Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 18

TOC changes

On invitation, I've perviewed the article. I think your on your way to good article status. I've made some slight changes to the TOC, which you may change back if you feel it is necessary or better the other way. My main concern here and elsewhere is readability. The word 'paranormal' is used way to much as is 'hypothesis'. The opening paragraphs should focus first on the general concept and then go into skepticism by science or others. The article as a whole should focus on the general research and concept with the skeptics or scientific view holding its own in its own section which pretty much exists for the most part. I'm open to your thoughts on my observations and to working with the editors here to achieve a 'good article' status as you desire. On references - article seems well referenced. --Northmeister 00:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I like your changes. I had to change one thing, because in science an hypothesis is different from a theory. You were mixing up the common usage of "theory" which means "idea" with "hypothesis" which in science and popular usage both means "tentative idea." But in science the word "theory" means an idea which has some good data to back it upj.... and there ain't none here.

I re-arranged some stuff in the lead and did a little re-writing- see if it is any better. If not, then it should be reverted because the former lead had consensus. I'll go through and see if the word "paranormal" can be replaced sometimes. It needs to be in the lead because it serves to frame the issue, per the recent ArbCom [1]. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll look over the changes. --Northmeister 02:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed the References to notes while creating a Reference section for major works used in this article. --Northmeister 02:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool, so what's next? What needs to be done for readability? We're also re-formatting the refs [2]. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You should add the major works used in this article to the References in standard format with the ISBN numbers etc. I like the changes you made to the opening. Will have to go through each section to see what I can do for readability. Not much time tonight for that though. Will do some tomorrow. --Northmeister 02:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Eliminated ref. section. I see no major need if only one work is used. The notes takes care of the rest. Sleep now - will catch up later. --Northmeister 02:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There's more than one major work used as a ref, but whatever you think. Further reading might take care of this? You're being a great help (: ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed some words and tried to link Jurgenson - to no avail. We must not have an article on this person. Feel free to change what you like if you feel the original was better. Not sure if the Edison stuff works where it is. But, not sure what to do with it either. --Northmeister 22:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I like your changes. You're making real improvements. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I change some of the TOC around. The best format is to present the EVP research which has more often relied on paranormal explanations - while presenting its critics who offer more scientic or skeptical conclusions - thus criticism. I redid the History section putting in subsections along major lines of research ie. "Raudive voices" or "Spiricom" that readers may wish to refer to when looking at the page. Redid - Popular Interest divorcing it from Organizations - which might be best last - not sure. I encourage editors to revert any changes thought not helpful - to see where we stand with the TOC. My thoughts center on: History - Explanations(or Paranormal explanations) - Criticism - Popular Interest - Organizations - etc. Something along those lines. --Northmeister 00:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I like everything you've done so far. I was hoping to avoid saying "criticism." As long as we make it clear that mainstream science has ignored EVP, we hopefully might be able to avoid casting the article as a debate between skeptics and believers. I just summarized and then took out a bunch of quotes which were genuine criticism, as opposed to explanation. I was hoping to change the tone of the article away from this tension, and into just stating the facts [3]. So anyway, consider keeping the headline "Non-paranormal explanations," unless it really interferes with things. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed the opening around a bit for flow. However, feel free to tweek it further or restore the original if that works better for you. I comment on the history section below - interested in what we can do to improve this section. --Northmeister 01:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fix the Refs please

Someone please format the refs. ASAP. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

They look good to me. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant references. Not EL's. I've changed it. The References need formating. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we're doing it. Gradually. It's a boring job which I at least wouldn't mind sharing, and I'll do a little every day till they're done. I'm using the generator you gave me a link to, here. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do to help as well. --Northmeister 21:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We've got 3 people working on fixing the references and 3 days later and still they aren't all formated? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you format the refs on the Non-Paranormal explanations section? ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

History section

I've begun work on the history section. The Spricom subsection should mention George Meek [creation of the machine or at least contain more on him]. Right now I am using internet sources - but there must be better references to use instead. Here is something from Professor David Fontana on ITC Journal website:

• This new era of research dates from the work of Friedrich Jurgenson in 1959, with his discovery of voices on an audio tape used to record bird song, and from the subsequent research of a number of careful investigators such as Raudive, Bonner, Alsop, Schneider, Senkowski, Bender, Estep, Cass and many others. But it was not until 1977, when American George Meek built a machine (the 'spiricom') which allegedly allowed two-way conversations with the dead that researchers moved from the reception of single words and short sentences to lengthy and coherent dialogue. Meek's machine impressed many (although after an encouraging start it mysteriously failed to produce further results), and Koenig's ultrasound device, first demonstrated in 1983, went even further in that it produced voices, high technicians testified as inexplicable by normal means, over the air at Radio Luxembourg.

This seems like a reasonable guide for our history section, in so much as covering the research done in the EVP or ITC field. From what I've read, its becoming apparent that although EVP is more commonly known, it is considered a sub-field of ITC now; rather than as I thought; the other way around. We might want to consider moving everything to ITC with EVP as a subsection - but not sure of this. We should look into Bonner, Alsop, Schenider, Senkowski, Koenig etc. to see if they are worthy of inclusion in the history of this subject. --Northmeister 00:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the field is really quite huge. I have Fontana's book Is There an Afterlife, and also There Is No Death and There Are No Dead. I also have The Scole Experiment. But I don't have much time to use them right now, as compared to the requirements of a good history section.

I'm hoping that once we get this into Good Article status, that it will be worth putting in text. If you look over the history, it has been destroyed again and again by edit warring and extreme debate. So I never tried to do much in terms of adding text.

EVP is a sub-field of ITC, but EVP makes up almost all of what is out there. So I think at this point unless somebody wants to do a lot of research right away, we might as well keep ITC as a sub section. Then when and if ITC is expanded, we can put it off into another article. Do you want to do that much research? Alternatively, we could rename to ITC, and then just make the article mostly about EVP- since the history wouldn't have to be changed much. Visual ITC I think has only become significant recently. But for ITC we'd have to cover what's his name, Ted Serios, Scole, and who knows what else. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your observations are quite understandable. As long as you can provide the background material; I'll work with you on the history section. I've tried to update myself on the 'edit wars' here in the past. But, I see no legitimate objection to including a serious chronology of the major work into EVP/ITC into the history section. On your observations about ITC, I think your right in your apprehension, although your last suggestion might be workable - hence we build an ITC article up starting with its major component EVP and add in the Scole Experiment etc. If the ITC article becomes to large we can break it off then into sub-articles if necessary. I'll leave the choice up to you and others though. --Northmeister 02:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If I had my way, I'd get EVP up to GA status, then work on the ITC section till it got too large for this article. EVP is going to end up with an article to itself anyway, because there is enough for an article on other forms of ITC. But one link which might help is [4]. We could follow this as a guide. I suggest we stick to EVP for now then start an ITC article and do a history in paragraphs, and if it seems right we could then integrate with the EVP article easily, just by inserting the paragraphs at the right point in time.

I don't have access to a library, and I have a hunch that such would be necessary to really do a good job of ITC..... dunno. Also see [5]

[6] ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. Your links are really helpful. Let's work with this information. Per, the references - Are you working on those to bring them up to par? If so I'll stay away from that to work on the article's content and look. --Northmeister 02:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm planning to work on the Paranormal explanations section references. Go ahead with your good work. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll work some more tomorrow. Late here. --Northmeister 03:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternative name of article

This article seems to expand into the topic of communicating with the dead with any technological means through electronic communication. I would propose that this article's name be changed to correspond to that. I would suggest that we also expand on attempts to communicate with the dead via television, computers, etc as well. I previously suggested merging this article with 'Instrumental transcommunication' but that's pretty unclar. Per the naming conventions we should use the most encompassing and popular name. What is the most common term used to communicate with the dead and is also most encompassing? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to change per the discussion above. After reading through sources - it's become apparent that EVP is part of a larger ITC research field - although EVP is the more commonly known term. Martins' observations do make sense however, considering that there is much more material on EVP than ITC at the moment. Either way would work for me. As to the fact tag, I'll work on addressing this unless another editor gets to it first. --Northmeister 15:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

We've been talking about that above. For now, my impression is that EVP is the best, to have the ITC section expanded in the future. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Article improvement discussion

Whats other users thoughts on "Organizations" and "Popular Interests" sections? I feel they should simply be summarized much like "Organizations" at the Parapsychology article. Gives a better feel to the article. --Northmeister 01:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be OK also, although there are much fewer main ones to cover in this article. Here is a link: [7]. The primary organizations are AA-EVP, SKYELAB, Il Laboratorio, ITC Journal, Verein für Transkommunikations-Forschung (VTF), Forever family, and Infinitude, according to what I've been told. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

I went ahead and nominated for GA status [8]. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a positive step. At best we'll achieve status and at the least we'll get some informative advice on moving forward. --Northmeister 22:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts (-: ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

