Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Looking in the wrong place?

I've been going over the history of EVP, and was wondering if people have been looking in the wrong place for science for/against EVP.

Since quite a few of the books and references that I've seen appear to be European rather than American in origin, wouldn't it be advisable for us to start looking at non-English language media as well.

Who knows, there might be an indisputable study proving/debunking EVP sitting there waiting in a German journal or a French study.

perfectblue 19:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Not being a scientist, I don't purport to know how the international scientific community communicates. I assume it shares research via journals, and that there is a provision for translation of this material so that scientists of varying languages can participate in peer review, etc. So in answer to your question, my opinion is that it's highly unlikely some significant research is going unnoticed by the USA because it was originally published in French or German. --- LuckyLouie 20:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

It works quite well when European journals picking up on American entries, but I'm not so convinced that it works the other way around, particularly when dealing with fringe topics.

In my experience, Mainstream US science interests seems to be extremely reticent to cover issues relating the paranormal and pseudoscience. They seem to even avoid debunking it. Some of which is, no doubt, down to concerns that even giving such things a fair hearing could be seen as condoning them in the eyes of other mainstream groups, which could potentially damage their reputations.

perfectblue 21:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

English-speaking journals, by and large, don't pick up non-English speaking articles unless they have a significant find in them and even then they're hit-and-miss. Anyone remember the use of Phage in Soviet hospitals as a method of disinfecting wards? According to my notes, this was reported in Russian-speaking journals but ignored by the West because it wasn't a report in English and I'm sure the majority would agree that a method of killing bacteria without resorting to antibiotics is a significant discovery. Paranormal research doesn't class as significant to the English-speaking scientific world so if there were any reports in other journals they'd be easy to overlook.

Having said that, I have serious doubts as to whether EVP, or any other paranormal research when we get right down to it, would appear in non-English speaking journals any more than they would in an English-speaking journal. Having looked at some during my degree course I didn't see a difference in their approach to science compared to English-speaking journals; although I admit I only read a few of the French ones and even then they were only on Particle/Nuclear physics so others may differ. In my experience, they're just as focussed on "hard" science as the English journals. --Zoe.R 00:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that any extraordinary study would likely be translated... any study with unremarkable results might not. Perhaps we can drop some "babelfish" requests on other language wikis to see if they have sources to share? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There are very few notable scientific journals published in languages other than English these days. Most scientific institutions conduct their meetings in English, even when they are in such disparate locations as Japan, Germany, or Chile. --ScienceApologist 20:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There are few notable science journals that would actually publish an article on EVP, regardless of whether it found for/against EVP. It needn't be notable, just reliable and verifiable.

perfectblue 21:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you would need to find a reliable journal. Paranormal journals are not reliable sources of scientific information, regardless of conclusions. Jefffire 11:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As I have said quite a few times before. The source must be appropriate for the subject. You use a good science source when discussing the scientific aspects of EVP, and a good paranormal source when discussing the paranormal aspects of EVP.

Besides, I don't believe that you would consider any journal to be reliable if it specialized in covering the paranormal, no matter what standards it applied. I also notice that you haven't specified your criteria for the unreliability of the sources.

perfectblue 12:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The most easily quantified criteria is impact facters. You are free to believe whatever you choose about my motivations and opinions on journals. However, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines still stand. Jefffire 12:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Impact" factors, however you choose to define them, have little, if any, merit for an article about a fringe subject. Furthermore, you have yet to state which, if any, of Wikipedia's "policies and guidelines" the references we are discussion fail to meet. The consensus here is that the references do meet all of the policies and guidelines which apply to paranormal. If you wish to continue saying they do not, it is up to you to state which part or parts they do not meet. Stating "policies and guidelines" in general, as you have done, is unacceptable. --Zoe.R 16:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. The mentioned journals etc are widely circulated and long enough published for WP:V for WP:Notability, and they meet WP:RS when dealing with the paranormal, which is what we are using them for, reporting on the paranormal, not on science. You need paranormal sources to explain the nature of the paranormal, and science sources to deal with the science, if there is any.

perfectblue 13:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Prescence or absence of paradolia is a scientific question, as is the objective existance of evp. Jefffire 12:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read my comment again. I specifically said that Paranormal sources are appropriate for providing information on the the Paranormal, not that they were suitable for both science and the paranormal.

1) Paradolia is being referenced using a book which attempts to use to explain how things that appear paranormal often are not. A science source speaking about science in the context of the paranormal, not a paranormal source using pseudo science to try and legitimize the paranormal.

2) Editors should not discuss the objective existence of something outside of the talk page. That would be WP:OR. We are only permitted to introduce material where others have discussed it.

perfectblue 13:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Readability

I organized the History section with an eye to optimizing flow and readability. I also included a summary of Spiricom, and tried to break out AA-EVP as a separate "beat" in the story. I am not married to anything, so feel free to suggest changes. --- LuckyLouie 20:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I also brought the two opposing "standpoints" under one heading: "Possible explanations". This method seems to work well in the article on Dowsing. The "Paranormal" standpoint desperately needs some expansion. --- LuckyLouie 02:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Pareidolia

Could everybody listen to the EVP sample on included on the main page, and write down what they think it says (or what you can stretch your imagination to thinking that it says).

(I've added my interpretation at the very end of this thread)

perfectblue 12:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that you've told me what to listen for ("XXXX) I won't bother listening, since that, or something like it, is what my brain will attempt to hear. --- LuckyLouie 19:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is actually a valid part of the experiment. Will you hear what I said was there, or will you hear something totally different? Has my assigning a value to the audio created a bias in your thinking?

I don't know if it's been done in relation to EVP, but there have been other experiments that have shown that people will be more likely to say see or hear patterns if another person has told them that they are there (you listen out for that particular pattern).

perfectblue 08:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in seeing what other people see in the clip... that's a small part of why I didn't put any kind of interpretation with it. (bigger part is verifibility. :p) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's now essentially pointless doing so. Once someone has told you want you are "supposed" to hear—i.e. what they heard—then your interpretation is potentially affected by what you have been told. perfectblue should have canvassed people's interpretations, and then said "I heard XXXX, will you listen to it again and see if this affects your perception of what was said?" This now can't be done — BillC ^talk 14:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"XXXX" isn't the interpretation that was indicated at the source of the sound file. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If I'd come out directly and said "People are given an interpretation and then they are bias for it", I bet there would be several people here rubbishing it and saying that it wouldn't apply to them.

perfectblue 16:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

http://depts.washington.edu/ctltstaf/cc/images/clouds.jpg I see shapes in the clouds. What do you see? --- LuckyLouie 18:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

{{Spoilers}}

Commented out as per request, edit to view

{{endspoilers}}

Mind commenting it out? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Time to archive some?

Discussion page getting too long and unwieldy. Body of article seems to be progressing, but dispute over initial description remains active. Archiving some of the old TALK material may encourage discussion and consensus. --- LuckyLouie 19:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Get an Archive bot to do it.

Initial description, again

The initial description is a complete and utter disgrace. What is needed is brief summary followed by a pure description of EVP; A description of what EVP actually is, that is a dictionary definition - with no assumptions and no presumptions - of EVP as a paranormal phenomena and what its characteristics are. Something that is completely devoid of POV, criticism and science/the lack there of.

EG EVP is ..... as it would be defined if it were a 100% proven part of science.

Criticism, supposition and skepticism should not come until after something has been defined, not right in the middle of the definition.

perfectblue 21:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I follow. "EVP" is not a catch-all term for unexplained sounds (such as"UFO" is for unexplained flying objects). The "reality" of EVP is agreed upon only by proponents. So any definition would have to at least include the idea of EVP as a "belief" and not a fact according to science. Aside from that, I agree that details such as peer-review status are better suited to the non-paranormal explanation section. --- LuckyLouie 22:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"The "reality" of EVP is agreed upon only by proponents"

That would be a good place to start. What exactly do proponents think EVP is? I will give you a hint, they don't think that it is "voices or voice like sounds". It doesn't matter that EVP is not a fact proven by science, only that readers know what on Earth believers and skeptics are talking about when they refer to EVP. Definition first, facts and history second, criticisms last. Thats the way that a report on anything should go. Set the premises, explain the facts/history, introduce the debate.

As things stand, there is no clear description of EVP, only a vague suggestion that it has something to do with voices on tape that scientists don't believe exist. This sounds more like a warranty dispute over defective audio cassettes than the lead in for a paranormal phenomena.

perfectblue 08:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the opening line is awkward and of little use to the reader. I think the trend toward an awkward and technical sounding first line began when our subject matter expert came on the scene. He opposed layman's language such as, "EVP is a term used to describe alleged voices of spirits caught on tape". --- LuckyLouie 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with both of you here as I think Perfectblue has missed the point and I can't agree that LuckyLouie's layman's term would benefit the article. Yes, paranormal believers may well think the voices they hear are actually something other than "voices or voice like sounds" but the nature of their belief can come later in the article. What we're dealing in the opening paragraph is the nature of the phenomenon itself, which is the recording of a sound that may or may not be a voice and whose cause is unknown. I use the term 'unknown' there because I have seen no research that claims to have proven conclusively what the cause of these sounds is.

