![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
Are there any sources in existence which can prove the success either way of the Spiricom? I've listened to the Spiricom MP3s and I'm totally unconvinced. Jonah Lark's comment in the archives regarding vocal fricatives made interesting reading and made me further doubt the authenticity of the Spiricom recordings. The page in it's current form seems to only support the theory for other devices not working as down to the operator's lack of "psychic abilities", rather than the very credible possibility that the original Spiricom was a blatant hoax. Also, other pages and sound recordings on the WorldITC website which purport to be of Mark Macy talking in the 90s to Konstantin Raudive (who died 20 years earlier) makes me think the entire website (not the whole of EVP, but just worlditc.org and The Spiricom) is just a massive hoax. Can someone prove me wrong, as I like to have an open mind on these things... Davetibbs ( talk) 00:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
How about including the classes ghost hunters use to rate EVPs based on clarity? This seems to be brought up frequently when they are posted online, e.g. Youtube (including a proliferation of "class C" EVPs that are totally undiscernable). Source: [1] (Google cache because their server was down last time I checked). 130.101.20.161 ( talk) 22:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Ultimately we'll do that, yes, at least down to class C. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty of good sources for the classification scheme, in print and also at authoritative websites. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
AAEVP is not quite good enough to source this. They make up all kinds of things at their website. What would be best is if we found someone who didn't believe in EVP reporting on the classification scheme (per WP:FRINGE#Independent sources). Barring that, if we could find one of the people mentioned in our article (like Raudive, for example) who used the classification scheme, at least that would be more authoritative than some website that Tom Butler made up one day. ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
No. Those aren't independent sources. We need independent sources to determine if this classification scheme is worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia. ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Let us be perfectly clear, and get it out once and for all- and not have to talk about it any more: there is no need for independent sources or reliable sources for saying something that EVPers believe. All we have to do is have sources that say they say they believe it. We do not need to have sources which independently gave them lie detector tests to prove they really believe it. In fact, we do have sources which state that this is what they believe and the ranking method they use, and that is completely and totally sufficient. 130.101.20.159 stated it well (and you should get a username (-: ). I can also provide print sources for the ranking system. Also, the AA-EVP is a good source for stating the prominence of the method within EVP circles. If they don't state it directly, then Estep's book and a few others should do- we don't need to have a statement of prominence of the method, if a lot of the best sources, like Estep, Butler, the AA-EVP etc. use it. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Martinphi seems to be under the impression that Wikipedia can serve as an "in-universe" clearinghouse for the beliefs of paranormal promoters. This is plainly not what Wikipedia is. We discuss things on Wikipedia relative to their notability, prominence, and verifiability to reliable sources. It is clear that the believers in the paranormal have a hard time producing sources that are reliable: it's their lot in life to be relegated to the fringes of mainstream society and academia (the places where Wikipedia relies most heavily for research to be conducted). As such, we are under a specific mandate by the content guidelines and policies to make sure that what we write about in this encyclopedia that is relevant to WP:FRINGE is covered using the best editorial techniques we have available. There is nothing intrinsically wrong about using a paranormal believer's personal website to source that particular paranormal believer's ideas about the world: but we absolutely must establish that the particular paranormal believer's beliefs are necessary for inclusion. We can only use such sources to provide a full "explanation" of the subject in question if we also take into consideration that no original research is allowed. Self-published works and websites are essentially original research when they begin to talk about things beyond the personal opinions of the author. Unfortunately, almost everything that the AAEVP includes beyond their statements about the history of their organization and their particular outlook is that sort of original research and will sooner or later be removed from this article. This article is standing right now as a soapbox for the beliefs of a select few of those who think that ghosts live in their radios and believe counterfactually to have a legitimate research group studying this supposed phenomenon. They are free to believe this and publish about this to their heart's content on their own web-servers. This is not, however, the point of Wikipedia. ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Outdent Fair enough. I tried to point out, but maybe wasn't clear, that a large portion of Raudive's Breakthrough is at one of the above links. It's linked to from this one; the direct link is here. The mention of the classes is in section 4.1, "Microphone Recording", starting at the sixth paragraph. He goes into pretty good detail about what each category entails. 130.101.152.66 ( talk) 21:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to clear things up: 130.101.152.17, I don't know how much experience you've had, but here is the principle: once the notability of a subject is established by a mainstream source, in that the source gives the subject extensive coverage:
"In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory."
