Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 18

Failed GA

After reading the article, User:LuckyLouie's comments this talk page and some news articles it's clear that this article is not up to the GA standard.

While it is reasonably well written, appears to be largly accurate and verifyable it fails on a few counts

• Neutral point of view - not only is the article tagged as disputed but the balance in the article does not reflect the view of the larger world. The article does not adequately present the mainstream viewpoint on EVP and the lead in particular is not neutrally written. At the very least I would expect an entire paragraph of the lead presenting the mainstream view that this is a fringe, unreal phenomenon. The lead for Flat Earth is not a bad guide (though not a great one either )
• Well written - there are lots of convoluted parts that need copyediting. Sentences like The question of whether or not audio recordings thought to be EVP are just noise mistaken by an individual listener to be words, or actually form words, has been addressed with the use of listening panels' are unduly difficult to read.
• Factual - the Criticism section appears to be a synthesis of viewpoints created in wikipedia. There are other sections that also seem to suffer from this problem
• Style - at the least the references need to follow a common style.

I do suggest that the balance between proponents and criticism be clearly looked at. The article needs to settle down, the article made neutral then best to go to peer review. --Peripitus (Talk) 11:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, we will take your points into consideration.

The article lead already has 1/3 space devoted to the skeptical point of view, as you suggest- a full paragraph. The lead is already much more devoted to being skeptical than Flat Earth, in my reading. The difference here is that the Flat Earth idea has been specifically (sourcably) studied and refuted by science, and EVP has not.

We do need to make the sentences easier to understand, I can see that.

Our problem here is that we can find lots of sources for EVP, and almost none for skepticism. The article is factually written, and I believe that it is NPOV in the sense that the paranormality of EVP is not promoted. But the skepticism section is probably OR as you say.

If you think there is a POV expressed in the article, could you tell us how to fix it? We have been unable to source the "view of the larger world" you speak of, because EVP is ignored by nearly everyone except proponents. Thus, there just isn't any view at all, that we can source, anyway. That's why the skepticism section has OR. What would you suggest we do? Should we perhaps be more clear than we already are when we say that

"Mainstream science has generally ignored EVP, but there are a number of non-paranormal explanations, which account for EVP by such mechanisms as radio interference or the tendency of the human brain to recognize patterns in random stimuli.[43] These include:"

This has been one of the main quandaries of the article, and anything you can think of to solve this problem would be welcome. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a problem ... and looking at the talk page battle+mediation case not one that will be simple to fix. I've browsed through a few pages of google books/scholar with no enlightenment as mainstream science seems to ignore it. It seems treated the same way as the Flat Earth theory but without the timespan that would allow reliable sources. This complete lack of interest or comment by the science establishment or the press needs to the made clear in the article. Although this needs work the following reads far better as a NPOV lead:

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds, inaudible during recording, that some paranormal researchers claim to detect on electronic recordings. There is no mainstream scientific support for the claim although reporting of EVP in relation to hauntings is common in the press. As claimed by the paranormal community they are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase and are sometimes claimed to be in direct response to the questions of researchers. The phenomena has been reported on diverse media, including: radio, hamradio, television, tape recorders and videorecorders. The term was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. Previously the term “Raudive Voices” was used, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive, an early researcher. References to EVP have appeared in the reality television show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense as well as literature including the novels Legion and Pattern Recognition. EVP are a subset of the paranormal field of instrumental transcommunication.

Bits that are not well suited to a neutral point of view in the lead:

• Critics of Electronic voice phenomena - implies that there is an argument and criticism rather than proposition on on hand and dismissal as a nonscientific fringe theory on the other.
• The phenomena has been observed - implies that something has really been observed. As claimed by the paranormal community states the case far better
• The entire third paragraph of the lead reads as Original research

--Peripitus (Talk) 07:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (: Your lead is accurate in a lot of ways, but doesn't quite get to the heart of the matter, which is that everyone agrees that the sounds are detectable. And that they sound like speech to some people. The only controversy in connection with EVP is whether it is paranormal. So the way you have it written, it's as if only paranormal researchers detect the sounds, and that's not true.

It's a very difficult definition, and I don't know how to modify your intro really. To be purely NPOV, we'd have to say it this way:

There has been no mainstream scientific investigation or support of EVP, although reporting of EVP is common in the press.

There are critics, such as Randi and Carroll, but they are not scientists. So there is indeed argument and criticism, but not within science.

The phenomena has been observed, there is no argument about that. The argument is over whether it is paranormal, or just various forms of normal or psychological stuff.

I'm not responsible for the 3rd paragraph. But as far as I can see it isn't OR, and is supported by skeptical sources- I think. See this. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Martin, you're wrong about a few things. Peripitus is right when he describes EVP as a proposition, not a fact. The human brain's pattern recognition abilities and psycho-acoustic paradolia effects are not called "EVP" by the scientific community. EVP is a fringe claim of paranormal enthusiasts, as described by mainstream news treatment of the subject. - LuckyLouie 05:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Minus the superciliousness- that's correct. To be very clear about it, EVP is a paranormal interpretation of anomalies. I proposed a nice lead which made this very clear, but it was not accepted. We could say something like this, it would be fine with me. But the anomalies exist, and there is no dispute about that- the dispute is over whether they are paranormal.... which is exactly what I said above.

Note to Peripitus: the whole thing has often gotten mixed up. In my opinion, EVP is a paranormal interpretation of anomalies, but the language often gets messed up to where we're arguing over whether EVP exist or not, and defining EVP as the anomalies themselves. Sorry for any confusion. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Anomalies" imply things abnormal, or difficult to classify. There is no discussion of audio recording "anomalies" or abnormalities in electrical engineering, audio recording, or physics journals or textbooks. And those publications would be the kind of authoritative sources we'd need to reference if Wikipedia was to state that some particular type of audio anomalies exist and can be interpreted as paranormal or normal. However, it would be OK to state that these EVP experimenters believe that they are finding audio anomalies in sound recordings which they interpret as EVP. - LuckyLouie 09:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That might be one reason why we simply call them "speech or speech-like sounds." An anomaly is "a deviation from the common rule, type, arrangement, or form." In this case, that is to say that there are sounds, flaws, or differences where normally they would not be any. This doesn't mean they are really strange or paranormal, but they do meet the definition. However, a different word might be better. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Louie is saying that experts don't consider them to even be "anomalies". Experts would consider them confusion, delusion or bad tech quality opposed to actual anomalies, since for instance bad instrument quality isn't an anomaly. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, so we need a better word. It is now only used as the POV of a researcher and an organization (and in those cases it is fine), and also in the Criticism section. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. The article mentions capture error and cross modulation as anomalies. Are the EVP'ers saying these things are what they are interpreting? Use of the word by an EVP proponent is fine with me, as long as it is stated as a claim. - LuckyLouie 20:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I just took your word for it that they weren't considered anomalies, and pointed to where the word is located. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see what you're saying. Discovering feedback in a signal processing circuit under test could be considered anomalous within the context of the test. But there are certainly no competing paranormal explanations for that type of condition. "Anomalous" is a word IMO, often misused by the paranormal community in order to lend an appearance of credibility to claims. Which is why we should take pains to clearly describe what it is the EVP experimenters are reacting to rather than use an ambiguous but technical-sounding blanket term like "anomalous". The experimenters claim to detect speech or speech-like sounds inaudible during recording, which is how the text reads. I don't see that we have any conflict here. - LuckyLouie 00:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see any conflict (: ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No, there's no conflict about the use of the word "anomalous" since it isn't in the present lead or proposed one. IMO Peripitus lead is a vast improvement. The article is far from GA status and requires much work in areas such as those suggested by Peripitus, Wikidudeman and NealParr, as well as polishing overall prose style. The article needs to abandon the concept of "competing scientific explanations" and simply explicate EVP's influences and origins, what EVPers believe, who they are, what the critics say, etc. - LuckyLouie 18:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no major argument with what you say here. It has been my past experience that what we need to watch out for is bias and original research- for instance, taking textbooks or other sources which don't mention EVP and giving their explanations of flaws in recording (or whatever you want to call them).

It's interesting to note that while you would include what the critics of the paranormal explanation say, you would eliminate what the proponents of the paranormal explanation say about why they believe it is paranormal. That would bias the article. You have:

Influences

Origins

Beliefs

Criticism

But you leave out the basis or attempts at proof of the beliefs (a very large part of the literature). Interesting.

Some of the suggestions of Peripitus did not take account of the actual unstudied status of EVP. The article does not at this time have any concept of competing scientific explanations. It simply reports the POV and activities (some of them an attempt at scientific proof), of both proponents of the paranormal explanation and proponents of the non-paranormal explanation. This is what the literature on EVP is all about, and must be reported in the article.

Let us go about things from this perspective: gradual change, or change which is easy to follow, with good edit summaries. An agreement to revert and then discuss on the talk page, if anyone has a problem with new edits. Discussion of large-scale change before it occurs, if such change would be at all hard to follow in the diffs. Consensus.

I think we are very near to GA status, and I'll be improving from the suggestions fo Peripitus. I do not think there is a need for a major re-write or re-organization, as most of the writing and content can stand.

I think that the skepticism section especially needs improvement, and I urge you to do the research and focus on that- it is the worst part of the article. We could also use more material on the culture of ghost hunting with EVP, and other pop culture items. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't advocate leaving out "the basis or attempts at proof of the beliefs", as long as they are phrased as claims by specific persons or organizations. - LuckyLouie 22:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Great, then there is no disagreement here either. Do you think there are places in the current article which are not properly attributed? ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. "Various explanations have been put forward for EVP by paranormal experimenters who have attempted to rule out non-paranormal explanations for their origins", is just the tip of the iceberg. Especially in fringe science articles, WP can only report "who said what about what". It can't publish as fact that they attempted specific protocols just because they said they attempted them. - LuckyLouie 23:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So, "According to the AA-EVP, and experimenters such as Raudive, MacRae...."

