Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about Electronic voice phenomenon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

False Claims

I don't understand why the article states that EVP are static interpreted by some paranormal believers as voices. Many examples of alleged EVP are clearly voices. The only debate about these examples is whether they are in any way paranormal, or whether they have a more earthly origin. I said a while ago that the intro just made the article look silly and it still does. Why not just say that some alleged cases of EVP are voices?????LionelStarkweather (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The examples I've heard aren't clearly recognizable as voices without coaching. Can you point to some examples (preferably available on the web) that unambiguously are voices? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a selection of samples from the Ghost Orchid CD (mentioned in the article) [1]. These might be the stray radio or outright hoaxes, but they're offered as examples of EVP and they're definitely voices. LionelStarkweather (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And here's a link to the whole of the Ghost Orchid [2].LionelStarkweather (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

LionelStarkweather, here is the issue: voice has many definitions. One of these many is, the sound made by the vibration of vocal folds modified by the resonance of the vocal tract. Many people have something like this in mind when they see the word "voice" - it implies that someone has spoken. To say that these sounds are actually "voices" is to beg the question and imply that they are generated by someone/something that can speak. This isn't necessarily the truth, and in fact is probably not true. Ante lan ^talk 21:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If the examples cited above are not voices, then perhaps you could tell us what you take them to be. LionelStarkweather (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that many EVP are likely due to picking up stray radio signals, I'd be far more surprised if there weren't examples that obviously were voices. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So why does the article baldly state they are mere "static". That is what makes the claim false.LionelStarkweather (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeesh!!! I had it as "voice or voice-like sounds" for a long time. Antelan and others kept changing it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand Antelan's point, but it seems that the sense of "voice" used in the article is simply a contrast with "mere static only taken to be a voice because of auditory pareidolia". In that sense, the examples are surely voices. On this point Raymond seems to agree as well and so I think it should be reasonable to rewrite the intro without the "static" claim.LionelStarkweather (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If you explain why you don't understand or don't agree with my discussion of voices above, I can reword in a way that will make sense. Ante lan ^talk 22:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I sort of just did. I said "it seems that the sense of "voice" used in the article is simply a contrast with "mere static only taken to be a voice because of auditory pareidolia". In that sense, the examples are surely voices". If I have misunderstood your point, then you could clarify in what sense you would be reluctant to call the examples I provided "voices".LionelStarkweather (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying that you know these voices are not coming from static? Where are they coming from, and how does one know this? Ante lan ^talk 22:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where they're coming from. I don't know whether they're hoaxes, or stray radio broadcasts or the voices of the dead. I never claimed I did. What I do know is that they are voices. Are you seriously saying that you think they are mere static that only happen to resemble language by chance. Have you actually listened to them - these are not muffled EVP of the two-syllable variety that sounds like someone saying "mother".LionelStarkweather (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's say I hear someone expertly play a trumpet or a saxophone in such a way that it sounds human. Would you say that it is a voice, or would you say that it sounds like a voice? Ante lan ^talk 23:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say "it sounds like a voice but is actually a trumpet/saxophone". But this largely beside the point, the point here is that while it's perfectly possible for static to sound like a muffled voice saying a word or two, it's quite impossible for one man (e.g., Raymond Cass) to regularly record sections of static that by chance happen to sound exactly like very clear five or six word sentences. LionelStarkweather (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The sounds in the Orchid thing definitely are voices. They're obviously voices broadcast using amplitude-modulated radio, either shortwave or medium-wave (AM), but that's beside the point for this purpose. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that until about two minutes ago the article boldly stated that EVP were simply static-interpreted-as-voices, and now states that they are voice-like-sounds-interpreted-as-voices (i.e., still not voices), the fact that some examples of alleged EVP are obviously voices would seem to be about as pertinent as it gets. The point being that the first sentence of the article mischaracterises the very phenomenon the article is about.LionelStarkweather (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Dudes, look at the skeptical explanations: they say it is radio interference. Thus, some of them, according to the skeptics and certainly according to the believers, are radio- and thus voices. Some of them, according to the skeptics, are noise mistaken for voices- and thus voice-like sounds. We had that part of the intro fine at one point, and I suggest we go back to that. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

See EVP online listening trials [3] I know you do not much like to use AA-EVP references, and here, I agree that my putting it in the article would be COI. The examples used are from a number of individuals, so it would be necessary to accuse all of them of fraud if you want to go that rout to discredit the examples used in the trials. The results are repeatable and show that website visitors are able to correctly identify 34% of the words. That is about average for untrained listeners who have no coaching. Tom Butler (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a question: so far as I can tell, the main problem with proving EVP is not proving that it is not, say, radio, but in the question of just how much white noise you'd have to listen to (given no spirit/psychic influence) to get a word or answer to a question. If that could be answered, then the discussion would probably be over, because experiments like you mention are easily done, and one could tell it they are statistically significant per the ammount of raw noise from which the samples are taken. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"White noise" is just a figure of speech these days, and we discourage people from using it because the objective is to provide audio-frequency energy in the range of human voice. We also strongly discourage the use of radio and encourage the use of control recorders with at least one designed well enough to reject RF contamination. We reject responses to questions that do not occur before the next question. Most others have similar practices, but in radio sweep and EVPMaker, there is clearly a problem with the experimenter arbitrarily linking a comment to a question asked much earlier in the sound stream, so it is important to be sufficiently educated to know when a fact or report does not apply to all forms of these phenomena.

All of these issues have been addressed but the one objection that has been offered in the past is that the research is mostly only one or two experiments deep, not whether or not the research has been done.

