Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18

Great edits, one change

Thanks, Nealparr, for some great edits. I made one change, I omitted "secular" from the first paragraph of the first section because I think that the term is a bit loaded and unnecessary. "Secular" is a term that derives from the rule under which priests used to act. The "secular" rule was the rule of the bishop while the "religious" rule was that of the monastic order. The "religious vs. secular" divide came to mean later "religious vs. a-religious" only because of misappropriation. So that's one issue. The other is, I'm not sure that there need be any elimination of religious people from EVP investigation. Conceivably, theosophists might use EVP as part of their sacraments, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Good lead paragraph, thanks. I hadn't known that about "secular" but anyway the modern usage was wrong in the context so good to delete. (Incidentally, if necromancy is diabolical, then EVP could be consistent with Christian theology, but blasphemous; that is, not so much irreligious as counter-religious.) Pete St.John (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Except, we cannot decide which side the Witch of Endor was on in the great Manichean divide! ScienceApologist (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really qualified in medieval religious history. Is Endor between Gondor and Twodor? Pete St.John (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
But wow, SA, that was an apt link (Endor). Pete St.John (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Outdated

Link [29] is down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.155.157 (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction

In "Paranormal Explanations," Reference 27 does not say that "spirits cannot communicate verbally with humans." As reported in Direct Voice, direct verbal communication does sometimes occur--especially in séances conduced by a skilled physical medium. By using the search tool at [1], you will see that the AA-EVP also doe snot use the term "spirits" in reference to the communicators except as written by others and once or twice in the less exact Big Circle pages, It also does not use the term "imprint."

Reference 28 says something like that, so please change the beginning to something like "According to Ryan Buell..."

The correct link for 29 is Characteristic test for EVP [2]

The characteristics section is a compilation of contributors and not "Tom Butler says." Perhaps it would be better to change the reference to the Q & A at [3] and take me and the AA-EVP out of it. Tom Butler (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[In response to message left on my talk] I don't think I'll try to fix the section in question in such a way that you are satisfied with it. You are free to try again. Just try not to tell lies, or to let your view of the truth lead you to write things that most people would regard as lies. The edit I reverted added the sentence "Questions have been asked during EVP recording sessions, and the audio recordings made during those sessions have contained utterances properly answering the questions." That is a lie. Most people would not accept it as the truth. Therefore you can't put it in an article. Rracecarr (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Before you go much further in saying that I am telling lies or pushing a point of view, please look at the article before my edit. I was careful not to change the meaning or implications of the paragraph. Here it is now:
Discarnate entities
According to the AA-EVP, spirits[27] cannot communicate verbally with humans, but are able to imprint information on recording media by an unknown method.[28] According to Tom Butler, Director of the AA-EVP, questions have been asked during EVP recording sessions, and the audio recordings made during those sessions have contained utterances properly answering the questions.[29]
All I want is to have the article be factual and what it is saying about what I said is a lie. Tom Butler (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I already said feel free to try again. If it's not true as it stands, I agree it should be changed. But if you think you did not "change the meaning or implications of the paragraph," you are very much mistaken. "Tom Butler says pigs can fly" means Tom Butler says so and (implicitly) that the rest of the world disagrees with him. You changed it to "Pigs can fly," which conveys something very different. Rracecarr (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You could have just fixed it rather than reverting and calling it a lie. You have no idea how tired I am of being called names by editors who claim to be scientific. Wikipedia has become a haven for closed-minded skeptic too afraid to simply explain what a subject is rather than doing all they can to make sure the reader understands that it is a falsehood--lacking evidence, this must be something the editor is only taking on faith as wisdom received from people with doctorates who should know the value of inquiry. Tom Butler (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks better now. Rracecarr (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Helping out

I noticed that ITC is referred to "... a more general paranormal term than EVP..." Since EVP is established as paranormal above, the descriptive term is redundant here. Tom Butler (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Instrumental transcommunication (ITC) is a more general paranormal term than EVP... How is it redundant to say ITC is a more general term. The sentence is about ITC. QuackGuru 19:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Simple, EVP is a paranormal subject. Therefore another name for EVP is also a name for a paranormal subject. ITC Is not a paranormal name, it is a paranormal subject. Tom Butler (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I asked "How is it redundant to say ITC is a more general term." ITC is not a paranormal name, it is a paranormal subject or term.
We are saying ITC is a paranoraml term. This is more clear to the reader.
I am having trouble understanding why Tom Butler is objecting to making it more clear for the reader that ITC is a more general paranormal term than EVP. QuackGuru 20:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"...having trouble understanding why Tom Butler is objecting ..." Who are you talking to?

