Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Archive 11

message: I've went ahead and archived the talk page since it has had no action for about a month now and I wanted to create room for new discussions. I want to create a Electronic voice phenomenon rewrite project to rewrite this article and turn it into a Good article and possibly a Featured article soon. For those of you unfamiliar with how this will work Please see the Parapsychology article for more information. What will happen is I will create a subpage on my namesake and will invite all major contributors of this article as well as anyone else who wants to contribute to come to the namesake to discuss the article. I haven't definitely decided to invest time into this yet, however if I get a positive reaction from most editors to this page then I will do so. I will rewrite this article and create a subpage on my namesake and invite all major contributors to come make proposals to change the article. To prevent edit wars, no one will be able to edit the draft except for me, however once everyone agrees on the page, we can replace it with this one and then anyone interested can improve it themselves. Major edits should be posted prior to being made to check consensus though. Based on the answers to the following questions, I will decide whether or not I will invest time to rewrite this article. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Electronic voice phenomenon rewrite project

message: Here are a few questions for the major editors of this page. Anyone who has in the past and plans to contribute in the future can answer these questions. The questions will be very simple and the answers should be very simple. Please put a * right below each question if you are the first to answer and right below each answer after that. Here are the questions.
Do you believe EVP as a whole, including it's methods and basis, is controversial both within and outside the scientific community(Controversial doesn't necessarily mean invalid or fraudulently)?
*EVP is pretty much universally controversial. Mainstream science is skeptical of the existence of EVP more on the assumption that it is impossible, than that it is poorly researched or even mundane influences mistaken as phenomenal. This is the case with most of the scientists I have discussed this with. The rest of society follows the lead of mainstream science and/or their religious leaders. Religious leaders are mixed, but the more orthodox they are, them more skeptical they are of EVP--"Even if it is real, it is communication with demons."
:Since evidence is seldom an issue with the skepticism, I suspect that the only approach you can take to make the article a good one is to focus on the popular impact of EVP without attempting to address it in terms of the science.  Tom Butler 01:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, We'll examine anything that is brought up as long as it's relevant. The evidence for or against EVP will definitely be relevant. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The article as it is now is very out of balance, so it may be that any rewrite will be an improvement, but rather than defining NPOV as proportionate representation, perhaps just the facts without characterization would work. That has been resisted in the past, I think, because it does not leave room for the Skeptical Dictionary treatment of the subject. Tom Butler 01:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're going to ignore all previous disputes and abandon all pretenses towards other editors when entering into this rewrite. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I may not have time to devote a lot of energy to your project, but I will try to contribute. I have witnessed this article go through a number of evolutions. If you can bring lasting stability to it, I applaud you. - LuckyLouie 19:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions for editors

