Jump to content

Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Dr. George Jeffries Mueller

Was it ever confirmed that a professor with this name really existed and that he died on the date given by the voice?

Edison

In the overview it states: "There is no indication that Edison designed or tried to construct such a device," then, in the next section, it cites Edison as an early pioneer in constructing EVP devices. A bit paradoxical.

It's not a paradox, it's a contradiction. Please sign your posts. (BTW, this whole article is complete crap - EVP is rubbish and this article goes on and on like it isn't.) --DreamsReign 06:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

VfD discussion

This is the discussion that took place on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion regarding this page.
  • I really don't know what to do with this article. It is about spirit voices in audio recordings and it takes itself very seriously. I'm not sure if it should be deleted, noted as factual malarky, or rewritten to say how this ridiculous thing is believed by some people. I'm leaning toward deletion since I haven't a clue how to make this a factual article. - Tεxτurε 03:49, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP - It is malarkey - but it's malarkey that has very wide circulation. Shouldn't be too hard to re-write appropriately.--Gene_poole 05:43, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • WOW! 139,000 hits. I had no idea this craziness was that popular. I guess that means keep. SWAdair | Talk 05:56, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • And a moment later I realized why - I forgot to enclose the phrase in quotation marks. Adding those leaves only 6,510 hits. Still, that's enough for a keep. SWAdair | Talk 06:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a fairly-well established concept in the paranormal milieu of forteana, ghosts, etc. --Gary D 07:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep! Just because some people think this is crazy doesn't mean that it isn't a documented field of study. The article has since been rewritten to be as subjective as possible. 6am 11:10, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I think you were looking for "objective". But keep nonetheless. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:11, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, objective, yes. 6am
  • Keep. The article may need work, but the subject matter is valid. Dysprosia 11:16, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep! You probably never listen to Coast to Coast. It's a more or less mainstream phenomena. Wyllium 14:35, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is an adaptation of the old belief that radio static contained the voices of ghosts, that there are psychic waves in television, etc. The writing could be improved, but the belief (not to say the truth) is out there (in all senses of the word). Geogre 16:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, with reluctance. Another piece of drivel that we have to grit our teeth and report on. I added a link to the Skeptic's Dictionary. I think I heard one of these voices saying, "What fools these mortals be!" JamesMLane 05:24, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but maybe try to make more objective. Timbo 20:28, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rewrite. The article basically claims this phenomenon is real, but cites no data for it. See my section below. Lundse 10:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
End of copied discussion

There is an upcoming movie about EVP titled "White Noise". It has a website too http://www.whitenoisemovie.com/ . Will someone please add it to the "EVP in fiction" section? (I dont anything about wikipedia editing and my english is bad)

Maybe there could be something added here about scientific explanations of this... like, how people have a tendency to try to put meaning to random sound? Kinda like how we see faces in everything. I think there's an article or two in Wikipedia on that somewhere, but... Yeah-- http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Pareidolia. --Joshua Holbrook

http://evprecordings.blogspot.com/ this link seems to be either an old one, or just something to garner traffic. I do not edit, so if anyone has the time, I just wanted to point it out -bro 172.159.16.169 05:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Could someone add the movie "The Sixth Sense" to the EVP in ficton section? There's a part where Bruce Wilis' character hears Russian-speaking voices when playing back old interview tapes.--Ukdan999 1 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)
It has a sizeable entry on the subject. However, if you have another site that is comparable from the same point of view please suggest it. - Tεxτurε 22:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this discussion page demonstrates that we can dispense with any Wiki entry for "a priori bias" however - as people like Texture, Gene_Pool and JamesMLane constantly do such a good job of proving that there's absolutely no basis for that concept. (Insert "roll-eyes" smiley here) People with such bias shouldn't be allowed anywhere within 100 feet of any "edit" button on Wikipedia. It's not your job to decide for everybody whether it's "malarky" or not, it your job to provide a concise, objective, non-biased description.
    Wow, a free-speech-only-for-me-and-those-who-think-like-me advocate. Please remember Thomas Jefferson: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That's what Gene_poole and JamesMLane practice above. --Hob Gadling 15:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    How are they biased again? Just because they do not believe in something (which noone has offered up evidence for) they are biased? Then you are biased against not believing in an invisible teapot flying around the moon, too. And yes, we should strive to give concise, objective, non-biased descriptions - but that does not mean that wikipedia should endorse the viewpoints of those believing in in the subject matter of an article, it should report on what those views are and how they fit or not with established facts. Lundse 10:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"alleged"

I don't see it mentioned anywhere else in this article that the existence of the phenomenon itself is disputed. Whether or not hearing the voices there is purely a result of an intepretation of random white noise or not, it's still a phenomonon. Claiming that it is a "fiction" and comparing it to the unicorn implies that no-ones ever taken such a recording and claimed to hear voices in it - as i said, obviously not true as theres an article on it. It does exist as a phenomenon. If you're a believer, the phenomonon is that of human voices appearing on electronic recordings. If you're not, the phenomonon is one of being able to hear voices where none exist due to pareidolia. Either way, it's certainly not "alleged". --86.135.181.94 11:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "the phenomenon". In context, it's clear that the word refers to the subject of the article -- voices that actually come from electronic devices under these circumstances. That's why it's "alleged", and that's the clearest way to state the facts neutrally. The article, after all, is not titled "Reports of electronic voices". Nevertheless, since you'll apparently persist in reverting it perpetually, I've reworded the passage to remove both "alleged" and "phenomenon". The critical point is to make clear that this hooey isn't being reported as fact. The rewording is more cumbersome, but it omits the phrase that you seemed to have trouble with. JamesMLane 18:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The existence of phenomena is not in dispute. People clearly believe in it and say that it exists. What is in dispute is whether the phenomena represents a genuine supernatural event or whether it's just a lot of people going ape over static on a casset recorder.

perfectblue 12:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of the sources cited in the article say otherwise. You cannot say it is known to exist until it is the consensus in mainstream science that it exists, and no reputable person denies it. I do not even see evidence theat all believers in the reality of paranormal phenomena say it exists. In fact, I do not even see evidence that all believers in paranormal psychology who have investigated it say it exists.

You could insert a quotation from someone saying in a reputable source that it is known to exist. That would be objective and NPOV. DGG 20:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The phenomena clearly exists, whether it is paranormal or prosaic is what is disputed
perfectblue 10:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
We'll insert a statement about not knowing if EVP exists when you prove gravity exists. I'm not talking about the phenomenon of bodies of matter moving toward one another, I'm talking about the theory of gravity as it stands. You prove that and we can discuss adding a statement about how nobody has proved voice-like sounds have been recorded without a readily-apparent cause. --Zoe.R 09:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Zoe, 1. we do not prove in WP whether or not the phenomena are real, we find sources that say whether or not the phenomena are real. 2. There are some sources that say this one is real. And there are some that say it is not real. As a result, WP properly reports than there is non consensus that it is real. It can use quotations from these sources, and explain what the sources are, but it does not evaluate their truthfulness. 3. There are several hundred physics textbooks, from Phrinicpia till today, that say gravity is real and explain the theory. There is no source, scientific or otherwise, that says it is not, or denies the theory. The theory has become more complicated since Newton's day, and all textbooks acknowledge it. Therefore WP can say that it is universally believed that the theory of gravity is real. 4. Once more, we follow the sources. We do not settle the issue. There are a number of people on both sides of it who have been trying to settle the issue in the discussions reported below. It does not look like they are etablishing much of a consensus. Even if they did, it would be OR, so such discussions are futile. We report what is out there. If several sources say an event occurs, and several say otherwise, then the honest object report is that the event is alledged to occur. This would be true regardless of my person views on which side is right, which you may notice I have not specified. I wonder about the use of "we" in your posting. We have no need to agree, and each of us has the separate right to edit the article. If agreement cannot be reached, we compromise. Some people think there is no evidence at all that it exists, and some thing that it is certain to exist. The word "alledged" and its synonyms were devised for such situations.DGG 10:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Precautions?