You are defending an unnecessary characterization which would normally be struck by a good proofreader, but it is not worth a fight. Tom Butler (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "fontana1" :
    • {{cite book | last = Fontana | first = David | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Is There an Afterlife: A Comprehensive Review of the Evidence | publisher = O Books | date= 2005 | location = Hants, UK | pages = 496 | url = | doi = | id = ISBN 1903816904 }} page 353
    • {{cite book | last = Fontana | first = David | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Is There an Afterlife: A Comprehensive Review of the Evidence | publisher = O Books | date= 2005 | location = Hants, UK | pages = 352-381 | url = | doi = | id = ISBN 1903816904 }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Potential Sources

Editors may want to evaluate these sources:

they currently don't appear to be cited by us. Cheers, Jayen466 15:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

During WW2 Radio Operators of all sides in the Conflict would at times hear 'transmissions' which they could not account for. They never believed these unknown transmissions were anything other than random 'Skipping' signals. Also, Hi Fi speakers have been known to emit sounds even when switched off with no power. The explination for the speaker sounds being a powerful local area transmitter of some kind. The E.V.P. phenomenon seems genuine, but to assign responsibility for them to dead people is a long way from proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwrd (talk • contribs) 22:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Instrumental Transcommunication (ITC)

I think wikipedia needs an Instrumental Transcommunication section (since its related to EVP). I'm a poor writer. Maybe someone with more talents than me can write an article about it.

--Bill--

Sunday December 7, 2008

pov tag

I'm removing the pov tag - I can't see any great problems with it. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And the other one. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The article still has problems and the tag may help get them resolved. One of the problems that is developing is that the article is simply becoming out dated. Just as a starter, from the introduction: "... are electronically captured non-vocal sounds that resemble voices. Some people claim these sounds are of paranormal origin" EVP are defined as voices. "non-vocal" does not describe voices. Further down, it is not some Germans who coined ITC, it was Ernst Senkowski [http://www.thescoleexperiment.com/book_04.htm.
There are three distinct types of EVP being reported (thus the proper name of the article is plural). Transform EVP: noise transformed into voice; synthesized voice: the process is controlled by detecting random processes or changes in electrical condition of the environment and random processes controlling selection of input files to produce a new and sometimes phenomenal output file. Also, real-time, two-way communication is more frequently demonstrated making the usual definitions obsolete. We[http;//aaevp.com], for instance, are trying on "EVP are anomalous, intelligible speech recorded in or produced by electronic devices, and for which no currently understood physical explanations can account."
It is time to update the article and to take out some of the skeptical material ... or at least make it more applicable. Right now it is missing the point entirely. Tom Butler (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you able to help edit the article to make it better? I'm not familiar with the work of Senkowski so perhaps you could update that part? As for the introduction, I agree that the current one is rather clumsy, but I don't have a better alternative. I feel the current one is fairly accurate - the word 'voices' means 'sounds produced by vocal organs', and some cases of EVP are clearly not actual voices (e.g. those produced by recording static and increasing the gain). Perhaps a better opening would be 'Electronic voice phenomena, abbreviated as EVPs (singular EVP), are electronically captured sounds that resemble speech, but are not the result of intentional voice recordings. Common sources include static, stray radio transmissions and background noise. Some people claim these sounds are of paranormal origin.' etc. Any comments?
I don't think the pov tag is meant simply to help resolve problems of articles being outdated. If that's your main concern I think other tags (e.g. cleanup?) could be better. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
If you look in the archives of the talk pages for this article, you will see that the subject has been very contentious. I have been repeatedly accused of conflict of interest and have given up on Wikipedia in general. I only look in on this article from time to tome because I receive complaints from members. As a director of the AA-EVP [4], I have a clear interest in seeing factual information about EVP/ITC in Wikipedia.
EVP are by definition anomalous voices found in recording media. If it is not an anomalous voice, then it is not EVP. In that view, anything mistaken as voice is not EVP ... it is sound mistaken as voice. The EVP online listening trials report [5] illustrates the fact that people hear some of the reported EVP as words, and as such, some EVP are demonstrably words and do not just resemble words.
The singular - plural argument has also been around for a while. It has traditionally been plural. For instance the AA-EVP has used the plural form since its conception in 1982. There are at least three distinct forms of EVP generation as discussed in EVP Formation [6]. In fact, we have a short article about it on page six of the last NewsJournal which is a PDF file at [7]
I think the most important thing for the article is to say what EVP is without undue characterization. This should be able to be done without saying it is fact ... just what it is thought to be by people studying it. Tom Butler (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Reading through the history of the article I see why you might wish to avoid editing it much. I've changed the bit about the origin of the term ITC - do you have a better source for that though? The one you've given only mentions it in passing really. As for the part about the use of the word voice I think I disagree with you - the primary definition given in the dictionary is 'sounds produced by the vocal organs'; the definition 'An articulate sound; esp. a term or word', which seems to fit with your usage, is described as obsolete by the OED. By the first definition, a sound not produced by a (living) person (or possibly animal) cannot be a voice, whatever it sounds like. I think this first use is the more common usage of the word, so to use it in a different sense would be confusing. So only some EVP are recording voices (i.e. those that capture stray radio broadcasts or background conversation, and hoaxes). Most EVP I have read about are produced by other methods, so they are not voices, whatever they sound like. I'll change the introduction to the text I proposed above, unless you object? I think it describes the term better than the current version. I agree that it is difficult to give an all-embracing description, partly because of the diversity of phenomena it encompasses; I'll have another look at the article next week. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Opening statement

"Captured sounds that resemble speech" is functionally correct. It is more correct to say "heard as an output of or recorded by electronic equipment", but "captured" is less wordy if not as precise.

