Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Archive 13

message: Someone please format the refs. ASAP. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They look good to me. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, we're doing it.  Gradually.  It's a boring job which I at least wouldn't mind sharing, and I'll do a little every day till they're done.  I'm using the generator you gave me a link to, here.  ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll see what I can do to help as well. --Northmeister 21:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've got 3 people working on fixing the references and 3 days later and still they aren't all formated? Wikidudeman (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you format the refs on the Non-Paranormal explanations section? ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix the Refs please 

message: This article seems to expand into the topic of communicating with the dead with any technological means through electronic communication. I would propose that this article's name be changed to correspond to that. I would suggest that we also expand on attempts to communicate with the dead via television, computers, etc as well. I previously suggested merging this article with 'Instrumental transcommunication' but that's pretty unclar. Per the naming conventions we should use the most encompassing and popular name. What is the most common term used to communicate with the dead and is also most encompassing? Wikidudeman (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm open to change per the discussion above. After reading through sources - it's become apparent that EVP is part of a larger ITC research field - although EVP is the more commonly known term. Martins' observations do make sense however, considering that there is much more material on EVP than ITC at the moment. Either way would work for me. As to the fact tag, I'll work on addressing this unless another editor gets to it first. --Northmeister 15:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: We've been talking about that above.  For now, my impression is that EVP is the best, to have the ITC section expanded in the future. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative name of article 

message: Whats other users thoughts on "Organizations" and "Popular Interests" sections? I feel they should simply be summarized much like "Organizations" at the Parapsychology article. Gives a better feel to the article. --Northmeister 01:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be OK also, although there are much fewer main ones to cover in this article.  Here is a link: .  The primary organizations are  AA-EVP, SKYELAB, Il Laboratorio, ITC Journal, Verein für Transkommunikations-Forschung (VTF), Forever family, and Infinitude, according to what I've been told.  ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article improvement discussion

message: I went ahead and nominated for GA status . ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a positive step. At best we'll achieve status and at the least we'll get some informative advice on moving forward. --Northmeister 22:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts (-: ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An article in such shape as this shouldn't be nominated for GA, If you want information and advice for improving it then you should Peer Review. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll concur with that if there are still objections to references I've read below. A peer review might be best to sort out any issues that linger here. Martin, you might want to recinde the GA nomination until we work on this some more and ferret out any problems. In time we'll achieve the GA status. I noticed others engaged at the Parnormal Project in editing. It might be a good idea to get some of those editors involved here to help out. Any thoughts? --Northmeister 00:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nomination

message: I don't know of any, But If anyone has his book they could just use the source he used (if he used one). Wikidudeman (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am an "uninvolved" editor.  I have followed the discussion up to this point.  I have to agree with Martin.  The guideline is pretty clear about secondary sources. If we use a journalist account as a reference for subjects outside the field of jounalism, then it would seem to make sense that we could use Fontana's book as a reference on this paranormal subject.  Ursasapien (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, You're assuming that Fontana uses reliable primary sources in his work. If he does then please tell me what those sources are. Secondly, It might be the "end of the issue" as far as you're concerned but It's not the end of the issues as far as I am concerned. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break

message: Aside from the obvious issues with reliable sources and fringe sources being framed as objective, I see three major problems with the present article.
====Article Lead====
The article lead erroneously defines EVP as legitimate technological/scientific phenomena, rather than a claim or fringe belief.
There is no recognition of "Electronic Voice Phenomena" as "speech or speech-like sounds heard on electronic devices, but not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded" found in any professional technical journals of the audio recording industry, signal processing, or electrical engineering. Neither is the term found in current academic textbooks on the subjects, such as  Speech and Audio Signal Processing: Processing and Perception of Speech and Music by Ben Gold, Nelson Morgan, Nelson Morgan Instead, engineering texts refer to the condition claimed by proponents as "EVP" as Rorschach Audio, a subset of Psychoacoustics. 
Outside of the paranormal community, EVP is not recognized as a legitimate phenomena. So the term "EVP" must be clearly framed in the lead as a term originated and used specifically by its proponents and researchers.
