Jump to content

Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

David Fontana

http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/schoolsanddivisions/academicschools/socsi/staff/visitors/index.html

Now give it a restDavkal 15:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that seems to settle it. Cardiff is a top branch university. It's part of the Russell Group, too.

perfectblue 12:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What should also be noted here is that Fontana is Professor of Transpersonal Psychology at Liverpool John Moores University. What this means is that in addition to being a distinguished visting fellow at one of the UK's top universities, Fontana is also actually employed by another UK academic institution to know about, amongst other things, the subject matter of this article. This is very different from other individuals, including academics, who are mere hobbyists. Given this, Fontana must be accepted as a reputable and reliable source on EVP.Davkal 12:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits from Davkal

Your latest series of edits are now clearly WP:POINT and disruptive editing: e.g. adding fact tags to well sourced material such as here, here, and here and adding pro-paranormal POV, e.g. here and here. You have a long history of going into POV meltdown [1]. And you know that edits which unbalance the article and tilt it toward favoring a pseudoscientific fringe POV will be reverted. You need to stop such angry demonstrations and tantrums. You are doing WP no good. --- LuckyLouie 03:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If the fact tags are placed at well sourced material then where are the sources. Also, to comment on content rather than contributer can hardly be what you intended when the heading of this section is my name. Please refrain from further personal attacks and please remove/change this one.Davkal 03:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, if you cared to think about it, you would see that all the examples you give of my supposed disruptive editing are perfectly reasonable. For example, ghost hunting is only one aspect of paranomral investigation. To say the two ar the same is simply wrong. Who says that EVP proponents populate HUNDREDS of Internet message boards, regional, and national groups. Hundreds of national groups, really!. And apophenia telated to, but distinct from pareidolia when some websites say one is a form of the other. Also, what you call pro-paranormal POV is merely stating plainly the bias of several commentators in their own words. I don't think it is fair to the readers to, say, portray Chris French as a professor of psychology and not tell them that he openly admits to being biased and not considering the evidence for the paranormal neutrally. Such an attitude is a clear indication of pseudoscepticism (as is Carroll's confession of much the same thing) and so that was why the category was added.Davkal 03:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
This citation request, at least, is fully justified: [2]
You really need to read the article before you start complaining. There are dozens of articles in the mainstream press which qualify the text. If you don't like the ghost hunters blurring the distinction between amateurs and "professionals" then you need to talk to the ghost hunting groups who call themselves paranormal investigators and give interviews to newspapers around the world in which they claim to record EVP. -- LuckyLouie 07:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

But please don't use that valuable pseudoskepticism Cat in a POINT way to make people hate it and me. It is true that Davkal tends to go overboard sometimes, but given a bit of tweaking, most of his edits are good, and balance out the POV positions of the article. But the article has been getting generally better under Davkal's influence, so cut him some slack while we try to moderate between extremes. His edits are less POV than some of the skeptical editors. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


I think the pseudoscepticism tag is essential here because three of the the main sceptical commentators used (Carroll, French and Shermer) have been identified on numerous occasions as pseudosceptics. Two of them have even admitted to their total lack of objectivity in their dealings with the paranormal (Carroll and French) - which is almost the definition of pseudoscepticism.Davkal 04:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'd accept that reason, especially the Carroll quote. I'd have added it after the mediation, though. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't think I'll still be alive by the time somebody gets round to mediating. Maybe I'll comment by EVP.Davkal 04:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, lol, it is wearing, isn't it. I've never heard "comment by" before. Hang in there. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's also interesting (to me anyway) that almost every edit from what Louie calls POV meltdown has either been kept as is or tweaked slightly or the whole thing that I made changes to removed. That is, on no occasion has the original text, or anything like, gone back into the article. This suggests to me that Louie is simply making personal attacks without any substance, i.e. throwing a tantrum.Davkal 04:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Davkal, you a treading on thin ice here. I'm getting very tired of this kind of posturing. Shape up or I will file a User RfC and begin the process of administrative sanction. I encourage editors who are tiring of Davkal's inappropriate actions to begin collecting evidence as well. --ScienceApologist 06:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we're all disappointed in the lack of initiative from our mediator. Both Minderbinder and Davkal have gotten no response from him regarding next steps. In the absence of mediation a User RfC may be a solution for the interim bad behavior. -- LuckyLouie 07:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
RFCs are horrible timesinks, and they don't tend to have much effect on inveterate edit warriors. A look at Davkal's talkpage history and block log suggests arbitration to me. ArbCom don't seem to be into demanding a previous RFC in blatant cases any more. Just my 2c. Bishonen | talk 08:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
They can be horrible timesinks, I agree, but sometimes the people get the message and shape-up and if the RfC is thoroughly documented it can serve as an excellent basis for evidence collection in an arbitration. I do agree with you that perhaps we should recommend dispensing with the antiquated RfC business altogether. I think having arbitration over "paranormal articles" in general might be a good idea (just as we had one ostensibly over "pseudoscience" last year). --ScienceApologist 08:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd absolutely support a user RfC, or an arbcom case if it becomes necessary. This has gotten ridiculous, and the POV pushing is becoming disruptive. --Minderbinder 13:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And lots of people are tired of you SA- you're posturing, your blatant POV edits, your ludicrous interpretations of rules, your constgant personal attacks (including some off wiki attacks) and your (extraordinary given what you write) I know everything edits. Let's go for arbitration.Davkal 11:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded.

perfectblue 12:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Here's the difference: ScienceApologist supports the mainstream, per WP:NPOV, whereas some others here support minority, often tiny minority views, and seek to rewrite the article to better reflect tiny minority views while obscuring the fact that the dominant independent opinion is that these things have a mundane explanation. Previous arbitration rulings support the fact that, while we should document significant minority views, we should do so in a way that makes it plain that they are minority views, and that they are disputed or ignored by all but their proponents. You ignore this at your peril: other editors have been banned or restricted from editing for failing to respect this core and non-negotiable Wikipedia policy. Guy (Help!) 15:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As above. Only one comment and immediately tiresome.Davkal 18:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Interesting how you remove comments like yours above as "personal attacks" on your user talk. Tiresome? You have no idea how tiresome I could be if I put my mind to it, I am one of those rouge admins you hear about. I have come here because of complaints to the administrators about your editing. I see that they are in large part justified. Time to stop agitating, I think. Guy (Help!) 19:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, there is no mainstream opinion - you simply made this up to push your POV. Nobody is trying to push a minority opinion - you simply made that up to push your POV. If you have any evidence of a bad faith, POV pushing edit by myself that even comes close to science apologists' "Macrae, who fancies himself as an electrionics expert" then let it be cited. Otherwise, these are simple personal attacks since they make no reference whatsoever to any specific content but merely wave of vaguely as some general point about me being a bad man. And this is true rogue admin or otherwise.Davkal 22:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I second much of what he says. Although I also believe some of his edits crossed the NPOV line. But compaired to SA, they are nothing. If you want the real perspective on SA, go read Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Last time I brought this up, he edit warred on many of my edits on other pages. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration is the next step

We have now enough people willing, so I think we should go forward with arbitration (I doubt that mediation at this point will help). I would ask that someone else make the request because I am very busy this week and will probably not be able to respond until the second week of April. --ScienceApologist 18:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that's harsh. OK so Eagle missed my post but that doesn't say anything about his expertise in what is relevant to mediation here. I also don't think too many points need to be addressed - once we have some basic groundrules for sources the rest should, in my opinion, follow straightforwardly.Davkal 18:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The history of this article says otherwise. Reccommend aribitration as the next step. - LuckyLouie 18:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • At this point I think the arbitrators will reject the case. I suggest an RfC, and if Davkal does not quickly show signs of willingness to accept others' perspective on his work, which at present he appears to reject, then we should simply take this to the community sanction board and go for a community editing restriction or ban. Simple cases do not require extensive processes. We have restricted less bothersome users from editing nominated articles before now. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have got any evidence of any edits that I have made that are pushing minority opinion, or iin bad faith, then let's have them. Put up or shut up.Davkal 22:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It is silly to attack one user while letting others off the hook because their POV is closer to your own. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I found this lying around.

What on earth could it possibly mean.Davkal 22:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As requested http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_voice_phenomenon&diff=118153498&oldid=118082007 SheffieldSteel 22:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Good examples SS. I think the one where I added: "EVP are the most paranormal of all known phenomena and certainly exist", is a clear example of my minority POV pushing. Unfortunately it doesn't exist. What does exist in your link are many edits that were subsequently accepted pretty much as is (the very first lines of the intro being a notable one); many edits that were incorporated into the text after further rewriting; and a few edits that were removed along with the much larger sentences/sections they were part of. Hardly a damning indictment of my behaviour. Is that the best you can find? Surely you must be able to find all the ones where I have been as obviously POV pushing as SA when he wrote: "MacRae, who fancies himself as an electronics expert." Davkal 23:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Davkal, you asked for examples of your POV pushing, bad faith edits, edit warring, etc. Here are but a few:
-- LuckyLouie 23:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All three can easily be justified and sourced. The firt one is a direct quote from Carroll about his book that is pertinent to the inclusion of text from that book. The point being that it should be noted that even the author of the book admits that it is not supposed to be a balanced account. The second one is: "Virtually no scientific literature on EVP exists, although skeptics have put forward various naturalistic explanations" which is so obviously true and non-pov (sourced to Skepdic!) that I think you must have simply made a mistake by including it. And the third one is the addition of "Pseudoscepticism" as a category, which does not mean that everything about the article is pseudosceptical but merely that examples of pseudoscepticism can be found here. The point being that given Carroll and French's self-appraisal (Carroll - the book does not try to present a balanced account; and French - I am biased ... I never claimed to be neutral. Their own words, not mine), it is hard to see how anyone could try to maintain that this is an appropriate position of genuine, rather than pseudo, scepticism. I cite once again from CSICOP's charter: Do not reject claims on a priori grounds, antecedent to inquiry, but examine them objectively and carefully. Thus the category tag.

