Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Archive 14

message: The new image should be attributed to AAEVP. ScienceApologist 15:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, images are more or less immune from OR problems. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrongo. Here's a relevant quote: "Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader." In other words, Perfectblue's sayso that something is an EVP is not allowed. ScienceApologist 22:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New image

message: Please tell me this is a mistake, Martin. ScienceApologist 22:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also changed the caption on the image to "A self generated illustration of "an EVP voice" and surrounding background noise. Released to all who want to use it on the understanding that the image itself has no scientific value and does not represent proof of anything." Illustrations are allowed.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is OR as described above. Please remove it. ScienceApologist 23:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The caption was changed. Illustrations are allowed.  See WP:OR. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read Illustration. And Wp:or#Original_images.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your problem? I have quoted to you twice why this image is problematic and you simply are ignoring me. ScienceApologist 01:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SA makes a clear point here Martin.  Read the last line of the OR link you provided and SA mentioned.  I second the movement that the image needs to go.  Baegis 01:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: You've got to be kidding me

message: I've uploaded an image which is in all respects captioned as purely illustrative, and makes no claims to be EVP.  It meets all WP rules on images. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is not EVP (ie/ makes no claims to be EVP) then it fails weight and notability.  It probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia if it is purely illustrative.  Either it is pertinent to the subject or not.  It seems that there is an each-way bet to keep it in by claiming "it is purely illustrative" to avoid WP:OR.  BTW, it doesn't matter how "illustrative" something is, if it is OR, it is OR.  Using "illustrative" comments in the narrative is correctly called "editorialising" which is OR.  This is no different.  Why not have a real EVP scan/picture/image?  Shot info 07:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could use another.  But why not read what WP:OR has to say about illustration?  You may be right, but if you are, the the rules need to be re-written.  Further, articles like Will-o'-the-wisp need to have their images taken out also, and I'm sure there are many articles across WP with such images.  For instance, the one on the human buttocks, if I recall, has an "OR" pic or 3.  But I believe you are not right according to WP:OR. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sighh, have you heard of WP:CONSENSUS and the Wikipedia Community?  I don't really care about other articles, I'm (personally) commenting on this one.  If you feel that the other articles have OR images, then I suggest that you go to their talkpage(s), and seek some consensus for their removal.  As I stated "Why not have a real EVP scan/picture/image?" surely one exists?  Shot info 22:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I have put both of the images (EVP2 and EVP_Illustration) up for deletion, per the same logic as SA.  Baegis 21:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If it is judged to be in agreement with the rules, it will be kept.  If it is not, it will be deleted.  Unfortunately, I don't think they will be sticking around too long.  Baegis 01:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah.  Rules have nothing to do with it, as no one has dealt with what OR actually says. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the images do violate OR - as they can't be traced to a reliable source and thus used under Fair Use standards - but are a private image that claims to be something and thus prone to interpretation as Original Research. Originally I thought otherwise, but after soliciting advice from an editor involved at that policy page for sometime; I've changed my mind and concur with the general consensus here about the images. The image in the box is sufficient and meets criteria under fair use; the others should be deleted.  --Northmeister 01:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My position is based purely on reading the OR article, and the exception made for illustrative pictures.  Under normal circumstances it would indeed be OR. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New image

message: Here is the relevant finding from the recent arbcom:
"Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include "mythical", "fictional", "a belief", and in the present case "paranormal", "psychic", "new age", "occult", "channeling". or "parapsychological researcher". "UFO", "Bigfoot", "Yeti", "alien abduction", and "crop circle" serve the same function. It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing."
It therefore seems perfectly reasonable to say things like "example of EVP" without weasel words like "alleged" or "supposed" or "claimed". That is, arbcom decided that articles about obviously paranormal topics, once properly framed, should not have these words inserted everywhere as readers would understand full well what is going on without them. Davkal 23:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot the "Cultural artifacts" one, and maybe others also. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be perfectly reasonable if you were not trying to push towards the viewpoint that this is an actual EVP.  It is only a claim of an EVP.  Please stop changing it.  Baegis 23:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only a claimed EVP in the same way a psychic is a claimed psychic. Arbcom decided that such weasel words add nothing to the article and should not be used.Davkal 23:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a faulty attempt to apply incredulity to a credulous statement. In point of fact, there is no such thing as an "example of EVP". There are only artifacts which are said by certain individuals to be examples of EVP. If we can attribute to a reliable source the claim that the artifact being represented is an example of EVP, then the issue is moot because it becomes the say-so of the source rather than the say-so of the encyclopedia. This is different than writing prose about the subject which is arguably what the arbcomm rulings are dealing with. As soon as you enter into the realm of offering "evidence", the burden of proof that it is actually what the claimant says it is shifts to reliablity and verifiability rather than incredulity of the term. ScienceApologist 02:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether EVP are 'voices' or whatnot I'm not sure - in fact I am quite skeptical at the moment. But, it is established fact that electonic voice phenomena do exist, and have been shown in graphical image. Are you disputing this? Seems to me that your arguing from your point of view (maybe close to mine I don't know) that EVP is something else besides what those in the paranormal community claim it is; which is inappropriate here and original research on your part. EVP is a defined paranormal topic; it has case studies by several individuals, there are images purporting to be EVP, recording purporting to be EVP - and that material if from a reliable source that is traceable and not original research on an editors part is completely acceptable by Wikipedia standards. Please save us the agenda, as your not helping to improve the article but hinder its progress as a neutral NPOV presentation of a paranormal topic. --Northmeister 02:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbcom on constant hedging