An article in such shape as this shouldn't be nominated for GA, If you want information and advice for improving it then you should Peer Review. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll concur with that if there are still objections to references I've read below. A peer review might be best to sort out any issues that linger here. Martin, you might want to recinde the GA nomination until we work on this some more and ferret out any problems. In time we'll achieve the GA status. I noticed others engaged at the Parnormal Project in editing. It might be a good idea to get some of those editors involved here to help out. Any thoughts? --Northmeister 00:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've gone over the references extensively, and I do not see any problems. Fontana is the very least problematic source in the entire article. The other sources, such as the AA-EVP, are used with attribution, as are the critical sources such as those for Rorschach Audio. There are only a few sources I haven't gone over. Personally, I think it is amazing that an article on EVP has been sourced this well. Although there are quite a few EVP experts out there who haven't been sourced, I don't think the article needs them. If that is the only objection, I'll leave it up for GA. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Many of the sources cited in this article don't seem to meet the guidelines of reliable sources. One of the most cited sources is a book called "Is There an Afterlife: A Comprehensive Review of the Evidence." by someone named "David Fontana". How is this a reliable resource? What credentials does the author have that makes it reliable to be used as a source for all of the claims it's being used for? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

To quote his biography: "Professor David Fontana is a Ph.D. in psychology, and is currently Distinguished Visiting Fellow at Cardiff University in South Wales, Great Britain, and Professor of Transpersonal Psychology at Liverpool John Moores University, also in Great Britain. In addition he has held invited professorships at the Universities of Minho and of Algarve in Portugal. He is a Fellow of the British Psychological Society, a Chartered Psychologist and a Chartered Counselling Psychologist and the author of 26 books on psychology translated into 25 languages." [9] - He seems to be reliable enough for usage. What are your thoughts? --Northmeister 00:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

He's a psychologist yet he's being sourced for historical and other non-psychological assertions. He might be considered a good source as far as psychology goes, but that's about it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

He's also studied EVP as the link above shows. However, I've not looked at how his material is being referenced - so I can't comment on its use in the article at the moment. What specifically do you object to for usage? Maybe we can go from there. I'll also look over the article for background. --Northmeister 01:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

He's a parapsychologist and one of the best sources there- probably the best in a "mainstream" encyclopedia. If we're going to question sources to this extent, we aren't going to have a critical section at all, or maybe one paragraph. We have to go with the best sources, being aware that this is a fringe subject. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've looked the article over for clarity on your objections. This link at Amazon is the best I can do as far as observing the books use [10] in so much as whether there is coverage for the use in history or how it is referenced here. We know that the book does contain material ont he subject. As far as the exact pages used and the exact material being used - Martin should be able to provide that for us. I can go to the library to see if I can't pick this book up and peruse its usage - but I don't have the book myself. My best suggestion is to have Martin list clearly the pages used in the book in references and to offer some snippets on its use here for discussion to address Wikidudemans concerns. --Northmeister 01:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at how the book is used in the article, and if I wasn't working too fast, it isn't used for anything but some mundane dates and facts. We don't need exact page numbers, and I can get -if anyone wants it- a range of pages to cite in all those refs.

WDM, you keep saying there is something wrong with the article, but only say "lots" when I asked. Let's see what others think of it- looks to be in good shape to me. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It would help in the reference format to include the page numbers of what your citing. Thats helps editors in the process of ensuring a good quality article. I really think Wikidudeman is doing the article a favor by addressing such concerns. I agree with you about Fontana being a good reliable source for this subject considering his study of it and his credentials. --Northmeister 02:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What credentials must one have to be a "parapsychologist" aside from being a psychologist? Moreover, The sourced is/was being used to cite historical assertions as well as other non-psychological assertions. Pretty much all the sourced is used for is non-psychological assertions. Example: It's being used to cite when "concerted research" was taken in the 20th century. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

One must be an expert on the subject. What is the problem you see here? WDM, if you apply this standard, there will be no criticism section at all. That isn't a threat, only to say that if we look at sources this much, we don't have an article. Here is another quote:

"His interest in psychical research goes back to boyhood. He was co-opted to the Council of the British Society for Psychical Research in 1992, elected to Council in 1993, served as President from 1996 to 1999, and is now a Vice-President and Chairman of the Society's Survival Research Committee. He has been investigating mediumship for many years, and takes a particular interest in poltergeist cases and in physical phenomena, writing widely on the subject. He worked with Montague Keen and Arthur Ellison on the extensive investigation of the phenomena witnessed at Scole in Britain, and was one of the co-authors of 'The Scole Report' (Proceedings of the society for Psychical Research 58, Part 220). " ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 14:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well you didn't really answer my questions or address my points. Why is he being used as a reference for a historical claim, even assuming he is reliable as a reference for "phychical research"? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

He researches EVP. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 14:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I research plants but that doesn't make me a reliable resource when it comes to botany. If this is the best source you have in this article then I would highly suggest you do some further searching for better references. Many(most) of them seem to be unreliable. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

He's a great source. Read WP:RS. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 14:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Point out to me where WP:RS agrees that it's a great source. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[11] ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 14:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What part of that link agrees that sources such as that are reliable? Please clarify. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Wikidudeman. You're making broad statements without being clear about your objections. Fontanta from what I can make out has extensively written about and studied paranormal related subjects, is widely published, and since this is a paranormal related subject not accepted by mainstream science I do not see why he is not a reliable source. Could you be more clear about other sources you contend rather than blanket "Many(most) of them seem to be unreliable." - That would help Martin out in understanding your objections and help me to understand why you object to Fontana in particular. On the issue of his use in the history section, I suggest Martin provide us with pages below to reference that use, and also quotes to look over. At least then we can understand its usage. Wikidudeman, I don't understand your objections to Fontana in light of WP:RS, could you elaborate? --Northmeister 14:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Northmeister, Firstly, Wikipedia can't automatically lower it's standards because the subject being discussed isn't mainstream science. The source discussed above is 1. Being used to cite historical assertions. 2. The person being used as a source is a psychologist not a historian. 3. The person being sourced has an "interest" in the subject and is thus reliable as a source? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, one doesn't have to be a historian to be a reliable source on this subjects history. If the book in question, is reliable, and that book details the history of EVP, then I do not see a problem. We know Fontana is a Professor of Pyschology, we know that he has studied the phenomena of EVP and has at least one published work that addresses this subject. If the work is being used properly, there is nothing wrong with its use. I share your concern, I think from my observations, about ensuring that articles on the paranormal be labeled as such and are not written as if they are accepted by the scientific community. I also feel that skeptics and rationalists opinions of the matter should be included in the articles for balance WP:NPOV. There are numerous subjects including Ghosts, UFOs, etc. that are disputed by science or not covered by them. These subjects are legitimate to cover at Wikipedia because of notability as a field of study outside of science and sometimes (in the case of parapyschology) within. It's important to keep the issues clear, NPOV, and backed up by reliable sources from those who have studied these topics pro and con. Your objection to Fontana as a source considering his credentials as a scholar and study of the subject, is baffeling to me. The interpretation you give of WP:RS would require editors to simply ignore any researcher in any paranormal field who is not explicitly a Historian for History sections; Scientist for research sections etc. That would do more damage than good and lead to endless disputes that are not helpful. If you feel Fontana's book is not reliable, or that he is being misrepresented then I can understand that. But I don't see how. You've helped to make parapyschology into what looks like a very good article. So I trust your trying to be helpful. Maybe I'm misreading your comments. It's hard to tell how you feel the article should look and read. Martin: I think it best to show both of us, what specific 'history' related material your using from Fontana's book by giving excerpts below - just to set the record straight on whats being used. --Northmeister 16:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Baffling is a good word. I'll get the page numbers and/or ranges later, with quotes if needed. There is one error I'll correct immediately- I think it was mine, because I thought telegraph when Fontana said wireless. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 16:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Northmeister, So far I've seen no reason to believe that this individual is "reliable" as a resource. Having a degree in psychology, and being "interested' in EVP makes one a reliable resource on historical matters? That makes no sense to me at all. Not only do I see no reason to believe that this individual is a reliable secondary source for EVP, I definitely see no reason to believe this individual is a reliable secondary resource on the history of science. Just because some might be a reliable resource for Psychology doesn't mean they are a reliable resource for scientific history or even EVP. That would be like using a computer scientist as a resource for an assertion on Human Anatomy. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Professor Fontana has studied the results of EVP research for a number of years..." - This statement indicates that Dr. Fontana may have background knowledge of EVP and its history. It doesn't state he only has an passing 'interest' in the matter. I see no reason to discount his knowledge of the field's history in his books; or the careful research he might have done therein since he is a trained PhD regardless of the subject he is trained in, he would be careful about what he has to say. You've objected to this gentleman as a source - on grounds that he is not a historian. That simply is not a legitimate objection with WP:RS, considering his study of the subject. --Northmeister 18:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a leap to conclude the man has knowledge of the history of communicating with the dead via technical means simply because he has studied the results of EVP research. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not concluding anything. A non-reliable resource would be one from those who have studied EVP and self-published their material for example, or from a source with scant references to research done or the work of others in the field - in other words it is simply their assumption without the proper research methods. This train of objections (unless you have a good reason to object to Fontana's book as not being particularly sourced for history or whatnot) is not within the scope of WP:RS; and it does not move us forward with this article. --Northmeister 12:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain something. There are two basic types of sources. Primary sources and secondary sources. A primary sources is "from the horses mouth" so to say and includes direct experiments, eyewitness accounts and testimony or assertions by individuals. Secondary sources are sources which include compilations of primary sources organized in a specific way and often included commentary. Dr. Fontana has credentials and a history in Psychology and might be considered a reliable primary or secondary source for it. However he is being used as a secondary source for scientific history for which he has no credentials or reputation. He is reliable when it comes to psychology however not when it comes to the history of science in general. He can be used for one area of specialty however he can't be used for other areas which he has no reputation. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is about EVP, which for all extent and purposes is a paranormal subject; not studied by most in mainstream science. Therefore paranormal experts, especially those in the field of EVP, who have published credible well referenced material are acceptable under WP:RS. We do not need to assume anything, but simply check the source for the material that is being used and for his credentials overall. What is not acceptable are self-published books that have no credible research or references behind them. It is not WP:RS policy to insist that the sources be from science alone or have a degree in "Science-History". Dr. Fontana has been involved in the study of EVP, I see no reason to discount his inclusion, based on WP:RS. Again, this process is not helping the article but simply causing unecessary dispute over a reliable source. --Northmeister 14:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well we seem to be going in circles. I've requested a comment on this and hopefully we'll receive some comments from various other users not unfamilar with this article. You keep saying that our discussing the source isn't helpful? Actually pretty much all discussions are helpful. If you don't want to discuss things with other editors then you're free to stop discussing them, however this is the wikipedia process. You think it's reliable for the assertion it's being used to cite, I disagree. We discuss it. That's how wikipedia works. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Since we are at an impasse over proper interpretation of WP:RS, I've asked for input from those involved at it's talk page. As far as Wikipedia process; I am all for discussion, but not to the point where there is such an impasse that it holds up proper editing of the article over interpretation of a standard like WP:RS. As far as what the source is used for - I don't think that is our discussion at the present moment. It's about how the 'reliable source' policy is to be applied. I really think your defining it, on good faith, incorrectly. --Northmeister 14:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally it's better to get opinions from the community at large, not just those on this talk page. As far as "holding up the editing process", no such thing is occurring here. I'm not removing the source. I'm not reverting anything. You're free to edit as you please. I'm just stating my opinions here. The source is still there, I've never removed it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as this sentence goes:

