![]() | 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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
I don't understand why the article states that EVP are static interpreted by some paranormal believers as voices. Many examples of alleged EVP are clearly voices. The only debate about these examples is whether they are in any way paranormal, or whether they have a more earthly origin. I said a while ago that the intro just made the article look silly and it still does. Why not just say that some alleged cases of EVP are voices????? LionelStarkweather ( talk) 13:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's a selection of samples from the Ghost Orchid CD (mentioned in the article) [1]. These might be the stray radio or outright hoaxes, but they're offered as examples of EVP and they're definitely voices. LionelStarkweather ( talk) 18:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
And here's a link to the whole of the Ghost Orchid [2]. LionelStarkweather ( talk) 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
LionelStarkweather, here is the issue: voice has many definitions. One of these many is, the sound made by the vibration of vocal folds modified by the resonance of the vocal tract. Many people have something like this in mind when they see the word "voice" - it implies that someone has spoken. To say that these sounds are actually "voices" is to beg the question and imply that they are generated by someone/something that can speak. This isn't necessarily the truth, and in fact is probably not true. Ante lan talk 21:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
If the examples cited above are not voices, then perhaps you could tell us what you take them to be. LionelStarkweather ( talk) 22:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
So why does the article baldly state they are mere "static". That is what makes the claim false. LionelStarkweather ( talk) 22:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
<undent> Dudes, look at the skeptical explanations: they say it is radio interference. Thus, some of them, according to the skeptics and certainly according to the believers, are radio- and thus voices. Some of them, according to the skeptics, are noise mistaken for voices- and thus voice-like sounds. We had that part of the intro fine at one point, and I suggest we go back to that. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
All this interesting original research aside, everyone agrees that these are sounds, which is what the intro sentence should make clear. What is not agreed upon is the interpretation of these sounds as voices. This should be made clear in the lead. Ante lan talk 01:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the most absurd discussion I've seen on wikipedia. Err...correct that, I guess I've seen worse. I don't believe in ghosts, and the idea of the supernatural existing is laughable, but the objection that these sounds (a fair number of which are quite clearly voices) are not, in fact, voices because they are not being physically spoken (as Antelan argues) is misdirection of the worst sort, and utterly beneath the scientific point of view. We can freely admit these sounds for what they are - clearly voices - without admitting that there is some sort of ghost behind them, or whatever the current fringe explanation is. But they are quite clearly voices. The only argument above that offers otherwise is entirely based out of bias and semantics. Hewhorulestheworld ( talk) 15:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Plenty, including Skeptical Inquirer and mainstream news sources. Take your pick [4]. Those are recent articles, here's the archives [5] -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 18:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Rracecarr, if you'd like to talk about treating this article as a religious article, where researchers are called "adherents" and "believers", I'd be more than happy to discuss that with you. However, just changing every instance of "researcher" to "believer" does not make for good encyclopedia entry. Like I pointed out after your first edit, even the Skeptical Inquirer refers to paranormal researchers as researchers. It's about as neutral as it gets. Framing it as a religious belief is not neutral. Repeatedly doing this doesn't help to make the edits "sticky". -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 23:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Researcher is an unacceptable term because people who "research" EVP are not just people who believe in EVP. The problem with using "researcher" is that it doesn't convey the fact that the "researchers" in question are true believers in EVP. That's an important distinction that was left out of the discussion above. ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
No, they both have roots in the physical principles involved with action-reaction or thrust. if you were to make a connection like the riverboat, you should go back to the oarsman. The connection is there, but it is irreverent to the subject of the design of a submarine.