I would argue, then, that in light of the above, your claims that these are bad faith POV edits are plainly false.Davkal 23:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

So, I ask again, if anyone can come up with anything nearly as bad as SA's "Macrae, who fancies himself as an electronics expert" then let it be cited. Otherwise, give it a rest.Davkal 23:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of Davkals edits are OK, others are arguable POV, a few are POV. But I don't take the criticisms seriously, since you are picking on an editor who does not share your POV, while ignoring worse from an editor who does. Please either stop this, or make it fair. Does anyone want to address the edit which Davkal quoted above? Does no one have what it takes to say, "ScienceApologist made worse edits, but Davkal is also making POV edits"? Do you have the fairness to actually say that? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_voice_phenomenon&diff=prev&oldid=121264081 The edit by ScienceApologist that prompted the gaming of 3RR by Davkal. I really wish the two of you would try to co-operate. SheffieldSteel 21:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

How can we cooperate. We have a perfectly legitimate source that some editors will not accept. We do not need to provide payslips and/or contracts. We have sourced the claim to a book by a noted academic writing within his field of expertise. That should be the end of it. It is not an extraordinary claim and so it does not stand in need of extraordinary sources. It is basic biographical information that, despite numerous requests, we have been given no reason whatsoever to doubt.Davkal 22:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Fontana is not an expert or a reliable source for who has a NASA contract and who doesn't. End of story. --ScienceApologist 00:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Fontana is an expert on those individuals and events that make up his area of academic expertise. He is therefore a perfectly reliable source for basic biographical information about such people. Removing well sourced material like this is POV pushing plain and simple.Davkal 00:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Being an expert in the paranormal does not make Fontana an expert in who worked for NASA. --ScienceApologist 00:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't need to be an expert on who works for NASA - that's just you're bizarre interpretaion of a rule in this instance so that you can push your POV. He is an expert on the people and events that make up his field of expertise and that makes him a reliable source for mundane biographical information.Davkal 00:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The claim is about NASA. Therefore, the source needs to be reliable with issues related to NASA. --ScienceApologist 03:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The claim is about Alexander MacRae and involves NASA, but is not about NASA per se. Davkal 11:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I tell you what, try to get someone to agree with you. --ScienceApologist 11:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Lots of people agree. You can see the evidence all over Wiki where similar points are cited in similar ways. Davkal 11:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
MacRae had an article published. How were his credentials described for that article, if at all? I have to say I'm a bit suspicious of any info that's that hard to corroborate. --Minderbinder 12:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It's only hard to corroborate because you want to see payslips and contracts from 40 years ago. We have about 8 sources and you accept none of them. Why on Earth would the article Macrae had published a few years ago make reference to his former jobs - I don't think this is normal procedure at all - and even if it did you would reject it because it isn't NASA. One similar example, if you go to the Wittgenstein article you will see it noted that during the war LW worked at Guy's Hospital in London. No source is provided for this, and certainly nobody who has done a bio of LW is a world expert on hospital staff (Guy's or otherwise). So, if you want to dispute this, I guess you could remove it until somebody comes up with hospital records from the 1940s. I mean, you'd be right to be suspicious of stuff that is that hard to corrobrate.Davkal 12:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
And while you're on your business of protecting Wiki, why don't you delete this unsourced nonsense: Gil "Scott-Heron's father, Giles "Gil" Heron (nicknamed "The Black Arrow") was a Jamaican soccer player who played for Glasgow's Celtic Football Club in the 1950s."Davkal 12:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
You're saying in a published journal article, we should expect to see zero mention of the credentials of those who wrote the article? So are you saying that the journal had no info, or that you don't have access to the source and don't know? Who here has access to the journal (someone must since it is being used so much in this article)? What does it say about MacRae, or does it say nothing and just present the article? --Minderbinder 13:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The article was written by Macrae about an experiment he conducted, it was not his autobiography. And I hardly think it is normal practice to include a lengthy editorial biography to accompany articles. And and, even if the journal said "former NASA consultant" you would not accept it would you, because the SPR is not an authority on who worked for NASA. If it was, then we could just go by what the ex-president of the SPR (Fontana) wrote in his book.Davkal 13:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Could you let the strawman arguments go for a minute and just answer the question (who ever said anything about lengthy? I'd like confirmation if they said anything at all)? I'm assuming from your failure to answer it that you have no idea what the JSPR said about Macrae when they published the article? --Minderbinder 21:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
No I don't and I couldn't care less, because the question is pointless. Whatever the SPR said will be rejected because the SPR isn't NASA. If you're so interested you look it up.Davkal 22:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Believers in the paranormal often exaggerate the credentials of those who help "prove" their beliefs. Fringe experimenters who make unusual claims (e.g. MacRae writes that his experiment has great importance for Science, he hears anomalous voices, etc.). often inflate their own status as well. WP:RED FLAG tells us that such sources are subject to an extra dose of scrutiny. This is why the claims of/about MacRae are being scrutinized. LuckyLouie 18:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but Distinguished Visiting Fellows at top-flight universities don't normally lie about basic biographical information in their books.Davkal 18:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It is entirely possible that professors may write books with incomplete or inaccurate information. Don't believe everything that's in print. I think it is highly dubious that MacRae had anything more than a lackey's role if he actually worked for NASA at all. Fontana took MacRae's word for his employment and apparently didn't bother checking up on the credentials. All we need to do is provide independent verification from people who can confirm this independent of MacRae's accounting. --ScienceApologist 01:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Your claim that MacRae told Fontana that he worked for NASA and Fontana bought it is pure speculation. As such it has no place dictating content. We have numerous sources independent of MacRae. Your continued posturing on this point is of little value, please desist. Davkal 01:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The onus is not on me to show where a charlatan like Fontana gets his information, but it is perfectly fine for us to speculate on the talkpage as this is not article space. I will not desist, so you will have to try another tactic.--ScienceApologist 01:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to withold well sourced claims on the basis that a source "is not independent" then the onus is on you to show how that source is supposed to be dependent. Your speculation that Macrae told Fontana (without the slightest evidence to back this up) has no place in dictating content. Feel free to speculate to your heart's content, but do not be suprised when nobody pays it any heed.Davkal 10:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
As I directed you earlier, if you want to seek out a third opinion to establish your hegemony in interpretation, be my guest. --ScienceApologist 11:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Be my guest. I sought mediation and now you and a few others seem to be trying to block it.Davkal 12:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't look like anyone blocked mediation, at this point it seems to have just fizzled out. --Minderbinder 12:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Speaking of dispute resolution... To all those involved: please be advised that a request for comment on the Martinphi's conduct has been made and is accessible at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Martinphi. --Minderbinder 12:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ames Research Center Speech Recognition

Ames Research Center [3] [4] is responsible for NASA's speech recognition explorations. The archives at Ames are open to the public. They have no record of MacRae being an expert researcher. --ScienceApologist 14:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've checked the site, but I couldn't find the list of past contractors, please provide the exact URL.
perfectblue 14:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, hang on, nobody ever said that Macrae worked at AMES. As I recall he was subcontractor through SRI.
perfectblue 15:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You recall? Why does all your information seem to come from "recalling" things instead of a source? --Minderbinder 15:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
That sounds very much like an ad hominem criticism to me, shame on you. Wiki regs do not permit me to cite myself or my own research, I therefore must cite something from a source that is third party to myself as well as to the topic. As such I "recall" what I "read" in a "source".
perfectblue 15:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
PB. Did you know MacRae personally? Just curious. LuckyLouie 17:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't "know" him but I have corresponded with him in the past about non-EVP issues (I briefly interviewed him over some work that he did on an underwater habitation program and the F111). FYI, I'm NOT Fontana, I'm NOT the guy who wrote the fate article and I'm NOT citing anything that I wrote/published/etc has my name attached to it. I'm not even remotely going to go down the road that our friend with the AA-EVP went through. I wouldn't be WP:RS and I don't need that kind of grief.
perfectblue 11:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess then you're being overly sensitive. This claim, and many others you have made, is unsourced, and pointing that out that failure to follow WP:RS is absolutely justified. You need to provide sources for claims. It's not good enough to recall something you might have read somewhere - if it is sourcable material, find the source and provide it. Otherwise it doesn't provide anything useful here. --Minderbinder 15:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
"As I recall" is an expression you can't seriously expect me to include citations in my talk page comments. You appear to be trying to distract fro my original argument which is that the URL provided are not as advertised because they don't include a list of contractors. They prove nothing.
perfectblue 16:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of where claims are, they are worthless if they're not sourced. I strongly urge you to provide sources when you make claims about items in the article, otherwise you're wasting our time. --Minderbinder 16:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm referring back to the sources already given. Not to anything new. See Fontana etc.
perfectblue 11:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
So is info about him being a subcontractor through SRI in Fontana? If not, which other source? --Minderbinder 13:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

SRI lists their former staff members and visitors here: [5] MacRae doesn't appear. --ScienceApologist 16:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That list is completely irrelevant as it simply doesn't go back far enough. We're talking the 1960s here, not the 1990s.
perfectblue 11:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
NASA's website lets you search through everything they have. There four MacRae hits, but none is the guy we're looking for. It looks as though we're not going to find a source (other than Fontana's book) that says he worked for them. The question is, then, should we allow any mention of this NASA background or not? Putting it another way, how does it misrepresent the situation if the assertion is wrongly included - or wrongly excluded? Is his credibility so borderline that it must be boosted - or eroded - in this way?
Personally, I can't see it. Reading his report as a scientific research paper, I find its failings to be more damning than any criticism we could make of it (within the rules of wikipedia) and I cannot imagine any open-minded rational reader being convinced by it. And surely anyone who believes that surviving spirits or whatnot are contacting us via EVP isn't going to be dissuaded from their beliefs either.
So, looking at the big picture, it probably isn't that important. Wikipedia's one non-negotiable rule, however, says that we must not present opinion as fact - we must convert the opinion to fact by attributing it. In other words, if there is to be any mention of MacRae being a speech-recognition consultant for NASA, it has to be attributed to Fontana, not stated as a plain fact. SheffieldSteel 20:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Macrae was a contractor not a NASA employee, and NASAs website only shows stuff that is A) Modern, B) FOIAed.
perfectblue 11:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

