Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Archive 12

message: This edit eliminated the issue of  undue weight which the  article formerly gave to the minority view.  To quote WP:WEIGHT:
"Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject...Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text...Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint,"
I think the article now adheres to these guidelines.  In saying this I am ignoring the fact that most of the sources in the Normal explanations and skepticism section seem to be original research. I think this is a good opportunity to ignore all rules, because otherwise, in my opinion, the skeptical viewpoint would not be sufficiently represented, due to the fact that it has virtually no scientific sources.  Please note especially in this connection that "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject." –––Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weight

message: This article should be at least a Good article by now. I would suggest you nominate it for GA and get some input on it on how to reach GA status. Fix all of the problems pointed out by the GA reviewers and hopefully you can get it to GA status in a week or so. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article? 

message: 69.179.41.128, check your electronics. There are analog stages in the recorders and they are very susceptible to RF contamination before and after the A/D - D/A. I can trot out a few testimonials if you like.  Tom Butler 11:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RF Contamination in Audio Recorders 

message: * Dump the quotes in the skepticism section and actually write something.
* There's three different sections devoted to "research" or "investigation", combine them into a full narrative.
* The most notable idea regarding EVPs (pro- and con-) is that EVPs are mostly subjective and interpretive. In other words, the whole phenomena is largely in the ear of the beholder. That needs to be covered in-depth and prominently. It's not a skeptical section because believers in EVP hear very different things as well and it's really a matter of opinion on the source and meaning -- like clear pictures of the Virgin Mary on a piece of toast. It's easily interpreted as the Virgin Mary (looks like her), but is it paranormal or coincidence? That idea needs to be a central idea.
::::This is true of some EVP, not others- there are many instances where the interpretation is not subjective at all.  Recent studies showed that the interpretation of even the hissy whispery white-noise EVPs aren't totally subjective.  EVP is a wide range, a pyramid, with a top which is about as clear as any spoken word, and a wide bottom which is fairly subjective.  That is a concept which should be included.  I can source most of this to Fontana. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's quite a bit of material in skeptical periodicals, encyclopedias, and such. Peer reviewed journals probably ignore it, but there's other sources reliable enough to explain the opinion of skeptics without stating them as facts. The quotes already here can also be paraphrased or reworded so that they're not actual quotes. --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other stuff

message: I made some organizational changes.  There are a few text changes as well, especially under popular culture- added some material in the organizations section.  The only changes to the rest of the text are a few bits introducing material, or minor changes which were needed to make the new arrangement work.  But nothing which is likely to raise hackles, unless in the new Organizations section- where I added in the AA-EVP. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Organizational changes

message: The physical explanations of Interference, Auditory pareidolia or Rorschach Audio, Apophenia, Capture errors, Processing artifacts and Hoaxes are all related to experiential or procedural explanations, rather than a phenomenal one. In the context of EVP, the perception of phenomena resulting from these would be considered "false positives" and most experimenters employ practices to avoid them.
By definition, the unexpected sounds and utterances of EVP must have an origin. Since we do not have a sufficiently robust empirical bases of evidence explaining who or what the cause is/are, a proper theses on the subject should probably refer to the cause as something like an initiating influence, communicating component or something equally abstract for general discussion. You want a thing not a who.
In the communications from nonphysical entities and/or recorded thoughts of physical people explanation, the term, communicator would probably be about as neutral as we can be and still discuss the point. However, a communicator is an entity and in the superpsi, and quantum-holographic explanations, the origin of the phenomena is thought to be a form of residual energy containing the information accessed by the experimenter and deposited in the recording via PK. In these, the proper term would be more like initial record or residual information.
The problem is that reducing the subject to a one-page article, and trying to include all of the "ya-buts," make it necessary to generalize. When you do that, you open the door to such nonsensical generalizations as spirit communication, which is fine for a faith-based article, but the term automatically requires someone to counter it with a science-based argument. That is where we have been for the last year or so. 
Perhaps the best thing to do now is to drop the categories and simply say Proposed Explanations, or something equally neutral. I have no problem at all with including what is now the skeptical view, except to call it a skeptical view. In fact, we all struggle with those points every day and to think otherwise would be to say some people are not intelligent enough to consider such possibilities.
However, if you are going to keep the terminology of skeptical, and clearly the Non-paranormal section is elaborated on in the Skepticism section, Martin is right in that he probably should not try to fix it. On the other hand, it makes no sense to let a skeptic decide how the more paranormal explanations are worded. I include the view that spirit cannot be studied by science as a skeptical view.  Tom Butler 18:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming the source of EVP