See any others? ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What the h*** is this?

File:Evp1.png

What are the axes? What was the conditions under which it was collected? Who determined it was an EVP? How do we know it wasn't doctored? How do we know it was actually recorded?

In short, is this image relevant at all to our article or the encyclopedia? Delete it?

ScienceApologist 19:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's think of the kids and avoid strong language please. --Northmeister 01:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You're joking, right? What "kids" are going to be damaged by reading "hell" instead of "h***"? Are you one of those people who wrote into the FCC over nipplegate? ScienceApologist 18:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The image caption says "A self generated image of "an EVP voice" and surrounding background noise. Released to all who want to use it on the understanding that the image itself has no scientific value and does not represent proof of anything." So apparently it was made from scratch under unknown conditions. Most likely original research if indeed it was self-made. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't OR, because it's not research. It's an illustration. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:OR. The caption claims that it's an example of EVP. Where is the proof of this? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Change the caption. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The caption doesn't even claim that, it has scare quotes around "EVP voice". Davkal 13:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The caption says ""EVP voice" & surrounding background noise." Thus it is claiming that it's EVP voice, or is ersatz EVP voice. Either way, unless it's actually purported to be EVP from some organization then it's not relevant as it's just random noise. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The scare quotes mean there are obvious ambiguities/problems attached to the term and show that it is being used here as a simple expedient. Davkal 17:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What does it add? It's not claimed to be a picture of EVP in a reliable source. If it were a picture of Bigfoot or a UFO, it would at least offer users a picture of what's being argued about, real or fake, but there's no way to tell from that picture whether the associated sound could even be argued to be EVP, and not, say, clearly incoherent noise or Alice Cooper singing.

Even if it were a hotly disputed, highly notable, piece of EVP, I'm still not sure what good a picture of the sound is supposed to do for the article.--Prosfilaes 00:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It does offer readers a picture of what is being argued about. In about the only way sound can be pictorially illustrated it surely does just thatDavkal 00:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's not bother arguing about it. There are other pics we can use, I'll see about uploading them soon. If you really have a problem with it, delete it. There will be others which look about the same and are indeed claimed to be EVP. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems a sensible solution to me - albeit a totally unnecessary one.Davkal 00:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the new image is better (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic edit Martinphi, what a difference this makes. Maybe we can go for good article status.Davkal 00:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It would not be wise to prematurely seek a GA nomination with this article. It needs a lot of work done to it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That was what we in Scotland call "a joke". Davkal 01:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

New image

The new image should be attributed to AAEVP. ScienceApologist 15:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

left the attribution & removed the unnecessary hedging. Davkal 15:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, images are more or less immune from OR problems. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrongo. Here's a relevant quote: "Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader." In other words, Perfectblue's sayso that something is an EVP is not allowed. ScienceApologist 22:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me

Please tell me this is a mistake, Martin. ScienceApologist 22:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I also changed the caption on the image to "A self generated illustration of "an EVP voice" and surrounding background noise. Released to all who want to use it on the understanding that the image itself has no scientific value and does not represent proof of anything." Illustrations are allowed. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The image is OR as described above. Please remove it. ScienceApologist 23:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The caption was changed. Illustrations are allowed. See WP:OR. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader." In other words, Perfectblue's sayso that something is an EVP is not allowed.

ScienceApologist 00:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read Illustration. And Wp:or#Original_images. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What's your problem? I have quoted to you twice why this image is problematic and you simply are ignoring me. ScienceApologist 01:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

SA makes a clear point here Martin. Read the last line of the OR link you provided and SA mentioned. I second the movement that the image needs to go. Baegis 01:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've put the image up for deletion. I don't see how it belongs anywhere in this encyclopedia. ScienceApologist 01:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

New image

I've uploaded an image which is in all respects captioned as purely illustrative, and makes no claims to be EVP. It meets all WP rules on images. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is not EVP (ie/ makes no claims to be EVP) then it fails weight and notability. It probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia if it is purely illustrative. Either it is pertinent to the subject or not. It seems that there is an each-way bet to keep it in by claiming "it is purely illustrative" to avoid WP:OR. BTW, it doesn't matter how "illustrative" something is, if it is OR, it is OR. Using "illustrative" comments in the narrative is correctly called "editorialising" which is OR. This is no different. Why not have a real EVP scan/picture/image? Shot info 07:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

We could use another. But why not read what WP:OR has to say about illustration? You may be right, but if you are, the the rules need to be re-written. Further, articles like Will-o'-the-wisp need to have their images taken out also, and I'm sure there are many articles across WP with such images. For instance, the one on the human buttocks, if I recall, has an "OR" pic or 3. But I believe you are not right according to WP:OR. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sighh, have you heard of WP:CONSENSUS and the Wikipedia Community? I don't really care about other articles, I'm (personally) commenting on this one. If you feel that the other articles have OR images, then I suggest that you go to their talkpage(s), and seek some consensus for their removal. As I stated "Why not have a real EVP scan/picture/image?" surely one exists? Shot info 22:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have put both of the images (EVP2 and EVP_Illustration) up for deletion, per the same logic as SA. Baegis 21:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose asking that you leave a perfectly good image alone because it is in accordance with the rules and improves the article would be useless here. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is judged to be in agreement with the rules, it will be kept. If it is not, it will be deleted. Unfortunately, I don't think they will be sticking around too long. Baegis 01:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah. Rules have nothing to do with it, as no one has dealt with what OR actually says. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the images do violate OR - as they can't be traced to a reliable source and thus used under Fair Use standards - but are a private image that claims to be something and thus prone to interpretation as Original Research. Originally I thought otherwise, but after soliciting advice from an editor involved at that policy page for sometime; I've changed my mind and concur with the general consensus here about the images. The image in the box is sufficient and meets criteria under fair use; the others should be deleted. --Northmeister 01:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My position is based purely on reading the OR article, and the exception made for illustrative pictures. Under normal circumstances it would indeed be OR. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom on constant hedging

Here is the relevant finding from the recent arbcom:

"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."

It therefore seems perfectly reasonable to say things like "example of EVP" without weasel words like "alleged" or "supposed" or "claimed". That is, arbcom decided that articles about obviously paranormal topics, once properly framed, should not have these words inserted everywhere as readers would understand full well what is going on without them. Davkal 23:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You forgot the "Cultural artifacts" one, and maybe others also. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be perfectly reasonable if you were not trying to push towards the viewpoint that this is an actual EVP. It is only a claim of an EVP. Please stop changing it. Baegis 23:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's only a claimed EVP in the same way a psychic is a claimed psychic. Arbcom decided that such weasel words add nothing to the article and should not be used.Davkal 23:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a faulty attempt to apply incredulity to a credulous statement. In point of fact, there is no such thing as an "example of EVP". There are only artifacts which are said by certain individuals to be examples of EVP. If we can attribute to a reliable source the claim that the artifact being represented is an example of EVP, then the issue is moot because it becomes the say-so of the source rather than the say-so of the encyclopedia. This is different than writing prose about the subject which is arguably what the arbcomm rulings are dealing with. As soon as you enter into the realm of offering "evidence", the burden of proof that it is actually what the claimant says it is shifts to reliablity and verifiability rather than incredulity of the term. ScienceApologist 02:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether EVP are 'voices' or whatnot I'm not sure - in fact I am quite skeptical at the moment. But, it is established fact that electonic voice phenomena do exist, and have been shown in graphical image. Are you disputing this? Seems to me that your arguing from your point of view (maybe close to mine I don't know) that EVP is something else besides what those in the paranormal community claim it is; which is inappropriate here and original research on your part. EVP is a defined paranormal topic; it has case studies by several individuals, there are images purporting to be EVP, recording purporting to be EVP - and that material if from a reliable source that is traceable and not original research on an editors part is completely acceptable by Wikipedia standards. Please save us the agenda, as your not helping to improve the article but hinder its progress as a neutral NPOV presentation of a paranormal topic. --Northmeister 02:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

All AAEVP content is soapboxing

Explicitly, on the AAEVP website that is clamboring for Wikipedia recognition the following statement is made:

"This is a EVP example placed here specifically for Wikipedia: one not recorded by the same people posting it on the web site. Thanks to Vicki Talbott for releasing this example."

This means that the AAEVP is basically using Wikipedia as a shill for promoting their wares regarding this so-called "phenomenon". Since the group is of dubious notability, in any case, I find this to be a fairly clear case of vanity. The sounds and images from this particular website should be removed as per WP:SOAP and WP:VANITY.