I like Nealparr's point about content being "sticky." There is hardly anything in this article that can be called sticky. The same design of the article has been used since its origin, that is, casting one side against the other in a winner take all approach. I gave a list of facts and I can support every one of them with good, but few references. The snide response I received should be sufficient warning to all of you that this argument will go on indefinitely unless a different approach is taken. Just provide the facts and stop questioning whether or not the subject is real. Most of you simply do not have the wherewithal to make that decision and this is not the place for settling the issue. Tom Butler (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If we could only agree on what the "facts" are. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

All this interesting original research aside, everyone agrees that these are sounds, which is what the intro sentence should make clear. What is not agreed upon is the interpretation of these sounds as voices. This should be made clear in the lead. Ante lan ^talk 01:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they're -ahem- voices or voice-like sounds (-: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and it's agreed that some of them are voices, since RF interference is one of the skeptical explanations. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That "RF interference" = "voices" is incorrect. Ante lan ^talk 06:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have it, one station can interfere or bleed into another, and also broadcasts can be picked up on unintended devices sometimes. It isn't all like power lines. So it can be voices. Maybe wrong. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would be wrong to equate "RF" with "voices" as you have done. And since that's the basis of your argument, that's an important part to get wrong. In other words, "Oh, and it's agreed that some of them are voices, since RF interference is one of the skeptical explanations. " is not correct. Ante lan ^talk 06:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It was Arritt's argument: "Given that many EVP are likely due to picking up stray radio signals, I'd be far more surprised if there weren't examples that obviously were voices. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)" So argue with him et al....... ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Antelan, you say "What is not agreed upon is the interpretation of these sounds as voices." This seems a bit disingenuous if all you mean is that there is a disagreement about some EVP being voices because, while true, that ignores many of the other cases where nobody disputes it. The sceptical explanations for EVP are roughly as follows: 1) the ones that are voices are stray radio pick ups, hoaxes, or ordinary speech recorded when, eg., the EVP researcher left the recorder in an empty room and it captured some people talking as they passed; and 2) many other examples of alleged EVP are not voices at all but are mere voice-like sounds interpreted as voices due to auditory pareidolia. So, while there is a dispute about whether many cases of alleged EVP are voices (and the article should deal with that), there is no dispute about many other cases of alleged EVP which all agree are voices (and the article should make that clear). This dual (at least) nature of the brute phenomenon is what makes makes it wrong to say that EVP are static/sounds interpreted as voices since that only tells half the (sceptical) story. Far better to go with a dual description right at the start or to go for a neutral decsription such as "sonic events interpreted by some as voices of paranormal origin".LionelStarkweather (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the most absurd discussion I've seen on wikipedia. Err...correct that, I guess I've seen worse. I don't believe in ghosts, and the idea of the supernatural existing is laughable, but the objection that these sounds (a fair number of which are quite clearly voices) are not, in fact, voices because they are not being physically spoken (as Antelan argues) is misdirection of the worst sort, and utterly beneath the scientific point of view. We can freely admit these sounds for what they are - clearly voices - without admitting that there is some sort of ghost behind them, or whatever the current fringe explanation is. But they are quite clearly voices. The only argument above that offers otherwise is entirely based out of bias and semantics. Hewhorulestheworld (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources for "researchers"

Plenty, including Skeptical Inquirer and mainstream news sources. Take your pick [4]. Those are recent articles, here's the archives [5] --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rracecarr, if you'd like to talk about treating this article as a religious article, where researchers are called "adherents" and "believers", I'd be more than happy to discuss that with you. However, just changing every instance of "researcher" to "believer" does not make for good encyclopedia entry. Like I pointed out after your first edit, even the Skeptical Inquirer refers to paranormal researchers as researchers. It's about as neutral as it gets. Framing it as a religious belief is not neutral. Repeatedly doing this doesn't help to make the edits "sticky". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The links you provided contain phrases such as "Members, who call themselves paranormal researchers..." That's more like it. A researcher is someone whose job it is to find out about the world. Which agency funds EVP grants? Putting in "paranormal researchers" without qualification lends a subtle legitimacy to the whole idea that is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. It is written in language that the delusional crazies who believe in this stuff would use. Just because some wackos might do "reseach" on the Easter Bunny does not mean the Easter Bunny article should start off with "The Easter Bunny, an egg-hiding rabbit, which some researchers credit with the concealment of over a billion eggs, ..." An encyclopedia article should make it clear when an article is about a made-up subject. The minor changes I've made do not succeed in doing this entirely, but they're a step in the right direction. Also, the changes are not mine. They were made by Science Apologist who is currently blocked for an unrelated reason. I just think the changes are an improvement. I can see using "paranormal researchers" if the first time the term is used, it is made clear that it's a self-applied label. Rracecarr (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your reading way too much into the term, and putting too much emphasis on the people involved. Take your Easter Bunny example:

"The Easter Bunny, an egg-hiding rabbit, which some researchers credit with the concealment of over a billion eggs, ..."

The first problem that should be fixed is that the Easter Bunny needs framing as folkloric or mythical creature, ie. not in nature.

"The Easter Bunny, an egg-hiding rabbit in folklore and mythic traditions, is said by some researchers to have concealed over a billion eggs, despite all evidence of the Easter Bunny being completely anecdotal ..."

That's where your encyclopedic wording comes in. Let's take a more relevant example:

"Bigfoot, a creature in folkloric traditions, is said by Bigfoot researchers to inhabit the Pacific Northwest."

