Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Archive 8

message: I think it is important that we point out in the article that JSPR is not a scientific journal (it is a journal for psychic studies) while JSE is at least nominally scientific. That means that the scientific evaluation of the subject has been univerally negative or absent. --216.125.49.252 18:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JSPR is not a scientific journal. It is a pseudoscientific journal dedicated to paranormal research. --71.57.90.96 15:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MacRae is not a reliable source and therefore his word and publication in a pseudoscience journal should not be taken at face-value. --71.57.90.96 15:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: JSPR vs. JSE

message: While extraordinary claims might require extraordinary evidence; faraday cages and sound-proof rooms are well known and accepted as existing by mainstream science. Given that the institute of noetic sciences exists and has such a room (many sources can be found for this if you require), and given that the reported experiment was published in a peer-review journal we have no reason not to take this mundane part of the claim at face value. If you have any sources suggesting the IONS does not have such a room, or that the room is faulty then please cite them. The burden of proof for this mundane claim has been met (peer-review source), if you wish to dispute it the burden of proof now falls on you to provide some kind of evidence.Davkal 19:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the logic above. Why must the efficacy of the sheilded room and the legitimacy of MacRae's experiments) be taken at face value by Wikipedia? It is one thing to have the article quote that "MacRae said he did X in his paper". It is another for the Wikipedia article to advocate "MacRae did X". --- LuckyLouie 19:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the screened room prevented nothing in the way of human contamination. According to MacRae's paper, there was a person inside the screened room at all times during the recordings who was connected to MacRae's "Alpha Unit", ostensibly used as a "medium" in an attempt to capture spirit communications.  --- LuckyLouie 04:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MacRae's experiment

message: Read consensus. We don't have a consensus version of this page. The page is disputed Stop claiming consensus where none exists. --71.57.90.96 16:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No there isn't. Read consensus and then quote me chapter and verse where you have any evidence for consensus existing on the text you reverted. --71.57.90.96 16:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So the answer is you have no evidence and are just making it up as you go along. You are the one pushing your POV. The explanations for the textual changes are included here but you have not been able to respond to them. --71.57.90.96 16:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: There IS NO CONSENSUS VERSION

message: How many of the references in this article are unreliable? Well, I clicked the first one out of curiosity. The one which is EVP Question Time. Fortean Times. Retrieved on December 1, 2006.
The article still exists in the Fortean Times but is no more than the equivalent of a bulletin board system or blog neither of which would be reliable sources. 
Is this the part which was meant to imply longer segments have been reported? Quote:"Very often we'll hear short bursts of EVP, presumably due to the method by which they were made, but we often get long, detailed sentences, sometimes they don't shut up!, but these are usually not Class A voices and too weak to be played for anyone other than the researcher."
"... too weak to be played for anyone other than the researcher."??? As in "only I can hear the voices no one else can"? Candy 14:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that the Fortean Times should be considered a reliable third-party source for such an interview. --71.57.90.96 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And for evaluative information it is completely unreliable. --71.57.90.96 15:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The quote listed by Candy is evaluating "voices" in fashions that are completely unreliable. --71.57.90.96 15:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The simple description is not quite as simple as you make it out to be. See above. --71.57.90.96 15:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well now, I guess your lack of a direct quote is more compelling than Candy's direct quote? Hmm. --71.57.90.96 15:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that claiming anything about EVP is contentious and the source needs to be neutral. Arguing over the length of words is silly when the words themselves don't exist. --71.57.90.96 16:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depending on where you look, it's not difficult to find references to proponents claiming they have recorded lengthy EVP's, such as  where Sarah Estep presented a one minute EVP containing music thought to have been originated by Ludwig Beethoven. But this brings up a larger question regarding how this article is to be written: I'm not sure you can treat EVP on an equal basis as observable phenomenon (such as gravity) as it seems to be a mixture of religion, belief, and fringe science. --- LuckyLouie 19:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Tom Butler admitted to as much above, Davkal. --71.57.90.96 11:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spurious and contentious references 

message: MacRae's study is so ridiculous that it takes as an assumption that EVP exists. The only thing MacRae is trying to do is see if different people will pick the "right answer" from a list of possible voice interpretations of noise. He did not include: "white noise" or "no voice" as an option. Even if he did, the study would be seriously flawed from a control standpoint, but this study is so fraught with innuendo and error it doesn't belong mentioned in the article as anything more than a sad excuse for a research project conducted by a third-rate investigator from the IONS center. --71.57.90.96 15:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he would certainly fit in with those freaks in his investigations of the fifth dimension! You have to have some affiliation in order to use their rooms. It's no accident that he didn't use, say, a university. --71.57.90.96 15:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MacRae's study is horrible from a methodological standpoint and should be excluded from this article

