Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Spiricom, again

Are there any sources in existence which can prove the success either way of the Spiricom? I've listened to the Spiricom MP3s and I'm totally unconvinced. Jonah Lark's comment in the archives regarding vocal fricatives made interesting reading and made me further doubt the authenticity of the Spiricom recordings. The page in it's current form seems to only support the theory for other devices not working as down to the operator's lack of "psychic abilities", rather than the very credible possibility that the original Spiricom was a blatant hoax. Also, other pages and sound recordings on the WorldITC website which purport to be of Mark Macy talking in the 90s to Konstantin Raudive (who died 20 years earlier) makes me think the entire website (not the whole of EVP, but just worlditc.org and The Spiricom) is just a massive hoax. Can someone prove me wrong, as I like to have an open mind on these things... Davetibbs (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

edit request

How about including the classes ghost hunters use to rate EVPs based on clarity? This seems to be brought up frequently when they are posted online, e.g. Youtube (including a proliferation of "class C" EVPs that are totally undiscernable). Source: [1] (Google cache because their server was down last time I checked). 130.101.20.161 (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A bit unreliable as a source. Wikipedia is not for something made up in school one day. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well there are more out there:

• [2]
• [3] (this link especially as the site is dedicated to EVP)
• [4]
• [5] (bottom of page)
• [6] (middle of page)

These are all sites by "paranormal researchers"/"ghost hunters"/whatever you want to refer to them as, but they're all in agreement. This would also be useful for the denial of EVP existance, as many claimed class-C EVP's basically amount to wind noise (the definition in these sites blatantly states that class-C do not have discernable words; in fact, class B is defined as not quite discernable). Personally, I'd think this would help bridge the debate on this article, as it shows the various levels of how much people will believe- do they need to hear every word with perfect clarity or will they jump at the slightest hiss or pop? Just my two cents. 130.101.90.31 (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately we'll do that, yes, at least down to class C. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd rather see something that wasn't a primary source per our guidelines on sourcing. Anyone can make up "classes" and then others might love it, but primary sources don't tell us whether this is something worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. There needs to be evidence that people elsewhere have taken note of this classification scheme. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense; this is one of those things that you see used on TV and youtube but it isn't brought up much in the print world. Did the person the article lists as popularizing the idea write any books about it? If it was their idea, that's where it would be. 130.101.90.31 (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is a recent invention, but I'm willing to be shown to be wrong. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You know I think it might be all right by WP:PSTS- it's describing the primary source, not synthesizing from it. After all, we'd be looking at wording to the tune of "EVP recorders use a classification scheme...". It's really about how many sources need to say that before it's considered to generally apply. Sounds like something people should chime in on, and let the consensus decide. 130.101.90.31 (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the primary sources we use seem a bit parochial. It would be better to have a source that is referenced by an outsider. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of good sources for the classification scheme, in print and also at authoritative websites. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

How about this about.com link. Many of About's pages are WP mirrors but this one is not. It is, however, from a source that is not a paranormal association. 130.101.152.30 (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

One could, but there are much better sources for what EVP experimenters believe and practice, such as the AA-EVP, or the printed books by experimenters. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

AAEVP is not quite good enough to source this. They make up all kinds of things at their website. What would be best is if we found someone who didn't believe in EVP reporting on the classification scheme (per WP:FRINGE#Independent sources). Barring that, if we could find one of the people mentioned in our article (like Raudive, for example) who used the classification scheme, at least that would be more authoritative than some website that Tom Butler made up one day. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The section cited says that "fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe", and only says that independent sources are needed "when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories". The issue here is about something that proponents do (that is, they categorize EVP in a certain way) and so the AAEVP is, according to that particular section, an "excellent source" for this information.Zeticulan (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You're correct. Are you the same editor as the IP above? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. I've only made the two comments here. Zeticulan (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So is there a suggestion of exactly what to put in? There are plenty of good sources for this, as it is a statement of what EVPers believe. The AA-EVP, Tom Butler's book, etc. etc. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we could say that "Many researchers categorize EVP in terms of the clarity of the recordings. For example, according to the AAEVP [substitute source here], Class A EVP are X, Class B are Y, and Class C are Z." I think that is fairly uncontroversial although some might object to the idea that any supposed EVP are clear at all (see the discussion above). We might want to make it very clear that this is a classification system used by a specific group. Unsure if that would suffice.Zeticulan (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Those aren't independent sources. We need independent sources to determine if this classification scheme is worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm the person using the IPs above, User:Zeticulan is not me, but thanks for the input. As for independent sources, that's why I suggest the about.com link- they aren't a paranormal organization. However, I agree with MartinPhi and Zeticulan that if it's a rating scheme used by paranormal researchers, those researchers should be a good source. I think SA's question is whether or not this system is used often enough to take the paranormal researcher's word on it. If that's the case, the About link should suffice; however, we need a ref from a paranormal source as well, such as AA-EVP, to show that this isn't something created by non-believers that believers don't actually use. If we use two links in that way, it demonstrates it as both in-world usage and general usage. 130.101.20.159 (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

