let's cut to the point. I know that many editors think EVP is impossible, and consider it a personal responsibility to make sure readers do not go away thinking it is possible. The usual arsenal of caveats have been frowned on by the Administrators, but weasel words that subtly deriding people who believe in the possibility are not nearly as damaging as finding ways to relate paranormal articles to spiritual subjects. How can any rational thinker believe something is possible if it is clearly an article of religious faith? Thus, communicating with spirits is much more effective than communicating with entities. I wonder. Is it possible that you all are so determined to make EVP singular because making it plural suggests that, if there is more than one form, then there must really be something going on? Is that why you all are so obstinate?
Well, consider that a rhetorical question. I have work to do, so have your way with the article. Tom Butler ( talk) 00:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The treatment of explanations has been stable for some time, and I believe the previous version was widely agreed on. For SA to unilaterally change the treatment can only be seen as vandalism.
As for COI, you can make that accusation when I begin adding content. So far, all I have done is restore the article to a previous version and changed the way people who study EVP are referred to. It is simply incorrect to cast all who study EVP into the category of believers. If you do, then you must be saying that you have not studied EVP. Tom Butler ( talk) 23:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
SA had every reason to know that his edit would be unpopular, and to make it anyway is clearly a provocation. Call it otherwise as you wish, but the very long history of instability in this article and contentious editing, of which SA has been a part, makes it all the more important to have open discussion before such moves.
I am not interested in who owns what after an edit. When I start adding material such as the AA-EVP is great or you cannot know EVP without reading the Butler's book, then you have reason to complain. I am not adding content beyond what was previously agreed to during discussions. Had SA opened a dialog before making the edits, I probably would not have even contributed an opinion. As it is, I have seen that, if they are not questione, the skeptical community takes inch by inch until the article is a James Randi billboard.
I cite Conflict of interest 10.1) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest strongly cautions but does not forbid an editor from working in subject areas where the editor is strongly invested. Such editing must be done responsibly. Other editors are expected to respond diplomatically even when they believe a conflict of interest may exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed_decision#Conflict_of_interest Tom Butler ( talk) 01:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into the AGF issues, but seriously "EVP believers" doesn't even sound encyclopedic, so what's the point in using it? -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 01:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The reason I am so concerned with SA's unilateral edit of the proposed explanations is that, as a flat list, it is possible to address the theories from the same perspective of evidence, but as a proponent vs. skeptic division, important theories are relegated to irrelevant references or the word of skeptical authors who have virtually zero authority in the subject. The proponent section is based on research while the skeptic section is based on possibilities. It makes skeptic authors look silly and that hurts Wikipedia's credibility ... it hurts all of us.
Leave it as it is, but the same research that shows EVP is not necessarily pareidolia (for instance) could be used to show that it sometimes is. That is hard to do with two sides pitched against each other. Tom Butler ( talk) 16:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The term "researchers" implies a coordinated and recognized research effort. It is debatable that there is anyone actively "researching" EVP and certainly those who research it do not represent a coherent academic community. The problem with using "researcher" is that it doesn't convey the fact that the people we are referring to are actually supporters of the existence of this nonsense. The only way "researcher" works would automatically include skeptics who do not share the opinions that the people we are describing have. So what we need to do is find a phrase that indicates the true belief of these people in a way that is NPOV without sacrificing the reliability of the sentence to terms that (perhaps unintentionally) lend more credibility to the proponents than they actually have.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Raymond, you are making a joke ... right? If not, all you are doing is blowing smoke in an effort to obscure the facts in evidence.
You can add anything you want to the above, but using weasel words to make it sound like the above are not facts is misleading the public and may be self-serving. In view of the evidence available in the references--and more coming every day--if you can show us that the above is not true, then the article should be written as such. But using innuendo, explanations only supported by some skeptical writer of uninformed sound engineer does not amount to evidence, only a reference.
I would be happy to see the entire article changed to show the above facts are all observations and as reported, and not explored by mainstream science. That is also a fact. You do not have to write this article as proof of EVP just say what is in evidence without characterization and then state the reservations which are properly expressed by others. That sound like something we all might be able to support. Tom Butler ( talk) 18:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Antelan, I noted that one earlier. I have highlighted the part I think you have missed. Conflict of interest 10.1) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest strongly cautions but does not forbid an editor from working in subject areas where the editor is strongly invested. Such editing must be done responsibly. Other editors are expected to respond diplomatically even when they believe a conflict of interest may exist.
There is not consensus as to who is a "specialist" in the paranormal or EVP. Therefore, we should not use that term. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)