message: I'd appreciate a reference for the "single blind" claim.  The MacRae document only uses the term "blind" in reference to sending the email blind carbon copy.  There's no mention of the listening test being a blind trial, single or otherwise.  Please provide the specific mention in the source text, otherwise the term needs to come out.  Thanks.  --Milo H Minderbinder 20:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, it wasn't blind because there was no control. --71.57.90.96 02:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "single blind trial" 

message: "In 1971, the book’s English publisher, Colin Smythe, arranged scientific tests of Raudive’s work, overseen by acoustics experts and recording engineers from Pye records, in which four tape recorders were shielded from radio interference and left recording for 18 minutes. The assembled listeners heard nothing while monitoring the recording through headphones, but on playback, some 200 voices were heard.["http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/194_evp1.shtml] (and please note that this is not the source used in the article)
Now, if there are sources that say the people involved at PYE were paranormal investigators, or paranormal believers, or whatever, rather than merely observers, let's have them.Davkal 12:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, it there are source that say the people involved at PYE were the ones listening to the recordings, let's have them. --71.57.90.96 12:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Raudive Experiment

message: I've put in a request for mediation. I don't see how we can proceed any other way. It is clear now that a number of editors are intent on inserting their POV without any thought to the policies they cite freely in their criticism of others. One example, "Raudive's team" is now in the article to desribe the observers of the voices in the PYE experiment. No source for this change has been provided, and the sources we do have do not support it in any way. Nonetheless this has changed from the neutral "observers" to "paranormal believers", and then to "paranormal researchers" and finally to "Raudive's team", and it is clear that all three are simply unsourced POV speculation inserted in an attempt to slant that part of the article in line with certain editors' views.Davkal 08:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Observers is non-neutral in that observation is a very scientific term that is in dispute about EVP. The term also has connontations of scientific control that should be avoided when dealing with EVP-research that wasn't subject to even the meanest sense of this concept. It's pretty clear from the sources that the people he used were part of his crack-team of investigators. There is no NPOV issue with spade-calling. --ScienceApologist 11:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: Your attempts at speculative analysis, and the high regard in which you appear to hold this given the edits to Macrae, encouraged me to try a bit of my own. Re Baruss' conclusions: Baruss merely assumed that they had not captured EVP in the strong sense by assuming that if he could not identify something definitively as EVP then it could not be EVP. Baruss' reasoning here is clearly fallacious. He may very well have actually replicated EVP and was simply unable to clearly identify it as such. Hence the argument which concludes that they had failed to replicate EVP in the strong sense is invalid. I think we must now include something about this logical error in the article.Davkal 15:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have had to re-insert information into the MacRae section in order to balance what was there. This was not speculative or unsourced; it's all in the cited paper. As I mentioned in my edit comment, it is important to point out that the multiple choice format was not intended to determine whether or not voices or words were present in any of the recordings, but whether the email correspondents picked the same phrase or different ones. MacRae's conclusion was based on the correspondents making the same choice. It should be up to the reader to judge what conclusion he came to, in the light of this information. SheffieldSteel 16:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Macrae and Baruss

message: :After the exchange of the past few days, I can no longer participate in this process. Since I never come in contact with hard-core skeptics, my time here has been an education for which I am grateful. It is sobering to know how reluctant supposedly rational people can be to examine evidence offered in good faith and how quick they are to go for the person, rather than the issues. It is also a little disconcerting that the skeptics find no problem with misleading behavior, yet are so righteous about following Wikipedia rules when they favor their viewpoint.
:One reason we ask AA-EVP members to use their real name on the discussion board can be found in the novel, The Lord of the Flies. See www.essaydepot.com/essayme/2059/index.php. From that essay about the book, "These masks also let the boys hide from their conscience we can see this when we are informed, 'The mask was a thing on it’s own, behind which Jack hid, liberated from shame and self-consciousness.'” 
:My thanks to those of you who have tried to find the middle ground.   Tom Butler 16:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I come out and call them pseudoskeptics, in the tradition of Truzzi.  And Davkal is right, staying for mediation might be a rational course; if nothing comes of that, abandon it. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My Surrender to the Skeptics