Here we have a mythological creature, or to use your words a "made-up subject", but one that some people believe really does exist. These "believers" conduct "research" ranging from collecting anecdotal folklore surrounding the creature, making casts of supposed footprints, collecting hair samples that are probably from bears, and so on. Are they nuts for wanting to research something that probably doesn't exist in the real world? Who knows, or more accurately, who cares? The topic of their research is already framed as folkloric. In other words, the reader is already informed that what they're researching probably doesn't exist in nature.

On "paranormal researcher", "researcher" is framed by the qualifier "paranormal", which means (depending on the dictionary) "not normal", or "not explained by science", "not explainable by science", "not in nature", and so on. In other words, "paranormal researcher" literally means "people who research something not accepted by science as existing in the natural world".

The fallacy in your argument (or ScienceApologist's argument if they were his edits) is that it's mis-focused on the people who are interested in the subject and not focused on the subject itself, which is already framed as something myth (sacred story) related. EVP researchers study audio clips they believe are created by some disembodied entity. You don't have to spend a single second on the "research" part because the qualifier before it involves "spirits", already something mythological, folkloric, supernatural, paranormal, etc., ie. something that is not accepted by science as existing in the natural world. It's not, again, about the realness of the subject of the research. It's still research, even if it's research about something that doesn't actually exist. Religious scholars conduct research all the time on Bible-related things, stories about angels and demons and all sorts of mythological story-based characters. It's still research.

The argument was that "researcher" isn't neutral because it implies that the subject of the research does exist. That is in no way true. A Catholic who knows the name of every angel in the Bible as a result of his research on Biblical names doesn't make any of the angels any more or any less real. It doesn't give any angel any legitimacy at all.

"Research" is about as neutral as it gets, simply because research is always framed by the subject of the research. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 08:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of what you say makes sense. I guess my concern is that I'm not sure how well a naive reader, coming to the article as it stands, would understand that EVP is not the subject of serious mainstream scientific research. Trusting readers to divine from the statement "Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are sections of voice-like sounds on the radio or other electronic recording media that are interpreted by paranormal researchers as voices speaking words," that those paranormal researchers are not taken seriously by scientific researchers seems to be asking a lot. The sentence doesn't include anything about folklore, mythology, spirits, etc. I'm not sure just the word "paranormal" makes it clear enough.Rracecarr (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. "Paranormal" is a technical sounding term, so a lot of people would just gloss right over it. I wonder how many people simply assume that a "paranormal research" is a specialization within science, like physical chemistry or nuclear physics. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And the article clearly states that EVP research is not a topic in science, and has gained no support in science, in several places. So if one reads "Mainstream science has generally ignored EVP..." or "...gained no notability within the scientific community, and is not accepted within science" (both statements already in the article), and walks away thinking EVP is a topic in science like physical chemistry or nuclear physics, I'm sorry, but Wikipedia can't help them. They have other issues. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Arritt, I'm sure you'll be interested in this. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Researcher is an unacceptable term because people who "research" EVP are not just people who believe in EVP. The problem with using "researcher" is that it doesn't convey the fact that the "researchers" in question are true believers in EVP. That's an important distinction that was left out of the discussion above. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is partly about how true believers (see example on Bigfoot researchers and Biblical researchers) are still researchers. Besides, you've advocated using the term "paranormal researchers" as a neutral alternative before. I'm busy, but I can pull them from the archives at various articles if you'd like. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I'm not disputing that every wacko with access to a library is a researcher. I'm saying that when we use the term in our article we almost always are talking about a true believer. By using the term "researcher" we miss the fact that the "researcher" in question is a true believer. Get it? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I get what you'd like to do. It's just not something a neutral encyclopedia does. Unbiased mainstream sources (newspapers, etc.) who have no reason to promote EVP researchers call them researchers. I've yet to see one unbiased, un-derogatory, un-personal-essay source call them "true believers". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it another way, because it's really not about the sources. Neutrality is stating clearly that science doesn't accept these ideas, so that Wikipedia does not advance their position beyond what it actually is. Neutrality is not attacking the people themselves with derogatory terms like true believers, etc. or the seriousness in which they take their interest by calling them "enthusiasts" (hobbyists). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Neal, obviously you don't think that indicating that the people believe in EVP is problematic. Using the term "researcher" without appropriate qualification doesn't indicate that adequately enough. As is pointed out below, we use the term "skeptic" which indicates succinctly that the people dispute the existence of EVP. "Researcher" doesn't go far enough indicating that the person "researching" isn't just researching from the standpoint of neutrality but actually believes in EVP. This is important. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

To put this another way, I'm fine with using a term like "resesarcher who believes in EVP" or something similar to this. Their belief in EVP is obviously relevant to their research. This is something that needs to be pointed out as is normally pointed out on any fringe article. We need to be able to indicate clearly sentence-by-sentence who believes in the idea and who doesn't. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Spiritualism roots

Nealparr, in the article you said, "...and has its roots in the turn of the century Spiritualism movement (1840s-1920s)." can you give a reference for that? As a Spiritualist and familiar with EVP, I see no connection, other than that both are interested in communicating with discarnate entities. Are you saying that Jürgenson, who was given an award by the Pop, was actually a Spiritualist? Tom Butler (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Spiritualism begat mediums begat Attila Von Szalay

or

Spiritualism begat spirit photography begat spirit recordings

or

(The connection you draw in your own book) Spiritualism begat the methodology used in early EVP research... "The two constructed a cabinet that von Szalay sat in while trying to generate the voices. A microphone was placed in the opening of a trumpet, a device used by Spiritualist mediums to amplify spirit voices, and then placed in the cabinet..."[6]