None of this matters, because we have a perfectly reliable source that says Macrae was contracted to work for NASA on voice-recognition. Also, how quickly Minderbender seems to forget that about 8 different sources have been provided for MacRae at NASA. To try to make out now that this simply hinges of Perfectblue's memory is breathtaking in its dishonesty. Also, re SheffielSteel's point, it is not Fontana's opinion that Macrea worked at NASA, he simply reports the fact. Davkal 20:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think re-asserting "I am right and you are wrong" is going to advance this discussion in any way. Some sort of a compromise or consensus is going to have to be reached if we are to make any progress. The best compromise I can see (and the most in keeping with wiki policy) is to attribute this background info to Fontana. And no, it is not a fact that MacRae worked at NASA. That is Fontana's opinion. Please read WP:NPOV for details on the difference between the two. SheffieldSteel 20:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If re-asserting "I am right and you are wrong" does not help us advance things then why are you so intent on doing it. It is simply not a matter of opinion where someone has worked it is a matter of fact. As such it should be presented as such.Davkal 21:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why accuse me of such a thing? I'm trying to get everyone to look at this question in a way which is less confrontational, and which might result in us being able to move forward. I'm hoping that one or more editors will respond to my post above by saying, "actually, this one issue really isn't all that important" or, better yet, "actually, it's not about trying to change peoples' minds, as you implied, but being open and fair about informing them so that they can make up their own minds." SheffieldSteel 21:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd be fine with something like "described by Fontana as..." I also agree that getting across the content of Macrae's article is most relevant to the article. --Minderbinder 21:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
To say something is A's opinion (or described by A as) is to suggest that there is some doubt or that in some way doubt is inevitable - that the fact of the matter is somehow difficult to acertain and so all one can have is an opinion or a description. One might as well say it is Fontana's opinion that his first name is David; or, Fontana describes his first name as David. We simply don't speak this way about things like names, or jobs.Davkal 21:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
But that's precisely my point. The fact of the matter is difficult to ascertain. We've looked at NASA records, SRI records... no sign of MacRae. Presumably you've been looking too. And all we have, between us, is a book that, presumably, mentions this only in passing (though I could be mistaken, and Fontana might go into detail about MacRae's time at NASA, the projects he worked on there, the people who knew him as a result of that consultancy etc) and other sources which seem to cite the book. So either we attribute this information to Fontana, or we descend into further edit-warring and dispute. SheffieldSteel 21:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that it would be more appropriate to say that you've looked at a small subsection of SRI and NASA's records. SRI's only records are too modern to be of any use and NASA's website only contain a small section of their total records.
perfectblue 11:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Ironically, the Senkowski source currently being used as a "reliable" source (just added a link to the online version) doesn't even get MacRae's name right. I'm not sure why some are so insistent that any information a college professor puts in a book automatically must be 100% factual and correct, even if it that info can't be confirmed by any other reliable source. --Minderbinder 21:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, wikipedia doesn't require it to be factually correct, only to be verifiable as published by somebody who can be trusted not to make things up or to make mistakes.
perfectblue 11:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
FYI, MacRae is Scottish, there are three different spellings used for his name. Two of which are used by Macrae himself.
perfectblue 11:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I especially enjoyed Senkowski's conclusion that a voice saying "Here is Berlin" on his shortwave receiver was of paranormal origin. -- LuckyLouie 21:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I found this by searching for McRae rather than MacRae at NASA: a research paper listing... Seidenberg, M. S., Plaut, D. C., Peterson, A. S., McClelland, J. L., & McRae, K. (1994). Nonword pronunciation and models of word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance The most likely hypothesis is that someone mistook one M[a]cRae for another. SheffieldSteel 22:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
This was my impression when I first read about Senkowski's account. I think that the investigators in question did not do proper background checking and (worse) MacRae himself has allowed his publisher to promote the lie that he once worked for NASA. I say we need to resist including this at all in the article as it looks like it is the wrong McRae and is likely a case of appeal to (false) authority! --ScienceApologist 23:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You do realise that what you have just said is libelous. Davkal 10:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
"Libel" is a pretty serious charge. The evidence I have provided that MacRae did not work for NASA is presented as such. I refer you to Wikipedia's no legal threats policy for more on why you should not accuse people of violating the law. --ScienceApologist 11:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is you're evidence that this is a lie. Is there anybody who isn't on this talk page who has ever questioned MacRae's background? Do you have any evidence of where he worked during the time that he says that he was with NASA?

perfectblue 11:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You will note that I began my comment with "This was my impression...." There are real issues with reliability and attribution with regards to this alleged "fact". So far, we have a number of paranormal true believers who have uncritically declared (not given evidence, mind you) that MacRae worked for NASA. We know that at least one of these sources misspelled MacRae's name to a spelling that is exactly like the spelling of another person who can be verifiably connected to NASA speech recognition work. Neither searching through NASA nor through SRI have we found any evidence of MacRae's involvement. Therefore, I recounted that it is my impression that MacRae is promoting this poorly vetted mistake as fact. I'm not saying that we should include this in the article because it is plainly original research. However, uncritically including a statement that MacRae worked for NASA just isn't going to fly at this point because there is enough doubt regarding the reliability of Senkowski, Fontana, and MacRae himself to justifiably demand an independent and reliable source for the fact of the matter. It doesn't need to be fancy: simply a co-worker statement, a company recognition, or a NASA/SRI publication with MacRae's name and associative capacity mentioned somewhere will suffice. --ScienceApologist 11:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
SA above claims that we have not offered evidence for MacRae at NASA but have merely "uncritically declared" that he did. We have produced about six different sources for this claim. Many of those sources make reference to the specific type of work (unscrambling the voices of divers and astronauts) and the date (late 60s) which makes it almost impossible that they were confusing that MacRae with another McRae who wrote an article on something a bit similar almost 30 years later (and who from his picture would probably have been in nappies when MacRae worked at NASA [6]), and who appears to have no involvement with NASA other than having given a paper at a conference where another speaker worked for NASA [7].
On account of this rather far-fetched scenario, not forgetting the all important Senkowski typo, SA seems to imply (state outright) that we are suffering from true-believer syndrome in the face of irrefutable evidence. I sure someone is suffering from true-(dis)believer syndrome but I'm not sure that it's me. What we have here is an outlandish conspiracy theory with next to nothing to recommend it, and yet on account of their antipathy towards anything paranormal the supposed critical-thinkers amongst us are swallowing it hook, line and sinker so they don't have to accept the completely unparanormal fact that someone who now investigates EVP once worked on contracts for NASA.
In my opinion, we can either continue down this route and finally prove MacRae didn't work for NASA because at the time he was actually doing some work behind a picket fence atop a grassy knoll in Dallas dressed as policeman, or we can follow Butthead's dictum and "STOP, in the name of all that does not suck!"Davkal 13:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Those are two options, certainly, although I have definite issues with your wording of the second choice. A third is that we can state, in the article, that Fontana said MacRae worked for NASA (or for a contractor who worked for NASA) but we cannot state it as fact without any further evidence than what is said in his book and repeated by those who've read it. All we can do, per wiki policy, is attribute this information to the best source we have.
Davkal, please refrain from such contentious, unproductive, and inflammatory language. When dealing with a subject that is so contentious we need to take extra care to cite and attribute any disputed material. That sort of care and attention to detail is not really compatible with argument and accusation. SheffieldSteel 13:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Senkowski's paper was delivered about 10 years before Fontana wrote his book. It is therefore unclear how Senkowski is merely repeating Fontana's claims. The Fate article was also written prior to Fontana. Interestingly, and importantly, all these sources give different but complimentary accounts of Macrae's work. Fontana (the most recent source), for example, specifically makes the point about unscrambling the speech of divers and astronauts - a claim that does not appear in the earlier texts. It is clear, then, that each account is independent and yet complimentary in important ways which make it virtually impossible that the sources are simply repeating what the earliest said. The claims have also been in the publc domain for many years and yet nobody anywhere outside this talk-page has challenged them. While we may be required to be careful of doubtful material, the doubt itself has to be reasonable rather than Cartesian.Davkal 14:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
SheffieldSteel, I also look forward to you admonishing ScienceApologist for suggesting that some here are suffering from true-believer syndrome because we remain sceptical about some of the speculation contained in The Curious Case of the Two M(a)cRaes.Davkal 14:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
1) Senkowski was written by a non-native English speaker and was then typed up on the web. Mistakes happen. 2) MacRae himself has written his name two different ways (one British English, one Scots traditional short form) 3) Regardless of who he actually worked for (SRI, NASA etc), we have sufficient evidence that he worked in electronics and communications for several decades, which makes him an expert in the field which needs to be said. He's not just a guy working on EVP, he's a guy with several decades of voice-comm experience using voice-comm equipment and methodologies to research EVP.
perfectblue 13:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


I think when you say that someone has deliberately falsified their credentials (i.e allowing his publisher to promote the lie), you run the risk of opening up Wiki to lawsuits. I mean we have now, on Wiki, the completely unsupported assertion that MacRae has taken deliberately advantage of another MacRae (or McRae) working at NASA in order to claim false authority and promote his books. Maybe that isn't libelous, but it looks it to me.Davkal 11:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, the Wikipedia's no legal threats is primarily about editors threatening to take legal action against another editor. I am not threatening to take anyone to court. I am simply suggesting that you tone down possible defamatory/libelous comments in case you put Wiki in such a position.Davkal 11:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Gotta love accusations of defamation and libel from the guy who made the accusation of "self-confessed mud-slinging bullshit merchant". --Minderbinder 15:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I asked for an administrator to comment on our discussion here. --ScienceApologist 12:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have a legal problem, take it up with the foundation. Cease the legalese here. This is not the place for it. You're borderline violating WP:NLT Davkal. Don't proceed any further down this road. Consider this your (and everyone else's) warning.⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 18:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I will take it up with the foundation. But please also note (although I did say it explicitly above) that I do not have a legal problem - wiki probably now does - and not from me.Davkal 22:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Intro

I've been trying to edit the intro, but I keep getting blanket reverted by users who refuse to leave any actual actual feedback on what was "wrong" with my edits. Could somebody PLEASE say what they disagree with and what they agree with so that we can get on with matters. Most of it is identical to the original or has been refactored to describe EVP as "anomalous sounds" regardless of whether they are anomalous sounds of paranormal origin, or anomalous sounds of naturalistic origin. The last paragraph is unchanged.

Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) is a term used to describe voices or voice-like sounds, captured on recorded media, or through other electronic devices, which are considered to be anomalous because they were not audible at the time of recording. They are typically short, usually the length of a word or short phrase, though longer segments have been reported. They have been associated with the paranormal, in which field where they forms a branch of Instrumental transcommunication (ITC).

Proposed paranormal explanations for EVP include communication from discarnate entities,psychic projections from EVP researchers. Proposed non-paranormal explanations include cross modulation or interference from external RF sources, or random noise mistakenly perceived as voices due to pareidolia; the human propensity to find familiar patterns amongst random stimuli.

The term itself was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. Previously the term “Raudive Voices”, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience, was used. References to EVP have appeared in pop culture such as in the Reality TV show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense.

perfectblue 20:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that it's a definition from the paranormal proponent point of view masquerading as the mainstream view. We must have clear attribution regarding who considers the sounds anomalous, who has established they are not audible at the time of recording, and who feels they form a branch of ITC. --- LuckyLouie 21:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

hmmm, that's mostly just WP:V, I originally sourced these things but just didn't include them when I added this to the talk page.

  1. "We must have clear attribution regarding who considers the sounds anomalous." That's just a WP:V issue. Everybody who doesn't believe that they are pure paradolia considers them to be anomalous because they weren't intended to be there (excluding hoaxes, of course. Which is a seperate issue), they just disagree on the cause of the anomaly. Is is a spook speaking, or is it a spark plug sparking?
  2. "who has established they are not audible at the time of recording", Raudive, Jergen, von Szalay, Jürgenson, MacRae all say that they are paranormal influences that were not audible at the time of recording, even skeptic Carrol concentrates on electrical interference which is not audible to the human ear at any time. A lot of other complaints against EVP state that it was created during post recording, when the EVP recorder computer edits the sound to filter out noise, thus creating digital artifacts that simply didn't exist at the time of recording. Also, if it is heard at the time of recording, then it simply isn't EVP, it's just background noise and so can be automatically counted out.
  3. "who feels they form a branch of ITC." 1) This shouldn't require a citation. ITC is all electronic devices in audio, video or text, EVP is only audio devices, it is therefore a subset of ITC (Like an SUV is a subset of automobile). If you want an individual, then Baruss does. He begins researching ITC and then decides that it is far too broad an area so he refines his work to EVP.

perfectblue 08:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

All of the above are "verifiable" only among the paranormal/fringe research community/EVP enthusiasts. And since they deal with scientific concepts (signal processing, audio, psychology, etc.) they clash with mainstream scientific views. So what I mean by "attribution" is stating the views above as fringe views, i.e. retaining phrases such as "proponents believe" or "terms used by paranormal investigators". We have been through this discussion months ago, but we can revisit the archives if you like. -- LuckyLouie 13:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
How about "Within Parapsychology"? Nobody really disputes that EVP are are anomalies found on audio recording that can be short or long etc. They just dispute the causes (interference/spooks), and the interpretations (I hear dead people/I hear white noise "but I want to believe so badly that I hear voices").
perfectblue 16:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that parapsychology represents a concerted community that has defined it as such? --ScienceApologist 16:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's turn this around. What would you consider proof? Exactly?
perfectblue 18:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Read and learn. --ScienceApologist 18:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I say again, what would you consider proof. Please state "specifically" what you would consider to be evidence that "that parapsychology represents a concerted community that has defined it as such".
perfectblue 19:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Those that say they are imagined or just radio interference are disputing that they are "anomalous". I don't agree with the use of that term. Why do you keep reverting to your version, particularly saying there's "refusal to discuss" when there is discussion right here. And that discussion is multiple editors disagreeing with your edit. Please don't revert war, and please don't insist on edits that don't have consensus. --Minderbinder 19:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
You're not simply saying that you have a problem, but not where. I am having to guess - perfectblue 07:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
They are not disputing that they are anomalous. Anomalous simply means that they were not an intended part of the recording. RF interference is anomalous, cross modulation is anomalous, anything that was not supposed to be there is an anomaly. - perfectblue 07:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

And again, you've reverted without addressing the concerns of three editors on this talk page. Do you understand the concept of consensus? It also looks like you may be approaching 3RR. --Minderbinder 20:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Again, please don't keep adding text that has no consensus and objections on the talk page that you have not addressed."

It is no use saying this when you have not told me which text you are referring to. Please stop blanket reverting and just deal with the SPECIFIC areas that you are disputing. I can't read your mind. please state clearly what you a disagreeing with. Don't just say POV or weight etc, please show me which sentences you are referring to. We cannot reach a consensus if I don't know what you are not in consensus about.

perfectblue 07:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of perfectblue's version with current version

[8]

Here we go:

  1. Attribution of the term needs to be to paranormal believers/investigators. It is not a term used outside of this context.
  2. "Believers in the supernatural" was a problem mentioned earlier. Many paranormal believers reject the "supernatural" explanations (for example Tom Butler does)
  3. it is and opposed to they are. The latter is more appropriate because the alleged signals are not a monolithic ideal type. EVP isn't a singular observation.

And there we went.

--ScienceApologist 11:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It would have been much easier if you had just done that in the first place rater than just keep reverting reverting reverting. You only need to edit the individual bits that you disagree with. Reverting just annoys people because it make you (the generic you) look like you are being dismissive.

1) I don't believe in the paranormal and neither does Carrol, yet we both use the term to describe what these recordings. We both use it because it's an easy point of reference, we're describing a known term, not a confirmed phenomona. I've had too many problems with worn out mic cables and bad connections to believe that I'm hearing spooks speaking. If I heard voices in every bit of static that I listened to, I'd be setting fire to neighbor's dog "because the voices told me to".

2) Fair comment, suggest a replacement. Paranormal investigators is disagreeable to me as it has a "ghost hunter" vibe. It lends too much credibility to kooks and hobbyists and takes away credibility from parapsychologists and skeptical investigators.

3) Fair enough. I was actually referring to the term EVP rather than to the phenomona.

How about this:

Electronic Voice Phenomenon (EVP) is a term used to describe extraneous/unusual (pick one) voices or voice-like sounds which have been captured on recorded media, and which are said to be of paranormal origin.
They are typically said to be short; usually the length of a word or short phrase, although longer segments have also been reported, and to be inaudible at the time of recording.
Explanations proposed by those who say that EVP is paranormal include that they are the voices of deceased human beings, psychic projections from EVP researchers, or communications from intelligent non-human entities. Explanations proposed by those who say it is not of paranormal origin include that it is the result of cross modulation or interference from external RF sources, or that they are random noise which is mistakenly perceived as voices due to pareidolia; the human propensity to find familiar patterns amongst random stimuli.

OK, paragraph one, we don't need to specify who says what, the citation will do that for us (one from Baruss, one from Carrol). They are "unusual" in that they aren't just some old guy talking away in the background or "extraneous" as in don't originate from people talking nearby They have properties the distinguish them from regular conversation etc. Paragraph two, pretty straight forward. Paragraph three, as suggested.

Suggestion 2

Electronic Voice Phenomenon (EVP) is a term used to describe voices or voice-like sounds from an undetermined source which have been captured on recorded media, and which are said to be of paranormal origin.

perfectblue 13:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I still don't have an answer as to what exactly you would consider proof. What would you accept. For example.....
perfectblue 14:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Still waiting - perfectblue 18:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

The arbcom case requested at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Paranormal will likely involve this article pretty heavily, so I'm letting the editors here know about it. --Minderbinder 14:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Article title

Quick (and, I hope, uncontroversial) question: Why is this article entitled "Electronic voice phenomenon" (note it's in lower case letters and plural) but the opening line begins with "Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP)" ? It seems inconsistent and slightly confusing to me. --ElKevbo 18:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Good question, and I don't have a good answer. Looking at a couple of the sources, I see that some capitalize all three words, but I don't see any reason to do so. I'd support using standard capitalization unless someone can give a good reason otherwise. --Minderbinder 18:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I suppose that since the article uses the TLA EVP, it seems natural to capitalise the letter on first use. Having said that, I would have no problem if lowercase letters were used instead. SheffieldSteel 19:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it depands how you look at it. If the article is mainly on certain issue or topi, then you should use capital letters.Foremanfan 20:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? It should be capitalized if it's a proper noun. Otherwise it should probably not be capitalized. And that doesn't touch the question of whether should be singular (phenomena) or plural (phenomenon). --ElKevbo 20:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
There's no reason to capitalize the words just because the TLA is sometimes used. For example, "SRO" is a commonly recognized abbreviation for "standing room only". As for singular versus plural, the general rule is that article titles should be in the singular. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). There's no confusion for the reader, because Electronic voice phenomena redirects here. JamesMLane t c 23:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
(Ahem.) Before someone moves the article because they're under the impression that "phenomena" is the singular and "phenomenon" the plural: no, it's the other way round. Please see our article Phenomenon. Bishonen | talk 12:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC).
Ah, you're right - I've got it swapped in both of my previous statements. Good catch. --ElKevbo 13:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Re-wording of intro

  • Before:
Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) is a term used to refer to voices or voice-like sounds, said by paranormal investigators to be of paranormal origin, heard or captured on recorded media or through other electronic devices.
  • After:
Electronic voice phenomenon (EVP) is a term used to refer to the unexplained presence voices or voice-like sounds on recorded media or through other electronic devices, said by paranormal investigators to be of paranormal origin.