In the same way, EVP is related to spiritualism but both are related to shamanism, animism and on back. The connection is the apparent principle of communicating with discarnate entities. If you are going to use the spiritualism reference, then I think it is only right to include all of the other -isms that have ever contacted the dead. Von Szalay is just one of many early experimenters, and others, more historically important experimenters were decidedly not associated or trained in spiritualism. Your association only serves to put EVP in a religious context, and that does not serve the good of the article. Tom Butler ( talk) 17:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Antelan, you don't like it when I archive stuff. Would you mind archiving as much of this pages as you can? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Will the real ScienceApologist please stand up? Isn't there a reason for blocks? Rracecarr, you are following in SA's footsteps by calling ITC researchers "delusional crazies." And you all wonder why I am confrontational in Wikipedia.
It is not necessary to characterize the subject beyond what is evident. For instance, why not write the article in the tone of "Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are described as sections of voice-like sounds on electronic recording media that are interpreted by paranormal researchers as voices speaking words." I have taken out the "EVP enthusiasts" part and added "are described as." Also, radios do not record, so I removed it as a technical inaccuracy.
By the way, in the third paragraph, "deceased spirits" is an oxymoron. If you have to use "spirit" then please recognize that in a religious context, spirits are what survives the physical body and are therefore consided to be living. Tom Butler ( talk) 18:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The opening sentence to this article reads:
A) "Voice like sounds" is a mischaracterisation of the phenomenon for the reason cited above - ie. many examples of alleged EVP are voices.
B)"enthusiasts who call themselves" is misleading and pejorative because to say "X calls himself a Y" implies that there is some dubiety about X being a Y (it actually means X isn't really a Y). But as Nealparr has shown above with copious sources "paranormal researchers" is how the people being referred to are described everywhere else one cares to look.
C) "interpreted by EVP enthusiasts who call themselves paranormal researchers" is misleading because the vast majority of people who believe that EVP are of paranormal origin (if we ever actually get to the paranormal point - which is the nub of the issue) are just ordinary members of the public who happen to believe in paranormal phenomena.
D)"interpreted [...] as voices speaking words" is misleading because: a) many are voices and so are correctly identified as such rather than interpreted; b) because it lodges the issue of interpretation/belief in the wrong place. That is it lodges it against the "voice/not voice" claim which is a very poor second behind the "paranormal/non-paranormal" claim which is actually what the whole issue is surrounding EVP. And c) because if the point you really want to make is only ythe one about interpretation as voices then this will extend the numbers of those who interpret them that way into almost everyone who has ever heard them, e.g., Raymond above who accepts that the examples I provided are "obviously voices".
This is a really horrible way to start an article. LionelStarkweather ( talk) 23:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I have edited the current lead to a version I think is best. It is better than the proposed versions because it clarifies that EVP is found in noise and it focuses on the major explanations (ghosts). ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
That some reported EVP may be stray radio signals is true. That there are examples of EVP that people claim to be EVP even after verifying the fact that they are stray radio sources is not true. Therefore, there are no verifiable reports of EVP which are simultaneously believed by skeptic and believer alike to be "voices" (that is, once it can be verified that the EVP is a radio source, there aren't very many EVP believers who will pretend that their proposed example is an honest-to-god EVP). Most EVP, in fact, are just examples of people listening to static under weird enough conditions and for long enough for them to decide that they hear voices in the noise. ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, using Joe Banks' Ghost Orchid CD as an example of something that somebody actually thinks is EVP is disingenuous. From what I understand of Rorschach Audio Project, they were trying to debunk EVP by providing examples of the stuff for which they knew the source. ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
