Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Archive 1

message: In the overview it states: "There is no indication that Edison designed or tried to construct such a device," then, in the next section, it cites Edison as an early pioneer in constructing EVP devices.  A bit paradoxical.
:It's not a paradox, it's a contradiction. Please sign your posts. (BTW, this whole article is complete crap - EVP is rubbish and this article goes on and on like it isn't.) --DreamsReign 06:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edison

message: :This is the discussion that took place on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion regarding this page.
* I really don't know what to do with this article.  It is about spirit voices in audio recordings and it takes itself very seriously.  I'm not sure if it should be deleted, noted as factual malarky, or rewritten to say how this ridiculous thing is believed by some people.  I'm leaning toward deletion since I haven't a clue how to make this a factual article. - Tεxτurε 03:49, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: End of copied discussion
There is an upcoming movie about EVP titled "White Noise". It has a website too http://www.whitenoisemovie.com/ . Will someone please add it to the "EVP in fiction" section? (I dont anything about wikipedia editing and my english is bad)
Maybe there could be something added here about scientific explanations of this... like, how people have a tendency to try to put meaning to random sound?  Kinda like how we see faces in everything.  I think there's an article or two in Wikipedia on that somewhere, but... Yeah-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia. --Joshua Holbrook
http://evprecordings.blogspot.com/ this link seems to be either an old one, or just something to garner traffic.  I do not edit, so if anyone has the time, I just wanted to point it out -bro 172.159.16.169 05:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

text: It has a sizeable entry on the subject.  However, if you have another site that is comparable from the same point of view please suggest it. - Tεxτurε 22:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VfD discussion

message: I know many of you may think this is stupid and "out of context" (what happened to openness and respect toward other people in Wikipedia???) text but I think we should include the following: 
"Precautions 
  
It is known that no one has ever been harmed by recording EVPs. But there are certain precautions that need to be taken. A person recording EVPs should have all emotional issues settled with because negative spirits can attach to a person. Recordings with a negative or rude tone should always be erased. Positive and open attitude is very important. 
 
Listeners should also take precautions. Listening to recordings has been known to enhance ones clairvoyant and clairaudient senses. People who feel uncomfortable with that should never listen to EVP recordings." 
And we have experience of EVP in our family. My brother listened to EVPs, he was crazy about them. He didn't believe in ghosts but after a while he started seeing shadow people. Later on, I read from a site about EVP that in some cases (not all of course!) listening to them enhances one's clairvoyant and/or clairaudient senses. I agree with that, after seeing what happened to my brother. I also have read that animals, especially cats and dogs, are very sensitive to EVP, they think it's evil (so I guess). I've been listening to EVPs, too, and once, when our cat was in the room and I was listening to them, it suddenly started to meow. I thought it was very odd. Later I read that often, when listening to EVPs, e.g. cats start to meow and dogs start to bark. Even my old mother thought it was strange. She doesn't believe in ghosts and has always thought they're our imaginations playing tricks on us.
So can we have a little bit more open-mindedness, please. --Thorri 20:55, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think any such thing should be included - it would be tantamount to claiming the phenomenon is real (ie. that it is spirits making the "voices"). Wikipedia should not make a claim on whether the phenomenon is real but merely describe the phenomenon and point out that there is no evidence (and for those claiming to have such evidence, lets see it). Lundse 10:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Precautions?

message: A large portion of this article (even down to some italic text) is copied directly from one of the links...  Is there permission for this, or does someone need to do a GPL sweep? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  24.118.114.210 (talk • contribs) 16:16, January 3, 2006  (UTC)
:I wrote most of the Spiricom and ITC sections based on info from a few websites which I provided links to in the External Links section. Looks like what is copied is the Raudive Voices section which looks like Lockout originally provided. However, I did edit some mispellings and run on sentences I found in that section. Cyberia23 00:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verbatim copyright violation 

message: I would like to do a rewrite making this more objective, the article seems to me to claim that actual scientists believe these 'voices' are spirits. Instead of going ahead and seeing possible reverts, I would like to know people attitudes towards this - and give whoever believes in these spirit voices a chance to cite references for claim like "even some respected scientists have discarded their initial doubt when provided with hard evidence or first-hand experience." Lundse 12:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: VfD discussion