About.com is not really a reliable source. I think we should do better than that. What we really need is a third-party source that describes the prominence of the system. Just because people believe in it doesn't mean that it deserves detailed mention on Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Let us be perfectly clear, and get it out once and for all- and not have to talk about it any more: there is no need for independent sources or reliable sources for saying something that EVPers believe. All we have to do is have sources that say they say they believe it. We do not need to have sources which independently gave them lie detector tests to prove they really believe it. In fact, we do have sources which state that this is what they believe and the ranking method they use, and that is completely and totally sufficient. 130.101.20.159 stated it well (and you should get a username (-: ). I can also provide print sources for the ranking system. Also, the AA-EVP is a good source for stating the prominence of the method within EVP circles. If they don't state it directly, then Estep's book and a few others should do- we don't need to have a statement of prominence of the method, if a lot of the best sources, like Estep, Butler, the AA-EVP etc. use it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment MartinPhi! I have a username actually. I didn't use it often to start with, then I came across the paranormal articles and related furor. As I stated at the SA suspected sock report that I and zeticulan are socks of a user named Dakval, I didn't want to use my name in this mess for fear of wikistalking and off-wiki harassment. I edit a lot of articles on other subjects and can just picture them getting invaded. 130.101.152.6 (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My, my, Davkal's using a New York State Dept of Transportation computer? Be glad he isn't a terrorist, we'd all be dead. You're being very wise in being circumspect. I'm retired from WP. For now anyway, till things have turned around. As far as I can see at WP:FRINGE, the prominence of a fringe subject, once established, may be fleshed out with in-universe sources so long as proper WP:ATT attribution is used. One does not have to establish from a mainstream source that a particular part of a fringe idea is notable to the mainstream- merely that the fringe idea as a whole is so notable. Take if from there for me! ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 09:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi seems to be under the impression that Wikipedia can serve as an "in-universe" clearinghouse for the beliefs of paranormal promoters. This is plainly not what Wikipedia is. We discuss things on Wikipedia relative to their notability, prominence, and verifiability to reliable sources. It is clear that the believers in the paranormal have a hard time producing sources that are reliable: it's their lot in life to be relegated to the fringes of mainstream society and academia (the places where Wikipedia relies most heavily for research to be conducted). As such, we are under a specific mandate by the content guidelines and policies to make sure that what we write about in this encyclopedia that is relevant to WP:FRINGE is covered using the best editorial techniques we have available. There is nothing intrinsically wrong about using a paranormal believer's personal website to source that particular paranormal believer's ideas about the world: but we absolutely must establish that the particular paranormal believer's beliefs are necessary for inclusion. We can only use such sources to provide a full "explanation" of the subject in question if we also take into consideration that no original research is allowed. Self-published works and websites are essentially original research when they begin to talk about things beyond the personal opinions of the author. Unfortunately, almost everything that the AAEVP includes beyond their statements about the history of their organization and their particular outlook is that sort of original research and will sooner or later be removed from this article. This article is standing right now as a soapbox for the beliefs of a select few of those who think that ghosts live in their radios and believe counterfactually to have a legitimate research group studying this supposed phenomenon. They are free to believe this and publish about this to their heart's content on their own web-servers. This is not, however, the point of Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's ultimately a question of whether EVP has enough of a following to be notable. This article was AfD'ed way back in 2004, and there was a unanimous opinion that it was notable enough. One "keep" was based on 6510 g-hits of "electronic voice phenomenon" being enough to warrant inclusion. I'm now getting 61,800. Obviously, this is catching paranormal sites like AA-EVP, but I also found an article on an independent news site; a page on a website that isn't paranormal, but seems to be predicting the end of the world due to global warming and other ideas (this one also mentions class A,B,C); and an article on an online newsletter that deals mainly with Islam issues. "EVP" gets 7.7 million g-hits; I count about half a dozen in the first four results pages that aren't about electronic voice phenomena, proving at least that this is the most common meaning of "EVP". As I mentioned before, "EVP" also throws 3,156 google video hits; I see three in the first forty results that aren't related, and after clicking every video in the first results page (ten per page), found all ten to be from different people (all were YouTube, all different user names). Also, I'll point out the television show Ghost Hunters; while someone who doesn't believe in ghosts would consider the show complete garbage, they record for EVPs in every episode. Surely usage on a nationally televised program would demonstrate some notability. (Unless, of course, they invented it, but webpages, various EVP-related groups (e.g. AA-EVP), and even the AfD predate the show by some time). I would definitely argue that, regardless of it's scientific verifiability, it still has a large enough following to satisfy WP:N.

I'll stress, however, that we've got a bit off-topic here. The article survived the AfD, so we don't need to assert notability on this one; there's already been a consensus. It does mean, however, that paranormal-related sources should be valid for describing things such as the class system. Your soapbox comment about AA-EVP is valid. The AA-EVP should not be cited to support a statement that EVP is real; however, it should be fine in regards to methods of recording purported EVPs, the ranking system used, etc. 130.101.20.144 (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not arguing that this page should be deleted. I am arguing that we should find people other than EVP-believers to source our text. As it is, I have yet to see a source from a non-believer discussing "classes" of EVP. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Noted. I'll point out that it would be pretty pointless for a non-believer to classify something they don't believe in. From a non-believer standpoint, all EVPs are false, so why split them into classes? Therefore, only a source that is at least by a believer (though not necessarily a group devoted to EVP, like AA-EVP) is going to use such a system. I'd personally like to see the classes included because it shows the spectrum of believability. I believe that EVPs happen, and I've heard a few class-A ones that I find convincing. I've also heard more than one class-C, that by no means of imagination could I pick out any sound that even remotely resembled a human voice. (A bit like ghost photos, I've seen some real ones, but 99.99% of the time "orbs" are dust, plain and simple.) As I pointed out with the about.com link and the Armageddon link in my last post, the best independent sources that seems to be out there are based off of summaries of pro-EVP sources. 130.101.100.108 (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Even a simple acknowledgement by independent sources that different classes exist would suffice. The problem is, we don't want the article to become more of a soapbox. However, I'm not holding my breath. I think the classificaiton system was invented simply to create the appearance of believability -- a common feature of pseudoscientific promotionalism. By the way, are you sure the class A you heard wasn't radio interference? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've heard a few. What usually convinces me is when the voice comes as an answer to a question, e.g., the ghost hunter asks if anyone is in the room, we hear "yes"; the ghost hunter asks for the name of a person believed to be in the room, we hear a common name. It's possible it's interference, but it would be a huge coincidence to coincide with the question. Something like this (around 42/43 second mark) or this, an EVP labeled as class "A" where a girl is yelling at her brother, and the purported EVP says "all sisters mean". That's my opinion, of course.