Whichever way you want to go. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I could definitely get that out of Tom's book. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point Nealparr. That is in the history section. All people knew of transcommunication at the time was from spiritualist practices, so that is what some used at the time. Sarah Estep did not, for instance. We attribute the beginning of EVP to the accidental recording of voices. It is true that we encourage meditation and development of a "space" for recording, but these are recognition of what works and it is only an accident of history that some religions tend to use the same or similar practices. What you have written is the equivalent of saying that submarines evolved from rockets because they both began with pointed shapes. In fact, they are both designed to accommodate fluid dynamics which produces similar shapes. Tom Butler (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a statement about the roots of interest in spirit recordings. It's meant to be a historical statement. Since interest in spirit recordings came right at the decline of Spiritualism, and Von Szalay was a medium using spiritualist practices in pursuing that interest, the "interest in spirit communication through electronic recording has its roots in the turn of the century Spiritualism movement". What you're saying about Estep and modern day practices don't have anything to do with the roots of it all. Estep came four decades after the roots and current practices are almost seven decades after the roots. While modern day submarines don't look anything like modern day aircraft carriers, they all have their roots in the propeller driven steamboats designed by James Watt. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they both have roots in the physical principles involved with action-reaction or thrust. if you were to make a connection like the riverboat, you should go back to the oarsman. The connection is there, but it is irreverent to the subject of the design of a submarine.

In the same way, EVP is related to spiritualism but both are related to shamanism, animism and on back. The connection is the apparent principle of communicating with discarnate entities. If you are going to use the spiritualism reference, then I think it is only right to include all of the other -isms that have ever contacted the dead. Von Szalay is just one of many early experimenters, and others, more historically important experimenters were decidedly not associated or trained in spiritualism. Your association only serves to put EVP in a religious context, and that does not serve the good of the article. Tom Butler (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom, I'm not going to go around in circles with you about this again. Spiritualism is all over the sources in connection with the roots, shamanism and animism aren't. If you'd like to add shamanism and animism to the article as well, go for it, but the notable one is Spiritualism. Von Szalay isn't just one of experimenters, he's the first to claim success. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I don't want you to "go round and round" about it. Let me try it this way. As far as I can tell, you are the only one who wants it in. You added it without discussion, and now you are defending it as if it is a deal breaker for the article. Go ahead and leave it in, but that, along with the continued efforts to link EVP with religion and faith by you, SA and his supporters puts me in a difficult position.

My job is to offer guidance about EVP/ITC on aaevp.com and I am tired of trying to explain how well intended you all really are. We receive emails asking about this article, such as "is it plural or not" and "You can't seriously expect scientists to study EVP if it is a religion." A few months ago, I had actually thought I might be able to endorse the article on aaevp.com, but now I have no choice put to point out the differences in the way EVP is studied by the majority of experimenters and researchers, and how the subject is portrayed in Wikipedia.

And before you all get excited and call this a threat, stop and actually think about it for a change. You do not work in a privileged environment in which you get to say anything you want without consequence. I have responsibilities which I will not abdicate just because some of you feel it is un Wikipedia-like to talk about articles outside of Wikipedia. Tom Butler (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom, barely any of that applies to my edit. My edit is about the roots of the interest in spirit recordings and has nothing to do with modern day research, the AA-EVP, or any type of modern-day religion, modern-day science, or modern-anything. I'm into history, know a lot about the history of paranormal topics especially, and that's where most of my contributions on this article center around, aside from general neutrality checks. Doesn't have anything to do with you or your organization. If you want to add a sourced statement that divorces modern-day research from its roots, I won't object. Lack of discussion? This whole section discusses it. Only one who supports it? You're the only one who's commented about rejecting it. Sorry, historical framing is important in encyclopedic articles and the non-history-related stuff is what you're talking about. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated

Antelan, you don't like it when I archive stuff. Would you mind archiving as much of this pages as you can? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

So long as you don't archive sections with active discussions, there's no problem. The last time you archived, several people had responded in a thread no more than 12 hours before you moved it to the annals of history. That's why I wanted you to de-archive, although you never acted on that request. Ante lan ^talk 06:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. No one but you seemed to care, and you didn't want to post. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You do recognize that archiving current, active discussions isn't a Good Thing, right? Ante lan ^talk 06:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And you do realize that capitalizing Good Thing means that Good is an absolute, and a Thing, and it would be hard not to get God out of that? Yeah, I realize. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about with that last edit, but like I said, feel free to carefully archive. Ante lan ^talk 18:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Change the tone a little

Will the real ScienceApologist please stand up? Isn't there a reason for blocks? Rracecarr, you are following in SA's footsteps by calling ITC researchers "delusional crazies." And you all wonder why I am confrontational in Wikipedia.

It is not necessary to characterize the subject beyond what is evident. For instance, why not write the article in the tone of "Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are described as sections of voice-like sounds on electronic recording media that are interpreted by paranormal researchers as voices speaking words." I have taken out the "EVP enthusiasts" part and added "are described as." Also, radios do not record, so I removed it as a technical inaccuracy.

By the way, in the third paragraph, "deceased spirits" is an oxymoron. If you have to use "spirit" then please recognize that in a religious context, spirits are what survives the physical body and are therefore consided to be living. Tom Butler (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine changes, the whole lot. Ante lan ^talk 18:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The opening sentence to this article reads:

"Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are sections of voice-like sounds [A] on the radio or other electronic recording media that are interpreted by EVP enthusiasts who call themselves paranormal researchers [B & C] as voices speaking words[D]."

A) "Voice like sounds" is a mischaracterisation of the phenomenon for the reason cited above - ie. many examples of alleged EVP are voices.