::Taken care of- now defined as part of "paranormal."  It really isn't a good idea to break open old arguments which were discussed ages ago.  I think you should look over the archives of the talk page. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is not taken care of. The defintion in the lead must be correctly identified as originated and used by its proponents and researchers. -- LuckyLouie 01:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have revised it accordingly. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the above observations by LuckyLouie. LuckLouie: Do you have any possible suggestions on rewording the text in the lead? Martin: I think the observations above are legitimate and would help this article out a lot. --Northmeister 01:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and I will be back to this a bit later due to time contraints. Also please restore my previous comments, as you have mistakenly deleted them when you posted your own. Thanks! - LuckyLouie 02:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. Done. --Northmeister 02:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Everything is attributed.  As for "purported," see the paranormal ArbCom.  In terms of WEIGHT, the article is about a fringe subject, and covers that subject.  It is made completely clear that the mainstream does not accept it.  There is no problem of WEIGHT. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "purported" is not the issue. And I don't see how "attribution" solves the problem of unbalanced weighting. - LuckyLouie 01:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree again with this review, with this caveat - That the article should simply state the phenomena of EVP as it has been researched by the paranormal community - then offer a section on Criticism from the mainstream scientific community. LuckyLouie: Is that the right approach you think? Martin: Would you agree to that approach if LuckyLouie felt that it was? --Northmeister 01:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you understand what LuckyLouie is doing here- or what has been done in the past.  This kind of thing was addressed by the ArbCom, which said specifically that putting words such as "supposed" around everything is not necessary, and that framing a subject as "paranormal" or some such eliminates the need for these words in most cases (with proper attribution).  And as I interpret it, LL is saying that the article should be 90+ percent criticism, because most people don't believe in EVP. This is a mis-interpretation of the rules, because what we are dealing with is opinions among those who study EVP- not among the general public or science. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: LL wants to impress upon the reader that "It's clear that EVP is not a legitimate observable phenomena."  Previous versions of this article, even had the criticism before the description of the phenomenon. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can address the idea of EVP being claimed as opposed to being accepted and see where in the article LuckyLouie feels it veers into it being presented as a scientific certainty. I agree with you about this being a paranormal subject and therefore its main coverage should take that into account. LuckyLouie: When you return, could you present the problem areas per this topic 'weight' in the article and how you would address those concerns? --Northmeister 02:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin, more progress will be made if you stop trying to convince people of who is and isn't "biased" and concentrate on improving the article instead. Northmeister, the article lead suffers from awkward grammar and in any case will have to be rewritten if the article body is fleshed out with further content. The lead still erroneously frames EVP as a sort of "unsolved mystery" ("various ways of explaining EVP have been proposed") rather than as a distinctly fringe belief. In the article body, more and varied proponent beliefs and adherents opinions regarding EVP should be sourced and included rather than relying solely on content from the AA-EVP. And I suggest you read the BBC and NYT and others as examples of how  a neutral and credible mainstream resource (like this encyclopedia is supposed to be) presents the proponents views within the larger context of the mainstream view. More and varied criticism can also be sourced and included, and not just from individuals characterized as "skeptics". I suggest  Psychoacoustics  as a resource, for example. The prose of the article body as well is awkward and chopped up into lists of "explanations". A GA should exhibit a more polished narrative style throughout. It needs lots of work. -- LuckyLouie 07:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we will see what the reviewers think.  The article lead makes it quite plain already that it is a fringe belief, and any further pushing of that would be making up the reader's mind for him.  If Psychoacoustics uses sources which mention EVP, then we can draw from those.  But we can't do Original research in Wikipedia. Looking at the article I see it has all of 2 sources, so I think that article is barren ground.  I argued earlier that OR in the criticism section should be tolerated per Ignore all rules, so that the section can be fleshed out.  However, if we are looking at unbalancing the article in order to make up the reader's mind in a certain direction, we will have to adhere to the rules. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 09:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Within the fields of acoustics, acoustical engineering or Psychoacoustics the so called "Electronic voice phenomena" isn't called such. These are the professional individuals who study sound for a living and they don't even call it EVP, They refer to it as "Auditory paredolia" or possibly even "human recording error". This is what it's called in the relevant fields and it should be weighted as such. The professionals who study these sorts of things don't call it EVP nor do they give any credence to the contention that it's "voices of the dead". I agree with LuckyLouie that this article is highly weighted in the support of the idea that "EVP" even exists. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This topic is about the term EVP and use thereof. It will be weighted as such because of its use by the paranormal community. What Psychoacoustics calls the term is relevant to the criticism section only. To ignore individuals with years of study of the topic as somehow not professionals in the subject is highly misleading. Science doesn't study God or religion. Are we to assume that the issues of Science with that topic are to dominate such articles? That seems to be the impression your giving me here. Since this is a paranormal topic, like religious topics, it should be treated in that manner. --Northmeister 16:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Why limit this articles scope to one specific term and then use that as a justification to weight it a specific way? Why not let the facts speak for themselves? Wikidudeman (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:NOR rule is there partly because in many instances it would be easy to make up a case which we consider obvious, but which is contested within the context of the article.  That is the case here.  EVP researchers dispute that what they pick up is the same as your normal anomaly.  It is not our place as editors to judge that they are wrong, and we therefore have to treat those sources which don't deal directly with EVP as irrelevant to the article.  To quote NOR, "That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article."  Emphasis added.  ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 16:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's our place to let the facts speak for themselves. We can say the "EVP researchers" dispute what they are recording is the same thing as  "Auditory paredolia" or human error, which has the exact same attributes. However we can also say that the consensus among the actual experts in the field of acoustics is that such a thing doesn't exist. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for lawyering here, but you don't have to exclude psychoacoustics because mainstream science about psychoacoustics doesn't mention EVPs directly. If you have a skeptical expert say the effects are psychoacoustical (plenty of magazine articles interviewing experts), information about psychoacoustics and how it works is entered into the article by proxy and isn't original research. --Nealparr (talk to me) 17:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This is getting off topic a bit I think. The article is about EVP - its uses - and criticism from skeptics is appropriate in its own section as is standard Wikipedia format WP:MOS. That section should be precise, contain the best reliable material, and be in summary format. The preceding sections should be about EVP itself - what it is described to be - how it is used - where it is used - who has researched it etc. Thats the way a NPOV article emerges. There is no need for language trying to prove or disprove anything. To do so is in violation not only of WP:NPOV but WP:RS and WP:NOR all cardinal policies of Wikipedia. --Northmeister 18:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, Northmeister.  And all sections should contain no language which overtly or covertly makes up the reader's mind for him.  Nealparr, I agree, that is what the OR policy says: "If you have a skeptical expert say the effects are psychoacoustical (plenty of magazine articles interviewing experts), information about psychoacoustics and how it works is entered into the article by proxy and isn't original research."  The only problem is that this was being presented without the skeptical expert. Without the skeptical expert, it's OR. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The non-paranormal section has the normal explanations, per consensus. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks but this is a GA review, not a defense of consensus. And anyway, if one editor objects, there is no longer a consensus. - LuckyLouie 01:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with this observation by LuckyLouie as well. Per my observations above. This is a paranormal subject afterall and should simply state what it 'EVP' is believed to be by that community - with its history and research; by the most authoritative sources available considering the subject - followed by a Criticism section which includes the material you've presented above including Randi etc. Luckylouie: Would this address your concerns above? --Northmeister 01:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  If you want Randi in there, go ahead and put it.  The article is about EVP, though, and shouldn't have a criticism section a mile long.  We can rename non-paranormal to criticism, and cover Randi. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The criticism section should be standard for any article and not overly weighted. Since this is paranormal subject and framed as such - the material of the article is obviously going to be weighted towards those who use the term and those who have studied it from that standpoint. LuckyLouie: I think there is agreement here, and we're open to any material you can provide to improve the Criticism section. --Northmeister 02:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, Northmeister.  What you said also seems to address the issue of WEIGHT in the article. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Where is the section criticizing the methods that parapsychologist use to study these things? Wikidudeman (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have sources, put it in the criticism section.  But please don't do OR.  ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with [[Electronic Voice Phenomenon]] Article

message: The article lead erroneously defines EVP as legitimate technological/scientific phenomena, rather than a claim or fringe belief.