I therefore have to stand by the opening paragraph saying "EVPs are voice or voice-like sounds captured on recordable media" since I think it is the best definition we're going to get. --Zoe.R 23:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

status

In most articles on similar phenomena, there is an explanation in the lede paragraph of how this fits into the general scheme of things. --think of the para. as a summary of th earticle: most of it describes the phenom, but the status is mentioned. Deferring all criticism to the end is POV pushing.

Peer review was requested, and I suggest that the article should follow the pattern of others similar. The current state needs copyediting, but does do what it basically should: It describes what is claimed, and gives + and - views of it by citing sources. I see in the string of comments an attempt to say that there is no negative criticism, which is not the case.

Summaries of the evidence must be fair. If there is negative criticism that is cited, then it is obvious that not everyone agrees. The discussion is not aided by insistence that it isn't so-- it makes those arguing for the + side look like they are attempting to silence criticism, which does not look well to anyone from outside. I consider myself outside, for I never heard of this topic till yesterday. The purpose of the article is to enlighten people like myself. DGG 23:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Decca studios" EVP session

I am starting to think the story of the 1933 Decca seance/experiment/thing will never be properly cited or be subject to reliable verification. It has all the earmarks of one of those apocryphal stories, like the Edison myth, misquoted and passed from person to person, each of whom embroiders it a little bit in the process. Consider this version:

http://www.aaevp.com/articles/articles_about_evp1.htm

The earliest known scientific attempt at receiving communication with the so-called dead via recording equipment - apart from Edison's solitary work in the 1920's - was on April 23rd. 1933, in the studios which later became known as Decca Records. Members from the American Society for Psychical Research (ASPR) and engineers from Western Electric Company worked with the studio engineers. These engineers had devised test conditions that they thought would eliminate any chance of fraud. However, a deceased engineer and an eminent research engineer in the science of sound spoke many times into many unusually placed microphones and they also moved their voice levels up to 3 - 5,000 cycles, way beyond the range of any human being. Records were kept at the ASPR offices, but the crucial test stayed in the hands of the studio engineers who refused to testify publicly that spirit voices had been recorded.

And this version:

http://www.okpri.com/TheMysteryofEVP.htm

On April 23, 1933, The American Society For psychical Research (ASPR), along with engineers from Western Electric Company worked with studio engineers and produced Decca Records, which were "Records that recorded communication with the dead through "so-called" dead recording equipment. Testing was conducted to eliminate any chances of recording fraud. A research engineer in the science of sound, spoke several times into many unusually placed microphones & moved his voice levels up to 3-5000 cycles, way beyond any human's range. Records were kept at the ASPR offices, but crucial tests stayed in the hands of studio engineers who refused to testify publicly that they had indeed recorded spirit voices.

There are other versions as well. A number of red flags go up right away:

• According to one account, the studio wasn't Decca (yet). According to another, "Decca" was the name they gave the recordings of the dead (?) Obviously there is an attempt here to create confusion with world-famed Decca records, perhaps to add credibility?
• 3 - 5K cycles (Hz) is "way beyond the range of any human being"? Since normal human females can average harmonics up to 8K, this is not only bad science, it's ignorance.
• Western Electric was involved? How? Of course there are no records of this.
• Studio engineers "refused to testify that spirit voices had been recorded"??? Alleging a "conspiracy to silence the truth" is a HUGE red flag.

The icing on the cake is that the ONLY documentation of this entire alleged experiment is supposedly kept in ASPR files. According to the oft-quoted passage, ""Records were kept at the ASPR offices, but the crucial test stayed in the hands of the studio engineers"". Right. The entire story is full of holes and extremely questionable. But unless someone can produce an actual document corroborating this tale, I say remove this reference. Wikipedia should not be involved in proliferating myths. --- LuckyLouie 04:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. If evidence can't be cited and it doesn't serve any other purpose in the article (i.e. it's not a straight-up example of a pro-paranormal belief in EVP) then it's taking up space that could be better used for something else. --Zoe.R 23:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia should not be involved in proliferating myths" Not necessarily in relation to this specific instance (Decca), but it's already been agreed over on the projects page that it's perfectly OK for Paranormal articles to report on "Notable myths", even if the myth itself has no basis in fact. This goes back to the old argument that "a lie can effect on events and opinions just as much as the truth", making it's inclusion valid. This applies mostly in cases of hoaxes and urban myths, but also applies when writing a history of a paranormal field. For example, the William Hope photographs are now known to be fakes, but they were influential in their time and so are a valid inclusion in the history of spirit photography even through they don't actually show realspirits.

perfectblue 12:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Old Talk was not deleted

Tom Butler comments here [[1]: The (Wikipedia article Talk) page did go back to May, 2005, but old entries were recently deleted. To be fair, the page was becoming too long, but I had expected that they would have used the archive capability, rather than deleting what I consider an important source of research. I will be happy to email a copy if anyone whishes to read the deleted entries.

• The contents were not deleted, they are still here. Look at the very top of this page on the right. Click on the number "1" under the filing cabinet marked "Archives". --- LuckyLouie 16:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction LuckyLouie, I will make the change. I saw the Archive feature but just checked 2 and 3. Bad assumption on my part. Tom Butler 17:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I fixed that, I hope. --- LuckyLouie 17:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Add a summary of MacRae?

Is there any support for adding a brief summary of MacRae (before or after Baruss), since EVP proponents consider his efforts to be significant and contemporary? --- LuckyLouie 02:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If he's significant then I think he should be mentioned. --Zoe.R 23:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

He is mentioned on AA-EVP and ITC, as well as cut-and-pastes on dozens of other EVP enthusiast sites, so it appears he is notable enough to deserve mention in this article, and serves to round out our admittedly basic layman's overview of "who's-who" in the EVP world. --- LuckyLouie 01:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary sources

There is a sweeping assertion in the summary which is not supported by the source:

"no peer reviewed literature exists in support of its existence"

Whereas the source says that:

"No effort has been made to review information in languages other than English or to review information available on the Internet."

How can such a sweeping assertion be made on such a basis? You are making an assertion about what does not exist, and such assertions are much harder to support than assertions of what has been found to exist.

Also, the source does not say that none of the research found was peer reviewed, but rather says it was not in mainstream scientific journals. It does not say that "no peer reviewed literature exists in support of its existence."

I do not think that the skepdic.com is an authoritative source which should be used in a summary. Rather, it should be used only to demonstrate skeptical opinions.

The source is from 2001, and therefore it cannot support the statement "To date, attempts to replicate EVP under laboratory conditions have generated a variety of inconclusive data and null results." I did not read the skepdic article very carefully, but I don't think it supports the statement either, and it is anyway not a good source for factual information.

It is also inaccurate to say that "EVP is considered pseudoscientific by skeptics." EVP should not considered pseudoscientific, although it may be questioned whether EVP is a real phenomenon, or whether the methods used by EVP-ers are scientific. If someone considers EVP itself "pseudoscientific", that person equates science with dogma.

I doubt that there is much to EVP, but this is not the way to convince people of that. Anyway, we are not in the business of convincing. I think that the discussion now part of the summary should be moved to another place in the article, even if sources for the statements can be found.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It may also be innacurate to say EVP is considered pseudoscientific by ... the mainstream scientific community. This is another sweeping assertion unsupported by a source. Most of the scientific community does believe in paranormal phenomena. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think much of the above comments evinces an accomodationist bent that appears to be very close to POV-pushing. Quibbling over the tenor of negative reviews is very much a thing left to other venues. Rather than remarking dubiously towards the claims, perhaps the offended user could find some alternative wording or some alternative sources that would help us clarify the legitimate points that are being made. --ScienceApologist 03:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there's only one part that could be nitpicking or quibbling, and that's the part about pseudoscience.

I'm wondering what you mean by "accomodationist"? On Wikipedia, we don't accommodate opinion, or not. If you mean that I'm trying to accommodate those who believe EVP is spirit voices, that isn't my intent. I don't think the reader should be told one way or the other. That would be POV. We are not here to present the facts about things which are controversial. We're here to present the various opinions.

I'm not offended. I've never been able to hear a thing in the EVP samples, and I very much doubt there's anything to hear.

However, this summary is pushing opinion on the reader. It also cannot stand on its sources.

I think you didn't read my objections, or you would have made a more substantiative response.

It's the job of the person who wants to insert a claim to substantiate it. This summary has come in for a lot of criticism before here, so you know I'm not just pushing an opinion or editing in a totally non-consensual way.

The basic objections to the summary are threefold: first, it makes sweeping claims which its sources don't support. Second, some of the sources are not authoritative enough, and are very POV. Third, the summary itself is very POV, telling the reader at the outset what to believe. Thus, I think it is against Wikipedia policy, and I think it has got to go.