Concerted research on technical means of communication grew rapidly in the latter part of the 20th century (Fontana, p. 366).[6]

it is not properly referenced, no need for (Fontana, p. 366) within the article. It refers to the previous sentence on communication with the dead. I don't really see a need for the sentence myself. Is this what you've been objecting too; or is there more uses? --Northmeister 15:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's double cited, meaning the "(Fontana, p. 366)" part is redundant. However the sentence is helpful for the article, but I don't find Fontana a good source for it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with another source for this sentence. Do you know of any that might be more sufficient? I would simply replace it. Martin: Maybe another source would be better for this sentence. --Northmeister 15:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I don't know of any, But If anyone has his book they could just use the source he used (if he used one). Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The reference to Fontana 366, while the page # isn't needed in the article, refers to

"These initial efforts included seances and other non-technological methods.[5] With the creation of the wireless, this concept of communication with the dead expanded to the use of modern technology to achieve contact. Concerted research on technical means of communication grew rapidly in the latter part of the 20th century (Fontana, p. 366).[6]"

Fontana is a secondary source, a monograph, and is WP:RS per:

"Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims. A journalist's story about a traffic accident or a Security Council resolution is a secondary source, assuming the journalist was not personally involved in either. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, is a secondary source." [12]

This is really the end of the issue as far as I am concerned. Comments from editors who are uninvolved in the article would be welcome. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I am an "uninvolved" editor. I have followed the discussion up to this point. I have to agree with Martin. The guideline is pretty clear about secondary sources. If we use a journalist account as a reference for subjects outside the field of jounalism, then it would seem to make sense that we could use Fontana's book as a reference on this paranormal subject. Ursasapien (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, You're assuming that Fontana uses reliable primary sources in his work. If he does then please tell me what those sources are. Secondly, It might be the "end of the issue" as far as you're concerned but It's not the end of the issues as far as I am concerned. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Electronic Voice Phenomenon Article

Aside from the obvious issues with reliable sources and fringe sources being framed as objective, I see three major problems with the present article.

Article Lead

The article lead erroneously defines EVP as legitimate technological/scientific phenomena, rather than a claim or fringe belief.

There is no recognition of "Electronic Voice Phenomena" as "speech or speech-like sounds heard on electronic devices, but not heard in the environment at the time they are recorded" found in any professional technical journals of the audio recording industry, signal processing, or electrical engineering. Neither is the term found in current academic textbooks on the subjects, such as Speech and Audio Signal Processing: Processing and Perception of Speech and Music by Ben Gold, Nelson Morgan, Nelson Morgan Instead, engineering texts refer to the condition claimed by proponents as "EVP" as Rorschach Audio, a subset of Psychoacoustics.

Outside of the paranormal community, EVP is not recognized as a legitimate phenomena. So the term "EVP" must be clearly framed in the lead as a term originated and used specifically by its proponents and researchers.

Taken care of- now defined as part of "paranormal." It really isn't a good idea to break open old arguments which were discussed ages ago. I think you should look over the archives of the talk page. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not taken care of. The defintion in the lead must be correctly identified as originated and used by its proponents and researchers. -- LuckyLouie 01:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have revised it accordingly. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above observations by LuckyLouie. LuckLouie: Do you have any possible suggestions on rewording the text in the lead? Martin: I think the observations above are legitimate and would help this article out a lot. --Northmeister 01:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I will be back to this a bit later due to time contraints. Also please restore my previous comments, as you have mistakenly deleted them when you posted your own. Thanks! - LuckyLouie 02:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Done. --Northmeister 02:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Weighting

Per WP:FRINGE, article weighting must reflect majority mainstream sources treatment of the subject. Mainstream reliable sources overwhelmingly characterize EVP as a claim, not as a legitimate phenomena.

• BBC News: "It's claimed the dead have found a new way of contacting the living...So-called "Electronic Voice Phenomena" (EVP) are supposed to be the voices of ghosts, made audible through static on the radio, or on tape recordings."

• New York Times: "believers in EVP claim it's possible"

• New York Times: "something called Electronic Voice Phenomenon, based on the belief that spirit voices communicate through radio and broadcast signals."

Fringe journals call EVP "purported" rather than a legitimate phenomenona.Journal of Scientific Exploration: "(EVP) refers to the purported manifestation of voices of the dead and other discarnate entities through electronic means."

It's clear that EVP is not a legitimate observable phenomena and is not recognized outside of the paranormal milieu. Presenting the subject as a controversial "phenomena" and offering competing "explanations" is not appropriate and highly misleading. Rather, the proponents beliefs should be accurately reported as beliefs and opinions which are at odds with mainstream majority views on the subject.

Everything is attributed. As for "purported," see the paranormal ArbCom. In terms of WEIGHT, the article is about a fringe subject, and covers that subject. It is made completely clear that the mainstream does not accept it. There is no problem of WEIGHT. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The word "purported" is not the issue. And I don't see how "attribution" solves the problem of unbalanced weighting. - LuckyLouie 01:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree again with this review, with this caveat - That the article should simply state the phenomena of EVP as it has been researched by the paranormal community - then offer a section on Criticism from the mainstream scientific community. LuckyLouie: Is that the right approach you think? Martin: Would you agree to that approach if LuckyLouie felt that it was? --Northmeister 01:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what LuckyLouie is doing here- or what has been done in the past. This kind of thing was addressed by the ArbCom, which said specifically that putting words such as "supposed" around everything is not necessary, and that framing a subject as "paranormal" or some such eliminates the need for these words in most cases (with proper attribution). And as I interpret it, LL is saying that the article should be 90+ percent criticism, because most people don't believe in EVP. This is a mis-interpretation of the rules, because what we are dealing with is opinions among those who study EVP- not among the general public or science. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

