Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:15, 15 February 2007

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 February 2007. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Paranormal B‑class

This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article was a past project collaboration.

This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. The only thing that benefits from doubt is truth.

Electronic voice phenomenon received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives
1
2

Further Reading

I know that 2 Percent looks professional enough, but it is just a platform for armatures to blog, or in this case, rant close to the edge of misinformation. I see no problem showing a dissenting view here, but there is no qualitative difference between the two articles, except the one I posted Random Noisemaker] clearly steps over the line with unfounded examples. The point is that people should be able to see the dynamics of what makes this entry and the Further Reading sections does that. Tom Butler 20:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference #4

Is the same reference as #20--it is repeated, redundant.-MsHyde 21:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Colin Smyth

Is not mentioned in the first three references. A publishing company called Colin Smythe, with an e on the end, is mentioned. It does not state that the publisher coined any terms. Also, the source is self-published.-MsHyde 21:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Colin Smythe publishing company claims that they coined the term--is there a relaible third party publication which confirms this?-MsHyde 00:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Order of St. Gregory

According to this reference, Jorgensen received this commendation for his documentary film work. http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/194_evp1.shtml-MsHyde 22:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Audio sample

Where is the documentation regarding who made this sample? The only documentation provided is that it came from Misplaced Pages user GMaxwell. Unless it was publlished elsewhere, it is original research. Please leave the tag until the matter of publication is confirmed or not confirmed.-MsHyde 00:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to click the file info before adding tags ignorantly. Image:EVP sample.ogg – Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The sample was recorded then by Tom and Lisa Butler, who self-published it on their website. It is orginal research. It has not been published by a relaible third party publication. I will submit a request for comment.-MsHyde 00:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not original research because they are not Misplaced Pages editors. It is original research to draw conclusions based on source material. It is not original research to objectively record noise. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not is is an audio recording of any voices has not ben confirmed by a reliable third party source--it was self-published. That is original research. The recorder and the publisher were the same. It could be a recording of their dishwasher gurgling for all we know.-MsHyde 01:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I notice you've been on a spree of this kind of behavior. It's not helpful. Who's to say any EVp recording has been faked? Maybe it's all nonsense. We're not here to make that kind of judgement. The audio sample is just that, a sample of what EVP commonly sounds like. It makes no judgements as to its validity and therefore is not original research. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is original research because the recorder and the publisher are the same (and it was published on a website). I will request outside input.-MsHyde 01:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is "Original Media", not "Original Research". WP:OR requires that suppositions or conclusions be made that were not first published in an external source. This page is presenting an audio file as being an example of what is commonly presented as EVP. It is not placing any weight on the sample as being real EVP, fake EVP or background noise. Therefore it cannot be an OR violation.

perfectblue 10:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

How do we know it is EVP, or an example of what is commonly presented as EVP?-MsHyde 10:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it's on the EVP page would be a good hint to most people. The source beig an EVP website would be another.

perfectblue 15:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

MsHyde, images & other media are largely exempt from WP:NOR so long as they don't present new/unpublished ideas (thats what is sais in WP:NOR. Otherwise we'd never be able to ilustrate any article with abstract or complicated ideas. Since this is an article about sound it needs to be ilustrated with sound.

The sample is quite similar to many EVP-type samples published in mainstream media (see the White Noise movie?) and as such it isn't presenting a any new or unpublished ideas. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue with the audio sample is not that it's OR, but that it comes from a questionable source, and there's no real rigor to demonstrate that it is what it claims to be. If it's going to stay, it should be labled as "An alleged sample of EVP..." or something similar. We have no evidence that it's an actual recording of EVP (appearing on this article or on a website somewhere doesn't prove anything). And if EVP samples are really published in the mainstream media, we should provide or link to one actually published in the mainstream media. And isn't the White Noise movie fictional? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a different EVP example on the same page covered by the open use release. Please look at the bottom of http://aaevp.com/examples/examples_voice11.htm. One of the objections here was that the current example was posted by the same people who recorded it. Okay, Vicki Talbott recorded this new one and did not post it. I did.

Milo H Minderbinder, I am going to assume your reference to White Noise is a joke--right?:-)

The AA-EVP is about as close you are going to get to a mainstream organization or publisher when it comes to publishing EVP examples. You can say "alleged" all you want, but fact is, too many such comments pushes the point of view way over to the skeptical side and that cannot be allowed to stand. You decide how you want to fight this battle because this entry is not going to become a skeptic's platform. Tom Butler 17:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Milo. Time Magazine or some other mainstream source would never identify an audio sample as "EVP. To force Misplaced Pages to endorse an audio sample as EVP is outrageous. See WP:Conflict of interest. This article will not become a platform for the AA-EVP. --- LuckyLouie 18:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The website for the fringe group can be included in external links, and readers can follow the link to hear alleged audio samples if they like. Highlighting the "audio sample" in the article as an illustrative example strongly implies endorsement that EVP exists, and that this is an example of it. Mr. Butler is not a scientist, and his self-proclaimed credentials are "metaphysical." His self-published website is not a reliable source, and he has a conflict of interest. The inclusion, placement, and highlighting of the audio sample is not neutral, rational, or objective. If TIME magazine publishes an audio sample and asserts it is an alleged example of EVP, then I think it might be ok to include it in the way Mr. Butler's website publication is included now. Including the sample from its present source is equal to including a sample of a psychic reading from 1-800 Psychic, and labelling it as a credible example of a psychic reading and proof that psychics exist and are psychcic. Mr. Butler's examples were not derived from laboratory study, but are original research published on a website. There is absolutely no reliable third party verification or factchecking or peer review on his website.-MsHyde 18:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the "joking" comment, another editor mentioned it in reference to "mainstream media". "Close as you are going to get" doesn't make a source reliable. So I guess it means no truly reliable sources are available? Also, if you're affiliated with the organization, you're not in a position to make a decision on the reliability of it as a source. In the absence of real proof, "alleged" is appropriate for both the audio example and the introductory paragraph: "...speech-like sounds of allegedly paranormal origin..." I also have a problem with the "Status of EVP" section in that it implies that the "others" doing studies are in the same category as the scientists who failed to find anything. In the absence of scientific verification of the phenomenon, the article should probably lean to the skeptical side. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with "An alleged sample of EVP" type language in theory, but I think it's important to have an audio sample so readers can get an idea about whats being discussed. The source is unimportant for that issue... I could make one at home and use it here... the idea is to let the reader here for themselfs what proponents claims is an EVP.

I used "white noise" as an example of what is being accepted in the mainstream (not mainstream media... maybe I misspoke) as EVP. I'd love to take a clip from the movie, but it wouldn't qualify as Fair User (under wikipedia's limited criteria). ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

content policies tag

"You tag too much" is an ad hominem argument and I have never placed this particular tag before. There are now open requests for comments at Original Research, and at science projects. I am concerned not only about the original research, but the refusal at this article to acknowledge that science does not need to disprove negatives. It is not objective to state that something hasn't been substantiated or disproved by a lack of scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is required to assert that something exists. It is fine to say that psychcic enthusiasts believe in it, that is all. There also does not seem to be at this article an objective idea of what a researcher is. A woman who runs a website is a psychic enthusiast, not a researcher. Also, it needs to be clearly stated that all instances of EVP are *claimed* instances. WP:V is not being observed at this article, I believe.-MsHyde 04:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments you have added to various places do not make it suddenly an issue. You need to find something else to do besides tag articles. Since you've registered that's basically all you've done. This article is written just fine, and your actions are nothing but harmful at the moment. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have requested comment at wikiquette alerts.-MsHyde 06:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

References for fiction section

Here is one for the Gibson novel:http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A147108 A relaible third party reference should be provided for each claim, specifically stating that the work refers to EVP. I am going to replace the references tag.-MsHyde 06:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And its removed again. That section does not need references. The texts they reference are references in and of themselves. Furthermore, the links themselves lead to articles futher substantiating this fact. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, references are needed to show that these items are included because a reliable third party source says they reference EVP. Otherwise, it is opinion. Who says they are about EVP or refer to EVP? The works are not references in themselves. The list also borders on trivia, and is probably too long. -MsHyde 08:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The works are references in themselves because they refer to the phenomenon by name or definition. You're just trying to pick at whatever you can because you hate the article, and your complaining across the help boards and policy boards is clear evidence of this. They do not need references. The material to which they refer is the source. It is available to anyone to check for its validity. You do not get to tag that section simply because you are too lazy to check for yourself. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A work of fiction only really requires referencing when it is being analyzed, compared or contrasted. A description of its contents is self referencing.