I think this phrasing better captures the essence of the issue: the thing which is unusual, thus meriting the term "phenomenon", is that the presence of the "electronic voice" is unexplained. I have re-ordered the clauses partly for clarity and mainly because I wanted to put the facts before the opinions. Also, the bolded term now matches the article title and the Manual of Style guidelines on capitalisation. What d'you think, folks? SheffieldSteel 13:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that's good, although I added "purported" before unexplained since there isn't agreement that they are actually unexplained - most of the non-paranormal explanations consider the phenomenon to have explanations, and fairly conventional ones at that. If you tune your radio between stations and get bits of audio from the stations, that's not really "unexplained" is it? --Minderbinder 13:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the "purported" is needed, as evidence for "the unexplained presence of voices" is anecdotal, and the phrase itself is a bit dramatic. Also, WP defining EVP broadly as "a term used to refer to the unexplained presence voices or voice-like sounds" is incorrect. The term "EVP" is not used by international professional audio and engineering organizations such as the IEEE or the AES. Nor have they reported any unexplainable audio anomalies. Any claims of 'what EVP is' must be ascribed to paranormal/EVP/proponents. -- LuckyLouie 17:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That implies that EVP a measurable phenomona, not that it is a real term describing something that is disputed.

perfectblue 14:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think what Minderbinder is doing here and throughout the article, is simply mischaracterising the phenomenon sufficiently to allow the pseudosceptical non-explanations to look sensible/correct. Many examples of alleged EVP do not involve radios. The examples recorded by the engineers at Belling and Lee were recorded in an RF screened room. To even call the pseudosceptical speculation a "non-paranormal explanation" is euphemistic. These may be explanations of something, but they are not explanations of EVP - a straw-man "newspaper astrology" parody of EVP perhaps. I don't really see why Wiki should bend over backwards to accommodate the speculation of Robert Carroll. Let Carroll's views be included by all means, but don't parody the phenomenon so crudely just to make what he says about "it" appear sensible.Davkal 14:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stay off my side - perfectblue 14:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The word "unexplained' is justified because if there was an explanation, the recording in question would not be an example of EVP. Instead, it would be simply an audio recording, whether of interstation radio chatter, or communication from the dead, or aliens, or random processing anomalies misinterpreted by the listener. I suggest that the term EVP is not used by the IEEE or AES because they aren't really interested in finding causes or explanations for such sounds, only in screening against or eliminating them from recordings; therefore they remain largely unexplained and undocumented by those groups.
I think that the common link between the different cases which have been described as EVP is that no satisfactory, conclusive explanation for the presence of the sounds in question has been provided, proven, or agreed upon. That is why I feel it should be part of the opening sentence.
Perhaps this definition would be better? Electronic voice phenomenon (EVP) is a term used to refer to the presence of voice-like sounds heard on recorded media or through other electronic devices, which are said by paranormal investigators to be voices of paranormal origin, but for which there is no generally accepted explanation. SheffieldSteel 21:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Um, before we can allow WP to broadly define and confirm the mainstream definition of EVP as "the presence of voice-like sounds", I would like to see published discussion of "unexplained sounds", "voice like sounds", "sounds of unexplained origin" etc. on recorded media by the IEEE or AES since those are the preminent international professional societies devoted exclusively to signal processing and audio technology. I think you will not find any such references. Simply put, there is no mainstream definition of EVP since the mainstream does not recognize it as something tangible or measurable. EVP is something which is found only in the paranormal milieu. Therefore it is appropriate that any definition must use "a term used by paranormal investigators (or proponents of EVP)" as a qualifying phrase. --- LuckyLouie 23:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
We have several references from highly qualified individuals attesting to the existence of EVP in the sense of the brute phenomenon. Unfortunately these do no count because as soon as someone attests to its existence they become persona non grata in your eyes and we need another "reliable" person to refer to it. The catch-22 argument you are using here is shameful. If someone mentions X then they are not reliable enough to have reliably mentioned X and so we still stand in need of a reliable mention of X. Nothing can possibly meet this criterion.Davkal 00:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand. If you wish to publish an encyclopedia entry which factually defines an observable phenomenon in electronics, sound, or physics, you must be able to show that the definition is accepted by a broad consensus within those fields. As i said, the IEEE or AES would be the best authority for claims of "unexplained sounds and voices on recorded media", however you could cite electronics textbooks you know of which mention these unexplained voices. Otherwise, the definition has to be accurately assigned to paranormal investigators or EVP proponents. -- LuckyLouie 02:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so taking the criticism on board, I think we get something like this: Electronic voice phenomenon (EVP) is a term used by proponents to refer to the presence of voice-like sounds heard on recorded media or through other electronic devices, which are said by paranormal investigators to be voices of paranormal origin, but for which there is no generally accepted explanation.
The essential difference is that this defines EVP as being not a mainstream term. As for my using "voice-like sounds", I wanted to avoid the phrase "voices or voice-like sounds" because any extra "or" can makes a definition ambiguous or potentially confusing. Therefore, I thought it'd be better to say that the sounds are voice-like and that investigators say they are voices. So, how does this proposal look? SheffieldSteel 03:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
but for which there is no generally accepted explanation. <---I'm not sure why this is added, unless you mean to say that among EVP proponents there is no generally accepted explanation. If that's the case then it is better stated in the "Paranormal explanation" section, where it actually was at one time. "Electronic voice phenomenon (EVP) is a term used to refer to voices and voice-like sounds on recorded media or other electronic devices that are said by paranormal investigators to be of paranormal origin" is pretty concise and acceptable as it is. -- LuckyLouie 04:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that I chose the word "generally" - maybe it has connotations of "mainstream" as in "mainstream science". I do think that the essential aspect of EVP that wasn't captured in the previous definition is that there is no agreement as to what causes the sounds. SheffieldSteel 05:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to concur with Minderbinder. Various mundane non-paranormal explanations apply to evp. Only proponents/evp/paranormal investigators make claims that the sounds are unexplained/have no agreement what causes them. You can reference this group of people's belief regarding the former, but we can't present it as a naked factual statement by itself. -- LuckyLouie 17:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Any EVP actual voices

I'm trying to find evidence that something described as EVP is an actual voice. The closest I can come up with is when radio reception occurs, but that isn't an actual voice but rather a modulated radiowave. EVP are voice-like sounds that are captured, technically they are not voices because they were not created by anyone's vocal chords. --ScienceApologist 14:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you right, that is a totally disingenuous point. That is, a similar argument could be made to say that it is strictly speaking false to say I heard so-and-so on the radio or saw so-and-so on the TV because what we actually heard/saw was an electronic representation of so-and-so.Davkal 14:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the cases you cite are strictly false, but the colloquial use of the term is not harmful in most contexts for the same reason it is not harmful to state "the sun rose" even though it's the Earth turning. However, in this article, the distinction is of the utmost importance because the arguments of the paranormal believer are that "actual" voices are what cause EVP even though the "evidence" for these actual voices are simply voice-like sounds which are not due to any voices in point of fact (whether it be fooling around with white noise or interfering radio transmissions). As I see it, the only reason to claim that EVP are actual voices is to pander to the opinion of the paranormal enthusiast who believes that they are actual voices. This is unacceptable. --ScienceApologist 14:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
In the sense of "actual voices" you are now putting forward, nobody (not even the most ardent paranormalist) would claim that EVP were actual voices. It is therefore quite simply false to say that claiming EVP are "actual voices" is pandering to the opinion of anyone. The simple fact here is that to say EVP are actual voices is simply to mark out a subset of alleged examples which everybody agrees could not really be due to pareidolia. To argue otherwise is simply to push the sceptical POV through a completely disingenuous argument.Davkal 14:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
If nobody would argue that they are not "actual voices" then we should not have a problem stating that they are "voice-like sounds". I would like you to cite an actual example of an alleged example which "everyone agrees could not really be due to pareidolia". Unless you have a citation to such an exchange, this trying to make a difference without a distinction and probelmatically implies a reality of the phenomenon that does not seem to be warranted by the sources. --ScienceApologist 17:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It appears some 'ghost hunters' either mistakenly or intentionally put forth samples of their own voices, people in their group, or people in the background at a location as "EVP". [9] -- LuckyLouie 17:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
In all of the literature, sceptical, pseudosceptical and pro-paranormal, we have acceptance that some of what Raudive recorded were voices. Even in the one piece of what you claim is science (Baruss), he states explicitly that he found "voices on audiotapes". This is why we have the radio interference (and hoax) hypotheses. However, one of the problems with requiring an acknowledgment from the pseudosceptical literature is that they usually avoid dealing with the best cases and focus instead on a parody "newspaper astrology" phenomenon which is then much easier to explain away - thus no reference to the tests in the faraday cage etc. This is what Carroll means when he says he does not try to present a balanced account of occult subjects - that is the manner in which it is unbalanced - and that is why such sources are unreliable as anything more than a minority POV commentary. We certainly should not write a neutral introductory description of alleged paranormal phenomena in line with, or with one eye on, such dubious sources. And we should, then, in my opinion, take Baruss' view of the "weak sense of EVP" - voices on tapes - as a neutral description of the brute phenomenon about which various people make various claims. Davkal 17:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that the current wording solves the problem nicely. It labels EVP as adjective-less "sounds" which are interpreted to be voices of paranormal origin by the usual suspects. --ScienceApologist 22:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you do, but the article is now lapsing into a parody article with the phenomenon itself so hopelessly inaccurately described that nobody reading it will get the faintest picture of what the brute phenomenon that is being discussed is actually like. There are actually examples of alleged EVP out there in the world, and we should describe them as accurately as we can.Davkal 23:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I suppose that defining EVP as "a term used to refer to sounds" might be debated. Perhaps the term should refer to the process by which the sounds come to be heard on recorded media, rather than the sounds themselves? Perhaps, too, the term "paranormal investigators" could be replaced with an approximate synonym, if it isn't the best phrase to describe those who say the sounds are voices of paranormal origin. Personally, I rather like the current wording. It seems to specify the subject matter in a concise and neutral fashion.
responding to Davkal's concerns about the overall quality of the article, I've made another editing pass and fixed a few small issues. Now, I'm not saying it's perfect, because there are a couple of pretty fruity sentences out there (obviously the product of considerable wrangling), but on balance I think it is pretty good. SheffieldSteel 03:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the definition makes perfect sense. People have heard sounds on radios and other electronic devices, and some people claim that they are paranormal voices. What's the objection to that? I agree that there are other improvements that could be made, I still think there's way too much devoted to experiments published by dubious sources. Many of them could be cut or summarized in a sentence or two. --Minderbinder 14:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Minderbinder, I agree with editing the experiment details to summaries in the near future. The current highly detailed descriptions are inappropriate and overweighted, and material from paranormal advocate authors and publications have a tendency to cherry-pick experimental details favorable to EVP. There really need to be summaries. Also sometime in the future, think about a short descriptive section to precede the history which describes, in as general as possible a way, the EVP proponents method for collecting alleged EVP, which would serve as an orientation to someone reading about the subject for the first time. -- LuckyLouie 08:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Voices

