Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Archive 6

Attributing scientific views
An earlier version of the article said something like this: "EVP has not been considered or accepted by mainstream science and its existence remains controversial." That sounded OK to me, from what I could discern from the sources cited in the artlce. Above, regarding later wording, PerfectBlue stated that:
 * As per WP:V, you must find a third party source stating "no scientific evidence exists".

I think that's a fair enough point, given that that the interpretation of evidence (primary sources) is what scientists specialize in doing and publishing in scientific journals (secondary sources). So we shouldn't make unsourced claims about evidence, I agree, but it should be fine to make statements about the presence of absence of commentary in peer-reviewed scientific literature, and summarize those comments.

How about phrasing the issue this way: "There is no peer-reviewed scientific literature supporting the hypothesis that EVP exists." Is that not the case? The only peer-reviewed source I could find, the not-quite-mainstream-but still legitimately pper-revieweed JSE, reached negative conclusions on the existence of EVP. So we can say so accordingly in the lead, and attribute those views (or lack of published views in supprort) to scientists, not only critics or skeptics. That approach appears to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:ATT, does it not? regards, Jim Butler(talk) 19:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is the other source, the Macrae article, the says EVP was found under controlled scientific conditions and which was published in a peer review journal also.Davkal 19:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that no one has done a thorough search to see what literature might exist. Brauss found none, except probably the JSE one.  So we could just say the first sentence, "EVP has not been considered or accepted by mainstream science and its existence remains controversial."  This is true. To say that none exists is not known to be true.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I did a substantial search of the archives that I have access to and found very little peer review even mentioning EVP, let alone actually experimenting in it, and nothing that would satisfy the people who don't accept the two journal sources that we already have as being WP:RS. I was quoted over $300 for professional search quality search for the archives that I can't personally access right now. I suggest that we move away from peer-review and start quoting reliable authors (I find Clark is generally unimpeachable as a WP:RS), at least for the history, social etc sections so that we can show what people think of EVP and how it has impacted on the world in general, without touching on the "Its real"/"It's baloney" arguments.


 * perfectblue 08:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Jim, even the JSE isn't reliably peer reviewed. Their website says that the editor decides which articles are looked over by one or two peers, some aren't reviewed at all.  I'm not sure what the standards of the other publication are, there is mention of peer review but I don't know if that's really the case.  I think the current version as of this writing is an accurate statement of the situation.  With all topics, the burden of proof is on those making the claim, if mainstream science doesn't accept the "evidence" there may not be sources rejecting it.  That's why we describe it as lack of acceptance and describe the context of studies published in journals.  Looking past the intro, there's a lot of detail given to information that wasn't peer reviewed or published in a scientific publication at all, it should probably either be cut or taken down to just a historical mention.  --Milo H Minderbinder 21:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, just as science has its own demarcation issues, so does the definition of what is a legitimate or "mainstream" peer-reviewed scientific journal. I'm cool with the current wording as quoted by Martinphi above.  It's not perfect, since the term "mainstream science" may not be precise enough, but I think it reasonably conveys what is both true and verifiable:  that the view of EVB proponents is at most on the order of a "tiny minority" among scientists.  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A word of warning though: if we limit wiki to mentioning only those things or views that are expressed in peer-review scientific literature then 99.9% of the articles will have to be deleted. Not every subject is scientific. EVP has a scientific aspect or has the possibility of having a scientific aspect, but that is by no means all there is to the subject. There is a historical dimension, and a current social/cultural dimension, and a speculative dimension. All these things are interesting and can be covered easily without recourse to scientific peer-review articles. Whether EVP exists or not, and whether science can accommodate something like EVP can be covered in much the way we are trying to cover it, but it is by no means the be all and end all of the matter - Wiki is not simply a source of information on current scientific thinking.Davkal 00:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Davkal, I agree. Encyclopedic notability isn't only a function of what scientists say (but for the latter, peer-rev is good).  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm must agree with Davkal, here. EVP goes beyond hard science, and has cultural and social dimension much of which simply won't be covered in peer review material. It might not be scientifically accurate to say that somebody found "ghost voices", but it is historically accurate to say that they said that they did.