There is no recognition of "Electronic Voice Phenomena" as "speech or speech-like sounds heard on electronic devices, but not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded" found in any professional technical journals of the audio recording industry, signal processing, or electrical engineering. Neither is the term found in current academic textbooks on the subjects, such as  Speech and Audio Signal Processing: Processing and Perception of Speech and Music by Ben Gold, Nelson Morgan, Nelson Morgan Instead, engineering texts refer to the condition claimed by proponents as "EVP" as Rorschach Audio, a subset of Psychoacoustics. 
Outside of the paranormal community, EVP is not recognized as a legitimate phenomena. So the term "EVP" must be clearly framed in the lead as a term originated and used specifically by its proponents and researchers.
::Taken care of- now defined as part of "paranormal."  It really isn't a good idea to break open old arguments which were discussed ages ago.  I think you should look over the archives of the talk page. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is not taken care of. The defintion in the lead must be correctly identified as originated and used by its proponents and researchers. -- LuckyLouie 01:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have revised it accordingly. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the above observations by LuckyLouie. LuckLouie: Do you have any possible suggestions on rewording the text in the lead? Martin: I think the observations above are legitimate and would help this article out a lot. --Northmeister 01:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and I will be back to this a bit later due to time contraints. Also please restore my previous comments, as you have mistakenly deleted them when you posted your own. Thanks! - LuckyLouie 02:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. Done. --Northmeister 02:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Lead

message: Per WP:FRINGE, article weighting must reflect majority mainstream sources treatment of the subject. Mainstream reliable sources overwhelmingly characterize EVP as a claim, not as a legitimate phenomena.
*BBC News: "It's claimed the dead have found a new way of contacting the living...So-called "Electronic Voice Phenomena" (EVP) are supposed to be the voices of ghosts, made audible through static on the radio, or on tape recordings."
*New York Times: "believers in EVP claim it's possible"
*New York Times: "something called Electronic Voice Phenomenon, based on the belief that spirit voices communicate through radio and broadcast signals."
Fringe journals call EVP "purported" rather than a legitimate phenomenona.  Journal of Scientific Exploration: "(EVP) refers to the purported manifestation of voices of the dead and other discarnate entities through electronic means."
It's clear that EVP is not a legitimate observable phenomena and is not recognized outside of the paranormal milieu. Presenting the subject as a controversial "phenomena" and offering competing "explanations" is not appropriate and highly misleading. Rather, the proponents beliefs should be accurately reported as beliefs and opinions which are at odds with mainstream majority views on the subject.
:Everything is attributed.  As for "purported," see the paranormal ArbCom.  In terms of WEIGHT, the article is about a fringe subject, and covers that subject.  It is made completely clear that the mainstream does not accept it.  There is no problem of WEIGHT. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "purported" is not the issue. And I don't see how "attribution" solves the problem of unbalanced weighting. - LuckyLouie 01:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree again with this review, with this caveat - That the article should simply state the phenomena of EVP as it has been researched by the paranormal community - then offer a section on Criticism from the mainstream scientific community. LuckyLouie: Is that the right approach you think? Martin: Would you agree to that approach if LuckyLouie felt that it was? --Northmeister 01:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you understand what LuckyLouie is doing here- or what has been done in the past.  This kind of thing was addressed by the ArbCom, which said specifically that putting words such as "supposed" around everything is not necessary, and that framing a subject as "paranormal" or some such eliminates the need for these words in most cases (with proper attribution).  And as I interpret it, LL is saying that the article should be 90+ percent criticism, because most people don't believe in EVP. This is a mis-interpretation of the rules, because what we are dealing with is opinions among those who study EVP- not among the general public or science. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: LL wants to impress upon the reader that "It's clear that EVP is not a legitimate observable phenomena."  Previous versions of this article, even had the criticism before the description of the phenomenon. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can address the idea of EVP being claimed as opposed to being accepted and see where in the article LuckyLouie feels it veers into it being presented as a scientific certainty. I agree with you about this being a paranormal subject and therefore its main coverage should take that into account. LuckyLouie: When you return, could you present the problem areas per this topic 'weight' in the article and how you would address those concerns? --Northmeister 02:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin, more progress will be made if you stop trying to convince people of who is and isn't "biased" and concentrate on improving the article instead. Northmeister, the article lead suffers from awkward grammar and in any case will have to be rewritten if the article body is fleshed out with further content. The lead still erroneously frames EVP as a sort of "unsolved mystery" ("various ways of explaining EVP have been proposed") rather than as a distinctly fringe belief. In the article body, more and varied proponent beliefs and adherents opinions regarding EVP should be sourced and included rather than relying solely on content from the AA-EVP. And I suggest you read the BBC and NYT and others as examples of how  a neutral and credible mainstream resource (like this encyclopedia is supposed to be) presents the proponents views within the larger context of the mainstream view. More and varied criticism can also be sourced and included, and not just from individuals characterized as "skeptics". I suggest  Psychoacoustics  as a resource, for example. The prose of the article body as well is awkward and chopped up into lists of "explanations". A GA should exhibit a more polished narrative style throughout. It needs lots of work. -- LuckyLouie 07:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we will see what the reviewers think.  