I'll wait a while for further comments on here before deleting it again.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your three objections do not hold water. There is nothing "sweeping" about the "claims" of the summary. The fact is, there are no peer-reviewed reports of EVP positively identified in the literature. The sources cited are as good as it gets, especially considering the standard of parity of sources outlined at WP:FRINGE. Finally, the summary is no more POV than is any statement that lets the reader know the current state of understanding with regards to a subject. The reader is free to disbelieve the scientific community and the skeptics if he or she chooses. We aren't forcing them to agree by telling them what the opinions of those groups are. However, it is important that we make known what those opinions are if we are to maintain neutrality. After all, since EVP is outside the mainstream, it is important that readers are aware of this. We don't want people getting the impression that this or any other parapsychological research has the imprimitur from mainstream groups, because misleading people is not what Wikipedia is about. --ScienceApologist 06:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK then. How do you know? It is made quite plain on this talk page that you have not reviewed the European journals. The sources don't support the claim. Where's the evidence? I'm sure it is so that "there are no peer-reviewed reports of EVP positively identified in the literature." But just because you haven't identified them doesn't mean they don't exist. To say they do not is, as I said, a sweeping claim.

You have not cited the supposed (yes, supposed) "Scientific community." You can't speak for it. How do you know? Surveys show the many in the "scientific community" do believe in the paranormal.

Of course, you need to let people know that this is not accepted by everyone. All you have to do is say it is controversial, and explain why later in the article. The following accomplishes all your goals, and all mine, while avoiding telling anyone what to believe or misrepresenting things:

In parapsychology, Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are defined as anomalous voice or voice-like sounds which have been captured on a variety of recorded media. Typically they are brief, the length of a word or short phrase, though longer examples are not unknown. As with all paranormal phenomena, EVP is highly controversial. It is believed by some to be the voices of spirits of the dead, but skeptics say it is merely pareidolia.

There will then be space later in the article for a "Criticism" section. There's no reason to appeal to WP:FRINGE, because there's nothing wrong with the sources, if used appropriately, and when the information in them is accurately represented (as it is not in the summary).Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. You are trying to make this into a "how do you know?" contest when it is really about reliability and verifiability. We have verifiable and reliable sources which plainly state that EVP as a phenomenon is not recognized by the scientific community. If you have an alternative source, let's see it. Otherwise, that is pretty much a fact and shouldn't be mitigated by pseudoscience-supporters. --ScienceApologist 14:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What "verifiable and reliable sources" do you have? The Sceptics Dictionary cannot count as it is clearly opinion. --Zoe.R 00:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't dismiss the Skeptics Dictionary so cavalierly. First, you should peruse WP:RS and WP:FRINGE regarding sourcing. --ScienceApologist 00:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What part of "it's clearly opinion" didn't you understand? --Zoe.R 15:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The part where on Zoe.r's say-so became verifiable or reliable. --ScienceApologist 18:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the WP:V, WP:RS status of the introduction, IT IS A BAD INTRODUCTION. An introduction passage should be a neutral summary of the phenomena. You say loosely what EVP is and that it is disputed, then you STOP.

Specific criticism and commentary on the validity of the phenomena should come later on in the article. Putting them in the opening summary so sets up a bias in the minds of the reader before they've even had a chance to learn what exactly EVP is supposed to be. This is how the page should go:

• Introduction to the concept of EVP (no conclusions)
• Description of the phenomena + example (no conclusions)
• History of the phenomena (only conclusions reached by notable people, or for notable experiments)
• Paranormal hypothesis
• Prosaic hypothesis

New summary

I'd like to propose the following to eliminate unsupported claims from the summary, and make it NPOV:

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are anomalous voice or voice-like sounds which have been captured on a variety of recorded media. Typically they are brief, the length of a word or short phrase, though longer examples are not unknown. Explanations of EVP are highly controversial. It is believed by some to have a paranormal cause, such as psychokinesis or the voices of spirits, but others say it can be explained by such things as pareidolia or radio signals.

I'll wait a while for comments. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That reads fine to me. --Zoe.R 14:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The current introduction is much better and more neutral. --ScienceApologist 14:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I still dispute the first line. "Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are anomalous voice or voice-like sounds which have been captured on a variety of recorded media" gives the impression that such mysterious sounds are widespread and common and puzzled over by society in general. Without proponents belief that EVP exists, there would be no EVP, because no one would scour audio tracks searching for it. "Proponents believe" or "thought by proponents to be" or some such qualifier should be added to the definition. Articles such as Shadow people make this distinction right at the introduction.--- LuckyLouie 17:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly disagree that the current summary is neutral, or more so than the proposed one. But how about just saying "voice-like sounds which have on rare occasions been captured on a variety of recorded media" Or even "very rare occasions been captured..." "Proponents believe," is much like "supposed" or "claimed," ie., it is a stand-in for words to avoid WP:WTA Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's really not a question of rarity. It's a question of attribution. Here's my rationale. "Electronic voice phenomenon" was a term coined by proponents. The proponents of EVP represent a minority opinion in both society and science. The term was never adopted by science, and is not presently used by science (i.e. majority scientific opinion) to describe anomalous voices or voice like sounds. The majority does not agree that there is such a thing as "Electronic voice phenomenon". The notion that "everyone accepts that EVP is a phenomena - they are merely divided over what it is", is a false representation. e.g. what Person A calls "EVP", Person B calls "paredolia". Therefore we can't define EVP as a "phenomena" without including its attribution. I sincerely believe that the definition of EVP needs to strictly describe it as something that proponents believe in. --- LuckyLouie 23:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Except that there aren't any unequivocal and non-controversial examples of such "voice-like sounds" being "captured". All we have are the reports by believers in the paranormal. It's unfortunate that this is the way it is, but it is not weasely to be honest about attribution. To do otherwise would violate NPOV. --ScienceApologist 21:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, a dyed in the wool skeptic will dispute any recording, no matter how clear and unequivocal it is. They will declare it to be prosaic, or a trick, or something else all together. There can never be any such thing as unequivocal and non-controversial examples because a true skeptic will always dispute it.

perfectblue 09:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that there isn't any dispute that sometimes voices are heard. I think there are probably some examples of sounds which are indisputably like voices, and say words. I thought it was the source(s) which were controversial. I though some say it's spirits, others say its imaginary or radio or whatever. I think there are probably examples of what proponents would say is EVP that a skeptic would be able to hear. Do you really think this isn't so?

If it isn't so, why would skeptics bother to say it is radio etc.?

If a skeptic could hear it and a proponent would call it EVP, then we can say "captured." The phenomenon is indisputably rare, and that is good info to have in the summary.

But if you are correct and the examples often given are the best there are, then we need to say the phenomena of capture itself is in dispute. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that your statement that they are "anomalous voice or voice-like sounds which have been captured on a variety of recorded media". It doesn't say that "when some recorded media is played-back, sounds are heard that appear to be words" which would be what is actually happening. It's the "capturing" that is disputed, not the fact that magnetic tapes and digital signals exist that can be played back and listened to. --ScienceApologist 00:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"It doesn't say that "when some recorded media is played-back, sounds are heard that appear to be words". I've been asking for a couple of weeks that somebody actually say this. We need a clear definition of what EVP is supposed to be.

perfectblue 09:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(That wasn't my statement, that was in the original I was working with) Ok, try this, and note new source:

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are anomalous voice or voice-like sounds which in rare instances occur without obvious cause on a variety of previously unused recording media. Typically they are brief, the length of a word or short phrase, though longer examples are not unknown. Explanations of EVP are highly controversial. It is believed by some to have a paranormal cause, such as psychokinesis or the voices of spirits, but others say it can be explained by such things as pareidolia or radio signals.

"Occur" seems to be neutral. I think saying the cause is not obvious is an NPOV statement, since even skeptical explanations aren't obvious. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't work again. Your statement is trying to couch a mechanistic explanation up front while such is in dispute. The mainstream explanation for these things is that nothing is "occuring" at all. Obviously the paranormal believers dispute that sentiment, but we don't satisfy this conflict by simply writing that the mechanism "rarely occurs... without obvious cause." That's really pushing it. --ScienceApologist 01:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You say, first, that the thing exists: It doesn't say that "when some recorded media is played-back, sounds are heard that appear to be words (sounds are heard- that's mechanical). Then, you say that it doesn't. Well, if people hear something, it exists and has a cause. What the cause may be is disputed, and may be all in their heads. There is no dispute about whether EVP exists in some cases. It may be that it has normal explanations, or it may be that it has paranormal explanations. This summary doesn't say. But, EVP exists. EVP does actually "occur" on the media because a skeptic could hear it. Or are you disputing this?