message: ScienceApologist, pleas discuss all changes you wish to make to the article on the talk page before you make them, to make sure they have the consensus of the community. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He reverted that many times in one day?  Why not post the diffs? ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't violate 3RR. In fact, I think I only reverted once, and it was unintentional. ScienceApologist 03:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonconsensus edits

message: Here is my latest round of edits
The "discarnate entities" section was a travesty. It read like an advert written by Tom Butler. I removed a lot of the soapboxing and the weird phrasing. There is no such thing as an "EVP experimenter" or "EVP research". The best we can do is say "investigator" for a neutral term. Also, any sort of speculative handwaving that is done by AAEVP and other paranormal believers doesn't belong in the article. It is, frankly, not encyclopedic.
Cheerio.
ScienceApologist 03:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My diffs

message: My diff
Two issues:
#Not all paranormal researchers believe in EVP. I don't know if it's just investigators or not, but I think that resesarcher is stretching it. A researcher is one who is professionally paid to conduct and publish research. I know of no EVP personality who qualifies as such. Certainly Tom Butler doesn't, for example.
#No EVP have ever been verifiably observed. Therefore we can't just say that EVP have been observed on various media. That's a blatant falsehood.
Cheerio.
ScienceApologist 03:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some changes to the intro

message: My diff
I believe this diff to be necessary because EVP has been claimed directly. The previous wording was pandering.
Cheerio.
ScienceApologist 03:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another issue

message: My diff
Renewed interest in EVP may be true. However, whether any research at all has happened about this subject is debatable.
ScienceApologist 03:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: And research

message: Here's my final diff
I beg the indulgence of the assembled to view what I have done and note my agenda:
#I tried to eliminate the references to EVP research and experiment. EVP is believed to exist by believers and investigators. There are no verifiable third party sources from non-EVP believing sites which call such folks "researchers", "experimenters", etc. Also, EVP is never observed. It's only claimed to be observed.
#I tried to remove some of the more speculative prose -- especially from the discarnate entities section. Remember verifiability. If we cannot verify the comments through third parties, fringe policy also comes into play.
#I tried to make things more succinct and clear. Oftentimes, the prose was rambling or worse indecisive. This is unacceptable, in my book.
ScienceApologist 04:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: And I'm spent

message: I see ScienceApologist has refused to attain consensus or even discuss his recent thirty six edits to the page, per above requests (which we made soon after he started editing).  He also seems to have ignored Northmeister's edit to his talk page.  This is not a good way to edit on Wikipedia. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a concerted effort by yourself and Davkal to drag your feet in order to prevent change from happening. Editing was stagnant. I was bold. Wikidudeman told me a month ago to let the process work itself out. I judge the process to be dead: mediation has failed. I have edited with good faith. Consensus does not mean that no one is allowed to edit an article. Wikipedia policy is clear that this kind of obstructionism is just that, obstructionism. ScienceApologist 04:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Editing in spite of a clear request to discuss is not good faith. Nor is there a time limit on wiki articles.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am discussing. I'm all over the talkpage. ScienceApologist 13:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus again

message: I'd not encountered this article before but it's really, really poor. Both the disregard for NPOV and the quality of writing leave much to be desired. Can someone who cares about the topic do a major rewrite? Raymond Arritt 04:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Arritt, we're working on one now (: ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raymond's right. I am only 10% happier with my version than the previous one. It's still wildly POV and of poor writing quality. ScienceApologist 13:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I think the changes are only a stopgap measure on the road to a comprehensive rewrite. I cleaned up the section on "ITC" as it made several unsupported claims, but the article stll suffers from the AAEVP's slanted framing of the subject (EVP as a mysterious phenomena which requires competing "explanations").  See: Critics" implies that there is an argument and criticism rather than proposition on on hand and dismissal as a nonscientific fringe theory on the other" for more. Also the article approaches the subject from the "inside" believers perspective rather than from the "outside" world's perspective   - LuckyLouie 05:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article