The article lead makes it quite plain already that it is a fringe belief, and any further pushing of that would be making up the reader's mind for him.  If Psychoacoustics uses sources which mention EVP, then we can draw from those.  But we can't do Original research in Wikipedia. Looking at the article I see it has all of 2 sources, so I think that article is barren ground.  I argued earlier that OR in the criticism section should be tolerated per Ignore all rules, so that the section can be fleshed out.  However, if we are looking at unbalancing the article in order to make up the reader's mind in a certain direction, we will have to adhere to the rules. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 09:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Within the fields of acoustics, acoustical engineering or Psychoacoustics the so called "Electronic voice phenomena" isn't called such. These are the professional individuals who study sound for a living and they don't even call it EVP, They refer to it as "Auditory paredolia" or possibly even "human recording error". This is what it's called in the relevant fields and it should be weighted as such. The professionals who study these sorts of things don't call it EVP nor do they give any credence to the contention that it's "voices of the dead". I agree with LuckyLouie that this article is highly weighted in the support of the idea that "EVP" even exists. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This topic is about the term EVP and use thereof. It will be weighted as such because of its use by the paranormal community. What Psychoacoustics calls the term is relevant to the criticism section only. To ignore individuals with years of study of the topic as somehow not professionals in the subject is highly misleading. Science doesn't study God or religion. Are we to assume that the issues of Science with that topic are to dominate such articles? That seems to be the impression your giving me here. Since this is a paranormal topic, like religious topics, it should be treated in that manner. --Northmeister 16:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Why limit this articles scope to one specific term and then use that as a justification to weight it a specific way? Why not let the facts speak for themselves? Wikidudeman (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:NOR rule is there partly because in many instances it would be easy to make up a case which we consider obvious, but which is contested within the context of the article.  That is the case here.  EVP researchers dispute that what they pick up is the same as your normal anomaly.  It is not our place as editors to judge that they are wrong, and we therefore have to treat those sources which don't deal directly with EVP as irrelevant to the article.  To quote NOR, "That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article."  Emphasis added.  ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 16:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's our place to let the facts speak for themselves. We can say the "EVP researchers" dispute what they are recording is the same thing as  "Auditory paredolia" or human error, which has the exact same attributes. However we can also say that the consensus among the actual experts in the field of acoustics is that such a thing doesn't exist. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for lawyering here, but you don't have to exclude psychoacoustics because mainstream science about psychoacoustics doesn't mention EVPs directly. If you have a skeptical expert say the effects are psychoacoustical (plenty of magazine articles interviewing experts), information about psychoacoustics and how it works is entered into the article by proxy and isn't original research. --Nealparr (talk to me) 17:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This is getting off topic a bit I think. The article is about EVP - its uses - and criticism from skeptics is appropriate in its own section as is standard Wikipedia format WP:MOS. That section should be precise, contain the best reliable material, and be in summary format. The preceding sections should be about EVP itself - what it is described to be - how it is used - where it is used - who has researched it etc. Thats the way a NPOV article emerges. There is no need for language trying to prove or disprove anything. To do so is in violation not only of WP:NPOV but WP:RS and WP:NOR all cardinal policies of Wikipedia. --Northmeister 18:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, Northmeister.  And all sections should contain no language which overtly or covertly makes up the reader's mind for him.  Nealparr, I agree, that is what the OR policy says: "If you have a skeptical expert say the effects are psychoacoustical (plenty of magazine articles interviewing experts), information about psychoacoustics and how it works is entered into the article by proxy and isn't original research."  The only problem is that this was being presented without the skeptical expert. Without the skeptical expert, it's OR. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weighting

message: The article inexplicably omits a Criticism section. There are plenty of WP:RS critics of "EVP", from Scientific American to James Randi. I suggest   an appropriate criticism section be written.