After that,
"fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe."
This includes the notability of various perspectives to the adherents of those perspectives. Thus, once WP:NOTABILITY is established by a WP:V source, the article can be fully fleshed out with fringe sources to a level of detail which is equal to that which appears in the sources, as long as we are careful to follow WP:ATT. This is all per WP:FRINGE, from which the quotes are taken. It is true that FRINGE is only a guideline, not a policy, but it should probably be followed in this case. If I am wrong, perhaps a quote from FRINGE or somewhere else can be provided, saying that each subject covered in an article on a fringe subject needs to have its Notability established by a mainstream WP:V source. Otherwise, we are placing un-needed restrictions on this article, and wasting our time doing it.
The AA-EVP is the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena [7]. It is at least the primary American organization for EVP, the in-universe equivalent of, say, the AAAS. It thus speaks for the consensus of the field in general to a considerable degree (as shown by the fact that it has a large, paying member base), and is a good source for the general agreement of EVP practitioners. It is one of the primary sources upon which this article should be based, along with the books from the main experimenters in this field.
In addition, we are quite at liberty to include the original research of others. Those are called "secondary sources" or "primary sources" [8] . In this case, for in-universe information, the AA-EVP is a secondary source for general information, and sometimes a primary source. What we are not allowed to do is include our own research. If Tom Butler came and tried to insert his own opinion in the article, without references outside the AA-EVP, it might be OR on his part. However, if we source to "Tom Butler, Director of the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena," as an expert in the field, we are just doing our job. [9] —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Outdent I don't see how it's POV to include descriptive information. Dateline NBC did not (at least as far as I know); that was a hypothetical. 130.101.20.143 ( talk) 20:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
From a less academic point of view, to me the most important thing to be said about things like EVP is that James Randi's million bucks remains uncollected. I would give it at least a "See also" link. Art LaPella ( talk) 18:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is now available for editing. Those who edit war may be blocked, even if they do not technically violate 3RR. Please use the talk page or dispute resolution to resolve differences, rather than battling for editorial control. This article appears to have suffered from policy violations. Please be sure to follow WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V. Those who do not will be warned or blocked as appropriate. The current list of external links appears to violate policy. Let me know if there is further spamming and I will provide deterrence as needed. Jehochman Talk 18:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Please suggest all changes on the talk page before making them, and make sure there is a consensus of editors here. This article is one of the reasons I said I was not fully retired. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't mean to suggest another edit when we're talking about one already, but I just noticed this. The caption seems a little POV against EVP, but it's also an awfully long and roundabout way of saying it. How about "Visualization of a purported EVP recording"? 130.101.152.10 ( talk) 05:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The William O'Neil in this article is described as a (purported) electronics whiz and spiritual medium. But we have now wikilinked him to William O'Neil, whose article is about the stock market. Is there any evidence that these two are the same person? If not, the founder of Investor's Business Daily probably doesn't want to be associated with EVP. Art LaPella ( talk) 06:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The edit in question would add a section to the article including a classification system for the quality of purported EVP recordings. In discussing this edit (see "edit request" above), we have determined this system to have originated from Konstantin Raudive's 1971 essay Breakthrough. The text is here; the classification system is discussed is section 4.1, beginning at paragraph 6. Editors have expressed concern that adding a section for this article would violate WP:NPOV. 130.101.152.5 ( talk) 19:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
My view- it's in common usage by people who claim to have recorded EVPs. It was popularized in Sarah Estep's 1988 book Voices of Eternity, and (as one would expect) is
by the AA-EVP, Estep's organization. It's also used on a number of internet purported EVPs- see
this search result. It's usage is basically in-world; as I pointed out above, there would be little use for someone who believes the entire concept to be nonsense to classify these recordings by quality. It does, however, serve to point out that purported EVPs are of varying quality, not all a staticy mess.