 * perfectblue 08:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and I think the way we are trying to cover the science bit is good right now, although I think there is still a tendency on this, and many other paranormal artcles, to get carried away with the does it exist or not question. We have, as far as I can see, a fairly strong consensus that: a) mainstream science hasn't touched it (and we have consensus on how to write that); b) what little scientific literature exists is not the best one could hope for (and we have consensus on how to write that); and the rest can simply be stuff about history, pop culture, social dimension, who said what, who is doing what etc etc, and it shouldn't be that hard to get a consensus on how we write that.Davkal 01:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re the question of whether the JSPR is peer reviewed - it is, and it is perhaps the most respected paraspychology journal there is.Davkal 00:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We could just define it all as different people's opinions, and then use the peer reviewed literature where it exists. So if there are peer-reviewed paranormal sources, we use them, and if there are peer-reviewed sources which say that the thing is bunk, we use those.  But elsewhere in the article, it is just opinion, and we attribute it to specific groups or people specifically?  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Which is basically to agree with Davkal. The general quality of peer review and scientific debate in the parapsychology journals was found to be very high, when assessed.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Perfectblue's version is better in many ways, though, and is shorter. I'd agree to it.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that the older version he's been reverting back to? I don't like it, it doesn't even define the term at the beginning.  --Milo H Minderbinder 02:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit Protection for the Article Page
I brought this up a couple of times before and was accused of wanting sole editorial control of a Wikipedia article, but nevertheless, Candorwien, Gene Poole and KarlBunker have once again shown that we might be able to make more progress if we asked for Wikipedia:Protection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FULL In it, "An aadministrator have the ability to protect pages so that they cannot be edited except by other administrators." Tom Butler 02:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you explain why you are bandying my name about as a reason to protect this article? In addition, why this is once again? Your implication of "once again" is odd. I don't recall being the reason to cause copy protection on any Wiki article not even this one!  Thank you. Candy 13:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that necessary unless disruptive edits out-3RR those who wish consensus?  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hate to disagree with my long-lost cousin Tom ;-), but I don't think it needs to be protected quite yet. Adding my two cents, agree per Milo on reversion.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 06:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful, though, if we could focus away from the intro and get the rest of the article into shape. As things stand I think the intro is fine: it defines (could be a bit better written), it gives a brief overview of the scientific state of play, it covers the most common explanations, and it gives a brief history of the term and the phenomenon - surely everything a good intro should do. We can tinker with it, but I think wholesale changes and reversions need thorough explanation here since I can't for the life of me see anything that is wrong with it in a big way. We also appear to have a fairly broad consensus for it as it is now amongst most of the regular commentators on this page (I hope my recent change to para 2 tallies with my view of the consensus), and so if we can get the rest of the article into the same broadly agreed state then all that will be left is tinkering with that as well.Davkal 12:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. As said above, the article should talk about historical, social, cultural, etc.  The current version listing so many details on so many experiments is going way overboard when it should just make brief mentions of them to give history/"who said what".  Right now, it comes off as trying to make a case through excessive detail on experiments that in many cases weren't peer reviewed or even published in a scientific journal.  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's usually reserved for super vandalized pages, not for POV disagreements. You basically have to be GWB in an election week to get that kind of protection.

perfectblue 15:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Perfectblue97, I wondered if it was another sound good but never applied rule. I did notice a few protected pages. The state of Florida has been protected from time to time, for instance. A quick survey of the archive will show that discussion of this article has been repeatedly side-tracked by brief skirmishes caused by passing editors. I would call that both edit wars and vandalism if the new editor operates unilaterally and without sound rational. MS Hyde, being my favorite example.


 * I see that there is another round of pushing toward the skeptic view right now. Interesting conflict to watch. Ideology battles are happening almost routinely.


