Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Archive 9

message: I have added the totally disputed tag since the article now makes a number of claims that are simply and straightforwardly false. For example, given that many EVP researcher have been sound engineers etc., or have woeked with sound engineers, it simply cannot be true that the only sound engineers who have commented on the methods used to gather EVP have been critical of those methods. Davkal 16:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text does not say that "only sound engineers who have commented on the methods used to gather EVP have been critical of those methods". You haven't a leg on which to stand. --71.57.90.96 22:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally disputed

message: The summaries of self-published claims by Raudive, Jurgenson, MacRae, and other EVP proponents in this WP article are actually quite unbiased. We have purposely left out citing their more bizarre claims -- for example, Jurgenson wrote of recording 3-way conversations between himself and the ghosts of Hitler and Stalin, Raudive wrote of recording dozens of spirit voices emitted by an acquaintances pet bird (a Budgie), and MacRae writes of EVP leading to his discovery of such things as the "Fifth Dimension" and "Backward Running Time". And those are just a few of many such examples. Most people (except of course those who wish to promote EVP) would agree that these individuals were/are operating in the pseudoscientific milieu far outside of the mainstream and their "work" has no legitimacy or notability aside from that given by the paranormal community. The "Pye" experiments in particular are problematic in that their factuality is based entirely on self-published claims. For WP to single them out  as significant within Raudive's body of eccentric "work" violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. --- LuckyLouie 21:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What reliable source do we have saying it did take place, and giving details we can trust?  It's an "experiment" which was never published in a journal and received no outside scrutiny.  In that context, if it's mentioned at all, it should only be in the context of historical interest and not the "hey look, proof of EVP" wording that has been pushed.  --Minderbinder 13:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Colin Smythe was a paranormal enthusiast who obtained a translation of Raudive's book, added his own enthusiast notes to it, published it in his own publishing company, and apparently tried to use a UK tabloid to promote the release of his own book. The "Pye tests" described in the book contain extraordinary claims. A self published source making these claims is highly questionable and unverifiable. The fact that these claims are repeated all over the Internet by EVP enthusiasts and paranormal fans is no measure of their credibility. --- LuckyLouie 15:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Raudive, et al

message: If anyone is interested please see the mediation case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-13 Electronic Voice Phenomenon. Thanks. —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has it been determined if Tom Butler is participating (since he's supposedly left WP...although he has posted since then)?  --Minderbinder 13:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Both Louie and I have responded, we just haven't accepted.  I'd like a clarification on Tom's position and I suggested doing formal mediation instead of informal.  Any further questions?  --Minderbinder 20:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Because generally mediation needs all listed parties to accept to go forward.  --Minderbinder 20:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer formal mediation, and also a mediator who has past experience with cases involving science and fringe science topics. --- LuckyLouie 20:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, we have 6 statements, minus Davkal, We can continue working on the mediation that we have set up if Davkal is willing to give medcab a shot. If we fail, we can always bump it up to formal mediation, as long as we are all talking. As far as I know, formal mediation expects that you guys have attempted other means first, MEDCAB is one such item that you can attempt. :). —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It will be a few days before Davkal can participate there, he's currently on a one week block for repeatedly violating 3RR on this article and using a sock puppet to evade the block.  --Minderbinder 13:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, we can wait, the idea of mediation is to allow us to reach a compromise that will stick. :). —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-13 Electronic Voice Phenomenon]] 

message: The background material on EVP's paranormal proponents is too extensive for NPoV and I would like to suggest that some of the detail be merged into their separate articles. Gwen Gale 21:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to suggest the opposite. If you think that there are too many "believers", then add some non-believers. Deleting or moving information should be a last resort. I would also like to point out that this is the history of EVP, not the history of research into EVP or the history of the scientific investigation of EVP.
perfectblue 11:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight

message: Shouldn't we move on now gentlemen.Davkal 01:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Davkal, you are in danger of going into POV meltdown [here]. I urge you to revert these edits and attempt in good faith to produce a balanced and fair article. SheffieldSteel 01:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Science has not considered EVP. Science has not accepted EVP. Science has not purchased or subscribed to EVP. Science has not disproved or adopted EVP. Science has not respected or cooked a meal for EVP. Science has not been returning EVP's calls.
And yet we have the claim, apparently endorsed by you, that there are scientific explanations for EVP events. Have you no shame.Davkal 01:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You have raised a valid point regarding that sentence. I will take steps the rectify the situation. SheffieldSteel 01:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, I don't think Martinphi's contribution is at all bad. Let's see how others feel about it. SheffieldSteel 01:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I hope you guys don't mind what I've done.  It did some re-arranging, mostly because you had the skeptical explanations before there was anything to skeptical about.  I also re-named the history to history, and put it first- no use explaining anything before you know about what is being explained. The rest of the changes were rather minor. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. I think you were absolutely right to put the paranormal before the skeptical. It's more in keeping with the wikipedia style. SheffieldSteel 02:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks (: I should have seen the one you got. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Heh.  My essay comes up 3rd on Google for that. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Joke article

message: Why are we singling out Fate Magazine for the report of Macrae's experiment when we have about 10 different sources for this ranging from a peer-review journal in which it was published, to a book by a noted academic, to a paper delivered to a scientific organisation etc etc. This is a clear attempt to prejudice the reader by associating the whole MacRae story with the most unreliable source we can attribute it to.
I have amended this to avoid the problem of singling out Fate, but it now reads:
:According to Professor David Fontana, the peer-review Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, the AA-EVP, Fate magazine and others, in March 2003, paranormal investigator Alexander MacRae, conducted an experiment...
But this seems extraordinarily long-winded compared to just saying that it happened and citing the sources as references.Davkal 08:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except you don't have NASA, do you? It looks like its just a lot of people failing to do fact-checking. --ScienceApologist 11:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We have six unreliable sources. Therefore, we need NASA. Read WP:RS. --ScienceApologist 11:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, it looks like you didn't read the page I linked to despite putting on pretenses. Reliability for a claim must be based on the claim being made. If the pope said that MacRae worked for NASA that wouldn't be a reliable source. It's really not that hard to understand. --ScienceApologist 12:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Saying, "But the Pope didn't." totally misses the point. A person who worked for NASA and said something to the effect "MacRae worked with me on the following NASA projects" would be a reliable source for this information. A professor who studies the same thing that MacRae studies is not a reliable source of information as to who works for NASA. A professor, as any expert, is only a reliable source for subjects related to his expertise. NASA personnel is not the expertise of the professor in question. --ScienceApologist 16:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MacRae: again again

message: I have added the dubious tag to: a) the claim the "a common urban legend" is that Edison was the first EVP reporter; and b) that David federlein is a sound engineer. The Edison one may just be that it is worded very badly, but I don't think this is a common urban legend, indeed it doesn't look like an urban legend at all rather than a well understood misunderstanding, if indeed that turns out to be true. The Federlein one is simply because we have no reputable source to suggest Federlein is a sound engineer, and it is not clear from the source we do have what "sound engineer" entails - looks like an argument from (dubious) authority to me.Davkal 07:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a false dilemma questionaire by definition and by the admission of MacRae himself since he admits to the set-up. --ScienceApologist 11:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one need publish anything to show that MacRae assumed that the voices were real. He himself reports that assumption in his paper. --ScienceApologist 12:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: MacRae explictly says in his publication that he only allows for a limited number of interpretations and purposefully assumes that the sounds are voices. It is a false dilemma questionaire by definition. --ScienceApologist 12:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Inasmuch as anything written at Wikipedia is "unpublished speculative analysis". --ScienceApologist 16:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious

message: I have also put the dubious tag on the claim that Raudive's interpretations were criticised for being "without logical structure or content" since the source(reputable???), simply doesn't support it. That is, the source says: 
::Raudive’s messages also came under fire for their seemingly nonsensical content, which sometimes included comments on the color of the sweater he was wearing, tidying up his house in preparation for anticipated guests, or even on the virtues of living in Upsala in Sweden. A counter-argument to this criticism is that...
It is clear, then, that although the word "nonsensical" is used the examples here are not nonsensical but merely trivial. That is, to comment on the colour of a sweater is perfectly sensible. There is therefore no way we can interpret this in good faith as meaning, "apparent sentences that were without logical structure or content". Words which simply do not appear in the source.Davkal 08:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Without logical structure