130.101.152.5 (
talk)
20:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
My view is that this is a standard fact about the way EVP is categorized and the article will be deficient if it is not mentioned. 207.10.234.69 ( talk) 00:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
There seems to a bit of a problem with the introduction. Here are some problems with one of the versions
Puuuleeease. 207.10.234.69 ( talk) 00:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
How predictable. The article is unprotected, people edit-war in a bunch of non-consensus derogatory edits, and the article is re-protected. Please be advised that the article will not become stable via such non-consensus, non-NPOV edits. I'm glad I stayed away this time, because I've been blamed in the past. Can't blame me this time. I think everyone would agree, however, that the article is POV. I suggest we ask that the POV or totally-disputed tag be put on by consensus, and the article re-protected. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, the majority of the advocacy above is obviously being perpetrated by the "pro-EVP" crowd in that these people with their comments indicate their strong true belief that there are ghosts talking through electronic recordings. While this casts a pall on their opinions, we are here to write a neutral encyclopedia about this topic which, basically, is believed by a lot of people who are uneducated, ignorant of reality, basing their ideas on wishful thinking, etc. So, to that end, their contributions are welcomed and will help us. But ultimately, these ideas must be marginalized because this is a verifiable encyclopedia, not a paranormal wonderland.
So let's take one thing at a time. User:Nealparr, no obvious friend to skeptics, supported this introduction as a way to frame the places where this so-called "phenomena" crops up. Indeed, the way people collect EVP is by listening to static and noise. That's a fact: it's a fact admitted to by AAEVP and everyone else who believes in ghosts in electronoic media. We can source it very easily and will do so as soon as the article is unprotected.
In terms of investigators: that's fine with me. I think "ghost hunter" might also be good. The fact is, of course, that these people are rank amateurs who believe this nonsense.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
JzG or Guy ... which is it? Your block of 130.101.152.155 may be a hasty, judging by your accusation that I am 130.101.152.155. You said, "Please go back to your main account so we have can give your opinion proper weight, otherwise it will be ignored." In my off-wiki writing I strongly encourage people to register using their real name. As I think is so clearly demonstrated in Wikipedia, expressing a strong personality from behind a fictitious screen name turns people into a schoolyard bully. I don't know who 130.101.152.155 just as I don't know who you are, but I certainly am not it that person, but I agree that the opinion of anyone hiding behind a screen name is best ignored.
I am mystified as to why you think I am the only person offended by SA. That must be your view, otherwise I doubt you would have been so quick to block .155 apparently at the expense of a whole school. Can't you see that he has run off almost all of the editors who are not radically afraid of new ideas? You just blocked one for hardly any reason and now you have made it so that new people cannot edit here. Is that right? Do you see now that SA is gleefully editing unopposed in the EVP article? Do you see that you are clearly helping him? If you are really an admin, that looks pretty bad for Wikipedia.
I love the comment: "I would say that this article deserves to have the Official Wiki Pseudoscience-PoV-Push-backer Pitbull sicked on it. Pete St.John" that I found on SA's page. How many of you think of SA as your attack dog? Tom Butler ( talk) 17:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are sections of static on the radio or electronic recording media that are interpreted by some people who believe in the subject and call themselves paranormal investigators as voices speaking words."
How could any bunch of reasonable people come up with an opening sentence such as this? The Rationalist ( talk) 18:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, The Rationalist. I tried to rework the opening sentence. Please edit it as you see fit. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now that is pushing a point of view if I ever saw it. SA, you said, "This is the point this first sentence is illustrating: and it's an important one." in reference to making sure the opening sentence points out that people are listening to static until they finally hear something. In fact, static, white noise, pink or brown doesn't matter. These days, most experimenters use nothing but some use ambient sounds. We recommend a common fan--anything with abundant human voice-frequency energy since the utterances generally found between 200 Hz and 3 KHz. I just put up a few examples at [10] that were collected using Portuguese-language crowd babble as background noise.