message: Several parts of the ArbCom would apply here.  The one Davkal quoted was only one which applies.  If ScienceApologist wants to incorporate changes, why not present them on the talk page first for consensus? ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did present my changes. We can do it in either direction: either present them and talk about them or talk about them then present them. The order doesn't matter. Anyway, you can clearly see what my edits are and I eagerly awaiy your comments. By the way, the arbcomm didn't say anything about whether one should edit then talk or talk then edit. ScienceApologist 23:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's too hard to follow wholesale changes like you made.  In addition, you seem to have made a few changes which people might have agreed with, then buried them in changes which would not meet consensus.  Under these conditions, I think it is better to discuss the changes first, then insert them when you have consensus.  That way, reverting will not be necessary merely in order that people don't have to sift through your multitude of changes to find the few which could meet consensus.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin you did pretty much the same thing in September  with no "consensus" at all. This latest protest seems to be just more pettifoggery on your part. - LuckyLouie 05:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, that was when the article was in less controversy.  As of now, go ahead and change the article if you wish- I can't stop you.  But WP goes ahead by consensus, and in circles by force. If you want to take the article in circles, go ahead and make non-consensus edits.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You were informed repeatedly on this talk page of the problems in the article that needed addressing. - LuckyLouie 05:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It appears to me that this is all just sour grapes. ScienceApologist 16:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Do be aware that if the skeptical view is the predominant one, it would be entirely appropriate for the skeptical view to be given more attention in the article. More at WP:NPOV. Raymond Arritt 23:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:WEIGHT is clear. Skeptics have the upper hand because they are mainstream and the majority opinion. Therefore, to satisfy NPOV the writing needs to be dispassionately skeptical in tone. ScienceApologist 23:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is a poor interpretation of NPOV. Skeptics do not have a "upper hand". They are what they are and their opinions cited alongside other significant voices, and in this case significant voices are those related to the subject of the article (e.g. its main proponents). Otherwise, how will our readers be informed about the related disputes? You may need to re-read WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The opinions need to be cited and weighted appropriately. Certainly the proponents of an idea are significant, but when the proponents of an idea are a minority opposed to the majority opinion on the subject, their opinions need to be weighted appropriately. ScienceApologist 01:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You really need to be careful with definition - Wikipedia is not the Skeptic's Dictionary. It is a mainstream source of information that should cover a topic by its framing and then offer a good critics section to inform the reader. Doing otherwise will only serve to hurt Wikipedia in the long run and NPOV. 'Mainstream' science does not generally cover 'paranormal' topics, except maybe in the parapyschology realm and with some quantum stuff. Presenting, 'mainstream' is easy. The general public understands terms like paranormal, and therefore, like religious for example, will take an article in such light. The critics section further enlighens them to problems with 'paranormal' definitions and offers what science has to say. This is the best approach - not 'dominating' articles inrelated to science with skeptical analysis - that is best left to criticism or skeptical analysis sections of paranormal articles like Ghosts - Spirits - UFOS etc. etc. which the 'mainstream' public from all I know considers out of the normal scentific view or 'paranormal'. --Northmeister 01:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I note a dissonance between your statement that Wikipedia is a "mainstream source of information" and your arguments that the mainstream view should take second place to the paranormal view in the present article. Raymond Arritt 01:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raymond, is this not a paranormal topic? If so, then should not the definition given be the one offered by those in that community (such as in this case Raudive etc.)? This followed by a critics sections - which by the way is standard for all fringe subjects or any subject with its critics. As far as I know, EVP is not a topic of science; nor are many other paranormal subjects like Ghosts etc. except again, Parapyschology. Do you know of any leading scientists who have published reliable material subject to peer review that would enlighten us on the 'mainstream' definition of Electronic Voice Phenomena or Ghosts? Paranormal by its very definition indicates 'outside the normal' and readers would expect to get the 'outside the normal' definition first, followed by any criticism. Thats the standard way to do things in this topical area. --Northmeister 01:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an ongoing problem with paranormal/pseudoscience articles. Scientists consider the subjects so obviously absurd that it would be a waste of time studying them, so there's no scientific refutation. Does that mean that the purveyors of paranormal/pseudoscience stuff get to have the debate defined on their terms? As a believer, you think so; as a scientist, I think not. Wikipedia doesn't have a good way of dealing with cargo cult science. Raymond Arritt 02:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way Wikipedia will deal with it if I have anything to say about it is that where there is a claim of an observation, the related scientific field will be the major source (that is, most heavily weighted) for describing whether or not such an observation has validity. There was a proposal in the paranormal arbcomm that is of relevance to this: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop#Newton's Laws of Motion do not apply to paranormal pages. This is actually an interesting point. Let's take the subject of EVP: it is claimed that EVP are produced by discarnate entities interacting with the technology developed by mainstream science. This interaction is not explained by the proponents of EVP, it is simply stated as fact. However, mainstream science fully and completely describes the functioning of these pieces of technology. Nowhere is there any room for a discarnate entity interacting with the technology. It is simply not allowed by the theories of physics. To argue as Northmeister is arguing, that scientific criticism should be relegated to its own tucked-away section while the rest of the article deals with the paranormal on its own terms, would mean plainly that most of the article would ignore the basic facts of how the technology used to collect EVP work. If there was truly community consensus for enacting such a proposal then indeed it would be correct that Newton's Laws of Motion would not apply to paranormal articles (except in the criticism section). This is a no-go proposition. As soon as you decide that ostensibly observable phenomena are not directly in the purview of science you have effectively violated the very provisions of WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist 02:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: A "Skeptics Dictionary" is a dictionary which takes as its major aim to "debunk" the ideas it presents. That is not the aim of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's point of view is neutral, not sympathetic. Articles which deal with ostensibly observable phenomena (like this one) are automatically subject to the mainstream descriptions of observable phenomena. There are also ideas which are strictly outside the purview of science (for example, theology). Those articles cannot nor should not be subject to scientific analysis inasmuch as science only deals with that which is observable. Simply calling something "paranormal" does not give editors a free pass to describe without criticism claims of observations which defy the mainstream observations of observable phenomena. Relegating criticism to a "critics" section is simply not going to cut it. We aren't talking about a political controversy, we are talking about who owns the consensus on what humanity has observed and what humanity hasn't observed. In this case, science clearly is the majority, mainstream, and must therefore be the most heavily weighted opinion. This ONLY applies to articles which are directly relevant to scientific observations (like this one) and it so happens that a lot of the paranormal advocates effectively are promoting pseudoscience by entering into claims of direct observations of the paranormal. ScienceApologist 01:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Science is backed up by peer reviewed published sources remember. Your right about the Skeptics Dictionary - which is not what Wikipedia is I remind you. Thats why a criticism section is the BEST place for scientific and skeptical review. --Northmeister 02:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was arguing that Wikipedia is different than Skeptics dictionary. However, what you fail to realize is that science cannot be relegated to a single section when the topic is about something that is observable. ScienceApologist 02:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you speak of science, of whom do you speak? --Northmeister 02:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Science isn't a whom it is a what. ScienceApologist 02:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a whom in the context of an article. That is, which Scientist has studied and concluded on EVP? I seek this for reliable sourcing criteria. To simple fill an article with your perceptions of science is original research. I doubt however that is what you intend. Per our discussion of article weight - I can't clearly see how the article will look if it is filled with criticism of the subject? However, if reliable sources are provided indicating direct study of EVP or any paranormal observable phenomena then I could imagine inclusion within the context of the article, which eliminates the need for a criticism section (not standard Wikipedia practice mind you but certainly possible).  --Northmeister 02:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Science is not a "whom" in the context of any article. Please read my post above. The point is that EVP proponents by their own admission attribute an observable phenomenon to something that has no scientific basis. This means that they expose themselves to critique because they are not the ones who invented the devices nor investigated and the phenomena upon which they base their claims. And who did? The scientific community as a whole. You can't point to one single scientist who is responsible for the tape recorder, for example. There was the inventor of the device, the various physicists who developed the models of electricity, magnetism, acoustics, wave mechanics, information storage, material science, etc., the plethora of experimenters who tested the various components, and the people who developed the mathematics, language, experimental, and theoretical techniques required to assemble such a complicated piece of equipment. So if you want to find "a scientist" you are going to be shit out of luck because there are literally thousands of responsible parties that have cobbled together that which is responsible for this subject to even exist and, taken as a whole, those people resoundingly reject the proposition that discarnate entities can have any effect on that simple tape recorder the EVP proponent decided to use in the first place. Get it? ScienceApologist 02:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Jossi's arguments below sum up what I am trying to convey about article structure and sourcing per 'framing' of the article. Thus, my proposal for a good well researched criticism section from the scientific or skeptical view when it comes to these topics. --Northmeister 03:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I think I've basically demolished his argument. ScienceApologist 03:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lol, you have not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit then talk? Talk then edit?