message: Just a quick note to clear up some confusion.
It was O'Neils Spiricom that was the speech synthesizer. MacRae's ALPHA is a biofeedack device. It was was CONNECTED to a speech synthesizer during initial experiments, but NOT during the experiment discussed on the page.
perfectblue 09:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That it was "disconnected" is questionable, and the Fate article seems to think the opposite. Plus, there are big problems with his paper. Among other things, MacRae assumes the existence of "mediumistic" functionality in humans, and treats it as a component of his 'experiment'. And then there's his opening statement regarding his own work, which he proclaims: "has considerable importance for us all. It has importance not just for the subject it addressed, but also for the study of the paranormal, and indeed for science in general."  Then he goes on to disparage the "orthodoxy" of mainstream scientific views. For editors to portray MacRae's work as "scientific findings" or attempt to misrepresent his isolated workings as something other than psuedoscience would be a crime. Thankfully, WP:SCI, WP:FRINGE, WP:ATT, and WP:NPOV support us in preventing this from happening. LuckyLouie 16:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  speech synthesizer 

message: Why do we have this at the start: "Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) is a term used by paranormal investigators"? Firstly, a lot of people in the field don't actually use it. Macrae prefers ASP, Fontana prefers ITC. Secondly, many people who are not involved in paranormal investigation use the term and, especially since White Noise, it has now pretty much become public property so to speak. Why do we then need to specify it in this way?Davkal 13:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proponents then. LuckyLouie 15:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No. See WP:WTA. "Proponent"/"Opponent" dichotomy is discouraged but the word itself isn't considered weasly. --ScienceApologist 16:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think the phrase "used by paranormal investigators" just clutters up the first sentence. The job of the first sentence should be to define the term, not document who uses it. SheffieldSteel 18:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally I'd agree, but in this case I think it's pretty clear that EVP is used almost exclusively and invented as a neologism by one group of people: paranormal investigators. --ScienceApologist 18:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. In this case, the term is defined by those who use it, similar to how Scientologists use the term "auditing", or UFOologists use the term "greys". The term is specific to proponents as it is originated by them. The media may use the term, but only in the context of discussions regarding believers theories, beliefs, claims, etc. --- LuckyLouie 18:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it seems to be a niche term and not one used much by the general public.  If it is commonly used outside of the EVP community, I'd like to see sources showing that.  --Minderbinder 18:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not opposed to documenting the usage of the term; I just think it's making the first sentence more complicated than it needs to be. SheffieldSteel 18:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was exactly my point. There is no need for it to be there at all, especially now the term has completely entered mainstream society with the release of White Noise.Davkal 18:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "the term has completely entered mainstream society"?  Really?  Where?  --Minderbinder 18:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: From Blockbuster (entertainment): "The threshold for a blockbuster film in North America has often been placed at $100,000,000 in ticket sales..." White Noise grossed under $57,000,000. Ergo, not a blockbuster. --ScienceApologist 20:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: first line

message: Someone clearly does not think much of wikipedia:
[]
SheffieldSteel 18:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, he has edited this article in the past and is pissed that he can't get it to reflect his particular POV: User:Tom Butler.  --Minderbinder 18:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ouch 

message: Is there some reason the link to the online version of the MacRae article was removed?  Someone has confirmed that the online version is the same as the published version, right?  Was there some objection to linking, or is it OK to put the link back?  --Minderbinder 22:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that link keeps being removed also. I wonder if it's just a formatting screw up (or cock up for you Brits). --- LuckyLouie 22:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MacRae article  