In the online listening test at [11] one of the examples was taken using radio sweep, which is bits and pieces of real people talking supposedly opportunistically selected to form the message. No static.
SA, most of the edits you have made thus far have been to tightly link EVP with things that you can discount such as Spiritualism (thanks for dragging that old dog in NealPar) and Edison. That is also pushing point of view since both have only a passing relationship. Spiritualism is to EVP as astrology is to astronomy. Edison is to EVP as Isaac Asimov is to robotics.
The Rationalist, it is correct that there are visual forms of these phenomena, search video ITC [12] in Google and you will see many examples. We think the same physical processes are involved in both, in that whatever the small signal is that begins the formation of a voice or image, is acted on in the broad-spectrum noise by stochastic resonance. I think SA can explain to you in some detail how order naturally forms in such an environment. This "order" is not normally intelligent, but in a video loop looks a little like a science fiction version of looking forward at warp drive. We think that the "seed" influence exists to cause that natural order is influenced to make it appear as an utterance or an image. Both are demonstrably analogs of the real thing and both are formed in the electronics--not as audible voice/sounds or visible light in the room.
You can see the results on various websites. Of course, you will have to join us in our delusion to do so. You can also find alternative explanations, such as the examples are fraud or you are momentarily mad if you don't mind indicting hundreds of people. Whatever, the point is that if you are going to describe EVP, then you really should consider describing it as it is thought to be, not as you wish it is. If you are going to include ITC in this article, then you should include the visual form, since ITC involves any technology-based trans-communication.
It would be better to say that "people claim," and then say what is claimed, rather than all of that hand waving trying to make sure people don't believe it. Tom Butler ( talk) 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
PeterStJohn, I found The Rationalist's comment about his background in EVP fascinating and wanted to expand a little about noise. I regret that you felt my examples were "great rhetoric." My point was the variety of sound other than static. Perhaps if you learned a little more about EVP you would understand the importance of the varietry.
Given the condition that the opening section has been in, I have to admit that SA has done a good job in finding a relatively neutral line. I am not happy about the radio reference, but anyone bothering to study the subject in more detail will see that the point is outdated. My job is to study these phenomena and teach people about them. I look at this article from the perspective of what a person new to the subject will conclude. It is not at all important that they come away believing in EVP, but it poses problems if they come away thinking it is something that it is not. A radio is a sound source. EVP is recorded with various sound source as raw energy.
The intro is mixing apples and oranges. To my knowledge there are only three people who use/have used radio as a direct source of utterances. Bacci and Cardoso use what is known as Direct Radio Voice (DRV) in which apparent phenomenal utterances come directly from the radio. (Cardoso is a good friend of Fontana, which is reference 4, if you care to examine his most direct background source.) Spiricom was also a version of DRV. All of the empirical evidence indicates these are not actually EVP, but are novel forms of direct voice. The distinction matters because we can teach a person to record EVP using a plain old recorder, but we have never been able to teach DRV. If a person watches White Noise and reads the current intro, they would likely sit in front of the radio as SA describes, waiting for EVP. Tom Butler ( talk) 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Radio is not sound. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I have to go away for a week and am not sure about my Internet access, so I will just say this: SA, you are studiously evading the point. Since I understand that you are a physics teacher, I am accusing you of evading the point, otherwise I would have to accuse you of being a moron and I certainly do not want to do that. Any fool knows that the output of radio is sound and in EVP sound is used as the raw energy for the formation of EVP. Radio does not equal recorder and I think you know that. I suspect you just need the out that association of radio gives room for RF contamination. When you are ready for honest collaboration, I will return. Tom Butler ( talk) 06:28, 11 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
Are there any sources in existence which can prove the success either way of the Spiricom? I've listened to the Spiricom MP3s and I'm totally unconvinced. Jonah Lark's comment in the archives regarding vocal fricatives made interesting reading and made me further doubt the authenticity of the Spiricom recordings. The page in it's current form seems to only support the theory for other devices not working as down to the operator's lack of "psychic abilities", rather than the very credible possibility that the original Spiricom was a blatant hoax. Also, other pages and sound recordings on the WorldITC website which purport to be of Mark Macy talking in the 90s to Konstantin Raudive (who died 20 years earlier) makes me think the entire website (not the whole of EVP, but just worlditc.org and The Spiricom) is just a massive hoax. Can someone prove me wrong, as I like to have an open mind on these things... Davetibbs ( talk) 00:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