-- LuckyLouie 01:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The non-paranormal section has the normal explanations, per consensus. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks but this is a GA review, not a defense of consensus. And anyway, if one editor objects, there is no longer a consensus. - LuckyLouie 01:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with this observation by LuckyLouie as well. Per my observations above. This is a paranormal subject afterall and should simply state what it 'EVP' is believed to be by that community - with its history and research; by the most authoritative sources available considering the subject - followed by a Criticism section which includes the material you've presented above including Randi etc. Luckylouie: Would this address your concerns above? --Northmeister 01:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  If you want Randi in there, go ahead and put it.  The article is about EVP, though, and shouldn't have a criticism section a mile long.  We can rename non-paranormal to criticism, and cover Randi. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The criticism section should be standard for any article and not overly weighted. Since this is paranormal subject and framed as such - the material of the article is obviously going to be weighted towards those who use the term and those who have studied it from that standpoint. LuckyLouie: I think there is agreement here, and we're open to any material you can provide to improve the Criticism section. --Northmeister 02:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, Northmeister.  What you said also seems to address the issue of WEIGHT in the article. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Where is the section criticizing the methods that parapsychologist use to study these things? Wikidudeman (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have sources, put it in the criticism section.  But please don't do OR.  ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds believed by EVP researchers to be of paranormal origin.  They are detected on electronic recording media, and while the sounds are not present at the time of the recording, they are detected upon playback. They are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase, and are sometimes said to be in direct response to questions. EVP has been observed in diverse media, including but not limited to radio, shortwave radio (hamradio), television, tape recorders and videorecorders. They are typically recorded using audio recording devices or audio recording computer software. EVP are a subset of instrumental transcommunication.''
 
Various ways of explaining EVP have emerged. Some who research EVP prefer paranormal hypotheses, such as that EVP are produced by spirits.  They say that answers to questions are often recieved by EVP.  Experiments show that differet people often interpret EVPs the same way, and that EVP can occur when radio interference has been blocked.  Other paranormal explanations include psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, or in rare instances, thoughts of aliens or nature spirits.  
Non-paranormal explanations include ordinary noise mistaken as voices, flaws in the recording devices which produce voice-like sounds, and radio frequency contamination, apophenia, processing artifacts, capture errors, and hoaxes.  Psychological expectation may also play a role in perception of EVP.  Critics say that EVP as a paranormal phenomenon does not exist.  Most investigations of EVP have been conducted by people with few academic credentials, and the scientific literature regarding EVP is very sparse.
Paranormal investigators use EVP as a tool in contacting the souls of loved ones and in haunting investigations. The term was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s.  Previously the term “Raudive Voices” was used, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience.  References to EVP have appeared in the reality television show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense.