I can understand the concern of it being a recent invention. I found one page on a paranormal website that traces the classes to Sarah Estep, who founded AA-EVP. The AA-EVP actually says she got it from someone else. Estep first published it in 1988, in her book Voices of Eternity, which another AA-EVP page (see bottom) has a PDF download of (classes are on page 14). Amazon.com confirms the date of publication as 1988. The page above listing Estep's source credits it to Konstantin Raudive. Raudive published it in a paper, Breakthrough, which is linked to in the above page. The wikipedia page for Raudive says he published Breakthrough in 1971. The sources of that article aren't great, but the source that is there lists his date of death as 1974, so it can't be newer than that. 130.101.100.108 (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is source hockey. We need that actual cite to Raudive if we're going to proceed. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Outdent Fair enough. I tried to point out, but maybe wasn't clear, that a large portion of Raudive's Breakthrough is at one of the above links. It's linked to from this one; the direct link is here. The mention of the classes is in section 4.1, "Microphone Recording", starting at the sixth paragraph. He goes into pretty good detail about what each category entails. 130.101.152.66 (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Good. Now we need to establish that this classification scheme by Raudive is worthy of inclusion in this article. We need some editorial reason as to why these three classifications are more relevant than other parts of Raudive's exhaustive book. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

First, most in-universe sources mention it already, including AA-EVP, which hits at the top of a google search for EVP and electronic voice phenomenon. Additionally, we have the about.com link, which is an internet "overview" type of website. Also there's the mentioned link here and helium.com, which is a new site to me.

For a general look, searching google for "EVP class" (unquoted) gets 288,000 g-hits. As stated above, searching for EVP hits almost exclusively electronic voice phenomenon related links. At least ³/₄ of the 288,000 are related to electronic voice phenomenon. 130.101.152.17 (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This really isn't what I'm asking for. What I want is an outside (not in-universe) source that establishes that this part of Raudive's book is somehow relevant to this subject. I also don't want a search engine test. I want a secondary or tertiary source. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clear things up: 130.101.152.17, I don't know how much experience you've had, but here is the principle: once the notability of a subject is established by a mainstream source, in that the source gives the subject extensive coverage:

"In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory."

After that,

"fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe."

This includes the notability of various perspectives to the adherents of those perspectives. Thus, once WP:NOTABILITY is established by a WP:V source, the article can be fully fleshed out with fringe sources to a level of detail which is equal to that which appears in the sources, as long as we are careful to follow WP:ATT. This is all per WP:FRINGE, from which the quotes are taken. It is true that FRINGE is only a guideline, not a policy, but it should probably be followed in this case. If I am wrong, perhaps a quote from FRINGE or somewhere else can be provided, saying that each subject covered in an article on a fringe subject needs to have its Notability established by a mainstream WP:V source. Otherwise, we are placing un-needed restrictions on this article, and wasting our time doing it.

The AA-EVP is the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena [7]. It is at least the primary American organization for EVP, the in-universe equivalent of, say, the AAAS. It thus speaks for the consensus of the field in general to a considerable degree (as shown by the fact that it has a large, paying member base), and is a good source for the general agreement of EVP practitioners. It is one of the primary sources upon which this article should be based, along with the books from the main experimenters in this field.

In addition, we are quite at liberty to include the original research of others. Those are called "secondary sources" or "primary sources" [8] . In this case, for in-universe information, the AA-EVP is a secondary source for general information, and sometimes a primary source. What we are not allowed to do is include our own research. If Tom Butler came and tried to insert his own opinion in the article, without references outside the AA-EVP, it might be OR on his part. However, if we source to "Tom Butler, Director of the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena," as an expert in the field, we are just doing our job. [9] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom Butler is not an expert in anything but his own opinions. The AAEVP is not a professional organization and has no standards for scholarship. The entire subject suffers from rank amateurism and lack of rigor. This is something that will be addressed in future incarnations of this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi covers my point as does the search engine test. My point is that, with the number of hits from the search engine test, we have notability of this particular class system. Therefore, inside sources should be fine. Besides, I demonstrated a tertiary source. The About.com link is not a reliable source when used as a means of information, but that's not why we would use it here. The point is that About.com, a non-paranormal website, has seen fit to duplicate this class system, as have other non-paranormal and non-EVP websites. As I said before, a non-believer isn't going to classify something they don't believe. You can't expect an intelligent design publication, website, etc. to adhere to evolution terminology, or vise-versa. The only non-paranormal sources that are going to use this are still going to have an inherent bias towards EVP as a real phenomenon. Otherwise, there would be no point. It would certainly be an interestingly worded source that said "EVP is a load of crap, but here's their classification system..." 130.101.100.103 (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not as simple as that. There are a lot of things that get numerous hits that don't deserve mention on Wikipedia (horse porn for example). About.com is a website that has been roundly criticized here as not a reliable source (for example, it has been discouraged for people to link to it as an external link). The point is that, as a fringe topic, this idea does not get to be described on the terms of those who believe in it. Doing so violates the content guidelines and policies of this encyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It does if notability is established, which I think was Martinphi's idea. About.com has been criticized as unreliable for information, but we're not using it to establish that these classes exist; we've got Raudive for that. I'll try to make an analogy- if someone comes up with new "evidence" for a fringe theory, any fringe theory, and publishes it on a blog dedicated to that theory, it's not notable. If, however, Dateline NBC catches wind of it and runs a story on national television, now it's out there.