I know many of you may think this is stupid and "out of context" (what happened to openness and respect toward other people in Wikipedia???) text but I think we should include the following:

"Precautions

It is known that no one has ever been harmed by recording EVPs. But there are certain precautions that need to be taken. A person recording EVPs should have all emotional issues settled with because negative spirits can attach to a person. Recordings with a negative or rude tone should always be erased. Positive and open attitude is very important.

Listeners should also take precautions. Listening to recordings has been known to enhance ones clairvoyant and clairaudient senses. People who feel uncomfortable with that should never listen to EVP recordings."

And we have experience of EVP in our family. My brother listened to EVPs, he was crazy about them. He didn't believe in ghosts but after a while he started seeing shadow people. Later on, I read from a site about EVP that in some cases (not all of course!) listening to them enhances one's clairvoyant and/or clairaudient senses. I agree with that, after seeing what happened to my brother. I also have read that animals, especially cats and dogs, are very sensitive to EVP, they think it's evil (so I guess). I've been listening to EVPs, too, and once, when our cat was in the room and I was listening to them, it suddenly started to meow. I thought it was very odd. Later I read that often, when listening to EVPs, e.g. cats start to meow and dogs start to bark. Even my old mother thought it was strange. She doesn't believe in ghosts and has always thought they're our imaginations playing tricks on us.

So can we have a little bit more open-mindedness, please. --Thorri 20:55, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I do not think any such thing should be included - it would be tantamount to claiming the phenomenon is real (ie. that it is spirits making the "voices"). Wikipedia should not make a claim on whether the phenomenon is real but merely describe the phenomenon and point out that there is no evidence (and for those claiming to have such evidence, lets see it). Lundse 10:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

A large portion of this article (even down to some italic text) is copied directly from one of the links... [1] Is there permission for this, or does someone need to do a GPL sweep? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.114.210 (talk • contribs) 16:16, January 3, 2006 (UTC)

I wrote most of the Spiricom and ITC sections based on info from a few websites which I provided links to in the External Links section. Looks like what is copied is the Raudive Voices section which looks like Lockout originally provided. However, I did edit some mispellings and run on sentences I found in that section. Cyberia23 00:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

VfD discussion

I would like to do a rewrite making this more objective, the article seems to me to claim that actual scientists believe these 'voices' are spirits. Instead of going ahead and seeing possible reverts, I would like to know people attitudes towards this - and give whoever believes in these spirit voices a chance to cite references for claim like "even some respected scientists have discarded their initial doubt when provided with hard evidence or first-hand experience." Lundse 12:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite done. New structure, more neutral, deleted a few things (very few). I still think the entire last section is unnecessarily long (the two studies) but I did not have the time to shorten them. The external links is a mess and the internals could use some more. Comments appreciated. --Lundse 23:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing

In order to make any arguement, one must review the facts and evidence. Without one, you cannot argue the other. Visit http://www.ghostwave.com/best.html to listen to actual EVP recordings. Once you listen to the evidence, then carefully proceed on should you dismiss this or not and if they are crossed signals. You ask a question, you get an answer. - Steven Wolff November 27th, 2006 (Wiki User: BNSA)

I've noticed that several links, mainly leading to various paranormal research groups which deal with EVP phenomena, have been edited away since they are regarded as spam. Why is this? I can see nothing wrong in giving readers an opportunity to make up their minds about this subject by enabling them to study the work of these organizations, and take part of their theories. Instead of removing these links, why not add links to skeptical websites as well, to serve as a counterbalance? Jonas Liljeström 13:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! Links to more information on EVP will be most useful. Cynthia Sue Larson 07:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Links that add nothing to the article shouldn't be kept. We shouldn't provide a link to a website that has little or no reliable and new info. If you want to add a new link, pro or con, feel free. ---J.S (T/C) 07:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Raudive Voices

I just deleted the following sentence from the Raudive Voices section: "(Another version of this technique involves putting a microphone to a speaker which is playing the sound from the microphon eand listening to the feedback)."

This sentence definitely doesn't belong in the section about Raudive, and I don't know if it's true or someone's attempt at a joke. If it's true, perhaps it should be reintroduced in another more appropriate section.--Mike Straw 10:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Spiricom

Regarding the authenticity of Dr. Mueller's spirit voice: I've listened to the Spiricom samples at Spiricom MP3's and Spiricom Device. Here's one thing that strikes me: The sound is basically supposed to be created by randomly modulating the carrier of a tone generator to achieve the formants of different phonemes, right? The vowels have that buzzing sound, but the vowels fricatives are not restrained to this frequency. They have the grey or white noise quality of human speech (listen to the S-sounds). I don't think it's possible for the tone generators to make such a complex noise, even if there are thirteen of them as suggested by Spiricom Device. The voiceless fricatives should also have a bit of that buzzing quality, sounding a bit chrunched since all the sounds are manipulations of the same 13 frequencies, or else an additional noise generator would be required. Is this accounted for anywhere? If not, Dr. Mueller's voice is more likely the product of a human speaking with the aid of an electrolarynx. That way, you get the buzzing vowels from the vibrator plus vocal tract, while the voiceless fricatives are heard above the buzzing, retaining the complex noise pattern since they are produced by air passing through the vocal tract, which is basically what Dr. Mueller's voice sounds like. I like the idea of Spiricom though... :) Just a thought: Even if EVP isn't real, it's still interesting as a cultural phenomenon. For example, I've studied some sound art of which EVP now seems to be considered a sub-genre. Jonah Lark 12:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Double presentation of Wikiproject Paranormal subject at top of Discussion page

It is redundant by definition. As such, I am removing the bottom one, since the top has more in-depth statement as to the Projects goals. --Chr.K. 16:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ghostpix and Ghostweb

These and related sites advocate that if you want to get some "EVPs", you use a tape recorder and Brand New tapes. Old tapes can be erased, but NOT completely. I've heard this on Coast To Coast AM, other radio talk shows myself. Martial Law 19:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sites themselves are:www.ghostweb.com and www.ghostpix.com. Hope this helps. Cheers. Martial Law 19:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC) :)


Spiricom Accuracy & Sources

I originally wrote this section based on what I heard on Art Bell's radio program and from reading the links I found online about it. Someone put FACT TAGS after every single paragraph, which I removed because the source of this info is linked at the bottom of the section. Although Art Bell probably doesn't sit well with the skeptics as a "reliable source" of info and the web links are likewise factually suspcious those are the only links of information regarding Spiricom that I could find. If anyone else can verify the experiments or provide better sources please add them. I don't think the section warrants FACT TAGS at every line, so I added a general factual accuracy tag at the top. A "dispute" tag didn't seem appropriate since since I consider a dispute a big debate where tempers are flying and people are red in the face about something. No one seems to be arguing about Spiritcom at the moment. I don't think the section should be deleted if it can't be verified, but every attempt should be made to find legit sources about it. I just don't think there are any. The project itself was supposedly unpublicized and widely dismissed as a hoax. If anyone knows more info about it please clean up the section and feel free to correct any inaccuracies. Thanks Cyberia23 22:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems a bit long for something that's fairly difficult to verify. Can you cut it down to maybe 2-3 paragraphs of the most important information? — ripley\talk 17:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Edison contradictions

The article as it stands now says: There is no indication that Edison designed or tried to construct such a device.