message: Now that we have the recent Arbitration under out belts, let's try and edit this article in the normal way.  At least give it a chance. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It won't work if we go about it the same old way. We need to do a total rewrite the same we did for the Parapsychology article. Wikidudeman (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We didn't do anything like a total re-write of the Parapsychology article.  And now that ArbCom has worked out the principles, I think it will work.  Anyway, let's give it a try; the reason is that aside from a small issue of WEIGHT, there doesn't seem to be much wrong with the current article.  So a few minor changes such as I've been making should do it.  Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The Arbcom only re-enforced current policies and issued warnings to specific users. It did not work out any principles in regards to how these types of articles are edited. If you don't want to participate in the re-write draft as we did with the Parapsychology article then you're welcomed to sit it out, however if the other editors of this page want to go forward with it then that's what we'll do. Wikidudeman (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia requires consensus.  I think it would be well if editors would read the ArbCom, so that they will know how to apply it- to EVP and other articles.  What do you think ought to be changed in the EVP article, that you wish to re-write it? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've read the Arbcom. Nothing there applies to EVP or any other article that current policies don't already cover. The Arbcom simply clarified what current policies already say and issued a few warnings to some editors. What do I think should be changed? I don't know yet, I haven't gone through the article carefully yet. However based on the previous heavy disputing, I would have to say a lot, especially since little has been changed since then. There was a POV tag on the article, which you removed, and your edits since then haven't really made much changes, especially changes that would get rid of potential POV if it were there. I'll wait for other editors, especially those who were very active in the past, until I decide to invest any time into working on a rewrite. Wikidudeman (talk) 08:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you haven't seen the changes the ArbCom made.  They are large, though only a few apply to this page.  So I guess we'll see if other editors think there is a need for a major re-write.  I don't. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 09:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As he's noted before, he has seen the ArbCom changes and participated in discussions on those pages, as have many of us who contributed to those proceedings. If someone who knew nothing about the subject found this page, they would be mislead. Consequently, a rewrite of this article may be in order. Antelan talk 14:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed that a rewrite, at least partial, is in order here. The intro is confusing and rambling, and it's not clear what the status of this field is supposed to be. I agree that the WDM exercise was one-sided (no fault of his), since the skeptics (ScienceApologist and others) had already left the project. Antelan talk 18:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WDM, Antelan, and VanTucky are skeptics, and Nealparr is neutral about the scientific validity of psi.  The parapsychology process was dominated by skeptics. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a strange characterization; it would be more accurate to say that, during the process, you generally disagreed with WDM, Antelan, and VenTucky, and you generally agreed with Nealparr. At any rate, you left out Annalisa Ventola and yourself from the analysis. Antelan talk 21:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Tom Butler, You're free to introduce new changes to the current Parapsychology article and were free to engage in the discussions during it's re-write as you are currently welcome to participate in this current proposed re-write. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Martin, The fact that most of the contributors to the re-write were skeptical of Parapsychology isn't my fault. I invited about a dozen people and only a few showed up. The same has been done for this proposed re-write. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know it wasn't any of your fault (: Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's also inaccurate, as he left out Tom Butler, Annalisa Ventola, and himself; and his characterization of Nealparr, who ran a paranormal magazine, is also within the "gray area" of veracity. Antelan talk 22:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another try

message: I took that tag out.  I have a hunch it was put there by Davkal, and he isn't here. I don't see any major POV bias in the article, except a small WEIGHT issue in one section. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally disputed

message: Just so everyone is clear on WP:V, a fundamental policy on Wikipedia:
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."
Per policy, let's make sure that we're accurately reflecting what the sources say and that we're using reliable sources. Antelan talk 21:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources are necessary for controversial statements.  The statement you just removed is actually  very non-controversial.  If you're challenging it, that's fine.  But if you believe it to be true -and I did not think it was remotely controversial- I think you should leave it in. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My edit summary explained my objection to the statement, and yes, I think a blanket statement like that requires reliable sourcing. Antelan talk 21:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit summary said "Removing sentence #2. The source flat-out didn't say that", which is not an explanation unless you think the statement is controversial.  non-controversial statements do not need sources. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was obvious through my statements and actions that I am challenging that statement. Antelan talk 21:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, one can assume that people looking for info on this subject will, as you say, be "not exactly knowledgeable about the subject." Let's respect them by respecting Wikipedia policies. Antelan talk 22:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources and WP:V 

message: I combined the one-sentence second paragraph explaining the non-paranormal viewpoint with the first paragraph. This way, all of the explanations are given in one place. Martinphi, you reverted this change; however, I believe my version to be more neutral. Martinphi, if you actually believe that separating those explanations is truly neutral, then let's rearrange them and put the non-paranormal explanations first since doing so would be equally neutral. Do you see my concern with separating them now? Antelan talk 21:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, paragraphing is for changes of subject. You can't put the non-paranormal first, because that's not the way it is in the body of the article, and the normal ones are responses to the paranormal ones.  There is no issue, one way or the other, of neutrality. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. I'll rearrange things to implement this neutral change. I presume you won't object, given that you just rearranged some material yourself. Antelan talk 22:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll object if it is not in accordance with what I just said.  If you mean re-arranging them in the body of the article, that won't work.  The normal are responses to the paranormal.  It was that way before, and we agreed to re-arrange it.  Please wait for consensus. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had already rearranged before you responded. The vast majority of those explanations aren't simply a response to the paranormal - they're legitimate explanations in their own right. The ones that are simply responses to paranormal claims could go under their own section, or could even be eliminated. Antelan talk 22:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justify giving prominence to paranormal views 