How about including the classes ghost hunters use to rate EVPs based on clarity? This seems to be brought up frequently when they are posted online, e.g. Youtube (including a proliferation of "class C" EVPs that are totally undiscernable). Source: [1] (Google cache because their server was down last time I checked). 130.101.20.161 ( talk) 22:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Ultimately we'll do that, yes, at least down to class C. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty of good sources for the classification scheme, in print and also at authoritative websites. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
AAEVP is not quite good enough to source this. They make up all kinds of things at their website. What would be best is if we found someone who didn't believe in EVP reporting on the classification scheme (per WP:FRINGE#Independent sources). Barring that, if we could find one of the people mentioned in our article (like Raudive, for example) who used the classification scheme, at least that would be more authoritative than some website that Tom Butler made up one day. ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
No. Those aren't independent sources. We need independent sources to determine if this classification scheme is worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia. ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Let us be perfectly clear, and get it out once and for all- and not have to talk about it any more: there is no need for independent sources or reliable sources for saying something that EVPers believe. All we have to do is have sources that say they say they believe it. We do not need to have sources which independently gave them lie detector tests to prove they really believe it. In fact, we do have sources which state that this is what they believe and the ranking method they use, and that is completely and totally sufficient. 130.101.20.159 stated it well (and you should get a username (-: ). I can also provide print sources for the ranking system. Also, the AA-EVP is a good source for stating the prominence of the method within EVP circles. If they don't state it directly, then Estep's book and a few others should do- we don't need to have a statement of prominence of the method, if a lot of the best sources, like Estep, Butler, the AA-EVP etc. use it. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Martinphi seems to be under the impression that Wikipedia can serve as an "in-universe" clearinghouse for the beliefs of paranormal promoters. This is plainly not what Wikipedia is. We discuss things on Wikipedia relative to their notability, prominence, and verifiability to reliable sources. It is clear that the believers in the paranormal have a hard time producing sources that are reliable: it's their lot in life to be relegated to the fringes of mainstream society and academia (the places where Wikipedia relies most heavily for research to be conducted). As such, we are under a specific mandate by the content guidelines and policies to make sure that what we write about in this encyclopedia that is relevant to WP:FRINGE is covered using the best editorial techniques we have available. There is nothing intrinsically wrong about using a paranormal believer's personal website to source that particular paranormal believer's ideas about the world: but we absolutely must establish that the particular paranormal believer's beliefs are necessary for inclusion. We can only use such sources to provide a full "explanation" of the subject in question if we also take into consideration that no original research is allowed. Self-published works and websites are essentially original research when they begin to talk about things beyond the personal opinions of the author. Unfortunately, almost everything that the AAEVP includes beyond their statements about the history of their organization and their particular outlook is that sort of original research and will sooner or later be removed from this article. This article is standing right now as a soapbox for the beliefs of a select few of those who think that ghosts live in their radios and believe counterfactually to have a legitimate research group studying this supposed phenomenon. They are free to believe this and publish about this to their heart's content on their own web-servers. This is not, however, the point of Wikipedia. ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Outdent Fair enough. I tried to point out, but maybe wasn't clear, that a large portion of Raudive's Breakthrough is at one of the above links. It's linked to from this one; the direct link is here. The mention of the classes is in section 4.1, "Microphone Recording", starting at the sixth paragraph. He goes into pretty good detail about what each category entails. 130.101.152.66 ( talk) 21:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to clear things up: 130.101.152.17, I don't know how much experience you've had, but here is the principle: once the notability of a subject is established by a mainstream source, in that the source gives the subject extensive coverage:
"In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory."