Then a few paragraphs later, it says:

It is known that Edison had taken out some patents on various machines for communicating with the dead.

These can't both be true. Is there anyone with access to a biography about Edison, or another published work, that might clear up this conflict? I can't find any good online sources. — ripley\talk 22:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Edison was telling a tall tale -- according to this National Park Service site (they maintain his birthplace museum): [2]. Given this, the text should be modified -- and possibly even removed. It's used currently to make the point that people have been considering technological means to talk to the dead for some time, but according to this Edison had no more involvement than trying to fool a reporter. — ripley\talk 22:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


Bias

This article seems to be slanted heavily toward the 'EVP is paranormal' side. It states, matter-of-factly, that some people have been contacted in 'post-mortem messages.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.39.36 (talk • contribs)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Yes, it definitely needs cleaning up. Why don't you register for an account, roll up your sleeves and help us improve the article? — ripley\talk 16:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is a mess. It contains conflicting claims about Thomas Edison. It reports the results of a seance as factual. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral source of information about controversial subjects, not a proponent of them. If this article cannot be reigned into NPOV, I will look into the possibility of an arbitration committee. LuckyLouie 19:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This sentence: As with all paranormal phenomena, the origins and existence of EVP are disputed... implies that people are just picking fault with the paranormal and it's all true. Can it not be changed to "as with all phenomena with no scientific basis or realistic evidence whatsoever..."Famous Mortimer 11:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be massive POV pushing. You would also be required to qualify your statement with a citation.
perfectblue 16:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

rewrite

I have drafted a complete rewrite for the EVP entry; however, my wife and I are up against a firm schedule for the next NewsJournal and I am not sure I have the time to make the changes and negotiate with other contributors. Is anyone interested in assisting me? If so, I will send the rewrite to you and we could begin by using your greater understanding of procedures.

My justification for the changes is that:

Terms, such as “alleged,” “proponent” and “skeptic” have no place in this document because they imply opposing camps. The entry should be about EVP based on the evidence and not about opposing belief systems.

The history of EVP is much greater than is listed here, and it seems to be an unnecessary point of confusion. For instance, the first entry for Edison seems fair enough, but I have discussed the subject with a person at the Edison Foundation and they have no record of any device being attempted. Also, there are some serious but countering views of Spiricom, and the discussion distracts from the purpose of the dictionary. The history has too much lore, and I recommend that it be just a brief what started it and then a link to some good history on the web, such as that of Mark Macy.

The nature of EVP should be addressed in a more factual manner, as should the contending theories designed to explain it. There should be nothing here about belief unless it is based on evidence.

As an aside, Thorri, something about the safety of EVP could be addressed in the “how to” I included, but out of respect for Lundse’s comment which I am sure is shared by the majority, the caution should be worded to explain that the experimenter should take care not to fool him or herself into thinking words are in the recording that might not be there. There is no evidence that all of your precautions are either necessary, or if necessary, effective.

Lunde, the rewrite I am offering is pretty well documented, and I would be happy to see you correct any assumptions I have made that are not substantiated. For instance, it is experimentally established that the EVP exist and that someone is making the words, but references to an “etheric communicator” might need to be changed to “communicating entity.” I use “etheric” to mean anything not physical, and at the moment, there is nothing physical that has been identified as the source of the words or the energy enabling the words. We need a vocabulary to discuss EVP and I expect we can negotiate what that is.

Please let me know if anyone is willing to assist me in making (at least proposing) the changes Tom Butler 21:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I was planning to do the same thing this week. I even picked up a few books. :) I'm more then happy to give you a hand. Post the article here:Electronic voice phenomenon/Temp... that will let us work together on it when you have more time. ---J.S (t|c) 21:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I have posted the text on the "Temp" page. It is a little bit of a shock to see all of the formatting go away??
Please let me know what I need to do to help you.

Tom Butler 00:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

WOW... that's so malformed I can't tell whats going on it with... I can't wade though 52kb of unformatted text. Next time you want to copy from a page, I suggest you copy the source code (by clicking the edit link) to preserve the formatting. I'll give it some attention latter and see if I can fiugre out where your comments start/end. ---J.S (t|c) 00:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Tom Butler wrote: " Terms, such as “alleged,” “proponent” and “skeptic” have no place in this document because they imply opposing camps. The entry should be about EVP based on the evidence and not about opposing belief systems. " Hmm. That's an interesting POV. I am not aware of any credible source of proof that confirm EVP are in fact voices of unknown entities. There are sources that confirm the existence of both proponents and skeptics however. I'd be interested to see your rewrite. - LuckyLouie 08:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea that the data entry program is so primitive. The fact that it requires html source assures that the majority of the subject area experts Wikipedia should be depending on for entries will not participate. No wonder J.S. was going to pick up a few books to rewrite the EVP section. Is that the level of authenticity the public can expect?

I am sorry for having taken your time. It seems more effective for us to view the Wikipedia EVP entry as an extension of the religiously skeptical pages on the net and put the offered entry on aaevp.com.

LuckyLouie, after over fifteen years studying EVP, I am aware of no research that supports the skeptical view, other than the “Failure to replicate” report from Baruss (http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v15n3a3.php) and even in his work, he probably did record voices. He subsequently refused to work with a qualified EVP experimenter, and his main complaint was that there are no peer review journals for the subject. No wonder…. Meanwhile, look at Alexander MacRae’s article that was posted in a peer review journal. See http://www.skyelab.co.uk/review/bb.htm Tom Butler 18:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Tom: It is not up to the scientific community to disprove the extraordinary claims made by proponents of EVP. The burden of proof is on the claimants alone. Therefore, doubters and skeptics need not "prove" that their skepticism is supported. It is up to the claimant to prove their claim is valid. I did look at the article you cited. It is a report of an experiment by an isolated group. Which peer-reviewed journal was it published in? What was the response from the mainstream science community to this report? Wikipedia cannot publish pseudoscience as fact. It can, however note the claims of the pseudoscientists. LuckyLouie 19:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


If a skeptic claims that the voices are the result of, say, radio interference, then as the one making a positive claim the burden of proof rests on the skeptic. If a skeptic were to simply say that they did not think the evidence was strong enough yet to show that the voices were the voices of the dead or such like then that is a different matter. The problem being that what is called "skepticism" is often "debunking" and the burden of proof for debunking (making a positive claim that X is bunk) does indeed fall on the debunker. Thus, if skeptical (debunking) "solutions" are to be included then some evidence must be offered in support of those claims - it is not enough to simply offer up any old explanation and claim that no burden of proof (or anything else) is required. Davkal 19:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. It would not be accurate to say "EVP can be explained by X,Y, and Z" which implies that X,Y,and Z are always the causes. Instead, you might say something like "Skeptics feel that many EVP claims can be explained by mundane phenomenon such as X,Y, and Z". LuckyLouie 19:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have already withdrawn my effort to contribute to Wikipedia, but I think you owe the public a little bit of introspection about what you are doing here. After all, when the average person conducts a search for information on something, odds are he or she will end up on a Wikipedia page. Like it or not, it is the responsibility of the people who have time to maintain the subject matter who have the responsibility for its content. How are you forming the opinions of the public?

