Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Archive 5

message: In response to the recent editing of this section (without discussion here):
:#"Mixed results" is an opinion, not a fact.  Since there were two studies published in peer reviewed journals, it's better to just list both and let the reader decide
:#Context is needed for these results - without info about where they are published, the reader has no way to evaluate the claims
:#Direct quotes from the researcher are preferable to paraphrase
--Milo H Minderbinder 17:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of EVP section 

message: There are currently three orphaned entries in the reference section (one of which is cited in three different places).
When user delete references, please BE CAREFUL. They may be used further down the page. Deleting them without first checking leave huge blanks in the citations for this page.
perfectblue 14:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please be more careful 

message: One spelling of Skeptic/sceptic.
perfectblue 18:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles shouldn't be a mix of Oxford spelling and American spelling. Choose one. --- LuckyLouie 23:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we at least agree on this? 

message: Maybe we could make a list of things -facts- we agree on.  Then put them in order for a summary? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List?

message: I note the intro length tag has been added to the article. I have reproduced below the opening section of the guidlines.
"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article. Small details that appear in the full article should be avoided in favor of a very brief overview of the article."
The first point to note is that guidlines say "between 1 and 4 paragraphs long". Since the present intro is 4 paragraphs long (really 3 since the last two are one sentence paragraphs which should really be combined), it is hard to see in how this is supposed to be a problem. If any specific points are tro be made please make them here. 
I also think that to simply add a tag to an article and say nothing about it in the discussion page is wholly inappropriate. I therefore suggest that the tag be removed until we have some indication of why it was added and how it is supposed to apply.Davkal 01:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro should be the shortest it needs to be, whatever that is.  Leave the tag, it doesn't hurt anything, and prevents edit wars etc. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The above was posted to my talk page—I had tagged the article with  because I felt the introductory section of the article was longer than it needed to be.  I do think it should be shortened, but you are free to disagree and remove it.   — Athænara </font>  ✉  20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been pretty extensive discussion about what specifically the intro should say, and the current version seems to be the best comprimise we've been able to find so far.  If you have specific ideas about what could be shortened or cut, we'd like to hear your suggestions.  Thanks.  --Milo H Minderbinder 20:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro length

message: You tagged Electronic voice phenomenon for intro length.  Could you comment on the talk page to be more specific about why you think it is too long or violates WP intro guidelines?  We're not sure what the problem is, it seems to meet the guidelines.  Thanks.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above was posted to my talk page—I had tagged the article with  because I felt the introductory section of the article was longer than it needed to be.  I do think it should be shortened, but you are free to disagree and remove it.   — Athænara </font>  ✉  20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been pretty extensive discussion about what specifically the intro should say, and the current version seems to be the best comprimise we've been able to find so far.  If you have specific ideas about what could be shortened or cut, we'd like to hear your suggestions.  Thanks.  --Milo H Minderbinder 20:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: EVP intro length

message: Hello, you don't know me but I followed an RfC link here. I'd like to suggest a rewrite of the intro as follows:-
::Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are apparently vocal sounds which unexpectedly appear on recording media or through electronic audio devices. They are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase, although longer segments have also been recorded.[1] EVP have not been documented by mainstream science and their cause remains controversial. What little scientific literature exists has appeared in parapsychology publications.
::Paranormal proponents say that EVP are communications from discarnate entities,[2] such as spirits,[3] although others have suggested they may be psychic projections from the researchers themselves, or communications from alien entities. Skeptics, however, suggest mundane explanations for the phenomena such as cross-modulation, interference from nearby radio sources, or pareidolia (the human propensity to find familiar patterns amongst random stimuli).[4]
...and the third paragraph can either be cut or moved into the History section.
So. I've probably trod on just about everybody's toes here. Perhaps that's a good criterion for NPOV? Anyway, I've tried to make the intro concise and accessible without either losing accuracy or confusing the existence of a phenomenon with the explanation for or cause of that phenomenon - which I felt was a problem with the previous version.
Comments? SheffieldSteel 22:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support generally shortening, and I'd be fine with moving the first part of the third paragraph (history of the name) later in the article, but there seems to be agreement that the topic is more notable (and has more sources) as a fictional topic, so mention of that should probably stay in the intro.  I also wonder about "their cause remains controversial" since it can imply that they do exist - those that believe it is pareidolia (or hoax) would say there is no cause because there is no phenomena.  Thanks for your input, it's good to get more opinions on this.  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Gotcha.  It's a tricky line to walk.  If we were going to go that route, best to make it absolutely clear - maybe swap "apparently" with "real or imagined vocal sounds".  --Milo H Minderbinder 00:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, the "EVP-only-exist-if-they-are-paranormal" definition is the correct one. If the "EVP-exist-whatever-they-are" defintiion were to be valid (i.e. anomalous voices appear on tape and we don't know what they are), there should be records of "EVP" being mentioned by the recording industry, recording engineers society, the IEEE, and recording equipment manufacturers.  So it's pretty clear that this "phenomenon" is only defined by a small fringe minority active with it, and that the paranormal aspect is virtually always associated with "EVP". --- LuckyLouie 00:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested intro 

message: Before being sidetracked, there seemed to be a bit of consensus building for this as the second paragraph.
:Explanations regarding the nature and origin of the phenomenon differ greatly. Paranormal explanations include communication from discarnate entities, psychic projections from EVP researchers themselves, or communication from alien or trans-dimensional beings. More prosaic explanations include cross-modulation or interference from nearby radio sources, or random noise mistakenly perceived as voices due to pareidolia – the human propensity to find familiar patterns amongst random stimuli.
I note Tom's comments above about some suggested changes and have incorporated them here. If there is no objection I will put this in later on today.Davkal 11:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important to put EVP in proper context prior to this (above) paragraph. EVP is a theory or belief held by a very specific group of proponents. There is no recognition of EVP (or unexpected voices or sounds) among professionals in the field of audio technology, e.g.Audio_Engineering_Society. A Google search of "EVP" reveals that the majority of EVP proponents believe that EVP is a paranormal phenomena involving ghosts and spirits, etc. Quoting Baruss and MacRae in the lead without noting that there is no mainstream support or acknowledgement for EVP (i.e. proper context) is subtly misleading and promotes the paranormal POV. --- LuckyLouie 18:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: previous changes discussion