Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Electronic voice phenomenon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

I've went ahead and archived the talk page since it has had no action for about a month now and I wanted to create room for new discussions. I want to create a Electronic voice phenomenon rewrite project to rewrite this article and turn it into a Good article and possibly a Featured article soon. For those of you unfamiliar with how this will work Please see the Parapsychology article for more information. What will happen is I will create a subpage on my namesake and will invite all major contributors of this article as well as anyone else who wants to contribute to come to the namesake to discuss the article. I haven't definitely decided to invest time into this yet, however if I get a positive reaction from most editors to this page then I will do so. I will rewrite this article and create a subpage on my namesake and invite all major contributors to come make proposals to change the article. To prevent edit wars, no one will be able to edit the draft except for me, however once everyone agrees on the page, we can replace it with this one and then anyone interested can improve it themselves. Major edits should be posted prior to being made to check consensus though. Based on the answers to the following questions, I will decide whether or not I will invest time to rewrite this article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few questions for the major editors of this page. Anyone who has in the past and plans to contribute in the future can answer these questions. The questions will be very simple and the answers should be very simple. Please put a * right below each question if you are the first to answer and right below each answer after that. Here are the questions.

Do you believe EVP as a whole, including it's methods and basis, is controversial both within and outside the scientific community(Controversial doesn't necessarily mean invalid or fraudulently)?

• EVP is pretty much universally controversial. Mainstream science is skeptical of the existence of EVP more on the assumption that it is impossible, than that it is poorly researched or even mundane influences mistaken as phenomenal. This is the case with most of the scientists I have discussed this with. The rest of society follows the lead of mainstream science and/or their religious leaders. Religious leaders are mixed, but the more orthodox they are, them more skeptical they are of EVP--"Even if it is real, it is communication with demons."

Since evidence is seldom an issue with the skepticism, I suspect that the only approach you can take to make the article a good one is to focus on the popular impact of EVP without attempting to address it in terms of the science. Tom Butler 01:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No, We'll examine anything that is brought up as long as it's relevant. The evidence for or against EVP will definitely be relevant. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• There is certainly disagreement; I am not sure I would characterise it as "controversy". On the one hand there are scientists who predominantly would dismiss out of hand the notion of EVP (in the strong sense) if they were asked about it - but have no reason to write on the subject in peer reviewed journals - and on the other hand, there are ordinary people many of whom believe in survival after death, aliens, Elvis etc. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 14:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Hell yes. "Controversial" is an understatement. - LuckyLouie 19:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe that in order to follow NPOV, Wikipedia must represent the relevant criticisms corresponding to the amount of criticisms existing as a whole?

• The problem in the past has been that the criticism is being voiced by about 5 billion people who have not examined the evidence. Instead, they reject it based on beliefs. To represent the amount of criticism, there would be only a few words from people like me and a whole book about the criticism.

The article as it is now is very out of balance, so it may be that any rewrite will be an improvement, but rather than defining NPOV as proportionate representation, perhaps just the facts without characterization would work. That has been resisted in the past, I think, because it does not leave room for the Skeptical Dictionary treatment of the subject. Tom Butler 01:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• According to the quantity of criticism and the reliability of the sources, yes. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 14:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• In short, yes. - LuckyLouie 19:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of the article, are you willing to make compromises?

• Since I know the first fight will be over my editing the article, I will recuse myself now. With that said, I can compromise so long as the truth is told. The way it was not told in the past was to not allow virtually all of the research, evidence or experts in the field because of original research, conflict of interest, fringe publications and lack of notarized employment records. If you cannot do something about that, then plan on another arbitration. Tom Butler 01:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

We're going to ignore all previous disputes and abandon all pretenses towards other editors when entering into this rewrite. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is a subject which is divided sharply between those who believe and those who see belief as something vaguely flaky, cranky, or crackpot. Compromise is the only way progress can possibly be made. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 14:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Certainly. - LuckyLouie 19:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Please answer all questions right beside the * and use a new * below each answer for new answers. Please keep your answers short. Maximum 3 sentences. Preferably a "Yes" or "No though. I'm going to wait a few days for a lot of people to respond to these answers before I start taking time to work on a new version of this page. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I may not have time to devote a lot of energy to your project, but I will try to contribute. I have witnessed this article go through a number of evolutions. If you can bring lasting stability to it, I applaud you. - LuckyLouie 19:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that we have the recent Arbitration under out belts, let's try and edit this article in the normal way. At least give it a chance. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It won't work if we go about it the same old way. We need to do a total rewrite the same we did for the Parapsychology article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