Skeptic vs. proponent should be a moot point in an encyclopedia. What should be presented is information backed by documentation. That should be the litmus test and anything else is opinion based on tradition. You should be able to see that in the preceding comments where LuckyLouie and Davkal expressed contradicting views but then seemed to find agreement. All in good faith, I am sure, but these are expressions of opinion, rather than policy, and only serve to be gatekeepers of a viewpoint—intended or not.

In a field of study in which there are few people able to conduct genuine research, there can only be a few data points, yet they are real, repeatable results of well considered protocols. The subject is EVP. It should be addressed as the subject, the evidence and the theories. Saying that EVP is proof positive of the Survival Hypothesis is not appropriate. It should be identified as one of the hypotheses considered for explaining EVP, but the entry is about EVP, the fact of EVP as it is defined by the evidence. Tom Butler 22:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Tom: please see my comment in the 'Bias' discussion just above this section. LuckyLouie 23:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I had noticed that entry, but in view of other comments, it is easy to become doubtful. The entry I had offered as a draft is at http://aaevp.com/articles/articles_about_evp11.htm You are welcome to its contents. At least, the references might help.
Tom Butler, I appreciate your hard-work and effort, but I find your assumption that I'm a "skeptic" to be slightly puzzling. I've conducted a small amount of EVP research myself and I wished to expand on an article that I had personal expertise in.
It is truly a shame you couldn't format it for Wiki standards. Actually, wikipedia accepts HTML as well, so you could submit it in HTML if you were more comfortable with that.
I do appreciate you uploading it to your website. Would you mind putting a note on the article about releasing it under the GFDL? I'd love to use parts of it, if you will still let me. ---J.S (t|c) 07:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

J.S., I didn't refer to you as a skeptic, and certainly if I conveyed that opinion, I apologize. In this exchange, I did say that parts of the text in the EVP entry contain words that imply a skeptical view or an unnecessary polarization of views.

My experience with Wikipedia has been discouraging, to say the least. I like the openness with which you all have dealt with my complaints. I am fighting a cold and fear that I may be a little cranky so I hope that I have not been overbearing. My bewilderment is with the structure of Wikipedia, I suppose. I looked at the GFDL page and all I can find is a page full of "ya buts" about the pros and cons and perhaps about using the license. I did find a page with the license itself, and of course, I am not going to put all of that on the web page. I did add the line referring to the license under the title of the article. let me know if you need more.

I ran into the same thing when trying to figure out the writer's guide.Why not simply say that entries in text format will loss all of their formatting but that html will work? I don't need to know all of the "Ya buts" about the guide. Once again, I do not have time to read and digest all of that material, and the only reason I am doing this at all is because I have spent too much time trying to fix the damage the current entry has caused. And "WOW... that's so malformed I can't tell whats going on it with... I can't wade though 52kb of unformatted text." did not endear me to the system. Tom Butler 17:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the system does discourage specialists in a number of fields. Things like out rule requiring "Neutral point of view" and the ban on "original research" are often the hardest guidelines for researchers such as yourself to accept. (
Your release under the GDFL is good 'nuff. ---J.S (t|c) 18:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
J. S., I had intended to give you an explanation about the abbreviated history for EVP. Mark Macy is sort of the ITC historian for all of us, and anything we do tends to be redundant to his work. Also there are opinions. For instance, Most of the Spiricom material comes from John Fuller who wrote The Ghost of 29 Megacycles (John G. Fuller, Souvenir Press, London GB, 1985. ISBN: 285-62691-4) Alexander MacRare, in his new book, EVP and New Dimensions, claims that it was a large part of Alexander's investigation of Spiricom that Fuller used in his book, except that Alec told Fuller that there were too many questions about Spiricom to accredit the results.
In my study, Spiricom is probably an instance of direct voice (http://nsacphenomena.com/terms_a_to_l.htm#D), as is probably the Bacci work. Both forms are astounding, so this is not to distract, but direct voice is not EVP. As an aside, Waldemar Bogoras was clearly recording direct voice and not EVP.
So my point is that the history is one of those things that you have to decide to either include one and make it complete or just put in the essentials and refer the reader to a fairly complete history is at http://www.worlditc.org/a_02_macy_itc_history.htm. What I have at http://aaevp.com/articles/articles_about_evp11.htm is what I would consider the essential.
Actually, it is sort of funny. The real historical significance of Spiricom is the Edison-like approach to EVP research mounted by George Meek, not the contacts. The device has never worked for others, and amounts to little more than a "red herring" today, unnecessarily draining people's research funds. And as for Edison, no one considers him a pioneer in this field any more than astronomers would consider Arthur C. Clarke a pioneer.
Oh, and as another aside, could you not mention us or at least not refer to Lisa and I as "The Reverends"? We are, but the title has nothing to do with AA-EVP and we certainly do not approach the study of EVP as a religion. Thanks! Tom Butler 01:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
But certainly you will admit that, according to the National Spiritualist Association of Churches fifth principle, which states, "We affirm that communication with the so-called dead is a fact, scientifically proven by the phenomena of Spiritualism", a belief in EVP is inextricably tied to your approach, and so may influence any studies and conclusions. LuckyLouie 02:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
NSAC's belifes may or may not be the same belifes held by Tom Butler. Either way, it's not important to the subject of this article. ---J.S (t|c) 02:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The Directors of the NSAC Department of Phenomenal Evidence are Tom and Lisa Butler. Both are Spiritualist Teachers with the National Spiritualist Association of Churches. How do their beliefs differ from NSAC's? - LuckyLouie 03:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Not every bishop of the catholic church belief every thing the church believes in. In any case, your assuming Tom is incapable of setting aside his own personal beliefs in during his investigation.
Anyway, this is all irrelevant to the article, and this talk page is a discussion about the article. ---J.S (t|c) 03:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You know your Spiritualism, I see. Yes, we were Directors of the DPE, but recently gave it up. The NSAC is a community of churches. Those congregations exist as like-minded people and they are busy enough trying to keep the community together without worrying about their scientific foundation. Lisa still produces a monthly column for their magazine, old copies of which are on aaevp.com, and we are still proud to be members of the community. But you miss the point of Spiritualism and I would be happy to take that discussion into a different forum. In answer to your question, I am a happy evidence begot. Spiritualism is not just faith-based and I can prove a good bit of that.

I am an electronic engineer and I have little time for faith-based systems, and that includes unsupported assumptions in orthodox science, as well. Parapsychology is based on psychology and that is based on the assumption of a biological origin of consciousness. There is not even a common vocabulary orthodox science and etheric studies to discuss survival of the personality in terms other than faith.