B)"enthusiasts who call themselves" is misleading and pejorative because to say "X calls himself a Y" implies that there is some dubiety about X being a Y (it actually means X isn't really a Y). But as Nealparr has shown above with copious sources "paranormal researchers" is how the people being referred to are described everywhere else one cares to look.

C) "interpreted by EVP enthusiasts who call themselves paranormal researchers" is misleading because the vast majority of people who believe that EVP are of paranormal origin (if we ever actually get to the paranormal point - which is the nub of the issue) are just ordinary members of the public who happen to believe in paranormal phenomena.

D)"interpreted [...] as voices speaking words" is misleading because: a) many are voices and so are correctly identified as such rather than interpreted; b) because it lodges the issue of interpretation/belief in the wrong place. That is it lodges it against the "voice/not voice" claim which is a very poor second behind the "paranormal/non-paranormal" claim which is actually what the whole issue is surrounding EVP. And c) because if the point you really want to make is only ythe one about interpretation as voices then this will extend the numbers of those who interpret them that way into almost everyone who has ever heard them, e.g., Raymond above who accepts that the examples I provided are "obviously voices".

This is a really horrible way to start an article.LionelStarkweather (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Then propose an alternative. Ante lan ^talk 23:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed- got an alternative? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

How about something like this:

Electronic Voice Phenomenon (EVP) refers to the purported manifestation of voices and sounds of paranormal origin on electronic media such as radios and tape recorders (Baruss). Proponents of EVP commonly attribute the phenomenon to communication from ghosts or spirits (Baruss), although others have suggested alien communications or psychokinesis from the living as possible explanations (whatever source the article currently uses). Skeptics of the paranormal have offered radio interference, hoaxes, artifacts due to low quality equipment and auditory pareidolia as more likely explanations for the apparent phenomenon. (skepdic)

We could also then get rid of the repetitive third paragraph which can now be left to the "explanations" section.LionelStarkweather (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is fine, but leave out the word "purported," as everything "paranormal" is purported- see the adequate framing section of the paranormal ArbCom, and also where they specifically address that word. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the current lead to a version I think is best. It is better than the proposed versions because it clarifies that EVP is found in noise and it focuses on the major explanations (ghosts). ScienceApologist (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, I not that you have changed the intro back to the false claim that alleged EVP are actually static. How do you account for the examples of alleged EVP identified above that are obviously not static but voices. There is quite a bit of discussion of this point above and virtually everyone is in agreement that to claim EVP is mere static is false. LionelStarkweather (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no examples which skeptic and believer alike believe to be actual voices. See below. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Baruss, as a sceptical scientist, said that he found "voices on tapes" during his experiment. So we have both proponents and sceptical scientific researchers acknowledging that at least some potential EVP are voices. Please also note that my intro doesn't explicitly claim that EVP are voices, but it removes the obvious falsehood that they are all static (see below).LionelStarkweather (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. He found them in static. We don't need to call these things voices any more than we need to call UFOs "spacecraft". ScienceApologist (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The EVP equivalent of UFO=ET Spacecraft is not EVP=Voice, but EVP=Paranormal Voice. So just as skeptics claim that some alleged UFOs are misidentified air/spacecraft (ie. craft but just not ET spacecraft), they also claim that some alleged EVP are misinterpreted voices of mundane origin (i.e. voices but not paranormal voices). And so just as we should not begin the UFO article, "UFOs are clouds interpreted as craft" (one explanation for part of that phenomenon), so we should not begin the EVP article, "EVP are sections of static". In both cases we would be mischaracterising the phenomenon in order to accommodate one partial skeptical explanation at the expense of all the others. Not only does this underplay the skeptical assessment of the phenomenon and make them look silly, it would also make the articles look silly. I therefore still don't understand why you are so intent on opening the article with an obvious falsehood.LionelStarkweather (talk) 09:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say "ET Spacecraft". I said "spacecraft". ScienceApologist (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I know but I added that so your argument made sense, without the addition of ET we could have safely said that some UFOs were (misidentified) spacecraft, e.g, the shuttle.LionelStarkweather (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I was saying. Does anyone ever say that UFO are unequivocally spacecraft? No. Because in the case where everyone agrees they are spacecraft they magically become IFOs. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Voice versus not voices red herring

Resolved

– There are no reliable sources indicating that there exists even one EVP example that everyone agrees is a voice.

Resolved

– There are no reliable sources indicating that there exists even one EVP example that everyone agrees is not of clear paranormal origin. So what!

That some reported EVP may be stray radio signals is true. That there are examples of EVP that people claim to be EVP even after verifying the fact that they are stray radio sources is not true. Therefore, there are no verifiable reports of EVP which are simultaneously believed by skeptic and believer alike to be "voices" (that is, once it can be verified that the EVP is a radio source, there aren't very many EVP believers who will pretend that their proposed example is an honest-to-god EVP). Most EVP, in fact, are just examples of people listening to static under weird enough conditions and for long enough for them to decide that they hear voices in the noise. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, using Joe Banks' Ghost Orchid CD as an example of something that somebody actually thinks is EVP is disingenuous. From what I understand of Rorschach Audio Project, they were trying to debunk EVP by providing examples of the stuff for which they knew the source. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