Besides About.com, however, we have others:

• googobits (never heard of it before now)
• helium.com
• woowoo.org (borderline in-world; not paranormal but in the busniess of researching a lot of oddities)
• Armageddon Online, was mentioned above
• newsbackup.com I retract my above statement, here is a website denouncing EVP but mentioning their classification system.

I especially like the last one; they list each class and say why it's not believable (they attribute the clarity of class-A to being faked; the claim is that class-A EVP's are only "being sponsored by large publicity seeking websites and private groups") 130.101.100.103 (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You are under the mistaken impression that when an article is deemed notable that any content that anyone believes is relevant to the article is fair game for inclusion. This is simply not the case. There are rules for how we must write the article, and the biggest is WP:NPOV. This is why "in-universe" writing is frowned upon: it is simply incapable of providing a neutral outlook. If Dateline NBC talked about the classification system, please let us know. Also, the links you are supporting are not really all that impressive. The last one you love so much is a messageboard, which is generally something excluded entirely on Wikipedia. It might be better if you branched out a bit looked for sources outside of the internet. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Outdent I don't see how it's POV to include descriptive information. Dateline NBC did not (at least as far as I know); that was a hypothetical. 130.101.20.143 (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Descriptions are POV-biased when only certain people describe them in certain ways. An extreme example might be the way Nazis describe the Jews, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the difference here is how the term applies. The Nazis have a specific way of referring to Jews, but there are other views of Jews that are outside the Nazi world. In the case of these classes, it's something that only applies to EVPs. 130.101.152.10 (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is tantamount to claiming that only believers in ghosts are allowed to describe EVP. There are examples of EVP which are clearly not ghosts nor is the arbitrary classification system developed by the ghost-believers relevant to this fact. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't going to go anywhere; I'm going to RFC the issue, and we'll go by consensus. 130.101.152.5 (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Randi

From a less academic point of view, to me the most important thing to be said about things like EVP is that James Randi's million bucks remains uncollected. I would give it at least a "See also" link. Art LaPella (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE#Parity of sources, the amazing Randi's challenge is a really good source for this page. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected and editing advice

This article is now available for editing. Those who edit war may be blocked, even if they do not technically violate 3RR. Please use the talk page or dispute resolution to resolve differences, rather than battling for editorial control. This article appears to have suffered from policy violations. Please be sure to follow WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V. Those who do not will be warned or blocked as appropriate. The current list of external links appears to violate policy. Let me know if there is further spamming and I will provide deterrence as needed. Jehochman ^Talk 18:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree about the ELs; a link to one or two or the largest EVP organizations might be appropriate if they go above Wikipedia:EL#Links normally to be avoided number 1, but this is too much. I don't want to go through every one but I'd bet money they all contain the same information. Also, the EL section is biased as it has EVP organizations and nothing in regards to skeptical/debunking organizations that may have reported on the subject. I'm going to tag it with {{External links}}; maybe we can balance it a bit. 130.101.152.10 (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of the above

Please suggest all changes on the talk page before making them, and make sure there is a consensus of editors here. This article is one of the reasons I said I was not fully retired. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

People are free to edit. There are no special restrictions. Jehochman ^Talk 21:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And if the changes get reverted, who will you block? I'm trying to avoid an edit war. Am I supposed to just accept anything an edit warring editor puts in the article? Go see the history of Bleep. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Argumentative kettle-beating. Stop Wikilawyering and leave reality alone. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I did as you said. Result: a bunch of POV edits and article re-protected. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit proposition- caption

Don't mean to suggest another edit when we're talking about one already, but I just noticed this. The caption seems a little POV against EVP, but it's also an awfully long and roundabout way of saying it. How about "Visualization of a purported EVP recording"? 130.101.152.10 (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok.

I have to be gone for a few days, will rejoin then. There are lots of other problems. The article, if I recall right, was locked because of disruptive editing, and some of the results of that will have to be reversed. I'll go over it when I can, and we can discuss. There are also problems with just bad writing, stuff which should be put better. That was one of the criticisms when I put it up for GA review, before all the disruption began. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to do that now. SA's been reverting the intro and I've requested page protection to stop it; there hasn't been any concerns over this one so I'll do it before it's locked. I'm going to do similar to the sound file caption. 130.101.152.83 (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. I included "Courtesy AA-EVP"; it needs to be noted that a pro-EVP organization is behind these; hopefully this is a neutral way of stating this. 130.101.152.83 (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. The people who work at the AA-EVP and cannot come to terms with the unreality of their advocacy get no passes at Wikipedia. See User:ScienceApologist#Description. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't care at all what your userpage says. 130.101.152.83 (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No, a userpage is not policy. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't policy, but it's a starting point for what policy might become. What would you prefer instead of ScienceApologist's unpolicies? Presumably you want ScienceApologist restricted, but there will be others, so what about the issues on ScienceApologist's user page? The status quo obviously doesn't work - in your own words, "Please be advised that the article will not become stable via such non-consensus, non-NPOV edits." I would rather see ScienceApologist advertise his debatable "policies" than simply take turns reverting and leaving us wondering why. Art LaPella (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

William O'Neil

The William O'Neil in this article is described as a (purported) electronics whiz and spiritual medium. But we have now wikilinked him to William O'Neil, whose article is about the stock market. Is there any evidence that these two are the same person? If not, the founder of Investor's Business Daily probably doesn't want to be associated with EVP. Art LaPella (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost certainly not him; I'll unlink until someone can find something saying they are the same person. 130.101.152.5 (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My mistake 207.10.234.69 (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