Of course there are people working with EVP who believe all sorts of unsupported things, but the document I posted at aaevp.com is based on evidence, and where I have failed to follow the rules of evidence, it should be changed. But at the same time, concocting excuses to ignore evidence is intellectually lazy. You cannot erase the existing research, or the fact that thousands of people around the world are independently recording EVP by calling it pseudo-science or saying there have been too few documented experiments. We say :"let the evidence lead the way." You can follow a different path, but whatever is written about EVP in Wikipedia--or any of the other forms of phenomena we study--needs to be factual and without innuendo. Tom Butler 01:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The pioneers of any science are always the bravest. Keep up your research and try to get published in a mainstream journal. ---J.S (t|c) 23:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Concerns about the article

There is a great mass of material in this article that is unreferenced at all; others that present speculation as fact, e.g: "In a post-mortem message in 1988 Raudive stated..."; and even personal comments: "I think that may be what the original author intended...". I would go through and add {{fact}} templates, but to do so would fairly litter the article with them. Is anyone prepared to enter into a dialogue over the material and quality of this article? (Incidentally, professionally I'm an electrical engineer, if this has any bearing on the matter here.) --BillC 23:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I intend to at some point scrap most of the article in a rewrite... but I'm really not a great author and I've been having less and less time as we get closer to xmass. ---J.S (t|c) 00:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Until you can at least put up the bare bones of your intended rewrite, it's hard to make any progress. I could think of several restructuring changes right off the bat, but I'm waiting for you, and wish to make it a cooperative effort. LuckyLouie 00:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do that tonight after I fix my car. I'll do it here: Electronic voice phenomenon/Temp ---J.S (t|c) 23:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, theres how I plan on organizing the article including section headers. Thoughts? ---J.S (t|c) 00:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we post comments here, rather than on Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/Temp. I'm not sure either Fortean Times or The Skeptics Dictionary meet standards as regards to Reliable sources, and both, if used, ought to be presented as partisan sources. The quote seems to have come from a reliable enough source, but I'm not sure it sheds enough light on the matter to be of very much use. MacRae's paper appears to be self-published on the web, unless I am mistaken, or a more dependable third-party source can be provided. --BillC 23:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree it would be better to post here and amend the article as and when agreement is reached. Is there no flag that can be added to the article to say it will be subject to major changes, which could then be removed when we have something a bit more satisafctory. It's better than the current POV and neutrality flags etc. since it doesn't seem anybody here is in much disagreement about the fact it needs work.Davkal 23:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Within the context of citing the claims of those who support a paranormal theory, Fortean Times is acceptable. Within the paranormal, Fortean Times is the trade publication... in a manner of speaking. I agree, The Skeptics Dictionary isn't the best of sources, but since the fact it was upholding wasn't very controversial then I figured it would be ok. From what I understand MacRae's paper was published... but I've been unable to figure out where at. I'd be happy to replace the source with a citation to the journal when it's found... but it's quite difficult to search for those kinds of things online. Other then the weak sources, is there any concern over the structure or direction the article is taking? I know I haven't finished it yet, but the section headers sorta tell where I'm taking it. (I tried to remove language like "supporters"/"sceptics" since it's really a matter of competing theories) ---J.S (t|c) 06:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not know about the quality of the quote concerning finding voices in noise, but saying something to that effect can be of a service to the public. It is very common for people to hear what sounds like a distant conversation, maybe a radio station that can almost be heard and sometimes even with a hint of perceived music. We receive many emails to that effect from site visitors who fear they are not well, and the characteristics are always the same. This is not EVP and is a normal response by the person's awareness attempts to find order in chaos. Some people are adamant that they are really hearing voices.
As for the MacRae article, the article was published in the JSPR, I am pretty sure in 2003 or 4. I used that online article because it does describe the work rather well. There is a There is a subsequent article titles, Report of an Electronic Voice Phenomena Experiment Inside a Double-Screened Room, by Alexander MacRae, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, October 2005. Since it is later on the same point and I have the reference date correct, perhaps you can use that. MacRae does not do well with posting Internet material, so I could consider scanning the article for you, but I would need to send it off-line. The JSPR is a British peer review journal, and the SPR has recently let an research grant to MacRae, as has the Bial Foundation.
We routinely use a listening panel approach and the 4Cell EVP Demonstration (http://aaevp.com/articles/articles_about_4cell_experiment.htm) protocol depends on independent understanding of the utterances. I mentioned this in the suggested Wikipedia entry for EVP at http://aaevp.com/articles/articles_about_evp11.htm.
I regret that, if you are looking for other research or more formal research, you will need to look to the future, as there is hardly any infrastructure in support of EVP research at this time. We are attempting to establish "Etheric Studies" with an online peer review journal and Best Practices leading to research grants, but as you might expect, that is a very long rope to push.
J.S., I appreciate it that you are going forward with the rewrite, although I am having a little trouble seeing the direction you are taking. One point to consider. Spiricom is a blind-alley for EVP research. George Meek will be remembered because of his production line effort at research, but the experimental results have never been replicated, and as far as I can tell, actually represent the physical mediumship of Bill O'Neil incidentally using electronic technology like a Spiritualist's trumpet. I still think it is best to keep the history down to about what I have in the suggested article. Tom Butler 18:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
JSPR... I'll see if they have an online-search function. Often peer-reviews do. Thanks for the pointer.
True, but Spiricom is also an important piece of EVP history. It seems like most sites mention it. I will mention the failure of the attempts to reproduce. I'm going to try to touch on most of the major people and events, but only briefly. If people want more, references and sub-articles are the best way to deal with it.
My goal is to present each of the different arguments and let the readers draw their own conclusions. I think that's keeping with the spirit of wikipedia. ---J.S (t|c) 19:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Been away for the holiday and will look over you temp file this weekend, perhaps add some comment, thanks. LuckyLouie 05:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been in and out. Car broke down so I've been at the mercy of others to get to where I need to be. Spent a few nights at homes other then mine.:) Anyway, once things settle down I'll be able to devote more time to this. ---J.S (t|c) 06:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I looked over the temp article and I think a definition of EVP must lead the article. I think you are going to have a problem defining EVP as factual based on non-mainstream research results and avoiding mention of skeptics contesting those results. As far as I can see, Wikipedia does not appear to support any of the various paranormal phenomenon as scientific fact, however they do support a neutral presentation of methods, claims and beliefs related to those phenomenon. The dowsing article seems to be a good example of how such a controversial subject is treated. LuckyLouie 20:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Thats something to think about. I think it shouldn't be too much of a problem to summarise the issue in the into. ---J.S (t|c) 20:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at the references that have been cited thus far in the draft. #1 is for the Skeptic page at http://www.skepdic.com/evp.html. There are two references to radio interference in that article. The : " (EVP)...they are probably due to such things as interference from a nearby CB operator or cross modulation." The "Interference" link is broken. The cross modulation link just explains cross-modulation in general. This is not what I would refer to as an authoritative argument, but rather something that only sounds good. The second reference to radio on this web page is at the bottom and apparently attributed to sound engineer, David Federlein. I don't know the fellow, but it is clear that he is more interested in sarcasm than in a factual review of EVP. He bases all of his comments on the fact that his recording equipment is of much higher quality than that used for EVP, and since he has not found EVP, the poor quality of the equipment is obviously producing artifacts mistaken as EVP. This ignores the experimental evidence that the voices are formed of available audio noise as found in cheap recorders. It is also an example of a person making authoritative comments on a subject for which he has no training.