message: I've noticed that several links, mainly leading to various paranormal research groups which deal with EVP phenomena, have been edited away since they are regarded as spam. Why is this? I can see nothing wrong in giving readers an opportunity to make up their minds about this subject by enabling them to study the work of these organizations, and take part of their theories. Instead of removing these links, why not add links to skeptical websites as well, to serve as a counterbalance? Jonas Liljeström 13:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed! Links to more information on EVP will be most useful. Cynthia Sue Larson 07:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Links that add nothing to the article shouldn't be kept.  We shouldn't provide a link to a website that has little or no reliable and new info.  If you want to add a new link, pro or con, feel free. ---J.S  (T/C) 07:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanished links 

message: I just deleted the following sentence from the Raudive Voices section: "(Another version of this technique involves putting a microphone to a speaker which is playing the sound from the microphon eand listening to the feedback)."
This sentence definitely doesn't belong in the section about Raudive, and I don't know if it's true or someone's attempt at a joke.  If it's true, perhaps it should be reintroduced in another more appropriate section.--Mike Straw 10:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raudive Voices 

message: Regarding the authenticity of Dr. Mueller's spirit voice: I've listened to the Spiricom samples at Spiricom MP3's and Spiricom Device. Here's one thing that strikes me: The sound is basically supposed to be created by randomly modulating the carrier of a tone generator to achieve the formants of different phonemes, right? The vowels have that buzzing sound, but the vowels fricatives are not restrained to this frequency. They have the grey or white noise quality of human speech (listen to the S-sounds). I don't think it's possible for the tone generators to make such a complex noise, even if there are thirteen of them as suggested by Spiricom Device. The voiceless fricatives should also have a bit of that buzzing quality, sounding a bit chrunched since all the sounds are manipulations of the same 13 frequencies, or else an additional noise generator would be required. Is this accounted for anywhere? If not, Dr. Mueller's voice is more likely the product of a human speaking with the aid of an electrolarynx. That way, you get the buzzing vowels from the vibrator plus vocal tract, while the voiceless fricatives are heard above the buzzing, retaining the complex noise pattern since they are produced by air passing through the vocal tract, which is basically what Dr. Mueller's voice sounds like. I like the idea of Spiricom though... :)
Just a thought: Even if EVP isn't real, it's still interesting as a cultural phenomenon. For example, I've studied some sound art of which EVP now seems to be considered a sub-genre. Jonah Lark 12:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spiricom 

message: It is redundant by definition.  As such, I am removing the bottom one, since the top has more in-depth statement as to the Projects goals. --Chr.K. 16:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Double presentation of Wikiproject Paranormal subject at top of Discussion page

message: These and related sites advocate that if you want to get some "EVPs", you use a tape recorder and Brand New tapes. Old tapes can be erased, but NOT completely. I've heard this on Coast To Coast AM, other radio talk shows myself. Martial Law 19:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sites themselves are:www.ghostweb.com and www.ghostpix.com. Hope this helps. Cheers. Martial Law 19:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ghostpix and Ghostweb

message: I originally wrote this section based on what I heard on Art Bell's radio program and from reading the links I found online about it. Someone put FACT TAGS after every single paragraph, which I removed because the source of this info is linked at the bottom of the section. Although Art Bell probably doesn't sit well with the skeptics as a "reliable source" of info and the web links are likewise factually suspcious those are the only links of information regarding Spiricom that I could find. If anyone else can verify the experiments or provide better sources please add them. I don't think the section warrants FACT TAGS at every line, so I added a general factual accuracy tag at the top. A "dispute" tag didn't seem appropriate since since I consider a dispute a big debate where tempers are flying and people are red in the face about something. No one seems to be arguing about Spiritcom at the moment. I don't think the section should be deleted if it can't be verified, but every attempt should be made to find legit sources about it. I just don't think there are any. The project itself was supposedly unpublicized and widely dismissed as a hoax. If anyone knows more info about it please clean up the section and feel free to correct any inaccuracies. Thanks Cyberia23 22:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems a bit long for something that's fairly difficult to verify. Can you cut it down to maybe 2-3 paragraphs of the most important information? — ripley\talk 17:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spiricom Accuracy & Sources