This is the 4th time you have reverted the page to "voices" Davcal when it is clearly not appropriate. Could you please dessist from repeated reverts which are unsubstantiated. Thank you. Candy 07:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Voices and voice-like sounds" is appropriate because: a) that's what they are; b) we have about 50 sources saying it; c) nobody disputes it; and d) it's far more accurate and descriptive than just "sounds". Sources include, for example, Shermer, Carroll, Alcock, Cass, Poysden, Fontana, Raudive, Smythe, Baruss, MacRae, Jurgenson, Bender, Bander, Ellis, Alsop, Butler, Fuller, Senkowski, Brune, Chauvin, Fernandez, Rogo, Bayless, Locher, Harsch-Fischbach, Holbe, Darnell, Cardoso and Ellison. Davkal 07:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I have added a relevant source to the introduction. In order to not breach WP:Point I refrained from adding the 20 or so sources that I personally have access to (including sceptics, pseudosceptics, scientists, journalists, authors and others). I hope other editors here will respect the need for well-sourced information and refrain from adding their own unsourced POV.Davkal 07:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia stating factually that EVP are "voices" is problematic, as there is no authoritative source for that assertion. Much better to make this an opinion, i.e. "said by proponents to be voices". - LuckyLouie 08:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
ALL of the sources cited above (sceptical, pseudosceptical, scientific, journalistic etc.) say that some are voices - thus, "voices and voice-like sounds".Davkal 08:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If a source says they are voices, then they are said to be voices, which is exactly what the consensus version says (and you are wrong saying it just says "sounds", it says sounds said to be voices). I'm sure there are sources saying the earth is flat, but that doesn't mean you can change the lead sentence of Earth to say that just because the claim is sourced. And articles are edited by consensus - please don't keep revert warring over changes other editors don't agree with. --Minderbinder 12:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
You appear to be confused about what the dispute is regarding EVP. Nobody disputes that some are voices. The dispute is entirely about whether they are the voices of the dead or voices from broadcast sources such as CBs etc. There is then a further claim that some may not be voices of any kind - ie. that they are pareidolia. But both of these are clearly covered by "voices and voice-like sounds". That you would rather write a parody definition such that one particular pseudosceptical explanation can be applied to all cases (when even the pseudosceptics would blush at that) should not be allowed to determine the content of the article. There may be a consensus here that this parody explanation is best, but the consensus in the real world of real sources is that some examples of alleged EVP are in fact voices, and that is what should be presented here. Davkal 12:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
"Nobody disputes that some are voices." This is just not true. People dispute that they are voices all the time. --ScienceApologist 12:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If pseudosceptics like Carroll are claiming that no EVP are voices and that pareidolia could explain them all then why do they go on about CB radios and the like? Why does Carroll bother telling us that his TV used to pick up his neighbour's voice? The simple fact is, which is acknowledged by almost every source we have from Carroll to Baruss to Fontana to Bander to Raudive is that some are voices. Pareidolia is only part of an explanation covering only certain examples of the phenomenon. That you all choose to parody the phenomenon so that that explanation could fit everything demonstrates little more than your ignorance of the subject matter.Davkal 13:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
You don't get it, do you? You seem to think that there is a dichotomy: either we must state unequivocally in the first sentences that some EVP are voices or they all are pareidolia. This is simply ridiculous. We know that all EVP are sounds, so that is the most general category we can include: "voices and voice-like sounds" is not only cumbersome, it places undue weight on the contentions of paranormal supporters that there actually are electronic voices of paranormal origins. It is a subtle violation of neutrality but it is one that most editors here agree is problematic. By replacing the wording with simply "sounds" and avoiding those adjectives we can attribute the claims about them to paranormal advocates. That's the way things go at Wikipedia; if you would like to write an article with a sympathetic point of view, try Wikinfo. --ScienceApologist 13:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but many of them are voices you see. And when a significant part of the later pseudosceptical "explanations" for the phenomena hinge on making a very clear distinction between "actual voices" and "mere random sounds interpreted as voices", any fool can see that the supposedly neutral description of the phenomenon as "sounds" paves the way nicely for this explanation. That the pareidolia explanation cannot account for many examples of EVP - the ones that are unquestionably voices - is no reason to shy away from the fact that some are unquestionably voices. It is not our job to provide parody definitions of phenomena in order to bolster certain pseudosceptical speculation. Davkal 13:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
There's the difference. You are essentially making an original research claim about the number of EVP that cannot be explained by one particular naturalistic explanation. This is irrelevant to how to write the article as you have absolutely no sources to back up your contention as to what number of claimed EVP are "actual" voices. I asked for it above, you didn't provide. Therefore, I think we're done here until you can pony up the enumeration. --ScienceApologist 13:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
We have no proof that any of them are voices. A few individuals claiming something doesn't make it fact. I'm not sure what you dispute about the current wording. Are they sounds? Yes. Are they said by some to be voices? Yes. So what's inaccurate or NPOV about it? --Minderbinder 13:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
You misrepresent the situation. We have almost unanimous agreement in all the sources that some examples of EVP are voices - this is why the pseudosceptics (like Carroll) talk about CB radios and the like. The point being that, yes, OK, they are voices, but they are voices from mundane broadcast sources. The problem I have with the definition is that it parodies the phenomenon in order to bolster later pseudosceptical arguments.Davkal 13:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The difference between the two is just the addition of "said to be". I think it's ridiculous to claim that simple addition turns it to "parody". --Minderbinder 14:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

For any given audio recording which might be considered EVP, there are four possibilities (four combinations of two indepedent variables):-

  1. It is a voice of normal origin.
  2. It is a voice-like sound of normal origin.
  3. It is a voice of paranormal origin.
  4. It is a voice-like sound of paranormal origin.

The only sound that can be said factually to be a voice is a sound whose origin is known (case 1). It seems to me that there is effectively no difference between cases 3 and 4: once an observer has assessed that an EVP sound is of paranormal origin, it is pointless to then argue about whether or not it is a voice. In other words, the distinction between voice and voice-like sound is only relevant in the case of mundane sounds.