I am noting these concerns because I know it is tempting to trot out quotes from authorities in other fields and thereby attempt to make an authoritative statement about EVP. The one by Andrew C.P. Sims in reference #4 is okay but it is close to my point. Sims is a professor of psychology and has no apparent experience with EVP. The way the quote is used is fair, so it is of good use so long as it is made clear that Sims is speaking in general and not about EVP in specific.

The quote by Alcock that is cited via reference #1 is from http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/evp.html and is a clear-cut case of a PhD making a statement under the authority of a scholastic degree even though that degree does not provide the qualifications to speak on the subject. It is unethical for Alcock to make such statements without stating what he bases his opinion on. He may as well be making a comment about Superstring Theory based on his psychological training.

My point in this message is that LuckyLouie is probably right in his observation that, "I think you are going to have a problem defining EVP as factual based on non-mainstream research results and avoiding mention of skeptics contesting those results." Only, my view is that, to maintain a "Neutral point of view," I think it will be necessary to simply delete the EVP entry in its entirety and admit that Wikipedia is not the place to explain EVP. Alternatively, what I wrote at http://aaevp.com/articles/articles_about_evp11.htm is factual, well cited and addresses the suggested explanations. It addresses what EVP is without making extraordinary claims outside of experimental evidence. The wording of the article is also negotiable so long as we agree that what is said is said by people who have reason to know what they are talking about. Tom Butler 02:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. Wikipedia cannot simply abandon an article because one individual feels his data must take precedence. I think a non-POV, encyclopedia format article can be accomplished. It has been for such controversial articles as dowsing and ghost and many others. LuckyLouie 03:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think an important point in this and several other articles, is not to let skeptics have too much say if they haven't done any actual research or are not speaking with the support of anyone who has. EVP, then, is in a fundamentally different position from, say, pseudoarcheological claims, because we have plenty of mainstream archeologists who the skeptics can cite in support of their view. With EVP on the other hand, we have actual researchers (possibly not "mainstream" whatever that would mean here) doing actual research and publishing actual articles, and we have armchair critics who have conducted no experiments, carried out no real research and published nothing in peer-review journals, but who instead simply give voice to their unsupported views about untested claims and solutions as if that was that. (For example, has anyone ever demonstrated one single case of alleged EVP or EVP-type phenomena to have actually come from an identified radio broadcast - if this was the actual, or even a viable, solution then why is 90% of EVP not simply identifiable music from known radio stations.) In cases such as this, then, I think, we are duty bound to present the evidence according to the best informed sources we have. This doesn't mean we have to swallow everything said by those sources, particularly conclusions, hook, line and sinker, but neither can we put unsupported armchair skeptical speculation alongside it as if it carried as much weight. Davkal 14:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that EVP researchers carry much more weight than the skeptics. All significant views have a place in this article. — e. ripley\talk 16:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia merely reports the opinion of skeptics, it doesn't judge how much research they did in order to form that opinion. Skeptics do not have to disprove the existence of EVP. They are not the ones claiming some extraordinary contact with other dimensions. They are not the ones challenging the views of mainstream science. No matter how many private experiments are cited, the existence of EVP is not a scientifically-established truth, and therefore it will be treated as a controversial subject on Wikipedia, and neither skeptical views nor EVP proponents views will be suppressed. (And for the record, radio transmissions are not all music, in fact only a small percentage are, the rest are data and voice communications.) LuckyLouie 17:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, just so. Wikipedia isn't in the business of discovering or pronouncing the TRUTH of something where there is a disagreement. We only summarize verifiable and reliable opinions on the various sides of the disagreement, and allow readers to make their own choices. — e. ripley\talk 17:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The point was not that we should not report the skeptics' views. The point was that we should treat the views appropriately. If researchers are publishing articles in peer-review journals then that carries more weight than an armchair skeptic claiming on a website that such voices can be the result of radio interference, when there may be no scientific evidence that radio interference can even be recorded in the manner described. The point being that just because someone is, say, a scientist in their day job, doesn't mean that their web blog opinions should be treated as as anything more than web blog opinions (e.g. Skepdic).Davkal 20:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's true that not all sources are created equal in terms of how we treat them in articles (hence the "undue weight" portions of WP:NPOV). However, I'd prefer to deal in specifics, so let's move on to discussing specific changes that need to be made to the article. — e. ripley\talk 20:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


To bring the abstraction into the specfics of the article - we currently have no sources for the skeptical views outside a private website/blog yet these views are allowed to permeate the whole as if they were actual scientific findings. Davkal 20:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about skepticism, not debunking. Again, it is not the job of skeptics to undertake peer-reviewed research in order to disprove the extraordinary claims made by proponents of EVP. The burden of proof is on the claimants alone. Therefore, skeptics need not "prove" that their skepticism is supported. In the case of a specific skeptical opinions, these can be stated in non-debunking terms. Rather than say "EVP can be explained by X,Y, and Z" which implies that X,Y,and Z are always the causes, instead, we say that "Skeptics feel that many EVP claims can be explained by mundane phenomenon such as X,Y, and Z". Regarding which sources have more weight in the article, we have WP:CITE WP:REF as a guide. LuckyLouie 21:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
If you check out the temp page I have some reliable sources for some of the non-ghost theories. I'll incorporate them into the article at some point. ---J.S (T/C) 21:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review journals

How do we define 'peer reviewed journals'? Is it simply any organization that has a journal and invites comments from peers? Or since there are claims of a scientific nature being discussed, do we define them as entities of established mainstream scientific credibility and extensive longevity such as Science?

Whatever the answer, here is an MIT press article I found interesting.

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/09611210152780728?journalCode=lmj

-LuckyLouie 21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

MIT Press looks reputable. I wish I could access the article. :( ---J.S (T/C) 21:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Academic Journal

An academic journal is a regularly-published, peer-reviewed publication that publishes scholarship relating to an academic discipline. The purpose of such a journal is to provide a place for the introduction and scrutiny of new research, and often a forum for the critique of existing research, whether as journal articles or as books. These purposes are most often manifested in the publication of original research articles, review articles, and book reviews.

From Academic journal. ---J.S (T/C) 21:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Serious question: are all journals created equal? Would, for example, the findings detailed in The Creation Research Society Quarterly (http://creationresearch.org/crsq.html) have the same weight as those found in The National Academy of Science Journal (http://www.pnas.org/)? What about the concept of 'widespread support' among the scientific community? LuckyLouie 22:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, in a situation where two respected journals are publishing articles with a different viewpoint, one wouldn't trump the other. Each would be mentioned as a notable view. I'm not sure I'm qualified to know if either CRSQ or NASJ is reputable, but both appear to be. ---J.S (T/C) 22:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding controversial subjects, I believe that claims not supported by the relevant academic community or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community would have less weight. However, I believe this discussion is largely moot, since the article should strive to present both skeptical and proponent views fairly, rather than assign weight to sources or decide which of the views is true. - LuckyLouie 22:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Very true, but getting published in a "respected" peer-review is often seen as de-facto acceptance by at-least a small but significant part of the academic community. It also means the panel at the peer-review felt the research/theory/whatever was plausible and unlikely to damage the reputation of the journal. ---J.S (T/C) 22:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will admit that radio has been recorded and mistaken as EVP. In one instance, a ghost hunting group reported astoundingly long and clear EVP of a religious nature recorded during a night hunt. We asked them to take a look to see if there was a nearby radio transmitter because their recordings fell outside of the usual characteristics for EVP--that is, short or pocketed messages and complete statements pertinent to the circumstances. As it turned out there was a transmitter next door and there was a religious program on at the time. This is why characteristics matter. The recording fell way outside of several important "expectations" for EVP--pretty much as a rock falling uphill would raise questions for a physicist.

