Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Archive 10

message: http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/schoolsanddivisions/academicschools/socsi/staff/visitors/index.html  
Now give it a restDavkal 15:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: David Fontana

message: Speaking of dispute resolution...
To all those involved: please be advised that a request for comment on the Martinphi's conduct has been made and is accessible at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Martinphi.  --Minderbinder 12:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: The arbcom case requested at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Paranormal will likely involve this article pretty heavily, so I'm letting the editors here know about it.  --Minderbinder 14:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbcom 

message: Quick (and, I hope, uncontroversial) question: Why is this article entitled "Electronic voice phenomenon" (note it's in lower case letters and plural) but the opening line begins with "Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP)" ?  It seems inconsistent and slightly confusing to me.  --ElKevbo 18:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question, and I don't have a good answer.  Looking at a couple of the sources, I see that some capitalize all three words, but I don't see any reason to do so.  I'd support using standard capitalization unless someone can give a good reason otherwise.  --Minderbinder 18:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that since the article uses the TLA EVP, it seems natural to capitalise the letter on first use. Having said that, I would have no problem if lowercase letters were used instead. SheffieldSteel 19:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Huh?  It should be capitalized if it's a proper noun.  Otherwise it should probably not be capitalized.  And that doesn't touch the question of whether should be singular (phenomena) or plural (phenomenon).  --ElKevbo 20:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason to capitalize the words just because the TLA is sometimes used.  For example, "SRO" is a commonly recognized abbreviation for "standing room only".  As for singular versus plural, the general rule is that article titles should be in the singular.  See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals).  There's no confusion for the reader, because Electronic voice phenomena redirects here. JamesMLane t c 23:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Ahem.) Before someone moves the article because they're under the impression that "phenomena" is the singular and "phenomenon" the plural: no, it's the other way round. Please see our article Phenomenon. Bishonen | talk 12:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, you're right - I've got it swapped in both of my previous statements.  Good catch.  --ElKevbo 13:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: Davkal, could you explain how adding or subtracting a couple words, or even just changing the order slightly, turns the whole article into "parody"?  Or are you just engaging in hyperbole?  --Minderbinder 18:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it turns the introductory definition into a parody definition in order to pave the way for some later pseudosceptical speculation. It does this by deliberately downplaying the phenomenon in line with that speculation. And it does this by excluding the word "voices" which, if included, would show that the whole phenomenon is not susceptible to being explained away as the imaginings of a few people. There are, in some cases, voices on tapes and given that, I fail to see why we should not state this clearly.Davkal 19:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, the intro sentence does contain the word "voices", I just checked and it's right there.  Second, you didn't explain what you mean by "parody".  My dictionary defines it as exaggeration for comic effect, and I don't see that, nor have you given any reasoning how anyone could possibly read it that way.  Are you sure "parody" is the word you meant to use?  --Minderbinder 19:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Travesty perhaps. Or even blasphemy? SheffieldSteel 19:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Or here's a simpler one.  Since there seems to be consensus that the current wording is accurate and neutral, and that Davkal's objections are unfounded, why don't we keep what we have until someone proposes a wording that is generally agreed to be better and gets consensus support?  --Minderbinder 20:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the wikipedia guidelines again. We're not here to write "what we think", we're here to "record what published sources have said". - perfectblue 08:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Straw man.  We have written what sources have said.  What part of the current definition doesn't come from a source?  --Minderbinder 15:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur with Minderbinder. The suggestion by perfectblue is tantamount to letting Tom Butler write the definition. SheffieldSteel 20:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read my comment again, I clearly stated "the single most notable group" not some hobbiest promoter. How do Pear, Clark or Randi describe EVP? - perfectblue 08:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Parody" 

message: The external links list was becoming a spam magnet. I think the Open directory project is the better way to go.   - LuckyLouie 19:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Linkfarm

message: Martinphi, do you seriously believe that "paranormal investigator" somehow implies that the investigator is paranormal? To you, does "pediatric physician" imply a doctor who is also a child? Antelan talk 22:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No of course not.  It was just dumb to put it like that, as there are lots of people who balieve but don't investigate. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, can you work on writing more accurate edit summaries? It would totally avert problems like this. Thank you. Antelan talk 01:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was there something wrong with the edit? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit summary was, per your correction above, invalid. Leaving a blank edit summary would, in my opinion, be superior to leaving a misleading edit summary. Antelan talk 07:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paranormal investigators