We cannot provide a definition that contains opinions; they must be converted to facts by attributing them. Needless to say, "EVP are sounds" is clearly factual, while "EVP are voices" is an opinion, no matter how many people hold it. Of course, some people who hold that opinion do so because they believe that all EVP recordings fall into cases 1 or 2 depending on for example the circumstances of recording, while others do so because they believe in paranormal origins. It's important that our definition does not muddy the distinction between them... "EVP are recordings; scientists say many of them are real voices; enthusiasts say they are of paranormal origin". SheffieldSteel 17:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a clear case of putting the cart before the horse. What do we know about examples of alleged EVP. We know, and nobody really disputes, that some are voices. The origin of those voices is disputed. What is the objection to letting the readers know that this is what the brute phenomenon is like rather than trying to muddy the waters by simply using a catch-all "sounds" which, although you insist that voices are sounds too, clearly understates the case in a way that supports a sceptical explanation for all EVP which nobody really puts forward but is talked about a lot by (pseudo)sceptics.
The problem here is the common one of people trying to edit articles (dictate content) with nothing but their lack of subject matter knowledge in one hand and a copy of Skepdic in the other. My question is: have you heard any of the alleged EVP recorded by, e.g, Raudive, Cass, Macrae, Konig, Cardosa or any other noted investigators, or have you merely followed the links from, say, Alcock's article to a few examples of white noise and assumed that that was the nature of the phenomenon, or have you not even bothered to do that?Davkal 13:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
We know, and nobody really disputes, that some are voices. The origin of those voices is disputed. --> As many have pointed out, Davkal, this is the very point that is in dispute.
letting the readers know that this is what the brute phenomenon --> As has been pointed out before, the very existence of the purported "pheonemon" is in dispute. The only thing that is not in dispute is that recorded tapes exist that, when played back, yield sounds. That's hardly phenomenologically the same as stating that these sounds are voices.
Therefore, the objections to the wording appear moot. No one disputes that these things are sounds. People do dispute whether these things are voices.
--ScienceApologist 14:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
That you think that that is what is in dispute is merely a result of your ignorance of the subject matter and your refusal to take on board the fact that even the pseudosceptical sources identified above accept that many examples of alleged EVP are voices. Just because you keep saying something doesn't make it true - or sensible. BTW, have you heard any of the examples from the noted researchers listed above or don't you feel the need to look through Galileo's telescope?Davkal 14:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
And round in circles we go. It seems to me that the only reason I'm repeating myself is because you keep repeating the same toothless argument. This naturally exhausts good faith reserves. No matter, we have a consensus version and there is only one person objecting to it. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me try to put this a little differently. Some examples of alleged EVP turn out to be voices, but only because they are found to have a normal origin. Other examples are claimed to be of paranormal origin, but it is not known for certain whether or not they are voices or what their exact origin is. It is misleading to say that "some examples are voices and some are claimed to be of paranormal origin", because that would imply that there might be an overlap between the two groups. This is the sort of (at best) woolly logic (and at worse, deliberate obfuscation) that gives paranormal research a bad name and gets it labelled as pseudoscience. SheffieldSteel 15:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
No, you misunderstand. Many alleged examples of EVP are so obviously voices that (pseudo)sceptics have had to invoke radio and hoax explanations to account for them. The way you describe things is as if a whole load of alleged EVP have had their sources tracked and confirmed to be radio. Also, you say, "It is misleading to say that some examples are voices and some are claimed to be of paranormal origin". But that is precisely the situation that exists. Some EVP are undoubtedly voices and are claimed to be of paranormal origin while others claim they are of normal origin. How can it be misleading to portray the phenomenon and what people say about it as it actually is? What is misleading is to misrepresent the phenomena in order to pave the way for your own pet theory - a theory held, it seems, because you haven't familiarised yourself in any way with the topic you choose to write an encyclopedia article about.Davkal 16:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Davkal, the version that everyone else seems to prefer states, in the introductory section, the important and undisputed facts: that the article concerns sounds said by some people to be paranormal. If, sometimes, a CB radio transmission happens to get picked up by an unintended receiver, that's no big deal. It should certainly be mentioned in the body of the article, and it is, in the section about naturalistic explanations. The version that others have reverted to doesn't deprive the reader of any valid information. The only reason for your revision is to editorialize by giving prominence to a minor point that you think bolsters your position. JamesMLane t c 16:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It can hardly be a minor point about something called "Electronic voice phenomenon" that many of them are voices. Also, you put the cart before the horse. Many of the alleged examples of EVP are so obviously voices that (pseudo)sceptics have had to invoke the CB and hoax "explanations" to try to explain them away. What is sure (agreed upon by virtually all the sources) is that some are voices - what is a matter of dispute is where the voices come from. That should be made clear in the article.Davkal 16:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It may be "sure", but that does not make it a fact, merely an opinion held by a majority. SheffieldSteel 17:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Nothing's a fact if we go down the route of Cartesian doubt, and your willingness to go down that route to preserve your POV is astonishing. It is one thing to argue that muffled sounds/white noise/random stimuli may be interpreted as a few words of speech (auditory pareidolia) but it is quite another to insist that sentence length pieces of clear language identifiable as such to everyone and anyone who cared to listen to them could be produced in the same way. There is no scientific evidence of any kind to support this kind of unbridled speculation. As such it has no place dictating the content of an article.Davkal 17:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Who-ah. Hold your horses on the whole Cartesian doubt issue for a minute. Wikipedia very clearly delineates between "fact" and "opinion":-
Now, unless you are trying to argue that the assertion that "some EVP are voices" is more certainly a fact than the assertion that "crime is wrong", for example, perhaps we can discuss how best to represent the opinion, held by many, that some EVP are voices. SheffieldSteel 18:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
1. You mischaracterise the policy note which deals with facts versus values and opinions-in-the-sense-of-value-judgements. 2. It also makes the point that facts are considered facts where there is no serious dispute, and given that there is no serious dispute (outside of the views expressed on this talk page) about some EVP being voices it seems clear that we can take it that some EVP are voices is a fact. 3. We should also note that many people (most people) are of the opinion that Plato is a philosopher and so just because you can characterise facts as opinions by putting "most people are of the opinion that..." before any known fact does not turn that fact into a mere opinion.Davkal 18:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I've run out of ideas; it seems that Davkal is not going to join the consensus. Does anyone else have any suggestions? SheffieldSteel 18:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Arbcom? He's demonstrating the very definition of WP:TE. --Minderbinder 22:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The proponent opinion that "EVP are voices" is fairly represented numerous times in the History section of the article. I honestly don't understand what Davkal wants. - LuckyLouie 22:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The proponents are not claiming that "EVP are [merely] voices". The proponents are claiming that "the voices on the tapes are of paranormal origin". The pseudosceptics are not claiming "no EVP are voices". The pseudosceptics are claiming that "those EVP that are voices are of normal origin". There is, in short, no dispute about whether some EVP are voices. There are various categories of voices; in those cases that are clearly voices, the debate is about the origin. To portray this as a voice/no voice debate is to parody the phenomenon in line with one piece of pseudosceptical speculation.Davkal 11:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Just so we're clear, who are you calling "pseudoskeptics"? --Minderbinder 13:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
For example, Robert Carroll who says he isn't interested in giving a balanced account thereby demonstrating his pseudosceptic credentials nicely.Davkal 14:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

So there is no dispute that some EVP are voices. So far, so good. Now, we could define EVP as "either voices, or not" but what does that really buy us? Isn't a voice a communicative sound of human origin? Who on earth would, after achieving electronic communication with ghosts or extraterrestrials, be remotely concerned about whether or not they were using an actual voice? Is that the first question you'd ask them? Isn't the whole point about EVP that discarnate spirits (or whatever your prefer) are supposed to be modulating electronic signals in order to produce something that sounds like a voice? What we have, then, in a recording alleged to be an example of EVP is a sound (undisputable fact) that some people claim (documented fact) to be a voice (nonsense, but we are only reporting a claim) of paranormal origin. SheffieldSteel 15:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Let us take your conclusion and apply it to the CB radio explanation: these alleged examples of EVP are sounds (indisputable fact) that some people claim (documented fact) are voices (nonsense, but we're only reporting a claim) of normal origin. It should now be apparent that you have the "nonsense..." bit in the wrong place. It should be after the "paranormal origin" claim because that's where the only difference lies and so if you don't want the word "nonsense" applied anywhere in the CB explanation then that's your only option. Alternatively, maybe you're now offering an argument to suggest that a voice, by definition, could not be of paranormal origin because if it was it wouldn't be a voice. But that seems unlikely because you seem to treat the question of whether discarnate entities were using a real voice or not to be a reasonable, albeit unimportant, one. Or maybe you're now arguing, like scienceapologist did above, that nothing coming out of a tape-recorder, TV, radio or anything else electronic is a "voice" strictly speaking. But you don't appear to think that either because above (far far above) you list four possibilities for cases of alleged EVP, two of which include the possibility that they are voices, and one of those is "voices of normal origin". What exactly, then, or even roughly, is your point here?Davkal 16:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
You made a mistake in the first sentence. You altered the origin part from paranormal to normal. If a putative EVP recording is found to be a CB transmission, then it is not of paranormal origin. However, people are still free to make claims about it (voices, paranormal, whatever) if that is what they wish to do. I still don't see a problem with the definition as it stands.
My point, since you ask, is that whether or not paranormal communication from discarnate entities is a "voice" is supremely irrelevant - more or less impossible to determine - a nonsensical distinction to try to make (pick one). Even so, the consensus definition reports that proponents claim that they are voices. And if mundane sources of alleged (but-found-to-be-not-really) EVP are voices, then that too is irrelevant to the supernatural or paranormal aspect of this phenomenon.
Of course, if we wanted to be absolutely correct about this, we could write a definition of EVP in such a way that it explicitly and precisely covers all the possibilities: Electronic voice phenomenon (EVP) is a term used to refer to sounds which may be voices of normal origin, or voice-like sounds of normal origin, or voice-like sounds which are claimed by proponents to be voices of paranormal origin, and which are captured on recorded media or other electronic devices. but frankly I don't think it reads very well. SheffieldSteel 17:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't make a mistake, the example was an application to the CB radio explanation where the voices would turn out to be of normal origin, and showed that you had got the "nonsense" bit in the wrong place. And, we could write that "EVP refers to voices and voice like sounds captured on recording media and said by proponents to be of paranormal origin". Which: a) doesn't parody the phenomenon; and b) reads reasonably well.Davkal 18:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Cite? --ScienceApologist 18:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Cite what? You may remember the last edit that you reverted was sourced!Davkal 18:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Davkal, you lay great stress on the fact that some of the skeptics believe that some of the sounds are voices of nonparanormal origin. I agree with that belief, based on my own experience. For a while, my TV set, when tuned to a particular channel, would pick up sounds that were extraneous to the program but were clearly voices (albeit distorted). The content was quite mundane. No sensible skeptic would claim pareidolia as an explanation, but no sensible EVP proponent would claim a paranormal explanation. That there exist such instances of electronic interference doesn't shed any light on the contention that there's a paranormal phenomenon here.
At least, that's my opinion. Neither my opinion nor yours is worth quoting in the article, however. If some notable spokesperson for the paranormal point of view has made this argument -- for example, has said that there is never any such electrical interference, and that all extraneous sounds admitted to be voices must therefore be paranormal -- I suggest you find a citation for that position and include it as a response in the section on "Interference". The section as it now stands does make clear that some of what's alleged to be "EVP" is considered by skeptics to be actual voices resulting from interference. The section links to the Skeptic's Dictionary article stating, "My VCR used to receive CB signals from my neighbor...." Thus, we are giving our reader the facts. Anything else would violate WP:NPOV and/or WP:NOR. JamesMLane t c 18:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I am not claiming that the voices are paranormal. What I am saying is that there is general agreement that some examples of alleged EVP are voices. That there is such agreement means that we can describe examples of alleged EVP as voices rather than as sounds. Davkal 11:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Please give us a specific example of an alleged EVP where there is general agreement. --ScienceApologist 12:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, given that the main pseudosceptics don't really talk about specific cases it is hard to say "this example here". However, we have a clear acknowledgment from the pseudosceptics that some are voices - that's why they invoke the hoax and CB "explanations", and we have pretty clear statements from a variety of scientists (from pro-paranormal through neutral to sceptical) that much of what Raudive recorded consisted of actual voices. The interpretations may be disputed by some, but I know of nobody claiming that none of them are voices. And, for example, if we took the recordings from Raymond Cass, nobody in their right mind would claim none of them were voices. This is why it parodies the phenomenon to pretend that there is some serious doubt here.Davkal 19:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Parody"