I use the term, "simulated speech" because there are usually aspects of it that deviate from the norm and it helps explain why an utterance might be difficult to understand. For instance, the voice box frequency (Formant 0) is often missing or fragmented while the derivative formants tend to be oddly stacked, depending on the available audio-frequency energy.

People in the field commonly use "voice" because the human experiences EVP as a voice speaking a phrase. I see that you have a similar problem as Johnwrd, above, in that you apparently want to avoid using any terminology that implicates a sentient source for EVP. We do in fact use "voice" in the common sense.

One of the problems with your opening paragraph is the reference to "Common sources...." It is technically incorrect. The voices in EVP have been shown to be formed from available noise in transform EVP see but the utterances are not the noise. The implication of this version is that all EVP are noise mistaken as voice. There is a demonstrable change in the noise characteristics to make it resemble words. Of course, speech syntheses and random selection of voice fragments to form EVP are different.

I do not know what you have read, but it would be good to check the author's credentials. Your statement, "So only some EVP are recording voices (i.e. those that capture stray radio broadcasts or background conversation, and hoaxes)." takes us back to an earlier point. EVP are defined as anomalous voices. If they are simply sounds mistaken as voice, then they are not EVP ... by definition! Also, you might take a look here. The use of "live voice" as a background sound source is a questionable technique and certainly not supported in the empirical data. To cast all EVP in the light of experiments using live voice is inappropriate. Tom Butler (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Tags

Minderbinder, try editing the content to make the article better instead of just hitting it with a hammer. If you can justify removing the tag by discussing why the content is okay, then I would have no recourse, but as it stands now, I have every right to comment on the article and the tag is one way to do so. Tom Butler (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You do have every right to comment on the article. I'd urge you to list your specific complaints and propose revisions instead of, as you put it, "hit the article with a hammer". --Minderbinder (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy and POV tags.

I'd like to hear specifically who objects to the accuracy and POV of the article, and what those specific objections are. It looks to me that there is consensus that the article is largely neutral POV and accurate per WP policies, and the continued insistence on the tags seems more like a protest from those who can't get the article edited the way they want then a legitimate complaint. If there isn't consensus that the article still has issues, I'll remove the tags again. In addition, I'd urge editors to work on fixing any perceived problems instead of trying to slap a giant disclaimer at the top of the article. Thanks. --Minderbinder (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So I see another revert but no explanation of why the tags should be there. And I don't see anyone else insisting on the tags at this point. So, are you going to actually give specific reasons or are you just going to keep reverting it without explanation? --Minderbinder (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I really don't like the sound of your edits!

Sorry for the long post but I want to answer the questions so I can get back to work.

I am not the person who put the tag there in the first place, but since it is there, I see no reason to remove it until the article more accurately reflects the subject. But you know better than most that, as the rules of Wikipedia are being reinterpreted now, and with virtually all of the editors interested in new thought have been run off, there is no way that I will win a content argument here.

I have, in fact pointed out a few points that are in error. CheesyBiscuit made one of the corrections but seems to be hung up on wanting to characterize EVP as noise.

Taking the first paragraph: "Electronic voice phenomena are electronically captured sounds that resemble speech, ..." EVP are defined as recorded speech. That is the "industry standard" for EVP. If something is recorded that is not voice, then by definition it cannot be EVP.

"... but are not the result of intentional voice recordings." People conduct recording sessions with the intention of collecting examples of EVP. That is a standard practice these days for hauntings investigations. The AA-EVP conducts a bi-weekly group recording session with the intention of contacting dead people. The 4Cell EVP Demonstration [8]follows a double-blind protocol with the intention of collecting specific answer to questions.

"Common sources include static, stray radio transmissions and background noise." Common sources of what and who says this? If EVP are voices, then they are not by definition these noises. In fact, one form of EVP has been shown to be formed by transforming noise into intelligible voice, but the noise is as incidental to EVP as a chunk of marble is incidental to a marble statue.

"Some people claim these sounds are of paranormal origin[1]. Others claim there are natural explanations such as apophenia (finding significance in insignificant phenomena), auditory pareidolia (interpreting random sounds as voices in their own language), equipment artefacts, and simple hoaxes." ("artefacts" is misspelled) While it is true that some people believe these are explanations for EVP, I would like to see references for these from people who have knowledge of the subject and not just opinions expressed by people who don't believe in such things. Otherwise, this who paragraph needs to be reworded. The only reference offered here is Baruss (The link is bad. Here is a better one. You also may want to look at his second article as a possible source. I could find none of the claimed terms, including apophenia or areidolia. Hoax was only used in reference to his avoiding one and Artifact was used in reference to auditory perception.

"Recordings of EVP are often created from background sound by increasing the gain (i.e. sensitvity) of the recording equipment." Once again, this contradicts the definition of EVP. I would like to see a reference ... again from someone who might actually know. ("sensitvity)" is misspelled.)

The entire article is out of date. There is no mention at all of speech synthesis or random process formation of EVP. Direct Voice Radio is pretty well documented but not mentioned dhere.

If ITC is to be rolled into this article, then it should mention a little about why there is a need for ITC. For instance, there is no mention about featured formed by transforming video-loop noise and gray-scale noise in photographic examples.