message: March 2003, Alexander MacRae, a paranormal investigator, conducted a series of recording sessions inside a room that he reported was screened against external audio and RF interference. MacRae connected a human subject to a device of his own design (known as ALPHA) that was intended to convert fluctuations in the RF field picked up around the subject's body into voice-like sounds, including simulating vowel sounds, and send them to an AM radio. [23] Recordings of the radio's output were then analyzed by MacRae. In an attempt to prove that different individuals would interpret the samples the same way, MacRae isolated what he considered to be the strongest anomalies found on the recording and distributed them to 30 volunteers who were asked to identify the words being spoken from a list of alternatives carefully selected by MacRae. Volunteers were required to choose from five choices which did not include options such as "uninteligible" or "not a voice". Based on the environment in which the samples were recorded, and the number of respondents providing what he considered the "correct" interpretation for what the recordings said, MacRae concluded that the samples represented genuine voices whose origins could not be explained through conventional means.[2][24][25][12] MacRae's work was published by the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research in 2005.
This is pretty much full disclosure and accurately stated. Well, except for the fact that MacRae assumed the existence of "mediumistic abilities" as a factor in his workings. And the human body does not emit "RF". --- LuckyLouie 23:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're having a laugh again. Davkal 23:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just couldn't bring yourself to admit it: " that he reported was screened against external audio and RF interference". On no occasion has anybody provided any cause for doubt about this.Davkal 23:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've decided to include your unpublished speculation that "unintelligible" or "not a voice" were relevant choices. And this even though MacRae's paper clearly notes a number of NR responses. You have excluded MacRae's background as a NASA consultant and/or electronics expert. Davkal 23:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your source for a faraday cage keeping out 100% of radio transmissions (as MacRae claims)?  That's certianly not what the WP article on it says, and I have been unable to find any other sources saying that.  --Minderbinder 00:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Dav, who knows what really happens at Institute of noetic sciences facilities? Maybe Gary Schwartz was testing Alison Dubois that day and left the screen door unlatched. Like Vegas, what happens there stays there. (Yes, I'm now "having a laugh") Someday when I'm across the pond I'll buy you a pint and we'll sit down and swap apocryphal stories. LuckyLouie 00:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best answer to the Faraday Cage question is to state that it was a Faraday Cage and let the reader judge the implications. RF energy is far from being the only natural explanation of the recordings that were made. SheffieldSteel 02:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Louie, don't take this as a criticism of your efforts, but I cut the sentence about the lack of "unintelligible" options and edited some of its meaning into the previous sentence. MacRae does not say that they weren't options - or that they were. (It is, of course, implicit in his probability calculations, which feature plenty of 5's. His failure to figure the possibility of an NR from the respondent into his calculation is not too significant in the grand scheme of things.) Nevertheless I think it is sufficient to report that the respondent had to choose from a list of five phrases provided by MacRae (who somehow knew what the correct answer was, but we don't have a reliable source asking how, so let that pass too). I believe that if we provide enough neutral information about MacRae's methods and reasoning, the readers will be able to judge for themselves. SheffieldSteel 02:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, MacRae gives a sample of his multiple choice options, and it doesn't include any non-voice options.  So he does say they weren't options.  I agree with letting readers judge for themselves, but I think that's part of the neutral (and verifiable, straight from the guy himself) information.  --Minderbinder 14:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The most lucid account of MacRae yet

message: Earlier I said that one of the problems we face is that there's only so many times you can say random noise in one article. It seems I was wrong. You can say it an unlimited number of times. The point being that some sections of the article consist of nothing more than the same point being rehashed again and again. We already have it in the article that this is what sceptics think. One description, a quote and then a list of sources should be more than enough to cover the each point.Davkal 02:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly you're joking. Removing skeptical content because of the use of the word "indian"??? Better check out Indian_reservation, Bureau_of_Indian_Affairs, Indian_Health_Service, Pine_Ridge_Indian_Reservation, Indian_Removal, Indian_Territory first. --- LuckyLouie 02:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's a counterexample. The Britons used to believe that the best way to ward off the demons that caused disease was with an unholy stink. Nowadays, we use antibacterial soap. Is this offensive to Britons? I don't think so. It is not an attack on a people for holding a superstitious belief, merely an illustration that superstitions can be mistaken. SheffieldSteel 14:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having demonstrated the acceptability of the term "indian" in WP and the acceptability of using ancient people's beliefs as illustration of superstition, it has become clear that the only reason why you want it removed is that it contains a skeptical statement. Your edits are no longer being made in good faith or NPOV, which is why I reverted them. -- LuckyLouie 20:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fontana is not a reliable source about what Raudive did or didn't accomplish. Extraordinary claims cannot be listed as factual merely by repetition, they need to be verified. That's the essence of WP:ATT.  And please stop adding angry attacks on skepticism to the article text.  It will be reverted. --- LuckyLouie 21:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How many times can you say random noise