We didn't do anything like a total re-write of the Parapsychology article. And now that ArbCom has worked out the principles, I think it will work. Anyway, let's give it a try; the reason is that aside from a small issue of WEIGHT, there doesn't seem to be much wrong with the current article. So a few minor changes such as I've been making should do it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Arbcom only re-enforced current policies and issued warnings to specific users. It did not work out any principles in regards to how these types of articles are edited. If you don't want to participate in the re-write draft as we did with the Parapsychology article then you're welcomed to sit it out, however if the other editors of this page want to go forward with it then that's what we'll do. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires consensus. I think it would be well if editors would read the ArbCom, so that they will know how to apply it- to EVP and other articles. What do you think ought to be changed in the EVP article, that you wish to re-write it? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've read the Arbcom. Nothing there applies to EVP or any other article that current policies don't already cover. The Arbcom simply clarified what current policies already say and issued a few warnings to some editors. What do I think should be changed? I don't know yet, I haven't gone through the article carefully yet. However based on the previous heavy disputing, I would have to say a lot, especially since little has been changed since then. There was a POV tag on the article, which you removed, and your edits since then haven't really made much changes, especially changes that would get rid of potential POV if it were there. I'll wait for other editors, especially those who were very active in the past, until I decide to invest any time into working on a rewrite. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you haven't seen the changes the ArbCom made. They are large, though only a few apply to this page. So I guess we'll see if other editors think there is a need for a major re-write. I don't. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 09:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As he's noted before, he has seen the ArbCom changes and participated in discussions on those pages, as have many of us who contributed to those proceedings. If someone who knew nothing about the subject found this page, they would be mislead. Consequently, a rewrite of this article may be in order. Antelan ^talk 14:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I did find the exercise on Wikidudeman's page for parapsychology pretty one-sided. It was interesting to me that there were no or few drop-in editors during that process. There are skeptical editors who will use extreme measures to keep their viewpoint in this article, and going off to a corner to agree on a re-write amongst a few editors will only delay their actions.

The recent arbitration does seem to have included points applicable to EVP. For instance, Adequate framing 6a) should apply to this article. Also, the article currently contains brief mention of what EVP are thought to be and a large section on what it is not including quotes from all sorts of skeptical "experts" in the field. (I assume they are EVP experts ... right?) I personally think that, as written, the article will continue to invite attack and at least the "Explanations" need to be rewritten. I also think the work should be done here. Tom Butler 17:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that a rewrite, at least partial, is in order here. The intro is confusing and rambling, and it's not clear what the status of this field is supposed to be. I agree that the WDM exercise was one-sided (no fault of his), since the skeptics (ScienceApologist and others) had already left the project. Antelan ^talk 18:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

WDM, Antelan, and VanTucky are skeptics, and Nealparr is neutral about the scientific validity of psi. The parapsychology process was dominated by skeptics. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a strange characterization; it would be more accurate to say that, during the process, you generally disagreed with WDM, Antelan, and VenTucky, and you generally agreed with Nealparr. At any rate, you left out Annalisa Ventola and yourself from the analysis. Antelan ^talk 21:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom Butler, You're free to introduce new changes to the current Parapsychology article and were free to engage in the discussions during it's re-write as you are currently welcome to participate in this current proposed re-write. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Martin, The fact that most of the contributors to the re-write were skeptical of Parapsychology isn't my fault. I invited about a dozen people and only a few showed up. The same has been done for this proposed re-write. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know it wasn't any of your fault (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also inaccurate, as he left out Tom Butler, Annalisa Ventola, and himself; and his characterization of Nealparr, who ran a paranormal magazine, is also within the "gray area" of veracity. Antelan ^talk 22:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made some changes which generally serve to make the article more readable. In addition, I've included more linked words which frame the subject for the reader, such as psychic paranormal and aliens, where it says "Extraterrestrial life is life originating outside of the Earth. Its existence remains theoretical; there is no evidence of extraterrestrial life that has been widely accepted by the scientific community."

The general gist of my edits has been to strengthen the skeptical side of the article, by framing it better (per recent ArbCom). I believe that we need more discussion of paranormal explanations, to balance the section on normal explanations, per WP:WEIGHT. Aside from that, while there may be factual errors I'm missing, the article seems OK, and with only minor changes I think it can be left as it is. After all, it has been stable for a long time now. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at your first edit of the recent changes, which modifes the definition to "speech or speech like sounds" and adds an assertion that most people try to use EVP to communicate with the dead. Although I have no objections to your changes, your edit summary describes these changes as "revising in line with the recent ArbCom". I don't see anything in the recent Arbcom decision which would remotely dictate such edits. - LuckyLouie 19:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right that the changes you mention don't have to do with the ArbCom. Edit summaries are often too short to describe all the changes in a diff. If you'd like to discuss which were and which weren't indicated by the ArbCom, let me know.