 * Candorwien, I do not recall seeing you post in the discussion before those changes you made in the article. However, my comments were not to you as "once again," but to your actions as another example of why that article is going to be unstable for the foreseeable future. If I am mistaking that you were one of the editors who unilaterally made the changes, I apologize.  Tom Butler 17:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Passing editors" have as much right to comment and edit as anyone else. Making an edit once isn't edit warring, nor is it vandalism.  It's a bit melodramatic to use those terms to describe a content dispute.  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think as Milo said. I don't have to post in discussion before I edit. Being bold is part of Wikipedia. I am allowed and encouraged to make unilateral changes by Wikipedia. I have commented my changes. I have been polite and respectful. I have edited as I believe is fit for this article. I have entered into dialogue (once met with simple rudeness by an editor on this site on their own talk page) about changes. I can't understand why you refer to me in a derogatory way - as if I am doing something wrong? Candy 01:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, so I don't think like Milo and I cannot see how I have offended someone by stating the facts. I am an engineer and an author from the corporate/technical world and this going around in circles month after month would not stand in any environment intended to achieve a goal. I am aware of the fact that Wikipedia encourages this sort of editing mayhem. Yes, it is your right, but it is an inconsiderate act against all of us who have tried to reach an informed consensus. It is as if you all enjoy this chaos.


 * And before you tell me that I can leave if I don't like it, I will say again that EVP is my field of study and with the ranking Wikipedia has in the search engines, what is in the EVP article matters. I know that it has to be neutral to avoid changes from passing editors, so I encourage supportable but realistic comments that keep the entry neutral. Most, if not all of the passing editors have pushed the article way toward the snide skeptical view. If you cannot be a considerate editor, then at least be a responsible one.  Tom Butler 02:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your rules now Tom Butler but you obviously have an issue with WIkipedia. That you will have to iron out for yourself. I simply think you should have more good faith, make fewer assumptions and keep to the rules that are provided. Candy 19:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ghost hunters
Is ghost hunters a "reality" TV show, or is it just a themed show using members of the public rather than actors (I differentiate between the two)?

I think that something like Coast to Coast, would be a better example of EVP and the public.

perfectblue 15:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's important to maintain the quotation marks around the word "reality." Ghost Hunters probably fits most people's definition of "reality TV show." Of course, that is far from saying that it shows reality on TV. SheffieldSteel 17:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at the show's website, it describes itself as "docu-soap". Which sounds about as real as most other reality TV.  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The wiki article on Ghost Hunters begins: "Ghost Hunters is a reality television series". If you want to take issue with that then that article is the place to start.Davkal 02:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Reputable sources needed
I'm thinking that this article uses a lot of sources which are simply not reputable. One look at the front page of PsychicWorld, for example, should be enough to convince most readers that it's a website by the credulous for the credulous. In particular, this guideline strikes me as relevant:-


 * A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves.

So, when I have a little more time, I'm planning on going through and moving statements that are not backed by a reputable source over to this talk page. Then people who wish to move those statements back into the main article can provide alternative sources for them. Does that sound reasonable to everyone? SheffieldSteel 21:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me. Candy 01:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well see before you do, why don't you cite the sections here first and give those that wish to create the article, rather than destroy it, a chance to find sources that tally with Wiki rules, or debate your claim that they dont - bearing in mind the only changes you have so far made (without discussion) have been completely unsourced and, according to you, dependant on no other source than your own beliefs for their veracity. Davkal 02:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

For example, I note that this was added (from that most reputable of all sources - the private website Skepdick) - "apophenia (a propensity to see connections between seemingly unrelated objects or ideas, often associated with psychosis)." Now, is anyone really prepared to say that they do not understand why this is offensive garbage, and why it is intended (by Carroll) to be offensive garbage. If so, then let them cite here the seemingly unrelated objects and/or ideas that someone who thinks they hear a voice on tape is relating and in what way. What objects? What ideas? Who is the real psychotic/idealogical/pathological sceptic here? You simply can't include stuff like this and expect to be taken seriously.Davkal 02:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Davkal, Davkal, Davkal. Need to watch those Fruidian slips.  But you are correct (in many ways).  If we are going to question one fringe, POV rant, we have to question all the others.  And the fact is, that if we do this, we will eliminate all the article- except of course for the parts from the peer-reviewed journals and popular culture.  There aren't any other sources.  There are some books, but who will want those?  They are the opinions of proponents or skeptics.  So we need to use the best sources we have.  I have nothing against skepdic.com, but if we use that, there is no reason not to cite the AA-EVP, and many other sites about it.  If we take those out, we have to get rid of the material which is sourced to the 7 references to skepdic.


 * As far as destroying the article, I'm all for that. Why argue for eternity? Delete this baby.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We can't delete it, because it's an encyclopedia and EVP exists as a topic. I have no doubt that manyhere would like nothigng better than to simply delete all articles about such things but they exist as subjects at the very least so we must write about them.

Maybe we should go down this route:


 * According to Robert Carroll's Skepdik website, which has been described as consisting of "a hilarious display of scientific ignorance" [source equal to Carroll's can be provided] EVP may be the result of apophenia (a propensity to see connections between seemingly unrelated objects or ideas, often associated with psychosis). Self-styled skeptic Carroll provides no clue to suggest which "objects" or "ideas" he has in mind here, and there is currently no scientifc evidence to support his view. And so on....


 * Then someone can find another inflammatory claim, and someone else can counter, and the whole article can become one long battle between scientifically unsupported ideologies. Or, we could try to write a decent article about EVP. Which is it to be?

Davkal 03:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Davkal, lol! But we could delete it!!  The whole subject isn't really notable.  Want to try?  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) While we do need to maintain editorial standards, the most important thing is that we actually LIST the sources. If readers know where they come from, they can make the final decision themselves as to whether they believe them or not.
 * 2) There is a difference between reporting what people believe and what people have proven to be true. It goes without saying, when dealing with the paranormal, that much of what we write deals with the former rather than the latter. Our choice of WP:RS therefore needs to reflect this.
 * 3) We're talking about things that go bump in the night, how reliable is any source on a topic like that?

perfectblue 07:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I think we need to be fairly flexible while making sure that sources are adequate for the claim being made. For example, while you wouldn't want to defend certain highly dubious points by citing Psychic World as a source, when you look at what Psychic World is actually used as a source for here any controversy disappears. That is, the first reference is about what type of paranormal explanations have been offered (without any attempt to suggest these explanations are valid, or even sensible) and here Psychic World is about as good as it gets (straight from the horse's mouth so to speak). The second is a historical point about Raudive's book Breakthrough (e.g., publication date and bringing EVP into the public domain) and therefore is a very uncontroversial historical fact. The third one may not be quite so uncontroversial, but it is a viewpoint presented as a viewpoint and there would seem little reason, to me, to quibble over the source in this case either.Davkal 11:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that if we take out information from questionable sources (on both sides) there likely isn't reliable info to replace it with, so the article will get shorter. I don't think that's a bad thing.  Since the topic has some cultural/fictional/reality TV notability, there should probably be an article.  But it just needs to explain the concept, not go into details like the specific frequencies used in an experiment that had results released via press conference.  Right now the article has many claims both supported and refuted by questionable sources.  I'd completely support removing all of that and just leaving info that can be reliably sourced, even if it means the article is just a basic overview of the topic  (which is fine for a barely notable topic in an encyclopedia).  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

New Intro
In responsee to PerfectBlue's changes and edit summary.

1. This isn't an academic report.

2. A definition is given first.

3.The history of the name is not the same as a definition, and in this case the history of the name doesn't even shed any light on the meaning - it is a simply a historical point of note. Likewise, EVP having often captured the public imagination and featuring in popular culture etc., has nothing to do with, and sheds no light on the definition. There is therefore no reason to put these historical and contemporary details right at the start.

I am not sure why you keep making this change against the consensus here - ie, many editors have reverted your previous identical changes and not one word of support for those changes been offered here - not even by you. To simply say, as you do, in your edit summary "define first then explain as per any academic report" explains nothing since what you have inserted prior to the explanation has nothing to do with a definition????Davkal 12:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, as usual, the version you have left is full of mistakes and will have to have a number of changes made (words removed mainly) to simply make sense. I am not correcting it because I don't like it anyway. But if you're going to foist your version on us then at least get it right.Davkal 13:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. I don't see what's so important about the history of the name, and I'd say the possible explanations are much more relevant to defining the term.  Please get consensus for changing the order and stop revert warring over this.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to make clear, I didn't put in the bit about the history of the name, or about the pop culture, that was there already, I merely left it in.


 * As everybody here who either writes analysis in their day job, or whose a college student/grad will tell you. When you write any kind of analysis like this, you must state and define the terms of reference before you introduce the meat of the topic. Put simply you don't tell people that EVP is disputed until they know what EVP actually is.