message: The article as it stands now says:  There is no indication that Edison designed or tried to construct such a device.
Then a few paragraphs later, it says:
It is known that Edison had taken out some patents on various machines for communicating with the dead.
These can't both be true.  Is there anyone with access to a biography about Edison, or another published work, that might clear up this conflict?  I can't find any good online sources. — ripley\talk 22:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like Edison was telling a tall tale -- according to this National Park Service site (they maintain his birthplace museum):  . Given this, the text should be modified -- and possibly even removed.  It's used currently to make the point that people have been considering technological means to talk to the dead for some time, but according to this Edison had no more involvement than trying to fool a reporter. — ripley\talk 22:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edison contradictions 

message: How do we define 'peer reviewed journals'? Is it simply any organization that has a journal and invites comments from peers? Or since there are claims of a scientific nature being discussed, do we define them as entities of established mainstream scientific credibility and extensive longevity such as Science?
Whatever the answer, here is an MIT press article I found interesting.
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/09611210152780728?journalCode=lmj
-LuckyLouie 21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MIT Press looks reputable.  I wish I could access the article. :( ---J.S  (T/C) 21:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: An academic journal is a regularly-published, peer-reviewed publication that publishes scholarship relating to an academic discipline. The purpose of such a journal is to provide a place for the introduction and scrutiny of new research, and often a forum for the critique of existing research, whether as journal articles or as books. These purposes are most often manifested in the publication of original research articles, review articles, and book reviews.
From Academic journal. ---J.S  (T/C) 21:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, in a situation where two respected journals are publishing articles with a different viewpoint, one wouldn't trump the other. Each would be mentioned as a notable view. I'm not sure I'm qualified to know if either CRSQ or NASJ is reputable, but both appear to be.  ---J.S  (T/C) 22:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding controversial subjects, I believe that claims not supported by the relevant academic community or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community would have less weight. However, I believe this discussion is largely moot, since the article should strive to present both skeptical and proponent views fairly, rather than assign weight to sources or decide which of the views is true. - LuckyLouie 22:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true, but getting published in a "respected" peer-review is often seen as de-facto acceptance by at-least a small but significant part of the academic community.  It also means the panel at the peer-review felt the research/theory/whatever was plausible and unlikely to damage the reputation of the journal.  ---J.S  (T/C) 22:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review journals 

message: :An academic journal is a regularly-published, peer-reviewed publication that publishes scholarship relating to an academic discipline. The purpose of such a journal is to provide a place for the introduction and scrutiny of new research, and often a forum for the critique of existing research, whether as journal articles or as books. These purposes are most often manifested in the publication of original research articles, review articles, and book reviews.
From Academic journal. ---J.S  (T/C) 21:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in a situation where two respected journals are publishing articles with a different viewpoint, one wouldn't trump the other. Each would be mentioned as a notable view. I'm not sure I'm qualified to know if either CRSQ or NASJ is reputable, but both appear to be.  ---J.S  (T/C) 22:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding controversial subjects, I believe that claims not supported by the relevant academic community or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community would have less weight. However, I believe this discussion is largely moot, since the article should strive to present both skeptical and proponent views fairly, rather than assign weight to sources or decide which of the views is true. - LuckyLouie 22:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true, but getting published in a "respected" peer-review is often seen as de-facto acceptance by at-least a small but significant part of the academic community.  It also means the panel at the peer-review felt the research/theory/whatever was plausible and unlikely to damage the reputation of the journal.  ---J.S  (T/C) 22:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic Journal 

message: Lucky, excuse me for saying so, but I don't really like the article structure on the temp page. I'd like to avoid inappropriately using the terms "skeptic" and "proponents" in this context.  EVP is not a theory, it is an observed phenomenon.  In my opinion the terms "skeptic" and "proponents" should be reserved for theories.  ---J.S  (T/C) 18:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: In this context I'm using the word "observed" without making a judgement on it's reality. ---J.S  (T/C) 18:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. The skeptic/proponent structure has successfully been used for other disputed/paranormal Wiki articles, so I thought it might be an approach to a solution here. LuckyLouie 18:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how restricting the usage of these phrases will work in practical terms, but I'm willing to take a look. Count me skeptical. =D — e. ripley\talk 18:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think JS is saying that EVP (like The Face On Mars) is rarely disputed as an actual observed phenomenon, however the skeptic/proponent debate only comes into play when discussing the various theories of what it is. LuckyLouie 19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, thats what I mean. ---J.S  (T/C) 19:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Structure (tempage comment) 