After that,
"fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe."
This includes the notability of various perspectives to the adherents of those perspectives. Thus, once WP:NOTABILITY is established by a WP:V source, the article can be fully fleshed out with fringe sources to a level of detail which is equal to that which appears in the sources, as long as we are careful to follow WP:ATT. This is all per WP:FRINGE, from which the quotes are taken. It is true that FRINGE is only a guideline, not a policy, but it should probably be followed in this case. If I am wrong, perhaps a quote from FRINGE or somewhere else can be provided, saying that each subject covered in an article on a fringe subject needs to have its Notability established by a mainstream WP:V source. Otherwise, we are placing un-needed restrictions on this article, and wasting our time doing it.
The AA-EVP is the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena [7]. It is at least the primary American organization for EVP, the in-universe equivalent of, say, the AAAS. It thus speaks for the consensus of the field in general to a considerable degree (as shown by the fact that it has a large, paying member base), and is a good source for the general agreement of EVP practitioners. It is one of the primary sources upon which this article should be based, along with the books from the main experimenters in this field.
In addition, we are quite at liberty to include the original research of others. Those are called "secondary sources" or "primary sources" [8] . In this case, for in-universe information, the AA-EVP is a secondary source for general information, and sometimes a primary source. What we are not allowed to do is include our own research. If Tom Butler came and tried to insert his own opinion in the article, without references outside the AA-EVP, it might be OR on his part. However, if we source to "Tom Butler, Director of the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena," as an expert in the field, we are just doing our job. [9] —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Outdent I don't see how it's POV to include descriptive information. Dateline NBC did not (at least as far as I know); that was a hypothetical. 130.101.20.143 ( talk) 20:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
From a less academic point of view, to me the most important thing to be said about things like EVP is that James Randi's million bucks remains uncollected. I would give it at least a "See also" link. Art LaPella ( talk) 18:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is now available for editing. Those who edit war may be blocked, even if they do not technically violate 3RR. Please use the talk page or dispute resolution to resolve differences, rather than battling for editorial control. This article appears to have suffered from policy violations. Please be sure to follow WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V. Those who do not will be warned or blocked as appropriate. The current list of external links appears to violate policy. Let me know if there is further spamming and I will provide deterrence as needed. Jehochman Talk 18:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Please suggest all changes on the talk page before making them, and make sure there is a consensus of editors here. This article is one of the reasons I said I was not fully retired. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't mean to suggest another edit when we're talking about one already, but I just noticed this. The caption seems a little POV against EVP, but it's also an awfully long and roundabout way of saying it. How about "Visualization of a purported EVP recording"? 130.101.152.10 ( talk) 05:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The William O'Neil in this article is described as a (purported) electronics whiz and spiritual medium. But we have now wikilinked him to William O'Neil, whose article is about the stock market. Is there any evidence that these two are the same person? If not, the founder of Investor's Business Daily probably doesn't want to be associated with EVP. Art LaPella ( talk) 06:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The edit in question would add a section to the article including a classification system for the quality of purported EVP recordings. In discussing this edit (see "edit request" above), we have determined this system to have originated from Konstantin Raudive's 1971 essay Breakthrough. The text is here; the classification system is discussed is section 4.1, beginning at paragraph 6. Editors have expressed concern that adding a section for this article would violate WP:NPOV. 130.101.152.5 ( talk) 19:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
My view- it's in common usage by people who claim to have recorded EVPs. It was popularized in Sarah Estep's 1988 book Voices of Eternity, and (as one would expect) is
by the AA-EVP, Estep's organization. It's also used on a number of internet purported EVPs- see
this search result. It's usage is basically in-world; as I pointed out above, there would be little use for someone who believes the entire concept to be nonsense to classify these recordings by quality. It does, however, serve to point out that purported EVPs are of varying quality, not all a staticy mess.