First, the Ghost Orchid isn't by Joe Banks! It's a collection of recordings from various EVP researchers including Raymond Cass and Raudive. Banks only wrote one section of the sleeve notes. Second, my intro doesn't actually say EVP are voices, it leaves this question open but moves away from the obviously false claim that they are in fact static (see, for example, the samples identified above). That intro, your intro, simply takes one part of the sceptical explanation (an explanation for only part of the phenomenon) and defines EVP in terms of that. The voice argument above (and the samples - have you listened to them) is only meant to show why doing this makes the article look silly. That is, it is silly to open an article with an obvious falsehood. Thus my improved intro above. LionelStarkweather ( talk) 23:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Is a word used for hobbyists [7] Before entering that word, imagine it said "hobbyist" instead, and think how unencyclopedic it sounds. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The word skeptic is a proud thing, not something that can denigrate when put in the wrong context. Arritt must have a very low opinion of skeptics, else there would be no question about calling them that. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The point here is that while "skeptic" clearly lets the reader know the POV of the person/groups we are talking about, "researcher" is ambiguous. Find a better term. ScienceApologist ( talk) 12:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I was involved in conversations here but have to get back to a wiki-break. I stand by my points above, but can't support them while I'm gone. Go wild : ) -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 06:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the intro because in three days of pointless off-topic arguing nobody has yet come up with, or even tried to come up with, any reason why the article should start with an unsourced falsehood. LionelStarkweather ( talk) 10:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
In any event, all I ever started editing this article for was that I had read a little about EVP after watching White Noise and thought the intro here made the article look stupid - after all, many alleged examples of EVP are VOICES and not static. After wasting nearly a week of my life on stupid arguments with stupid people with stupid axes to grind I don't think I'll be troubling you any more here. I simply don't believe that all you (ScienceApologist) are trying to do is write an accurate introduction. I looked at your talk page and it is evident that what you want to do here is define EVP in terms of one skeptical explanation for a part of that phenomenon so that that view is presented before a reader even gets a chance to find out what EVP are supposed to be. That you choose to pretend by a variety of deliberate point missing, half truths, and arrogant disingenuity that that is not what you are doing simply doesn't wash. For the record, I don't believe EVP is paranormal, and nothing I tried to write in any way supported the notion that it was. My definition could virtually have been lifted direct from Skepdic, "Electronic voice phenomenon is the alleged communication by spirits through tape recorders and other electronic devices", but you're so busy with your agenda that you probably didn't even notice this. Happy editing. LionelStarkweather ( talk) 14:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Given that Lionel has stated above that he has given up, are there any objections to reverting to the other version after protection ends? ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Outdent It depends on what supports it being a fringe belief- of course, all the skeptic journals say it's fake and all the paranormal journals say it's real. A hypothesis isn't automatically a fringe idea from the day it's thought up. It really comes down to how many people stand on each side of the debate. If that could be quantified I think we could end a lot of the tug-of-war that goes on over the wording. Has a poll ever been done (by a third party, not one that purports or denies EVP) that tells what percentage of the population believes it is real? If it's a tiny minority, then of course it's a fringe idea, but if it's even close to 50/50 then it's at least not fringe thinking, even if it's not accepted by everyone. Of course, the argument can be made that the general public is gullible, etc., but for the purpose of an encyclopedia, that's about the best neutral indicator we could go by.
Come to think of it, having a numerical statistic in the article could eliminate some of the "generally accepted"/"generally refuted" type of word bickering, since we'd have it quantified.