LL wants to impress upon the reader that "It's clear that EVP is not a legitimate observable phenomena." Previous versions of this article, even had the criticism before the description of the phenomenon. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we can address the idea of EVP being claimed as opposed to being accepted and see where in the article LuckyLouie feels it veers into it being presented as a scientific certainty. I agree with you about this being a paranormal subject and therefore its main coverage should take that into account. LuckyLouie: When you return, could you present the problem areas per this topic 'weight' in the article and how you would address those concerns? --Northmeister 02:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Martin, more progress will be made if you stop trying to convince people of who is and isn't "biased" and concentrate on improving the article instead. Northmeister, the article lead suffers from awkward grammar and in any case will have to be rewritten if the article body is fleshed out with further content. The lead still erroneously frames EVP as a sort of "unsolved mystery" ("various ways of explaining EVP have been proposed") rather than as a distinctly fringe belief. In the article body, more and varied proponent beliefs and adherents opinions regarding EVP should be sourced and included rather than relying solely on content from the AA-EVP. And I suggest you read the BBC and NYT and others as examples of how a neutral and credible mainstream resource (like this encyclopedia is supposed to be) presents the proponents views within the larger context of the mainstream view. More and varied criticism can also be sourced and included, and not just from individuals characterized as "skeptics". I suggest Psychoacoustics as a resource, for example. The prose of the article body as well is awkward and chopped up into lists of "explanations". A GA should exhibit a more polished narrative style throughout. It needs lots of work. -- LuckyLouie 07:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we will see what the reviewers think. The article lead makes it quite plain already that it is a fringe belief, and any further pushing of that would be making up the reader's mind for him. If Psychoacoustics uses sources which mention EVP, then we can draw from those. But we can't do Original research in Wikipedia. Looking at the article I see it has all of 2 sources, so I think that article is barren ground. I argued earlier that OR in the criticism section should be tolerated per Ignore all rules, so that the section can be fleshed out. However, if we are looking at unbalancing the article in order to make up the reader's mind in a certain direction, we will have to adhere to the rules. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 09:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Within the fields of acoustics, acoustical engineering or Psychoacoustics the so called "Electronic voice phenomena" isn't called such. These are the professional individuals who study sound for a living and they don't even call it EVP, They refer to it as "Auditory paredolia" or possibly even "human recording error". This is what it's called in the relevant fields and it should be weighted as such. The professionals who study these sorts of things don't call it EVP nor do they give any credence to the contention that it's "voices of the dead". I agree with LuckyLouie that this article is highly weighted in the support of the idea that "EVP" even exists. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This topic is about the term EVP and use thereof. It will be weighted as such because of its use by the paranormal community. What Psychoacoustics calls the term is relevant to the criticism section only. To ignore individuals with years of study of the topic as somehow not professionals in the subject is highly misleading. Science doesn't study God or religion. Are we to assume that the issues of Science with that topic are to dominate such articles? That seems to be the impression your giving me here. Since this is a paranormal topic, like religious topics, it should be treated in that manner. --Northmeister 16:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Why limit this articles scope to one specific term and then use that as a justification to weight it a specific way? Why not let the facts speak for themselves? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The WP:NOR rule is there partly because in many instances it would be easy to make up a case which we consider obvious, but which is contested within the context of the article. That is the case here. EVP researchers dispute that what they pick up is the same as your normal anomaly. It is not our place as editors to judge that they are wrong, and we therefore have to treat those sources which don't deal directly with EVP as irrelevant to the article. To quote NOR, "That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article." Emphasis added. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 16:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's our place to let the facts speak for themselves. We can say the "EVP researchers" dispute what they are recording is the same thing as "Auditory paredolia" or human error, which has the exact same attributes. However we can also say that the consensus among the actual experts in the field of acoustics is that such a thing doesn't exist. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for lawyering here, but you don't have to exclude psychoacoustics because mainstream science about psychoacoustics doesn't mention EVPs directly. If you have a skeptical expert say the effects are psychoacoustical (plenty of magazine articles interviewing experts), information about psychoacoustics and how it works is entered into the article by proxy and isn't original research. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is getting off topic a bit I think. The article is about EVP - its uses - and criticism from skeptics is appropriate in its own section as is standard Wikipedia format WP:MOS. That section should be precise, contain the best reliable material, and be in summary format. The preceding sections should be about EVP itself - what it is described to be - how it is used - where it is used - who has researched it etc. Thats the way a NPOV article emerges. There is no need for language trying to prove or disprove anything. To do so is in violation not only of WP:NPOV but WP:RS and WP:NOR all cardinal policies of Wikipedia. --Northmeister 18:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, Northmeister. And all sections should contain no language which overtly or covertly makes up the reader's mind for him. Nealparr, I agree, that is what the OR policy says: "If you have a skeptical expert say the effects are psychoacoustical (plenty of magazine articles interviewing experts), information about psychoacoustics and how it works is entered into the article by proxy and isn't original research." The only problem is that this was being presented without the skeptical expert. Without the skeptical expert, it's OR. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

The article inexplicably omits a Criticism section. There are plenty of WP:RS critics of "EVP", from Scientific American to James Randi. I suggest an appropriate criticism section be written.

-- LuckyLouie 01:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The non-paranormal section has the normal explanations, per consensus. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but this is a GA review, not a defense of consensus. And anyway, if one editor objects, there is no longer a consensus. - LuckyLouie 01:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this observation by LuckyLouie as well. Per my observations above. This is a paranormal subject afterall and should simply state what it 'EVP' is believed to be by that community - with its history and research; by the most authoritative sources available considering the subject - followed by a Criticism section which includes the material you've presented above including Randi etc. Luckylouie: Would this address your concerns above? --Northmeister 01:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If you want Randi in there, go ahead and put it. The article is about EVP, though, and shouldn't have a criticism section a mile long. We can rename non-paranormal to criticism, and cover Randi. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The criticism section should be standard for any article and not overly weighted. Since this is paranormal subject and framed as such - the material of the article is obviously going to be weighted towards those who use the term and those who have studied it from that standpoint. LuckyLouie: I think there is agreement here, and we're open to any material you can provide to improve the Criticism section. --Northmeister 02:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Northmeister. What you said also seems to address the issue of WEIGHT in the article. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is the section criticizing the methods that parapsychologist use to study these things? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have sources, put it in the criticism section. But please don't do OR. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

GA review

Oh, that was a GA review? Sorry, but you have been greatly involved in this article. We need someone to review who hasn't been involved- and who isn't biased. I'm hoping to bring in someone who is neutral on the issue of EVP, rather than someone who is part of the Rational Skepticism project which has as a goal to bring Skeptic's Dictionary into Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia:Good article candidates page says "Anyone who shows understanding of the criteria and the instructions below can review an article, as long as you are not a major contributor to the article being reviewed." ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Martin - I think LuckyLouie was trying to be helpful. I don't think it hurts the article to take up that editors suggestions and concerns and address them. If we want GA status we have to have a good stable article for the general public which covers the subject including criticism of EVP by mainstream science and skeptics alike. --Northmeister 02:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. You haven't see the chaos which was caused in this article by spurious interpretations of the Wikipedia rules which were used merely to cover the subject in a way calculated to bias the reader. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't bring them in. They come on their own accord. You need someone who hasn't been involved in any editing of this article to get someone truly neutral on the whole situation. However you can't dismiss Louie's criticism because you think he is "bias". That's an ad hominem. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Being a neutral observer who happened here by accident and then voted in your straw poll - I can see why Martin might be upset here (and having read the history here now I understand). All editors are trying to get this article right. By right, we should mean WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V together in unity. This article should also follow the standards of WP:MOS. I would advise all editors here to stay clear of personal expressions, impressing their personal agendas onto the article, and simply address the subject with clarity according to its mainstream definition. --Northmeister 19:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Who's the one calling other people bias again? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I called LuckyLouie biased. It's fine for him to be biased, as long as he doesn't try to be a GA reviewer on this article, and so long as that bias does not effect his editing or his recommendations for the article. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Martin, your campaigning on this article Talk page to convince people that certain editors are "biased" really has to stop. Your accusations of bias are ridiculous and those type of remarks only serve to reflect badly on you. Any "chaos in this article" is a result of your continuing ad hominem remarks here. Please. Stop. Now. - LuckyLouie 23:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you were trying to respond to the above, which was a response to WDM. You are quite wrong that I have caused chaos in this article. Nor have I attacked you. I made it plain that for reasons of bias and authorship, your GA review wasn't applicable to this article. Please also note that when I say "you are biased" that is merely shorthand for saying your suggestions and editing have been biased. That's all I'll say on this subject, except to ask you to read WP:NPA. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Martin, if you want other editors to help out here and achieve GA - regardless of past disputes - you have to take the criticism less personally. This goes for all editors. Everyone in some form has a 'bias'. What's important is come together as a team and work out an article that is suitable to all within reason. That's what WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V are meant to do. All Editors: Writing this article shouldn't be so controversial. Simply state what EVP is, how it is used - doing so in a neutral manner; then provide how reliable sources explain the phenomena; whether they believe it is of 'paranormal' origin for example 'discarnate entities' or whether they have surmised it is from radio leakage or whatnot. We have to use some terms like 'claimed' in parts because there is no definitive explanation accepted for EVP. It's not about whether it exists - it does for some reason. The main debate is over what it is or what causes it. Lets leave that to those who study the phenomena and simply report on the most reliable sources of study. --Northmeister 12:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The use of "claimed" et al is sometimes necessary, where it cannot be avoided, and where the information is not attributed yet at the same time is from an non-RS.