The edit in question would add a section to the article including a classification system for the quality of purported EVP recordings. In discussing this edit (see "edit request" above), we have determined this system to have originated from Konstantin Raudive's 1971 essay Breakthrough. The text is here; the classification system is discussed is section 4.1, beginning at paragraph 6. Editors have expressed concern that adding a section for this article would violate WP:NPOV. 130.101.152.5 (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

---

My view- it's in common usage by people who claim to have recorded EVPs. It was popularized in Sarah Estep's 1988 book Voices of Eternity, and (as one would expect) is by the AA-EVP, Estep's organization. It's also used on a number of internet purported EVPs- see this search result. It's usage is basically in-world; as I pointed out above, there would be little use for someone who believes the entire concept to be nonsense to classify these recordings by quality. It does, however, serve to point out that purported EVPs are of varying quality, not all a staticy mess. 130.101.152.5 (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My view is that this is a standard fact about the way EVP is categorized and the article will be deficient if it is not mentioned. 207.10.234.69 (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on what? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The introduction

There seems to a bit of a problem with the introduction. Here are some problems with one of the versions

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are sections of static [says who - no source] on the radio or other electronic recording media [radio is a "broadcast" rather than a "recording" medium] that are interpreted by some people who believe in the subject and call themselves paranormal researchers [what are these people really if not what they call themselves and does nobody else who just calls him/herself "a person" believe this as well) as voices speaking words [what else would voices be doing]. Some of these people attribute these noises [who says they are noises rather than voices or stray radio – no source] to ghosts or spirits [what do the others say]. Skeptics of the paranormal attribute the voice-like aspect of the sounds to auditory pareidolia, radio interference [skeptics actually attribute the “voice like aspects” of them to them being voices – e.g., hoaxes or radio interference], and other well-documented phenomena (such as…).

Puuuleeease.207.10.234.69 (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Your first point is correct - the word "other" should be removed to make it clear that radio is not an electronic recording medium. Antelan ^talk 01:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes! That's correct. I'll fix it. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That version has been reverted. The user that put it there is going against consensus. I'm going to ask for page protection, as this editing the intro got it protected last time. 130.101.152.83 (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The people who believe in this phenomenon do not deserve to frame it. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, the people who do not believe in it have no business defining it. 130.101.152.83 (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and try to fly that somewhere on Wikipedia. We aren't Wikinfo, after all. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How predictable. The article is unprotected, people edit-war in a bunch of non-consensus derogatory edits, and the article is re-protected. Please be advised that the article will not become stable via such non-consensus, non-NPOV edits. I'm glad I stayed away this time, because I've been blamed in the past. Can't blame me this time. I think everyone would agree, however, that the article is POV. I suggest we ask that the POV or totally-disputed tag be put on by consensus, and the article re-protected. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Nomenclature. It's natural that para-normal researchers would call themselves "researchers". It's also natural to connote "scientific" from "researcher". We agree (I hope) that general scientists do not consider paranormal research to be scientific. I propose the use of the term "investigator" instead of "researcher"; so instead of "researchers say ..." or even "paranormal researchers say ..." we could use "investigators say...", without connoting scientific credibilty (particularly, where there is none). We must agree that while ghosts may be communicating with us through the radio, our understanding of the phenomenon is currently not scientific. When magnetism was discovered, it wasn't science yet; the investigators called themselves magicians and alchemists. They certainly did conduct good research, which became scientific, but they also made helpless guesses, coming up with broad and inaccurate generalities (such as opposites attract). Good work is not necessarily science (it may lead to science) and science is not always good (some good scientific method doesn't lead to results). Pete St.John (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think many of the points you make are reasonable but I don't think they address the concerns expressed above. The current introductory sentence has no source, and probably can have no source, because it it a peculiar definition that you wouldn't find anywhere else. Everywhere else EVP are described as purported voices of spirits etc. The non-current introduction is therefore in line with virtually every source that one can find. It also could have come straight from the Skeptic's Dictionary so there is no question of pro-paranormal bias. Add to that the cumbersome and sniping "interpreted by some people who believe in the subject and call themselves paranormal researchers as voices speaking words" and the contrasting and neutral "proponents of EVP commonly attribute the phenomenon to" (which, note, makes no claims which could be construed as suggesting that the proponents are scientists) and there seems very little to recommend the current introduction over the non-current one.207.10.234.69 (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Good points, I think the problem with SA's introduction is that he's given a problematic definition of the term. See my second-to-last (non bolded) post at the section "Moving on" above.130.101.152.155 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the majority of the advocacy above is obviously being perpetrated by the "pro-EVP" crowd in that these people with their comments indicate their strong true belief that there are ghosts talking through electronic recordings. While this casts a pall on their opinions, we are here to write a neutral encyclopedia about this topic which, basically, is believed by a lot of people who are uneducated, ignorant of reality, basing their ideas on wishful thinking, etc. So, to that end, their contributions are welcomed and will help us. But ultimately, these ideas must be marginalized because this is a verifiable encyclopedia, not a paranormal wonderland.

So let's take one thing at a time. User:Nealparr, no obvious friend to skeptics, supported this introduction as a way to frame the places where this so-called "phenomena" crops up. Indeed, the way people collect EVP is by listening to static and noise. That's a fact: it's a fact admitted to by AAEVP and everyone else who believes in ghosts in electronoic media. We can source it very easily and will do so as soon as the article is unprotected.