In the diff you have above, the part which relates to the ArbCom is "spirits". This is in accord with more clearly framing the article, per 6a- a reason I say that my changes favored skepticism, as framing gives the reader more opportunity to understand the controversy surrounding the subjects. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's often a good idea to make fewer changes per edit submission. This has the advantage of allowing more space for edit comments for each change, and it also reduces the possibility of uncontroversial "good" edits being steamrollered in reversions of controversial edits. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 20:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I know, but when you have a connection speed of 2 kbps, you do all you can in one edit. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I took that tag out. I have a hunch it was put there by Davkal, and he isn't here. I don't see any major POV bias in the article, except a small WEIGHT issue in one section. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Just so everyone is clear on WP:V, a fundamental policy on Wikipedia:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

Per policy, let's make sure that we're accurately reflecting what the sources say and that we're using reliable sources. Antelan ^talk 21:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources are necessary for controversial statements. The statement you just removed is actually very non-controversial. If you're challenging it, that's fine. But if you believe it to be true -and I did not think it was remotely controversial- I think you should leave it in. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

My edit summary explained my objection to the statement, and yes, I think a blanket statement like that requires reliable sourcing. Antelan ^talk 21:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summary said "Removing sentence #2. The source flat-out didn't say that", which is not an explanation unless you think the statement is controversial. non-controversial statements do not need sources. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious through my statements and actions that I am challenging that statement. Antelan ^talk 21:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are, then that's fine. Not exactly knowledgeable about the subject, though. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, one can assume that people looking for info on this subject will, as you say, be "not exactly knowledgeable about the subject." Let's respect them by respecting Wikipedia policies. Antelan ^talk 22:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I combined the one-sentence second paragraph explaining the non-paranormal viewpoint with the first paragraph. This way, all of the explanations are given in one place. Martinphi, you reverted this change; however, I believe my version to be more neutral. Martinphi, if you actually believe that separating those explanations is truly neutral, then let's rearrange them and put the non-paranormal explanations first since doing so would be equally neutral. Do you see my concern with separating them now? Antelan ^talk 21:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No, paragraphing is for changes of subject. You can't put the non-paranormal first, because that's not the way it is in the body of the article, and the normal ones are responses to the paranormal ones. There is no issue, one way or the other, of neutrality. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll rearrange things to implement this neutral change. I presume you won't object, given that you just rearranged some material yourself. Antelan ^talk 22:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll object if it is not in accordance with what I just said. If you mean re-arranging them in the body of the article, that won't work. The normal are responses to the paranormal. It was that way before, and we agreed to re-arrange it. Please wait for consensus. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I had already rearranged before you responded. The vast majority of those explanations aren't simply a response to the paranormal - they're legitimate explanations in their own right. The ones that are simply responses to paranormal claims could go under their own section, or could even be eliminated. Antelan ^talk 22:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Antelan, what you just did is non-consensual, disruptive editing. If you keep this up, that tag is going to be on the article forever and ever. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This is why we need a total re-write, as we did the Parapsychology article. Disputes like this are bound to occur with the current state of this article. They will continue to occur and little progress will be made. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I see only veiled threats and ad hominem remarks, but nothing constructive that I'm supposed to respond to. Martinphi, do you have any content point to raise? Antelan ^talk 22:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted to the original version because we simply don't have a well sourced informed skeptical commentary (i.e. someone who has studied the topic for more than about 15 minutes) to support the supposed naturalistic (non)explanations. It is therefore ludicrous to cite those views before the article has a chance to state in clear terms why the subject is notable and why there should be an article about it. That is, there is an article about EVP because it is an alleged paranormal phenomenon. That claim must be made first.Davkal 22:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted back per my points above. Your views of the naturalistic explanations are precisely that: your own. The subject is notable because people hear them, and the history discusses this very nicely. There is an article about EVP because people hear it. You think it's paranormal. Others don't. It's notable either way; therefore, we don't assert who is right - we just explain both sides. Antelan ^talk 22:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't edit war. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman - spare us the "Hello, I'm Switzerland" act - it doesn't wash. Antelan - perhaps you could point to the thorough studies you have in mind that offer naturalistic explanations. All I can see are a few pseudosceptic "experts" on everything offering up a few pseudoexplanations and ignoring almost everything that actually makes EVP a bit puzzling.Davkal 22:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, you are welcome to enter into this discussion of content, but I'm confident that Davkal and I are aware of Wikipedia rules by this point and don't need a reminder regarding edit warring. Davkal, I'll note that (in order of your points on your edit "summary") (1) Yes, the section of this talk page that I referenced actually explains that many of the naturalistic explanations are not simply responses to paranormal claims, and (2) sourcing has nothing to do with the order of material. My edits only rearranged material, and did not add any of what you are objecting to. Perhaps you should talk to the person who put it there in the first place. Update: I looked through the section, and those statements are sourced. Is this just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Antelan ^talk 22:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm objecting to the order, not the content. The reason your order is wrong (for the third time in as many minutes) is that these are not in depth studies of the subject that have offered naturalistic explanations. These are the same few pseudosceptics (Carroll, Shermer, CSICOP) who pop up with a ready "refutation" every time anything remotely paranormal is mentioned. It is ludicrous to put their responses first.Davkal 22:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the 2002 book on digital signal processing ("A practical guide for engineers and scientists") was printed by "pseudosceptics", to use your pejorative of favor, for discrediting the paranormal view of EVP? My point is that, again, the naturalistic explanations stand in their own right and don't need to be responses to paranormal claims. Thus, I disagree with your assertion that only one order is "right" in this article. Antelan ^talk 22:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

For god's sake, Davkal, I'm glad you're here, but get some civility.