message: This is a fascinating debate, and I hope it can continue. Take for example an article on the Virgin birth of Jesus. Should that article be based on a scientific observation of that purported phenomena? Should be conflate that article with Parthenogenesis? That would be ridiculous, don't you think? This is not Wikiskeptkipedia. This is an encyclopedia that is used by people that want to have access to information about everything, including ridiculous ideas such as the subject of this article may be. As a reader, I want to know what is this "phenomena" as described by its proponents, as well as any other significant information from skeptics, scientists, pundits, writers, and what not. I want to have all the information available that has been published in sources that are verifiable and related to the subject. Before anyone starts waving the WP:RS flag in front of my face, please note that there is a need to establish context, and in this case a source published by a proponent of a crazy idea, is a reliable source for an article about a crazy idea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said, and better than I. --Northmeister 03:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hate to burst your bubble, Jossi and Northmeister, but we're not editing the virgin birth article here, which I have to say is quite atrocious for a lot of reasons unrelated to our conversation. For the sake of argument, however, I will point out that the historicity of the Virgin Birth is simply not accepted by the majority of people who are experts in how births occur, nor is it accepted by many (if not most) serious mainline theologians. Dogmatic Catholicism certainly takes its cue from the Nicene Creed while fundamentalists rally around various passages from the Gospels that talk about the virgin birth, but there are plenty of people opposing these perspectives who argue that in the context of their religion literalism is simply heresy. And talking about parthenogenesis is not as far-fetched as you would like to have us believe. There is quite a lot of feminist scholarship in that line. Mary Daly, in fact, is famous for making a very scholarly and notable comparison between the two ideas. A decent article on the subject of the virgin birth would address the fact that a virgin birth is a basic scientific impossibility while pointing out that 1) there are those who reject the scientific impossibility and 2) people still take it as an article of faith because they can read dogma/scripture as metaphor. There is even precedent for how to do this. Creationism, Creation (theology), Creation according to Genesis, and other related articles can serve as a useful guide. I'm not arguing that we excise from this encyclopedia the far-fetched or the extreme, nor am I arguing that we shouldn't describe what proponents believe. However, we are obligated to write articles from a neutral point of view. That means that we must not lead our readers down garden paths that are singular in their approach to a subject. Neither should we shy away from addressing problems with an argument head-on. If there is an idea which is flatly contradicted by science, not admitting that up front is tantamount to lying and is definitely not NPOV. I want the reader to have all the information about subjects that is available. I just want the writing of our articles to be as absolutely dispassionate as possible, and the "in universe" idealizations trumpeted by proponents of ideas which are flatly contradicted by mainstream opinions need to be abandoned for thoughtful, dispassionate, and descriptive prose. Certainly proponents are reliable sources for what they believe. They may not, however, be reliable sources for the ideas and concepts upon which their ideas are built. In the case of EVP, proponents are not reliable sources on how electronic recordings happen. In the case of the virgin birth, proponents are not reliable sources on human reproduction. That's where we as editors come in. It is our duty to make sure that the POV of proponents about subjects that the proponents are not reliable in doesn't become the POV of any article. ScienceApologist 03:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have not said anything that I do not agree with, with the exception of the statement about "lying" or about "[mis]leading our readers". NPOV does not mean truth, neither it means the application of the scientific method to all subjects. NPOV means something very different and that is to describe significant viewpoints about a subject. In this case  one of the most significant viewpoints is that of the proponents of this weird idea, and not as you argue, the viewpoint of science. If this was an article about science, (which is obviously not), it would be a different thing and your logic would apply 100%. But it is not. The article's lead should address your concern of leading readers (god forbid!) into believing that voices of the dead can be recorded, as it should include a statement that there is no scientific proof about its existence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are missing the point. Science has no beef with the dogma of the Virgin Birth of Jesus, it has beef with the human reproduction without sex. Science is the major authority on how births happen. Period. To claim otherwise is to simply not verifiable. Not recognizing this up front in an article on the Virgin Birth of Jesus is to unduly weight the opinions of people who are not reliable nor verifiable sources on how human reproduction happens. You seem to be of the opinion that there is only one way to look at a subject: that either the proponents are described on their own terms or they are completely vilified. This is simply not the case. Proponents of certain ideas may have real problems with reliably describing the fundamental observable phenomena upon which they base their ideas. Their ideas may have merit for other reasons be they literary, historical, metaphorical, religious, etc. However, if they are talking about observable phenomena, then science automatically rears its ugly head. If we allow the pseudoscientific or anti-scientific POV of proponents to be described in universe without directly pointing this out, then we have assumed an all-or-nothing stance that is the exact opposite of neutrality. The article on the virgin birth is itself not about science, but there are obvious and real scientific implications to any claim that human reproduction can happen without sex. If that is ignored in the article on the Virgin Birth of Jesus then the article is simply not NPOV. It's also not good enough to include a simple caveat at the beginning of an article that there is "no scientific proof of the existence of the phenomenon". The problem is that one statement to that effect does not deal substantively with the issue that the observable phenomena upon which the idea are flatly contradicted by science. That's not just lack of "proof": that's falsification. ScienceApologist 03:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  human reproduction can happen without sex. Yes it can, read the lastest Newsweek magazine, about women impregnating thmeselves using the  "Turkey Baster Method" . :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bad