perfectblue 10:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and stating that a work of fiction is about EVP is comparing, contrasting it, making a synthetic argument, unless a reliable third party publication says it is about EVP. EVP is a specific term, and the title of this article. Claiming fictional works are about EVP is opinion, if there is no reference. I have provided one reference, showing that it can be done for some of them, probably. A self-reference, such as a book jacket synopsis, is still fact checked by the publisher. If no review or description of a work claims it includes EVP, it is only opinion.-MsHyde 18:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Stating fiction is about EVP is synthesis if the reader/viewer has to decide if it meets the criteria. If a work of fiction actually uses the term EVP, the work itself is sufficient as a source. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree--if there is a book jacket which uses the term (and the book is sufficiently notable). But there should still be a reference, the book should be cited, for example. Also, it is extremely unlikely that if a work refers to EVP and is notable, that there would be no review or description of the book or film to cite.-MsHyde 18:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

They do not need a reference when the term is used both clearly and obviously throughout the work in question. They source themselves. They would only need a reference if it were vague or debatable. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As Milo says directly above, "Stating fiction is about EVP is synthesis if the reader/viewer has to decide if it meets the criteria." Demonstrate that each example is not synthesis.-MsHyde 21:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In basically every example, the term is used specifically. They don't need a ref if that's the case, because the reader doesn't have to guess at it. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not what I see in Google research. There is no use of term EVP for Philip K. Dick or Ghost in the Machine, for example--they are retroactive claims for the term.-MsHyde 21:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I:ll give you those two and recommend something: remove them. If they really don't apply, take them out. Surely it's not difficult and it's far more productive than insisting on tagging everything. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Tagging is more polite than removing--it gives editors who may have background knowledge a chance to fix things. It also alerts other people besides you, who may want to participate or have something to add. I have just read WP:OWN. Have you read it? Also, you are still being insulting--to both Milo and I. "You have been told this" is not appropriate, and the lack of discrimination between scientists and non-scientists is a major point of inaccuracy and POV, which will continue until it complies with policy.-MsHyde 22:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Tagging is not more polite, especially when you do it indiscriminately. There's more than enough messages on your talk page to this effect, so I'd expect you to have an understanding of this point. It only makes it seem as if you're trying to dsiparage the article. Being bold is the polite alternative. Just doing something without warning is perfectly acceptable, and it is a far more potent motivator of change than templated messages. Try it once, you might be surprised. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, tagging is more polite, it gives people time. Also as I said, it alerts people besides you, and you have an ownership problem with this article. Continued ad hominem attacks of me are just more rudeness. As you can see from my talkpage, there have been very few complaints, and only from other article owners, who inappropriately take tags personally. This is not your article, and it is not about you. Taking tags personally or telling anyone that they may not place them is not your prerogative.-MsHyde 22:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get into another argument with you, because the myriad times you've been warned on your tag page haven't helped. I didn't even know this article existed till stumbling on your tagging rampage. I have a problem with your tagging, because it improves nothing. Be bold and try fixing things yourself. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Why was the EVP in fiction section moved back to this article? Wasn't it split up? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If it was, it doesn't exist anymore. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Tests done by...

Martinphi, could you explain your objection to my edit? Are you saying that they are scientists, and if so could you provide a reference demonstrating that? And if they are not scientists but you feel it's an "incorrect implication" (whatever that means, an explanation would be appreciated), what term would you suggest instead? The current wording is unacceptable as it implies that both sets of experiments were done by scientists, which doesn't seem to be the case. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like a response to my question above. As a follow up, scientists/psychic enthusiasts was reverted with the edit summary "weasel words". In fact, some/others is much more vague and "weasel" than the more specific terms. If "psychic enthusiasts" is objectionable, please suggest an alternative. The facts seem to indicate that reputable research has found no evidence, while those who believe to have found evidence have not had their work peer reviewed. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Words that don't disparage their subject would be helpful. Those two phrases instantly convey the impression that one side knows what they're doing while another side is just some random group of inexperienced people. I'm fine with the use of scientists, but a more professional term than "psychic enthusiasts" needs to be found for the opposing side, since the section above clearly indicates that some of these people actually take such research seriously. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a question of accuracy. They are not scientists, and that needs to be clearly stated. It is not merely that the psychcic enthusiasts have not had their work peer reviewed. They are not scientists. No one will ever peer review their work, because it is not science. Pretending that they are equal is a violation of due weight. Misplaced Pages is not the appropriate place to advance fringe theories as if they were not fringe theories.-MsHyde 22:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, your assumptions are just that, and have no place in determining how these people should be viewed. EVP is far from a "fringe theory." Find a phrase that accurately describes these people without making them seem incompetent or inexperienced, as it is clearly not the case. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict..... Hi, I was mostly responding to the "allegedly" weasels. The last sentence in that paragraph was added since I wrote it, and I'm not sure but what it weasels in favor of EVP.

This:

Scientific experiments did not find any anomalies that fulfill the characteristics of EVP,<ref name="Baruss"/>

seems good. However,

Others recorded anomalies, and via analysis and listening tests, determined that they "… must have been in some way paranormal".<ref>#5 http://www.skyelab.co.uk/review/bb.htm</ref>

could be changed to

Informal experiments recorded anomalies, which seemed upon analysis and listening tests to "have been in some way paranormal".<ref>#5 http://www.skyelab.co.uk/review/bb.htm</ref>

Or, "less controlled experiments."

What do you think Minderbinder?

My objection was basically that "Tests done by non-scientists" may not be right for two reasons: one, there isn't a definition of "scientist" which involves university degrees. Rather, a scientist is one who carries out scientific experiments. Also, it cuts extremely close to the appeals to the "scientific mainstream" which is often used by pseudoskeptics. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this is not a subject which requires purely peer-reviewed sources. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I like that. It doesn't disparage either side but also notes the difference in experience. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not appropriate, per WP:FRINGE. It needs to be made very clear that they are not scientists, and that what they say and what their findings are are completely nonscientific. All of the claims that they make need to be very clearly contextualized as the point of view of non-scientists:

"Including such a controversial quote needs to be carefully contextualized as a particular point-of-view. Simply including such a statement in the lead or in a section on scientific evaluation of bigfoot claims is potentially misleading, non-neutral, and lacking in verifiability. The quote should only be included if it can be contextualized in a verifiable and neutral sense as a point-of-view of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Association and not necessarily a factual statement."-MsHyde 22:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually fine with "informal experiments" as I think the meaning is pretty clear. I do take issue with "at the very least produced questionable results" which is unsupported as far as I can tell, the article referenced in that sentence doesn't say that. And I do think the article has a major problem overall in that it attributes statements to a number of people but never says who those people are, what their credentials are, or why their statements belong in an encyclopedia. While it's true that an article like this doesn't need peer reviewed sources, any statements supported by sources that haven't been subjected to some scrutiny should be presented as that, not as fact nor concepts that have the support of the scientific community. I also disagree with the notion that the unexplained sounds categorized as EVP are defined as paranormal. People have heard sounds, and some believe they are of paranormal origin while some accept scientific explanations. The current opening makes it sound like EVP is accepted fact, which is unacceptable. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"or at the very least produced questionable results" still isn't supported, the Baruss source doesn't say that. I also don't think the phrase "Experiments have also produced mixed results." is appropriate since it lumps together scientific experiments and informal experiments which is misleading and POV. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You all may be fine with "informal experiments," but the phrase is not accurate.

There is no foundation for any of you to exclude information or attempt to dilute its meaning because you hope that MacRae is not scientific enough. If you want to get down to qualifications, Baruss is just a professor of psychology, and not a person we would consider qualified to pass judgment on EVP. I know the preparations he made for the experiment, how little research he did to educate himself and I know that his experimental procedure would never pass peer review of experienced EVP experimenters.

If you keep going after the qualifications of MacRae, I will be happy to reintroduce the qualifications of the people quoted in your skeptical references. Tom Butler 00:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, we have no idea what the qualifications of MacRae are, if any. If MacRae is a professional scientist, just provide a source saying that. Tom, I'd also like to reiterate the WP:COI warning I gave you on your user talk page - since your organization is heavily referenced in this article, it's a conflict of interest for you to edit it. Please stop. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you do not know the qualifications of almost all of the references in this article. The fact that you do not know MacRae's should suggest to you why you are not qualified to edit this subject.

It would be convenient for you if I stopped editing the page, but how can you think I will ignore misinformation about a subject I teach to be left in the article. As long as you all use terms like "psychic enthusiasts" or whatever that was, there is a need for someone to represent the facts.

Also, concerning the subject below, if you are looking for a monitory motive for our work with EVP, forget it. MacRae is way in the hole financially when it comes to EVP research and selling a few copies of his book will never cover the cost of him flying to California on his one ticket for the experiment. Even the few research grants he has earned provide only token money.