It would really be great to get the initial wording down in an NPOV way due to how much the article contains already. There is a great deal of information included for both sides, with good sources, it just comes down to which side is right and which side is wrong, and that's personal opinion. And thought I'd point out about the definition, clearly some people disagree, because it started an edit war. It stands to reason that if a neutral ground isn't struck it will never be anything but an edit war. 130.101.90.31 ( talk) 03:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what all the fuss is about the introduction. At the moment it is line with, almost verbatim, the one essentially scientific source that is cited in the article (Imants Baruss). In his article he says that "Electronic voice phenomenon (EVP) refers to the purported manifestation of voices of the dead and other discarnate entities through electronic means." That seems much fairer than to say that EVP are sections of static that some people who believe in EVP believe to be voices. Additionally, Baruss, a skeptical scientist, even acknowledges that in his experiments he found "voices" on his tapes, and while he rejects a paranormal explanation for those voices, this fact alone would seem to put paid to the idea that they can neutrally be described as nothing more than static interpreted as voices. Zeticulan ( talk) 22:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Please DO NOT revert the intro without discussion. Thank you. 130.101.152.5 ( talk) 20:10, 7 March 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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
I don't understand why the article states that EVP are static interpreted by some paranormal believers as voices. Many examples of alleged EVP are clearly voices. The only debate about these examples is whether they are in any way paranormal, or whether they have a more earthly origin. I said a while ago that the intro just made the article look silly and it still does. Why not just say that some alleged cases of EVP are voices????? LionelStarkweather ( talk) 13:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's a selection of samples from the Ghost Orchid CD (mentioned in the article) [1]. These might be the stray radio or outright hoaxes, but they're offered as examples of EVP and they're definitely voices. LionelStarkweather ( talk) 18:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
And here's a link to the whole of the Ghost Orchid [2]. LionelStarkweather ( talk) 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
LionelStarkweather, here is the issue: voice has many definitions. One of these many is, the sound made by the vibration of vocal folds modified by the resonance of the vocal tract. Many people have something like this in mind when they see the word "voice" - it implies that someone has spoken. To say that these sounds are actually "voices" is to beg the question and imply that they are generated by someone/something that can speak. This isn't necessarily the truth, and in fact is probably not true. Ante lan talk 21:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
If the examples cited above are not voices, then perhaps you could tell us what you take them to be. LionelStarkweather ( talk) 22:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
So why does the article baldly state they are mere "static". That is what makes the claim false. LionelStarkweather ( talk) 22:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
<undent> Dudes, look at the skeptical explanations: they say it is radio interference. Thus, some of them, according to the skeptics and certainly according to the believers, are radio- and thus voices. Some of them, according to the skeptics, are noise mistaken for voices- and thus voice-like sounds. We had that part of the intro fine at one point, and I suggest we go back to that. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
All this interesting original research aside, everyone agrees that these are sounds, which is what the intro sentence should make clear. What is not agreed upon is the interpretation of these sounds as voices. This should be made clear in the lead. Ante lan talk 01:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the most absurd discussion I've seen on wikipedia. Err...correct that, I guess I've seen worse. I don't believe in ghosts, and the idea of the supernatural existing is laughable, but the objection that these sounds (a fair number of which are quite clearly voices) are not, in fact, voices because they are not being physically spoken (as Antelan argues) is misdirection of the worst sort, and utterly beneath the scientific point of view. We can freely admit these sounds for what they are - clearly voices - without admitting that there is some sort of ghost behind them, or whatever the current fringe explanation is. But they are quite clearly voices. The only argument above that offers otherwise is entirely based out of bias and semantics. Hewhorulestheworld ( talk) 15:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Plenty, including Skeptical Inquirer and mainstream news sources. Take your pick [4]. Those are recent articles, here's the archives [5] -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 18:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Rracecarr, if you'd like to talk about treating this article as a religious article, where researchers are called "adherents" and "believers", I'd be more than happy to discuss that with you. However, just changing every instance of "researcher" to "believer" does not make for good encyclopedia entry. Like I pointed out after your first edit, even the Skeptical Inquirer refers to paranormal researchers as researchers. It's about as neutral as it gets. Framing it as a religious belief is not neutral. Repeatedly doing this doesn't help to make the edits "sticky". -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 23:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Researcher is an unacceptable term because people who "research" EVP are not just people who believe in EVP. The problem with using "researcher" is that it doesn't convey the fact that the "researchers" in question are true believers in EVP. That's an important distinction that was left out of the discussion above. ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
No, they both have roots in the physical principles involved with action-reaction or thrust. if you were to make a connection like the riverboat, you should go back to the oarsman. The connection is there, but it is irreverent to the subject of the design of a submarine.