Davkal, could you explain how adding or subtracting a couple words, or even just changing the order slightly, turns the whole article into "parody"? Or are you just engaging in hyperbole? --Minderbinder 18:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

it turns the introductory definition into a parody definition in order to pave the way for some later pseudosceptical speculation. It does this by deliberately downplaying the phenomenon in line with that speculation. And it does this by excluding the word "voices" which, if included, would show that the whole phenomenon is not susceptible to being explained away as the imaginings of a few people. There are, in some cases, voices on tapes and given that, I fail to see why we should not state this clearly.Davkal 19:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
First, the intro sentence does contain the word "voices", I just checked and it's right there. Second, you didn't explain what you mean by "parody". My dictionary defines it as exaggeration for comic effect, and I don't see that, nor have you given any reasoning how anyone could possibly read it that way. Are you sure "parody" is the word you meant to use? --Minderbinder 19:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Travesty perhaps. Or even blasphemy? SheffieldSteel 19:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion, why don't we just find the single most notable group that we can and copy their description verbatim as a block quote.

perfectblue 20:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Or here's a simpler one. Since there seems to be consensus that the current wording is accurate and neutral, and that Davkal's objections are unfounded, why don't we keep what we have until someone proposes a wording that is generally agreed to be better and gets consensus support? --Minderbinder 20:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Please read the wikipedia guidelines again. We're not here to write "what we think", we're here to "record what published sources have said". - perfectblue 08:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Straw man. We have written what sources have said. What part of the current definition doesn't come from a source? --Minderbinder 15:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Minderbinder. The suggestion by perfectblue is tantamount to letting Tom Butler write the definition. SheffieldSteel 20:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Please read my comment again, I clearly stated "the single most notable group" not some hobbiest promoter. How do Pear, Clark or Randi describe EVP? - perfectblue 08:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Definition - A Reminder

This is a quick reminder to all editors.

The definition at the beginning of the page exists to define "EVP as a Term", not to describe "EVP as a phenomona/belief". As such, the very first line on this page should clearly and simply state "what EVP was coined to mean" and nothing more. The nature/existence of EVP comes later.

perfectblue 08:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. The current version does this. --ScienceApologist 12:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's far to generic and needs more detail. We need to look at what EVP was coined to mean and to mention all of the key traits.

  1. They aren't just supposedly paranormal sounds, they are specifically sounds that are said to resemble speech. For example, If I were to go into a supposedly haunted house and heared what sound like footsteps, and I recorded them, that wouldn't be EVP.
  2. EVP specifically deals with extraneous sounds. This is important (see above), if you can hear them coming out of the air with your ears, then they are another something different.
  3. EVP was specifically coined to mean sounds from dead people, all of this junk about dimensional leakage and aliens came later and should be discussed later. DEAD PEOPLE we need to make this clear, not "anything that you might to believe in at the time"

You've let the believers get away with far too much, I'm frankly surprised at you. Deleting or refusing to include the above in order to make something paranormal seem prosaic is a very dangerous form of pro-paranormal POV pushing and must be stamped on hard. Trying to make something seem ordinary by taking out the believer-bunk is the flip side of adding in weasel words. It's little more than deleting anything that's inconsistent with the ordinary.

The next thing that you know, somebody will be sneaking out the attributions to the paranormal and trying to make it seem like EVP is any kind of static found on any kind of tape recording.

EVP was coined by believers in the paranormal to refer to something that they believer was paranormal, it wasn't coined by sound engineers to refer to poor quality recordings.

perfectblue 14:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe all your concerns are addressed with the present definition.
  1. "sounds said...to be voices" is substantially the same as "sounds said to resemble human speech"
  2. "captured on recorded media" differentiates from "hearing them with your ears"
  3. "said...to be voices of paranormal origin" covers dead people, otherdimensional beings, etc.
- LuckyLouie 19:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Linkfarm

The external links list was becoming a spam magnet. I think the Open directory project is the better way to go. [10] - LuckyLouie 19:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The Beyond: E.V.P. - Theories, classification, techniques, ideas, and tutorials.

This was a link that was added because it had information and resources that was not and could not be included in the Wikipedia article for those who wish to find more information on E.V.P. as well as tutorials on how to filter the sounds digitally. This link is compliant with Wiki's 'External Links' regulations.

First sentence

"Electronic voice phenomenon (EVP) is a term used to refer to sounds that are captured on recorded media or other electronic devices and are said by paranormal investigators to be voices of paranormal origin."

This seems odd in light of later explanations. If they are captured sounds it directly implies the sounds are real and in the "environment" rather than emf disturbances (which are recorded on magnetic tape and are nor sounds) or a result of the tape manufacturing process or generated by the playback process (repeatable heand and tape imperfections).

EMF and RFI can be captured as well as internal noise, amplified ambient noise, error, glitch, or defect. I think "captured" is used loosely to indicate that some perceived signal (whatever it is thought to be) on the media is replayable. - LuckyLouie 02:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Seems biased to me. Candy 03:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Another question: Do these "voices" appear on totally digital recordings (such as a static drive mp3 recorder)? If so, are there any further explanations. If not, why not? Candy 01:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, recorded media covers digital as well as analog. Not sure a separate explanation is needed. - LuckyLouie 02:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand that recorded covers digital. My question is really does it occur on digital media? Candy 03:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
That depends on whether you believe it occurs or not. There are several EVP researchers who work solely with digital media so yes, it would seem EVPs do occur on digital media. --Zoe.R 12:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a reference for that? Candy 22:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
There are references to the use of digital recording devices at http://aaevp.com/techniques/techniques_evp10.htm , at http://aaevp.com/techniques/techniques_evp9.htm and at http://aaevp.com/techniques/techniques_evp3.htm
In fact, very few experimenters use magnetic media these days. If you want that to be better substantiated, perhaps you could design a question or two that I could put in an online survey and send the results to you. Let me know here: http://aaevp.com/contactaaevp.htm Tom Butler 02:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Edited "administrator of SkepticWiki and self-described musician and sound engineer David Federlein says:" to remove "self-described musician and " due to that being a ridiculous sounding condescention. David Federlein is a professional musician and sound engineer, holds two certifications as a sound engineer and has worked as a musician for over 10 years. There is nothing self described about it.

Another source would be nice. - LuckyLouie 20:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
source for what? fowlsoundproductions.com is his website. If you'd like to see him in a prior band called Midnight Monkey on MSNBC you can check at http://fowlsoundproductions.com/media/video/midnightmonkey/msnbc/ is that enough, or should we have testimonials from every band or client who has worked with him? Someone obviously knew enough to cite that he is the administrator of the skepticwiki, it's not hard to find his website or several others his name appears on as having worked for. {ETA} It's interesting that it is noted he is the admin of the skepticwiki, but the quote is from the skeptic's dictionary, not the skepticwiki article on EVP.
He is noted as the admin of Skepticwiki because previously he was portrayed a just some neutral sound engineer who had commented - indeed his quote was being used as representative of professional sound engineers in general. And his credentials as a sound engineer are still in question because we have no reliable non-self published source for this - nothing compared to the sources for we have for, say, the fact the Macrae once worked for NASA (something that has been excluded from the article) and so credentials in this article have become something of a bone of contention. Re the website, I find it a bit strange that it says "David’s experience as a sound engineer has been cited by the Skeptic’s Dictionary". I wonder if the "fowl" in fowlsoundproductions is a wild goose!Davkal 17:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
ffs. So, a video on msnbc doesn't show anything to you? How do you get "sources" for this? You want a letter from the Recording Workshop citing his certificates, or a letter from every band/project he's worked with?
I work with David Federlein, I'm his sound engineering intern. I'm not sure why you insist on giving a source regarding his profession, given his website. Most of his work is at live shows, and the sound guy is rarely credited. It's not self-published research when one is attesting to one's profession. Mack. 23:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
!!!!!!!! the james randi educational foundation lists him as a sound engineer.

http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-02/020306tam4.html

theres a second source for you. 209.244.42.102 23:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

your going too use james randi as a source he is the king sudoskeptic!

I think the point is this: if a noted academic at a top-flight university (Professor David Fontana, Distinguished Visiting Fellow at Cardiff University), writing in one of his academically paid fields of expertise (transpersonal psychology), is not a good enough source for basic biographical details concerning people involved in that field (Alex Macrae worked for NASA), then a few testimonials from a few of Federlein's pseudosceptical chums isn't going to wash for his credentials. Let him get his pay slips out (see above)! As noted, what's sauce for the gander is sauce for the (wild) goose. Davkal 10:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You're being incredibly unreasonable regarding this. Personal attacks aren't making your case, as claiming we're all "pseudosceptics" is not productive to this article. David Federlein is a sound engineer, not a 'self-described sound engineer', as he has been in the industry for many years, he's done work for James Randi at the Amaz!ng Meeting, and countless other jobs. The only thing I see in your path is an incredible bias against the skeptical people. Mack. 19:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
1. Alexander Macrae worked for NASA. We have numerous sources. Why is that still not allowed into the article. 2. I made no personal attacks. I referred to Randi and Carroll as pseudosceptics since that is what they are. 3. The only thing I see you doing is supporting an incredible double standard without even addressing it.Davkal 20:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal investigators

Martinphi, do you seriously believe that "paranormal investigator" somehow implies that the investigator is paranormal? To you, does "pediatric physician" imply a doctor who is also a child? Antelan talk 22:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No of course not. It was just dumb to put it like that, as there are lots of people who balieve but don't investigate.[11] Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
In that case, can you work on writing more accurate edit summaries? It would totally avert problems like this. Thank you. Antelan talk 01:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Was there something wrong with the edit? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The edit summary was, per your correction above, invalid. Leaving a blank edit summary would, in my opinion, be superior to leaving a misleading edit summary. Antelan talk 07:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_voice_phenomenon/Archive_10&oldid=1136694337"