The article has been stagnant since you all ran off MartinPhi. it is not right, but you are completely in control. If you cannot get it right, then please just delete it. I have to spend too much time trying to explain to the public why the all-knowing Wikipedia is not the last work in EVP. Tom Butler (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Care to propose some alternative wordings? From your post, I can't see how to deal with most of your complaints without completely slanting the POV of the article. --Minderbinder (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand the problem. For those of you watching this, Wikipedia rules prohibit input from subject matter experts if they are involved in the subject in any way--possible conflict of interest. The rules also require that all statements are supported by mainstream references. That means that virtually all publications specializing in frontier subjects are not acceptable including the AA-EVP NewsJournal and the JSPR.
With the rule that articles are agreed to by a consensus of editors, and with skeptical editors dominating Wikipedia, there is a problem finding verbiage that both correctly explains the subject and is agreed to by the people claiming to represent the mainstream.
I am in the middle of a remodel and will be away for a day or so, but I will attempt to offer something reasonably neutral when I return. I no longer expect the article to be fair, but it would be nice if it covered the subject so that people will know that there are there aspect than just voice or just voice converted from noise. Tom Butler (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia rules prohibit input from subject matter experts if they are involved in the subject in any way--possible conflict of interest." I wouldn't exactly agree with that - I'd say that input from subject matter experts is welcomed, the problem arises when a topic is in dispute and the expert is advocating a view that doesn't have the support of mainstream science and isn't supported by reliable sources. It also should be noted that no editor should act unilaterally, getting consensus for edits instead of revert warring. --Minderbinder (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, to be clear - experts are not prohibited from editing in their area of expertise by any means. I edit articles in areas where I possess some expertise, but it has not been an issue, since I'm able to cite independent, scholarly sources to support the edits. If I were to promote my own papers and work to the exclusion of other established views in the field, I suspect I'd run into trouble. Generally, familiarity with the scholarly literature on a topic, outside of one's own work and beliefs, is a hallmark of true subject-matter expertise. Obviously, "fringe" sources like the Journal of Scientific Exploration are not forbidden - they make up a sizable portion of the sourcing in this article. On the other hand, they are not suitable as the foundation of a neutral, encyclopedic article summarizing the state of human knowledge, because they exist at one extreme edge of that knowledge. MastCell Talk 18:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. WP articles about a minority view/pseudoscience are not written from the minority view/pseudoscience's own POV or described using its own terms, so EVP's "industry standards" and EVP's "definitions" do not apply here. Also, minority view/pseudoscientific explanations are not presented as equal to or competing with scientific ones. A "some people claim the earth is round while others claim it is flat" approach goes against WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"Some people claim these sounds are of paranormal origin"

This reference - ^ http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/15.3_baruss.pdf Baruss, Imants. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 355–367, 2001, "Failure to Replicate Electronic Voice Phenomena" - is used to support the statement "Some people claim these sounds are of paranormal origin". But the link is dead. Has anybody been able to track down that source to determine who these "some people" are? Would like to be more specific in the article (i.e. "Researchers at such and such an organization claim..." so its defend-able (or attack-able if you please). Cander0000 (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Try this: http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_15_3_baruss.pdf. Period -> underscore. I'm not editing this article with a 10-foot pole, but someone else can correct the link. MastCell Talk 18:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I put that link in there for you. Lychosis T/C 18:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Little sense in even trying

I see you have called in the cavalry. I think it is best to decline further input when it is so clear that you all have no intention of allowing the article to correctly represent the subject.

By the way, I gave you the correct link for both of the articles Baruss had published on the subject in my previous post. They are pretty silly, but since they were authored by an academic, they should be part of the record. Tom Butler (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The intention of Wikipedia is to represent the subject as covered in reliable sources, regardless of how much you'd like to spin the fringe sources as "correct". Sorry that you are unwilling to abide by WP policies. --Minderbinder (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of this article for Ghostwire trailer

Just a quick note: A screenshot of what appears to a slightly altered version of the first few paragraphs of this article laid out in a similar way to a Wikipedia page were used in the trailer for Ghostwire. superlusertc 2009 August 26, 03:31 (UTC)

Phone Calls from The Dead

I rolled back your removal of the "Phone calls from the dead" section. It was sourced, and seemed to be written in an NPOV tone, not giving undue weight or anything. I'd just like to see on the talk page there what the justification was, in the spirit of not losing knowledge from WP. Maybe the section could be incorporated elsewhere in the article. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The source is not reliable per WP:RS. Verbal chat 18:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm hardpressed to see how this reference fails WP:RS? It's not a self-printed vanity book, and it's only being used to support the statement that "People report getting phone calls" not supporting some purported causation for it? By what standard do you say this fails WP:RS? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever heard of a paranormal source referred to as a RS... I think what would be more appropriate in regards to this article would be to determine a level for which a source would be deemed acceptable. - Gunnanmon (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)True, perhaps this book would fail in an article talking about EM field causing multiple recording incidents through magnetic resonance, but to support the statement that there are reported incidents of voice mails/answering machine messages purported to be from the dead, I would think it's useful in that regard. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Phone Calls From the Dead" probably doesn't deserve a separate section of its own, as one small-press book isn't a great indicator of notability. But I suppose you could fold a sentence into the article noting that "according to author X, people have reported incidents of voice mails/answering machine messages purported to be from the dead," etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
That's true. In fact, I would surmise all of the sections discussing the various different types could be folded into a single section, with the exclusion of recording onto a recording device (That being the most popular method). Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Frank's Box and references