I took nothing personally. LuckyLouie presumed to do a GA review of this article. This was inappropriate due to his involvement in the article, as is explicitly expressed on the GA page. And I personally believe that GA reviews should be done by disinterested NPOV parties. Just as a judge who also worked for a pro-life or pro-choice institution should recuse himself from taking cases on abortion law, so someone who is a member of a Wikiproject whose stated purpose is to bring the Skeptic's Dictionary into Wikipedia should recuse himself from GA reviews of paranormal-related articles. That's just morality, justice, NPOV. But there is nothing personal here. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Northmeister 23:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Martin, I gave my opinions on problem areas within this article and my suggestions for improving it. You would do well to focus on those and avoid further accusations of "bias", as your own status as a Committee Member for the AA-EVP could certainly be brought under scrutiny here as "biasing" you. As an editor who participated in this article in the past, my vote for or against the article's GA status does not count. But as a Wikipedian, my suggestions for how to make the article better, do count. Your solitary opinion that my "suggestions and editing have been biased" are highly inappropriate to this Talk page. They are unfounded personal attacks, and must stop now. - LuckyLouie 00:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your suggestions are well founded. I guess I am not privy (although I've read the Arbcom and talk history now) to the emotions that are running deep here. My main concern is that achieving any sort of GA status or beyond is going to be rough if we can't put the past where it belongs. The best approach for this article is to do it top down. Get an agreement on an appropriate opening from everyone that is neutral and that summarizes the content of the article. Once we can agree on this. Then we can approach the history - see where there is fault with some - work to fix that - make sure it is straightforward and neutral - then move on to other sections. This will give us common consensus as we approach a rough version that would then need copy editing and peer review. Hence, I propose the opening or lead paragraphs be moved here - perused by all concerned editors with suggestions and problems areas or additions and that we then work out a consensus on that. This might help us ferret out what the remaining TOC would be since the opening is a summary of the article. If I hear seconds - I'll start the process. --Northmeister 01:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The lead we had recently was a consensus lead. I'm all for working it out here, on these principles:

PARANORMAL ARBCOM: The lead, and all subsequent portions of the article must adhere to the recent ArbCom on the paranormal.

WEIGHT: the article is about EVP, and will be mostly about EVP -intrinsically a paranormal subject- not about skepticism or about mainstream reactions to EVP.

NPOV: The article must be written in such a way as to not make up the reader's mind on the issue, except by presentation of evidence; that evidence must be presented in its proper sections. The actual status of EVP must be presented, which is that it has been pretty much ignored by the mainstream. EVP has not been rejected by the mainstream, because it has not been considered (or no one can find the studies). The one mainstream study (Brauss), is equivocal.

OR: There should be no OR in the article. Criticisms must adhere strictly to the OR policy, as must the other sections of the article.

CHANGES INSERTED: Changes should only be inserted with full consensus.

If Northmeister will lead this process, I accept it. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Lead or Opening

This is the present and proposed lead or opening to EVP. It is in this section that the entire article should be summarized for the reader. All comments are welcomed and all suggested changes should be placed in italics below ones comments so others can peruse that change. All concerned editors should acknowledge whether they feel any change suggested is OK or offer their own version to advance discussion. We can keep updating the Lead until we have consensus for it. If consenus exists for the lead at any time - then we can move on. Here is the lead or opening:

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds believed by EVP researchers to be of paranormal origin. They are detected on electronic recording media, and while the sounds are not present at the time of the recording, they are detected upon playback. They are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase, and are sometimes said to be in direct response to questions. EVP has been observed in diverse media, including but not limited to radio, shortwave radio (hamradio), television, tape recorders and videorecorders. They are typically recorded using audio recording devices or audio recording computer software.

Various ways of explaining EVP have emerged. Some who research EVP prefer paranormal hypotheses, such as that EVP are produced by spirits, psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, or in rare instances, thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. Non-paranormal explanations include ordinary noise mistaken as voices, flaws in the recording devices which produce voice-like sounds, and radio frequency contamination. Most investigations of EVP have been conducted by people with few academic credentials, and the scientific literature regarding EVP is very sparse. EVP are a subset of instrumental transcommunication.

Paranormal investigators use EVP as a tool in contacting the souls of loved ones and in haunting investigations. The term was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. Previously the term “Raudive Voices” was used, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience. References to EVP have appeared in the reality television show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense. --Northmeister 02:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Explanation: "Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds believed by EVP researchers to be of paranormal origin."

I believe this is the best lead sentence we've had yet:

speech or speech-like sounds. Not only does this convey the usual quality of EVP, but encompasses both skeptical and paranormal explanations.

believed by EVP researchers. This attributes fully without saying "believers" or "paranormalists" or some such.

to be of paranormal origin. This "frames" per the ArbCom, making more qualifiers unnecessary. It also communicates that part of the definition of EVP is the belief that they are paranormal. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm going to put OK for the opening. To start I have no problem with the lead right now; although improvements might be made to structure. I do hope others, will participate in this process meant to bring understanding and discourse on the entire article in a structured way. This is a chance for everyone to offer their improvements and to critique each section. Thus, we build build a consensus for the article from all parties engaged providing a rough draft for persons to peer review and for other editors to wikify etc. --Northmeister 13:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I doubt this process will work. I can't work on any one section at a time without the rest of the article being used as a focus point. By that I mean that the article must flow as one whole piece of work and not different sections. For instance I can't work on the lead until I know what the entire article is going to look like because the lead is a summary of the article itself. How can one summarize the article without knowing what the content of the article will be? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts are the summary leads us to the content. Which we then work on, and update the summary accordingly if any major changes takes place. By working through what already exists - we can focus our efforts on improvements. Once we agree on summary, then the rest of the article becomes obvious as to how we should structure it. Of course the entire article is referenced - thats a given. --Northmeister 13:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no criticism section in that lead draft. There needs to be at least a paragraph dedicated to the criticism of EVP and it should likely be placed at the end of the lead. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Would you like to propose a rough copy version we can work on? --Northmeister 13:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No. You can do it and I'll tell you what I think. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As the originator of the critique, it would fall upon yourself as an editor to help everyone out by offering your proposed edit. The community can't work with something that doesn't exist. --Northmeister 14:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Originator of what critique? Do you think that this article should have a criticism section? Yes or No? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your critique: There needs to be at least a paragraph dedicated to the criticism of EVP and it should likely be placed at the end of the lead. The concept is fine, although I've already stated that the present opening is fine with me. To accomodate your observations - the community needs to know what your proposed edit looks like. Then we can move to incorporate it into the lead or make changes if necessary. --Northmeister 14:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Answer this question: Do you think that this article should have a criticism section? Yes or No? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

WDM, the article has a criticism section. No one has suggested taking it out. Norhmeister has accepted putting the criticism in the lead which, by the way, already exists, in its own separate paragraph as you suggested. That will make it stand out more, and BTW, this is a change I wholeheartedly agree with. Northmeister has asked you to provide your suggestions for changes. Instead of asking demanding questions which put you in a position of power due to the fact that the other person doesn't know what you will do with the information, it would be better if you worked constructively to build consensus. You have an opportunity here to give your suggestions. Why don't you take it? ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't have time to type up a lead draft myself. I'm asking someone else to do it so that I can add my input. I don't like the current draft so please alter it to include a separate criticism section (at least 1 paragraph) and I will add my input. That's my suggestion. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead 2

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds believed by EVP researchers to be of paranormal origin. They are detected on electronic recording media, and while the sounds are not present at the time of the recording, they are detected upon playback. They are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase, and are sometimes said to be in direct response to questions. EVP has been observed in diverse media, including but not limited to radio, shortwave radio (hamradio), television, tape recorders and videorecorders. They are typically recorded using audio recording devices or audio recording computer software. EVP are a subset of instrumental transcommunication.

Various ways of explaining EVP have emerged. Some who research EVP prefer paranormal hypotheses, such as that EVP are produced by spirits. They say that answers to questions are often recieved by EVP. Experiments show that differet people often interpret EVPs the same way, and that EVP can occur when radio interference has been blocked. Other paranormal explanations include psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, or in rare instances, thoughts of aliens or nature spirits.

Non-paranormal explanations include ordinary noise mistaken as voices, flaws in the recording devices which produce voice-like sounds, and radio frequency contamination, apophenia, processing artifacts, capture errors, and hoaxes. Psychological expectation may also play a role in perception of EVP. Critics say that EVP as a paranormal phenomenon does not exist. Most investigations of EVP have been conducted by people with few academic credentials, and the scientific literature regarding EVP is very sparse.