First, the Ghost Orchid isn't by Joe Banks! It's a collection of recordings from various EVP researchers including Raymond Cass and Raudive. Banks only wrote one section of the sleeve notes. Second, my intro doesn't actually say EVP are voices, it leaves this question open but moves away from the obviously false claim that they are in fact static (see, for example, the samples identified above). That intro, your intro, simply takes one part of the sceptical explanation (an explanation for only part of the phenomenon) and defines EVP in terms of that. The voice argument above (and the samples - have you listened to them) is only meant to show why doing this makes the article look silly. That is, it is silly to open an article with an obvious falsehood. Thus my improved intro above.LionelStarkweather (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody claim that the Ghost Orchid CD is still an accurate representation of EVP samples? In other words, do people listening to the rf interference really believe it is not rf interference? If so, can you point me in the direction of these people so I can determine whether their weird opinion deserves accommodating in this encyclopedia? If not, then stop this argument. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The examples on the Ghost Orchid are by Raymond Cass and Konstantin Raudive. Two of the foremost researchers in the history of the topic. As such their samples form an integral part of the phenomenon's back catalogue. That being said, the samples were only intended to show that the opening unsourced statement is obviously false - Tom Butler has provided further links to "obvious voice" examples as well, so we now have even more evidence for its falsity. It is therefore not clear why anyone would prefer an inaccurate, false and unsourced claim over a true, accurate and reputably sourced one.LionelStarkweather (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a poor argument. You need to provide a source for your claim. Your opinion that things are "obvious voices" is irrelevant. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The article on Raudive asserts that he was a scientist but hardly presents much evidence for this claim; that for Cass is hilarious (His work with electronic voice phenomenon (EVP) helped him make friends all over the world who had interests in this field). If these are two of the foremost researchers, I don't expect to see any breakthrough announced in Nature any time soon. -- Hoary (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hoary, what is your point here? That a couple of Wiki articles aren't very good and so we should start a further article with an obvious falsehood!LionelStarkweather (talk) 09:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the resolution to this discussion is as follows: LionelStarweather thinks that some EVP are actually voices. Therefore he thinks that the lead should indicate that some EVP are actually voices. Unfortunately, his only source to back this up is a CD that includes recordings from people studying EVP in the past and there is no indication that people today believe these examples are EVP. I consider the matter resolved. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have said repeatedly that my intro DOES NOT say any are voices. However, the article already has the acknowledgement from skeptics that some alleged EVP are voices so even if the intro did say this there would be no problem. I have also explained that the examples are from Raudive and Cass which nobody to my knowledge has even claimed that they are no longer considered examples of alleged EVP.LionelStarkweather (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You have pointed to no sources which state under no uncertain terms that both EVP believer and skeptic attribute the alleged EVP to voices. None. All you've done is pointed us to examples and posited that skeptics and believers alike find them to be voices. This is not good enough. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's already in the article under the mainstream explantions: "Certain EVP recordings, especially those recorded on devices which contain RLC circuitry, represent radio signals of voices or other sounds from broadcast sources.[34]" I had already pointed this out but you were too busy being right to notice it. LionelStarkweather (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but it's not clear that the EVP enthusiast thinks that anything verified to be a radio signal really is an EVP (since that's no longer in the noise). We had this issue earlier where EVP-proponents argued that this isn't an explanation for EVP. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The skeptics are not claiming to have discovered the actual broadcast source of specific examples of EVP. They are offering a theoretical explanation for those cases that are clearly voices and are recorded in a certain way. That is, they are saying that certain examples of EVP are almost certainly from broadcast sources (Occam's Razor) and they don't need to track down the source to show this. All they need show is the possibility of it happening. Proponents on the other hand reject this explanation. So we have both sides agreeing that some EVP are voices but disagreeing about the origin. Exactly the same argument applies to the hoax and the "ordinary voice picked up by accident" explanations. That is, no skeptic is claiming that example A is a hoax and example B is an accident. They are simply saying that even where EVP are obvious voices there is no need to invoke the paranormal. They do this in exactly the same way they can accept that a UFO eyewitness saw a structured craft and offer misidentification of known aircraft without having to track down the craft itself.LionelStarkweather (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Enthusiast

Is a word used for hobbyists [7] Before entering that word, imagine it said "hobbyist" instead, and think how unencyclopedic it sounds. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is unencyclopedic about that word; in fact, that's probably the most appropriate word to use in some situations, this article among them. Ante lan ^talk 02:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is unencyclopedic about the term when you're talking about snowboarding, parachuting, or rock climbing. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Our terminology is asymmetric: paranormal adherents are "researchers," while others are mere "skeptics." Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with you changing skeptic to something more explanatory. I'm only checking this particular set of weird POV words. At least skeptic is something skeptics self-describe as. If you'd like to call it audio engineers, audio scientists, or whatever else, won't be me complaining. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The word skeptic is a proud thing, not something that can denigrate when put in the wrong context. Arritt must have a very low opinion of skeptics, else there would be no question about calling them that. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Skeptic is just like any other word. Some people are best described as skeptics, and when it's the best word for the job, let's use it. There are better words here. Ante lan ^talk 04:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The point here is that while "skeptic" clearly lets the reader know the POV of the person/groups we are talking about, "researcher" is ambiguous. Find a better term. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I was involved in conversations here but have to get back to a wiki-break. I stand by my points above, but can't support them while I'm gone. Go wild : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

New Intro

I have changed the intro because in three days of pointless off-topic arguing nobody has yet come up with, or even tried to come up with, any reason why the article should start with an unsourced falsehood.LionelStarkweather (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. You're going to have to do better than simply posit a falsehood. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because something is false doesn't mean it should be included on that basis alone. I have also pointed out you have no source. So, neither true, nor verifiable.LionelStarkweather (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have plenty of sources. All you need to do is read the AAEVP's page on best-practices for collecting EVP and you realize that they are listening in the static. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an article about the AAEVP or their methods of recording. It is an article about EVP and all the methods used to record alleged samples. You cannot simple splice off one method and then define the whole phenomenon in terms of that.LionelStarkweather (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source that indicates any other methods currently in use by EVP believers? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Macrae for one that is currently in the article.LionelStarkweather (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And Meek with his spiricom - please note there is no need for this to be current since the article is not about current EVP research alone but about EVP.LionelStarkweather (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