All of the proceeds from our book go to the operation of the AA-EVP, Etheric Studies, and hopefully, to research. So again, stop casting aspersions on people. That is simply liable. Tom Butler 00:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You have a clear and admitted conflict of interest, no matter what the dollar amount is. You should not be editing the article, and you are not entitled to tell anyone without a conflict of interest that they are or are not qualified to edit this article or any other.-MsHyde 01:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom, if you have a reference for MacRae's qualifications, please post it here on the talk page. Without it, he can't be taken seriously as a source. --Milo H Minderbinder 02:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There are all "researchers"

perfectblue 09:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Professional researchers? What are their credentials, without them we have no idea if they are amateurs and if they have any idea how to accurately conduct an experiment. The notion that anyone who tries things out in their basement is a "scientist" or "researcher" is ridiculous. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

According to established WP:V/WP:RS source Fate Magazine (2000-07-01:The Alpha Mystery), Macrae is a former lecturer in microelectronics and has worked on voice recognition with NASA. Imants Baruss is a Professor of Psychology at King's College University of Western Ontario, with an MSc in mathematics and a PhD in psychology. I would say that this qualified both of them to conduct profesional scientific research.

Equally, both are given credibility as "researchers" by the fact they have had "research" published in peer review journals. There's not much room to argue against them here.

perfectblue 16:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm dying to know where it's "established" that Fate Magazine is a reliable source. Is that article online somewhere or do you just have a stack of them handy? If that's the only source of his credentials (and that's as specific as we can get), it's clear that he isn't taken seriously as a scientist/researcher by any but fringe publications. Nor is "former lecturer" or "worked on voice recognition" a guarantee that he could or did follow valid procedures in his tests. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Judith Chisholm

Is not a researcher of any kind. She is a retired journalist whose son died. The entirety of her experiements consist of using tape recorders and interpreting the sounds herself (And selling subscriptions on her website to her club). By her own admission, she cannot convince any parapsychologists to study EVP. She has a clear disclaimer on her club's website. http://www.worlditc.org/h_18_chisholm_0.htm See also Fortrean Times.-MsHyde 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not once does the article mark her as such. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, then it should, shouldn't it? If an article is going to attribute claims to people, it should inform readers about the person making that claim so that they can judge whether the source is reliable. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to her being a researcher. I'll agree that her profession would be appropriate. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Both Judith Chisholm and Alexander MacRae are members of the AA-EVP, which might be worth noting, as it indicates their status as proponents of EVP. --- LuckyLouie 00:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So, they are proponents of EVP who benefit from it financially, and whose "research" consists entirely of making tape recordings which they interpret themselves.-MsHyde 00:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the AA-EVP?

The American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena (AA-EVP) is a nonprofit educational association that is dedicated to the support of people who are interested in or who are studying Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) and Instrumental TransCommunication (ITC). This web site offers examples, techniques and concepts concerning Phenomena.

Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) concerns unexpected voices found in recording media. It is a form of after death communication. ITC is a newer term that includes all of the ways these unexpected voices and images are collected through technology, including EVP. Of the many hypotheses designed to explain these phenomena, the Survival Hypothesis has been found to be most effective in answering the evidence.

You assume too much. They do not profit in any way. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Chisholm and MacRae do not cause the AA-EVP to profit financially. Since one of the stated goals of the AA-EVP is to increase awareness of EVP, their research is in line with these goals. Also one must take into account that they are both authors who do benefit financially from their respective book sales. --- LuckyLouie 00:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-profit does not mean there is no money in it, it means they get a tax break--the Butlers appear to be employed by the organization and get paid. Also, it appears likely they were paid by the marketing department of White Noise to promote the film. It's a very very clear case of COI.-MsHyde 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not our place to assume who's being paid for what. The fact remains that the organization is a non-profit, so your accusations are in the wrong. Focus on what's still POV about the article. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, you have zero idea what a non profit organization is. Employees get paid. All organizations are run with money. Non-profit does not mean no money or no COI. There is an extremely clear COI here. Butler should not be editing the article.-MsHyde 00:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Indent correctly, please. I am not speaking of Butler. I am speaking of the organization. Their employees are not editing here. Butler is, but that's another issue. You are creating a problem which does not exist with this. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Note - Judith Chisholm is referred to as a member of AA-EVP in the AA-EVP NewsJournal 20-4 according to the Google cache (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=judith+chisholm+aa-evp+member&btnG=Search) which was apparently posted in 2002. I was mistaken in assuming she was a current member of the organization. --- LuckyLouie 00:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually that is an archive page that has been pulled from behind our firewall by Google. The archive is a member's area because there are a few sensitive document there. Thanks for pointing it out, as I will need to ask Google to clear the catch. that is the second one someone who writes very much like you has found for me.

Meanwhile, look at the date on the article. We have not heard from Judith for years and she is not a member. Why are you so determined that she is? Does that somehow make her comments more tainted. Tom Butler 00:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

When claims are concentrated from a single source, it does tend to solidify the fact that the belief is not widely accepted or much more of a minority than it may actually be. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

MsHyde, The AA-EVP has no paid personnel. Lisa and I have put plenty of money into the organization, but we have never taken a dime out. We begin almost every day with taking care of the AA-EVP and do not stop until dinner. All of the others who help also do so as a labor of love.

And if you think we are trying to build a career, it might help for you to keep in mind that I am 63 and have already had a few careers. If you want to do some good yourself, we are looking for volunteers to help us set up the Etheric Studies Best Practices section. You can work for free like we do and you do not even have to believe in this stuff. All you need to do is be a good critical thinker with an open mind. See http://etheric-studies.aaevp.com/

Please, stop casting us in your light. Tom Butler 01:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Taking things personally is a pointless waste of time, and why COI editors are not advised to edit articles about themselves or their work. -MsHyde 01:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would want to see the tax returns for your org before I believed any statements about it. And, as I said, the dollar amount of the book profits, consulting fees, and org fundraising is beside the point: you have a clear COI.-MsHyde 01:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be an idiot if I did not take it personally. You are saying that I am not telling the truth. As it happens, the tax return is due in May, and it will be a public document. Of course I have a conflict of interest, only I would call it a responsibility to assure that the public does not see misinformation about EVP from what is supposed to be a trustworthy source.

I would characterize your comments as clearly evidence of a conflict of interest. Your are a member of the WikiProject Rational Skepticism skeptics club, and as such, you have a clear interest in making sure that EVP is not taken seriously. I should be requesting that you excuse yourself from this discussion! Tom Butler 01:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Leaving

I'm washing my hands of this article. It is the most contentious I've ever seen, and I edit only paranormal. The new edits -such as the recent edits of the summary to take out the absolutely necessary word paranormal, take no account of previous discussions on the talk page. At this rate, the article will never be fought out, because we'll be fighting the same fights with new editors forever. This is for two reasons: 1) Misplaced Pages has a blind spot in the NPOV rules whereby notable fringe topics cannot be covered from their own POV, (while providing also the mainstream view), and 2) this article is not under an umbrella as is the Parapsychology article where the PA is a member of the AAAS, and also doesn't have any sources which can meet WP:V. Maybe I'll drop by once in a while, but I don't think it is worth staying in the game. I sent an email to Tom Butler, telling him he should give Misplaced Pages another chance, but this article is a special case. Maybe he was right. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Status of EVP

Someguy, I appreciate all of the work you have done to make the EVP entry work. I can live with the intro, the history and the hypothesis, although some of the skeptical explanations are pretty silly and have been answered so many times I keep forgetting that the skeptics do not usually do the research they need to for making serious objections.

What I cannot see standing is the insinuation that some amateur experimenter did something not very scientific and probably has deluded conclusions. I would agree to removing the section or simply stating that EVP "proponents" continue to study the subject while "mainstream science" continues to ignore it.

Meanwhile, the phrases "Informal experiments" and "seemed to the experimenter" need to change. Since you do not like my changes, please try again with your own. Tom Butler 01:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not that I don't like your changes, it's just that the COI issue looms over it. I'll try to find more acceptable wording. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the problem with Tom Butler: "some of the skeptical explanations are pretty silly" and "mainstream science continues to ignore it." Science also ignores astrology and Bigfoot. This is because the "silly" scientific explanations for EVP, Bigfoot, and astrology which are accepted by the majority of the world already suffice. Whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant. Whether I agree or disagree is irrrelevant. Misplaced Pages mirrors the world, it does not promote new fringe theories.-MsHyde 01:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course you know you are just posturing now. The problem with Tom Butler is that this discussion has been going on for months, and ever time things begin to get close to agreement, some new editor from the skeptics club come in to attempt imposing more POV as he or she believe it to be. Of course I am way out of patience with this, and no I am not going away.