Antelan, don't make non-consensual changes, and don't edit war. You are being a disruptive editor. Please see above for content issues. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm disrupting Wikipedia. Sorry. Antelan ^talk 22:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Antelan - your supposed refutation is not a refutation. Something can be an explanation in it's right and a response. This would be the case where, for example, an explanation (in it's own right)was offered as a counter explanation in response to an explanation that had previously been offered. Response refers to the order and causal history of an explanation - not its content. And this is the case with EVP re paranormal versus pseudosceptical speculation about its origin. Secondly, I note you have already tried to label me as a believer in the paranormal nature of EVP. I am not. I believe EVP is a puzzling phenomenon and I don't think the pseudosceptical arguments put forward by Carroll, Shermer et al (based on no serious study) deal with any of the more puzzling aspects of the phenomenon. I therefore feel it is inappropriate to to put those responses prior to a clear statement of what EVP has always been suggested to be by those most closely involved with it - ie. a paranormal phenomenon.Davkal 22:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly not a discussion. I say "those are explanations" and you say "yes, they are explanations, but to me they are responses so they come second." Then, I say "here's an engineering textbook that is used as a source of these explanations" and you say "lots of other sources are bad". You and I are not getting through to each other. I'll just put this up for peer review so we can get some outside feedback and our opinions will, thankfully, be irrelevant. Update: a peer review would be untimely if WDM is actually going to rewrite this, so I'll wait on that. Antelan ^talk 23:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you believe a rewrite similar to that of the Parapsychology article is in order then please add your name to the "Willing" list below so that I can know if there is a consensus. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, User:Antelan's edits are no more disruptive or non-consensual than User:Martinphi's edits. Both explained their edits on the Talk page. Although I believe one of them provides much better edit summaries. - LuckyLouie 23:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm unwatching this for now. Antelan ^talk 23:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Should this article go through a re-write the same way the Parapsychology article did? By this I mean I re-write the article and then invite everyone to the talk page of the draft to propose changes. Who is willing to do this?

---

• Willing

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I'll comment on your draft. - LuckyLouie 23:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

OK Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 02:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Antelan has agreed as well. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Not Willing

Tom Butler 18:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Please just sign your name under "Willing" or "Not willing" if you're willing or not willing to go through re-write similar to Parapsychology, in order to get this to at least a Good Article. Thanks Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

WDM, I just don't think this article has the number of non-disruptive editors necessary to make it work. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I like a challenge. However I won't put time into it until most of the people agree to do so as well. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I can appreciate Wikidudeman's attempt to steer discussions, but since edit warring has already broken out, I'm for dealing with the situation at present. (Not to mention the fact that my experience with wholesale rewrites of articles, particularly in the absence of someone acting as a mediator, is not encouraging.) In general, I tend to prefer the version that Antelan is seeking to preserve, than the one Davkal is reverting to. I think it's of more value to the lay reader. That's not to say that there aren't worthwhile things (or less than useful things) in each version, but taken as a whole I prefer Ant's. — e. ripley\^talk 00:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe going about editing this article the conventional way will be effective or will make progress. Concerning the amount of contention between the editors I believe the best method is to totally rewrite it and give all willing contributors a say in how it turns out. Once everyone is on agreement as to how the article should be then we replace this article with the rough draft. Of course you're all free to go about it anyway you choose. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. All willing contributors have a say in how the article is now, so the only difference is trying to rewrite what we've got now from scratch. I hate to poo poo someone trying to improve things, but surely there are areas in the article where all can agree as it stands. I'm not sure a wholesale rewrite will mean less arguing, and may in fact mean removing areas of text that people already agree on. Regardless, I'm willing to see how it goes if you want to go down that path. — e. ripley\^talk 00:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait a few days to see how things work out before I decide to invest time into it. The same thing that is happening here was happening at the Parapsychology article until it was rewritten the way I'm proposing and now it's a Good Article which is very stable. If you'd be willing to participate in the rewrite and make proposed changes once it's done then add your name above to the "Willing" area. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd really be that active, I've indicated textually here what my thoughts are so I'll just leave it at that. — e. ripley\^talk 12:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