You say The mainstream explanation for these things is that nothing is "occurring" at all. I don't think this is so. The (skeptical) mainstream view is that something is occurring, and it isn't paranormal. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The disputed "cause" is EVP, the "thing itself" (call it the effect) is an electronic signal that causes a speaker to vibrate and produce sound waves. Electronic signals exist, no doubt, but they are not EVP. EVP is defined solely by its proponents and it exists only in their minds. There is always a dispute that EVP exists because there are no confirmed instances of it. If there are "normal explanations" for the recording then it is automatically not EVP. The mainstream view is that there is nothing paranormal and so the mainstream view is that EVP doesn't exist. Get it? --ScienceApologist 02:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

EVP (when not strictly illusion) is sound recorded on media whose cause in unknown. It exists, but it has been interpreted in various ways. That's it. EVP is not necessarily paranormal. Otherwise, the article would not have "Non-paranormal" explanations for it. No, I don't get it, because I believe you to have mis-interpreted the whole thing. But at least now we know what the dispute is. You think EVP has to be paranormal. I think it is an undisputed existent phenomenon which has various interpretations. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

To the mainstream, there isn't any EVP so it obviously cannot be "recorded", nor can it be "sound". To the mainstream, EVP doesn't exist. To the mainstream, the interpretations of signals which paranormal believers in EVP provide are incorrect. The signals are instead correctly interpreted by a variety of non-paranormal means. However, since they are explained as being non-paranormal, they are automatically no longer EVP. To show otherwise, point to an EVP researcher who takes a recording that has a conventional explanation he or she agrees with and still calls it an EVP. That would at least show that the people who use the neologism actually use it in the sense you are proposing. --ScienceApologist 02:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, does EVP have to be paranormal to be EVP. Well, I think you are correct, now that I fully understand what you are saying. But I still don't see the trouble with the summary. That's because the definition doesn't have to be crammed into one sentense. Considered as a whole, the summary just communicates that:

1. the sounds exist 2. some say they are the voices of ghosts 3. some say they have normal explanations.

I don't think there is anyone who is going to miss your point that "real" EVP is paranormal. However, the following makes it even clearer.

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds of paranormal origin occurring on previously unused recording media. As with all paranormal phenomena, EVP are highly controversial. Some say that EVP is caused by psychokinesis or the voices of spirits, but others say it can be explained by such things as pareidolia or radio signals.

I really think the first proposed summary is better, and it more closely follows the only authoritative source I can find, from the Parapsychological Association. However, the above would be OK.

From the PA, EVP is a

Phenomena first reported by Raymond Bayless and popularized by Konstantin Raudive, consisting of sounds said to be the faint voices of deceased individuals, recorded on previously unused magnetic tapes.

The above summary is NPOV, and makes the point that the thing is not to be merely accepted. But it will require a skeptical section be written. I would like to make the point, however, that going much further than a neutral statement of controversy is not appropriate in a summary.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with any definition that leaves out an attribution. Who says EVP are speech or speechlike sounds? Who says they are of paranormal origin? The "who" is very important. Without the "who", it's POV. And Wikipedia can't take the point of view that "EVP exists and the only dispute is whether it's paraedolia, ghosts, radio signals, or psychokinesis" because that's a complete mischaracterization. The existence of EVP is what's disputed: there is presently no scientific consensus that validates EVP as a genuine phenomena. --- LuckyLouie 07:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As ScienceApologist and I finally agreed, defining EVP as "paranormal" is necessary. And that takes care of one of LuckyLouie's concerns, that is, that we should not take it for granted that it exists. The existence of paranormal phenomena are disputed, period, by definition.

OK, how to say who says it is of paranormal origin: It is POV to characterize, for instance to say "believers." We can only say "some people say this, and some people say that." We can't say who is right, even through words like "scientists" versus "believers." That is merely WP:WTA, weaseling.

But we can say something like "first reported by Raymond Bayless and popularized by Konstantin Raudive." Basically, I think what you would like to do, if we were telling TRUTH, is to say, "some kooks believe that they are hearing the voices of spirits in white noise." Actually, that may be quite true, I think. But we can't even begin to say it, as with the word "believers."

Are you looking at this version?:

• Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds of paranormal origin occurring on previously unused recording media. As with all paranormal phenomena, EVP are highly controversial. Some say that EVP is caused by psychokinesis or the voices of spirits, but others say it can be explained by such things as pareidolia or radio signals.

Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems like it will not work. In particular, the first sentence assumes that paranormal origins exist which is obviously a very non-NPOV statement. --ScienceApologist 21:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Martin, thanks for trying to address my concerns. However I think your proposed definition* communicates that "EVP is a recognized phenomenon, but some dispute that it is" --- which is not accurate. If there is a problem regarding attribution, call them (whoever defines EVP as a recognized paranormal phenomenon) proponents, believers, paranormal enthusiasts, parapsychological researchers, or whatever seems most appropriate. --- LuckyLouie 22:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, Now you really are contradicting yourself. You just spent a long time arguing that EVP is only EVP if it is paranormal. Thus, EVP, whether it exists or not, is paranormal. This is standard procedure in paranormal definitions.

LuckyLouie, EVP is a recognized phenomenon among EVPers. Unfortunately, this is a category unto itself, I don't think it is part of parapsychology, really. Maybe it is and I haven't heard. I think saying it is paranormal is the same as saying it is believed only by those who believe in the paranormal. Nothing more is needed. We aren't trying to defend science, just state the facts. Even if we were to say outright "EVP is a recognized paranormal phenomenon," we'd only be saying it is recognized among those who believe in the paranormal. Saying "believers" is hammering it, and it's POV.

I think both your concerns have been addressed in the proposed definition as it stands. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I argued that EVP is paranormal. You agreed with me. However, that does not meant that paranormal phenomena exist. I agree that paranormal should be in the lead, but the assumption of existence should be exised or at least attributed. --ScienceApologist 22:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any assumption of existense: "As with all paranormal phenomena, EVP are highly controversial" et seq. This is in addition to the fact that the existense of "paranormal" is automatically not assumed.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the existence of "paranormal" is automatically not assumed isn't made explicit in your first sentence. --ScienceApologist 01:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be. That's the definition of paranormal. We don't have to explain each word, that's what a dictionary is for. The word "paranormal" is linked, and that article starts out:

Paranormal is an umbrella term used to describe a wide variety of reported anomalous phenomena. According to the Journal of Parapsychology, the term paranormal describes "any phenomenon that in one or more respects exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible according to current scientific assumptions." [1] Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be any indication that the existence of the paranormal is automatically not assumed in what you just quoted. --ScienceApologist 09:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Martin, I, for one, appreciate your hard labour in trying to reach consensus on the opening. That said, I don't think the objective is to discredit EVP in the opening by calling it "paranormal". I think the objective is to characterize it accurately as a disputed belief -- rather than a disputed fact. Again, I think attribution would accomplish this nicely. A number of articles including Missing_time, Post-abduction_syndrome, Morphic_field, and Plant perception (paranormal) all use attribution to satisfy WP:FRINGE. Why can't this one? --- LuckyLouie 05:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind recognition (: The argument before was that the fact is disputed, so call it paranormal (fine by me). Now the argument is that it is a disputed belief. I don't object to either of these, if necessary. But calling it paranormal, plus saying it is disputed, plus saying eg. "some people believe" or "believers," is just redundant. And, it would hammer. It would make the thing feel skeptical, rather than merely factual. Don't you think?

Oh, the other articles are various cases. Sheldrake is the inventor of the concept. Post-abduction Syndrome is not introduced as paranormal (and the word "claim" ought to be changed to "say"). Missing time is "reported by some," but not all- which is merely factual. Now, if it were:

"Missing time is a controversial phenomenon reported by some people who believe it occurs in connection with purported close encounters with paranormal UFOs and abduction phenomena." -Then that would be hammering. Actually, this summary gets it just right till:

"The memory of what happened during the missing time reported is often recovered through hypnosis or during dreams." -One might object that this is validating it.

The feeling I get here is just that people want to make so, so, so sure that no one ever at any time whatsoever at all could possibly even a little get the idea that EVP has even the slightest, tiniest, minutest shred of credibility with mainstream science. Of course it doesn't. Don't hammer it. Got to go to bed now...Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Insert new summary

Well, it doesn't look like total consensus can be reached on the summary. Here is where I think we are:

1. There isn't real disagreement that the sources in the current summary don't support the claims there (see above).
2. EVP is agreed to be paranormal, if it exists. That's its definition.
3. It is agreed that only people who believe in the paranormal believe that EVP is real.
4. There is agreement, I think, that EVP can sometimes actually be heard, even by a skeptic. The sounds exist, but the explanation (whether EVP is real when defined as a paranormal phenomenon) is in question.
5. It is not agreed that merely saying EVP is paranormal, and that all paranormal things are very controversial, and that EVP is disputed and things thought to be EVP have other explanations besides the paranormal, is enough to indicate to readers that it is not accepted by the scientific community.
6. It is not agreed that the proposed summary makes it clear that EVP is not accepted to exist.

I believe the following summary addresses all these things except the last two. I also think that no one in their right mind, or slightly out of it, could possibly get the impression from this summary that EVP has any credibility whatsoever in the scientific community, or is though in that community to exist.

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds of paranormal origin occurring on previously unused recording media. As with all paranormal phenomena, EVP are highly controversial. Some say that the sounds thought to be EVP are caused by psychokinesis or the voices of spirits, but others say it can be explained by such things as pareidolia or radio signals.

So I'm going to put it in. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You've created a summary definition, and another defintion below it? Both are innacurate and misleading. I disagree that simply adding the word 'paranormal' solves the attribution issue. Who believes EVP is of paranormal origin? There is no recognition from authoritative sources that EVP actually exists as a phernomenon, paranormal or otherwise.