Misplaced Pages does not mirror the world and it clearly promotes the status quo--right or wrong. In some schools of thought, that is usually referred to as the "Flat Earth Mentality." So please, either help us find wording that both "proponents" and skeptics can live with or go away. Tom Butler 01:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom has stopped editing, so that at the very least should satisfy you. Things like "purported" and "sounds" are purposefully damaging the credibility of the material, which is not what the article is for. It is there to outline EVP, give some background, possible causes, and the current situation. We are not here to judge its validity, which words like those do. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You are entirely unclear on the concept of "the credibility of the material," which is the problem with this article. Purported is a statement of fact. You do not grasp what is judgement and what is fact. I will seek help preparing for Arbcom.-MsHyde 02:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Do so then. Don't act like it's some kind of threat. I would like a resolution to this instead of the back and forth POV nonsense with one side trying to make it seem real and the other trying to discredit it. It's maddening. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That is your problem--you do not understand that rationality is rationality, period, not an "attempt to discredit" EVP. You are not capable of being objective.-MsHyde 02:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither are you, because you insist on viewing this from the "it's complete bunk" perspective. Rationality is a subjective term. Simply because it is not rational to you does not mean others feel the same. I am only trying to keep a balance between the skeptisim and the belief. I'm am asking nicely here. Please help me do this. I'm only asking that you find a way to put it that isn't disparaging or confirming its validity, only making it so both sides are presented. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you are completely incorrect. Rationality is not a subjective term. If science has not found that EVP exists, it is a fringe theory. Giving equal weight to science and fringe theories is POV pushing. It does not matter how anyone "feels," it only matters what the facts are. Your opinion that stating facts "disparages' fringe theories is deterimental to the encyclopedia, and should be addressed at Arbcom, especially because you aggressively edit war. There is no need to "present all sides," there is only due weight and facts. Fringe theories can only be presented as fringe theories. Proponents purport, etc.-MsHyde 02:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You are not stating facts though, you are only making it seem less credible, which helps no one. Take "sounds" for example. This does not descirbe the clip. Sounds implies randomness. This is a continuous track recording in a single location. It is a sample. It is not POV to call it such. It is POV to call it sounds, because it is more than that. It is also POV to use purported in the opening sentence. Everything is purported. It helps no one to say this. It does help to say "so and so purports this is caused by ghosts," because that is a fact. Furthermore, we already do that at length in the history section. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Someguy, this part of the entry still makes it seem as if one experimenter really knew his stuff (which he did not) and the other was an amateur (which he is not.) Here it is:

Some experiments, usually done on larger scales and under controlled conditions, found no anomalies that explicitly fulfill the characteristics of EVP. Other experiments, usually done on smaller scales and not under such strict controls, recorded anomalies which, upon analysis and listening tests, seemed to the experimenter to " have been in some way paranormal".

How about this?

Some experiments found no anomalies that explicitly fulfill the characteristics of EVP. Other experiments, produced anomalies which, upon analysis and listening tests, exhibited the expected characteristics of EVP". Further research is required, and is being conducted to determine whether or not there is a scientifically accept foundation that supports the claims of EVP proponents.

You see, the problem with that is that it makes it seem like EVP is real, but people simply aren't trying hard enough to prove it. Thanks for the comments on my edit, though. I'll try to revise it. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

First, Someguy, I can live with the current version of the entry.

Okay MsHyde, so my grasp of the "fact" concept is deficient. Since the way you interpret Misplaced Pages point of view disqualifies virtually everything EVP researchers and experimenters have studied about EVP, the evidence they have produced under very controlled conditions and the fact that the "EVP recording experiment" has been conducted literally tens of thousands of times, often by academically trained scientists and often producing expected results, I am obviously condemned to be ignorant of the Misplaced Pages rules of evidence.

No one has stepped up to challenge the experimental evidence of EVP based on the evidence. All of the challenges have focused on untested theories. Even Baruss admits that he may have recorded EVP, wich is important considering that his protocol was very faulty. So MsHyde, for all of your "It is not because it is not" argument, the fact remains that your side has not done due diligence and trying to talk us out of the evidence is not going to make it go away.

If there is to be an arbitration, I suggest that it be a very public one ... except I guess I don't know what is to be arbitrated. Are you the complainant? Tom Butler

PS We are conducting an interesting experiment at http://aaevp.com/research/research_evp_listening_experiment1.htm . Some of the examples are proving difficult to understand. We still need more responses, but one example is scoring in the 90s as correctly understood. Tom Butler

Well Tom, I just went and did the test. Gibberish. By your statement that, "one example is scoring in the 90s as correctly understood", does that mean that you have inbuilt bias because you are already assuming that something is said? (FYI page typo, "I have studies EVP"). Candy 03:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least I managed to please one person. That's a start. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The current wording excludes any distinction between actual scientific experiments and those done by those with unknown credentials and reputability. If there are credentials, they should be presented, failure to do so gives the impression that editors are afraid to do so because they would demonstrate that those experimenters are unqualified, inexperienced, and lack expertise. The challenge to the "experimentaal evidence of EVP" is that those experiments haven't been scrutinized and verified by third parties. There's no obligation to disprove an experiment that simply isn't credible or valid in the first place. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Proponents

I would say it's accurate to call EVP experimenters who write and publish books extolling the virtues of EVP as "proponents". MacRae, Chisholm, and Colin Smythe certainly fall into this category (yes, Smythe was also an EVP experimenter). Proponents is not a derogatory word, I don't understand why we are avoiding it. --- LuckyLouie 18:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

PoV inbuilt bias?

Hypopthesis?

An odd use of the term. Explanation or guess would be relevant to some of the comments in this section. By use of hypothesis it implies that EVP exists. It needs to be clearer that EVP does not exist.

Using the term hypothesis lets us state explicitly that :an"explanation exists", but that it has not yet been proven" (hence it is still only a hypothesis). This is entirely correct. The phrase that you're loking for is "possible explanation"

perfectblue 16:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The use of sub-headings, "Paranormal" and "Non-Paranormal". This is quite frankly wierd and pushing PoV. First of all, it would be expected that the terms be "Normal" and "Paranormal". Normal first as well because, as has been shown many, many times, the paranormal is exposed as trcikery, tomfoolery or susceptibility when any of the events can be reproduced and tested. Candy 03:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Normal" implies a common everyday fact/occurrence. Even if there were a scientifically confirmed prosaic happening (cross modulation etc), none of these explanations can be classified as normal on the grounds that the event itself is an anomaly.

perfectblue 16:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to remind everybody, when writing up a report about something, it is normal to put the arguments that echo the premise/definition first, and the ones that go against it second.

For example, when writing up a feasibility study on the building of a road, you record the pros first, and the cons second.

This is a fringe topic, switching the two implies that the scientific explanations are the fringe explanations

perfectblue 16:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Audio sample label

I don't get the insistence on the audio sample having no description of what it is, or allegedly is. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, and an audio sample is useless without saying what it is. Why does the description keep getting removed? If we can't decide what it's a recording of, it shouldn't be in the article at all. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You weren't here earlier. We had a huge edit war a month or so ago over defining things as "EVP". One lot of skeptics said that nothing could be called EVP because EVP hasn't been proven to exist. Another lot of skeptics said that we couldn't say anything that even alluded to "this is what EVP typically/might sound like" because we didn't have a WP:RS benchmark for what "EVP might sound like". Some POV pushers came along and added "So-called", "Aledged", "Supposed" etc in front of everything. A couple more skeptics showed up and said that we couldn't call it an EVP because that would mean that Wikipeia was A) promoting EVP as being real B) offering to validate the sample as being real, and the guy whose organization recorded the actual sample (who shows up now and again) gets upset when people put any wording up that describes samples as being anything but "EVP".

Since then, it's just been more peaceful for us to simply list it as being "an audio sample" and to put up a link to somebody else describing it as EVP.

perfectblue 16:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not acceptable to me. There has to be a factual way to describe the sample we can agree on, if not it shouldn't even be on the page. Media with no explanation can't stay. I don't see how saying that some believe it to be EVP is POV. It's a factually correct statement, isn't it? We can all agree that it can't be factually proved that it actually is EVP. And we can all agree that some believe that it is EVP and say that's what it is. With this sort of topic, the proper way to cover it is to say what proponents believe. That's not POV, that's the most factual, neutral way to present the topic. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not that simple when you are dealing with born-skeptics and born-believers. The skeptics argue that saying that people believe it to be EVP implies that EVP is a real thing, and the believers argue that it IS EVP, and saying that people believe that it is implies that it might not be.

"With this sort of topic, the proper way to cover it is to say what proponents believe."

I've been arguing the very same thing for weeks.

perfectblue 21:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"With this sort of topic, the proper way to cover it is to say what proponents believe" -- I too, have been saying that for months. I don't understand the reluctance by some editors to label EVP proponents as proponents. Someone please explain it to me. (I might add that people who write books about EVP, maintain websites to foster awareness of EVP, and give public talks on EVP, are proponents. Any other word to describe them is an attempt to misrepresent who they are) --- LuckyLouie 21:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it *is* that simple.:-) The longterm problem at this article seems to be that somewhere someone got the idea that science and EVP have to be given equal weight. EVP can only be described as something extreme minority proponents believe in. It doesn't matter what my opinion is, or anyone else's opinion is. Misplaced Pages does not report on the opinions of editors. It describes the real world, in which science and facts rule. Fringe theories can only be described as fringe theories. they have zero validity, and all that can be reported of them is that some people believe in them. "I feel that bigfoot exists, I have drawn pictures of him, and therefore anyone who says my Bigfoot drawings are unscientific is disparaging my experiments and I will not settle for that" is patently absurd.-MsHyde 21:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you're a little off bases here. EVP is a subsection of parapsychology which is a recognized branch of science. In Wiki-terms this means that we do not have to approach it from a skeptical position so long as we provide WP:V/WP:RS for any science based claims that we record.