 * My question to you is why do you insist on splitting the passages up? Having half a definition, half of the controversy, then the other half of the definition and the other half of the controversy weakens the page because it instantly makes it look like the people writing it don't know how to write up an synopsis.

perfectblue 14:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

1. In what sense is what you have identified as the second half of the definition anything like a definition? The fact that EVP features in Ghost Hunters or Sixth Sense is no part of the definition at all! It is simpy a fact about EVP in popular culture.

2. The sections you identify as the dispute are actually far closer to being part of the definition. That is, it is an important part of knowing what EVP is/might be to know a few of the suggestions pertaining to exactly that point.

I simply cannot see how a few facts about EVP in popular culture can be construed as more like a definition than some brief explanations of what the phenomena might actually be. By definition the latter is a definition and by definition the former isn't. And this is true whether you're an analyst a college student/grad or otherwise.Davkal 14:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with Davkal. You seem to be arbitrarily declaring sections "definition" or "not definition".  And about the history of the name, I have no problem with it, I just don't see why it needs to be moved earlier in the article.  Why can't you propose changes here on the talk page instead of just putting your edits on the page, even when it's obvious that other editors don't agree?  --Milo H Minderbinder 15:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually like the history of the name in the intro. It is very brief, it inroduces Raudive (which I think is good) and it leads nicely into the pop culture section. All in all I think it rounds off the intro nicely - an intro I think at present would give someone who read no further a fairly good introduction to EVP; which is surely it's purpose.Davkal 15:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For absolutely the last time, I didn't put any of those bits in, somebody else did. I just moved the paragraph stating that there was a dispute from the second paragraph to the third paragraph (or the like). I DID NOT include popular culture or any of that other stuff in there. Please stop attributing things to me and check the edit history instead so that you can address the person/people who did put it in there.


 * You can have Raudive in the intro if you like, but in order to maintain at least a semblance of proper formatting, it should go BEFORE you introduce the debate over EVP being real or not. Else the intro look like it was just copied and pasted together by somebody using Google to do a book report. We're mostly (if not all) grads or professionals/both here, splitting things up like that is beneath us. It makes the article look sloppy and reflects badly on those who edit it.