the article doesn't mention the Virgin Birth. :) ScienceApologist 13:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem here is that proponents wrap the concept in the garb of science, with "research" and "experiments" and the like. If they're going to play at being scientists then it's appropriate that they be evaluated from a scientific perspective. If it was purely a matter of faith or spirituality then a scientific perspective would be far less applicable. Raymond Arritt 03:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but it is not for us to do this. Notable scientists who have reliable works on the subject would be fine. Nor is the terms 'research' or 'experiments' strictly confusing; anyone whether scientist, historian, priest, or layman could do 'research' and conduct 'experiments' including numerous inventors. Thus the necessity of 'framing' the article as 'paranormal' which gives the reader valuable information that it is not a scientific 'study' or 'research' or 'experiment' but one outside of science or mainstream science; unless of course a mainstream scientist has conducted such studies and published his thoughts on the subject. --Northmeister 03:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is that thousands of mainstream scientists have done research on the subjects upon which the idea is based and their research flatly contradicts the major propositions of the idea. This isn't a case of original research, it's a case of simply pointing out that science fully describes how, for example, a tape recorder works. ScienceApologist 03:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which scientists are these? Their findings certainly would be acceptable under criticism section and entirely welcomed information for the reader. Here we have agreement. --Northmeister 04:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read my comments above about the thousands of scientists that these are. ScienceApologist 13:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Jossi, if one of the most significant viewpoints is that of the proponents of "this weird idea", would you consider that to be mainstream? Antelan talk 03:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What "mainstream" has to do with this? That term is not even used once in WP:NPOV, or WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I was thinking WP:FRINGE. Antelan talk 04:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the three of us share the same concerns here and basically agree on NPOV for the most part. I think Jossi has hit the right chord as far as where I see the article or any article related to 'paranormal' terms heading as far as a fair representation of Wikipedia's NPOV. I also share the concerns of SA, in so much as not 'misleading' the reader - which is what the lead should help to do, along with a good criticism section. Follow this general pattern without infusing conflicts within the main of a paranormal or 'beyond the normal' subject would do more for our readers and cordiality here in editing than any other approach. It is a widely tested and used method across Wikipedia. I also concur that if this were a strictly science related article and a fringe view of that topic (say the roundness of the Earth) were to emerge - I would support SA 100% as well - leaving the fringe view to its proper place. However on a related page considering the fringe view of 'flat earth' I would support their assertions and reliable sources to indicate this being provided followed by scientific analysis of their assertions. --Northmeister 03:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we are going to cover this as a social phenomenon, there should be no discussion of research, unless that is covered by the mainstream news. If we are going to cover it as a science, then it should be covered as the science or pseudoscience that it is. We cannot have just part of each - calling it a social phenomenon to put it outside the reach of science, then talking about its research as it if it were a science. Antelan talk 03:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Following Northmeister's idea creates an unacceptable walled garden within the article where science is not allowed to penetrate. In his view, science would be allowed in the lead and in a criticism section, but in the rest of the article, Newton's Laws of Motion would not apply. This is unacceptable. Science doesn't take a holiday just to accommodate the views of the fringe. Rather, science comments where science is applicable and stays silent where it is not. ScienceApologist 03:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Atelan, I understand your basic assertion on framing per wording etc. I think this could be addressed in how the 'research' etc. is so worded as not to convey scientific study if none occured. - SA, I do not see any other way to address these concerns than to have a good lead and criticism section. Maybe you could enlighten me as to how you see these concerns addressed for paranormal articles or fringe subjects that would alleviate unnecessary edit warring and controversy? The Wikipedia standard seems the best approach to me. --Northmeister 03:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure that cordoning off all dissenting views into a criticism section is the "Wikipedia standard" as you have repeatedly called it, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. I've looked at a few articles under the Pseudoscience category and they commonly allow the perspective of the reality-based community to be interwoven in the article (see e.g., Hollow Earth, Flood geology). Can you point me to a policy or guideline page, Arbcom decision, etc.?  Raymond Arritt 04:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  I am absolutely certain that this article can be written in a way that presents the viewpoints in a way that does not portrays this as science (maybe we can just say that the proponents attempt to frame this as science, when it is not). It should not be a problem to have a well written article that is neutral. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that a reasonable article can be crafted along those lines. Antelan talk 04:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jossi has just described the definition of a pseudoscience, which is what this is. It is very fringe and should be treated as such, IOW the scientific POV has weight. That's policy. -- Fyslee / talk 05:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec a go-go) There's an unspoken principle in scientific research that some topics are too ridiculous to waste our time investigating. We don't study the hypothesis that Triton is made of caramel with a tasty chocolate shell, or that the Earth is supported by a giant tortoise, or that dead people are speaking into tape recorders. Hence, proponents of such hypotheses will find little or no direct scientific reputation. Shall Wikipedia give "research" on such ideas sober consideration with little or no dissent because there's no scientific study on them? Raymond Arritt 04:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: (ed conf) Mmmmm.... the problem is that the article as it stands goes on and on and