With Antelan gone, and if Davkal behaves himself, we might be able to make some progress. But I don't know what people actually want to change. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel just made some very nice changes, which I think, for one thing, took care of the objection Antelan had. Paranormal should be contrasted with normal, and natural should be contrasted with supernatural. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"Electronic voice phenomenon (EVP)" is a term used to refer speech or speech-like sounds that are captured on recorded media or other electronic devices. As a definition, this is absurd. It covers song, and speech in the ordinary non-paranormal sense. I recognize the difficulties of saying first whether it is paranormal or normal misinterpreted, but something more meaningful is needed. DGG (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think the definition needs to include a word such as "unexpected" or "unaccounted" to distinguish the phenomenon from ordinary recordings.Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 02:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was a difficult sentence to agree on. The problem is that EVP are not paranormal. Whatever they are, once they're on the tape, they aren't paranormal. And the sounds exist whether or not they are of paranormal origin. But they seldom really sound like voices, and they usually only sound like speech when you train your brain to hear it. So, they are speech or speech-like sounds. However, we can't really charicterize them, because some have been reported to be veritable voices. Also, "EVP" covers recorded "paranormally produced" music.

But the sounds aren't really the definition of EVP. Rather, the definition put most simply is "sounds believed to be of paranormal origin" which are recorded electronically. We say "believed to be" instead of just "of paranormal origin", because we know the sounds exist, and it's the belief about them that is the defining factor in their importance and having them defined within the realm of the paranormal.

Hmmm. I started out think you were probably right, but now I'm liking what we've got a lot better. What do you think? I can't think of any other way of saying what EVP are.

And far be it from me to play the skeptic, but if you put unaccounted or the like, you will have people come and say "oh yes, we can account for them." Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The term Electronic voice phenomenon (EVP) refers to speech or speech-like sounds, heard on recorded media or electronic devices, whose origin is unknown but is believed by some to be paranormal. Can we make progress in this direction? I know it's not perfect - maybe another editor can improve on it. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 02:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"I agree with Martinphi on this one. "It's the belief about them that is the defining factor in their importance". The sounds cannot be said to be verifiably unknown. - LuckyLouie 02:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If origin unknown is too concrete, perhaps uncertain might be a better word. I think the one thing we cannot claim is that the origin of these sounds is known. Only a hardcore pseudoskeptic would make such a claim. A reasonable scientific approach would be to offer a tentative conclusion. Or avoid the question entirely... The term Electronic voice phenomenon (EVP) refers to speech or speech-like sounds, believed by some to be of paranormal origin, captured on recorded media or electronic devices.

Electronic voice phenomenon (EVP) is a term used to refer speech or speech-like sounds of uncertain origin which are captured on recorded media or other electronic devices. They are believed by some to be of paranormal origin, for example the voices of spirits. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the one thing we cannot claim is that the origin of these sounds is known. Only a hardcore pseudoskeptic would make such a claim. Really. What's your source for this fact? - LuckyLouie 03:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't my post, but:

1. A pseudoskeptic or paranormalist might claim the source to be known.
2. We don't have to have sources on talk pages.
3. Please let's confine ourselves to constructive argument.

Anyone have anything to say about my latest suggestion? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's okay with me. I was hoping to fit everything into one sentence but maybe it just can't be done elegantly. As for my remark about pseudoskeptics, I concur with Martinphi: a paranormalist might also claim that they "knew" the source. Anyway, my point was intended to be that we don't have a reliable source offering definite proof of the origin of any (to my knowledge) EVP recordings, let alone all of them; hence the origin is unknown/uncertain. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 04:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If anyone can think of an OK way to say it, it would be good to say that the significance of EVP is that some believe it is of paranormal origin. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are going to have to split this up if you are going to be "... of more value to the lay reader." We define EVP as "unexpected voices" because they often occur spontaneously, (therefore, unexpected). In this situation, the experiencer usually has no real framework to understand the phenomenon and must learn the various theories, which depending on his or her worldview, leads to the assumption that the unexpected sounds are either paranormal or mundane artifacts. In this case, describing them as "unexpected is correct.

Of course, when people conduct recording sessions with the intention of collecting an EVP, success implies "expected." In that case, the person has probably already arrived at the "paranormal" conclusion and is using EVP as a tool. The problem is that now to dispute EVP, we have to attack the experimenter's common sense. Is he or she being delusional to think that utterance saying "get out" is spoken by an angry ghost (dead person who is interacting with the experimenter--go figure), or just RF contamination that happens to just say what is appropriate for the circumstance? In this second version, "unexpected" might be more properly replaced with "controversial" but I think it is important to avoid attacking people's sanity. We all live in a glass house of some making.

I still use "unexpected" for this second case because there are no known physical principles that account for some of the utterances. So, from the perspective of our society and science, they are still unexpected.