ALPHA generates its static through use of white noise fluctations in electrodermal responses (much the same way an e-meter does). Again, that's looking at static. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And Spiricom also takes static and simply resamples it. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing one aspect of the means of producing a phenomenon with the definition of the phenomenon. What EVP is, and why there is an article about it, is that is is the purported manifestation of paranormal voices on electronic media. How such purported manifestations are caused to appear on the media is for another section but not for the introductory definition. This is especially so when that aspect of the means of production looks indistinguishable from an offered explanation for some cases of the phenomena. Please note that there is nothing inconsistent in my definition inasmuch as it doesn't say static is not involved. LionelStarkweather (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In any event, all I ever started editing this article for was that I had read a little about EVP after watching White Noise and thought the intro here made the article look stupid - after all, many alleged examples of EVP are VOICES and not static. After wasting nearly a week of my life on stupid arguments with stupid people with stupid axes to grind I don't think I'll be troubling you any more here. I simply don't believe that all you (ScienceApologist) are trying to do is write an accurate introduction. I looked at your talk page and it is evident that what you want to do here is define EVP in terms of one skeptical explanation for a part of that phenomenon so that that view is presented before a reader even gets a chance to find out what EVP are supposed to be. That you choose to pretend by a variety of deliberate point missing, half truths, and arrogant disingenuity that that is not what you are doing simply doesn't wash. For the record, I don't believe EVP is paranormal, and nothing I tried to write in any way supported the notion that it was. My definition could virtually have been lifted direct from Skepdic, "Electronic voice phenomenon is the alleged communication by spirits through tape recorders and other electronic devices", but you're so busy with your agenda that you probably didn't even notice this. Happy editing.LionelStarkweather (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Moving on

Given that Lionel has stated above that he has given up, are there any objections to reverting to the other version after protection ends? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

At the moment your version looks a bit messy (no doubt a consequence of too many disputes), and doesn't take into account evp's which are the result of fakery or interference rather than just white noise. Other than that I'm reasonably happy. Jefffire (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, can you propose an alternative sentence? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

From an outside observer, the ScienceApologist intro is pretty badly POV- the general tone seems to suggest that it is only considered real by a fringe group. Example:

"that are interpreted by some people who believe in the subject and call themselves paranormal researchers"

This can't be determined from just one source. The citation in the lead is certainly a debunking report, but if you look on the internet, you'll find plenty of claims to the contrary. The current version (as of the moment it was locked) is much more NPOV as it states what EVP is, and gives a couple of sentences explaining the theory and rebuff. If you go with the alternate lead, it's almost certainly going to wind up with an NPOV tag. 130.101.100.106 (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This topic is pretty ridiculous, almost to the point of patent nonsense. ~~Almost everyone who believes in this stuff is basically a moron or an absolute wacko, so~~ it's a little difficult to write an intro that they would find fair. Nevertheless, we are instructed by Wikipedia to write an article with wording that follows NPOV. That's our goal. The perceived slights by those who believe in EVP is not our concern. Since there is no "theory" to speak of, nor is their really anything more to this than the pop-culture significance of it, we are basically charged with writing an article about something that is simply so preposterous that it's "not even wrong". We'll continue to pursue a neutral wording given that we must maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(same anon as above) Well just as much as you think they're a moron or a wacko, an EVP believer would just as quickly say you're refusing clear evidence (clear to them, that is). One side accusing the other side of being stupid for believing or not believing will send you around in circles. The thing I see with the non-current version is this: it had changed the definition to something along the lines of "EVP is a pattern of white noise". That's not really accurate. EVP is the capturing of a voice on an audio recording; the disagreement is whether it actually occurs. To rephrase, it doesn't come down to what EVP is, it's whether there's any actual evidence to put it beyond the stage of someone's idea. A better way of phrasing it would be something like "EVP is the idea of capturing voices through audio recording. No scientific evidence has been presented that it exists." Of course, substitute "no evidence" with unclear evidence, debatable evidence, etc., whatever the consensus can reach. The article details the alternate explanations quite well. I know things have been deadlocked here, just thought I'd throw in the idea. 130.101.90.31 (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course they would dispute me. That's their problem, though. The issue is that EVP believers are a fringe belief. This article falls under our guidelines for covering such theories. As such, we aren't bound by their peculiar promotionalism. EVP is looking in static for noise that resembles voices to the person looking for the EVP. That's it's honest to goodness definition. I don't think anyone even disagrees with this. This is how we will put it in the lead of this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Outdent It depends on what supports it being a fringe belief- of course, all the skeptic journals say it's fake and all the paranormal journals say it's real. A hypothesis isn't automatically a fringe idea from the day it's thought up. It really comes down to how many people stand on each side of the debate. If that could be quantified I think we could end a lot of the tug-of-war that goes on over the wording. Has a poll ever been done (by a third party, not one that purports or denies EVP) that tells what percentage of the population believes it is real? If it's a tiny minority, then of course it's a fringe idea, but if it's even close to 50/50 then it's at least not fringe thinking, even if it's not accepted by everyone. Of course, the argument can be made that the general public is gullible, etc., but for the purpose of an encyclopedia, that's about the best neutral indicator we could go by.

Come to think of it, having a numerical statistic in the article could eliminate some of the "generally accepted"/"generally refuted" type of word bickering, since we'd have it quantified.