In the same way, EVP is related to spiritualism but both are related to shamanism, animism and on back. The connection is the apparent principle of communicating with discarnate entities. If you are going to use the spiritualism reference, then I think it is only right to include all of the other -isms that have ever contacted the dead. Von Szalay is just one of many early experimenters, and others, more historically important experimenters were decidedly not associated or trained in spiritualism. Your association only serves to put EVP in a religious context, and that does not serve the good of the article. Tom Butler ( talk) 17:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Antelan, you don't like it when I archive stuff. Would you mind archiving as much of this pages as you can? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Will the real ScienceApologist please stand up? Isn't there a reason for blocks? Rracecarr, you are following in SA's footsteps by calling ITC researchers "delusional crazies." And you all wonder why I am confrontational in Wikipedia.
It is not necessary to characterize the subject beyond what is evident. For instance, why not write the article in the tone of "Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are described as sections of voice-like sounds on electronic recording media that are interpreted by paranormal researchers as voices speaking words." I have taken out the "EVP enthusiasts" part and added "are described as." Also, radios do not record, so I removed it as a technical inaccuracy.
By the way, in the third paragraph, "deceased spirits" is an oxymoron. If you have to use "spirit" then please recognize that in a religious context, spirits are what survives the physical body and are therefore consided to be living. Tom Butler ( talk) 18:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The opening sentence to this article reads:
A) "Voice like sounds" is a mischaracterisation of the phenomenon for the reason cited above - ie. many examples of alleged EVP are voices.
B)"enthusiasts who call themselves" is misleading and pejorative because to say "X calls himself a Y" implies that there is some dubiety about X being a Y (it actually means X isn't really a Y). But as Nealparr has shown above with copious sources "paranormal researchers" is how the people being referred to are described everywhere else one cares to look.
C) "interpreted by EVP enthusiasts who call themselves paranormal researchers" is misleading because the vast majority of people who believe that EVP are of paranormal origin (if we ever actually get to the paranormal point - which is the nub of the issue) are just ordinary members of the public who happen to believe in paranormal phenomena.
D)"interpreted [...] as voices speaking words" is misleading because: a) many are voices and so are correctly identified as such rather than interpreted; b) because it lodges the issue of interpretation/belief in the wrong place. That is it lodges it against the "voice/not voice" claim which is a very poor second behind the "paranormal/non-paranormal" claim which is actually what the whole issue is surrounding EVP. And c) because if the point you really want to make is only ythe one about interpretation as voices then this will extend the numbers of those who interpret them that way into almost everyone who has ever heard them, e.g., Raymond above who accepts that the examples I provided are "obviously voices".
This is a really horrible way to start an article. LionelStarkweather ( talk) 23:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I have edited the current lead to a version I think is best. It is better than the proposed versions because it clarifies that EVP is found in noise and it focuses on the major explanations (ghosts). ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
That some reported EVP may be stray radio signals is true. That there are examples of EVP that people claim to be EVP even after verifying the fact that they are stray radio sources is not true. Therefore, there are no verifiable reports of EVP which are simultaneously believed by skeptic and believer alike to be "voices" (that is, once it can be verified that the EVP is a radio source, there aren't very many EVP believers who will pretend that their proposed example is an honest-to-god EVP). Most EVP, in fact, are just examples of people listening to static under weird enough conditions and for long enough for them to decide that they hear voices in the noise. ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, using Joe Banks' Ghost Orchid CD as an example of something that somebody actually thinks is EVP is disingenuous. From what I understand of Rorschach Audio Project, they were trying to debunk EVP by providing examples of the stuff for which they knew the source. ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