----
This version addresses WDM's suggestion above.  Note that per WP:LEAD, the sections of the intro should be approximately in proportion to coverage in the article . ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This version has a few problems. Firstly, The section on "non paranormal explanations" is not referenced. Secondly, The section is too small to correspond to the the size of it in the article. Thirdly, The section doesn't emphasize that there are 'critics" of the whole concept of EVP. The word "Critics" or "Criticize" needs to be used in such a section. Fourthly, Lead paragraphs shouldn't be small and short. If a paragraph only has 2-3 smaller sentences then merge it with another paragraph. This lead (corresponding to the size of the article) should have at least 3 good sized paragraphs and the third one should elaborate on the criticism of EVP. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You just said that the criticism should have its own paragraph.  Sources are not necessary in a lead, if the article itself is sourced.  I expanded as you indicated above and used the word "critics," but I object to moving the paragraph, as the normal/critical explanations need to be next to the paranormal.  ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree about the sources in the lead, But if some sources are used in the lead then we need to at least be consistent. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead 2

message: Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds believed by some to be of paranormal origin.  They are detected on electronic recording media, and while the sounds are not present at the time of the recording, they are detected upon playback. They are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase, and are sometimes said to be in direct response to questions. EVP has been observed in diverse media, including but not limited to radio, shortwave radio (hamradio), television, tape recorders and videorecorders. They are typically recorded using audio recording devices or audio recording computer software. EVP are a subset of instrumental transcommunication. Some individuals believe that Electronic voice phenomena are paranormal in origin and are produced by ghosts,psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, or thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. (Source needed)
Paranormal investigators use EVP as a tool in an attempt to contact the souls of dead loved ones and in [Ghost hunting]]. The term was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s.  Previously the term “Raudive Voices” was used, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience.  Today numerous organizations exist dedicated to EVP and included The American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena , The International Ghost Hunters Society , as well as The Rorschach Audio project. Joe Banks "Rorschach Audio", the "Ghost Orchid" CD sleevenotes, PARC / Ash International, 1999 References to EVP have appeared in the reality television show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense as well as literature including The Legion as well as Pattern Recognition.
Critics of Electronic voice phenomena contend that the sounds heard are due to non-paranormal phenomena such as fraud, misidentification or lack of quality of equipment. Critics assert that the human brain is naturally evolved to interpret familiar patterns from sound and that this phenomena accounts for many instances of Electronic voice phenomena. The condition known as Auditory pareidolia (or Rorschach Audio) is said by critics to cause humans to interpret random sounds into voices in their own language which might otherwise sound like random noise to a foreign speaker. Joe Banks "Rorschach Audio", the "Ghost Orchid" CD sleevenotes, PARC / Ash International, 1999 Critics offer other alternative explanations for Electronic voice phenomena including low quality equipment used by those who hear voices in sound recordings. Sound engineers who use equipment at a much higher quality than that which is used by many EVP recorders have stated that they have never heard voices after years of listening to tape and hard disk recordings and that the low quality of the equipment used could account for a lot of the apparent voices. Other explanations have also been put forward and include Apophenia (finding of significance or connections between insignificant or unrelated phenomena)  as well as hoaxes or pranks.
----
(Please don't edit this draft). This version is one that I just wrote up. I would accept this as a lead to the article. Please add input. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is 14% criticism.  Your lead is 41% criticism.  It needs to be revised accordingly. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikidudeman, thanks for the lead. I think your on to something and believe we should work with this lead. It reads a little awkward in parts, but that is not due to your contribution - just how the sentences come out. I'll take your lead and offer my suggestion. --Northmeister 22:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin, The current article won't be the article. The whole point of this was to start at the lead and give a suggestion of how the article should be via the lead. If we're relying on the current article then doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of this? The article as it exists now will be revised and improved. My proposed lead is how I believe the lead should be and how the articled should be. We can always increase the amount of criticism. Which is something I will do once we get to it. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: We are working on a lead for the current article.  The article is about EVP, and will not have a skepticism section which takes up anything near 41 percent of the space. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin, lets let the article develop on its own. We're producing the rough copy in which later we can address undue weight, if that is a concern. --Northmeister 01:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikidudeman's version