message: I'd really like to see some images in this article.  It would be great to get a photo of some of the EVP recording gear.  Tape recorder, microphone, etc. I might be able to borrow a digital camera and work something out... Thoughts/suggestions? ---J.S  (T/C) 19:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this is something you can help us out with Tom? ---J.S  (T/C) 19:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting image(s) 

message: I have reverted the edits where everything that anyone says has to be treated as a claim. It is a fact that EVP are normally short, this is not a claim. What is the claim here is where EVP come from, or if they are in fact voices - nobody disputes the fact the they exist as a phenomenon. They can therefore be described in many ways without recourse to constant qualifications such as "it is claimed". Davkal 08:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: as their very existence is denied by the sources in the article, alledged is appropriate. It does not have to be used in every sentence, and I suppose we could vary it with a few synonyms. Claimed has been overused. How about "supposed" -- or rewording   paragraphs with the source at the top: X said that..."  What X said or wrote is a fact, if there is a reliable source for it. That what he said is correct can not be assumed, and we are supposed to report objectively, not to judge. DGG
It is also a fact that people who research EVP are, ipso facto, researchers, and can therefore be described as such. Davkal 08:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Dakval. You have to specify who says that EVP are "normally" short. You also have to specify who says EVP have been captured on every form of technology capable of recording voice.  Stating these assertions as scientific facts is not factual, nor a neutral POV. LuckyLouie 08:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The way it reads now, you have Wikipedia stating as facts that EVP are short, captured on every form of technology, and thought to be polyglot.   LuckyLouie 09:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't insert anything. You're thinking of another editor. And you're getting it completely wrong: the skeptics claims are presented as claims, not facts. In any case, you need to source your claims about EVP appearing on every form of technology capable of recording voice. What technologies are you referring to? And you need to source your claim about EVP thought to be polyglot. As far as I know, there is no scientific agreement (or even pseudoscientific agreement) on what language EVP is thought to be. Regarding the "fact" of EVP being short, what scientific study has proven this? What agreement within the scientific community supports this "fact"? Wikipedia has no problem publishing claims and beliefs. Facts must be verified by reliable sources. LuckyLouie 09:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "CB radios emit low frequency noise" and "EVP are normally short" are not comparative scientific facts. One is based in the laws of physics and widely accepted by the scientific community. The other is based on the speculations of fringe science groups. Wikipedia should not give equal weight to minority scientific views. "According to proponents, EVP is normally short, etc." would be acceptable. LuckyLouie 16:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Facts

message: In 1973, Archbishop Bruno Heim presented Jürgenson to the Pope for investiture as Commander of the Order of St. Gregory, an award which honored meritorious service to the Church.
I see that a citation has been added for this item -- thank you for that.  However, the citation is a self-published piece by Tom.  Generally, self-published sources are rarely allowed (see Verifiability), and in the rare instance that they are they're given extra scrutiny.  I don't mean to impugn Tom's motives as nothing could be further from my intent, but I'd like to ask Tom, since he's contributing here, where this fact was obtained.  Is there some other source we could check? — e. ripley\talk 19:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the very least, the phrase at the beginning of that section, "It is significant that", must be removed as it is POV. LuckyLouie 20:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that phraseology is problematic. But if the fact itself can't be adequately sourced, the whole thing will end up being removed, so I'd rather deal with the sourcing question before we address the aesthetics of the way it's phrased. — e. ripley\talk 20:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to Tom, I've taken the information pasted below and swapped the source out for Jurgenson's himself.  This will make the fact less assailable as self-published sources (unless referencing the author's personal opinions on a topic) are difficult to defend here. — e. ripley\talk 16:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing question 