Paranormal investigators use EVP as a tool in contacting the souls of loved ones and in haunting investigations. The term was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. Previously the term “Raudive Voices” was used, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience. References to EVP have appeared in the reality television show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense.

---

This version addresses WDM's suggestion above. Note that per WP:LEAD, the sections of the intro should be approximately in proportion to coverage in the article [13]. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This version has a few problems. Firstly, The section on "non paranormal explanations" is not referenced. Secondly, The section is too small to correspond to the the size of it in the article. Thirdly, The section doesn't emphasize that there are 'critics" of the whole concept of EVP. The word "Critics" or "Criticize" needs to be used in such a section. Fourthly, Lead paragraphs shouldn't be small and short. If a paragraph only has 2-3 smaller sentences then merge it with another paragraph. This lead (corresponding to the size of the article) should have at least 3 good sized paragraphs and the third one should elaborate on the criticism of EVP. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You just said that the criticism should have its own paragraph. Sources are not necessary in a lead, if the article itself is sourced. I expanded as you indicated above and used the word "critics," but I object to moving the paragraph, as the normal/critical explanations need to be next to the paranormal. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the sources in the lead, But if some sources are used in the lead then we need to at least be consistent. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman's version

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds believed by some to be of paranormal origin. They are detected on electronic recording media, and while the sounds are not present at the time of the recording, they are detected upon playback. They are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase, and are sometimes said to be in direct response to questions. EVP has been observed in diverse media, including but not limited to radio, shortwave radio (hamradio), television, tape recorders and videorecorders. They are typically recorded using audio recording devices or audio recording computer software. EVP are a subset of instrumental transcommunication. Some individuals believe that Electronic voice phenomena are paranormal in origin and are produced by ghosts,psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, or thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. (Source needed)

Paranormal investigators use EVP as a tool in an attempt to contact the souls of dead loved ones and in [Ghost hunting]]. The term was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. Previously the term “Raudive Voices” was used, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience. Today numerous organizations exist dedicated to EVP and included The American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena, The International Ghost Hunters Society, as well as The Rorschach Audio project. References to EVP have appeared in the reality television show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense as well as literature including The Legion as well as Pattern Recognition.

Critics of Electronic voice phenomena contend that the sounds heard are due to non-paranormal phenomena such as fraud, misidentification or lack of quality of equipment. Critics assert that the human brain is naturally evolved to interpret familiar patterns from sound and that this phenomena accounts for many instances of Electronic voice phenomena. The condition known as Auditory pareidolia (or Rorschach Audio) is said by critics to cause humans to interpret random sounds into voices in their own language which might otherwise sound like random noise to a foreign speaker. Critics offer other alternative explanations for Electronic voice phenomena including low quality equipment used by those who hear voices in sound recordings. Sound engineers who use equipment at a much higher quality than that which is used by many EVP recorders have stated that they have never heard voices after years of listening to tape and hard disk recordings and that the low quality of the equipment used could account for a lot of the apparent voices. Other explanations have also been put forward and include Apophenia (finding of significance or connections between insignificant or unrelated phenomena) as well as hoaxes or pranks.

---

(Please don't edit this draft). This version is one that I just wrote up. I would accept this as a lead to the article. Please add input. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is 14% criticism. Your lead is 41% criticism. It needs to be revised accordingly. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, thanks for the lead. I think your on to something and believe we should work with this lead. It reads a little awkward in parts, but that is not due to your contribution - just how the sentences come out. I'll take your lead and offer my suggestion. --Northmeister 22:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Martin, The current article won't be the article. The whole point of this was to start at the lead and give a suggestion of how the article should be via the lead. If we're relying on the current article then doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of this? The article as it exists now will be revised and improved. My proposed lead is how I believe the lead should be and how the articled should be. We can always increase the amount of criticism. Which is something I will do once we get to it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Northmeister, Don't edit my proposal, Make a new one based off of mine and I'll read it and add my input. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

We are working on a lead for the current article. The article is about EVP, and will not have a skepticism section which takes up anything near 41 percent of the space. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Martin, lets let the article develop on its own. We're producing the rough copy in which later we can address undue weight, if that is a concern. --Northmeister 01:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Northmeister's version based on Wikidudeman's

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds detected on electronic recording media, that are not present at the time of the recording, but detected upon playback. They are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase and are at times in direct response to questions. They are recorded using audio recording devices or audio recording computer software. The phenomena has been observed in diverse media, including: radio, shortwave radio (hamradio), television, tape recorders and videorecorders. The term was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. Previously the term “Raudive Voices” was used, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive whose 1970 book Breakthrough brought the subject to a wider public audience. EVP are a subset of the paranormal field of instrumental transcommunication.

EVP has been studied primarily by paranormal researchers since 1959. Notable researchers include Friedrich Jürgenson, Sarah Estep, and George Meek whose 'Spiricom' machine claimed to faciliate communication between this world and the spirit world, among others. These researchers have theorized that the phenomena may be: ghosts, psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, or thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. Paranormal investigators have used EVP in various ways including, as a tool in an attempt to contact the souls of dead loved ones and in Ghost hunting.

Critics of EVP have theorized that the sounds heard are of a non-paranormal nature. They explain that the human brain is naturally evolved to interpret familiar patterns from sound and that this phenomena accounts for many instances of apparent 'voices' or 'voice-like' sounds. The condition known as Auditory pareidolia (or Rorschach Audio) is said by critics to cause humans to interpret random sounds into voices in their own language which might otherwise sound like random noise to a foreign speaker. Sound engineers who use equipment at a much higher quality than that which is used by many EVP researchers have stated that they have never heard voices after years of listening to tape and hard disk recordings and that the low quality of the equipment used could account for many of the apparent voices. Critics have also concluded that certain cases might be Apophenia (finding of significance or connections between insignificant or unrelated phenomena), misidentification, or hoaxes.

Today numerous organizations exist dedicated to EVP and included the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena, the International Ghost Hunters Society, as well as the Rorschach Audio project. References to EVP have appeared in the reality television show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense as well as literature including the novels Legion and Pattern Recognition.

---

I've changed each paragraph, and tried to focus the opening on my vision of the article in addition to what we already have there. I took out references for now, and they can remain out if one feels that is necessary. I am open to any criticism of what I propose above. The basic structure is based upon Wikidudeman's proposal above. --Northmeister 01:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Part of the definition, and necessary re the ArbCom on framing, is that it be defined as a paranormal interpretation.
• I don't think the second sentence passes NPOV- it in essence states the paranormality of EVP as a fact.
• Everyone agrees that the low quality of the equipment is usually necessary for EVP. They say the white noise is used to form EVP. Not sure where that objection came from.

I'd like to propose that we stick nearer to the version we already have. We can re-write it as much as necessary, and add or subtract. But if the only concerns here are NPOV, then it might be better to simply discuss additions or subtractions to the current lead. The current lead is better written than the replacements. This isn't to insult anyone, it's just that the lead in the article has had a lot more combing. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence to paragraph one frames the article. The second sentence, should add 'claimed' or 'claim' - I agree. EVP is fact however - thats a given. What is not a given is what EVP actually is. Paranormal researchers - have concluded one thing and skeptics or critics have concluded another. Both deserve coverage in the article for NPOV as paragraphs two and three due in my vision of the TOC. The last paragraph sums up Popular interests and Organizations within the TOC. Wikidudeman do you agree with Martin - do you think we can work from my version (maybe with another revision if necessary) - or do you propose something different? --Northmeister 01:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph needs to be expanded, but I don't find anything deeply wrong with this lead- although I think the skeptical side is not well represented. My objections are mainly about what I think can become stable, but that is for others to decide. I especially like that you've included some of the history: that really needed to be done. I prefer to use "said" when at all possible rather than "claimed." Nice job (: ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me list my objections to this version.

1.The first sentence reads odd and is somewhat redundant.

2.The paragraphs are too short, We need to keep everything in 2 or 3 large paragraphs.

3.We need to get rid of the redlinks.

4. The part about organizations needs to be in the same paragraph as the part about the researchers and the part about popular culture needs expanding.

5. I agree with martin on the 2nd sentences.

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Northmeister's version 2 based upon observations of Martin and Wikidudeman

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are sounds thought to be speech or speech-like which are inaudible during recording but detected by some on electronic recording media and are a subset of the paranormal field of instrumental transcommunication. They are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase and are sometimes claimed to be in direct response to the questions of researchers. The phenomena has been observed on diverse media, including: radio, hamradio, television, tape recorders and videorecorders. The term was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. Previously the term “Raudive Voices” was used, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive, an early researcher. References to EVP have appeared in the reality television show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense as well as literature including the novels Legion and Pattern Recognition.