Equally, EVP passes WP:Notable within the field of the paranormal. Meaning that we can record what any notable proponent believes, regardless of whether it is scientific or not, so long as we include prior caveat (eg, labeling EVP as being paranormal), and we don't try to use abuse science to back them up. In simple terms, a notable crank is still notable, even if he is a crank.

perfectblue 12:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"The longterm problem at this article seems to be that somewhere someone got the idea that science and EVP have to be given equal weight"

Again, parapsychology IS a field of science. We are therefore fully permitted to include any parapsychology experiment involving EVP that is conducted using scientific parameters. As it happens there have been two peer reviewed EVP experiments conducted by qualified and experienced researchers. One recorded a number of anomalies, but determined that they were too ambiguous to represent proof. The other recorded number of "anomalies" that were determined to be sufficiently speech like to be authenticated as "voices", and that they didn't come from outside EM interference or vocal contamination (people speaking near the microphone etc). That's one scientifically valid report for and one with no determinable results. Both repors are included in the main article and both are fully WP:V/WP:RS by Wikistandards.

perfectblue 12:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the Baruss study, which other one was peer reviewed? Certainly not the MacRae one. I don't see any studies here showing evidence of EVP that have been scrutinized and accepted by the scientific community. WP policy says that topics must be covered by mainstream publications, this one seems of questionable notability and if it passes, it just barely does. What's the most mainstream source to cover this topic? The vast majority of sources are questionable "reliable sources" and should only be used to document what proponents claim, and absolutely not presented as accepted scientific fact. It should be presented as "EVP as believed to be paranormal by proponents". We absolutely have to approach it from a skeptical position since the mainstream does (per WP:FRINGE) - the skeptical position is always valid until truly reliable (and mainstream, reputable, well respected) sources say it should be taken seriously as fact. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Macrae was published in the JSPR, which is peer reviewed and maintained by actual scientists.

"I don't see any studies here showing evidence of EVP that have been scrutinized and accepted by the scientific community." - Nobody is actually saying that it has been accepted as science.

"The vast majority of sources are questionable" - WP:RS is a sliding scale. When it is strict when WP:Ving science, and less so when we are simply recording "belief".

"We absolutely have to approach it from a skeptical position" - Actually no. Parapsychology is a science (the scientific study of certain elements of the paranormal), which means that we don't need to approach it skeptically. Besides, there is almost no credible skeptical research in existence.

Does mainstream science recognize parapsychology as the default authority on the supernatural, paranormal, ghosts, esp, evp, etc.? --- LuckyLouie 19:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology IS the scientific study of the paranormal (or certain areas of it). While the mainstream might not always agree with its conclusions, it does recognize it as the "default authority" in the same way that it recognizes psychology as the "default authority on..... but doens't always agree with its findings. For example, the "Parapsychological Association" has been a member of the AAAS for almost 40 years.

perfectblue 11:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is one mainstream view of EVP from a reliable source, Scientific American article --- LuckyLouie 03:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What's your source on the JSPR being peer reviewed or "actual scientists" (and peers means scientists in general if you want to treat it as a scientific source, not just other paranormal researchers)? Looking at their website, they don't even claim to be scientists. I'm reluctant to believe that the publication is accepted by the overall scientific community without a source demonstrating that. RS is a sliding scale as you say, which means if we are going to cite these studies and sources, it should be made perfectly clear whether each study was done by a scientist or an enthusiast and whether it was peer reviewed. Info from fringe sources should be clearly presented as what the researcher believes and nothing more. It's not good enough for "parapsychology" to accept a concept to present it as fact, for that it must be accepted by the scientific community overall. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wellllll, for starters, they say that they are peer review , and their membership list includes some rather notable people with some significant scientific letterage after their names.

"Info from fringe sources should be clearly presented as what the researcher believes and nothing more." that's POV in the extreme and shows a poor understanding of the meaning of the word. Fringe largely means "not widely covered by the mainstream", not "Hokum". Scientists working on the fringes are often just regular scientists working in areas where there is little funding available, or which are very new and experimental. Look at Imants Baruss' paper on EVP. That's pretty fringe, but are would you seriously suggest that his findings are simply "What he believes" given that he too got peer review?

perfectblue 14:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Any organization can make claims about themselves. Is there a reliable third party source that indicates that the scientific community takes the JSPR seriously or agrees that their info is peer reviewed by scientists? Letters after a name aren't a substitute for verifying experimental results. I never used the word "hokum", I'm not sure if you're actually disagreeing with calling this topic and the JSPR "fringe", the definition "not widely covered by the mainstream" certainly fits. Whether the Baruss study is "fringe" isn't really relevant, as it's certainly no more fringe than any other source in this article. As WP policy says, we don't need to show an experiment disproving EVP, we just have to show a lack of legitimate experiments proving it. Note that nobody is arguing that the article should say that scientists disproved EVP, just that scientists have found zero evidence supporting it (note that fringe says "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance."). Throwing out the Baruss study wouldn't change the fact that EVP has no verified evidence and no support from the scientific community. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain what you're point is. Of course EVP is a fringe topic with little or no scientific backing. It states that clearly right from the introduction when it calls it "Paranormal". Nowhere anywhere on this page are we claiming otherwise. All that is claimed is that the topic is notable (as per WP:Fringe "Notability does not imply correctness or acceptance by an academic community."), and that a number of people have dabbled/experimented in it.

"just that scientists have found zero evidence supporting it" - MacRae is microelectronics lecturer who worked as a voice recognition expert with NASA. He carried out a controlled experiment that included both his areas of expertise, and he found something that science cannot adequately explain. It's not proof that "ghosts did it", but it's scientifically valid research sowing that anomalies like this occur. Which is all that we really need.

perfectblue 16:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This article does not provide a source for MacRae's credentials (can he truly be called a "scientist"? does he have research experience?), and I don't think publication in the JSPR is sufficient verification that his results were valid, particularly since his results haven't been reproduced. And the article as written gives too much credibility to the "dabbling" - based on RS these probably shouldn't be cited at all, if they are it should be very clear that they are only claims by individuals and not accepted research results. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Scientist or Skeptic

"Scientist" is defined as, "A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences" American Heritage. Using the term in place of "Skeptics" is just a subtle way of enlisting science to speak for skeptics and is both misleading and biased to the skeptical side. Tom Butler 19:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You've got it backwards--psychic enthiusiasts are skeptical of science. Saying that scientists are "skeptical" of EVP implies that EVP has any scientific validity whatsoever, and is not the hobby of psychic enthusiasts, which is what it is.-MsHyde 19:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In this case, there are no scientists (at least nobody has shown any) who seem to believe in EVP - it's perfectly reasonable to say that the view that they don't exist is held by scientists. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

MsHyde, did you read what I wrote? First, you have absolutely no foundation to paint all people who study these phenomena as "skeptical of science." A fair number of them are academically trained scientists. Also, I said that you should stop trying to hide behind scientists for your argument. Be honest and say "Skeptic."

Finally, saying "hobby of psychic enthusiasts" is pretty clearly a deliberate attempt to denigrate serious researchers and honest experimenters. Should I begin referring to you all as "religiously skeptical"?

You are just saying what come to mind to win an argument rather than to communicate quite wasting our time! Tom Butler 19:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable to you, perhaps. The point is that using "Scientist" as it has been used here implies authority that does not exist. Tom Butler 20:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not think you can make the argument that I have a conflict of interest when you are in the Skeptics Club sponsored by Misplaced Pages. You are as dedicated to foisting skeptical nonsense on the public as I am dedicated to making sure whatever is said about EVP is factual. I cannot accept equating skeptical to Scientific any more than I can accept EVP researchers and experimenters to psychic enthusiasts. I will take the issue to whoever is supposed to be running this encyclopedia. Tom Butler 20:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It has been repeatedly explained to you what a conflict of interest is on your talkpage.-MsHyde 20:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Being a member of a wikiproject isn't a COI. And if you have an issue with her pointing out your COI, I'll be more than happy to do it. It doesn't really matter what you accept, you and your organization have an interest in how this article is worded so you're not in a position to make POV decisions about it. If you want to appal to higher authority, go right ahead - I think this article would benefit greatly from more scrutiny. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Being an expert in the field doesn't necessarily create a conflict of interests, and if he does have a COI, it doesn't suddenly make his concerns invalid. Dismissing him like that is highly incivil. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

He is not an expert in a field, he's an advocate for his hobby. He has a clear COI, and he has been very disruptive. Making threats, POV pushing, telling editors they are not qualified to edit the article if they do not share his hobby, etc. I think he should be barred from the talkpage even, if he cannot stick to citing sources and stating why this or that is factually inaccurate, rather than arguing his opinions. This is not a forum for opinions.-MsHyde 22:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand your point Lucky, I learned to live with the label "Proponent" months ago. That is not the argument. The argument is two fold. First, those who are professed members of the Misplaced Pages skeptics club are proponents of the established view and doing all they can to bias the EVP article in that direction. I have negotiated in good faith to find an acceptable middle ground. For instance, accepting the title of proponent, yet we keep having new editors come along with more changes pushing the article away from the middle. Who here is not with a conflict of interest?

MsHyde, I will say one more time, the issue is not that we are arguing that science and EVP are on the same level. You are apparently saying that as a diversion. We are arguing that EVP simply is an observed phenomena. Sufficient proof has been produced to at least verify that it is an observable phenomena. It still needs research and all--all--theories designed to explain it are no more than hypotheses. Science has not passed judgment on EVP in a scientific way, meaning that it has not been studies by mainstream science and implying that it has is misleading. You are, in fact, arguing that the public should be mislead.

I am only matching my increasing aggressiveness with your increasing determination to make this a Skeptic platform. Just you describing me as a hobbyist is a demeaning remark that insults thousands of people. If you were educated in the subject, you would know that. Since you insist that you do not have to be educated in the subject, then I must assume that your choice of words is deliberate.

Since I will not stop editing, I am going to remove all mention of the AA-EVP from the article since that seems to be your main argument for my conflict of interest. Tom Butler 22:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, something has been observed, and therefore is perfectly open to inclusion. What the cause of the observed anomalies is is still up for debate, but they do exist.

perfectblue 12:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"Just you describing me as a hobbyist is a demeaning remark that insults thousands of people."

Q: Is there any money to be made in this field, or is it just a hobby for you?

LISA and TOM: It’s a hobby.

From White Noise: An Interview With Tom and Lisa Butler

--- LuckyLouie 06:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

JSmith, as has been pointed out, the conflict of interest isn't being "an expert in the field" it's that Tom here is mentioned in the article along with the organization he runs. It's the equivalent of Bill Gates arguing that the Microsoft article is unfair and should be more positive. I suspect it may take a block to stop his COI edits, if that's the case so be it. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Curb your incivility everyone. I've seen tom and AA-EVP referenced in 3 books.... and thats just the three books I have on the subject.

Tom, don't do that. I'll revert you myself. Your orgonisation is notable in the field.

A COI is only aplicable if TOM edits a section about himself or his orgonisation for anything more then cosmetic fixes. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be more like Bill Gates editing the article on Operating Systems. 22:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The entirety of this article has a potential effect on the reputation of his organization as well as books for sale on this topic. Any edits he does anywhere on this article shouldn't be anything more than cosmetic fixes. I don't think removing mention of AAEVP really solves much either, at least just removing references to the organization while still leaving the statements referenced from it. Removing himself and his organization is just as much a COI as any other edit he does on it. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Further, Tom does not grasp that the talkpage isn't a forum for his opinions, and he lacks objectivity about his hobby/org/website. EVP is not an observed phenomenon, for example. It is claimed to exist by an extreme minority. Tom does not appear to understand that no one has to negotiate with him about whether science is the majority view, and that it is not a matter of opinion. He should only be participating on the talkpage, and only to provide cited sources to back up suggestions that something should be changed because it is factually inaccurate. Endless aggressive arguing from a POV standpoint about matters which do not refer to factual inaccuracy, issuing threats and demands is disruptive. and it has gone on cyclically--he is warned, then returns.-MsHyde 23:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

COI would apply if he cited himself, a book that he was involved in, was writing about his own organization. Citing anybody like Macrae would mean that he was citing his competition. Stopping him from doing that would be like stopping Bill Gates from writing something good about the Mac OS on the grounds that it helped the entire computer industry.

perfectblue 12:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's COI whether he cites himself or not, actually according to WP:COI, Gates shouldn't be editing the Mac articles either. From COI: "avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with" and later: "Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, family members, or associates may place the author in a conflict of interest." There's no question that edits that make EVP sound more credible promote the interests of Tom and his organization. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Being an AA-EVP member and fellow Spiritualist, MacRae does not appear to be Tom's competition, but rather a fellow proponent of EVP and life after death (or "the survival hypothesis" as they term it). Furthermore, I have nothing against MacRae or Spiritualists, but since only those with strong beliefs seem to get any positive experimental results, we must be careful not to represent such work as "science" when it really is more an example of "pathological science", i.e. cases where there is no dishonesty involved, but where people are tricked into false results by a lack of understanding about what human beings can do to themselves in the way of being led astray by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions. --- LuckyLouie 19:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I have nearly NPOVed the article. There were some claims which were not supported by the sources, and other which were contradicted by the sources. I fixed those errors, and removed weasels. I believe that this article should either remain NPOV or be deleted. Tom Butler had some points on the deletion page. This page comes under WP:FRINGE where it says:

Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance for the idea among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled as pseudoscience, unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources...the purpose of Misplaced Pages is not to "debunk" notable ideas which the mainstream scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy.

This has not been followed in this article up to now. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The enlargement and highlighting of selected quotes from MacRae seems a bit pushy and intended to weight the section toward a particular POV. --- LuckyLouie 07:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree, feel free to return those to normal paragraphs. Martin, I think you're going overboard with your "weasel" accusations. In this sort of article, there is no proven evidence of the topic so we can only present the info as what individuals believe. The term "claim" is completely appropriate since we are spelling out what people are claiming (and I don't see it as much different than "says"). Same goes for "proponents". This is a topic that has few who support it, is there another word for those who believe that EVP exists? I think the article is still slanted pretty heavily toward a pro EVP point of view, since most of the article is devoted to "evidence" and the complete lack of support from the scientific community is way at the end with a tiny mention. Based on FRINGE, the lack of consideration and acceptance by the scientific community should be made much more clear, and it should be made very clear that most of the studies listed didn't have the scrutiny of the scientific community. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm also a little concerned about what I see as overuse of the word "weasel". I appreciate that WP:Words to avoid is a guideline on the appropriateness of language intended to avoid the in-creep of subtle point of view. But excessive use of the words "weasel", "weaseling", "weasel-whacking", and so forth, seems antagonistic to and disparaging of other editors. — BillC 00:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

He's referring to Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel words. Probably the best way to avoid those in this case is to use direct quotes often and attribute claims to specific people. I agree that the term has been way overused in this case, and based on WP:FRINGE, the so called "weasel words" might be the most appropriate way to describe this. Scientists for the most part don't accept this as fact, and a small group of proponents/supporters/whatever do believe it is real. That's just the way it is. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely that this is a fringe topic, which has been largely ignored by serious science. But the peer-reviewed science we can actually cite, (Baruss, and Macrae's article in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research) or other authoritative sources such as the website of the PA, say that it is inconclusive whether EVP exists or not. However much we may feel that it doesn't, we can't say it doesn't, nor can we make the reader feel it doesn't by the manner of writing.

I also agree that under normal circumstances, the word "claimed", would be OK. Where I find it, I don't always edit it out! However, I feel that it has been abused on Misplaced Pages, in order to discredit. Therefore, I would rather completely eliminate it. Words like "proponents" are even worse. How do you get around using such leading words? Well, you almost answered your own question: "This is a topic that has few who support it, is there another word for those who believe that EVP exists?" Could simply be changed to "those who say EVP is real" or something. With a little care, there is no need for weasel words. I whack weasels not because they are weasels, but because they are used to discredit. I don't eliminate them because of what they are, but because they are not NPOV.

As far as the MacRae quote, it is from a peer-reviewed journal, and could be balanced by another quote from a peer reviewed journal. I though it would be good to actually let the reader see what we're describing, sort of a direct teaser from a WP:V source.

To sum up, I believe that the more fringe the article, the more closely it should adhere to the NPOV and WP:WTA guidelines. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The quotations from the MacRae article were "highlighted" merely to set them off as a quotation. I usually use that form instead of blockquotes. But in response to your concerns, I've put them in blockquote.

