Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Archive 3

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

message: Is the same reference as #20--it is repeated, redundant.-MsHyde 21:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference #4

message: 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)
thread_title: Colin Smyth

message: 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)
thread_title: Order of St. Gregory

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have requested comment at wikiquette alerts.-MsHyde 06:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: content policies tag

message: 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. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Leaving

message: 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)
thread_title: Proponents