In terms of investigators: that's fine with me. I think "ghost hunter" might also be good. The fact is, of course, that these people are rank amateurs who believe this nonsense.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've blocked 130.101.152.155 for disruption, tendentious editing and general querulousness. I suspect it's our old friend Tom Butler anyway, and his account is not blocked. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Why would the "pro-EVP" crowd be advocating a definition that comes straight from the Skeptic's Dictionary (I note that the word "static" is not mentioned in the SD entry for EVP)? 2. Why wait until the article is unprotected to reveal your "source"? Why not just provide it now for all to see (and appraise)?SixHorseParley (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would a brand new user come here as their first edit? Oh, wait, I know the answer to that. Please go back to your main account so we have can give your opinion proper weight, otherwise it will be ignored. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

JzG or Guy ... which is it? Your block of 130.101.152.155 may be a hasty, judging by your accusation that I am 130.101.152.155. You said, "Please go back to your main account so we have can give your opinion proper weight, otherwise it will be ignored." In my off-wiki writing I strongly encourage people to register using their real name. As I think is so clearly demonstrated in Wikipedia, expressing a strong personality from behind a fictitious screen name turns people into a schoolyard bully. I don't know who 130.101.152.155 just as I don't know who you are, but I certainly am not it that person, but I agree that the opinion of anyone hiding behind a screen name is best ignored.

I am mystified as to why you think I am the only person offended by SA. That must be your view, otherwise I doubt you would have been so quick to block .155 apparently at the expense of a whole school. Can't you see that he has run off almost all of the editors who are not radically afraid of new ideas? You just blocked one for hardly any reason and now you have made it so that new people cannot edit here. Is that right? Do you see now that SA is gleefully editing unopposed in the EVP article? Do you see that you are clearly helping him? If you are really an admin, that looks pretty bad for Wikipedia.

I love the comment: "I would say that this article deserves to have the Official Wiki Pseudoscience-PoV-Push-backer Pitbull sicked on it. Pete St.John" that I found on SA's page. How many of you think of SA as your attack dog? Tom Butler (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarity, (1) I have in the past myself been offended by SA, (2) he's certainly not my personal attack dog, he won't speak up for either his pal Ronz or for me in our dispute, so maybe he's not anyone's personal attack dog. Finally, I phrased it that way because this article is such a damn mess. I wouldn't think of touching it myself. Among SA's virtues is, apparently, a very strong stomach. Pete St.John (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Opening sentence.

"Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are sections of static on the radio or electronic recording media that are interpreted by some people who believe in the subject and call themselves paranormal investigators as voices speaking words."

How could any bunch of reasonable people come up with an opening sentence such as this? The Rationalist (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

For example, why not just omit the bold portion: "Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are sections of static on the radio or electronic recording media that are interpreted by some people who believe in the subject and call themselves paranormal investigators as voices speaking words". What is the point (in a general introduction) of adding the fact that the 'some people' believe in 'a subject' (what subject - no subject has yet been mentioned) and that they 'call themselves' by this name? Or why not call them paranormal investigators? Is it to acknowledge the possibility that one could call oneself a 'paranormal investigator' but not actually be one? In which case, what are the criteria of demarcation? This makes little sense. The Rationalist (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, The Rationalist. I tried to rework the opening sentence. Please edit it as you see fit. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that wording is a hodge podge of compromises trying to over-define it, qualifying everything. I think simplest is best, so I too would dump the bolded section. I would also dump "static on the radio or" since editors have pointed out that radio isn't electronic media and it's not always in static. That section of the sentence doesn't add anything and instead takes away -- not EVP if not in static? that sort of thing. Cut, you end up with "Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are sections of electronic recording media that are interpreted by some people as voices speaking words", which reads fine to me. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the point of the original edit (by SA) was to begin with an assertion about what these phenomena are, namely 'static' in the sense of 'white noise', i.e. random phenomena. Now these are not random electrical phenomena (like lightning) but electrical, strictly electromagnetic phenomena as interpreted by devices (radios, tvs, tapes, computers) intended for human perception, via transducers. But that's a bit of a mouthful. Since we agree in principle on the direction of the edit, shall we think about the wording? The Rationalist (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the difficulty is that EVP is not a synonym for "static", but connotes esoteric interpretation. So I suggest: "EVP refers to interpretation of static in electronic acoustic media (such as radios) as meaningful messages from some esoteric or Paranormal source." Pete St.John (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

But it's not just electronic acoustice, but visual devices like TV's (I admit my only knowledge is from a film I saw). And 'static' should not risk being confused with 'static electricity'. It's just a matter of wording. The Rationalist (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

that's why I said "electronic accoustic media (such as radios)" instead of "radios" and why I linked "static-radios" for static, to distinguish from static electricity. No simple sentence can be perfect. You have to use the body of the article to amplify and explain. The lead sentence should give a good approachable definition, it can not be a perfect all-encompassing explanation. Pete St.John (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything overtly wrong with what SA has up there now except the "static on the radio or" part. Radio isn't electronic media, and white noise/static doesn't contain fluctuations that could be interpreted as voices. Strictly speaking, something that could be interpreted as a voice would have variations beyond beyond what you see in white noise, which is by definition uneventful. An EVP is an unexpected event occuring where there shouldn't be one, regardless of whether the event is interpreted as voices or some normal mundane phenomena. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, white noise, by definition, has random fluctuations. Listen to enough static for long enough and you will here a random fluctuation that sounds like something other than a random fluctuation. This is how "EVP" were "discovered". Hundreds if not thousands of hours listening to static waiting for that "voice from beyond". If you stare at a random number generator for long enough, you will see the sequence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. Does that mean there is a ghost counting at you? This is the point this first sentence is illustrating: and it's an important one. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Granted, I'm no audio expert and am just lurking here, but isn't white noise combining all frequencies to drown out any particular frequency? Thus if something were noticed as "different" to where it could be interpreted as anything, that's a dominant frequency and thus not white noise? Using your example of a random number generator, something that is supposed to be completely random and absent of patterns, noticing a pattern means that it isn't really random. Noticing a pattern in white noise means that it isn't really white. Right? I'm not talking about ghosts and goblins here, just whether "white noise" is the right term. If there's a pattern (mundane or otherwise) it's not really white. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In order to have all frequencies, you must have some variation in the actual signal. This is the "hiss" of white noise heard on the radio or a blank television channel. Listening to that "hiss" long enough and you will pick up background patterns where some frequencies are more pronounced than others due to finite sampling, incomplete spectra, and just plain randomness. The fact is, one can never have truly (perfectly) white noise without having access to impossible infinities. We only approximate it. This ensures that patterns will eventually be recognized. See white noise for more. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. Since the article says "static" and not "white noise" it's not really an issue anyway. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops excuse me I just remembered that this is electronic voice phenomena, so 'electronic acoustice' devices is OK. Neal, my point was that if we are to be precise, it is white noise phenomena in these devices which is under consideration, not just any old electrical phenomena. 'Radio' is too particular, presumably any sound producing device that picks up electrical white noise (a computer, an amp, a tape recorder, any electro-acoustic device whatever) will do. The Rationalist (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really arguing that. Radio (device) rather than radio (signal) is an electrical device, sure. I'm just going off the less is more approach that you outlined in this section. I don't think radio adds anything. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, the film I saw had white noise or 'snow' from the TV. Presumably there is a visual equivalent of EVP? The Rationalist (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