"There is no recognition from authoritative sources that EVP actually exists as a phenomenon, paranormal or otherwise"

There doesn't actually have to be any evidence that it exists because we are not stating that it does exist. There is however evidence that people have tried to prove that it exists, and that people have failed to prove that it exists. Which is sufficient.

perfectblue 09:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing from the IEEE (http://www.ieee.org/web/publications/journmag/index.html), the AES (http://www.aes.org/technical/documents/) or even the RIAA (http://www.riaa.com/issues/audio/history.asp) regarding speech or speech-like sounds of paranormal origin occurring on previously unused recording media. I have failed to find a defintion of EVP from any of them. It seems they don't recognize EVP. So EVP is obviously a term used by a non mainstream minority to describe anomalous speechlike sounds. The definition in this article should not attempt to obscure the attribution of the term EVP. --- LuckyLouie 05:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"It seems they don't recognize EVP" Correct, they are technology based groups who use different terminology. A ghost hunter hears something on a cassette and calls it EVP, and engineer hears the same thing and calls cross modulation.

These groups are not in the business of discussing the paranormal, so why would they include a definition of EVP?

perfectblue 09:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Since IEEE, AES, and RIAA are 3 of the major organizations in recording and audio technology representing the work of thousands of audio engineers, electrical engineers, and recording equipment manufacturers, you would think that the phenomenon of "anomalous sounds captured on recording media" might have crossed their radar once or twice in the past 70 years. My point in bringing this up is not to antagonize, belittle, or bias. My point is that according to WP:FRINGE, an article about a minority view must not obscure or omit the fact that it's a minority view. The initial definition of EVP must be placed in context and attributed to whoever are the proponents of EVP. --- LuckyLouie 20:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My point is that they DO mention "anomalous sounds captured on recording media" multiple times, only they attribute it to prosaic causes such as cross modulation rather than to spooks. Equally, I have nothing against attributing EVP as a fringe paranormal view, which it is (it's fringe even in paranormal circles, and gets nowhere near the coverage that things like crop circles and greys get). What I am concerned about are attributions that are to broad or two fine. Such as attributions that appear to suggest that everybody who believes in EVP is a proponent of the wide field of the paranormal, or that the wider paranormal community believe in EVP. We need wording saying simply that it is part of the paranormal and that it isn't part of science, and then it needs to be left at that until later in the page.

perfectblue 21:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You've created a summary definition, and another definition below it? I worked extensively only with the main summary. I just did a bit of cleanup of other stuff.

I disagree that simply adding the word 'paranormal' solves the attribution issue. Who believes EVP is of paranormal origin? It is quite obvious that we don't know exactly who believes in EVP, as they don't have the mark of the beast on their foreheads. However, it follows naturally that if EVP is paranormal, only believers in the paranormal believe in EVP. Period.

There is no recognition from authoritative sources that EVP actually exists as a phenomenon, paranormal or otherwise. Say, that couldn't be why we say it is paranormal (see current revision), could it? That couldn't be why we say it is "highly controversial", could it? That couldn't be why we say, specifically, that all paranormal things are disputed, could it? That couldn't be why we say that there are other explanations of the perceptions, could it?

I don't mean to get sarcastic here, but seriously, you just want to say it's bunk.

Perfectblue, you or someone took out a very important thing, which I'm replacing, that is, to call it paranormal, because we reached consensus that if EVP is real, it is paranormal, ergo, EVP is paranormal. The book title you put in also makes it clearer what we are dealing with, making it even less justified that anyone should think we are validating the concept. Does anyone not know that communication with the dead is not mainstream? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 10:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't actually remove anything saying that it was paranormal, and I have absolutely no problem with it being described as a paranormal phenomena. What I do have a problem with is people adding text that can suggest that EVP and belief in the paranormal are one in the same.

Many believers in the paranormal do not believe in EVP, and believers in EVP do not necessarily believe in any area of the paranormal beyond EVP (their belief is a one shot deal and may be religious in nature, eg afterlife limbo etc, which they would say is not truly paranormal).

perfectblue 12:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"I don't mean to get sarcastic here, but seriously, you just want to say it's bunk." - You are wrong, and assuming bad faith. Why do you keep removing the attributions? What's wrong with defining a definition supplied by the AA-EVP as "defined by the AA-EVP"? Why is the article attempting to hide attributions??? There is no reason. (And no, saying that EVP is controversial does not replace attribution. Saying that EVP is paranormal does not replace attribution. I am reverting the errors in the summary. --- LuckyLouie 19:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I want it to say it is bunk, do I? I don't recall saying that. I actually wrote or expanded much the content about people who claimed to have found EVP and have acted against much of the remove anti-paranormal POV pushing. I disliked the possible implications of the wording of a section that has been changed several times since I complained about it (what your seeing isn't what I was talking about, it's already gone), and I think that using the AA-EVP as a direct attribution is a bad idea as it opens the section up to attack by nameless people who've had it in for anything involving or sourced from the AA-EVP. Besides, the description is at odds with one of the key assertions of the AA-EVP (that EVP are always in a language spoken by the person recording them).

perfectblue 20:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I want it to say it is bunk, do I?...You are wrong, and assuming bad faith. I wasn't talking about you, perfectblue. As you see, I'm answering others, till I mention your username. I think that with others here that borders on an objective statement. I know other people here from other pages as well, and I sympathize with their extreme skepticism, simply because I know what it is to feel besiged by bunk. Believe me, no one better. That doesn't mean I think we should, by whatever weasely means, insert the "truth".

AA-EVP as a direct attribution is a bad idea -Agreed, I think. I'm no expert here.

Why do you keep removing the attributions? I do??? I think EVP should be attributed in the summary to have been invented by someone, but not by a "principle proponent," "proponent," or "believer."

I'm not sure here, perfectblue, but I think maybe you are blaming me for things others did? I only want the summary to have no sweeping claims, no weasels, to say it's paranormal, to say it's controversial. And not to act like it's bunk. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Electronic_voice_phenomenon_in_fiction

I am curious why Electronic_voice_phenomenon_in_fiction is broken out as a separate article from this one. It certainly has relevance to this article and this subject. It is a short list, so it's not objectionable in terms of length. And a "references to X in fiction" section is an acceptable practice in Wikipedia articles. Maybe someone can enlighten me as to why it was removed/moved. --- LuckyLouie 21:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Attribution

Would users please refrain from adding in weasel words suggesting that EVP and belief in the paranormal are synonymous. Many believers in the paranormal dismiss EVP as hokum, suggesting that the belief is widely held is false attribution and POV pushing.

Equally, would users also please refrain from referring to people who do not conduct research as being researchers. Children who make kites are not aeronautic engineers, people who stand in haunted houses with tape recorders are not researchers. Only those who use standardized methodologies and procedure, and attempt to reach measured conclusions based on their data are researchers.

perfectblue 09:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not 'weasel words' to accurately attribute the capture and definition of EVP to those who feel it exists, i.e. proponents. --- LuckyLouie 18:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I was actually talking about an earlier revision. The phrase that I was referring to has since been changed.

perfectblue 18:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Weasels and analysis in summary

Weasels such as "Believers in" do not belong anywhere in the article.

Analysis, whether negative or positive, does not belong in the summary. Also, claims which are controversial must not be stated as fact. Thus, as stated previously above things like:

but skeptics and scientists agree they can be explained by such things as pareidolia or radio signals, you have no source for the word "agreement[4] and the research programs devoted to EVP are generally described by the mainstream as pseudoscientific. [5] To date, attempts to replicate EVP under laboratory conditions have generated a variety of inconclusive data and null results, you haven't sourced this and no peer reviewed literature exists to validate its existence. you can't source this, either. [4]

This does not belong in a summary, but in its own section. This is standard practice. As I said above, you want to discredit the thing in the summary.

I would like to emphasize again that skepdic.com is not an authoritative source for factual statements, only for statements of opinion. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. As someone mentioned above, skepdic.com is probably a good source, as sources go in this. However, that only means that we have to present more stuff as opinion, not as fact.

As an example of a thing which should not be presented as fact: most scientists believe in the paranormal. Thus, to state that most scientists agree with skeptics that EVP is pseudoscientific, you'd actually have to cite a poll which says so. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to cite a poll to say that the scientific community agree with skeptics. This is established in numerous other places. The reason for this is that the opinion of scientific consensus is not acheived by polls but rather by peer-reviewed literature and by scientific discourse. Pseudoscience is a general term that is applied to EVP by those members of the scientific community who have deigned to comment. --ScienceApologist 01:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"most scientists believe in the paranormal"? I am curious how this fact was established. --- LuckyLouie 23:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Here you go. It says:

A survey of more than 1,100 college professors in the United States found that 55% of natural scientists, 66% of social scientists (excluding psychologists), and 77% of academics in the arts, humanities, and education believed that ESP is either an established fact or a likely possibility. The comparable figure for psychologists was only 34%. Moreover, an equal number of psychologists declared ESP to be an impossibility, a view expressed by only 2% of all other respondents (Wagner &amph; Monnet, 1979).

I believe that there are other polls which are more recent and indicate that support for the paranormal has not shrunk. You could have read the above poll on skepdic.com. They use it as a recruitment tool.