It would really be great to get the initial wording down in an NPOV way due to how much the article contains already. There is a great deal of information included for both sides, with good sources, it just comes down to which side is right and which side is wrong, and that's personal opinion. And thought I'd point out about the definition, clearly some people disagree, because it started an edit war. It stands to reason that if a neutral ground isn't struck it will never be anything but an edit war. 130.101.90.31 (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, paranormal journals are hardly independent reliable sources on the matter. I'm not sure what you mean by "skeptical journals". Most journals I know of have never had an article on the subject at all. I don't really think "sides" is an appropriate way to frame this discussion. Rather, what we should be thinking about is what is verifiable and what is neutral, keeping in mind that this is not a walled garden. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

By sides, I mean finge/doesn't exist vs. not fringe/real. Neutral should encompass both proportional to how many believe either way, unless it's an overwhelming majority, in which case the tiny minority would fit under WP:FRINGE. For example, if it could be determined that 60% of the population believes it's made up, and 40% thinks it's real, the article should balance what is included on either side based on that, rather than an overwhelming slant in either direction (real or fake). The major thing is, it shouldn't be considered fringe unless there is some way to support that. If it's simply a lack of reliable evidence, but much of society thinks it's real regardless, it's unfounded and unproven, but not a fringe idea, and the article should reflect that.

A neutral wording would go along the line of the phenomenon being proposed to exist- EVP is an idea that may or may not be real. It would then presenting evidence or purported evidence as well as other explanations that can logically explain what we're hearing. The evidence and logical explanations are already in place in this article; it really comes down to how many people believe it. 130.101.90.31 (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there seriously any sizable group that actually claim EVP collection is not a fringe activity? I've yet to see one person who believes in EVP so deluded that they don't recognize their own marginalization. Neutrality isn't about balancing proportional to the number believing a certain way. If that were the case, the evolution article would look far different. No, rather, the way we achieve neutrality is by considering reliable sourcing. There is a sincere lack of reliable sourcing on this matter: almost to the point where the very existence of the article is questionable. Nevertheless, we have been able to tease enough reliable 3rd party sources out to establish some modicum of independence for adequate sourcing and framing.

The problem with claiming the phenomenon is "proposed" to exist is that the people doing the "proposing" are not qualified in the academic sense to make such a proposal. There aren't any reliable sources who make any sort of testable proposal. While the scientific method can be applied to anything, no matter how outlandish, Wikipedia is not designed to simply parrot the wild accusations of a few nutjobs. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide "evidence" either: it's to report on what is verifiable and reliably sourced. As it is, the most reliable sources we have on this so-called "phenomenon" consign it nearly to patent nonsense.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It certainly makes sense that WP can't cater to every proposal, it just comes down to how many people believe in it. We don't need RS to determine it is real, just that people perceive it to exist. The question of if it really occurs is a separate matter. 130.101.152.70 (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy on the number of people that must believe in an idea in order for Wikipedia to "cater" to the idea. We need reliable sourcing to describe it. Whether people perceive this or that supposed phenomenon's existence is immaterial. The material question is one which necessarily concerns us -- especially when we are dealing with something that is fringe. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It is material- if a decent number of people believe it, it's not fringe. I've yet to see anything that can conclusively declare it a fringe science. The question of whether it's scientifically proven should be in the article, but we shouldn't shun the existence of a concept if it's widely recognized. There isn't scientific evidence behind creationism, but it has quite the impact nonetheless, e.g. the political battles that surround it. Because of that, it would be wrong to ignore it completely. Politicians certainly don't argue over EVP, but if it's a widely accepted concept, it should be stated as such. I would argue the labeling of this as fringe science is a rush to judgment unless we can quantify it. If we can't, in the name of neutrality, we should assume it's about half and half, believers and non-believers. In that case, it needs to be equally presented. That's why I like the idea of calling it a concept, idea, etc., because it doesn't support or deny its reality.

To put it simply, we shouldn't say it doesn't even qualify as a real concept, unless it can be proven that the general public is in agreement with that statement. Most people in the world don't believe the Holocaust deniers, but look at that article's opening: "Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II...did not occur..." EVP may be all in people's heads, but if enough people believe it, it's notable in that regard.

As for WP:RS, sources need to demonstrate that a sizable number of people at least think it's real. Searching for "EVP" in YouTube pulls 2,780 hits (I count less than five in the first 100 that referred to a different meaning of "EVP"). These aren't all by a couple of users, either; I only see a couple of user names that pop up more than once in the search results. Clearly a large number of people believe it exists, even if it amounts to their mind playing tricks. If people believe it, it's notable, and if it's notable, it shouldn't be discarded. 130.101.152.30 (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what all the fuss is about the introduction. At the moment it is line with, almost verbatim, the one essentially scientific source that is cited in the article (Imants Baruss). In his article he says that "Electronic voice phenomenon (EVP) refers to the purported manifestation of voices of the dead and other discarnate entities through electronic means." That seems much fairer than to say that EVP are sections of static that some people who believe in EVP believe to be voices. Additionally, Baruss, a skeptical scientist, even acknowledges that in his experiments he found "voices" on his tapes, and while he rejects a paranormal explanation for those voices, this fact alone would seem to put paid to the idea that they can neutrally be described as nothing more than static interpreted as voices. Zeticulan (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the analogy I thought of with this: you can define "automobile" two ways. 1) A mode of transportation; 2) A 2,000 pound steel object. Both are technically correct, but the second leaves out, basically, the whole point of the word we're defining. 130.101.20.159 (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please DO NOT revert the intro without discussion. Thank you. 130.101.152.5 (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)