message: This article showed up in the online magazine "American Chronicles" (typical online ad farm of the 'quick-n-dirty' school of journalism) last month. What's interesting about it is that it appears to be written entirely from content found in the Wikipedia article. 
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=20509
--- LuckyLouie 19:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting EVP "Article"

message: From the "Jürgenson" section: 
:"Jürgenson's recordings attracted the attention of German parapsychologist Hans Bender, the head of a research team at the Institute for Border Areas of Psychology and Mental Health (University of Freiburg). After analyzing them, Bender concluded that Jürgenson's tapes were "susceptible to a paranormal interpretation" 
I don't understand the purpose of this quoted statement by Bender. Was he saying that "people could possibly interpret J's tapes as paranormal"? It seems like this ambiguously neutral quote was taken out of context so it appears to be supportive. The source is Chisolms web page. Unless there is some way to clarify this quote, it's gotta go. --- LuckyLouie 00:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First you say you don't understand the purpose of the quote, then it appears like it is the meaning you are querying, then you describe it as "ambiguously neutral" (whatever that means), then it looks like it is the source that you find problematic, before finally telling us that we must find a way to "clarify the quote" otherwise it's "gotta go". What exactly, or even roughly, is it that you want?Davkal 11:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The passage's purpose, meaning, and source were questionable. If you feel it is essential to the article, please explain why. --- LuckyLouie 18:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, the statement is almost meaningless in terms of its set-up, delivery, and context. I will remove it now. --ScienceApologist 12:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bender quote

message: I have removed the spoonfeeding sectioning of the history section and removed a lot of the arbitrary details that were included in the text. This way the narrative outline for EVP-research can be clearly seen as a progression. I also removed Baruss's critique to its own section since it is a fundamentally different analysis than the other parts of the historyinvestigators section. --ScienceApologist 12:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that User:Davkal wasted no time in reverting this change. It would be nice if he would keep his knee-jerk reactions to a minimum. --ScienceApologist 12:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It is better because it makes the article more fluid and less confined to an arbitrary sectioning. Many of the separate researchers actually worked in conjunction: Raudive with Jurgensen for example. Many of the subsections were stubs and unlikely to become longer due to a lack of verifiable and reliable sources. So combining is a much better option and will help organize the article. --ScienceApologist 13:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: While I don't agree with all the changes, I think overall the streamlining is a big improvement.  Please don't revert war over this, I'd like to see SA finish the edits he's currently working on and go from there.  Both of you should keep 3RR in mind.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to streamlining in general, but here I think "streamlining" is merely a euphemism for removing a lot of stuff that doesn't tally with one particular POV. For example, The conclusion of the Baruss experiment has once again had the "while we did replicate EVP in the weak sense of finding voices on audio tapes" removed. This is clearly being removed for no other reason than to try to hide the fact that this happened. As such it misrepresents what was found in the experiment and focuses solely on the negative conclusion which only make logical sense given a definition in Baruss' article of what would count as "replication". The reintroduction of the start of the quote, brings this point to the surface nicely.Davkal 13:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have specific concerns, I'd recommend editing or reverting those instead of a wholesale revert of all changes.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What is PYE?  And Davkal, could you please indent your replies?  Please?  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pye Records. --ScienceApologist 14:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been asking for a consolidation of the old "History" section of the article for a long time.   Glad to see SA undertake the project. As for MacRae's Faraday cage and Anechoic chamber: he placed a person connected to a VOICE SYNTHESIZER in the cage. Of course he got "anomalous sounds". It's not a "pseudoskeptical" position to see that the presence or absence of the cage isn't significant in this instance. It's common sense. --- LuckyLouie 18:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've further moved material and created transitions in an effort to avoid unnecessary sectionalization and to increase readability. Additional improvement is welcome. --- LuckyLouie 20:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, thanks for digging into this.  --Milo H Minderbinder 20:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New format