The reliable source requirement is fine in a mainstream article, but is unrealistic in this one. I recommend you think of these as documentary references, rather than scholarly. In fact, Ref. 31 is a video of Moon demonstrating the box In fact, Ref. 30 is a summary of a relevant interview ... and so on. Tom Butler (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not a fan of radio-sweep and am on record as saying that it probably doe snot produce EVP [9]. We are also funding a study examining how radio-sweep sounds can be mistaken as EVP. Still, it is an important part of the subject.
I agree that it is "fringe," as you like to say, but the whole subject/article is as well. As it stands now, the Frank section does address a major factor in EVP. There are really no mainstreams documents addressing the subject, so if you take it out completely as fringe, then you simply have Wikipedia silent on salient facts of the subject.
I do not know how this can be addressed. If the subject is omitted, then the article should clearly state in the beginning that important aspects of EVP are not included because they cannot be referenced within Wikipedia guidelines. Otherwise, I think it is much wiser to find a way to address the subject. I will not revert you again on this one because it is one windmill I would as soon see jousted with by people who are making money on it. Tom Butler (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The TV shows and Ghostbuster sources are junk and don't meet our reliability standards. The CSI article qualifies it as marginally notable - enough for a paragraph in the section describing attempts to create electronic devices for EVP. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV - James Randi Foundation as a relevant organization

I removed this from the list of organizations (while not logged in, sorry) as I fail to see the relevance. It was reverted by a user whose talk page indicates promotion of Randi and his skepticism. How is the James Randi Foundation relevant to this subject? Does every supposed paranormal phenomenon that Wikipedia lists need to have a mention of Randi and his "uncollected" prize, an obvious statement of conclusion? I have no opinion on the subject of EVP, I just heard about it for the first time today, but it seems that the James Randi thing is not necessary for learning about this subject. Adjensen (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Love him or hate him, he's definitely relevant to the subject. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I have restored the content using the ref which was already in use elsewhere, and have also tweaked a heading and lead sentence in that section, and added the ref, all to make sure the article stayed NPOV, IOW making sure that criticisms aren't removed in what might be seen as attempts to whitewash the subject, a practice that isn't allowed here. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The the prize is by itself controversial as a we say-they say bone of contention that is too global to be pertinent to any one subject. Put it in the paranormal article and stop using it to advertise your cause in Wikipedia. If you want this article to be neutral, then make specific changes. Tom Butler (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Adjensen made a legitimate observation. You and Lucky are just ganging up. Tom Butler (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

My changes were specific and not just a restoration of previous content. You are edit warring on your own article. You have a COI and will be reported. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Help me out here -- the article that you reference is someone complaining that this fellow won't subject himself to the Randi thing? What is that evidence of? It seems like the main purpose of this "prize" is to ensure that it is never handed out, and someone refusing to go along with it is somehow debunked?Adjensen (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
No, read it more carefully. It's only used to document that someone applied for the prize in the name of EVP, and it thus must mention what the prize is about and that EVP is eligible for testing. It isn't used to debunk that person since Gentile apparently was injured and didn't pursue the matter. The reference is also used to document that notable skeptics of EVP exist, and also that skeptics posit alternative explanations for the phenomena. Your guess about the prize ("to ensure that it is never handed out") reveals you don't know much about it or its history. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Come on guys. The JREF Challenge and Randi's connection to this subject, given their history with EVP claimant Lou Gentile, is a no-brainer. Stop with the IP edit warring. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

IP? ... That was me, I forego I was logged out.
No doubt the challenge is fact, but the it is a global one and should be associated with the global article on the paranormal. The reference you cited is just a blog ranting about Lou. I didn't even know he is still around. If it is that big of a deal, then explain it in the EVP article. But as it stands now, I have to agree with Adjensen that it just looks like it does not fit.
Meanwhile, do you really want to give me more of an argument about gang editing? I am going to let your gang revert go, but I am going to challenge the reference about Lou as a reliable source. A blog? Surely you can do better than us what looks a lot like a gloating personal attack. Without a better reference, the note about the challenge really does not make sense so it would be good if you found a better reference. Tom Butler (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
That's much better. As a COI editor you should stick to discussion. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's be reasonable, Tom. There are plenty of links to AAEVP pages (and other pro-EVP orgs) in the "Organizations" section. The JREF is just one more org with an interest in the subject, albeit from a different perspective. However I can imagine that the sentence "The prize remains uncollected" might be construed as a disparagement by some, so we can take it out if that helps. The embedded link to the JREF article provides that same info in any case. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is my point. The other two organizations are groups that are specific to whatever this is. Randi's thing is not, it was not formed, does not directly address, and is not involved in the study of this. It debunks paranormal things, in general, so it seems reasonable that it would be cited in an article on paranormal activity. But to put it in every article that has anything to do with any aspect of the paranormal (what, dozens of articles?) is little more than advertising of a non-neutral point of view, and the "The Prize has not been collected" is an shameless attempt to discredit whatever topic the article is on. If Randi specifically debunks someone who is claiming this "power", fine, put it in the text of the article with a link to said debunkment, otherwise, the fact that a general skeptic organization exists is completely irrelevant to the topic of the article, somewhat akin to putting a link to an Atheist organization on the article describing the Dead Sea Scrolls or Orthodox Judaism.Adjensen (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see here for third party input. Tom Butler (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the phrase that could be misleading. Note the edit summary. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate the removal of the erroneous conclusion, now it looks nonsensical, and it still ignores the fact that Randi's foundation was NOT created to study this, so it is not an organization associated with this supposed phenomenon. Why not just create a "Criticism" section, move the Randi junk there, with a link to whatever he's done that's relevant, and be done with it?Adjensen (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
If we are going to remove mention of any organization that wasn't "created specifically to study EVP" from this article we'll have to start with (for example) the "National Spiritualist Association of Churches". As for your problem with JREF being mentioned in "dozens of articles" I advise you to take your argument to those articles. Randi and JREF have a clearly defined relevance to this one. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Fine, remove it if it is not relevant. I really don't care about the other articles that the JREF is referenced in, if you're okay with this sort of bad science, leave it in there. I'm not on a crusade, if someone else is, feel free, but claiming that it is slapped on a number of other pages where it has no direct relevance hardly strengthens your case.Adjensen (talk) 04:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Adjensen, you object too strongly. It wasn't an "erroneous conclusion". It wasn't a conclusion at all. It was a description of the prize and a simple fact, but because someone might misunderstand it, I removed it. You're also using a strawman not based in policy. We are allowed to include anything and everything in this article, as long as it has to do with the subject and is in RS. JREF can be included, even if it wasn't "created to study this". While criticism sections aren't absolutely forbidden here, we try to avoid them and we spread the criticism throughout the article, whereever it's appropriate. That's just the way things are done. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
To Adjensen: this is silly. Of course the NSAC is relevant to the article. The suggestion was intended to illustrate how absurd your "remove any org not created specifically to study EVP" policy is, which is not based on any Wikipedia policy as far as I know. As for your other objections, I'm afraid you've lost me. You objected to the sentence "The prize remains uncollected". It was promptly removed from the article. Yet you continue here and on other pages to object to that sentence. Now you're objecting to Randi, or the JREF, or 'debunking', or skepticism in general. Please try to give specific suggestions for why and how the article needs to be improved. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't "promptly removed", it was promptly put back and removed over a day later. Nonetheless. I still see the Randi thing as being irrelevant, because it doesn't appear to have ever tested whatever this is. As I see it, reasonable solutions are to either a) create an organization to debunk EVP and put it here, b) find an instance where Randi has tested and debunked this and cite it in a section on criticism, or c) change the line in the "Organizations" section to be something like "In addition, organizations that are skeptical of paranormal activity such as Electronic Voice Phenomenon exist to study and determine the validity of such activity." Citing Randi specifically and noting his prize are implied criticism without any basis, and therefore represents your (or whoever wrote it) opinion, not the relevant facts. ( In my A,B,C options, I personally favour C )Adjensen (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Your option C suggestion is easily accomplished by simply uniting two sentences that already exist in that section, e.g.: "In addition organizations exist which dispute the validity of the phenomena on scientific grounds. The James Randi Educational Foundation offers a million dollars for proof that any phenomena, including EVP, are caused paranormally." That nicely puts the JREF prize in context and clarifies Randi's connection to EVP in a way that no reasonable person could construe as an 'implied refutation'. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. You just don't get it. The prize is what is offensive in that sentence. I could accept a direct mention of Randi's foundation if you absolutely needed to name names, but the prize isn't an organization, and its inclusion is effectively saying "there's this prize, you see, and if Electronic Voice had any validity to it, they'd win the prize". Name Randi as a skeptical group, if anyone is interested in what that implies, they can go read about it in his article. Being neutral doesn't mean ignoring criticism, I agree, but neither does it mean making the critic's arguments for them.
How about "In addition, organizations, such as the James Randi Educational Foundation, that are skeptical of paranormal activity such as Electronic Voice Phenomenon exist to study and determine the validity of such activity." That gives your fellow his mention, notes that there are critics, and avoids any conclusion other than the fact that such critics exist.Adjensen (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
(""There's this prize, you see, and if Electronic Voice had any validity to it, they'd win the prize".") I'm sorry to disagree, I think that's your own personal interpretation. I don't "read" the paragraph in question that way. But let's see what others think. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, let's look at it another way. We agree that skeptical organizations exist, I've conceded that if you need Randi to be cited by name, fine, but what value do you think listing out his prize adds to this article? How is it improved by said prize's inclusion?Adjensen (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
If we removed the mention of the prize, we open ourselves up to any mention of JREF being removed, since generic inclusion of JREF can't be allowed unless specifically connected with the subject of EVP. The prize, because EVP believers have applied for it (even if they didn't finish the process), is what makes mention of JREF allowable. That's our rules here. Sourcing must include mention of the subject. There must be a relevant connection between the subjects, and the prize is the connection between JREF and EVP. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, you've demonstrated its value, I agree, and I withdraw my objection to the reference.Adjensen (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Point of order Lucky, actually, NSAC has nothing to do with EVP any more than, say IANDS. Both organizations are concerned with survival of personality, as is the subject of EVP but that is about it. You all made a point of linking Spiritualism to EVP in an effort to imply that EVP has only faith-based validity. Remember???

This article is full of such inference. The Randi material is the same kind of effort to discredit by association. In fact, the challenge is global to all paranormal subjects and not specific to EVP (It should actually be ITC). You have already referenced the Alcock article. If Randi has any others of value that are credible, then use them as references to make a specific point. Tom Butler (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom: info + references to the AAEVP and orgs listed in the "Organizations" section were current at the time the article was written. If org names and charters have changed since then (AAEVP --->ATransC?) , please let us know and we'll try to get updated info into the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

COI editing

Tom, I have reported you at the COI Noticeboard. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that figures as part of your gang editing tactics. You are kind of a whiner, aren't you. Tom Butler (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Piffle. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Alcock's article

I wonder how this article can be used?

Brangifer (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

David Koenig and the Randi Challenge

I haven't read this through, but it might be of interest:

Brangifer (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Was this individual tested? No. Was he "disqualified" for not agreeing to terms agreeable to the foundation? Yes. (Or something, the last post makes it sound like he was disqualified for something else, but nevertheless...) Ergo, is this a valid "we tested, he failed"? No. If this is the only instance of Randi's contact with this, as the footnote seems to indicate, then saying that Randi has debunked this Electronic voice thing is without basis.
Understand that I'm not defending this EVP thing. I'm objecting to what is, in effect, bad science -- implying or claiming that something doesn't exist, simply because no one has collected this prize.Adjensen (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, you object too strongly, and I'm beginning to wonder why you consistenly do so. None of your objections have any bearing on this section since no claims are made. I only posted it because it might interesting for editors to read so they can understand the subject better. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
BTW, this isn't the same man as mentioned in the previous section. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I call you on bad science, the objection that your claim of "the prize is still uncollected" is absolute nonsense, and you accuse me of a strawman argument? You are claiming specious logic -- the belief that, as no one has claimed your prize, it refutes everything that your prize claims to defend? I "object too strongly"? Yes, I object to nonsense, which is what you propose. Debunk this paranormal thing, fine. Paint it with a broad brush, sorry, that's an invalid claim, and your continued defence of it shows your predisposed bias, and nothing more.Adjensen (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I make no such claim. Show me the claim you're referring to. You object very strongly, so you must be referring to some specific wording of mine in which you think I make such a claim. If I have misspoken I will correct it. If you don't provide it, I expect an apology. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Your original restoration of the "The prize remains uncollected" represents tacit approval of that statement, which is clearly intended to refute the validity of this thing by implying that if it was real, someone would have collected this prize. You subsequently removed said section, after arguing about it, so I'm not sure whether you realize the true nature of that claim or not. Do you believe that the status of Randi's prize has any bearing on anything other than the status of Randi's prize?Adjensen (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
My original restoration was simply a revert (but with improvements) of the complete deletion of the whole subject, IIRC. After discussing the matter I began to see you were objecting to that one phrase and understood what you were getting at. Of course we don't want readers misunderstanding the matter so I deleted the phrase. You should have been happy with that, but you continued to object, very strongly at that, in various venues.
You also accuse me of "bad science" (which is about much more than "the status of Randi's prize), but neither I nor JREF, nor any other skeptics (unless joking or drunk) would commmit that logical fallacy. I asked for you to produce evidence that I have made such a claim, but you haven't. You seem to have projected your own strawman misunderstanding of skeptic's beliefs onto me and I find it offensive. You are supposed to AGF.
Even if some paranormal believer accepted the challenge and actually won the million dollar prize, that wouldn't be considered as absolute "scientific proof". It just demonstrates that the paranormal belief doesn't pass the scientific tests mutually agreed upon by testor and testee. That's not bad science. It's a somewhat similar situation as the MythBusters TV show. They are using applied science. The results are interesting and sometimes fairly conclusive, but other times not so conclusive. They are what they are. Other testing might produce different results, but as an entertaining form of applied science it has value as an educational tool to show the public how science works. The million dollar challenge is also interesting. It's a "put up or shut up" situation that has many times shown believers to be deluded and/or deficient in scientific knowledge. It's also used as a way of publicizing the cowardice of notable psychics who back out of the challenge when they realize their scam will be exposed. Most professional psychics don't even apply, knowing they'll be exposed. They are magicians and Randi can expose their tricks. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Really?

The intro starts with ...... EVP are electronically generated noises that resemble speech....., an unambiguous, explicit and direct claim if ever I saw one. Surely we must state that some people believe it resembles speech, not that it actually does so which is what the intro says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.60.55 (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
You probably should sort out the name first. Most of us refer to EVP in the plural, but the dominant editors exhibited superior understanding and made the title singular. it is both ways here.
We have evolved how EVP is described and currently say they "are anomalous, intelligible speech produced in electronic devices." There is more in this White Paper.
For the unsigned editor, I would refer to one of the Online Listening Study. It shows that about 25% of the words in what we consider very clear EVP are correctly reported by participating website visitors. A doctorate from Duke conducted a similar study and found about 20% word recognition, so it appears we may be closing in on an expected norm for understanding by untrained listeners.
By themselves, these studies do not say that the voices are paranormal, only that they are objective. We are funding other studies in an attempt to better understand how the voices are formed. The rest of the story is that we know the voices can be recorded under circumstances that preclude all of those silly explanations in the article--rf and acoustically shielded enclosures, multiple recorders with EVP on only one and so on, eliminates virtually all of the mundane explanations we--and you can imagine. There is supporting material for all of this but little of it is acceptable to Wikipedia.
This is to long but I need to make this point: the existence of EVP does not by itself prove the existence of survived personality or a greater reality. For EVP to exist, all it requires is the existence of a biofield that is influenced by intentionality. The super-psi hypothesis may still be correct. There is much research showing that such a field exists as seen in remote viewing and biofield therapies. The EVP article can and should be written in a way that explains current understanding without endorsing any view. Tom Butler (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
You totally failed to actually address my point. Wiki is saying that EVP resemble speech. No matter that many people might say they don't resemble speech, and are merely products of wiishful imagination, Wiki boldly makes the statement they resemble speech. Not everyone would accept that, and the intro should say "EVP are electronically generated noises that some people claim resemble speech....." . What ever happened to NPOV and balance? Poor Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.205.5 (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Then make the edit. Tom Butler (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That is the definition of EVP. Rather than saying "some people say," perhaps it would be more appropriate to say something like "EVP is a developing theory that anomalous, intelligible speech is sometimes produced in electronic devices." I see that terminology used in String theory, a subject that really needs a "some people" caveat. Tom Butler (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I fail to understand how stating that a sound "resembles" speech is misleadingly implying that e everyone who listens to the sound will think that it resembles speech. I see this similar to saying that an inkblot that resembles a face may not look like a face to everyone. This seems like an obvious an unneeded clarification to me. Can someone explain why we need to hedge "resembles" which is already a hedge? It's not as though we're saying that EVP is speech. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Wiki is unequivocally stating EVP resemble speech. A lot of people would say that is hogwash. But Wiki rules, OK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.205.5 (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Who says it's hogwash that EVP resemble speech? A source would be nice. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:Death Assessment Commentary

The article was rated C-class, for lack of Supporting Materials. Perhaps a photo of the Spiricom would fulfill that point.Boneyard90 (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute Opened

This article is heavily biased in favor of skeptics, to the point of almost ridiculing the paranormal altogether. Please re-consider the language and the perspective. No pro-paranormal explanations are featured at all- only the voices of skeptics are heard here. The explanations all insinuate that the entire phenomenon is wishful thinking at best, fraud at worst. To remove the James Randi bit would be a decent start. Randi is hardly known for his respectful and open tone when dealing with those of us who claim paranormal experiences.Rd66c6 (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that accurately reflects the general consensus of the world: most paranormal claims are ridiculous. I don't see any problem with the language; what is it, specifically, that you don't like? The article presents the history at length, and before the discussion of explanations. The language used is measured and respectful. The James Randi foundation is well-regarded as a source for investigating all manner of paranormal claims. If this article presents claims that EVP is paranormal in origin, there has to be significant discussion of the mainstream claim that paranormal claims don't exist. Maybe the reason this article seems biased towards a skeptical viewpoint, is because the paranormal claims are wrong, and the reliable sources reflect that? I'm taking the disputed tag off given that there have been no comments here for months, but I don't object to someone putting it back if there are genuine concerns. MrHarambe (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Electronic voice phenomenon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electronic voice phenomenon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Demons and parable of rich man and Lazarus

It's not so easy to find sources on a Christian vision of the phaenomenon. Since the 2000s, the former Pope Benedict XVI encouraged the scientific research on the phaenomenon. omissis. This type of research started at the beginning of the history of the radio.

Nothing was said on the biblical reference to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Nothing was acknowledged in that demons know the humanity of dead people they tried to male falled in temptation. Demons create and cause the phaenomenon in order to attract living people to them. There are no scientific source on the possibility of a causal connection between demons and the electronic voice phaenomenon. This is because science isn't capable to experimentally distinguish and discriminate between a bodiless Angel and a soul separated from her earthly body.151.38.231.184 (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, this is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia. If such beliefs are not discussed in independent sources, we can't include them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
thanks for your answer. This free paper shows a relevant prevalence of non Afro-American and former Roman Catholics among the U.S. groups of people active in the field of paranormal. However, it wasn't yet investigated the impact of their previous faith and the current application to the electronic voice phenomen, supposing that they have taken memory of the cited parables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.14.139.181 (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I just noticed this insertion in the article, and have copyedited accordingly. As for the source, there is so much contained in that paper that might be useful in improving the article, I'm not sure why that one demographic aspect is your focus, or why you feel there's some connection to "demons". - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
there exists also the biblical account of king Saul and the Witch of Endor. Demons are angels who know everything about the dead people, thus are capable of imitating their voices and of revealing personal informations unknown to anyone else.

Life

What is life about 2600:8803:900:6600:B8CB:B6C0:282D:C403 (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_voice_phenomenon/Archive_18&oldid=1163109659"