For those of us who use EVP as a tool, our working assumption is that the voices are from discarnate Self, either from the consciousness of a still-physical person or a discarnate person. I think you are mistaking our "working assumption" with our unconditional belief that the voices are from dead people. In all of the instances I am aware of, as EVP experimenters becomes more educated about the phenomena, they also become aware of how what they experience might be caused by other influences. That is, if research shows that EVP are caused by a quantum shift in a holographic universe, and are just echoes of the past after all, then the working assumption might change. To be considered, the arguments against EVP must be well-considered, as opposed to the nonsense in the article now.

There is no reason why this article cannot show both views: EVP are used to communicate with the dead; EVP are studied to see if someone is talking, if so, who is talking and how. If you did that, then you do not have to use Wikipedia to prove EVP either way. You can list the theories without characterization (since none here knows which is more or less correct anyway), rather than pro and con, and you can make it clear that some (or all) of the assumptions are not supported by good science. I agree that is true.

Finally, the statement, "we don't have a reliable source offering definite proof of the origin of any (to my knowledge) EVP recordings, let" is why this article went to arbitration. If you still feel that an SPR article is not acceptable, but something on Randi's site is, then this article may as well be deleted. Tom Butler 18:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the current article as trying to prove it either way. I see it as describing the controversy- which is good. There is an issue of WP:WEIGHT because the paranormal explanations are so much smaller than the normal explanations. But I don't see the article as trying to prove anything. We're trying to work out the first sentence now. What do you think of this latest version:

Electronic voice phenomenon (EVP) is a term used to refer speech or speech-like sounds of uncertain origin which are captured on recorded media or other electronic devices. They are believed by some to be of paranormal origin, for example the voices of spirits. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That intro is just fine. The problem is in the probability that there will be continuing objections from passing editors. We have tried just about every variation of terminology to describe EVP and all of the efforts have been essentially variations on the same theme. What I am suggesting is that the article be written with two views: popular culture with inexact thinking; and, efforts to study it scientifically and how those efforts are going/viewed.

The skeptics have few complaints about people running around with recorders trying to reach uncle John, except I know they think those people are delusional. Where we always get stuck is when we talk about the conjecture that EVP is real and already explained. If the purely objective approach is taken, then all of us have to admit that there are no scientifically substantiated conclusions for or against, only experimental results and candidate models to explain them.

I am perfectly happy to have all of the proposed explanations discussed in the article, so long as all are and all are given appropriate weight based on experimental results. None are right and none are wrong, just attempts to explain the data.Tom Butler 23:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that that is the way we are supposed to do things in Wikipedia: describe things and not take sides. How would you write the intro then, in a way you think it would be stable? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will take a crack at it here. I expect some of this will need to be reworded to accommodate references, but you should be able to see my point. It does not pitch people against people, it separates that science from the practice and it is a little more specific about the definition. I would be happy to see edits of this.

Electronic voice phenomenon (EVP) are defined as speech or speech-like sounds that are captured on electronic devices, but are not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded. They are thought by some to be of paranormal origin. Theories designed to explain their origin include: ordinary sounds mistaken as voice, technology artifact which produce voice-like sounds, radio frequency contamination, echoes of the past (the quantum holographic or superpsi hypotheses), thoughts of the living, thoughts of discarnate people (the survival hypothesis), and in rare instances, thoughts of aliens or nature spirits.

EVP are typically short, usually the length of a word or short phrase, with a logical beginning and end and appropriate to the circumstances. EVP are a subset of the more inclusive Instrumental TransCommunication (ITC) which also includes visual forms of these phenomena.

EVP is used as a tool for such purposes as recording for EVP during hauntings investigations, attempting to contact a person (usually a discarnate loved one) and gaining information. The basis of fact for these uses are anecdotal and not necessarily empirically supported by science.

Research into the nature of EVP, and whether or not the phenomenon is paranormal, has been primarily conducted by individuals with just a few academic investigations. The current status of EVP is that there has not yet been sufficient study by academically trained scientists to characterize it in scientific terms.

The term itself was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s.[5] Previously the term “Raudive Voices”, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience, was used. [6][2] References to EVP have appeared in pop culture such as in the Reality TV show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense. Tom Butler 01:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I see very little wrong with that. I'd use the word "deceased" and link to soul instead of "discarnate," which is jargon. Here:

'Electronic voice phenomenon (EVP) is defined as speech or speech-like sounds that occur on electronic devices, but are not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded. They are thought by some to be of paranormal origin. The term itself was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s, [5] replacing the term “Raudive Voices”, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive. [6][2] References to EVP have appeared in pop culture such as in the Reality TV show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense.

Normal hypotheses designed to explain EVP include ordinary sounds mistaken as voices, flaws in the recording devices which produce voice-like sounds, and radio frequency contamination. Paranormal hypotheses include psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis of the living, thoughts of deceased people, and in rare instances, thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. EVP are a subset of Instrumental TransCommunication which also includes visual anomalies.

EVP are typically short, usually the length of a word or short phrase. Paranormal investigators use EVP as a tool for such purposes as hauntings investigations, and contacting spirits. The basis in fact for these uses are anecdotal and not necessarily empirically supported by science. Most investigation of EVP has been conducted by people with few academic credentials. The current status of EVP is that there has not yet been sufficient study by academically trained scientists to characterize it in scientific terms.

I had to cut a lot, because it was much too long for a summary. I think the most important sentence we'd have to agree on is "The current status of EVP is that there has not yet been sufficient study by academically trained scientists to characterize it in scientific terms." Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"Deceased" is synonymous with dead which is synonymous with cease to exist in the popular view. "Discarnate" means without material body, which is the intention here. It is a term widely used by people who are not so sure "dying" means to become dead. So, I would suppose "deceased" presupposes that the communicators in EVP are only in our imagination. We could use "etheric communicators" or "entities."

I suppose we should include the other "normal" causes so that we have: "...recording devices which produce voice-like sounds, radio frequency contamination, Capture errors, Processing artifacts and Hoaxes."

"Auditory pareidolia, Rorschach audio and Apophenia" are all the same thing as they are used and is covered with "...ordinary sounds mistaken as voices..." In fact, I have yet to find anyone but the editors here who know what pareidolia and Apophenia are. Sort of like inventing a stick and then using it to beat people.

I would not relate echoes of the past with psychic. Perhaps "spirit" would be a better reference.

Psychokinesis of the living is close, but it is not very exclusive. If psychokinesis is involved, then it would have to be involved in every instance in which there is apparently intelligent communication via EVP. Psychokinesis is thought to be a subtle mind (my term, I think) process, as opposed to the physical mind. Whether or not the process is a physical body function is still being debated and will not be settled until its existence is settled. So, all EVP are thought to be caused via a psychokinetic influence, but some may come from the subtle mind of still physical people.

These are just suggestions.

You did a good job of cutting down my wordiness. Thanks! Tom Butler 16:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds that occur on electronic devices, but are not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded. They are thought by some to be of paranormal origin. The term itself was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s.^[1] Previously the term “Raudive Voices”, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience, was used. ^[2][3] References to EVP have appeared in pop culture such as in the Reality TV show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense.

Normal hypotheses designed to explain EVP include ordinary sounds mistaken as voices, flaws in the recording devices which produce voice-like sounds, and radio frequency contamination. Paranormal hypotheses include psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, thoughts of spirits, and in rare instances, thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. EVP are a subset of Instrumental TransCommunication which also includes visual anomalies.

EVP are typically short, usually the length of a word or short phrase. Paranormal investigators use EVP as a tool for such purposes as haunting investigations, and contacting the souls of loved ones. The basis in fact for these uses are anecdotal and not necessarily scientifically supported. Most investigation of EVP has been conducted by people with few academic credentials. The current status of EVP is that there has not yet been sufficient study by academically trained scientists to characterize it in scientific terms.

I don't know how to get away from the word "psychic." Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Somthing might come up as a replacement for "psychic," so let's go with it as it is for now. Without input from others, I think we have gone as far as we can go. Tom Butler 23:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand why the word "defined" needs to be in there. No claim is being made there such that we really need a qualifier. If e need anything I think "refers to" might be better. Davkal 17:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I made the change, but it would require renaming the article. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Has this article always been titled "Electronic Voice Phenomenon"? Did I have a long senior moment?? The term is "Electronic Voice Phenomena" and it is so because it has more than one form of manifestation, for instance, spontaneous answering machine messages and solicited responses.

I used "definition" because EVP is a specific form of phenomena, and if a sound is given the attribute of EVP but is mundane, then it is not EVP as defined. This has been a problem in the past. Skeptical view is that the sounds called EVP are really just normal sounds mistaken as phenomenal. In fact, capture errors (for instance) have produced false positives, but they are not EVP as it is defined, just a person mistaking normal sounds as EVP. Tom Butler 21:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you all seem to be making at least some progress in talking, I'll come back in a week or two to see how everything is progressing. If little progress has been made then maybe we can go ahead with my rewrite proposal. I'm going to unwatch this and work on other pages, so if anyone has any questions they should add them to my talk page. See you all around. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, see you (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer of help. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 04:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been 8 days and no progress has been made with this article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a lot seems to have happened. First, we know that the current article is stable. Second, there have been no objections to the new proposed lead -even though people were informed about it- and such a long silence seems to indicate a consensus that it is good. So, things seem to be progressing quite well. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware that silence indicates consensus. - LuckyLouie 22:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:CONSENSUS, first paragraph. I'm instituting an additional level here, because the topic is controversial. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm instituting an additional extension of time for the same reason. - LuckyLouie 23:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically silence could mean consensus, but it could also mean that the people who would normally object are no longer paying attention to the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I put a heads up on a couple of talk pages of those I thought might not be paying attention. No response till yesterday. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 10:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If no one has any objections -it's been 8 or 9 days- I'll install the new version of the intro as the consensus version tonight. Here is is:

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds that occur on electronic devices, but are not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded. They are thought by some to be of paranormal origin. The term itself was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s.^[4] Previously the term “Raudive Voices”, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience, was used. ^[5][3] References to EVP have appeared in pop culture such as in the Reality TV show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense.

Normal hypotheses designed to explain EVP include ordinary sounds mistaken as voices, flaws in the recording devices which produce voice-like sounds, and radio frequency contamination. Paranormal hypotheses include psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, thoughts of spirits, and in rare instances, thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. EVP are a subset of Instrumental TransCommunication which also includes visual anomalies.

EVP are typically short, usually the length of a word or short phrase. Paranormal investigators use EVP as a tool for such purposes as haunting investigations, and contacting the souls of loved ones. The basis in fact for these uses are anecdotal and not necessarily scientifically supported. Most investigation of EVP has been conducted by people with few academic credentials. The current status of EVP is that there has not yet been sufficient study by academically trained scientists to characterize it in scientific terms.

–––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Tom Butler 22:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

1.Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds that occur on electronic devices, but are not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded. Too broad a description as there are always recorded sounds not heard by the human recording operator at the time of recording, and in any case, such a textbook definition would have to be verified and attributed to an authoritative source dealing specifically with audio, a technical body such as the Audio Engineering Society. What defines EVP is They are thought by some to be of paranormal origin. I suggest the two sentences be connected: Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds that occur on electronic devices, not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded, and thought by some to be of paranormal origin.

2. "The current status of EVP is that there has not yet been sufficient study by academically trained scientists to characterize it in scientific terms." There is no authoritative source backing this statement. If it is the opinion of an individual or a group, it must be stated as such and properly attributed.

-- LuckyLouie 23:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Revised in line with criticism:

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds that occur on electronic devices, but are not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded, and thought by some to be of paranormal origin. The term itself was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s.^[6] Previously the term “Raudive Voices”, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience, was used. ^[7][3] References to EVP have appeared in pop culture such as in the Reality TV show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense.

Normal hypotheses designed to explain EVP include ordinary sounds mistaken as voices, flaws in the recording devices which produce voice-like sounds, and radio frequency contamination. Paranormal hypotheses include psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, thoughts of spirits, and in rare instances, thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. EVP are a subset of Instrumental TransCommunication which also includes visual anomalies.

EVP are typically short, usually the length of a word or short phrase. Paranormal investigators use EVP as a tool for such purposes as haunting investigations, and contacting the souls of loved ones. The basis in fact for these uses are anecdotal and not necessarily scientifically supported. Most investigation of EVP has been conducted by people with few academic credentials. EVP is has not been thoroughly studied by academically trained scientists.

I think the last sentence is self evident, does anyone disagree? –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

EVP has not been thoroughly studied by academically trained scientists. This expresses an inappropriate editorial opinion ("thoroughly"). Existing textbook understandings of electronics, signal processing, audio, and psychology very thoroughly cover the basic components of EVP. Also there is a question of whether EVP is an observable phenomenon as defined by scientific method. I'd leave that sentence out altogether. - LuckyLouie 23:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds that occur on electronic devices, but are not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded, and thought by some to be of paranormal origin. The term itself was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s.^[8] Previously the term “Raudive Voices”, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience, was used. ^[9][3] References to EVP have appeared in pop culture such as in the Reality TV show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense.

Normal hypotheses designed to explain EVP include ordinary sounds mistaken as voices, flaws in the recording devices which produce voice-like sounds, and radio frequency contamination. Paranormal hypotheses include psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, thoughts of spirits, and in rare instances, thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. EVP are a subset of Instrumental TransCommunication which also includes visual anomalies.

EVP are typically short, usually the length of a word or short phrase. Paranormal investigators use EVP as a tool for such purposes as haunting investigations, and contacting the souls of loved ones. The basis in fact for these uses are anecdotal and not necessarily scientifically supported. Most investigation of EVP has been conducted by people with few academic credentials, and the scientific literature regarding EVP is very sparse.

The literature in the scientific journals as regards EVP as defined -paranormal- is very sparse. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Basically works for me. - LuckyLouie 00:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure about the way psychokinesis is used here. Psychokinesis is an action term, and yes, people can produce an action, but just "unconsciously produced by living people" would be more correct. Our working hypothesis is that the physical mechanism by which sound is modified to resemble speech is the action of psychokinesis on stochastic resonance. If that is anywhere near correct, then all EVP are the result of the action of psychokinesis.

The point is not that important and the meaning of the phrase is clear enough, so I can live with it. Thanks! Tom Butler 16:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)