I think you are missing the point of my comments about people being qualified to talk authoritatively about EVP. Physical science is based on the assumption of all things beginning with the Big Bang. Psychology is based on the assumption of a biological origin of consciousness, and of course, all properly trained parapsychologists are first psychologists. If the Survival Hypothesis turns out to have merit, then to discuss it, it is necessary to talk about things that are what I generally call "etheric." By definition, "etheric" is everything that is not physical. So right up front, parapsychologists and physicists do not have a vocabulary to discuss the experimental findings of EVP. Based on the principles of physical science, things etheric must be matters of religion and therefore cannot be real. How do you bridge those two sets of assumptions?

The British Society for Psychical Research has been around since 1882 and is dominated by academically trained parapsychologists. So I would think the MacRae reference for screened room research is pretty sound, as is the listening panel study. The fact is thought, for the reasons I cited above, you simply are not going to find anything affirmative published about EVP in any of the main-stream science journals. You will find denouncing reports because they will always rely on popular science. The question of peer review journal is valid enough, but if you require an academic journal, then you just closed the door on 99.9% of the research into this field because academic institutions do not yet recognize the phenomena.

I cannot believe that the link to that sound artist was actually posted here.Tom Butler 01:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

I've restored the old intro paragraph which I feel is much better than the one that was in the article. It treats the subject much more neutrally and presents both sides fairly, I think. Comments? — e. ripley\talk 17:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you try revisions here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Electronic_voice_phenomenon/Temp LuckyLouie 17:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
"Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are said to be ghostly communications picked up through tape recorders or other electronic audio devices."
I think your not distinguishing between what EVPs are and one theory of thier origin. Can we stick to what is known about evps when trying to define them? ---J.S (T/C) 17:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
But the one theory of their origin is the only one that is appropriate to this terminology. Skeptics would never call them EVPs. I think it's accurate to say that EVPs are claimed to be X. Then we get into the skeptical view. It's not inappropriate to define what a discipline's proponents believe the phenomena to be in the first sentence. It would be different if this article were a larger survey, say, Spirit communications or Attempts to record spirit communications. But since it uses the nomenclature of believers, it's appropriate to say what those believers say it is. Of course we don't have to, and should not, pronounce them true. Which we don't. I'll change "said to be" to "claims," though, which may be more appropriate. — e. ripley\talk 17:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Actualy, "skeptics" DO call them EVPS and there are 3 diffrent explinations (and a bunch of fringe explinations). I explore a few of them on the temppage rewrite. ---J.S (T/C) 17:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
All right, I stand corrected on that point. But the bulk of my point is still valid, that believers' viewpoints should be adequately represented though not declared to be true. Also, is there really a need for a temp page? Doesn't seem to be much edit warring on this article, it looks like folks are working together so far anyway. — e. ripley\talk 18:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This article should not give undue weight to AAEVP's theories, views and definitions and exclude all other believers views. With supernatural claims in general, there are no "experts'. There are hundreds of paranormal hobby groups who believe "EVP are ghostly communications picked up through tape recorders or other electronic audio devices" as well as TV shows, ghost hunting books, etc. LuckyLouie 17:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I still fail to see what the problem is currently with the intro. It's very generic about both sides' views (insomuch as there are discrete "sides," your point about hobbyists is well taken and should even be mentioned somewhere) and I think represents the bulk of them fairly, which is what an intro should do. Specifics are for later. What exactly is the problem with the intro? — e. ripley\talk 17:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
"said to be ghostly communications" That is the main point of debate in the whole field. Just mentioning one side is a bit like saying "UFOs are unidentified craft said to be alien crafts." It might be true that it is said they are "ghostly communications" but it's not really the only thing being said. (it's also weasel-wordy.) ---J.S (T/C) 18:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't just mention one side. Two sentences later is the skeptical view, so I'm a bit puzzled about your opinion. Some weasel words are needed in the intro, you can't summarize every view in three sentences and aren't expected to. As long as the article treats the intra-camp differences in some detail later, that's all that really matters. But, the intro doesn't only say they are ghostly communications. It says they are claimed to be ghostly communications, which puts the reader on notice that others disagree. Within the same paragraph is the antecedent view. Would you prefer the two camps be linked with a semicolon in the first sentence? I don't have a problem with that as long as it doesn't get too long. — e. ripley\talk 18:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The temp page was instituted to try out ideas for restructuring the article. (Take a look at the temp page for a restructure I just did) I think the definition created by Ripley is close, but needs to add in a brief summary (a sentence or two) of what the other proponents beliefs for EVP origins are. LuckyLouie 18:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey JS, I like your rewrite, it's a clever way to get into the technical act of EVPs without the back and forthing of opinions, which then logically follows. — e. ripley\talk 18:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I gave a shot at a rewite, what do you guys think? I tried to remove this false dichotomy between "skeptics" and "believers." Their are skeptics of each theory, but no-one is seriously skeptical over the existence of EVPs as a phenomenon (real or imagined). ---J.S (T/C) 18:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. :) ---J.S (T/C) 18:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Tops. I gave it a quick copyedit but it works for me, overall. — e. ripley\talk 18:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Works for me, too. So never mind the temp page, it was only a suggestion. LuckyLouie 18:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The current intro paragraph suggests that EVP are acoustical phenomena. All of the experimental evidence indicates that they occur within the electronics and that sound is only needed to produce audio frequency energy, probably for the active region of the electronic components. I do agree with trying a “just the fact” approach. Perhaps the following:

The phrase, “Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are unexpected voices found in recording media,” is neutral in that it does not suppose how the voices are formed or by who. The one assumption that I think we are going to have to agree on is that the existence of the voices is too easily demonstrated to ignore. Of course, I will argue that the voices can be reliably shown to frequently form discernable words, and that once discerned, those words compose complete thoughts which are appropriate to the circumstances in which they were recorded. However, I do not think it is necessary to say so much to fulfill the function of the encyclopedia, so lets not even go there.

Going on to say that, “These unexpected voices have been found in every form of technology capable of recording voice, from the early wax recorders to modern cell phones and computers,” should suffice for the historical part of the introduction.

Then saying that, “Explanations for EVP include mundane sounds mistaken as human voice, the recording device receiving a local radio signal, a malfunctioning recording device and the voices of discarnate entities.” I even think it is appropriate to say that, “All proposed explanations require only known physical principles except for ‘discarnate voices’ which presupposes principles that are not recognized by modern science.”

So here would be the introductory comment for EVP: “Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are unexpected voices found in recording media. These unexpected voices have been found in every form of technology capable of recording voice, from the early wax recorders to modern cell phones and computers. Explanations for EVP include mundane sounds mistaken as human voice, the recording device receiving a local radio signal, a malfunctioning recording device and the voices of discarnate entities. All proposed explanations require only known physical principles except for ‘discarnate voices’ which presupposes principles that are not recognized by modern science.”

You can go on to discuss the history; although the more you say about it the more apt you are going to get wrapped around the axel about what belongs there. It seems that one can never have a complete history so it is better to just address the beginning which I have described in my offering at aaevp.com. After that, you should be able to address the various theories explaining EVP by simply stating what they are and their supporting physical principles. You can do this without saying “skeptic” or “proponent” and there is no need to say which is correct. This will avoid the problem of what is acceptable research.