message: Antelan, what you just did is non-consensual, disruptive editing.  If you keep this up, that tag is going to be on the article forever and ever.  Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why we need a total re-write, as we did the Parapsychology article. Disputes like this are bound to occur with the current state of this article. They will continue to occur and little progress will be made. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see only veiled threats and ad hominem remarks, but nothing constructive that I'm supposed to respond to. Martinphi, do you have any content point to raise? Antelan talk 22:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted to the original version because we simply don't have a well sourced informed skeptical commentary (i.e. someone who has studied the topic for more than about 15 minutes) to support the supposed naturalistic (non)explanations. It is therefore ludicrous to cite those views before the article has a chance to state in clear terms why the subject is notable and why there should be an article about it. That is, there is an article about EVP because it is an alleged paranormal phenomenon. That claim must be made first.Davkal 22:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted back per my points above. Your views of the naturalistic explanations are precisely that: your own. The subject is notable because people hear them, and the history discusses this very nicely. There is an article about EVP because people hear it. You think it's paranormal. Others don't. It's notable either way; therefore, we don't assert who is right - we just explain both sides. Antelan talk 22:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please don't edit war. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikidudeman - spare us the "Hello, I'm Switzerland" act - it doesn't wash. Antelan - perhaps you could point to the thorough studies you have in mind that offer naturalistic explanations. All I can see are a few pseudosceptic "experts" on everything offering up a few pseudoexplanations and ignoring almost everything that actually makes EVP a bit puzzling.Davkal 22:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikidudeman, you are welcome to enter into this discussion of content, but I'm confident that Davkal and I are aware of Wikipedia rules by this point and don't need a reminder regarding edit warring. Davkal, I'll note that (in order of your points on your edit "summary") (1) Yes, the section of this talk page that I referenced actually explains that many of the naturalistic explanations are not simply responses to paranormal claims, and (2) sourcing has nothing to do with the order of material. My edits only rearranged material, and did not add any of what you are objecting to. Perhaps you should talk to the person who put it there in the first place. Update: I looked through the section, and those statements are sourced. Is this just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Antelan talk 22:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm objecting to the order, not the content. The reason your order is wrong (for the third time in as many minutes) is that these are not in depth studies of the subject that have offered naturalistic explanations. These are the same few pseudosceptics (Carroll, Shermer, CSICOP) who pop up with a ready "refutation" every time anything remotely paranormal is mentioned. It is ludicrous to put their responses first.Davkal 22:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think the 2002 book on digital signal processing ("A practical guide for engineers and scientists") was printed by "pseudosceptics", to use your pejorative of favor, for discrediting the paranormal view of EVP? My point is that, again, the naturalistic explanations stand in their own right and don't need to be responses to paranormal claims. Thus, I disagree with your assertion that only one order is "right" in this article. Antelan talk 22:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Martinphi, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm disrupting Wikipedia. Sorry. Antelan talk 22:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Antelan - your supposed refutation is not a refutation. Something can be an explanation in it's right and a response. This would be the case where, for example, an explanation (in it's own right)was offered as a counter explanation in response to an explanation that had previously been offered. Response refers to the order and causal history of an explanation - not its content. And this is the case with EVP re paranormal versus pseudosceptical speculation about its origin. Secondly, I note you have already tried to label me as a believer in the paranormal nature of EVP. I am not. I believe EVP is a puzzling phenomenon and I don't think the pseudosceptical arguments put forward by Carroll, Shermer et al (based on no serious study) deal with any of the more puzzling aspects of the phenomenon. I therefore feel it is inappropriate to to put those responses prior to a clear statement of what EVP has always been suggested to be by those most closely involved with it - ie. a paranormal phenomenon.Davkal 22:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is clearly not a discussion. I say "those are explanations" and you say "yes, they are explanations, but to me they are responses so they come second." Then, I say "here's an engineering textbook that is used as a source of these explanations" and you say "lots of other sources are bad". You and I are not getting through to each other. I'll just put this up for peer review so we can get some outside feedback and our opinions will, thankfully, be irrelevant. Update: a peer review would be untimely if WDM is actually going to rewrite this, so I'll wait on that. Antelan talk 23:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If you believe a rewrite similar to that of the Parapsychology article is in order then please add your name to the "Willing" list below so that I can know if there is a consensus. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: FWIW, User:Antelan's edits are no more disruptive or non-consensual than User:Martinphi's edits. Both explained their edits on the Talk page. Although I believe one of them provides much better edit summaries. - LuckyLouie 23:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Antelan