 * perfectblue 15:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For absolutely the last time, neither one of us has said you put those bits in. I'm not sure what gave you that idea.  We just don't agree with moving them the way you did.  And I completely disagree with the notion that the consensus version looks "sloppy" just because the paragraphs aren't in the order you would like.  --Milo H Minderbinder 16:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How about dealing with the issues actually raised. Nobody is claiming you put the stuff in about popular culture. What we are asking for is some kind of explanation (because we cannot understand it at all) why you feel that the history of the name and the stuff about popular culture is a definition or is part of the definition. That is, you're argument that definition should come first, allied with your ordering of the paragraphs, means you are decribing the pop culture/history stuff as a definition. It is not, and it is nothing like a definition. Additionally, the stuff you are saying has to go after the defintion, looks to me (and Milo I think) very like a defintion - a lot closer to a defintion than the stuff you are putting first. What we want to know, then, in short, is what on earth you take "defintion" to mean?Davkal 16:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The "consensus" version, which was never really a full consensus, does look sloppy. I believe the current version, as I just slightly modified it, is much better.  Candy's version wasn't bad, and I just tweaked it slightly.  Let's go with it.  Although the history paragraph could be cut.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I see there has been a free-for-all on the article with nothing to back it up here so I am reverting. The main reason is that the resulting version is much sloppier than the one i have reverted back to. In those few parts that have been changed there are claims that don't make sense because the words are in the wrong order ("has appeared in exclusively publications"); there are sentences that are poorly written, repetative, and strangly worded, ("Reported EVP are typically brief [...] longer segments have also been reported" and "The mainstream scientific community has not tested EVP"). I would be grateful if people could use the discussion page to argue, or show, in what specific ways, if any, their changes are supposed to be improvements, and in what specific ways what was there (is back there now) is supposed to be sloppy.Davkal 23:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful also if people didn't just add unsourced opinions (especially nonsensical ones). For example, Scienceapologist added "EVP is not considered an observable phenomenon by the mainstream scientific community". How can this possibly be true when we know that the mainstream scientific community has not considered EVP at all - ie we haven't considered X at all but we consider X to be.... Also, if you did manage to record clear voices responding to questions from a researcher under controlled scientific conditions which ruled out interfernce, pareidolia etc etc. then in what sense, if any, would that be unobservable?Davkal 23:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To give you some history, Davkal, ScienceApologist is just like that. He has previously been found by ArbCom to have been extremely uncivil, and he tends to make non-consensus edits, which are extremely controversial, and are nearly always aimed at discrediting.  Often his edits  consist of claims which, as with the one you mentioned, are not supported by the sources. This, by the way, is not a personal attack.  It is merely history about actions taken.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason that the mainstream scientific community ignores certain subjects is because the mainstream scientific community only studies observable phenomenon. That EVP has been ignored is due to the fact that EVP is not an observable phenomenon in the sense that there is no objective observation that has been put forward for it. You can complain all you want regarding such a wording: it doesn't make it any less true or any less sourced. Trying to discredit my contributions, Martinphi, won't get you very far. I can see from your subpage on how to write paranormal articles that we are going to get into some disputes if you continue here at Wikipedia. I encourage you to take a long hard look at your advocacy: Wikipedia is a mainstream source: it isn't a protected outfit for fringe groups. This is becoming more and more clear as the encyclopedia develops. You will find yourself on the losing end if you continue to insist on a protectionist bent toward your pet ideas. Just putting it out there as a warning. I encourage all people here to read WP:FRINGE and WP:SCI and carefully consider what they say. --ScienceApologist 11:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, if you could provide a source that says "EVP has not been studied by mainstream science because they consider it to be an unobservable phenomenon" then please cite that - that is the kind of thing that would make that point sourced, as opposed to your mere insistence that this is so. Also, you say, "EVP is not an observable phenomenon in the sense that there is no objective observation that has been put forward for it". Far from being "true" and "sourced", this is simply your POV and it is nonsense. Here is why: a) to say that something is "not an observable phenomenon" is to claim that it is IN PRICINPLE UNOBSERVABLE, not merely that no objective observations have been put forward - the latter is simply to say that the phenomenon is as yet unobserved. And b) even if it were not nonsense, it would be circular inasmuch as objective observation (the way you would like it) can only come from science and science won't look until they already have objective observation. We really don't have time to keep dealing with this kind of rubbish.Davkal 12:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll do you one better. Read the introduction to the skeptic's dictionary which explains what observable phenomena are and how the scientific method operates. It is a basic fact that those claimed phenomena which are ignored by the scientific community are not verifiably scientific nor, in point of fact "observable phenomena" since science deals proprietarily with all that is observable. We have been over this in many other cases and there is plenty of precedent for this. Reading the two guidelines I linked to above is a great place to start. You are trying to claim that it is just "my opinion, man" that there has been no report of an observation of EVP that was taken as an objective observation of the scientific community. However, this is flatly the case as there has been no scientific publication which outlines this. Science is proprietary and it is mean. When the community decides that something is outside their bounds of investigation, that subject is dismissed as unscientific with all the trimmings. This includes a pervasive skepticism which is applied to all claims of observable phenomena. Alternative medicine, for example, is dismissed by the scientific community as innuendo without any control and lacking an observational basis. I have no doubt that the true believers in EVP think that they observed something. However, belief that you observed something does not constitute an actual verifiable observation. You would do well to read the attribution guidelines at wikipedia with particular emphasis on what consistutes a reliable source. Proponents for EVP are not reliable nor are they independent so their assertions cannot be taken at face value. This means that their claim that EVP is an actual phenomenon or that EVP is observable cannot be simply reported here without attributing it to these people. The evaluations of science may feel circular to you, but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Have a nice day. --ScienceApologist 12:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION
This was at the top of the page but I thought I'd put it here so that everyone can see it. I would like to draw everyone's attention to the last part about discussion here when making significant changes. We are trying to get some kind of consensus together to improve this article but that is being hampered by, in my opinion, continual idealogically motivated edits that have very little to do with improving the article, and have everything to do with POV pushing. Many of the edits display a total ignorance of many issues that have been discussed and resolved above. I therefore also draw your attention to the section about reading the talk page first - or at the very least do a keyword search and find out whether there has been discussion re the particular claims you want to insert. Otherwise, as has been happening, we will go over the same ground again and again. Davkal 23:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, Davkal, and well put. I hope you don't include my recent edits: I thought they didn't change the content, but made things clearer and less POV.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that there are still vast amounts of changes being made to the article without any discussion here. I think there two ways we can proceed. Firstly, we can continue in the current manner and simply edit war the for the entire duration of WIKI so that the article roughly stays the same and readers get a different view depending on the time of day they log in. Or, we can agree that changes need to be made, discuss those changes here, and then try to get some consensus for broad content (not in Ned Block's sense), appropriate wording etc. and then amend the article in an orderly manner. Davkal 12:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes
I have removed the following: "Serious parapsychologists today show little interest in EVP, and modern reports in the parapsychological literature find no evidence of anything paranormal in such recordings." because the previous paragraph cites the Macrae paper (one of only two we could find thus 50% of the recent parapsychological literature) which states "The Journal of the Society for Psychical Research published results of an experiment by Alexander MacRae in which he said the results "must have been in some way paranormal"". If this claim is to be reinserted I suggest it should be presented as a claim rather than a fact - and the obvious fault with it should probably be pointed out. Davkal 01:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I also note that in Alcock's article (from which the above quotation comes) he does not cite the reports from the parapsychological literature that "find no evidence of anything paranormal in such recordings." Maybe this is a good example of pareidolia, where Alcock thought he had seen parpsychological literature saying this, but he was merely looking at some random patterns in his carpet!Davkal 01:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, Davkal, it really is true. Parapsychologists don't want anything to do with EVP.  What we should take out is the "no evidence" part.  But they don't show any real interest.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously except for those parapsychologists (like Macrae, Baruss etc.) who do take an interest and who conduct experiments, and the editors of those parapschology journals who publish the results. Also, parapsychologists don't take a professional interest in very much other than telepathy (for want of a better word) but all this means is that they fall into the category of people who have not looked seriously at these things. It is not as if we had 100s of parapsychology depts seeking EVP in the 70s and then abandoning their research as no evidence ever came forward. That is what the quote implied, and unless that is what you want to imply then there is no other reason to really use the quote at all.Davkal 12:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparent editing error by Davkal
In [this edit] Davkal removed a well-sourced statement on the grounds that it "was shown to be false by the preceding paragraph."