First, the Ghost Orchid isn't by Joe Banks! It's a collection of recordings from various EVP researchers including Raymond Cass and Raudive. Banks only wrote one section of the sleeve notes. Second, my intro doesn't actually say EVP are voices, it leaves this question open but moves away from the obviously false claim that they are in fact static (see, for example, the samples identified above). That intro, your intro, simply takes one part of the sceptical explanation (an explanation for only part of the phenomenon) and defines EVP in terms of that. The voice argument above (and the samples - have you listened to them) is only meant to show why doing this makes the article look silly. That is, it is silly to open an article with an obvious falsehood. Thus my improved intro above. LionelStarkweather ( talk) 23:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Is a word used for hobbyists [7] Before entering that word, imagine it said "hobbyist" instead, and think how unencyclopedic it sounds. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The word skeptic is a proud thing, not something that can denigrate when put in the wrong context. Arritt must have a very low opinion of skeptics, else there would be no question about calling them that. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The point here is that while "skeptic" clearly lets the reader know the POV of the person/groups we are talking about, "researcher" is ambiguous. Find a better term. ScienceApologist ( talk) 12:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I was involved in conversations here but have to get back to a wiki-break. I stand by my points above, but can't support them while I'm gone. Go wild : ) -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 06:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the intro because in three days of pointless off-topic arguing nobody has yet come up with, or even tried to come up with, any reason why the article should start with an unsourced falsehood. LionelStarkweather ( talk) 10:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
In any event, all I ever started editing this article for was that I had read a little about EVP after watching White Noise and thought the intro here made the article look stupid - after all, many alleged examples of EVP are VOICES and not static. After wasting nearly a week of my life on stupid arguments with stupid people with stupid axes to grind I don't think I'll be troubling you any more here. I simply don't believe that all you (ScienceApologist) are trying to do is write an accurate introduction. I looked at your talk page and it is evident that what you want to do here is define EVP in terms of one skeptical explanation for a part of that phenomenon so that that view is presented before a reader even gets a chance to find out what EVP are supposed to be. That you choose to pretend by a variety of deliberate point missing, half truths, and arrogant disingenuity that that is not what you are doing simply doesn't wash. For the record, I don't believe EVP is paranormal, and nothing I tried to write in any way supported the notion that it was. My definition could virtually have been lifted direct from Skepdic, "Electronic voice phenomenon is the alleged communication by spirits through tape recorders and other electronic devices", but you're so busy with your agenda that you probably didn't even notice this. Happy editing. LionelStarkweather ( talk) 14:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Given that Lionel has stated above that he has given up, are there any objections to reverting to the other version after protection ends? ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Outdent It depends on what supports it being a fringe belief- of course, all the skeptic journals say it's fake and all the paranormal journals say it's real. A hypothesis isn't automatically a fringe idea from the day it's thought up. It really comes down to how many people stand on each side of the debate. If that could be quantified I think we could end a lot of the tug-of-war that goes on over the wording. Has a poll ever been done (by a third party, not one that purports or denies EVP) that tells what percentage of the population believes it is real? If it's a tiny minority, then of course it's a fringe idea, but if it's even close to 50/50 then it's at least not fringe thinking, even if it's not accepted by everyone. Of course, the argument can be made that the general public is gullible, etc., but for the purpose of an encyclopedia, that's about the best neutral indicator we could go by.
Come to think of it, having a numerical statistic in the article could eliminate some of the "generally accepted"/"generally refuted" type of word bickering, since we'd have it quantified.
It would really be great to get the initial wording down in an NPOV way due to how much the article contains already. There is a great deal of information included for both sides, with good sources, it just comes down to which side is right and which side is wrong, and that's personal opinion. And thought I'd point out about the definition, clearly some people disagree, because it started an edit war. It stands to reason that if a neutral ground isn't struck it will never be anything but an edit war. 130.101.90.31 ( talk) 03:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what all the fuss is about the introduction. At the moment it is line with, almost verbatim, the one essentially scientific source that is cited in the article (Imants Baruss). In his article he says that "Electronic voice phenomenon (EVP) refers to the purported manifestation of voices of the dead and other discarnate entities through electronic means." That seems much fairer than to say that EVP are sections of static that some people who believe in EVP believe to be voices. Additionally, Baruss, a skeptical scientist, even acknowledges that in his experiments he found "voices" on his tapes, and while he rejects a paranormal explanation for those voices, this fact alone would seem to put paid to the idea that they can neutrally be described as nothing more than static interpreted as voices. Zeticulan ( talk) 22:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Please DO NOT revert the intro without discussion. Thank you. 130.101.152.5 ( talk) 20:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)