message: I question the veracity of "the Pye experiments". I can't locate a reliable source of information about what exactly they were. According to Victor Zammit's  site:
:The Pye Laboratory tests conducted by Colin Smythe and Peter Bander (prior to the publication of Breakthrough) were set up and paid for by the Editor-in-Chief of England's The Sunday Mirror. Ronald Maxwell, a reporter for The Sunday Mirror, had supervised the tests and had prepared a three page feature article with photographs which was very supportive of them. He was delighted that the electronics experts chosen by the newspaper had verified that the voices were genuine and that no trickery or fraud was employed. However at the last minute the extremely important article was stopped without explanation by the Editor-in-Chief who refused to have the story in the paper. As Peter Bander put it: The experiment which had been arranged and paid for by The Sunday Mirror had yielded results which did not please the man at the top (Bander 1973:68). Maxwell and Cyril Kersh, the features editor, tried again a week later. This time they had collected information and statements from leading scientists including Mr Peter Hale. Again the Editor-in-Chief refused to publish it (Bander 1973:68).
Zammit goes on to infer that The Sunday Mirror conspired to withhold proof of the paranormal.  Whatever actually happened, the entire affair appears VERY questionable. Just the fact that the "tests" were set up and paid for by a British Tabloid newspaper would require us to question them. --- LuckyLouie 21:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, if it is a sham, its verifiability becomes very difficult. --ScienceApologist 12:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: My point was, it doesn't sound verifiable as a controlled experiment. --- LuckyLouie 18:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like it would only be mentioned for historical value.  Was it notable at all, did it get any kind of coverage?  Obviously the article isn't going to list every EVP experiment ever done, what's special about that particular one?  --Minderbinder 18:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it has historical value -- if we could find the original source. Chisholm, Zammit, and other sites synthesize conflicting hearsay versions. It would be important to find who exactly claimed what. Maybe it's in Bander's book. --- LuckyLouie 20:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Davkal. It's not psuedosceptical to be suspicious of sources that infer a conspiracy has suppressed evidence of EVP. It's common sense. --- LuckyLouie 19:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think that's what is being argued here at all. What we are trying to do is establish a reliable and verifiable account of what Raudive did rather than rely on sources which may be biased due to the sensationalism that journalists for tabloids like to stir-up. --ScienceApologist 13:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For a start, to mention this we need a reliable source which gives an accurate account of what happened.  Do we have that?  --Minderbinder 13:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Where did I do that?  --Minderbinder 14:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Davkal, do you have a diff on this?  I don't remember doing this and I think you may be mistaken.  --Minderbinder 14:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pye

message: Just a quick note to say that readers generally either tune out or skim when faced with a large section of text on a website. If we wish people to actually read this page and to take in what it is saying, it should be broken down into neat chunks.
perfectblue 09:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's fine to point out, but having sections based on "history" and specific investigators is not a good idea. We were headed toward a different organization where Baruss was singled out for reasons related to the fundamental difference between his study and the other investigator's work and a paring down of descriptions for each paranormal investigator who studied EVP. The large section on investigation can be broken into two or more sections based on timing perhaps, but doing it based on personality is focusing too much on non-notable people rather than the topic of EVP. --ScienceApologist 12:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Baruss' study is fundamentally different from the other investigations quoted above his section in that Baruss was the first person who was an independent investigator who at least ostensibly wasn't biased beforehand in believing that EVP exist. That makes his critique fundamentally different. Editorially, we shouldn't lump Baruss with the other investigations because the other investigations were not attempting to determine whether EVP existed or not -- they were fundamentally opposed to such an outlook. I'll also point out that claims to a "chronology" are higly exaggerated. While it's clear that Jurgensen influenced Raudive, there is no other indication that any investigator was directly influenced by the investigators who came before them other than by virtue of the fact that they could be aware of investigations that occured in the past but not the ones that occured in the future. As such, a claim to chrnological cohesion is dubious, we can follow it for ease of reading but it's basically an arbitrary organization technique and when more pressing editorial concerns come up, breaking that organization is perfectly reasonable. Your claim that Baruss is the "least" well-known is probably due to your bias in these matters having been heavily involved in studying paranormal activity. Baruss may be the "least" well-known in paranormal circles (for obvious reasons), but he is the only "investigator" who is a contemporary academic which gives him a level of credibility above-and-beyond the other investigators. I don't anticipate that Baruss will remain the only critique on this page. In particular, Carroll's critique will be going in shortly. We aren't finished with writing this article and eventually we will have a greatly expanded critique section. So, please, let us finish adding in information and text and then comment. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 12:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument is not flatly circular, but something like it. It has the form, figuratively speaking, of a closed curve in space.Davkal 12:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for sharing. --ScienceApologist 13:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note on readability 

message: We have, at present, three times as much space devoted to sceptical speculation in the "explanations" section as we do to paranormal explanations. POV pushing anyone?Davkal 13:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The paranormal explanations are not very easy to source because there is disagreement amongst paranormal believers. --ScienceApologist 13:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV doesn't say that two sides of an issue should be given equal space, it says that they should be discussed proportionally in terms of the degree of acceptance.  Since the argument for EVP is a minority view, it would violate WP:Undue weight to give it equal coverage. "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views"  --Minderbinder 13:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The "minority" view is the one which makes extraordinary claims that have not been verified in the mainstream. Paranormal investigations from the standpoint of Wikipedia will be a minority view until they are recognized as being mainstream investigations. When the scientific community comments on paranormal ideas they either dismiss them outright or they apply the same skeptical critique that you dislike. That's just the plain honest truth about the situation. Your evaluations of the points here are, frankly, irrelevant. You are free to believe in whatever fantasy you desire, just don't impose that belief on the encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 13:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Davkal, are you claiming that a majority of mainstream scientists and the general public believe EVP are caused by "discarnate entities" or other paranormal things?  And that those who say it's just radio station bleed and or similar things are a minority?  --Minderbinder 13:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I am saying mainstream science has nothing to ay on EVP. And I am saying that your repeated attempts to align Carroll with mainstream science are unjustified. Carroll's views, then, are Carroll's views and should be treated as such. They are also laughably pseudoscientific as shown above by Mr Alarm Clock.  Davkal 13:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are saying mainstream science has nothing to say on the topic, how can you possibly argue that the Majority View is the paranormal one?  If science hasn't commented on a pseudoscientific topic, we rightly assume that it doesn't accept the pseudoscientific "explanation".  And I don't get your fixation on Carroll, that section has a number of sources, not just one.  I should also point out that your dismissal of pareidolia out of hand is original research.  Personally finding something "laughable" isn't a valid criteria on wikipedia, sorry.  --Minderbinder 13:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd recommend reading Pseudoscience since you keep applying that label to things that don't fit the definition or criteria.  --Minderbinder 18:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Especially read this part. --- LuckyLouie 19:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I've rearranged these in order of notability/public visibility. The bulk of references (published media, search engine results, etc) to those active with EVP refer to ghost hunting/paranormal investigation.  The second most visible are the groups dedicated solely to EVP.   The third most visible are Spiritualists, and there is some crossover between the latter two. --- LuckyLouie 20:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current enthusiasts

message: I've put the totally-disputed tag on it, for multiple reasons- not the least of which is the underhanded POV-pushing such as calling people "famous," "Enthusiasts" complete innacuracies such as saying that EVP is rejected by those outside the paranormal community- which of couse it is probably not, as it is usually not known, except perhaps from the movie.  And things like saying there are "supernatural" explanations for it- I've never heard of one. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly are the factual issues? --ScienceApologist 20:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just said. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those are factual errors. Tag removed.
Martin, I'm sorry you disagree with the use of "enthusiasts". Can you suggest a better word? According to guidelines on WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience we should not be applying misleading terms such as "researchers", "analysts", "experimenters", "investigators" etc. to a broad group that include ghost hunters, paranormal fans, people trying to contact dead relatives, etc. --- LuckyLouie 20:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It does?  Perhaps I missed something.  I searched the pages you linked to for those words, and I read the sections linked to.  Nothing there.  And why are you giving the minority view of the skeptics so much weight?   You aren't accepting Minderbinder's stupid -yes, stupid and irrational- contention that anything a conventional scientist would say, or that a minority of skeptics have said, is ipso facto a majority opinion, are you? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It should be part of a popular culture section, or it could be headlined current developement of EVP, or EVP today, or any number of other NPOV things. But it could also be called "EVP experimentation" or "experimenters."  There is nothing POV about that -one can experiment with prayer, or whistling up the wind-, nor is it forbidden by policy. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Experimenters" has physical science connotations, which is misleading. The existence of EVP in nature or anywhere else is simply not a fact. I guess we could call those who experiment with audio recorders believing they'll get EVP "believers", but I thought "enthusiasts" was much more preferable. --- LuckyLouie 02:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The existence of EVP in nature or anywhere else is simply not a fact" This may be true.  But if you are in any sense letting it dictate edits -or if you are accepting of the edits of others who are- it only means that this page will be continually re-written, forever, till the POV pushing stops. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to e that you just want to promote the idea that parapsychology has more legitimacy than it does. --ScienceApologist 03:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New tag