Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Archive 6

message: Is ghost hunters a "reality" TV show, or is it just a themed show using members of the public rather than actors (I differentiate between the two)?
I think that something like Coast to Coast, would be a better example of EVP and the public.
perfectblue 15:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important to maintain the quotation marks around the word "reality." Ghost Hunters probably fits most people's definition of "reality TV show." Of course, that is far from saying that it shows reality on TV. SheffieldSteel 17:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the show's website, it describes itself as "docu-soap".  Which sounds about as real as most other reality TV.  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghost hunters 

message: This was at the top of the page but I thought I'd put it here so that everyone can see it. I would like to draw everyone's attention to the last part about discussion here when making significant changes. We are trying to get some kind of consensus together to improve this article but that is being hampered by, in my opinion, continual idealogically motivated edits that have very little to do with improving the article, and have everything to do with POV pushing. Many of the edits display a total ignorance of many issues that have been discussed and resolved above. I therefore also draw your attention to the section about reading the talk page first - or at the very least do a keyword search and find out whether there has been discussion re the particular claims you want to insert. Otherwise, as has been happening, we will go over the same ground again and again. Davkal 23:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, Davkal, and well put.  I hope you don't include my recent edits: I thought they didn't change the content, but made things clearer and less POV. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ATTENTION

message: I have removed the following: "Serious parapsychologists today show little interest in EVP, and modern reports in the parapsychological literature find no evidence of anything paranormal in such recordings." because the previous paragraph cites the Macrae paper (one of only two we could find thus 50% of the recent parapsychological literature) which states "The Journal of the Society for Psychical Research published results of an experiment by Alexander MacRae in which he said the results "must have been in some way paranormal"". If this claim is to be reinserted I suggest it should be presented as a claim rather than a fact - and the obvious fault with it should probably be pointed out. Davkal 01:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, Davkal, it really is true.  Parapsychologists don't want anything to do with EVP.  What we should take out is the "no evidence" part.  But they don't show any real interest. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: In [this edit] Davkal removed a well-sourced statement on the grounds that it "was shown to be false by the preceding paragraph."
I originally added this statement precisely because it apparently contradicts the preceding paragraph. I believe the best way to report on disputed subjects is by offering supporting arguments for both sides, and allow the reader to make up their mind. Removing statements supporting one side of the debate appears to indicate pushing a particular POV.
Therefore I am going to reinsert the original statement. If anyone thinks its wording needs to be improved, be bold! :-) SheffieldSteel 16:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This will probably sound like a silly question, but who are the serious parapsychologists showing interest in EVP?  --Milo H Minderbinder 16:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MacRae, Baruss, for two. And Susan Blackmore wrote an article on it. Although I think the point could still probably stand. The latter point though is just plain wrong.Davkal 16:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is "parapsychologist" defined?  There are courses of study in it, aren't there?  Or is anyone who does a study on a topic like this declared a "serious parapsychologist"?  Neither MacRae nor Baruss seems to have studied the topic, and the Baruss study appeared in a publication that's not fully peer reviewed.  MacRae got the one study into what seems like a fairly reputable parapsychology journal, but other than that he seems to be self publishing his stuff.  I'm not familiar with Blackmore, if she has something on the topic it could be a potential source for the article.  There are barely any sources on this topic, and the ones we have are probably just barely passable.  We certainly need to be careful not to give the impression of scientific endorsement - it's a fine line we're walking and it's not easy to agree on wording.  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm yes. It's difficult to incorporate all the information while avoiding the wiki-error of "original research by synthesis." The current form is perhaps the best that can be done under the circumstances, unless someone can look at it with a fresh pair of eyes. SheffieldSteel 16:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent editing error by Davkal