message: "discarnate entities that survived the deaths of their physical bodies, but who are still able to communicate with the living."
This seems excessively wordy. Couldn't we just say "ghosts," or some one-word equivalent?
Also, this is not a sentence: "The voices of such entities being inaudible to the human ear but able to be picked up with electronic equipment."
(I don't mean to suggest that I'm a better writer than whoever wrote those passages -- I'm not; I'm just trying to offer some constructive criticism.) Zagalejo 04:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on the intro

message: I suggest that the "history" and the "studies" sections be merged into a single section that charts the chronology of EVP from the early days to modern times.
Having them split up serves no purpose, and having a third section in between them just makes things confusing. As things stand you have to reference backwards and forward between the section to get a clear idea of what happened and when.
Unless anybody has any big complaints soon, I'm going to merge the two, keeping pretty much the same information (I will leave it to others to add anything new) but in date order so that readers can see that Study X happened after history event Y etc.
perfectblue 11:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: The summary at the beginning contains way too much information and needs to be trimmed down to a bear minimum definition of what EVP is (as in, it is noises on a tape, and it is disputed), and little else.
For example, the introduction it contains pretty much all of the information from the paranormal and non-paranormal explanation sections, which is needless duplication. Such explanations do not belong in an introduction summary. It would be enough to say that there were both paranormal and non paranormal explanations, and then leave the body of the entry to explain what they are.
a drastic trimming is on my to do list, unless of course somebody else wishes to step in.
perfectblue 11:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it's long-winded and needs a clean-up.  I'll do it now since I've nothing else to do at the moment (sad but true). --Snowflake Sans Crainte 14:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate information 

message: I'm imposing a cooling off period because it is clear to me that User:Zoe.r is taking this stuff way too personally. I will be focusing instead on the rather poor shape of the rest of the article. --ScienceApologist 20:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken nothing personal here except for the threat you added to my talk page.  My actions regarding this article are nothing more than an attempt to prevent you from destroying the neutrality that was already present.  Furthermore I don't believe you can "impose" any kind of cooling off period but I will welcome your decision to cease adding your pro-sceptic bias to this article until mediation can take place. --Snowflake Sans Crainte 20:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit to no "pro-skeptic bias" and will not cease editting the page. --ScienceApologist 00:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you want other people to stop editing the article in order to leave you to continue adding unverifiable comments and bias?  You're sounding like a vandal now. --Snowflake Sans Crainte 11:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said I wanted other people to stop editting the article,except for Tom Butler for reasons related to WP:COI. --ScienceApologist 15:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cooling off period

message: Might be worth mentioning organized religion's take on the subject. One example: "Some people believe that these voices are angelic or demonic in origin." (http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa020303a.htm) --- LuckyLouie 22:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea... but we should try to find a better source then about.com. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 22:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This guy gets very specific about it (http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/6-18-2006-99615.asp) and Poysden mentions it in his second paragraph (http://www.anomalist.com/features/evp.html). While not authoritative sources, they do appear to indicate that there are some people who believe in the demonic/angelic origins of EVP. --- LuckyLouie 22:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Demons & Angels

message: A huge site about a Krups coffeee maker that is a source of EVP (confirmed by the AA-EVP!).
http://coffeepotghost.com/CPG_Chronology.html
http://coffeepotghost.com/
--- LuckyLouie 05:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realy don't think that should be included in the article. O.o  Or maybe file it next to the Jesus  Toast :) ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 06:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coffee Pot EVP

message: I believe there may be a better footnote for the "Interference" section of "Non Paranormal Explanation" where it states, "It is even possible for circuits to resonate without any external power source by means of radio reception". Resonance may be an innacurate term. Rectification and RFI are perhaps more specific. 
(http://www.analog.com/UploadedFiles/Application_Notes/493445731282210277AN671_0.pdf) deals with RFI issues in modern-day electronics. The IC's in devices used to collect EVP such as digital hand held recorders may be susceptible to RFI:
"Real-world applications must deal with an ever increasing amount of radio frequency interference (RFI). Of particular concern is where signal transmission lines are long and signal strength is low. This is the classic application for an in-amp since its inherent common-mode rejection 
allows it to extract weak differential signals riding on strong common-mode noise and interference. One potential problem that is frequently overlooked, however, is that of 'radio frequency rectification' inside the in-amp. When strong RF interference is present, it may become rectified by the IC and then appear as a dc output offset error. Common-mode signals present at an in-amp’s input are normally greatly reduced by the amplifier’s com- mon-mode rejection. 'Unfortunately, RF rectification occurs because even the best in-amps have virtually no common-mode rejection at frequencies above 20 kHz. A strong RF signal may become rectified by the amplifier’s input stage and then appear as a dc offset error. Once rectified, no amount of low-pass filtering at the in-amp output will remove the error. If the RF interference is of an intermittent nature, this can lead to measurement errors that go undetected." ' --- LuckyLouie 23:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RFI and RF Rectification