I know a man who has taught physics in university for many years, and who believes in EVP. He is a scientist. You just can't make broad sweeping claims. And yes, I know he's a minority, but you just can't say "skeptics and scientists agree."

One also can't say that EVP is "not scientific." Phenomena are not "unscienific," because science is a method. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your personal acquaintances and your reporting of hearsay regarding their beliefs is not verifiable. What you believe to be true is irrelevant here. --01:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that "most scientists believe in the paranormal" (implying, the majority) ? Wagner & Monnet's survey indicates that among U.S. college professors, there was a more positive attitude toward ESP in the humanities than in the natural sciences or in the social sciences, with psychology professors being the most skeptical. --- LuckyLouie 00:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it indicates the majority in that 55% of natural scientists, 66% of social scientists (excluding psychologists), and 77% of academics in the arts, humanities, and education believed that ESP is either an established fact or a likely possibility. Unless you think that there are enough psychologists that they overballance the rest. But you could say that I don't have a source for that if you want. Still, it is enough to say that you can't automatically speak for the "scientific community" when it comes to the paranormal. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

An uncontrolled survey made in 1979 is not a reliable source for this information. Sorry. --ScienceApologist 01:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite so. And a totally unsourced claim about what the "scientific community" believes is even less reliable. J' regrette. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. We source it with the mouthpieces that are explicitly endorsed by the scientific community: peer review and scientific skepticism. --ScienceApologist 08:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that not everybody here has yet understood that the sheer unattainability of peer review when dealing with the paranormal means that it is rendered the preferred source rather than the only source. Equally, it also appears to have been forgotten that when recording unscientific claims that are not being held up as being true, scientific sources providing proof of truth are a not required. You might need peer review to say "UFOs would use X million joules of energy to reach the speed of light", but you wouldn't need it to say "Bob saw a funny light in the sky".

perfectblue 09:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Perfectblue is right. Also, you don't have a source for a statement of what the scientific community believes (EVP is ignored). And you don't have any reason/source for a statement that there exists no peer-reviewed literature endorcing EVP. Also, scientific skepticism cuts both ways- I have no problem with scientific skepticism, but some interpret that to be "pseudoscience" bashing. I use Truzzi's definition.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do have a source. You can find out what the source is simply by reading the reference in the footnote to that statement. Truzzi is irrelevant to this discussion, he never commented on EVP as far as I know. --ScienceApologist 01:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutralized the lead

A lot of POV-pushing going on by paranormal believers. Here is the problem. Phenomenon is in the purview of science. As such, scientific skepticism toward the paranormal must be referenced in the lead because readers need to be given the proper context. Also, it was reference that Chisholm and MacRae were giving definitions for EVP that hid their beliefs and tried to make mainstream their advocacy. This is inappropriate. MacRae and Chisholm are not reliable sources for describing what about a recording makes it EVP but they are reliable sources for declaring what they believe EVP are due to since we can verify the former but not the latter. --ScienceApologist 00:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your Talk page, we have four editors agreed by consensus on the last most recent version before your change. It would be more helpful if we could discuss modification to that version, and try to address your specific concerns one by one. I wished you'd have discussed these issues before making a unilateral change. --- LuckyLouie 01:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I understand your concerns and I apologize for not addressing things up front, but I didn't see any discussion on the talkpage here about the most recent version, let alone any consensus discussed on this page. I think that the changes made by other editors could equally be described as "unilateral" -- but because of the nature of the Wiki, every change that is made is unilateral unless we sandbox and then change the page all at once. All I saw here was irrelevant protestations from the usual suspects. In any case, I prefer to actually use the wiki technology and edit the page when problems seem to arise. --ScienceApologist 01:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the version that me (LuckyLouie), Martinphi, Perfectblue, and Zoe.r were able to achieve consensus on:

• Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) is a term coined by Colin Smyth to describe speech or speech-like sounds of paranormal origin occurring on previously unused recording media. It was first reported by Raymond Bayless and popularized by Konstantin Raudive.[1][2][3] As with all paranormal phenomena, the existense of EVP is disputed. Some say that the sounds thought to be EVP are caused by psychokinesis or the voices of spirits, but others say they can be explained by such things as pareidolia or radio signals. [4]
• According to researcher Alexander MacRae, EVP is defined as any anomalous voices captured on any form of audio recording[5][6] [2] that are discovered upon playback, but were not detected at the time that the recording was made, and which do not appear to originate from any local source.[3] EVP are typically brief, the length of a word or short phrase, though longer examples are also claimed.[7] They are normally in a language understood by those present at the time of recording.[2]

I thought it would be less antagonistic to contact editors separately than to vote here on the Talk page, but we could do that if you feel it would be helpful. Is the above something we can work with, point by point? --- LuckyLouie 01:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I should remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a democracy and voting is evil. However, I am excited to reach a consensus version of the lead. --ScienceApologist 01:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we work from my version, point by point?

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) is a term coined by Colin Smyth to describe speech or speech-like sounds of paranormal origin occurring on previously unused recording media. It was first reported by Raymond Bayless and popularized by Konstantin Raudive.[1][2][3]

Some who believe in the paranormal say that the sounds thought to be EVP are caused by psychokinesis or the voices of spirits, but mainstream explanations of claimed instances include such things as pareidolia or radio interference.[4] According to psychic enthusiasts Alexander MacRae and Judith Chisholm, EVP is a probe of the fifth dimension where spirits reside.[5][6][2][3] Claimed instances of EVP are typically brief, the length of a word or short phrase, though longer examples are also claimed.[7] They are, without exception, in a language understood by those present at the time of recording.[2]

As with all paranormal phenomena, the existense of EVP is disputed by skeptics and the scientific community and the research programs devoted to EVP are described by the mainstream as pseudoscientific.[8] To date, attempts to replicate EVP under laboratory conditions have generated a variety of inconclusive data and null results, and no peer reviewed literature exists to validate its existence.[4]

--ScienceApologist 01:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm with LuckyLouie on this one, let's take the current synopsis as agreed to by the majority of active editors and discuss what objections you may have to that rather than start with your version. --Zoe.R 01:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, in that case I insist on discussing point-by-point where my version differs from the "current synopsis". You can compare the differences below. --ScienceApologist 01:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Point by point

Attribution of dispute

• As with all paranormal phenomena, the existense of EVP is disputed. changed to ''As with all paranormal phenomena, the existense of EVP is disputed by skeptics and the scientific community and the research programs devoted to EVP are described by the mainstream as pseudoscientific.[8] and moved to bottom paragraph

The people who dispute paranormal phenomena need to be identified. The pseudoscientific nature of their research neeeds to be delineated up front. This is all covered in guidelines pertaining to coverage of fringe topics--ScienceApologist 02:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Attribution of paranormal explanations

• Some say that the sounds thought to be EVP are caused by psychokinesis or the voices of spirits changed to ''Some who believe in the paranormal say that the sounds thought to be EVP are caused by psychokinesis or the voices of spirits

"Some" is a weasly way of not being exact about who believes what. It is manifestly a fact that only people who believe in the paranormal believe in EVP. That's not to say that every paranormal believer is a believer in EVP, okay? --ScienceApologist 02:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can find alternate phrasings that convey the same meaning which the group can agree on. Instead of "Some who believe in the paranormal" perhaps "proponents of EVP" or "advocates of EVP" or "supporters of EVP" or "devotees of EVP" or "adherents of EVP"...? -- LuckyLouie 07:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What's so bad about saying "some who believe in the paranormal"? We could then put up the references to who "some" of those people are. --ScienceApologist 08:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Attribution of who explains them otherwise

• but others say they can be explained by such things as pareidolia or radio signals.[4] changed to but mainstream explanations of claimed instances include such things as pareidolia or radio interference.[4]

Who are these others? They are people who believe the mainstream explanations. This should be attributed. --ScienceApologist 02:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree the statement should be attributed. Is there some reliable source we can use to strongly verify the concept that mainstream explanations of EVP are inherently prosaic? --- LuckyLouie 07:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Skeptics dictionary! --ScienceApologist 08:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if we stopped directly using Skeptdic, and just cited his source material directly. Any reason why not?

perfectblue 16:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Status as researcher not confirmed and what about Chisholm?

• According to researcher Alexander MacRae, changed to According to psychic enthusiasts Alexander MacRae and Judith Chisholm,

Note that researcher has connotations of professionalism that are not attributalbe to MacRae or Chisholm. They are amateurs and verifiably psychic enthusiasts. --ScienceApologist 02:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case, if we cannot attribute a defintion of EVP to either of these people (which satisfies WP:RS), it may be better to leave this line out? Thoughts? --- LuckyLouie 07:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Might be appropriate. I don't know that they are notable enough anyway. --ScienceApologist 08:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

MacRae's WP:RS for pseudoscience. His name can be used for the paranormal attributions, but not for the science attributions. He also used lab procedures and structured his techniques, so he can be counted as a researcher for at least the 2003 experiments (eg, he's not just some guy on America's most haunted who walks around old houses with a cassette recorder).

perfectblue 16:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What is verifiable about their definitions of EVP since they are not recording engineers?

• EVP is defined as any anomalous voices captured on any form of audio recording[5][6][2] that are discovered upon playback, but were not detected at the time that the recording was made, and which do not appear to originate from any local source.[3] changed to EVP is a probe of the fifth dimension where spirits reside.[5][6][2][3]

Note that the lack of credentials for the references means that we should only attribute to MacRae and Chisholm the beliefs for which they are notably reliable on: that is the belief in probing the fifth dimension. --ScienceApologist 02:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be good to find a working defintion of EVP we can attribute to someone, as in "According to..." --- LuckyLouie 07:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but I think that a working definition necessarily includes a mechanism. Has anyone ever found an example of EVP who doesn't believe in the paranormal? I haven't found a single case. --ScienceApologist 08:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that Jürgenson believed in the paranormal before his EVP experience? What about people who believe spirits as a faith concept rather than a paranormal concept?

perfectblue 13:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"since they are not recording engineers"

They are not being cited as such, so it doesn't matter. If they were claiming that EVP were audio artifacts or cross modulation it would be another story. Besides, the definition is purely dealing with the paranormal, non-paranormal stuff comes later. You need to give a clear definition of the terminology being use before you start to use it.

perfectblue 16:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

EVP are claimed instances

• EVP are typically brief, the length of a word or short phrase, though longer examples are also claimed.[7] changed to Claimed instances of EVP are typically brief, the length of a word or short phrase, though longer examples are also claimed.[7]

Saying that "EVP are typically brief" implies that EVP exist. Since EVP are disputed, we must be carefuly to delineate that it is the claimed instances that are brief rather than the pheonmenon itself. --ScienceApologist 02:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a definition of EVP, it must be a pure description and nothing more. Judgment on EVP's source, or actual existence, come later on. I suggest that you go to your college local library and take a look at a post grad economics paper where they have to discuss a particular economic model. You will find that they start by defining that model as if it were a real working model even if it is only a proposed model, and even if it has been proven not to work.

perfectblue 13:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not a definition since EVP are not brief as a defining chracteristic but merely a property. This is not an economic model we are talking about. This is a pseudoscientific fantasy of paranormal investigators. There is not a parity of form. --ScienceApologist 13:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The parity is in the act of definition. An economic student names the mode, describes its properties and attributes. and only afterwards do they analyze it. You wouldn't write a paper supporting/criticizing the Hyne-Ricktman model of self stabilizing socialist economics without first actually saying what the the Hyne-Ricktman model of self stabilizing socialist economics is, and waht its characteristics were, would you?

Before we can discuss a "pseudoscientific fantasy of a paranormal investigator", we need to define what exactly the "pseudoscientific fantasy" is.

perfectblue 14:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Normally in a language indicates that there may be alternate examples

• They are normally in a language understood by those present at the time of recording.[2] changed to They are, without exception, in a language understood by those present at the time of recording.[2]

"Normally" implies two problematic points: that there are "normal" and "abnormal" EVP (obviously impossible since EVPs are supposed to be anomalous) and that there exist EVPs in other languages that are not understood by the people perceiving them. --ScienceApologist 02:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That phrase is part of a "definition of EVP" not a "discussion of EVP". Thus normally should be read as "more often than not"

Put in more depth "within a universal set consisting of all anomalies, whether validated or unvalidated, held up to be EVP, the percentage of anomalies resembling the language of the recorder outnumber the percentage of anomalies that do not resemble the language of the recorder by a significant enough margin for the former to be considered the norm within the current set".

perfectblue 13:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that phrase is not part of a definition since a definition has a very particular form: "A is a B that is C" where A is the term being defined, B is the general category to which A belongs, and C is the criteria which distinguish A from all other B. This phrase is neither A, B, nor C and therefore is not part of the definition. Since every instance of EVP ever documented has been understandable by the person claiming it (by definition) every instance of EVP must have been recognized as a language by someone observing the tape. There has been offered no instance of an anomaly that does not resemble the language of the recorder. If you can point to such an instance, please let us know. --ScienceApologist 13:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"No, that phrase is not part of a definition....."

You are confusing the definition of "EVP" with the definition of "an EVP".

"every instance of EVP ever documented has been understandable by the person claiming it"

100% Wrong. Estep, the founder of the AA-EVP claims to have alien EVP that are not in an earthy language. [2]

perfectblue 16:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding scientific/skeptical criticism

Taken from above and added:

As with all paranormal phenomena, the existense of EVP is disputed by skeptics and the scientific community and the research programs devoted to EVP are described by the mainstream as pseudoscientific.[8] To date, attempts to replicate EVP under laboratory conditions have generated a variety of inconclusive data and null results, and no peer reviewed literature exists to validate its existence.[4]

This is an important paragraph to include in the lead because phenomenon implies observability which implies scientific imprimitur of which there manifestly is none. We need to connect this to why this research program is pseudoscientific, what "results" there are (regardless of their rigor), and what research has been done in peer reviewed literature. --ScienceApologist 02:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

1) Not all paranormal phenomena are disputed. Many have never been evaluated scientifically, and many are known to be myth, legend, hoax or have since been reassigned natural explanations and have moved out of the realms of the paranormal and into other categories.

2) I take it that you are aware that, when discussing the paranormal, the word phenomena is implicitly interchangeable with anomalous phenomenon. EVP are observable anomalies, their origins are disputed, but their existence (as an anomaly, not as ghost voices) is not.

perfectblue 13:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

1) Baloney. By the plain fact that "paranormal" phenomena are not documented as observed and attributed to the supernatural as a normal matter of course, the scientific community disputes them as real observable phenomena. When they are myths, legends, hoaxes, or have prosaic explanations even more so.

2) It's not my fault that paranormal researchers want to use the word "phenomenon" in their writing. As soon as they do that, they have to deal with science because phenomena are in the realm of science.

--ScienceApologist 13:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Insistence denied

(Also posted on SA's talk page) ScienceApologist, a general consensus has been reached about the content of the summary. Each point of your point-by-point analysis has, I believe, already been discussed previously on the discussion page. Thus, while your concerns are to be considered, the summary should remain with the consensus version while full consensus is reached. Otherwise, we can go to mediation.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no use in going point by point. Read the above discussion carefully, and you will see that the subjects have been covered. I/we will not allow you to get away with bullying. Consensus is not total agreement.

I have never been through mediation, but ScienceApologist's actions seem to need some sort of help. The POV pushing is just too much. He's been, aparently, a "bully" on this page for a while. What do the consensus builders think? I would at least hope that the consensus version remain on the page till SA's objections can be dealt with, either by actually addressing them in the article, or by mediation of some sort. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that consensus is not unanimity, refusing, as you have done, to talk about the situation is inappropriate and defies the congenial nature of Wikipedia. If we can't discuss proposed changes then we have nothing to go on. You claim that these points have been discussed above, but I see no discussion of, for example, whether MacRae is a reliable source for offering a technical definition best left to professional recording engineers. Many of the other points are completely new as well. It is not as if I have been constantly placing new points up over and over and over again. These are all substantive and real problems that we need to come to a consensus regarding.

Let's put it this way, if I die tomorrow and leave this page forever, the problems I outlined will still be there. You may be able to maintain this page for a month, or maybe a year. But eventually people will come by and they will want to see these things addressed. Even if it is determined that my ideas are ludicrous and should be flushed you will need to come up with a rationale better than the one described above for the next people who come by because read the archives won't work if you haven't actually discussed the issues. You cannot simply ignore me and hope I will go away.

--ScienceApologist 06:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As you have demonstraited before, on this page, you are the one refusing to engage. I have been talking for ages, and you have not, so far as I can see, responded with reasons why your views are correct. Please read this page, above. As an example, whether MacRae is a reliable source is covered under our discussion of what the article is about. We agreed it is about the paranormal. MacRae's definition is from within the field of EVP, not outside of it. He's an authority on EVP, and he's defining EVP. Also, you ignored my request to stay with the consensus version till your concerns are further addressed.

I agree that MacRae is a reliable source for attributions regarding the paranormal. He is not a reliable source for points regarding recording engineering. See the difference? --ScienceApologist 08:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You bring up one subject not specifically already covered by me. You don't acknowledge that other points were discussed. And your current summary does not take into consideration objections raised by me previously.

Please also review WP:WTA.