I think we need to make it quite clear that many skeptics think this is bunk, that the scientific community has ignored it, and that it is a very fringe theory. But we can't say that the scientific community has rejected it, if they have ignored it. Has this been made clear to your satisfaction? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This article absolutely needs to follow NPOV. But NPOV doesn't mean presenting both sides equally, or even giving both sides equal space in the article. If something is a view held by a minority (and in this case I don't think there's any debating that), it should be presented as the minority view and presented secondary to the majority view. "Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." And the fact that the scientific community has almost completely ignored EVP means that the scientific community doesn't accept EVP. In addition to balancing the MacRae statements with Baruss statements, the article needs to say that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance. As WP:FRINGE says: "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance." Per NPOV we can't just have an article filled with quotes from those supporting EVP without balancing it by mentioning the lack of acceptance and absence of publishing in mainstream scientific publications. To be honest, I have my doubts that this even meets notability requirements to have an article - there's one article in a general science journal, one in a psychic specific science journal, and the rest are self published or niche publications.

The best thing for this article is to use direct quotes as much as possible, with clear attribution. The opening paragraph should quote the two peer reviewed studies, and the Status of EVP section should probably just be combined with the intro - the standing of EVP is one of the most important pieces of information and should be in the opening. I also think the article doesn't need to go into nearly as much detail on individual studies, particularly ones that weren't peer reviewed, were self published, etc. Right now the article cites every source and about EVP regardless if they meet RS or not.

By the way, the Baruss study doesn't say it's "inconclusive" it says it failed to find evidence of real EVP, and while they heard voices and sounds during the test, they felt they were explainable by science and didn't consider anything they observed anomalous. Science has no obligation to disprove conjectures, if "proof" doesn't stand up to scrutiny that's enough to not accept the idea. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Both JSPR and JSE admit to being vehicles for topics that are, for various reasons, ignored within mainstream science. A credibility contest pitting MacRae against Baruss is artificial and pointless, since both their papers represent a minority subject interest within minority niche publications. If these works have truly been "peer-reviewed", I would like to see the comments from peers; references to their papers in mainstream journals where physical scientists support, discuss, or challenge their conclusions. Failing this, I think slanting the article one way or another based on Baruss or MacRae is ill-advised. Per NPOV, the article can only reflect what the majority scientific view of EVP is, and describe what proponents believe about it. The real status of EVP has already been determined by its absence of acceptance from the scientific community. The article should not be weighted so that "ignored" can be interpreted as "unjustly ignored" or "deserves further examination". --- LuckyLouie 18:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And to think that I had been assuming that was a mainstream publication, shame on me. Based on that, is there a single article about EVP in a mainstream publication? Looking at the list of citations, every single one seems to be from a publication that deals in "fringe" subjects. In the absence of mainstream and general scientific sources, does this article even meet the standards of notability and avoid deletion? Is there a reliable source asserting notability that I've missed? "Any non-mainstream theories should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual." I don't see evidence of that. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I might also point out that the subject of EVP is visible in popular culture, most notably on reality-based TV shows like Ghost_Hunters and Most_Haunted, and also a frequent ingredient of psychic, ghost-hunting, and paranormal TV shows like DSC's "A Haunting" and Travel Channel's "Haunted Destinations". Also EVP proponents like Lou Gentile have been the subject of discussion by James Randi, most notably Lou's $1 Million Dollar Challenge application and withdrawal. For some reason, this article has chosen to ignore the pop culture positioning of EVP in favor of presenting it as a "scientific" subject. --- LuckyLouie 19:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That certainly is a potential argument to keep the article, but shows like that aren't mentioned or cited in the article. If the only argument for notability is references in fiction and TV shows, the article should be written from that slant since the scientific claims don't seem to be notable. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."

Well, yes, but since most of the people who are experts on the subject or are concerned parties probably believe EVP is paranormal, this is actually an argument for presenting it as paranormal.

And the fact that the scientific community has almost completely ignored EVP means that the scientific community doesn't accept EVP

It means that it does not accept it, and we must make that quite clear. But it hasn't rejected it either. See my above quotation of WP:FRINGE.

In addition to balancing the MacRae statements with Baruss statements, the article needs to say that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance

Agreed completely. I thought it did say there isn't acceptance?

I also doubt whether it is notable enough to include. That's why I was complaining about their having shut down the vote on deletion so quickly.

the standing of EVP is one of the most important pieces of information and should be in the opening

ScienceApologist and I had huge disputes about this. It depends on how it is done. I would agree with the statement on the surface, but SA, for instance, wanted to make out as if science had rejected what it has merely ignored. He wanted to make negative scientific claims.

I also think the article doesn't need to go into nearly as much detail on individual studies, particularly ones that weren't peer reviewed, were self published, etc. Right now the article cites every source and about EVP regardless if they meet RS or not.

Well, it's fringe. Might as well give the information, as long as the status is clear.

By the way, the Baruss study doesn't say it's "inconclusive" it says it failed to find evidence of real EVP

Well, yes, but it did find something spooky. So I'd say it's fair to say it was inconclusive about the paranormal status. The paranormality just didn't come up to the needed level to say it was probably paranormal.

they felt they were explainable by science and didn't consider anything they observed anomalous

Rather say, they felt they couldn't say they were paranormal, but they could not explain them.

the article can only reflect what the majority scientific view of EVP is, and describe what proponents believe about it.

In what way do you believe the article is slanted? Perhaps it needs sort of a better summation which makes it plain that it isn't accepted?

There is no majority scientific view on this subject.

The article should not be weighted so that "ignored" can be interpreted as "unjustly ignored" or "deserves further examination".

Neither should it be weighted so that a person could not think that. The subject has simply been ignored. Period.

In the absence of mainstream and general scientific sources, does this article even meet the standards of notability and avoid deletion?

Well, let's delete it! You-all closed the vote too quick!

For some reason, this article has chosen to ignore the pop culture positioning of EVP in favor of presenting it as a "scientific" subject.

Yeah, that's true. It should be presented as both, perhaps.

And to think that I had been assuming that was a mainstream publication, shame on me.

It doesn't matter at all whether the publication is mainstream, as far as I know the Misplaced Pages rules. It matters whether it is peer-reviewed- which we must determine as per below. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE says "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance." Based on that, it seems fair to describe the idea as not just "ignored" but "not accepted" by the general scientific community. Also based on that I think it's too narrow to limit "experts on the subject" to researchers of the paranormal. Equal weight means it should be presented as science overall considers the topic. While "rejected" isn't appropriate, I think saying science has failed to accept it is better than just saying science has ignored it (based on WP:FRINGE). The level of detail isn't appropriate because of undue weight - "might as well include it" doesn't respect NPOV, nor does it respect RS in the case of experiments not scrutinized or published in reliable sources.

You're still misrepresenting the Baruss study, they don't say anything about finding "spooky" things, nor that it was "inconclusive about the paranormal status", nor that "they could not explain them" (they said the opposite in they said they found nothing anomolous). Your highly spun statements are a perfect example why we should be using direct quotes as much as possible instead of paraphrasing.

I believe the article is slanted because the mention that the majority of scientists (and FRINGE says we can interpret lack of mention as lack of acceptance) don't accept it is late in the article and far outbalanced by the amount of info detailing the specifics of proponents of the theory. There's undue weight given to a minority view that has had zero mainstream coverage and comes mostly from non RS. And too much of the article is paraphrasing instead of direct quotes attributed to specific individuals.

"Mainstream" isn't crucial for RS, but it is for notability. And peer review isn't automatically enough, from FRINGE: "...while peer review is a necessary feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, it is not sufficient. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Misplaced Pages as representing scientific consensus or fact. Subjects that are sourced solely and entirely on the basis of singular primary sources (even when they are peer reviewed) may be excluded from Misplaced Pages on notability grounds." If the article stays, and if it does it will probably be on the grounds of notability in fiction, the fictional coverage should be the primary focus of the article and the scientific aspect secondary. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Baruss did find several "spooky things". But the experiment was looking for substantial and replicateable instances, and the "spooky things" that they found were not replicateable, and were far to open to conjecture, so they were automatically excluded from the results. In short, they were looking "to shake hands with dead people", but got "bumps in the night" instead. Plus, what they did find was far too small a sample (a few seconds out of several hours) for them to even begin to reach any conclusions on.

perfectblue 15:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Calling what they observed "spooky things" is POV and spin since Baruss never used that term. Your post is a great example of why we should use direct quotes instead of coming up with our own terms for what we think they found. Any interpretation on our part of a study is OR - the researcher's description of results is the description we should use. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Credentials of Alexander MacRae

The article currently refers to Alexander MacRae as a scientist - is there a reference for his credentials and other research? Where has he been published other than the JSPR? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I was unable to find anything in either PubMed or Google Scholar. There were several papers on Occupational Therapy topics authored by one A MacRae in the 1980's, but so far as I know, that is not the same individual who is associated with EVP. The papers written in the JSPR did not show up. — BillC 21:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no definition of "scientist," save perhaps that they have done research which is in accord with the scientific method, there is no reason to change this. However, another definition of "scientist" might be that one has had work published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Under this definition, MacRae qualifies. However, I can't find the place you mean, so maybe it was changed. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd still like to see a source on his credentials. Even a verification that he actually did publish in that journal would be a start - where did that info come from, does someone have a copy of it? --Milo H Minderbinder 23:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a link to it in the article citation already: Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a primary source, we need a secondary RS for that since anyone can make whatever claims they want on their own website and we have no way of knowing if they are true. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And looking at the link, it doesn't even say in the article that it was published in the JSPR, although it does mention another article as "date TBA" in the JSPR. Are we sure the JSPR actually published the article (or the one mentioned in that article)? The JSPR website doesn't have abstracts online after 2003, and I couldn't find any reliable mention of it being published. And the article on his website is supposedly the same as the published one, right? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

After the above post I also saw that the date was TBA, and I tried to cofirm actual publication, but haven't been able to yet. Any ideas how we might confirm it was actually published without, gasp, any of us actually having to go to a library and get them to get the journal for us? I live too far away to do library research. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have just 100% confirmed that Alexander Macrae DID indeed publish a report in the JSPR in October 2005. The title is different, HOWEVER the contents are the same. The published title is "Report of an Electronic Voice Phenomenon Experiment inside a Double-Screened Room".