EVP has been studied primarily by paranormal researchers since the 1950s, who have concluded that the most likely explanation for the phenomena is that they are produced by the spirits of the deceased. In 1959, Attila Von Szalay first claimed to have recorded the 'voices of the dead', which lead to the experiments of Friedrich Jurgenson. The 1970s brought increased interest and research including the work of Konstantine Raudive. In 1980, William O'Neill backed by industrialist George Meek built a 'Spiricom' device which was said to facilitate very clear communication between this world and the spirit world. Research continues today through the work of many, including Sarah Estep and Alexander McRae. In addition to spirits, paranormal researchers have claimed that EVP could be due to: psychic echoes from the past, psychokinesis unconsciously produced by living people, or the thoughts of aliens or nature spirits. Paranormal investigators have used EVP in various ways including, as a tool in an attempt to contact the souls of dead loved ones and in Ghost hunting. Today numerous organizations exist dedicated to EVP and included the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena, the International Ghost Hunters Society, as well as the skeptical Rorschach Audio project.

Critics of Electronic voice phenomena contend that the sounds heard are due to non-paranormal phenomena such as fraud, misidentification or lack of quality of equipment. They explain that the human brain is naturally evolved to interpret familiar patterns from sound and that this phenomena accounts for many instances of apparent 'voices' or 'voice-like' sounds. The condition known as Auditory pareidolia (or Rorschach Audio) is said by critics to cause humans to interpret random sounds into voices in their own language which might otherwise sound like random noise to a foreign speaker. Sound engineers who use equipment at a much higher quality than that which is used by many EVP researchers have stated that they have never heard voices after years of listening to tape and hard disk recordings and that the low quality of the equipment used could account for many of the apparent voices. Critics have also concluded that certain cases might be Apophenia (finding of significance or connections between insignificant or unrelated phenomena), misidentification, or hoaxes.

---

The above is an altered version based upon the observations of Martin and Wikidudeman. I've moved material to conform to three paragraghs - organizations have been placed at the end of the second paragraph per Wikidudemans observation - the second sentence has been revised as well as the first using 'claimed' based upon the observations of Martin and Wikidudeman - the historic info has been expanded a little - and the first paragraph now includes popular interests to end it. --Northmeister 15:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Change "theorized" to "contend" or "assert" and add examples of non-paranormal explanations in the first sentence and it will be good. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed "theorized" to both "assert" and "contend" per your observations. Not sure how you wish to incorporate non-paranormal explanations in the 'first sentence'. Could you expand on your observations? --Northmeister 15:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence of the last paragraph should be: Critics of Electronic voice phenomena contend that the sounds heard are due to non-paranormal phenomena such as fraud, misidentification or lack of quality of equipment.

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that sentence is a better introduction to the paragraph and have added it to the above to replace the previous one. Although the last sentence may need change to take out misidentification as repetitive. I'll leave that to you or Martin (as soon as he gives us his observations) - to do if you feel as I do. Otherwise we are in agreement. Martin - what are your observations? --Northmeister 15:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added 'inaudible during recording' to clarify the first sentence. --Northmeister 16:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand where the "lack of quality equipment criticism comes from. EVPers use low-quality equipment, because it makes the white noise of which EVP are formed. To criticize that "equipment which doesn't have the prerequisites for EVP does not produce EVP" rather misses the point. And where is that from in the article? I don't see it, but maybe I have been too focused on particular sections? ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

We're stating what the critics believe whether it's legitimate or not. Critics don't believe that bad quality equipment somehow "coaxes" ghosts to speak, so they say that any voices heard are simply errors caused by low quality equipment. Let the facts speak for themselves. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to take this moment to mention a few more problems that I see with the lead draft that I think need to be fixed. Firstly, We need to make it clear that "EVP" doesn't necessarily exist. Skeptics actually doubt that EVP even exist, that there are no such sounds or voices occuring so to say that "EVP are speech or speech-like sounds inaudible during recording detected on electronic recording media" would be implying EVP' actually exists. It would be better to say that "EVP are sounds thought to be speech or speech-like which are inaudible during recording and detected by some on electronic recording media" This makes it more neutral as it clarifies that firstly, EVP might not even exist as voices at all, and secondly, Some people don't hear anything when listening to the supposed EVP voices. We also need to change this sentence:"The phenomena has been observed on diverse media, including..." to :"The phenomena is thought by some to have been observed on diverse media, including...". This further clarifies that the "Phenomena" in question are "voices" and they don't necessarily exist. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My question was, what is the source for saying that critics say that EVP is the result of low quality equipment?

There is no criticism that I know of stating that the anomalies do not exist at all. Rather, the critics say they exist in all white noise (read the section), and are not paranormal. If you want to say this, we need a source that says so. Further, a source which is significant enough to change the article to such an extent that the summary should also be changed. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, I've changed the first sentence per your observation. However, I don't think the second change is necessary. EVP, whether they are simply radio leakage, misidentification, or spirits - do exist. Hence, simply stating they have been observed on diverse media is accurate and neutral without any inference as to what they are. The first sentence however does read more neutral with the change. Martin: I have to agree with Wikidudeman on the Criticism paragraph. Do you have any other observations to make about the proposal as it exists now? If we all can agree then this would be the 'rough draft' from whence we can move on towards the article. Any thoughts are welcome at this point. Agreeing to move forward at any time doesn't forbid an editor to return to this subject in the future if he feels it necessary to address any changes due to the edits made within the article. --Northmeister 03:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for the second paragraph, which puts in a little more information and takes out a little stuff I don't think is very notable:

Especially since the 1950s, EVP has been studied by paranormal researchers, who usually said that the best explanation for EVP is that they are produced by spirits of the deceased. In 1959, Attila von Szalay first claimed to have recorded the voices of the dead on magnetic tape, and in 1980, William O'Neil constructed a Spiricom device which was said to faciliate very clear communication between this world and the spirit world. Researchers such as Sarah Estep and Alexander MacRae continue to do EVP research today, using varied means to produce the effect. Investigators also use EVP for such things as contacting the souls of dead loved ones and in Ghost hunting. Today numerous organizations dedicated to EVP exist, including the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena, the International Ghost Hunters Society, as well as the skeptical Rorschach Audio project. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Made changes to the second paragraph per Martin observations above. Wikidudeman what is your opinion on the changes? Martin: Did I address your concerns per the second paragraph, if not let me know and we can go from there. Both: Do we have agreement on a 'rough copy' so we can move forward? --Northmeister 05:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I like your version o the paragraph. I would like to change the sentence "device which he claimed would facilitate communication between this world and the spirit world" to something more like what I wrote above, to give a sense of what happened instead of future results. Oh, it was my mistake, I don't know that Attila Von Szalay used magnetic tape. Just "recorded."

Yes, I think the lead still needs work but I am satisfied enough to move on in our discussions (-: ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Per your observations, I've reworded the 'Spiricom' sentence. Added Jurgenson to the 1959 sentence which read odd; while taking out 'magnetic tape'. --Northmeister 12:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to martin, Martin, The citation for the bad quality being the cause of the EVP is the Skeptics dictionary.

Response to Northmeister, The first sentence is fine. Scratch the second recommendation. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Since we all agree on the Lead, Let's implement it and move on to the other parts of the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Northmeister 20:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Something to consider about this topic

According to WP:FRINGE: Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance for the idea among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted or labeled as mainstream unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. This is very important because unless we can find reliable sources that clarify the standing of EVP in the academic or scientific community then we need to assume that it has not received consideration or acceptance. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with any paranormal topic is that it is not taken up by the academic or scientific community by and large. EVP in particular. This doesn't discount criticism from that community if it is backed up by reliable sources however. Having read the Arbcom decision on this stuff, it seems that articles that are in the frame of 'paranormal' are not to be thought of as a scientific or academic subject but from the standpoint, like occult topics, of the community that has investigated them - namely here the paranormal community. The reader, understanding this is a paranormal article will take this into account. I do think WP:Fringe is a good guidline to follow especially that "ideas should not be portrayed as accepted or labeled as mainstream unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources," and I think it incumbent upon editors to keep this in mind as we move forward. --Northmeister 21:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. The status of EVP is that it has not been investigated. We can say whatever the sources say on this subject. For instance, we could say with attribution that EVP has not been investigated because it is thought to be bunkum- if we find a source that says that. But we can't portray it as accepted or rejected by science. This part of WP:FRINGE is also important:

"However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

On the lead: I didn't know it was going to be inserted in the article. We didn't achieve consensus to include it in the final of this draft of the article, but rather we achieved consensus on a rough draft of the lead from which we can go on to consider the rest of the article. I'm fine with it being in there for now, but I have some minor issues with it which we eventually need to work out. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

We can return to the lead once we go through the rest of the article. Although, as we move on; feel free to continue to offer your suggestions on the lead as we've been doing. Any agreed changes by editors can be easily updated on the page. --Northmeister 21:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed History (1st of TOC)

This is the present and proposed History within the TOC. It is in this section that the historic research of EVP phenomena should be presented. It is important to be precise, to summarize material as much as we can although in more detail than the lead, and to back up the material with reliable sources. All comments are welcomed and all suggested changes should be placed below ones comments so others can peruse that change. All concerned editors should acknowledge whether they feel any change suggested is OK or offer their own version to advance discussion. We can keep updating the History section until we have consensus for it. If consenus exists for the History section at any time - then we can move on as we did with the lead to produce the rough copy. Here is the present History section:

History

Following on the Spiritualist movement in the 1840s, there has been a concerted effort to communicate with the otherside. These initial efforts included seances and other non-technological methods. With the creation of the wireless, this concept of communication with the dead expanded to the use of modern technology to achieve contact. Concerted research on technical means of communication grew rapidly in the latter part of the 20th century.