and yes, the sentence right now is an improvement. Maybe I prefer mine but not enough to argue over. (The Rat, a visual equivalent, with really old tech, is numerological interpretation of the Bible. This is an ancient urge, that parallels the scientific activity of searching for meaning in chaos.) Pete St.John (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I also didn't notice the article has been edited recently. Yes, it looks much better now. The Rationalist (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC) PS The film I was thinking of was White Noise (film), which did have the protagonist staring at a TV. The Rationalist (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

An opening that is not point of view pushing

Okay, now that is pushing a point of view if I ever saw it. SA, you said, "This is the point this first sentence is illustrating: and it's an important one." in reference to making sure the opening sentence points out that people are listening to static until they finally hear something. In fact, static, white noise, pink or brown doesn't matter. These days, most experimenters use nothing but some use ambient sounds. We recommend a common fan--anything with abundant human voice-frequency energy since the utterances generally found between 200 Hz and 3 KHz. I just put up a few examples at [10] that were collected using Portuguese-language crowd babble as background noise.

In the online listening test at [11] one of the examples was taken using radio sweep, which is bits and pieces of real people talking supposedly opportunistically selected to form the message. No static.

SA, most of the edits you have made thus far have been to tightly link EVP with things that you can discount such as Spiritualism (thanks for dragging that old dog in NealPar) and Edison. That is also pushing point of view since both have only a passing relationship. Spiritualism is to EVP as astrology is to astronomy. Edison is to EVP as Isaac Asimov is to robotics.

The Rationalist, it is correct that there are visual forms of these phenomena, search video ITC [12] in Google and you will see many examples. We think the same physical processes are involved in both, in that whatever the small signal is that begins the formation of a voice or image, is acted on in the broad-spectrum noise by stochastic resonance. I think SA can explain to you in some detail how order naturally forms in such an environment. This "order" is not normally intelligent, but in a video loop looks a little like a science fiction version of looking forward at warp drive. We think that the "seed" influence exists to cause that natural order is influenced to make it appear as an utterance or an image. Both are demonstrably analogs of the real thing and both are formed in the electronics--not as audible voice/sounds or visible light in the room.

You can see the results on various websites. Of course, you will have to join us in our delusion to do so. You can also find alternative explanations, such as the examples are fraud or you are momentarily mad if you don't mind indicting hundreds of people. Whatever, the point is that if you are going to describe EVP, then you really should consider describing it as it is thought to be, not as you wish it is. If you are going to include ITC in this article, then you should include the visual form, since ITC involves any technology-based trans-communication.

It would be better to say that "people claim," and then say what is claimed, rather than all of that hand waving trying to make sure people don't believe it. Tom Butler (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Tom, I'm not drawing a connection to Spiritualism. The connection's already there. Section 4 on the talk page shows how there is a connection. When you have a connection, you can either choose to ignore it or note it. The connection's historical, so it's noted in the history section. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What Tom is admiting to here is that it isn't just "white noise" but it is any kind of "noise" regardless of color. That's useful. Thanks Tom. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

NealPar, the real point for SA is to have "radio" in the sentence because that automatically implies RF contamination. It is not about the static at all. Tom Butler (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I think that according to your own website there is evidence that EVP investigators use RF receivers to listen for EVP. That's all I'm getting at. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Some setups, such as Spiricom and the MacRae device have a RF transceiver stage, but they are very unique. One of our experimenters is using an optical transistor link. The point is that the majority--I would guess near 99.9% of people use a digital voice recorder and ambient noise. Some don't even use a mic. I think the radio bit is your version of reality to fit your view of the phenomena. Tom Butler (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Tom, I'm sure nobody wants to make a statement about all paranormal researchers. If SA's statement as it stands is correct, please concede it, and suggest additions. But surely Wiki is not the best place to debate the most effective way to conduct EVP research (with or without RF transceivers). Also it's not great rhetoric to give two examples of something "very unique" in the same way. Pete St.John (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

PeterStJohn, I found The Rationalist's comment about his background in EVP fascinating and wanted to expand a little about noise. I regret that you felt my examples were "great rhetoric." My point was the variety of sound other than static. Perhaps if you learned a little more about EVP you would understand the importance of the varietry.