I originally added this statement precisely because it apparently contradicts the preceding paragraph. I believe the best way to report on disputed subjects is by offering supporting arguments for both sides, and allow the reader to make up their mind. Removing statements supporting one side of the debate appears to indicate pushing a particular POV.

Therefore I am going to reinsert the original statement. If anyone thinks its wording needs to be improved, be bold! :-) SheffieldSteel 16:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It can't possibly be true because the previous paragraph shows that it is false. And the previous paragraph is not an opinion but a fact - i.e., the articles a) exist; and b) in one case support a paranormal hypothesis.This doesn't mean that EVP exists, it simply means that articles about it exist and in som cases support the paranormal hypothesios - since Alcock's claim is that the articles (not cited) all daw negative conclusions his claim is straightforwardly false. The point being that the existence of the articles and the conclusions being the conclusions are not disputed. There is, in short, no debate to be had on this point.Davkal 16:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This will probably sound like a silly question, but who are the serious parapsychologists showing interest in EVP? --Milo H Minderbinder 16:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * MacRae, Baruss, for two. And Susan Blackmore wrote an article on it. Although I think the point could still probably stand. The latter point though is just plain wrong.Davkal 16:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How is "parapsychologist" defined? There are courses of study in it, aren't there?  Or is anyone who does a study on a topic like this declared a "serious parapsychologist"?  Neither MacRae nor Baruss seems to have studied the topic, and the Baruss study appeared in a publication that's not fully peer reviewed.  MacRae got the one study into what seems like a fairly reputable parapsychology journal, but other than that he seems to be self publishing his stuff.  I'm not familiar with Blackmore, if she has something on the topic it could be a potential source for the article.  There are barely any sources on this topic, and the ones we have are probably just barely passable.  We certainly need to be careful not to give the impression of scientific endorsement - it's a fine line we're walking and it's not easy to agree on wording.  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm yes. It's difficult to incorporate all the information while avoiding the wiki-error of "original research by synthesis." The current form is perhaps the best that can be done under the circumstances, unless someone can look at it with a fresh pair of eyes. SheffieldSteel 16:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)