130.101.152.5 (
talk)
20:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
My view is that this is a standard fact about the way EVP is categorized and the article will be deficient if it is not mentioned. 207.10.234.69 ( talk) 00:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
There seems to a bit of a problem with the introduction. Here are some problems with one of the versions
Puuuleeease. 207.10.234.69 ( talk) 00:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
How predictable. The article is unprotected, people edit-war in a bunch of non-consensus derogatory edits, and the article is re-protected. Please be advised that the article will not become stable via such non-consensus, non-NPOV edits. I'm glad I stayed away this time, because I've been blamed in the past. Can't blame me this time. I think everyone would agree, however, that the article is POV. I suggest we ask that the POV or totally-disputed tag be put on by consensus, and the article re-protected. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, the majority of the advocacy above is obviously being perpetrated by the "pro-EVP" crowd in that these people with their comments indicate their strong true belief that there are ghosts talking through electronic recordings. While this casts a pall on their opinions, we are here to write a neutral encyclopedia about this topic which, basically, is believed by a lot of people who are uneducated, ignorant of reality, basing their ideas on wishful thinking, etc. So, to that end, their contributions are welcomed and will help us. But ultimately, these ideas must be marginalized because this is a verifiable encyclopedia, not a paranormal wonderland.
So let's take one thing at a time. User:Nealparr, no obvious friend to skeptics, supported this introduction as a way to frame the places where this so-called "phenomena" crops up. Indeed, the way people collect EVP is by listening to static and noise. That's a fact: it's a fact admitted to by AAEVP and everyone else who believes in ghosts in electronoic media. We can source it very easily and will do so as soon as the article is unprotected.
In terms of investigators: that's fine with me. I think "ghost hunter" might also be good. The fact is, of course, that these people are rank amateurs who believe this nonsense.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
JzG or Guy ... which is it? Your block of 130.101.152.155 may be a hasty, judging by your accusation that I am 130.101.152.155. You said, "Please go back to your main account so we have can give your opinion proper weight, otherwise it will be ignored." In my off-wiki writing I strongly encourage people to register using their real name. As I think is so clearly demonstrated in Wikipedia, expressing a strong personality from behind a fictitious screen name turns people into a schoolyard bully. I don't know who 130.101.152.155 just as I don't know who you are, but I certainly am not it that person, but I agree that the opinion of anyone hiding behind a screen name is best ignored.
I am mystified as to why you think I am the only person offended by SA. That must be your view, otherwise I doubt you would have been so quick to block .155 apparently at the expense of a whole school. Can't you see that he has run off almost all of the editors who are not radically afraid of new ideas? You just blocked one for hardly any reason and now you have made it so that new people cannot edit here. Is that right? Do you see now that SA is gleefully editing unopposed in the EVP article? Do you see that you are clearly helping him? If you are really an admin, that looks pretty bad for Wikipedia.
I love the comment: "I would say that this article deserves to have the Official Wiki Pseudoscience-PoV-Push-backer Pitbull sicked on it. Pete St.John" that I found on SA's page. How many of you think of SA as your attack dog? Tom Butler ( talk) 17:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are sections of static on the radio or electronic recording media that are interpreted by some people who believe in the subject and call themselves paranormal investigators as voices speaking words."
How could any bunch of reasonable people come up with an opening sentence such as this? The Rationalist ( talk) 18:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, The Rationalist. I tried to rework the opening sentence. Please edit it as you see fit. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now that is pushing a point of view if I ever saw it. SA, you said, "This is the point this first sentence is illustrating: and it's an important one." in reference to making sure the opening sentence points out that people are listening to static until they finally hear something. In fact, static, white noise, pink or brown doesn't matter. These days, most experimenters use nothing but some use ambient sounds. We recommend a common fan--anything with abundant human voice-frequency energy since the utterances generally found between 200 Hz and 3 KHz. I just put up a few examples at [10] that were collected using Portuguese-language crowd babble as background noise.