ScienceApologist 00:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I hereby accuse the links on this page to AAEVP to be effectively acting as spam and an advertisement and I have tagged the article to that effect. ScienceApologist 00:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The AAEVP is about as relevant a group as there can be in an article about EVP. To flag the entire article as simply spam or an advertisement for AAEVP is surely ludicrous. The AAEVP exists and you cannot simply exclude mention of them in an article about EVP simply because you would rather they didn't. Davkal 00:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not arguing that AAEVP is irrelevant. I'm arguing that AAEVP is using Wikipedia to spam and advertise. I think the quote taken directly from their website proves that they are trying to use Wikipedia to do this. We need to be wary. ScienceApologist 00:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

But there's only one small section about them in the article (the largest EVP society in the world I believe), and then a few references to their website for content as well as a link to their website in the links section. This is, I think, no different to what you will find in thousands of other wiki articles.Davkal 00:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The size of the section is irrelevant. I think that they are posting content on their website for the sake of incorporating it into the article. As Wikipedia grows in stature, these people have taken notice and are trying to influence the content away from the policies and guidelines of this encyclopedia: effectively they are taking us for the proverbial ride. I'm not saying that AAEVP should be completely excised from this article necessarily, I'm saying that the way they are currently treated in the article and the fact that all the images and sounds come from them is unacceptable. ScienceApologist 01:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

We aren't using the example they have up. They are the main organization for EVP. You have no case. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if we aren't using the "example they have up". The very fact that they are posting examples for us to use means that I think we need to think very hard as to whether to use any examples from them. Wikipedia is not a personal ad service for Tom and Lisa. ScienceApologist 01:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

SA, your suspicions are your own and I don't really want to comment. The point here is really about the content of the article. And the content of the article is much the same as many, many articles in Wiki, and much better than some re the points you make. Here, for example, are some articles that are simply advertisements for fairly obscure books.[[1]], [[2]], [[3]] Davkal 01:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

We aren't talking about the adverts/spamming going on at other articles. If you have issue with them, make it there. But be careful to read point before doing so. ScienceApologist 01:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am pointing out that, by precedent, the article here is no cause for concern and, again by precedent, much better than many. I am allowed to make points on the talk page that's the point of it.Davkal 01:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no precedent established at those pages. No one at those pages has accused outside organizations of using Wikipedia as a soapbox. ScienceApologist 01:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what the precedent shows! No one has. And those articles are much, much worse. If the aa-evp is using this article (or Wiki) as a soapbox then they're not making a very good job of it. I see, for example, no article about the aa-evp itself, I see no article about either Tom or Lisa Butler, and I don't see a whole article devoted to any (let alone all of their books). In this respect there seems no case to answer.Davkal 01:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone has here and since no one has there the precedent is non-existent vis-a-vis those articles. Whether those articles are "much, much worse" is irrelevant because they establish no precedent. By your logic, any article that hasn't been tag with an advert notice would be precedent for this dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) 01:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think precedent works like this. If a motorist is arrested for speeding for doing, say, 61mph in a sixty zone while many others drive past him doing 75mph then he is entitled to ask why he was arrested rather than them. To point out that they were not arrested, and therefore there is no precedent, is to miss the point that the precedent in that case is set by lack of action.Davkal 01:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Try that argument out the next time your stopped for speeding. See how far it gets ya. ScienceApologist 02:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if 99% of their site is set up specifically to influence WP. As long as they are the major organization, their site can be used as a source for opinion. And it can be mentioned as the organization it is. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It actually does matter, Martin. There are rules about this, as I pointed out above. There is WP:SOAP and WP:SPAM. ScienceApologist 01:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, you said, "... As Wikipedia grows in stature, these people have taken notice and are trying to influence the content away from the policies and guidelines of this encyclopedia: effectively they are taking us for the proverbial ride." Thank you for making that point. It is exactly the point I have made about skeptical editors many times. Never before have you all had so much access to the minds of people.

I have made an effort to supply example material that people can hear as a way of supporting Wikipedia. I would be happy for you to use Vicki Talbott's example without mention of the AA-EVP. If you can find material elsewhere, then do so. There are many good web sites that include EVP examples. Just get the facts right.

In fact, I would be fine if you removed all of the references to the AA-EVP. If you will try to remember around all of that hate of yours, I tried to delete all of it a while back and got a slap on the wrist--you really threatened me at that time, as I remember. I also put the article up for deletion but it seems that you all need it as a platform to deny phenomena. In your tirade the other day, you again accused me of trying to control content in the EVP article.

I do not care what is written as long as it is factually correct and is not a skeptical platform. So please, punish me by deleting the article. Our trivial little organization has all of the work we can handle so there is little benefit in having more visibility. Do not assume that my wife and I benefit from the success of the AA-EVP in any way other than legacy. The only reason I began editing was because the article was even more pro skeptic than today. I will say again. either take all references to the AA-EVP--including reference links or delete the article, but do not use the article as an excuse to insult me again! Tom Butler 01:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

SA, talk about this article, not the AA-EVP. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

SA has a point about the SPAM. Listen, as it stands now the current image is going to be deleted along with the other images uploaded by Martin. I am all for using an image on this article as long as it is not OR and certainly not from a website that is promoting their images for use. That just reeks of SPAM. And this discussion is about the article, specifically the image currently provided for it. Baegis 01:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think he's talking about the whole article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Some pertinent points. SPAM is when something is included primarily as an advert or solely as an advert and nothing else. It was SA who originally demanded that we identify the AAEVP as the source of the image [[4]] - prior to that it just said a visualisation of an example of evp. Added to this, Tom has already said you can now remove both the mention of aaevp in the caption and all others in the article. Given this, there is nothing really left to your argument but a general disgruntlement that your attempted caption breaches the arbcom and so now you are trying another tack. This is disruption plain and simple.Davkal 02:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because the AAEVP says it no longer cares if it's name is listed doesn't take away from the fact they were guilty of what SA mentions. Guilt doesn't absolve if you say you are sorry. Baegis 02:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Tom isn't apologising for wrongdoing, he's simply pointing out that your accusations are groundless. Don't forget it was SA who insisted that the aa-evp be mentioned re the picture - not Tom.Davkal 02:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that this image needs to go. If it were a normal situation, attribution to the organization that published the image would be appropriate. But when you are posting things on your website expressly to get them included at Wikipedia, we shouldn't be including things from that website. ScienceApologist 02:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please consider WP:AGF before throwing flames on a situation that is presently under Arbcom consideration; the image is credible, traceable, and legitimate to use under fair use. There is no need for attribution in the caption - the image file page does that. --Northmeister 02:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please consisder what AAEVP says directly on their website. They're trying to get Wikipedia to shill for them. ScienceApologist 03:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The evidence here: [5] gives pretty solid support to SA on this issue. At the moment, I will not be watching this page, so any personal reply should be left on my talk page. Antelan ^talk 03:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonconsensus edits

ScienceApologist, pleas discuss all changes you wish to make to the article on the talk page before you make them, to make sure they have the consensus of the community. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that is futile at the moment; as he has just reverted not three times but seven or eight in violation of 3RR. --Northmeister 03:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

He reverted that many times in one day? Why not post the diffs? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't violate 3RR. In fact, I think I only reverted once, and it was unintentional. ScienceApologist 03:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My diffs

Here is my latest round of edits

The "discarnate entities" section was a travesty. It read like an advert written by Tom Butler. I removed a lot of the soapboxing and the weird phrasing. There is no such thing as an "EVP experimenter" or "EVP research". The best we can do is say "investigator" for a neutral term. Also, any sort of speculative handwaving that is done by AAEVP and other paranormal believers doesn't belong in the article. It is, frankly, not encyclopedic.

Cheerio.

ScienceApologist 03:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Some changes to the intro

My diff

Two issues:

1. Not all paranormal researchers believe in EVP. I don't know if it's just investigators or not, but I think that resesarcher is stretching it. A researcher is one who is professionally paid to conduct and publish research. I know of no EVP personality who qualifies as such. Certainly Tom Butler doesn't, for example.
2. No EVP have ever been verifiably observed. Therefore we can't just say that EVP have been observed on various media. That's a blatant falsehood.

Cheerio.

ScienceApologist 03:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Another issue

My diff

I believe this diff to be necessary because EVP has been claimed directly. The previous wording was pandering.

Cheerio.

ScienceApologist 03:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And research

My diff

Renewed interest in EVP may be true. However, whether any research at all has happened about this subject is debatable.

ScienceApologist 03:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And I'm spent

Here's my final diff

I beg the indulgence of the assembled to view what I have done and note my agenda:

1. I tried to eliminate the references to EVP research and experiment. EVP is believed to exist by believers and investigators. There are no verifiable third party sources from non-EVP believing sites which call such folks "researchers", "experimenters", etc. Also, EVP is never observed. It's only claimed to be observed.
2. I tried to remove some of the more speculative prose -- especially from the discarnate entities section. Remember verifiability. If we cannot verify the comments through third parties, fringe policy also comes into play.
3. I tried to make things more succinct and clear. Oftentimes, the prose was rambling or worse indecisive. This is unacceptable, in my book.

ScienceApologist 04:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus again

I see ScienceApologist has refused to attain consensus or even discuss his recent thirty six edits to the page, per above requests (which we made soon after he started editing). He also seems to have ignored Northmeister's edit to his talk page. This is not a good way to edit on Wikipedia. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a concerted effort by yourself and Davkal to drag your feet in order to prevent change from happening. Editing was stagnant. I was bold. Wikidudeman told me a month ago to let the process work itself out. I judge the process to be dead: mediation has failed. I have edited with good faith. Consensus does not mean that no one is allowed to edit an article. Wikipedia policy is clear that this kind of obstructionism is just that, obstructionism. ScienceApologist 04:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing in spite of a clear request to discuss is not good faith. Nor is there a time limit on wiki articles. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am discussing. I'm all over the talkpage. ScienceApologist 13:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This article

I'd not encountered this article before but it's really, really poor. Both the disregard for NPOV and the quality of writing leave much to be desired. Can someone who cares about the topic do a major rewrite? Raymond Arritt 04:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Arritt, we're working on one now (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Raymond's right. I am only 10% happier with my version than the previous one. It's still wildly POV and of poor writing quality. ScienceApologist 13:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I think the changes are only a stopgap measure on the road to a comprehensive rewrite. I cleaned up the section on "ITC" as it made several unsupported claims, but the article stll suffers from the AAEVP's slanted framing of the subject (EVP as a mysterious phenomena which requires competing "explanations"). See: Critics" implies that there is an argument and criticism rather than proposition on on hand and dismissal as a nonscientific fringe theory on the other" for more. Also the article approaches the subject from the "inside" believers perspective rather than from the "outside" world's perspective - LuckyLouie 05:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

this was the recent finding of the arbcom on the paranomal.

"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."

To totally disregard this and insert "claimed" etc throughout the article is not acceptable. Davkal 22:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, first of all I don't see anything about "claimed" in that statement. I also note an important "may" in the first sentence. I agree that language may frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status, but that doesn't mean that paranormal believers don't "claim" things. They obviously do.

Secondly, I'm not sure that this is adequate justification for reverting every single edit I made yesterday. If you really believed that this was a problem, Davkal, why not go through and remove and tweak the wordings on all the instances of use of the verb "to claim"? Why would you simply revert the entirety despite there obviously being a lot more there then just inserting "claim" every other word. Are you just being lazy? Or do you have other reasons for your action?

ScienceApologist 22:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with "say"? They obviously say things as well. "Claim" is a WP:WTA and that guideline offers alternatives, like "say". In your edits, you had the skeptics say things, but the [whatever titles you gave them] only "claimed" things. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with "say", though sometimes using it over and over again gets redundant. I tried to use "say" in most cases, but sometimes I needed a noun and "statement" doesn't work all the time. It has different connotations than "claim". ScienceApologist 23:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It is the connotations that make it a word to avoid. It is an easily avoided word as well, where editors have lots of room to play and create readable, non-redundant text [6] --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason I reverted all is because the article was a lot better before and contained a lot less pseudoscience cited as fact. In addition there were tyos galore and hedging almost everywhere. It would take me several weeks to get rid of this lot without breaching 3RR and so the only other option was to start again with discussion her on the talk page.Davkal 23:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that this is very disappointing that you don't make any specific explanations here. If you have a problem, you should at least have the decency to explain what the problem is instead of whitewashing. ScienceApologist 23:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

One example

I will give one example of the worst way in which the article has deteriorated. Previously it said: "They [skeptics] explain that the human brain is naturally evolved to interpret familiar patterns from sound and that this phenomenon accounts for many instances of apparent 'voices' or 'voice-like' sounds.". While this is probably rubbish, it is not nearly as bad as what subsequently went into the article: "The well-understood fact that the human brain has naturally evolved to interpret familiar patterns from sound...". Now, current scientific thinking has it that humans have been anatomically identical (no evolution) since prior to the evolution of language in anything like the form we know it. Note that this is fundamentally different from the situation involving faces, the most easily identifiable cases of pareidolia. It is therefore far from well-understood how the human brain could possibly evolve to recognise language prior to those sound ever having existed - and which language did it evove to undrestand: chinese, german, oe english? This is why it is easy to see faces in curtains (faces have been about for millions upon millions of years in a very recognisable pattern), but very hard to hear a door opening as saying "good morning" or anything else for that matter. So, let the pseudosckeptics extend the notion of pareidolia by evolution to all the sensory modalities, and all the aspects of those modalities, in their pseudoscientific tracts on evp - that is one thing. But only when such findings are presented in peer-review scientific literature can they be stated as "the well understood fact".Davkal 23:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My evidence comes from the technical paper which I won't quote here in case you don't have a university account. I will, however, give you a link to a popular version of the paper: [7]. Where is your cited evidence that the human brain didn't evolve to identify patterns in sound?

I'll also note that Philip Lieberman wrote an excellent book on the subject, Eve Spoke: Human Language and Human Evolution. In it he presents the scientific consensus which is basically the opposite of what you are saying. So are you saying that you are more eminent a scholar than Lieberman?

The rest of your paragraph falls apart as original research. You are free to believe whatever you want, but it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. So since I have demonstrated that these findings are presented in peer-reviewed scientific literature I can only ask for your rebuttal to also have such a grounding. Thanks.

ScienceApologist 23:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Several points. Have you actually read any of Lieberman's book or just the title - I think you should probably have a look.

Secondly, I am not sure the best way to present lieberman is as presenting the "scientific consensus" - firstly, there is no real consensus in language evolution, and secondly, lieberman's certainly not it! Having dealt with your ill-conceived name-dropping, onto some more specific points.

Despite the lack of scientific consensus about the precise details, order and dates of language evolution - no scientist is in any doubt that human language has not existed very long (about 200,000 years max) and does not predate the existence of humanity itself in any meaningful sense (how could it!). Anyway, what this means is that, in sharp contrast to recognising faces, there is no mechanism by which the human brain could have evolved to recognise patterns that didn't exist at the time it was evolving. Whatever is going on when humans hear a word it is very different in this respect from what goes on when we see a face - the example so beloved of the pseudoscientific evp/pareidolia/evolution claims.

Finally, I am unsure whether you cited the above source actually believing it supported your case, or merely because you thought nobody might actually bother looking at it. Firstly, it should be noted it is an article about music - not language! Secondly, in it we find the only really relevant point to be: "It is therefore conceivable that with the evolution of human language a drive emerged to train the acoustical sense in sophisticated sound pattern recognition...". Now, the problem with the lack of time for which such a drive to evolve, notwithstanding, the point here is that it merely presents this as a speculative possible - "it is conceivable that". In the article, however, you have transformed this into "The well-understood fact that the human brain has evolved...." Inasmuch as the scientific back-up you claim is about language it simply does not back you up! This is what I mean by extending science well beyond what it currently supports. And by doing this, this is what makes the writings of Carroll, and Shermer, and your assertion in the article prime examples of pseudoscience.Davkal 18:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for a citation from you, Davkal. At this point, any citation will do. I'll also note that the popular paper I cited only gives a vague outline of the points contained in the technical paper which in fact contradict your original research. ScienceApologist 18:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We'll just go for the whole of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_language. Should suffice.Davkal 18:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not a peer-reviewed source. Pick a peer-reviewed paper from that article's list that supports your opinion and quote it here. ScienceApologist 18:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I also note that the pareidolia article doesn't appear to contain a single source from a peer-review scientific journal - anyone for pseudoscience!Davkal 18:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a different issue for a different article. ScienceApologist 18:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the article in Wiki which deals with the basis of what you are extending even further here. Is there a scientific basis to support even the building blocks of your argument. Or are things even worse than I thought - a pseudoscientific extension of pseudoscience.Davkal 18:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't referred to that article once. You have yet to refer to a single peer-reviewed article or any verifiable source. Again, I ask you to give us a citation. ScienceApologist 19:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggested above that you look at the wiki article on the origins of language, with it's numerous references to scientific sources, which will confirm: a) that there is an ongoing debate about the origins of language and it's evolution (i.e no real consensus - especially not lieberman); and b) that language has been around for too short a time for the evp/evolutionary/pareidolia/language theory to hold much water (in contrast with faces); and will suggest that c) your extension in a dubious way of a dubious point simply cannot be a "well understood fact". The point being that virtually nothing in the evolution of language or the human brain is a well-understood fact as you claim.Davkal 19:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So are you refusing to offer a peer-reviewed article or a verifiable source in support of your claims? At this point, I'll take any mainstream source outside of Wikipedia. ScienceApologist 19:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Humans are great at finding patterns, and the underlying sound-processing cortext is millions of years old. We can read noisy printing vastly better than computers; that's an evolutionary eyeblink. Given how we can misunderstand what others say, but can frequently recite word-for-word what we thought they said, I don't find it unlikely that we would find voices in noise when looking for them. A quick search on books.google.com for pareidolia shows a number of works that could be used to help that article. Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Magical Thinking, on pages 77 and 78, refers to EVP as an example of pareidolia.--Prosfilaes 20:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't be with you for a while. The point is not about pattern recognition per se, it is about patter recognition of language. And given that language has only been about for a few hundred thousand years max (according to science), and humans haven't really evolved at all in that time, there can be no way in which humans have evolved anything designed to recognise language (like they have with faces) , and so far from being a well-known scientific fact it is a highly speculative piece of pseudoscience.82.35.112.195 16:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the evidence is not as clear as you claim. Hominids most likely made language-like sounds just like all primates do, and the brain would evolve for understanding such communication, even if it is far short of language. Furthermore, we evolved the ability to understand complex language, every single one of us. That evolved, and even prior to complex grammatical understanding, it would have been crucial to understand speech under less than optimal circumstances. Pattern recognition of language would have evolved along with grammatical understanding.

But I believe pattern recognition per se is also a big point. Distributed Proofreaders uses random volunteer labor to check OCR text because random humans beat well-trained computers at recognizing patterns in text hands down. (See also Captchas. Unfortunately, the volunteers sometimes see what they expect instead wbat is actually there; i.e. people will read tbe as "the" nine times out of ten. A study (popularly distributed around the net) showed that people could understand languages even if the letters in the middle of the word were scrambled. A more extreme and pertinent example, is that people looking for Arabic script writing found that the Coca-Cola logo actually said "No Mohammad, no Mecca" in Arabic.[8] That is, humans are awesome at applying pattern recognition to text, but have a bad habit of seeing what they want to see. And that for something developed in the last six thousand years, and only approaching ubiquity in the last century or two. If we can do that for writing, I don't doubt that we could hear language where there is none.--Prosfilaes 02:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit then talk? Talk then edit?

Several parts of the ArbCom would apply here. The one Davkal quoted was only one which applies. If ScienceApologist wants to incorporate changes, why not present them on the talk page first for consensus? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I did present my changes. We can do it in either direction: either present them and talk about them or talk about them then present them. The order doesn't matter. Anyway, you can clearly see what my edits are and I eagerly awaiy your comments. By the way, the arbcomm didn't say anything about whether one should edit then talk or talk then edit. ScienceApologist 23:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's too hard to follow wholesale changes like you made. In addition, you seem to have made a few changes which people might have agreed with, then buried them in changes which would not meet consensus. Under these conditions, I think it is better to discuss the changes first, then insert them when you have consensus. That way, reverting will not be necessary merely in order that people don't have to sift through your multitude of changes to find the few which could meet consensus. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Martin you did pretty much the same thing in September [9] with no "consensus" at all. This latest protest seems to be just more pettifoggery on your part. - LuckyLouie 05:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If so, that was when the article was in less controversy. As of now, go ahead and change the article if you wish- I can't stop you. But WP goes ahead by consensus, and in circles by force. If you want to take the article in circles, go ahead and make non-consensus edits. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You were informed repeatedly on this talk page of the problems in the article that needed addressing. - LuckyLouie 05:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit by the rules and in the spirit of Wikipedia, LuckyLouie. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that this is all just sour grapes. ScienceApologist 16:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Everyone...Please tone down the rhetoric. 'Sour grapes'? We are suppose to be improving this article; not getting personal. I smell to many agendas here. Tone it down and lets focus on creating an article that is clear, precise, framed properly per Arbcom, which includes a skeptics section that compliments and does not dominate this article. The other stuff is better left to personal blogs and the present Arbcom. --Northmeister 23:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Do be aware that if the skeptical view is the predominant one, it would be entirely appropriate for the skeptical view to be given more attention in the article. More at WP:NPOV. Raymond Arritt 23:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is clear. Skeptics have the upper hand because they are mainstream and the majority opinion. Therefore, to satisfy NPOV the writing needs to be dispassionately skeptical in tone. ScienceApologist 23:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a poor interpretation of NPOV. Skeptics do not have a "upper hand". They are what they are and their opinions cited alongside other significant voices, and in this case significant voices are those related to the subject of the article (e.g. its main proponents). Otherwise, how will our readers be informed about the related disputes? You may need to re-read WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The opinions need to be cited and weighted appropriately. Certainly the proponents of an idea are significant, but when the proponents of an idea are a minority opposed to the majority opinion on the subject, their opinions need to be weighted appropriately. ScienceApologist 01:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You really need to be careful with definition - Wikipedia is not the Skeptic's Dictionary. It is a mainstream source of information that should cover a topic by its framing and then offer a good critics section to inform the reader. Doing otherwise will only serve to hurt Wikipedia in the long run and NPOV. 'Mainstream' science does not generally cover 'paranormal' topics, except maybe in the parapyschology realm and with some quantum stuff. Presenting, 'mainstream' is easy. The general public understands terms like paranormal, and therefore, like religious for example, will take an article in such light. The critics section further enlighens them to problems with 'paranormal' definitions and offers what science has to say. This is the best approach - not 'dominating' articles inrelated to science with skeptical analysis - that is best left to criticism or skeptical analysis sections of paranormal articles like Ghosts - Spirits - UFOS etc. etc. which the 'mainstream' public from all I know considers out of the normal scentific view or 'paranormal'. --Northmeister 01:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I note a dissonance between your statement that Wikipedia is a "mainstream source of information" and your arguments that the mainstream view should take second place to the paranormal view in the present article. Raymond Arritt 01:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, is this not a paranormal topic? If so, then should not the definition given be the one offered by those in that community (such as in this case Raudive etc.)? This followed by a critics sections - which by the way is standard for all fringe subjects or any subject with its critics. As far as I know, EVP is not a topic of science; nor are many other paranormal subjects like Ghosts etc. except again, Parapyschology. Do you know of any leading scientists who have published reliable material subject to peer review that would enlighten us on the 'mainstream' definition of Electronic Voice Phenomena or Ghosts? Paranormal by its very definition indicates 'outside the normal' and readers would expect to get the 'outside the normal' definition first, followed by any criticism. Thats the standard way to do things in this topical area. --Northmeister 01:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an ongoing problem with paranormal/pseudoscience articles. Scientists consider the subjects so obviously absurd that it would be a waste of time studying them, so there's no scientific refutation. Does that mean that the purveyors of paranormal/pseudoscience stuff get to have the debate defined on their terms? As a believer, you think so; as a scientist, I think not. Wikipedia doesn't have a good way of dealing with cargo cult science. Raymond Arritt 02:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The way Wikipedia will deal with it if I have anything to say about it is that where there is a claim of an observation, the related scientific field will be the major source (that is, most heavily weighted) for describing whether or not such an observation has validity. There was a proposal in the paranormal arbcomm that is of relevance to this: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop#Newton's Laws of Motion do not apply to paranormal pages. This is actually an interesting point. Let's take the subject of EVP: it is claimed that EVP are produced by discarnate entities interacting with the technology developed by mainstream science. This interaction is not explained by the proponents of EVP, it is simply stated as fact. However, mainstream science fully and completely describes the functioning of these pieces of technology. Nowhere is there any room for a discarnate entity interacting with the technology. It is simply not allowed by the theories of physics. To argue as Northmeister is arguing, that scientific criticism should be relegated to its own tucked-away section while the rest of the article deals with the paranormal on its own terms, would mean plainly that most of the article would ignore the basic facts of how the technology used to collect EVP work. If there was truly community consensus for enacting such a proposal then indeed it would be correct that Newton's Laws of Motion would not apply to paranormal articles (except in the criticism section). This is a no-go proposition. As soon as you decide that ostensibly observable phenomena are not directly in the purview of science you have effectively violated the very provisions of WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist 02:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A "Skeptics Dictionary" is a dictionary which takes as its major aim to "debunk" the ideas it presents. That is not the aim of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's point of view is neutral, not sympathetic. Articles which deal with ostensibly observable phenomena (like this one) are automatically subject to the mainstream descriptions of observable phenomena. There are also ideas which are strictly outside the purview of science (for example, theology). Those articles cannot nor should not be subject to scientific analysis inasmuch as science only deals with that which is observable. Simply calling something "paranormal" does not give editors a free pass to describe without criticism claims of observations which defy the mainstream observations of observable phenomena. Relegating criticism to a "critics" section is simply not going to cut it. We aren't talking about a political controversy, we are talking about who owns the consensus on what humanity has observed and what humanity hasn't observed. In this case, science clearly is the majority, mainstream, and must therefore be the most heavily weighted opinion. This ONLY applies to articles which are directly relevant to scientific observations (like this one) and it so happens that a lot of the paranormal advocates effectively are promoting pseudoscience by entering into claims of direct observations of the paranormal. ScienceApologist 01:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Science is backed up by peer reviewed published sources remember. Your right about the Skeptics Dictionary - which is not what Wikipedia is I remind you. Thats why a criticism section is the BEST place for scientific and skeptical review. --Northmeister 02:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I was arguing that Wikipedia is different than Skeptics dictionary. However, what you fail to realize is that science cannot be relegated to a single section when the topic is about something that is observable. ScienceApologist 02:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

When you speak of science, of whom do you speak? --Northmeister 02:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Science isn't a whom it is a what. ScienceApologist 02:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a whom in the context of an article. That is, which Scientist has studied and concluded on EVP? I seek this for reliable sourcing criteria. To simple fill an article with your perceptions of science is original research. I doubt however that is what you intend. Per our discussion of article weight - I can't clearly see how the article will look if it is filled with criticism of the subject? However, if reliable sources are provided indicating direct study of EVP or any paranormal observable phenomena then I could imagine inclusion within the context of the article, which eliminates the need for a criticism section (not standard Wikipedia practice mind you but certainly possible). --Northmeister 02:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Science is not a "whom" in the context of any article. Please read my post above. The point is that EVP proponents by their own admission attribute an observable phenomenon to something that has no scientific basis. This means that they expose themselves to critique because they are not the ones who invented the devices nor investigated and the phenomena upon which they base their claims. And who did? The scientific community as a whole. You can't point to one single scientist who is responsible for the tape recorder, for example. There was the inventor of the device, the various physicists who developed the models of electricity, magnetism, acoustics, wave mechanics, information storage, material science, etc., the plethora of experimenters who tested the various components, and the people who developed the mathematics, language, experimental, and theoretical techniques required to assemble such a complicated piece of equipment. So if you want to find "a scientist" you are going to be shit out of luck because there are literally thousands of responsible parties that have cobbled together that which is responsible for this subject to even exist and, taken as a whole, those people resoundingly reject the proposition that discarnate entities can have any effect on that simple tape recorder the EVP proponent decided to use in the first place. Get it? ScienceApologist 02:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Jossi's arguments below sum up what I am trying to convey about article structure and sourcing per 'framing' of the article. Thus, my proposal for a good well researched criticism section from the scientific or skeptical view when it comes to these topics. --Northmeister 03:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

And I think I've basically demolished his argument. ScienceApologist 03:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, you have not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

debate

This is a fascinating debate, and I hope it can continue. Take for example an article on the Virgin birth of Jesus. Should that article be based on a scientific observation of that purported phenomena? Should be conflate that article with Parthenogenesis? That would be ridiculous, don't you think? This is not Wikiskeptkipedia. This is an encyclopedia that is used by people that want to have access to information about everything, including ridiculous ideas such as the subject of this article may be. As a reader, I want to know what is this "phenomena" as described by its proponents, as well as any other significant information from skeptics, scientists, pundits, writers, and what not. I want to have all the information available that has been published in sources that are verifiable and related to the subject. Before anyone starts waving the WP:RS flag in front of my face, please note that there is a need to establish context, and in this case a source published by a proponent of a crazy idea, is a reliable source for an article about a crazy idea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well said, and better than I. --Northmeister 03:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hate to burst your bubble, Jossi and Northmeister, but we're not editing the virgin birth article here, which I have to say is quite atrocious for a lot of reasons unrelated to our conversation. For the sake of argument, however, I will point out that the historicity of the Virgin Birth is simply not accepted by the majority of people who are experts in how births occur, nor is it accepted by many (if not most) serious mainline theologians. Dogmatic Catholicism certainly takes its cue from the Nicene Creed while fundamentalists rally around various passages from the Gospels that talk about the virgin birth, but there are plenty of people opposing these perspectives who argue that in the context of their religion literalism is simply heresy. And talking about parthenogenesis is not as far-fetched as you would like to have us believe. There is quite a lot of feminist scholarship in that line. Mary Daly, in fact, is famous for making a very scholarly and notable comparison between the two ideas. A decent article on the subject of the virgin birth would address the fact that a virgin birth is a basic scientific impossibility while pointing out that 1) there are those who reject the scientific impossibility and 2) people still take it as an article of faith because they can read dogma/scripture as metaphor. There is even precedent for how to do this. Creationism, Creation (theology), Creation according to Genesis, and other related articles can serve as a useful guide. I'm not arguing that we excise from this encyclopedia the far-fetched or the extreme, nor am I arguing that we shouldn't describe what proponents believe. However, we are obligated to write articles from a neutral point of view. That means that we must not lead our readers down garden paths that are singular in their approach to a subject. Neither should we shy away from addressing problems with an argument head-on. If there is an idea which is flatly contradicted by science, not admitting that up front is tantamount to lying and is definitely not NPOV. I want the reader to have all the information about subjects that is available. I just want the writing of our articles to be as absolutely dispassionate as possible, and the "in universe" idealizations trumpeted by proponents of ideas which are flatly contradicted by mainstream opinions need to be abandoned for thoughtful, dispassionate, and descriptive prose. Certainly proponents are reliable sources for what they believe. They may not, however, be reliable sources for the ideas and concepts upon which their ideas are built. In the case of EVP, proponents are not reliable sources on how electronic recordings happen. In the case of the virgin birth, proponents are not reliable sources on human reproduction. That's where we as editors come in. It is our duty to make sure that the POV of proponents about subjects that the proponents are not reliable in doesn't become the POV of any article. ScienceApologist 03:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You have not said anything that I do not agree with, with the exception of the statement about "lying" or about "[mis]leading our readers". NPOV does not mean truth, neither it means the application of the scientific method to all subjects. NPOV means something very different and that is to describe significant viewpoints about a subject. In this case one of the most significant viewpoints is that of the proponents of this weird idea, and not as you argue, the viewpoint of science. If this was an article about science, (which is obviously not), it would be a different thing and your logic would apply 100%. But it is not. The article's lead should address your concern of leading readers (god forbid!) into believing that voices of the dead can be recorded, as it should include a statement that there is no scientific proof about its existence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Science has no beef with the dogma of the Virgin Birth of Jesus, it has beef with the human reproduction without sex. Science is the major authority on how births happen. Period. To claim otherwise is to simply not verifiable. Not recognizing this up front in an article on the Virgin Birth of Jesus is to unduly weight the opinions of people who are not reliable nor verifiable sources on how human reproduction happens. You seem to be of the opinion that there is only one way to look at a subject: that either the proponents are described on their own terms or they are completely vilified. This is simply not the case. Proponents of certain ideas may have real problems with reliably describing the fundamental observable phenomena upon which they base their ideas. Their ideas may have merit for other reasons be they literary, historical, metaphorical, religious, etc. However, if they are talking about observable phenomena, then science automatically rears its ugly head. If we allow the pseudoscientific or anti-scientific POV of proponents to be described in universe without directly pointing this out, then we have assumed an all-or-nothing stance that is the exact opposite of neutrality. The article on the virgin birth is itself not about science, but there are obvious and real scientific implications to any claim that human reproduction can happen without sex. If that is ignored in the article on the Virgin Birth of Jesus then the article is simply not NPOV. It's also not good enough to include a simple caveat at the beginning of an article that there is "no scientific proof of the existence of the phenomenon". The problem is that one statement to that effect does not deal substantively with the issue that the observable phenomena upon which the idea are flatly contradicted by science. That's not just lack of "proof": that's falsification. ScienceApologist 03:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

human reproduction can happen without sex. Yes it can, read the lastest Newsweek magazine, about women impregnating thmeselves using the "Turkey Baster Method" [10]. :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Too bad the article doesn't mention the Virgin Birth. :) ScienceApologist 13:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that proponents wrap the concept in the garb of science, with "research" and "experiments" and the like. If they're going to play at being scientists then it's appropriate that they be evaluated from a scientific perspective. If it was purely a matter of faith or spirituality then a scientific perspective would be far less applicable. Raymond Arritt 03:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

True, but it is not for us to do this. Notable scientists who have reliable works on the subject would be fine. Nor is the terms 'research' or 'experiments' strictly confusing; anyone whether scientist, historian, priest, or layman could do 'research' and conduct 'experiments' including numerous inventors. Thus the necessity of 'framing' the article as 'paranormal' which gives the reader valuable information that it is not a scientific 'study' or 'research' or 'experiment' but one outside of science or mainstream science; unless of course a mainstream scientist has conducted such studies and published his thoughts on the subject. --Northmeister 03:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that thousands of mainstream scientists have done research on the subjects upon which the idea is based and their research flatly contradicts the major propositions of the idea. This isn't a case of original research, it's a case of simply pointing out that science fully describes how, for example, a tape recorder works. ScienceApologist 03:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Which scientists are these? Their findings certainly would be acceptable under criticism section and entirely welcomed information for the reader. Here we have agreement. --Northmeister 04:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read my comments above about the thousands of scientists that these are. ScienceApologist 13:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, if one of the most significant viewpoints is that of the proponents of "this weird idea", would you consider that to be mainstream? Antelan ^talk 03:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What "mainstream" has to do with this? That term is not even used once in WP:NPOV, or WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was thinking WP:FRINGE. Antelan ^talk 04:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the three of us share the same concerns here and basically agree on NPOV for the most part. I think Jossi has hit the right chord as far as where I see the article or any article related to 'paranormal' terms heading as far as a fair representation of Wikipedia's NPOV. I also share the concerns of SA, in so much as not 'misleading' the reader - which is what the lead should help to do, along with a good criticism section. Follow this general pattern without infusing conflicts within the main of a paranormal or 'beyond the normal' subject would do more for our readers and cordiality here in editing than any other approach. It is a widely tested and used method across Wikipedia. I also concur that if this were a strictly science related article and a fringe view of that topic (say the roundness of the Earth) were to emerge - I would support SA 100% as well - leaving the fringe view to its proper place. However on a related page considering the fringe view of 'flat earth' I would support their assertions and reliable sources to indicate this being provided followed by scientific analysis of their assertions. --Northmeister 03:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to cover this as a social phenomenon, there should be no discussion of research, unless that is covered by the mainstream news. If we are going to cover it as a science, then it should be covered as the science or pseudoscience that it is. We cannot have just part of each - calling it a social phenomenon to put it outside the reach of science, then talking about its research as it if it were a science. Antelan ^talk 03:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Following Northmeister's idea creates an unacceptable walled garden within the article where science is not allowed to penetrate. In his view, science would be allowed in the lead and in a criticism section, but in the rest of the article, Newton's Laws of Motion would not apply. This is unacceptable. Science doesn't take a holiday just to accommodate the views of the fringe. Rather, science comments where science is applicable and stays silent where it is not. ScienceApologist 03:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Atelan, I understand your basic assertion on framing per wording etc. I think this could be addressed in how the 'research' etc. is so worded as not to convey scientific study if none occured. - SA, I do not see any other way to address these concerns than to have a good lead and criticism section. Maybe you could enlighten me as to how you see these concerns addressed for paranormal articles or fringe subjects that would alleviate unnecessary edit warring and controversy? The Wikipedia standard seems the best approach to me. --Northmeister 03:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that cordoning off all dissenting views into a criticism section is the "Wikipedia standard" as you have repeatedly called it, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. I've looked at a few articles under the Pseudoscience category and they commonly allow the perspective of the reality-based community to be interwoven in the article (see e.g., Hollow Earth, Flood geology). Can you point me to a policy or guideline page, Arbcom decision, etc.? Raymond Arritt 04:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am absolutely certain that this article can be written in a way that presents the viewpoints in a way that does not portrays this as science (maybe we can just say that the proponents attempt to frame this as science, when it is not). It should not be a problem to have a well written article that is neutral. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that a reasonable article can be crafted along those lines. Antelan ^talk 04:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi has just described the definition of a pseudoscience, which is what this is. It is very fringe and should be treated as such, IOW the scientific POV has weight. That's policy. -- Fyslee / talk 05:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

We should simply be able to present the work which has been done on the subject. That means we present mostly paranormal social phenomena, and paranormal research. If at some future point mainstream science actually researched EVP as such, then it would be necessary to update the article to present as the majority view whatever the scientists come up with. Until then, we cannot put together whatever sources we find that discuss sound equipment, and make up a refutation of EVP. Nor should we put together mainstream sources discussing sound equipment and create a defense of EVP. However, we probably should note that science has not studied EVP. That is what we already do, in the stable consensus version of the article, anyway. SA, LuckyLouie, Antelan and Arritt et al want to do OR. Further, they want to take up most of the article with a refutation of EVP, depriving the reader of.... well... of EVP. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

jossi, the status of EVP is not that it "isn't science," in the sense that mainstream science has refuted it (as one would normally assume from the wording), but that mainstream science has ignored it. There has been paranormalist research on the topic. That exact thing is what we as authors have to say. And leave it at that. The whole point is that we should talk about the real situation, not bias the reader, as people here want us to do. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec a go-go) There's an unspoken principle in scientific research that some topics are too ridiculous to waste our time investigating. We don't study the hypothesis that Triton is made of caramel with a tasty chocolate shell, or that the Earth is supported by a giant tortoise, or that dead people are speaking into tape recorders. Hence, proponents of such hypotheses will find little or no direct scientific reputation. Shall Wikipedia give "research" on such ideas sober consideration with little or no dissent because there's no scientific study on them? Raymond Arritt 04:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(ed conf) Mmmmm.... the problem is that the article as it stands goes on and on and on. The article to remain NPOV and without undue weight, should be concise and to the point, summarizing the proponent's views. Otherwise it reads very much as a proposition for it rather than a description of it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi and Atelan, I agree, and I feel doing so, would set a standard for other 'paranormal topics', as well, so as to end some of this controversy that keeps emerging. One solution to start with is to title this article "Electronic Voice Phenomena (paranormal)" to help the reader, to address criticism in the lead, to convey the subject as understood by the proponents, then to offer valid and reliable criticism to round the article out. I'm open to other suggestions to come up with a balanced approach that achieves NPOV, NOR, and V for this and other 'fringe' subjects. Martinphi, I do think that SA and the others have legitimate points to make; and that a reasonable soulution can be found here. Considering your statements, I think there is room for forming some sort consensus as to how it is to be done. --Northmeister 04:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

read my previous point. One of the problems I see is the tendency of these articles to describe aspects as facts rather than opinions, as well as being too lengthy for comfort. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Spot on. We needn't accept propositions at face value with all other perspectives ghettoed off into a criticism section, and we needn't go on and on at length. Raymond Arritt 04:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I agree. But, I think Raymond above is misreading you here. From what I understand you feel, as I do, that after the lead, the idea is conveyed from propopents thereof in a manner that does not indicate that it is fact (I totally agree), followed by worthy criticism of such propositions if they are reliable and exist (whether in a criticism section or following paragraph). That is essentially how I see the matter. --Northmeister 04:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

<<< For example: ...who had worked in conjunction with Jürgenson, made over 100,000 EVP recordings. should be written as ...who had worked in conjunction with Jürgenson, made over 100,000 recordings that he ascribes them to be EVP. That is NPOV 101. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Bingo. But when such language has been attempted, it has been fiercely resisted. Raymond Arritt 04:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. For what it's worth, Martinphi is labeling what we're doing here as gang editing at the ArbCom hearings on his conduct. He has not elaborated there on whom he considers to be members of this "gang", but presumably he is referring to more than just ScienceApologist in this accusation. Antelan ^talk 04:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't realize there was an Arbcom case on these two, nor that I was "in cahoots" (love that term) with some organization called called Rational Skepticism. You learn something new every day. Raymond Arritt 04:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, Absolutely, on the spot. I think again, Jossi, reflects how I feel the article should read. --Northmeister 04:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi's example is pretty much the way I've been editing the article ever since I got here. ScienceApologist 13:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is room in WP for simply saying -in some fashion- "OK, this section describes what EVP investigators believe," and then just go on and talk about it. Anything else just leads to difficult writing, and in truth it makes it no more NPOV. Editors use continual qualification to bias the article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope. That's a walled garden. ScienceApologist 13:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how Wikipedia:Walled garden applies here. It's not a group of articles separate from the rest of the encyclopedia, it's part of an article written in a clear way.--Prosfilaes 20:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Think smaller scale. If there are only two sections (the lead and a criticism section) where science is allowed in the article, then the rest of the article is effectively a walled garden. Or maybe we can call it a walled window box. ScienceApologist 22:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Even extending it to parts of an article, I think you're still misinterpreting that essay. I don't believe that writing large parts of the article from one POV is good, but certainly starting a section of one or two paragraphs with some clarifying text and writing the rest clearly from one POV rather than trying to force every sentence to be NPOV out of context.--Prosfilaes 22:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Going back to Jossi's statement, I would say that we can't just say those recordings are EVP, since, whether or not EVP exists, which recordings are EVP is not clear. I'd say "over 100,000 recordings that he identified as EVP", though; it sources the claim without being needlessly skeptical.--Prosfilaes 22:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Prosfilaes, I think your dead right here. The important thing is to address who is making the claim clearly, to avoid words that Arbcom has decided are unecessary, yet include certain qualifiers to make it clear that the studies or whatnot done with EVP are not related to science (if that be the case). In other words to be entirely clear in our wording. --Northmeister 23:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be informative to see an example of the "walled garden" approach successfully applied in an existing article. I looked at Scientology and though it makes good use of attributions such as "Scientology describes itself as....Prime among Scientology's beliefs is...Scientology believes...According to the Church...Scientology says...Other beliefs of Scientology are..." etc. it is, by its nature, a belief system rather than a pseudoscience or a practice that makes ostensibly scientific claims, and so is not the best example for our purposes. Note however, that in the section on "Auditing" when the E meter is mentioned, it is defined in mainstream scientific terms ("a device that measures very small changes in electrical resistance through the human body when a person is holding onto metal cans and a small current is passed through them") rather than Scientology's definition (a device that measures Thetans?). In the "walled garden" approach, science would not be permitted to intrude here. - LuckyLouie 23:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is clear to avoid any 'walls' as much as possible. The Scientology article is interesting, thanks. I don't believe we need to keep science out of the article main - it just needs to be done in a way the allows room for the paranormal view of EVP to be explained since EVP is largely a paranormal term, used in this field. My perspective for a 'Criticism', 'Analysis', or 'Skeptical Analysis' section was to allow room for the 'mainstream' view or skeptical view to offer its opinion on the matter - without Wikipedia making any judgements on the subject. This allows the reader to make up their own minds. This does not mean however that other alternatives might not be tried. I am certainly open to other suggestions and ways to achieve NPOV. --Northmeister 00:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal Terminology Box

The box seems to serve as an end-run around NPOV. It presents an "in-universe" definition of the "term" and offers a "signature" (how to spot EVP?). Terms don't have "signatures". It's not appropriate- LuckyLouie 17:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We might consider deleting the template altogether. I'll post a notice at the fringe theories noticeboard and get their opinions. ScienceApologist 17:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting the template? Are you stating that the paranormal community does not use such terms? Since this is a paranormal topic, that science largely dismisses, I don't see the logic here. Infoboxes serve the reader in numerous areas of Wikipedia for further definition and study and for ease of use. By what particular line of reason do either follow to conclude as you do? --Northmeister 23:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"Are you stating that the paranormal community does not use such terms?" An authoritative source which meets WP:RS showing a glossary of terms which are deemed legitimate by a consensus in the "paranormal community" might be helpful, if one exists. Which brings up a larger question; who is the paranormal community? Who is and isn't included in the community? Who determines what terms are legitimate? Who determines what is and isn't of note within the community? I observe that you have a rather loose definition of what constitutes the "paranormal community" as seen in an article you authored, Ghostly Talk: "These dramatic events, of note to the overall paranormal community; have sparked heated debate as to their meaning and the growing capacity for researchers into ITC." - LuckyLouie 23:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not up to us to determine who is the paranormal community nor what constitutes paranormal terms. Such is original research. Rather, to convey accepted and mainstream definition of paranormal terms and subjects. Your observations themselves determine EVP for example as a paranormal topic since it is not in the mainstream of science. Rather than lob personal observations on my 'definition' - let's stick to the topic at hand and Your Reasoning. I see no logical reason to delete templates across Wikipedia because a few individuals find them disagreeable with their POV. Especially templates pertaining to framed articles like those in the occult, fantasy, and paranormal. If you don't think EVP is a paranormal term used by those who do research into such, you must have a good reason - please enlighten the community (Wikipedia that is) about this? --Northmeister 00:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"It is not up to us to determine who is the paranormal community nor what constitutes paranormal terms." Exactly why I suggest we'd need a WP:RS to indicate appropriate content for "Paranormal Terms" infoboxes. What source do you propose we use? - LuckyLouie 00:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Good question and which source may I ask do you have at hand to indicate that, Electonic Voice Phenomena is not used in the Paranormal world? It would be enlightening and change my mind on this rather fringe idea that the term is somehow not used by the paranormal community - must be it is a scientific term then? --Northmeister 01:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"which source may I ask do you have at hand to indicate that, Electonic Voice Phenomena is not used in the Paranormal world? You're missing the point (or maybe shifting the burden). We don't have any WP:RS sources which are authoritative of the "paranormal world" (whatever that is). The template deletion discussion which you are reacting to isn't about whether or not EVP believers use the term. It's about the possible misuse of Infoboxes to sidestep NPOV. You are welcome to express your view at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion. - LuckyLouie 01:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In what manner do templates 'misuse of Infoboxes to sidestep NPOV'? Specifically relating to this article for example? --Northmeister 01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Head over to Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion for the answer. - LuckyLouie 01:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

However

There is no room to go on from the current point. The nonconsensus status of the current article must be addressed. Agreement on how to write the article starts from the point before nonconsensus editing began. And it ends at the point where further gang editing starts. The spirit and rules of WP have been violated, and I won't just go from a nonconsensus base. Nor will I ignore the fact of the past. Deal with that first, then we have room to go on toward agreement. If ScienceApologist and all here are willing to revert to the version 19:06, 27 October 2007 Sandahl, then we can discuss and come to consensus on changes to the article before we insert them. I also would like jossi's continued intervention. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any version labeled "19:06, 27 October 2007 Sandahl". Is this [11] the version you wish to be reverted to? If so, what are the comparative points of difference between that version and the present article you object to? If not, can you provide the diff so we can see what it is you're talking about? - LuckyLouie 21:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the version. One good reason never to do that kind of editing on an article like this is that it becomes impossible to know what the heck he did. We can always insert his changes back in if they are good. And I'd be willing that the pictures be taken out to begin with. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the version you have cited showing comparative differences with the current version. [12]. I don't see what the big deal is. - LuckyLouie 22:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad- shouldn't be a big deal to revert it then (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You lost me. You agree the differences between versions are minor, yet you are still arguing for a revert, based on....anything specific? - LuckyLouie 22:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm just glad that it's no big deal to you, and that therefore, you have no problem with reverting it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

We've all been forming consensus around jossi's ideas; how is that gang editing? I haven't seen input from ScienceApologist in the last hour or so, but all who have commented on jossi's most recent statements seem to be in agreement, more or less. Your demands are unreasonable. Antelan ^talk 04:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been following the entire debate with its sidetracks to Virgin Birth and Turkey Basters but if the consensus being formed relates to these [13] [14] ideas of Jossi's, I include myself in that consensus. - LuckyLouie 21:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Martin, I think that approach is avisable as far as addressing 'changes' made here before inserting them. However, I do agree with Atelan that there is no one here 'gang editing'. We may have disagreements, but are working or trying to work them out. I would urge you to join us in this and work from the present article state forward without such demands as going back to a previous version. Your input is important and should be heard as well, on, our present, apparent agreement over matters based on Jossi's ideas. We then can build a framework to work anew in cordial editing based on our accepted framework. --Northmeister 05:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Martin, give it a chance. My intentions and the intention of some others here is to have an informative article that we can all feel proud of. Would it be the kind of article you would have written on your own? No. Would it be the kind of article that ScienceApologist would have written? No. But it will be one that both you and SA hopefully will be able to live with. Lower your expectations to that level, and let's roll our sleeves, shall we?≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm very happy that you're here jossi, and I'm perfectly willing to participate in this process at some point. I am also, -and always have been- willing to compromise. However I have two concerns: first, I really believe that it would be more profitable to wait till after the ArbCom which ScienceApologist brought against me, and to which Wikidudeman, Nealparr, Antelan and LuckyLouie and are also parties, and in which the other editors such as fyslee and Baegis are also involved. One reason is that it will be easier for the remaining editors once some of the others are gone, and also perhaps trying to form consensus in the midst of an ArbCom such as that may prove to be a rather superhuman task.

My second concern is that I do not think it is in any way appropriate to start from the basis of SA's 38 nonconsensus edits of the article, which his friends then edit warred to keep in. If we are going to participate in a process of consensus building, we need to return to the version before such editing tactics were used, and agree on the changes as we make them. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi, we are trying to write an article here. Though that may frustrate you, you'd do best to participate in the process, rather than deliberately stall. Antelan ^talk 20:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Martin, I find it somewhat disturbing that you advocate waiting until after the Arbcom decision because, "it will be easier for the remaining editors once some of the others are gone". It sounds like you're only willing to form consensus with people you like. - LuckyLouie 20:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Test of good faith: do you advocate continuing on from the basis of ScienceApologist's nonconsensus edits, or do you counsel starting from the version before nonconsensus editing began? Because I'd hate to think you were only interested in coming to consensus with editors you like.

And what's this? If I get banned, then it will be easier for you. What's wrong with saying that? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Another test of good faith: Is it possible that you, personally, could disagree with an edit and yet that edit could represent consensus? Raymond Arritt 21:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, you need to read about consensus. Consensus means everyone consents to the edit. It is not possible that I could disagree with an edit and have it be consensus, but it is possible that I could dislike an edit, but agree to it; and that would be consensus, if everyone else agreed as well. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So then consensus is equivalent to veto power? Raymond Arritt 22:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. For instance, if I were the only editor here who objected to something -and there were quite a few editors here-, then it might be OK to go ahead anyway- depending on the strength of my arguments. However, I'm not going to discuss the meaning of consensus much further. I have the same definition as the policy article, which I might personally summarize as super-super majority; and then the majority only carries the day when it is in accord with the basic policies of WP (the word can also mean unanimity). Now what about your good faith answer? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Martin, I am very confused by your "test of good faith question" above. AFAIK, no one has mentioned starting anew from what you term "ScienceApologists nonconsenus edits". Here is the version you are arguing we must revert to, showing comparative differences with the current version: [15]. I must say, I see only improvements, albeit minor ones. Maybe I'm missing something, but I do not see what your point is. - LuckyLouie 23:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've looked at the two versions and the second is an improvement to the first. Martin, I think we should work from the second if you look at this objectively. Take a close look at the wording and you can see a marked improvement in style. --Northmeister 23:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he made some improvements. I think he also deleted some good stuff, and put in a bunch of "claimed"s and "believers," and "used by proponents to refer" and probably mis-attributed some things. Let me see..... I'm behind the times, my apologies. I agree to start from the current version.... because Nealparr, or someone, has done a lot of improvement. Further, the complexity of that diff is comprehensible to my limited intellect, so I can tell that the article hasn't been butchered (as of now). We're fine. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Edison

The article currently says, "In the 1920s, Thomas Edison told a reporter with Scientific American that he was working on a machine that could contact the dead. This story spread to numerous newspapers around the world. A few years later, Edison announced that he had been making a joke at the reporter's expense, and that he had not been working on such a device.[4] Though Edison did not attempt to create such a device[5], he did believe that spirits might make contact in the future through the advent of better technology.[6]"

It strikes me as an anachronistic inclusion, and possibly as original research to say that this material belongs in an article about Electronic Voice Phenomena. Antelan ^talk 00:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Side note: I remember putting in the first part of the Edison bit, up to reference 4. Somebody apparently added the second extremely dubious pro-spirit-communication bit, cited by reference 6, which looks ultra-unreliable. - LuckyLouie 00:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to be more clear. Why is ref 6, 'ultra-unreliable'? On what grounds? The two sentences you do not like are factual, why do you oppose them then? Atelan - I agree. I've always thought the Edison stuff as a whole was out of place. --Northmeister 00:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/voices-from-cspace.html a subpage of http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/fortspace.html , is a collection of personal essays ("General Weirdness") complete with "X Files" theme music. Hardly a WP:RS for information about Thomas Edison. - LuckyLouie 00:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's part of the lore, but I agree to get rid of the entire Edison bit if people want to. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference Six, although an essay, does contain a biography from whence the material was derived however. I don't see this as 'ultra-unreliable' - the music, well true. A better RS would be a published work, preferably peer reviewed, directly on Edison, I agree. The stuff should go, I agree with Atelan. --Northmeister 00:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the music was quite pleasant. Qualms about the reliability of the material stem from the bibliography, which references mainly non-objective sources such as Bander, Keel, Macy, Meek, Raudive, Rogo, etc. - LuckyLouie 00:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Szalay

I have removed the Edison paragraph; now, Szalay's is the first paragraph under history. Is 1959 the first date on record where he claims he recorded voices of the dead? I think it would be desirable to put a date in that first sentence. Antelan ^talk 00:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know it is. Although Martin has a better grasp of this material. --Northmeister 00:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll look it up tomorrow. There are early precursors to EVP, and I'll try and find the data. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I find that there are quite a few precursors to EVP pre 1950s, but I personally think they should be left out. They would take up lots of room, and aren't particularly notable. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

He heard a voice in 1936 and thought it was his dead brother. In 1941, he started trying to record voices he heard. In 1956 he believed he was successful. In 1959 his recordings were published through Bayless. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Very nice, certainly a lot better. And less dry, thus the reader might actually read some of it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hot dog, Art! ...er, nevermind : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarifications

In addition to the POV problems, which will probably be with us forever, the article is poorly written. Jossi and others have made a few improvements in this regard. I'm trying to state some things more clearly and would like to use a better term than "this world" in the intro. Would it be the living world, the physical world, or what? Raymond Arritt 17:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're refering to the section on the Spiricom device, if Meek called it "this world" it should be fine as-is. The part you changed from "phenomena" to "sounds" is alright, but there really wasn't a need to change that either. A phenomenon is simply an observed event, so an odd or even mundane sound on the recording -- even if it's completely normal -- is still a phenomenon because it's an event on the recording. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. If Meek called it "this world" without further explanation then I guess that will have to do, but I have no idea what it means and I suspect many of our readers won't either. Raymond Arritt 20:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I could see how it'd be confusing to some readers, but if you consider the sentence as a whole, it makes a distinction between "this world" and "the spirit world", so the implied definition becomes "not the spirit world", ie. natural world. Of course that's synthesis if Meek didn't actually spell that out, but it's how the sentence is structured. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Neal, there is a word "artifact" or "experimental artifact" often used by scientists for apparent observations that turn out to be produced by defective equipment, procedures, or analysis. If something turns out to be an artifact it is not called a "phenomenon". A phenomenon is potentially a subject for scientific investigation; an artifact is a problem that you would like to eliminate. So I disagree that any apparent sound on a recording necessarily deserves to be called a "phenomenon". In one sense that is true, but this is an article about something that claims to be a science, and making that choice of words in it advocates a particular point of view, namely that "EVP" is a real science with a (non-empty set of) subject matter. (In a similar way, calling all these apparent sounds "artifacts", which is at least as reasonable, would advocate the point of view that "EVP" is, at best, a mistake.) In the interest of attaining a neutral point of view, I would like to see the use of the words phenomena and phenomenon in this article kept to the minimum necessitated by the fact that the article is, unfortunately, called "Electronic Voice Phenomena". Cardamon 10:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe a phenomenon and an artifact are mutally exclusive, as in something stops being phenomena when they are ruled as artifacts. Even auditory pareidolia is a phenomenon. Auditory pareidolia caused by the interpretation of artifacts is a phenomenon. It's a matter of editorial discretion whether to use that word. It's neutral. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Word choice is rarely completely neutral. If you google phenomena, the first page is dominated by paranormal phenomena, including a link to the FBI website that lists Animal/Cattle Mutilation and several UFO-related topics under the heading unusual phenomena. When our readers think of phenomenon, they don't think of auditory pareidolia, they think of voices from the dead.--Prosfilaes 18:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That's its popular use, which isn't our fault. It's really not our job to talk down to the reader or correct them -- such a task would probably be impossible since we don't know their vocabulary or comprehension level. The point I've been making is that it's a matter of editorial discretion whether or not to use the word because technically it fits. The topic is electronic voice phenomena after all. More explanation would be required for avoiding the word rather than using it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

English, and most other languages, are defined purely by popular use. Good writers does not say "this word technically means what I want, so it is irrelevant whether it will mean that to the reader." Good writers know the full meaning, both dictionary and popular, of their words and writes with that meaning in mind.

Yes, avoiding phenomenon is going to be complex in this case. That doesn't mean we can ignore the issue as technically correct or neutral.--Prosfilaes 19:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it is irrelevant. The benefit of Wikipedia is that interlinking can directly expose the reader to the definition as it applies to this article. Since the term is electronic voice -phenomena-, and we're not saying "it's phenomenal!" or "it's sweeping the nation!", that probably needs to be done anyway. English isn't purely popular use. All the dictionaries include multiple meanings of the word if there are multiple meanings, regardless of which is most popular. The responsibility of a good writer is to select the right word. Though, again, it is editorial discretion, the more-right word is "phenomenon". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)