If anybody doubts this they can contact the SPR themselves. The number is (international) 44 2079378984. The UK is about 5 hours ahead of EST.

If anybody here is a British student or lecturer and a member of that library thing that they do, you should be able to get a copy through your campus library.

perfectblue 10:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

EVP primarily as a cultural phenomenon, rather than a scientific debate

Milo H Minderbinder commented, If the article stays, and if it does it will probably be on the grounds of notability in fiction, the fictional coverage should be the primary focus of the article and the scientific aspect secondary.

In my opinion the notability of EVP is not primarily fictional, nor scientific. It is cultural. As mentioned previously, TV shows like SciFi Channel's Ghost_Hunters present EVP within the context of "reality TV entertainment". Others, like Discovery Channel's A Haunting present it within the context of "dramatic recreations based on statements of witnesses". Mainstream-published and reviewed books like "Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife" by Mary Roach (http://www.amazon.com/Spook-Science-Afterlife-Mary-Roach/dp/0393059626), contain accounts of experiences with EVP proponents such as Dave Oester (Roach not only interviews these people, but gamely joins them, searching for electronic voice phenomena with the International Ghost Hunters Society -IGHS).

IMO, it really is a shame that the highly significant cultural positioning of EVP has been withheld from this WP article in favor of presenting the subject as a "scientific debate", (i.e., listing a timeline of selected "research" and then attempting to draw conclusions for or against EVP). --- LuckyLouie 20:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are correct. I think a section, probably a large one, should be added. I think the article is pretty good as it stands however. In other words, we should have both, not switch to cultural at the expense of the scientific side (which a lot of people would be interested in). My one concern would be that in presenting it culturally, this would be an opportunity for (and I am not accusing anyone here), taking the snide slant that ain't it funny that some people actually believe this ? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of the scientific side isn't based on "what people may be interested in", it's based on whether the science is notable, which it doesn't seem to be. If the subject is notable as a cultural subject but not a scientific one, the article should mostly focus on the cultural aspects and not go into "scientific" details beyond a basic explanation. Louie, can you find a citable source on the cultural references such as TV shows? I agree that this could be a big improvement for the article, but sourcing the "social" claims could be tricky - you want to give it a shot? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The cultural side is only an outgrowth of the scientific/phenomenological side. So what I'm saying is that if b is notable, and b is based on a, then that makes a notable. So just leave what is there, and add to it. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If we leave what is there, it gives the impression that the scientific side is notable (which it's not), and also gives undue weight to scientific ideas that aren't accepted by the mainstream, violating NPOV. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is that the article, as it stands, suffers from extreme cherry-picking. It sets an artificial "MacRae vs. Baruss" equation, impying, by default, that EVP is notable as the subject of an ongoing debate within science -- when there is no such debate. A series of fringe experiments that mainstream science does not recognize as having any significance should not be given the kind of weight that the article now gives it. Rather, they should be mentioned as part of "the big picture". As discussed, I believe the big picture should include a wide spectrum of various contemporary references - what proponents believe about EVP, how it's portrayed in the media, who says what about it, etc. I'm not volunteering for the chore, but we certainly might be able to find reliable sources that reflect how EVP is being portrayed and discussed in the cultural landscape. I'd also like to hear the opinions of more than two editors regarding this concept. --- LuckyLouie 21:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Martin. LuckyLouie: I think you're right in that there's a definite need for a cultural facet to this article. And I'm sure it could be expanded on to a great degree, as the influence of EVP on popular culture (especially movies and TV) has been gradually increasing over the past few decades.

But there is an important scientific aspect to the whole EVP topic, even if some of the scientific experiments mentioned in this article are flawed. As for notability: if the experiments trying to prove or disprove the legitimacy of EVP have been featured in fairly respected publications (which several seem to be) then I'd say they are notable. --Careax 22:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"impying, by default, that EVP is notable as the subject of an ongoing debate within science -- when there is no such debate."

You're correct on this. If we're too attached to our work to delete it, then it needs expansion, and I'm sure that the cultural aspect is out of proportion to the scientific aspect. Nevertheless, in an encyclopedia, it should be that we focus on facts as well as culture. We've done the facts, now let's somebody else do the culture. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If there really is "an important scientific aspect", it would be noted by reliable sources. Notability for scientific topics is explained at WP:SCIENCE. It's not good enough to be mentioned in "respected" publications, even peer reviewed ones - the topic needs to be discussed in mainstream publications (scientific or otherwise), which this topic hasn't. And in the absence of that, it's not appropriate to give undue weight to things like details of experiments. I think Louie is on the money with this one.

We can't ever be attached to our work - if undue weight is given to material that is not notable, it's perfectly appropriate to trim out excessive detail that gives the wrong impression of the topic. If the "facts" aren't notable, we shouldn't focus on them - part of being an encyclopedia is excluding (or at least giving reduced weight to) material that isn't encyclopedic. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Both the scientific view and the cultural view should be included, there is plenty of investigative or responsive work from either side. This is not a scientific article in a scientific journal, (Misplaced Pages:Notability (science)), so mentions of EVP from all reliable sources can and should be included. This includes undue weight concerns, which says "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." EVP is not WP:FRINGE. The scientific community has had a significant response to the subject of EVP, as with most paranormal issues.

The primary basis of the article should definitely not be "fictional", that wouldn't meet WP:NPOV at all. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Where has "the scientific community" had any response to EVP, much less a significant one? The two journals cited are ones that specialize in fringe topics, they're not mainstream scientific publications. With zero mainstream coverage, I don't see how you can argue it is anything but fringe. Where's an article in a mainstream publication about EVP? NPOV doesn't mean to present all opinions as equally valid - the scientific community hasn't accepted EVP so extensive coverage of "scientific" details would violate the undue weight part of NPOV: "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." If the majority view is that EVP is something that appears in reality shows and isn't supported by the scientific community, the article is required to reflect that to maintain NPOV. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Milo H Minderbinder beat me to it. I can't accept that the scientific community has made any real response to EVP. This is a common aspect of research into claims of paranormal phenomena; there is rarely much if anything at all in the mainstream science literature. I'm not aware of any PhD thesis in accredited universities devoted to EVP, no professors of the subject; and it's certainly not a topic studied in grad school. Yet you can name any number of scientific topic under the sun, from protein folding, to semiconductor doping, to the characteristics of HII regions in space, that are. It's not so much a case of mainstream science "ignoring" EVP, as of failing to acknowledge it. — BillC 00:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The mere fact that one can state "it isn't supported by the scientific community" shows there is a definite response from that particular community. You cannot just focus on "journals" and "mainstream scientific publications" (I assume you mean peer-reviewed) - as I stated in my above post this is not a scientific article in a scientific journal that depends on such documentation. Ray Hyman, Richard Wiseman, CSI (formerly CSICOP), skepdic.com, and many other scientists have written articles, analyzed evidence and commented on EVP. This small group has been sufficient to virtually overwhelm the contents of a number of Misplaced Pages paranormal articles that have a similiar "majority view is something that appears in reality shows and isn't supported by the scientific community..."

With paranormal issues, there are generally millions if not billions of people who 'believe,' and a comparative handful of scientists who write or perform experiments to counter or explain those beliefs - so if we take a "majority rules" perspctive, the scientific view loses out. Is the skeptical Misplaced Pages community willing to support that standard in all paranormal articles? We can't apply one standard to one article and a different one to another; and one cannot compare an accepted mainstream field of science with paranormal subjects when considering scientific articles or school subjects. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Baruss was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. #5 http://www.skyelab.co.uk/review/bb.htm
3. #5 http://www.skyelab.co.uk/review/bb.htm

• B-Class paranormal articles
• Unknown-importance paranormal articles
• Past paranormal collaborations
• WikiProject Paranormal articles
• Old requests for peer review