message: Should this article go through a re-write the same way the Parapsychology article did? By this I mean I re-write the article and then invite everyone to the talk page of the draft to propose changes. Who is willing to do this? 
-------
*Willing
:Wikidudeman (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I'll comment on your draft. - LuckyLouie 23:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: OK Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 02:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ante</font>lan has agreed as well. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Tom Butler 18:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: WDM, I just don't think this article has the number of non-disruptive editors necessary to make it work. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like a challenge. However I won't put time into it until most of the people agree to do so as well. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll on draft re-write proposal 

message: I can appreciate Wikidudeman's attempt to steer discussions, but since edit warring has already broken out, I'm for dealing with the situation at present.  (Not to mention the fact that my experience with wholesale rewrites of articles, particularly in the absence of someone acting as a mediator, is not encouraging.)  In general, I tend to prefer the version that Antelan is seeking to preserve, than the one Davkal is reverting to.  I think it's of more value to the lay reader. That's not to say that there aren't worthwhile things (or less than useful things) in each version, but taken as a whole I prefer Ant's.  — e. ripley\talk 00:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe going about editing this article the conventional way will be effective or will make progress. Concerning the amount of contention between the editors I believe the best method is to totally rewrite it and give all willing contributors a say in how it turns out. Once everyone is on agreement as to how the article should be then we replace this article with the rough draft. Of course you're all free to go about it anyway you choose. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno.  All willing contributors have a say in how the article is now, so the only difference is trying to rewrite what we've got now from scratch.  I hate to poo poo someone trying to improve things, but surely there are areas in the article where all can agree as it stands.  I'm not sure a wholesale rewrite will mean less arguing, and may in fact mean removing areas of text that people already agree on. Regardless, I'm willing to see how it goes if you want to go down that path. — e. ripley\talk 00:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll wait a few days to see how things work out before I decide to invest time into it. The same thing that is happening here was happening at the Parapsychology article until it was rewritten the way I'm proposing and now it's a Good Article which is very stable. If you'd be willing to participate in the rewrite and make proposed changes once it's done then add your name above to the "Willing" area. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I'd really be that active, I've indicated textually here what my thoughts are so I'll just leave it at that. — e. ripley\talk 12:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With Antelan gone, and if Davkal behaves himself, we might be able to make some progress. But I don't know what people actually want to change. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut to the chase 

message: SheffieldSteel just made some very nice changes, which I think, for one thing, took care of the objection Antelan had.  Paranormal should be contrasted with normal, and natural should be contrasted with supernatural. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SheffieldSteel

message: Since you all seem to be making at least some progress in talking, I'll come back in a week or two to see how everything is progressing. If little progress has been made then maybe we can go ahead with my rewrite proposal. I'm going to unwatch this and work on other pages, so if anyone has any questions they should add them to my talk page. See you all around. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, see you (: Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your offer of help. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 04:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been 8 days and no progress has been made with this article. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, a lot seems to have happened.  First, we know that the current article is stable.  Second, there have been no objections to the new proposed lead -even though people were informed about it- and such a long silence seems to indicate a consensus that it is good.  So, things seem to be progressing quite well. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware that silence indicates consensus. - LuckyLouie 22:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review WP:CONSENSUS, first paragraph. I'm instituting an additional level here, because the topic is controversial. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'm instituting an additional extension of time for the same reason. - LuckyLouie 23:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Technically silence could mean consensus, but it could also mean that the people who would normally object are no longer paying attention to the article. Wikidudeman (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put a heads up on a couple of talk pages of those I thought might not be paying attention. No response till yesterday. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 10:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'll be back...