Given the condition that the opening section has been in, I have to admit that SA has done a good job in finding a relatively neutral line. I am not happy about the radio reference, but anyone bothering to study the subject in more detail will see that the point is outdated. My job is to study these phenomena and teach people about them. I look at this article from the perspective of what a person new to the subject will conclude. It is not at all important that they come away believing in EVP, but it poses problems if they come away thinking it is something that it is not. A radio is a sound source. EVP is recorded with various sound source as raw energy.

The intro is mixing apples and oranges. To my knowledge there are only three people who use/have used radio as a direct source of utterances. Bacci and Cardoso use what is known as Direct Radio Voice (DRV) in which apparent phenomenal utterances come directly from the radio. (Cardoso is a good friend of Fontana, which is reference 4, if you care to examine his most direct background source.) Spiricom was also a version of DRV. All of the empirical evidence indicates these are not actually EVP, but are novel forms of direct voice. The distinction matters because we can teach a person to record EVP using a plain old recorder, but we have never been able to teach DRV. If a person watches White Noise and reads the current intro, they would likely sit in front of the radio as SA describes, waiting for EVP. Tom Butler (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

NealPar, I see that the Attila von Szalay has been disconnected from the Spiritualism reference. I think he succeeded with EVP in '47 without Bayless. He was looking for a way of testing whether or not he was imagining direct voice. EVP was a secondary factor.

Your connection to Spiritualism is a reach and I should remind you that I came to edit this article more than a year ago because it said that the AA-EVP's relationship to Spiritualism makes it necessary to question the validity of EVP. You are making a very tenuous relationship a big deal that can be used to discredit the subject in a way that is simply unfounded. Why would you do that?

EVP and Spiritualism share belief in dead people who can communicate with us and mediumship. That is about it. Spirit photography is not ITC. In it, an entity happens to be in the scene when the picture is taken and the camera images what the eye cannot. In ITC, images that to be honest we simply cannot characterize with any conviction (so are convincingly people and some have been forensically identified) but are clearly formed in available optical energy. Many times, as in the video loop approach, a picture is taken only as a way of recording the noise. Any technique, such as moving water or reflected light might be used for ITC and the resulting phenomena is not necessarily that of a local ghost.

In other words, our apparent reason for beginning the history of ITC with Spiritualism is not as well founded as it would seem. Tom Butler (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, we could use the book you wrote yourself as a reference for how Spiritualism is used in this article. In our article at Wikipedia, we are talking about what led up to people using technology to contact spirits. In your book (talking about von Szalay and Bayless), it says "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..."[13] That's one connection, but it's a latter connection. The previous connection is what is most relevant. What led up to people trying to contact spirits through electronic voice devices is the belief that spirits can even be contacted at all, and that technology can aide them in doing so. That comes directly from Spiritualism. If there never was a Spiritualist movement, people wouldn't have been even trying to contact spirits. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not said that I have recorded the voices of living people. I said that Lisa and Sarah have, and that the French have. I put their article up at, [14] but I suspect someone here could contact them directly at [15] and take me out of the picture on that subject. Tom Butler (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Radio is not sound. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it is a technology that produces sound as a purpose of that technology. It is a source of sound, and if the output is not modulated with an inelegant signal, that output is called noise. Maybe I don't understand your confusion. Tom Butler (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Radio does not produce sound. Speakers produce sound. Radio is not a source of sound. Speakers are a source of sound. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary.com says radio is "an apparatus for receiving...radio broadcasts", but I don't get the point. Tom asserts that radio is neither EVP as you define it (that is, static noise - Tom says radio is used only in a phenomenon he can't reproduce), nor a source of such EVP, nor is it used at all with such EVP. If so, then by any definition (short of misleadingly defining tape recording electronics as radio) it shouldn't be in the first sentence. Art LaPella (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Arecibo is a radio by dictionary.com's definition. It does not output any sound. Tom asserts that radio receivers aren't used in EVP, but he has RF-receivers mentioned as EVP-gatherers on his own website. People use sound-recorders, but they also listen to radio and television broadcasts. Radio is not "static noise". Static noise are the signals that EVP proponents try to analyze whether it comes from increasing the noise floor of their bad electronic sound recorder or by listening to radio frequencies.

Okay, I have to go away for a week and am not sure about my Internet access, so I will just say this: SA, you are studiously evading the point. Since I understand that you are a physics teacher, I am accusing you of evading the point, otherwise I would have to accuse you of being a moron and I certainly do not want to do that. Any fool knows that the output of radio is sound and in EVP sound is used as the raw energy for the formation of EVP. Radio does not equal recorder and I think you know that. I suspect you just need the out that association of radio gives room for RF contamination. When you are ready for honest collaboration, I will return. Tom Butler (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Any fool knows that the output of radio is sound and in EVP sound is used as the raw energy for the formation of EVP." Um, no. Radio waves are not sound waves. End of story. The output of radiowaves are radiowaves. The output of a mechanical radio may be sound if you allow for the signal to be looped through an inductor that has a moveable bladder between the coils. That's not a "radio", though. That's a speaker. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I went to bed tired and irritated. After trying the sarcastic rude side, it reads pretty silly on my part. I apologize for letting my irritation get the best of me.

Even so, you are studiously missing the point. I will not debate the electrical characteristics of deheterodyne technology used to recover an intelligent signal from a carrier signal. All the people working with EVP are interested in is the noise that comes from the speaker of a radio. Radio has been traditionally used because people usually had one in the house, and in the early days, it was believed that EVP is like direct voice but too quiet to be heard, which we now know it is not. It is generally characterized as white noise, although it is technically neither static or white noise. The radio is equivalent to a fan as far as EVP is concerned, but it is not equivalent to a recorder.

Got to go now. Tom Butler (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So since people used radios, I see no reason to not mention them. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)