And let's all remember:

Disruptive editing Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

LuckyLouie's version has my support, and I second that ScienceApologist should make a study of WP:WTA. Except for WP:AGF I'd have to presume that their version of the summary was purposefully written to get the goats of other editors.

perfectblue 07:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Perfectblue97 and User:Martinphi should check out WP:OWN. --ScienceApologist 08:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've already read it, and as you will note, I'm working as part of a wider group to reach consensus on a single unified version as per Wikipedia:Consensus. This invalidates claims of violating WP:OWN.

perfectblue 09:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify. It's not my version. It was intended to be a provisional consensus version placed into the article to get feedback, with the next step being more discussion to take place on this Talk page. I will support a version that has consensus of all the active editors, and that includes ScienceApologist. He's here and has laid out a point by point justification for his edits. Let's use that to try and hammer out a full consensus. Bury the hatchets for the moment and get in there and discuss each point. Maybe there's a compromise that everybody can agree on, who knows? We can at least try. If it doesn't work, then someone can start arbitration proceedings. But we should at least try to do this cooperatively, one more time. --- LuckyLouie 07:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that LuckyLouie. I'm just tired of saying these points, and I also feel ignored by SA. I really have to go to bed now, so I'll see you all tomorrow. However, WP:AGF doesn't quite cut it here. Good faith would have been to stick with the mostly-consensus edit till full consensus. Good faith would have been to listen. See also link above, as SA has a reputation. That does NOT mean I don't want to work with SA, I just want him to address arguments specifically, and go with the logic and consensus. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 08:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Martin. I agree that SA appeared to be making edits without involving the group in discussion, but - look - he's here now, he's willing to engage, and we have a format that lets us focus in on specifics, so let's try to put away our daggers for the moment. The article will still be here tomorrow and the day after that...(FYI, speaking of "reputations": I am mentioned unfavourably twice in Tom's article myself! :-) ) --- LuckyLouie 08:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, Tom did over-react some, and I'm sure was POV from the sound of it. I sent him an email saying Wikipedia works (etc.), so maybe he'll come back.

You seem to be the major consensus builder here to me. I'll see you all for point-by-point tomorrow night. Say, this one's great —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martinphi (talk • contribs) 08:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

I should point out that with all this time you wasted commenting on how upset you were with me for reverting a "consensus" version, you have still not addressed the fundamental points I outlined above. I was pretty miffed when I saw your edit summaries claiming you "responded" in talk when no response was seen anywhere. You think we've discussed these points above, but in reality we haven't as I pointed out. Now you are going to bed and we won't see you for 24 hours. You feel like I don't hear you? Why don't you try putting my shoes on? --ScienceApologist 08:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't edited this article in a while. Coming back to it now, I see a claim here of "consensus", but I don't see backing for that claim on this talk page or the archive. In other words, there was no consensus of the type that means a particular version should be considered a baseline or anything like that. Furthermore, even if there had been, no such agreement about a Wikipedia article is ever carved in stone. My impression of this talk page is that ScienceApologist has put considerable effort into detailing specific points. Those specifics should be addressed. JamesMLane t c 12:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The consensus was reached by a group of like minded editors using user talk page conversations, rather than on the EVP talk page, and was presented on the main page once discussions were complete.

perfectblue 13:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus must be reaced on the talk pages per talk page guidelines. Doing this on user pages just won't cut it. Post the comments to this page that are relevant to the claimed established "consensus" or it will be assumed that no such justification exists. --ScienceApologist 13:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, let me clarify. I went to each of 5 people individually on their user pages, rather than as a group, in an effort to hear their individual concerns with the opening and negotiate for consensus. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD%2C_revert%2C_discuss_cycle#Tactics) ScienceApologist was part of this group whom I approached last, also on his user page. This was not intended to be a coalition of 4 against 1. This was meant to identify the specific points that we can agree upon, and the specific points we cannot (so far) agree upon. It was not meant to be a weapon used to club dissenters into submission. A "consensus version" is only that until someone opposes it. So as of now, we have actually failed to acheive consensus. --- LuckyLouie 20:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, thanks for the explanation. I agree with you concerning the current lack of consensus. I hope those earlier approaches of yours were helpful in moving the discussion forward, but, in general, I think it's more useful in the long run to make comments on the article talk page. You have to expect that editors will be continually joining and leaving the conversation. The talk page is usually the best way to make the prior discussions available to everyone. (Another alternative is to create a subpage on your user page and link to it from the main talk page.) JamesMLane t c 22:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Responses to ScienceApologist

I want to put this point-by-point in a new section, so that it will be as clear as possible.

ScienceApologist: "Some" is a weasely way of not being exact about who believes what....What's so bad about saying "some who believe in the paranormal"?

Resp: This is one of the points covered before on this page. If EVP is defined as paranormal, it does not have to be stated that only believers in the paranormal believe in it. In fact, to hammer this is weaseling.

ScienceApologist: the existence of EVP is disputed by skeptics and the scientific community...

Resp: It is disputed by skeptics, and it may be disputed by some in the scientific community. But 1) you can't speak for the "scientific community" as a whole, and 2) since EVP has largely been ignored, you can't say that it is disputed. There is virtually no response at all.

ScienceApologist: but others say they can be explained by such things as pareidolia or radio signals.changed to but mainstream explanations of claimed instances include such things as pareidolia or radio interference.[4]

Resp: You can't speak for a "mainstream" that doesn't exist, unless you can find a source. "Mainstream" is a also a weasel word. That said, this isn't the worst attribution. Also, skepdic.com is not a "mainstream" source.

ScienceApologist: * According to researcher Alexander MacRae, changed to According to psychic enthusiasts Alexander MacRae and Judith Chisholm

Resp. I agree that this could be left out (there's a problem in the summary with having two definitions of EVP). He is indeed verifiably a researcher. There is nothing at all which says a "researcher" needs to be mainstream or even to have a degree.

ScienceApologist: EVP is defined as any anomalous voices captured on any form of audio recording[5][6][2] that are discovered upon playback, but were not detected at the time that the recording was made, and which do not appear to originate from any local source.[3] changed to EVP is a probe of the fifth dimension where spirits reside.[5][6][2][3]

Note that the lack of credentials for the references means that we should only attribute to MacRae and Chisholm the beliefs for which they are notably reliable on: that is the belief in probing the fifth dimension...

Resp: I agree with perfectblue when s/he says that "Besides, the definition is purely dealing with the paranormal, non-paranormal stuff comes later." Yes, the definition comes from the paranormal point of view, and we therefore don't have to evaluate it as if it is scientific fact.

ScienceApologist: * EVP are typically brief, the length of a word or short phrase, though longer examples are also claimed.[7] changed to Claimed instances of EVP are typically brief, the length of a word or short phrase, though longer examples are also claimed.[7]

Resp: As perfectblue said, this is only another instance of not accepting that the definition of EVP is that it is a paranormal phenomenon. This is, again, one of the points discussed at length above. Only believers in "This [...] pseudoscientific fantasy of paranormal investigators.", that is, in the paranormal, believe in EVP, and this definition comes from within the paranormal view.

ScienceApologist: ...Since every instance of EVP ever documented has been understandable by the person claiming it (by definition) ...

Resp: this is only true if EVP is unreal which we do not assume here.

For an instance, as requested, of EVP in a foreign language go here.

ScienceApologist:...By the plain fact that "paranormal" phenomena are not documented as observed and attributed to the supernatural as a normal matter of course,...

Resp: It is not true that paranormal=supernatural, except among super-skeptics who already know the paranormal does not exist (an unscientific attitude).

ScienceApologist: It's not my fault that paranormal researchers want to use the word "phenomenon" in their writing. As soon as they do that, they have to deal with science because phenomena are in the realm of science.

Resp: See above: the word "paranormal" automatically modifies "phenomenon," to mean "phenomenon which may not exist." You could say it is an oxymoron, but it is convention, and this doesn't give an excuse for weaseling

ScienceApologist: As with all paranormal phenomena, the existence of EVP is disputed by skeptics and the scientific community and the research programs devoted to EVP are described by the mainstream as pseudoscientific.[8] To date, attempts to replicate EVP under laboratory conditions have generated a variety of inconclusive data and null results, and no peer reviewed literature exists to validate its existence.[4]

This is an important paragraph to include in the lead because phenomenon implies observability which implies scientific imprimatur of which there manifestly is none. We need to connect this to why this research program is pseudoscientific, what "results" there are (regardless of their rigor), and what research has been done in peer reviewed literature. --ScienceApologist 02:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Resp: This might be so, but, again, this is paranormal, and therefore does not imply observability. A "paranormal phenomenon" is automatically a claimed phenomenon the mere existence of which many would dispute." We aren't responsible for people who don't understand the terms.

Resp: You say: and the research programs devoted to EVP are described by the mainstream as pseudoscientific. See "mainstream" above. You have to source it, but you can't because it has been ignored.

You say: To date, attempts to replicate EVP under laboratory conditions have generated a variety of inconclusive data and null results, no peer reviewed literature exists to validate its existence.[4] As discussed in detail before, you have not reviewed all the literature, and your best source specifically says it does not review it either. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification for saying this.

You say: This is an important paragraph to include in the lead because phenomenon implies observability which implies scientific imprimatur of which there manifestly is none. "Phenomenon" does not imply it is necessarily observable when connected to "paranormal", any more than it would were you to say "possibly observable." Paranormal does mean that it may be observable, but it also means, as I pointed out above:

According to the Journal of Parapsychology, the term paranormal describes "any phenomenon that in one or more respects exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible according to current scientific assumptions." [1]

This is from the paranormal page.

ScienceApologist: I was pretty miffed when I saw your edit summaries claiming you "responded" in talk when no response was seen anywhere.

Resp: I stick to my complaint that ScienceApologist did not listen to my arguments above. I beg him to do so now. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. ScienceApologist, why do you want me to read WP:OWN? I only just arrived on the page. I saw it had a badly POV summary, and tried to reform it. You reverted me. You are the one acting like an owner, and like a sole owner at that. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)