In the online listening test at [11] one of the examples was taken using radio sweep, which is bits and pieces of real people talking supposedly opportunistically selected to form the message. No static.
SA, most of the edits you have made thus far have been to tightly link EVP with things that you can discount such as Spiritualism (thanks for dragging that old dog in NealPar) and Edison. That is also pushing point of view since both have only a passing relationship. Spiritualism is to EVP as astrology is to astronomy. Edison is to EVP as Isaac Asimov is to robotics.
The Rationalist, it is correct that there are visual forms of these phenomena, search video ITC [12] in Google and you will see many examples. We think the same physical processes are involved in both, in that whatever the small signal is that begins the formation of a voice or image, is acted on in the broad-spectrum noise by stochastic resonance. I think SA can explain to you in some detail how order naturally forms in such an environment. This "order" is not normally intelligent, but in a video loop looks a little like a science fiction version of looking forward at warp drive. We think that the "seed" influence exists to cause that natural order is influenced to make it appear as an utterance or an image. Both are demonstrably analogs of the real thing and both are formed in the electronics--not as audible voice/sounds or visible light in the room.
You can see the results on various websites. Of course, you will have to join us in our delusion to do so. You can also find alternative explanations, such as the examples are fraud or you are momentarily mad if you don't mind indicting hundreds of people. Whatever, the point is that if you are going to describe EVP, then you really should consider describing it as it is thought to be, not as you wish it is. If you are going to include ITC in this article, then you should include the visual form, since ITC involves any technology-based trans-communication.
It would be better to say that "people claim," and then say what is claimed, rather than all of that hand waving trying to make sure people don't believe it. Tom Butler ( talk) 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
PeterStJohn, I found The Rationalist's comment about his background in EVP fascinating and wanted to expand a little about noise. I regret that you felt my examples were "great rhetoric." My point was the variety of sound other than static. Perhaps if you learned a little more about EVP you would understand the importance of the varietry.
Given the condition that the opening section has been in, I have to admit that SA has done a good job in finding a relatively neutral line. I am not happy about the radio reference, but anyone bothering to study the subject in more detail will see that the point is outdated. My job is to study these phenomena and teach people about them. I look at this article from the perspective of what a person new to the subject will conclude. It is not at all important that they come away believing in EVP, but it poses problems if they come away thinking it is something that it is not. A radio is a sound source. EVP is recorded with various sound source as raw energy.
The intro is mixing apples and oranges. To my knowledge there are only three people who use/have used radio as a direct source of utterances. Bacci and Cardoso use what is known as Direct Radio Voice (DRV) in which apparent phenomenal utterances come directly from the radio. (Cardoso is a good friend of Fontana, which is reference 4, if you care to examine his most direct background source.) Spiricom was also a version of DRV. All of the empirical evidence indicates these are not actually EVP, but are novel forms of direct voice. The distinction matters because we can teach a person to record EVP using a plain old recorder, but we have never been able to teach DRV. If a person watches White Noise and reads the current intro, they would likely sit in front of the radio as SA describes, waiting for EVP. Tom Butler ( talk) 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Radio is not sound. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I have to go away for a week and am not sure about my Internet access, so I will just say this: SA, you are studiously evading the point. Since I understand that you are a physics teacher, I am accusing you of evading the point, otherwise I would have to accuse you of being a moron and I certainly do not want to do that. Any fool knows that the output of radio is sound and in EVP sound is used as the raw energy for the formation of EVP. Radio does not equal recorder and I think you know that. I suspect you just need the out that association of radio gives room for RF contamination. When you are ready for honest collaboration, I will return. Tom Butler ( talk) 06:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)