on. The article to remain NPOV and without undue weight, should be concise and to the point, summarizing the proponent's views. Otherwise it reads very much as a proposition for it rather than a description of it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi and Atelan, I agree, and I feel doing so, would set a standard for other 'paranormal topics', as well, so as to end some of this controversy that keeps emerging. One solution to start with is to title this article "Electronic Voice Phenomena (paranormal)" to help the reader, to address criticism in the lead, to convey the subject as understood by the proponents, then to offer valid and reliable criticism to round the article out. I'm open to other suggestions to come up with a balanced approach that achieves NPOV, NOR, and V for this and other 'fringe' subjects. Martinphi, I do think that SA and the others have legitimate points to make; and that a reasonable soulution can be found here. Considering your statements, I think there is room for forming some sort consensus as to how it is to be done. --Northmeister 04:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  read my previous point. One of the problems I see is the tendency of these articles to describe aspects as facts rather than opinions, as well as being too lengthy for comfort. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spot on. We needn't accept propositions at face value with all other perspectives ghettoed off into a criticism section, and we needn't go on and on at length. Raymond Arritt 04:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Jossi, I agree. But, I think Raymond above is misreading you here. From what I understand you feel, as I do, that after the lead, the idea is conveyed from propopents thereof in a manner that does not indicate that it is fact (I totally agree), followed by worthy criticism of such propositions if they are reliable and exist (whether in a criticism section or following paragraph). That is essentially how I see the matter. --Northmeister 04:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Bingo. But when such language has been attempted, it has been fiercely resisted. Raymond Arritt 04:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. For what it's worth, Martinphi is labeling what we're doing here as gang editing at the ArbCom hearings on his conduct. He has not elaborated there on whom he considers to be members of this "gang", but presumably he is referring to more than just ScienceApologist in this accusation. Antelan talk 04:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. I didn't realize there was an Arbcom case on these two, nor that I was "in cahoots" (love that term) with some organization called called Rational Skepticism. You learn something new every day. Raymond Arritt 04:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Jossi, Absolutely, on the spot. I think again, Jossi, reflects how I feel the article should read. --Northmeister 04:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi's example is pretty much the way I've been editing the article ever since I got here. ScienceApologist 13:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there is room in WP for simply saying -in some fashion- "OK, this section describes what EVP investigators believe," and then just go on and talk about it.  Anything else just leads to difficult writing, and in truth it makes it no more NPOV. Editors use continual qualification to bias the article.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. That's a walled garden. ScienceApologist 13:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how Wikipedia:Walled garden applies here. It's not a group of articles separate from the rest of the encyclopedia, it's part of an article written in a clear way.--Prosfilaes 20:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Think smaller scale. If there are only two sections (the lead and a criticism section) where science is allowed in the article, then the rest of the article is effectively a walled garden. Or maybe we can call it a walled window box. ScienceApologist 22:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even extending it to parts of an article, I think you're still misinterpreting that essay. I don't believe that writing large parts of the article from one POV is good, but certainly starting a section of one or two paragraphs with some clarifying text and writing the rest clearly from one POV rather than trying to force every sentence to be NPOV out of context.--Prosfilaes 22:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Going back to Jossi's statement, I would say that we can't just say those recordings are EVP, since, whether or not EVP exists, which recordings are EVP is not clear. I'd say "over 100,000 recordings that he identified as EVP", though; it sources the claim without being needlessly skeptical.--Prosfilaes 22:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Prosfilaes, I think your dead right here. The important thing is to address who is making the claim clearly, to avoid words that Arbcom has decided are unecessary, yet include certain qualifiers to make it clear that the studies or whatnot done with EVP are not related to science (if that be the case). In other words to be entirely clear in our wording. --Northmeister 23:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be informative to see an example of the "walled garden" approach successfully applied in an existing article. I looked at Scientology and though it makes good use of attributions such as "Scientology describes itself as....Prime among Scientology's beliefs is...Scientology believes...According to the Church...Scientology says...Other beliefs of Scientology are..." etc. it is, by its nature, a belief system rather than a pseudoscience or a practice that makes ostensibly scientific claims, and so is not the best example for our purposes. Note however, that in the section on "Auditing" when the E meter is mentioned, it is defined in mainstream scientific terms ("a device that measures very small changes in electrical resistance through the human body when a person is holding onto metal cans and a small current is passed through them") rather than Scientology's definition (a device that measures Thetans?). In the "walled garden" approach, science would not be permitted to intrude here.  - LuckyLouie 23:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is clear to avoid any 'walls' as much as possible. The Scientology article is interesting, thanks. I don't believe we need to keep science out of the article main - it just needs to be done in a way the allows room for the paranormal view of EVP to be explained since EVP is largely a paranormal term, used in this field. My perspective for a 'Criticism', 'Analysis', or 'Skeptical Analysis' section was to allow room for the 'mainstream' view or skeptical view to offer its opinion on the matter - without Wikipedia making any judgements on the subject. This allows the reader to make up their own minds.  This does not mean however that other alternatives might not be tried. I am certainly open to other suggestions and ways to achieve NPOV. --Northmeister 00:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  debate 

message: The box seems to serve as an end-run around NPOV. It presents an "in-universe" definition of the "term" and offers a "signature" (how to spot EVP?). Terms don't have "signatures". It's not appropriate- LuckyLouie 17:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We might consider deleting the template altogether. I'll post a notice at the fringe theories noticeboard and get their opinions. ScienceApologist 17:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleting the template? Are you stating that the paranormal community does not use such terms? Since this is a paranormal topic, that science largely dismisses, I don't see the logic here. Infoboxes serve the reader in numerous areas of Wikipedia for further definition and study and for ease of use. By what particular line of reason do either follow to conclude as you do? --Northmeister 23:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Are you stating that the paranormal community does not use such terms?"  An authoritative source which meets WP:RS showing a glossary of terms which are deemed legitimate by a consensus in the "paranormal community" might be helpful, if one exists. Which brings up a larger question; who is the paranormal community? Who is and isn't included in the community? Who determines what terms are legitimate? Who determines what is and isn't of note within the community? I observe that you have a rather loose definition of what constitutes the "paranormal community" as seen in an article you authored, Ghostly Talk:  "These dramatic events, of note to the overall paranormal community; have sparked heated debate as to their meaning and the growing capacity for researchers into ITC."  - LuckyLouie 23:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not up to us to determine who is the paranormal community nor what constitutes paranormal terms. Such is original research. Rather, to convey accepted and mainstream definition of paranormal terms and subjects. Your observations themselves determine EVP for example as a paranormal topic since it is not in the mainstream of science. Rather than lob personal observations on my 'definition' - let's stick to the topic at hand and Your Reasoning. I see no logical reason to delete templates across Wikipedia because a few individuals find them disagreeable with their POV. Especially templates pertaining to framed articles like those in the occult, fantasy, and paranormal. If you don't think EVP is a paranormal term used by those who do research into such, you must have a good reason - please enlighten the community (Wikipedia that is) about this? --Northmeister 00:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "It is not up to us to determine who is the paranormal community nor what constitutes paranormal terms." Exactly why I suggest we'd need a WP:RS to indicate appropriate content for "Paranormal Terms" infoboxes. What source do you propose we use? - LuckyLouie 00:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Good question and which source may I ask do you have at hand to indicate that, Electonic Voice Phenomena is not used in the Paranormal world? It would be enlightening and change my mind on this rather fringe idea that the term is somehow not used by the paranormal community - must be it is a scientific term then? --Northmeister 01:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "which source may I ask do you have at hand to indicate that, Electonic Voice Phenomena is not used in the Paranormal world? You're missing the point (or maybe shifting the burden). We don't have any WP:RS sources which are authoritative of the "paranormal world" (whatever that is). The template deletion discussion which you are reacting to isn't about whether or not EVP believers use the term. It's about the possible misuse of Infoboxes to sidestep NPOV. You are welcome to express your view at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion.  - LuckyLouie 01:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In what manner do templates 'misuse of Infoboxes to sidestep NPOV'? Specifically relating to this article for example? --Northmeister 01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Head over to Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion for the answer. - LuckyLouie 01:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paranormal Terminology Box

message: The article currently says, "In the 1920s, Thomas Edison told a reporter with Scientific American that he was working on a machine that could contact the dead. This story spread to numerous newspapers around the world. A few years later, Edison announced that he had been making a joke at the reporter's expense, and that he had not been working on such a device.[4] Though Edison did not attempt to create such a device[5], he did believe that spirits might make contact in the future through the advent of better technology.[6]"
It strikes me as an anachronistic inclusion, and possibly as original research to say that this material belongs in an article about Electronic Voice Phenomena. Antelan talk 00:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Side note: I remember putting in the first part of the Edison bit, up to reference 4. Somebody apparently added the second extremely dubious pro-spirit-communication bit, cited by reference 6, which looks ultra-unreliable. - LuckyLouie 00:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to be more clear. Why is ref 6, 'ultra-unreliable'? On what grounds? The two sentences you do not like are factual, why do you oppose them then? Atelan - I agree. I've always thought the Edison stuff as a whole was out of place. --Northmeister 00:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/voices-from-cspace.html a subpage of http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/fortspace.html , is a collection of personal essays ("General Weirdness") complete with "X Files" theme music. Hardly a WP:RS for information about Thomas Edison. - LuckyLouie 00:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's part of the lore, but I agree to get rid of the entire Edison bit if people want to. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference Six, although an essay, does contain a biography from whence the material was derived however. I don't see this as 'ultra-unreliable' - the music, well true. A better RS would be a published work, preferably peer reviewed, directly on Edison, I agree. The stuff should go, I agree with Atelan. --Northmeister 00:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the music was quite pleasant. Qualms about the reliability of the material stem from the bibliography, which references mainly non-objective sources such as Bander, Keel, Macy, Meek, Raudive, Rogo, etc. - LuckyLouie 00:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edison 

message: I have removed the Edison paragraph; now, Szalay's is the first paragraph under history. Is 1959 the first date on record where he claims he recorded voices of the dead? I think it would be desirable to put a date in that first sentence. Antelan talk 00:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know it is. Although Martin has a better grasp of this material. --Northmeister 00:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look it up tomorrow.  There are early precursors to EVP, and I'll try and find the data. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I find that there are quite a few precursors to EVP pre 1950s, but I personally think they should be left out.  They would take up lots of room, and aren't particularly notable. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He heard a voice in 1936 and thought it was his dead brother. In 1941, he started trying to record voices he heard. In 1956 he believed he was successful. In 1959 his recordings were published through Bayless. --Nealparr (talk to me) 04:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice, certainly a lot better.  And less dry, thus the reader might actually read some of it. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hot dog, Art! ...er, nevermind : ) --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Szalay