message: . I'm not certain what is more telling, the content of the page, the fact that if reference its writer's website about a dozen times, or the rather unfortunately worded introductory paragraph.
perfectblue 15:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, Tom wrote that when he was quite new to the discussion here. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 16:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Raudive is likely the most notable, but spiricom should also be noted...(It should have it's own article... it was fairly scandalous in it's time). Perhaps MacRae as well. SpiritCom was in the section originally, but it was fairly poorly written and had no sources so it ended up getting pruned. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 18:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Proposed Wikipedia Entry for "EVP" 

message: Why is Raudive the only study noted, and given several paragraphs (containing irrelevant details of his moods and elations)? It makes it seem as if the article considers Raudive special and notable and his work more significant, than say, Spiricom, or MacRae, or the Butlers etc. If it is decided that Raudive is the only study noted, then the section should be called "Raudive" and not "Studies". --- LuckyLouie 17:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raudive is likely the most notable, but spiricom should also be noted...(It should have it's own article... it was fairly scandalous in it's time). Perhaps MacRae as well. SpiritCom was in the section originally, but it was fairly poorly written and had no sources so it ended up getting pruned. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 18:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raudive Only? 

message: I believe that depicting EVP as "ignored by science" in the opening description creates an impression that worthy research is going unnoticed because of conspiracy and bias. While it is true that EVP is "ignored", I feel we must be more specific here. It might be more accurate to say that paranormal theories relating to EVP are not supported by the scientific community. And theories that are not supported by science get "ignored". --- LuckyLouie 18:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds a tad like OR to me, and it's shurley unverifiable.  ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 18:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Claiming that EVP is "ignored by science" is OR and unverified. Jefffire 19:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does any mainstream journal carry any literature about EVP?  If not, it's a subject that has been ignored by the mainstream scientific community.  Besides, the opening description doesn't claim EVP is "ignored by science", it states: "no peer reviewed literature on research of EVP, as it is defined by proponents, is available from mainstream journals", which would appear to be true.  --Zoe.R 21:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A few edits ago the phrase "ignored by science" was removed. I also feel the statement saying peer reviewed research "is not available" should be modified. In the context of this article, both are examples of sensationalism, and help create the impression that the scientific community is actively ignoring and suppressing information about EVP. --- LuckyLouie 21:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've altered the sentence in question so hopefully now it's not sensationalist and won't make anyone think there's a conspiracy of some sorts going on.  However, I still believe that any inclusion of a reference to "no peer-reviewed literature" should be removed as it will lead the reader to believe that what literature there is available from journals is not peer reviewed when we've already shown here that it is. --Zoe.R 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that the 'peer review journal' issue does not belong in the lead. It should come later in the article. But I'm still unconvinced that JSR meets the accepted definition of a peer reviewed scientific journal. --- LuckyLouie 22:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Your points are irrelevant. If there are no scientific sources on EVP, then there are no scientific sources on EVP. Presenting junk science as science because it is the only thing available is simply not an option. Jefffire 15:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your intimations are false. This is not about debunking, this is about ensuring a standard of reliability for sources. Bad science is bad science, regardless of the conclusions. Jefffire 11:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally I have no problem quoting stuff published by the JSR or SPR or some even more funky journal. The problem comes when the quote is not reported as opinion but presented as scientific fact. Or the journal is used as the basis for a sentence that states "Scientists agree...". Or the journal is used as a footnote to make a statement appear to originate from a major "peer reviewed journal". --- LuckyLouie 18:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EVP "Ignored" By Science? 

message: Was Bayless' article in the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research published in 1956 or 1959?
perfectblue 09:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct date