Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

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 [*[1] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 [occurred] 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^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this is not a subject which requires purely peer-reviewed sources. Martin^phi _{(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) Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia another chance, but this article is a special case. Maybe he was right. Martin^phi _{(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. Wikipedia 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.

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 [2], 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)