Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Archive 2

message: I organized the History section with an eye to optimizing flow and readability. I also included a summary of Spiricom, and tried to break out AA-EVP as a separate "beat" in the story. I am not married to anything, so feel free to suggest changes. --- LuckyLouie 20:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Readability

message: In most articles on similar phenomena, there is an explanation in the lede paragraph of how this fits into the general scheme of things. --think of the para. as a summary of th earticle: most of it describes the phenom, but the status is mentioned. Deferring  all criticism to the end is POV pushing. 
:Peer review was requested, and I suggest that the article should follow the pattern of others similar. The current state needs copyediting, but does do what it basically should: It describes what is claimed, and gives + and - views of it by citing sources. I see in the string of comments an attempt to say that there is no negative criticism, which is not the case.  
:Summaries of the evidence must be fair. If there is negative criticism that is cited, then it is obvious that not everyone agrees.  The discussion is not aided by insistence that it isn't so-- it makes those arguing for the + side look like they are attempting to silence criticism,  which does not look well to anyone from outside. I consider myself outside, for I never heard of this topic till yesterday. The purpose of the article is to enlighten people like myself. DGG 23:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: status

message: Tom Butler comments here [: The (Wikipedia article Talk) page did go back to May, 2005, but old entries were recently deleted. To be fair, the page was becoming too long, but I had expected that they would have used the archive capability, rather than deleting what I consider an important source of research. I will be happy to email a copy if anyone whishes to read the deleted entries. 
*The contents were not deleted, they are still here. Look at the very top of this page on the right. Click on the number "1" under the filing cabinet marked "Archives". --- LuckyLouie 16:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the correction LuckyLouie, I will make the change. I saw the Archive feature but just checked 2 and 3. Bad assumption on my part.   Tom Butler 17:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed that, I hope. --- LuckyLouie 17:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Talk was not deleted

message: Is there any support for adding a brief summary of MacRae (before or after Baruss), since EVP proponents consider his efforts to be significant and contemporary? --- LuckyLouie 02:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he's significant then I think he should be mentioned. --Zoe.R 23:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is mentioned on AA-EVP and ITC, as well as cut-and-pastes on dozens of other EVP enthusiast sites, so it appears he is notable enough to deserve mention in this article, and serves to round out our admittedly basic layman's overview of "who's-who" in the EVP world. --- LuckyLouie 01:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Add a summary of MacRae?

message: I am curious why Electronic_voice_phenomenon_in_fiction is broken out as a separate article from this one. It certainly has relevance to this article and this subject. It is a short list, so it's not objectionable in terms of length. And a "references to X in fiction" section is an acceptable practice in Wikipedia articles. Maybe someone can enlighten me as to why it was removed/moved. --- LuckyLouie 21:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge it. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Electronic_voice_phenomenon_in_fiction]]

message: *As with all paranormal phenomena, the existense of EVP is disputed. changed to As with all paranormal phenomena, the existense of EVP is disputed by skeptics and the scientific community and the research programs devoted to EVP are described by the mainstream as pseudoscientific.[8] and moved to bottom paragraph
The people who dispute paranormal phenomena need to be identified. The pseudoscientific nature of their research neeeds to be delineated up front. This is all covered in guidelines pertaining to coverage of fringe topics--ScienceApologist 02:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution of dispute

message: *Some say that the sounds thought to be EVP are caused by psychokinesis or the voices of spirits changed to Some who believe in the paranormal say that the sounds thought to be EVP are caused by psychokinesis or the voices of spirits
"Some" is a weasly way of not being exact about who believes what. It is manifestly a fact that only people who believe in the paranormal believe in EVP. That's not to say that every paranormal believer is a believer in EVP, okay? --ScienceApologist 02:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we can find alternate phrasings that convey the same meaning which the group can agree on. Instead of "Some who believe in the paranormal" perhaps "proponents of EVP" or  "advocates of EVP" or "supporters of EVP" or "devotees of EVP" or "adherents of EVP"...? -- LuckyLouie 07:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's so bad about saying "some who believe in the paranormal"? We could then put up the references to who "some" of those people are. --ScienceApologist 08:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution of paranormal explanations