Early research

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. Though Edison did not attempt to create such a device, he did believe that spirits might make contact in the future through the advent of better technology.

Attila von Szalay was among the first to claim to have recorded the voices of the dead. Working with Raymond Bayless, von Szalay conducted a number of recording sessions with a custom-made apparatus, consisting of a microphone in an insulated cabinet connected to an external recording device and speaker. Szalay reported finding many sounds on the tape that could not be heard on the speaker at the time of recording, some of which were recorded when there was no-one in the cabinet. He believed these sounds to be the voices of discarnate spirits. Von Szalay and Bayless' work was published by the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research in 1959. Bayless later went on to co-author the 1979 book, Phone Calls From the Dead.

In 1959 Swedish film producer Friedrich Jürgenson captured, while recording bird songs, what appeared to be the discarnate voice of a man speaking Norwegian. He went on to make several more recordings, including one that he claimed contained a message from his late mother.

Raudive voices

Dr. Konstantin Raudive, a Latvian psychologist who had taught at the University of Uppsala, Sweden and who had worked in conjunction with Jürgenson, made over 100,000 EVP recordings. Some of these recordings were conducted in a RF-screened laboratory and contained identifiable words according to Raudive. In an attempt to confirm the content of his collection of recordings, Raudive invited listeners to hear and interpret them. He believed that the clarity of the voices heard in his recordings implied that they could not be readily explained by normal means. Raudive's research was formally published into his first book, "Breakthrough - An Amazing Experiment in Electronic Communication with the Dead" originally released in 1968 and translated into English in 1971.

Since their release, Raudive's interpretations of his recordings have been criticized as being highly subjective, and for the fact that the speech they are said to contain is often unrelated to questions that investigators posed during their recording. Both Jürgenson and Raudive's recordings were said to contain sentences that were made up of several languages.

Spiricom

In 1980, William O'Neil constructed an electronic audio device called "The Spiricom". O'Neil claimed the device was built to specifications which he received psychically from Dr. George Mueller, a scientist who had died six years previously. At a Washington, DC, press conference on April 6, 1982, O'Neil stated that he was able to hold two-way conversations with spirits through the Spiricom device, and provided the design specifications to researchers for free. However, nobody is known to have replicated O'Neil's results using their own Spiricom devices. O'Neil's partner, retired industrialist George Meek, attributed O'Neil's success, and the inability of others to replicate it, to O'Neil's psychic abilities forming part of the loop that made the system work.

Sound

info		help
An audio sample recorded at the Thunderbird Lodge on the east shore of Lake Tahoe by the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena, who say it is an example of EVP.

Modern era (1980s-present)

In 1982, Sarah Estep founded the "American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena" in Severna Park, Maryland, a nonprofit organization with the purpose of increasing awareness of EVP, and of teaching standardized methods for capturing it. Estep began her exploration of EVP in 1976, and says she has made hundreds of recordings of messages from deceased friends, relatives, and other individuals, including Konstantin Raudive, Beethoven, a lamplighter from 18th century Philadelphia, PA, and extraterrestrials whom she speculated originated from other planets or dimensions.

In 1997, Imants Barušs, of the Department of Psychology at the University of Western Ontario, conducted a series of experiments using the methods of EVP investigator Konstantin Raudive, and the work of Instrumental Transcommunication (ITC) researcher Mark Macy, as a guide. A radio was tuned to an empty frequency, and over 81 sessions a total of 60 hours and 11 minutes of recordings were collected. During recordings, a researcher either sat in silence or attempted to make verbal contact with potential sources of EVP. Barušs did record several events that sounded like voices, but they were too few and too random to represent viable data and too open to interpretation to be described definitively as EVP. He concluded: "While we did replicate EVP in the weak sense of finding voices on audio tapes, none of the phenomena found in our study was clearly anomalous, let alone attributable to discarnate beings. Hence we have failed to replicate EVP in the strong sense." The findings were published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration in 2001, and include a literature survey.

In 2005 the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research published a report by paranormal investigator Alexander MacRae. MacRae conducted recording sessions using a device of his own design known as ALPHA. MacRae reported that ALPHA is able to convert electrodermal responses into noise, which is then examined for EVP. In an attempt to demonstrate that different individuals would interpret EVP in the recordings the same way, MacRae asked seven people to compare some selections to a list of five phrases he provided, and to choose the best match. MacRae said his results indicated that the selections were not a form of Rorschach Audio, but were of paranormal origin.

---

In addressing this section, it might be best to offer critiques under each subheader and simply update the material as we go along and can agree. Once each sub-section is agreed to we can then move it back in. Any new format here or subsection of History should be proposed below as we did with the lead and we can address this by placing it into the above proposal as necessary once we all agree. --Northmeister 21:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of all red links first. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Northmeister 13:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

We have wiki-links to O'Neill and Mueller, are they directed to the correct persons? --Northmeister 13:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the last sentence needs to be change from "Concluded" to "Contended" or "Asserted" as "concluded" gives some sort of authoritative impression.

So "He concluded that the selections were not a form of audible Rorschach, but genuine voices whose origins could not be explained through conventional means."

needs to be changed to:

"He asserted that the selections were not a form of audible Rorschach, but genuine voices whose origins could not be explained through conventional means."

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That change may be misleading to the reader. By replacing 'concluded' which it seems he did after study - with 'asserted' leaves one with the impression that he did no research and that his conclusions were based soley on his opinion. Is there reason to believe MacRae did not research the topic and thus had nothing to 'conclude'? --Northmeister 14:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt he did "research", I just don't want to give the reader the impression that his research is on par with actual scientific research. "Concluded" is an authoritative sort of word that implies scientific rigor, etc. I think it would be better to use "contended" or "asserted". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Average people make conclusions based upon observation, study, and reason every day. One doesn't have to be a Scientist to make a conclusion from the research one does. In college, for example, although I was not yet degreed, I made conclusions from my research in numerous papers. The paragraph states "paranormal investigator Alexander MacRae" which gives the reader enough information as to his background and frames the study. Although, I disagree with replacing 'concluded' based on the reasons you give, I wouldn't have a problem with replacing the word with 'determined' such as "He determined that the selections...". --Northmeister 14:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that both words give the impression that his judgment was correct. "concluded" and "determined" both give the impression that the conclusion or determination in question are correct. Perhaps reforming the sentence to get rid of that impression somehow. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to your suggestion. --Northmeister 15:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Try to alter it and I'll tell you what I think. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As the originator of the proposition; that would fall upon yourself. I have no problem with the sentence, although I am open to your suggestions and concerns. --Northmeister 15:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

How about :"MacRae's opinion of the results were that the selections were not a form of Rorschach Audio but rather genuine voices with paranormal origins." Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think thats ok. Martin, what do you think? I would suggest "MacRae's opinion of the results were that the selections were not a form of Rorschach Audio but rather genuine voices whose origins could not be explained through conventional means.(cites)"? --Northmeister 15:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

His own words are "It follows therefore that the means whereby these sounds occurred in the screened room must have been in some way paranormal."link We need to stick with that. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and quote - agreed. I suggest you put your proposed change into the rough copy above. I'd like to hear Martin's opinion on the change to see if we have agreement. --Northmeister 16:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

New proposal: "Attila von Szalay (Sealay) was among the first to claim to have definitively recorded the voices of the dead." Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. --Northmeister 16:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC) - Made the change. --Northmeister 16:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no more problems with this section at this time. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

On the MacRae sentence: I find it a good rule of thumb to always think of the word "said" whenever these situations come up. So the sentence would be:

MacRae said his results indicated that the selections were not a form of Rorschach Audio, but were of paranormal origin.

This also stays closer (in the second half), to MacRae's actual quote above. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't dispute that. However I like more sophisticated words such as "Contends" or "asserts" as they mean the exact same thing but are more encyclopedic. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that we have agreement on the history section as it now exists. I've changed the last sentence per Martins observations. We can always return to the history section if there are issues that are brought up in the future. --Northmeister 23:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Implement it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)