message: I want to put this point-by-point in a new section, so that it will be as clear as possible.
ScienceApologist: "Some" is a weasely way of not being exact about who believes what....What's so bad about saying "some who believe in the paranormal"?
Resp: This is one of the points covered before on this page.  If EVP is defined as paranormal, it does not have to be stated that only believers in the paranormal believe in it.  In fact, to hammer this is weaseling.
ScienceApologist: the existence of EVP is disputed by skeptics and the scientific community...
Resp: It is disputed by skeptics, and it may be disputed by some in the scientific community.  But 1) you can't speak for the "scientific community" as a whole, and 2) since EVP has largely been ignored, you can't say that it is disputed.  There is virtually no response at all.
ScienceApologist: but others say they can be explained by such things as pareidolia or radio signals.changed to but mainstream explanations of claimed instances include such things as pareidolia or radio interference.[4]
Resp: You can't speak for a "mainstream" that doesn't exist, unless you can find a source.  "Mainstream" is a also a weasel word.  That said, this isn't the worst attribution.  Also, skepdic.com is not a "mainstream" source.
ScienceApologist:    * According to researcher Alexander MacRae, changed to According to psychic enthusiasts Alexander MacRae and Judith Chisholm
Resp.  I agree that this could be left out (there's a problem in the summary with having two definitions of EVP).  He is indeed verifiably a researcher.  There is nothing at all which says a "researcher" needs to be mainstream or even to have a degree.
ScienceApologist: EVP is defined as any anomalous voices captured on any form of audio recording[5][6][2] that are discovered upon playback, but were not detected at the time that the recording was made, and which do not appear to originate from any local source.[3] changed to EVP is a probe of the fifth dimension where spirits reside.[5][6][2][3]
Note that the lack of credentials for the references means that we should only attribute to MacRae and Chisholm the beliefs for which they are notably reliable on: that is the belief in probing the fifth dimension...
Resp: I agree with perfectblue when s/he says that "Besides, the definition is purely dealing with the paranormal, non-paranormal stuff comes later."  Yes, the definition comes from the paranormal point of view, and we therefore don't have to evaluate it as if it is scientific fact.
ScienceApologist:    * EVP are typically brief, the length of a word or short phrase, though longer examples are also claimed.[7] changed to Claimed instances of EVP are typically brief, the length of a word or short phrase, though longer examples are also claimed.[7]
Resp: As perfectblue said, this is only another instance of not accepting that the definition of EVP is that it is a paranormal phenomenon.  This is, again, one of the points discussed at length above.  Only believers in "This [...] pseudoscientific fantasy of paranormal investigators.", that is, in the paranormal, believe in EVP, and this definition comes from within the paranormal view.
ScienceApologist: ...Since every instance of EVP ever documented has been understandable by the person claiming it (by definition) ...
Resp: this is only true if EVP is unreal which we do not assume here.
For an instance, as requested, of EVP in a foreign language go here.
ScienceApologist:...By the plain fact that "paranormal" phenomena are not documented as observed and attributed to the supernatural as a normal matter of course,...
Resp: It is not true that paranormal=supernatural, except among super-skeptics who already know the paranormal does not exist (an unscientific attitude).  
ScienceApologist: It's not my fault that paranormal researchers want to use the word "phenomenon" in their writing. As soon as they do that, they have to deal with science because phenomena are in the realm of science.
Resp: See above: the word "paranormal" automatically modifies "phenomenon," to mean "phenomenon which may not exist."  You could say it is an oxymoron, but it is convention, and this doesn't give an excuse for weaseling
ScienceApologist:    As with all paranormal phenomena, the existence of EVP is disputed by skeptics and the scientific community and the research programs devoted to EVP are described by the mainstream as pseudoscientific.[8] To date, attempts to replicate EVP under laboratory conditions have generated a variety of inconclusive data and null results, and no peer reviewed literature exists to validate its existence.[4]
This is an important paragraph to include in the lead because phenomenon implies observability which implies scientific imprimatur of which there manifestly is none. We need to connect this to why this research program is pseudoscientific, what "results" there are (regardless of their rigor), and what research has been done in peer reviewed literature. --ScienceApologist 02:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Journal of Parapsychology, the term paranormal describes "any phenomenon that in one or more respects exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible according to current scientific assumptions." [1]
This is from the paranormal page.
ScienceApologist: I was pretty miffed when I saw your edit summaries claiming you "responded" in talk when no response was seen anywhere.
Resp: I stick to my complaint that ScienceApologist did not listen to my arguments above.  I beg him to do so now. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses to ScienceApologist