The problem this entry has had is the supposition that a conclusion must be drawn. It is only necessary to state the neutral points. If you include the links for a few of those who are speaking on this subject—pro or con, I am sure the reader can figure out the rest. Oh, and if it is an issue, the AA-EVP, a link to aaevp.com and any reference to our work need not be included. That is not our objective in this initiative. Tom Butler 01:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am curious as to why mention of the alien theory was not included in the opening paragraph. According to AAEVP and others, some believe that EVP origins are extraterrestrial. LuckyLouie 03:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


It was until a day or so ago. Davkal 03:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that Tom Butler's suggested opening paragraph above is significantly better than what is currently in the article. Davkal 12:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I prefer what we had earlier, since "unexpected voices" presumes that everyone hears the "voices" and they are in, fact "voices". (ex. many samples sound like noise to me). LuckyLouie 17:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps something like: Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are sounds found in recording media that some interpret as voices that were inaudible at the the time of recording. (Although the weasel word 'some' is probably best avoided.) --BillC 18:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I also think the use of the term "unexpected" would be inaccurate. If you are asking supposed spirits to answer questions on a recording medium, then you scour the recorded medium using headphones, filters, and variable speed until you find something that you interpret as a voice giving you an answer -- the resulting "voice" can hardly be termed "unexpected". I think expectation plays a large part in the EVP phenomenon. LuckyLouie 18:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The present version: Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) is the recording of unexplained voices or other sounds on electronic media, most frequently tapes, however these voices and sounds have been found in every form of technology capable of recording voice, from the early wax recorders to modern cell phones and computers. I think that by stating the "voices" are unexplained, Wikipedia would be weighting the article towards those who believe they are unexplained, and away from those who believe they are explainable. I also think that the next phrase (beginning with "however") implies that the phenomenon is widespread and occurs among those not looking for EVP. I think you have to qualify it by stating that proponents have found the voices and sounds. LuckyLouie 19:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't like this version at all, because it pronounces what is recorded as voices (tacking on "or other sounds" isn't really good enough to satisfy WP:NPOV in my opinion). I think the previous introduction was much fairer to both sides. From an aesthetic and grammatic point of view, it's also terribly clunky and long. — e. ripley\talk 19:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Structure (tempage comment)

Lucky, excuse me for saying so, but I don't really like the article structure on the temp page. I'd like to avoid inappropriately using the terms "skeptic" and "proponents" in this context. EVP is not a theory, it is an observed phenomenon. In my opinion the terms "skeptic" and "proponents" should be reserved for theories. ---J.S (T/C) 18:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: In this context I'm using the word "observed" without making a judgement on it's reality. ---J.S (T/C) 18:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem. The skeptic/proponent structure has successfully been used for other disputed/paranormal Wiki articles, so I thought it might be an approach to a solution here. LuckyLouie 18:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how restricting the usage of these phrases will work in practical terms, but I'm willing to take a look. Count me skeptical. =D — e. ripley\talk 18:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I think JS is saying that EVP (like The Face On Mars) is rarely disputed as an actual observed phenomenon, however the skeptic/proponent debate only comes into play when discussing the various theories of what it is. LuckyLouie 19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yup, thats what I mean. ---J.S (T/C) 19:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Requesting image(s)

I'd really like to see some images in this article. It would be great to get a photo of some of the EVP recording gear. Tape recorder, microphone, etc. I might be able to borrow a digital camera and work something out... Thoughts/suggestions? ---J.S (T/C) 19:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this is something you can help us out with Tom? ---J.S (T/C) 19:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro paragraph (moving down as it's active)

My latest attempt:

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are sounds captured on electronic media, most frequently by tape recorders. There is significant disagreement over the origin of these sounds, with paranormal researchers arguing that they are created by spirits, and skeptics countering that they are the result of interference from nearby radio sources such as CB radios [1] or possibly caused by the psychological tendency to find humanity in otherwise random stimuli. [2]

— e. ripley\talk 19:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I also took this out because I have no idea what it's trying to say: All proposed explanations require only known physical principles except for ‘discarnate voices’ which presupposes principles that are not recognized by modern mainstream science. Remember this is intended to be an overview of a topic that a layman can read and understand. The problem is that it introduces several concepts but doesn't explain what they are, and I'm not sure that they can all be explained in the first paragraph without it becoming overly-long. — e. ripley\talk 19:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you got it. But I will make an edit to take out "with paranormal researchers arguing that they are created by spirits, and skeptics countering that they are the result of interference from nearby radio sources such as CB radios [1] or possibly caused by the psychological tendency to find humanity in otherwise random stimuli." since the next two paragraphs repeat this information (redundantly). LuckyLouie 21:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I really don't think that's a good idea. Otherwise the first sentence is largely worthless, it conveys little meaningful information. "EVPs are sounds. Some people disagree on what makes them." (but we have nothing about the disagreement). Pare it down if you like, but we should have *something* about the two sides in the introductory paragraph. — e. ripley\talk 21:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
If the issue is the paragraphization, by all means consolidate the sentences, if possible. LuckyLouie 21:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The opeing paragraph right now is not nearly as good as the one Tom Butler suggested above. One example, how can you talk about proponents of the "past-life hypothesis" without explaining previously what it is. And, in any case, "past-life" has too many associations with, say, past-life regression through hypnosis etc. That is, "past-life" does not refer to dead people but to people who are very much alive and "remember" having lived before. Davkal 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Here it is:

“Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are unexpected voices found in recording media. These unexpected voices have been found in every form of technology capable of recording voice, from the early wax recorders to modern cell phones and computers. Explanations for EVP include mundane sounds mistaken as human voice, the recording device receiving a local radio signal, a malfunctioning recording device and the voices of discarnate entities. All proposed explanations require only known physical principles except for ‘discarnate voices’ which presupposes principles that are not recognized by modern science.”

Much more informative, less (no) errors, less confrontational (two-sides doesn't get a mention) etc etc. Why not just go with that. Davkal 22:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A number of reasons. The voices are not proven to be exclusively voices, but are often are sounds interpreted as voices. They are not unexpected, as they are heard by those who are specifically looking for them. And the last sentence ("All proposed explanations require...") reflects a singular POV, and is written in non-layman language which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. LuckyLouie 23:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
You guys are making it really easy for “proponents” of EVP to make skeptics look silly when you say that they argue anything like stray radio signals. It is far better to say that stray radio signals are one proposed explanation without attributing the theory. Even though we tend to be definite about research results at aaevp.com, we do try to keep an open door for bona fide researchers. I tried to write that intro in that spirit.
I have been trying to find verbiage that is neutral yet factual. The audible sounds in question are voice-like, complete with formants that any slightly trained skeptic will find with even the free Audacity audio editing program. If they were expected, then they would be explainable by known science. In fact, the majority of people working with EVP did first encounter the voices as “unexpected.” “Unexpected” is about as neutral yet descriptive as I can think of.
Another point is that the sounds that are considered EVP are exclusively voices. Otherwise, they would not be EVP.
J. S., a picture of a wave form might be instructive. One possible version is at http://aaevp.com/examples/examples_voice7.htm. I can make one to order if you like. We can also arrange voice examples, but then that would certainly be too biased. When you show a picture of a recorder, then people think that is what they need to use and people begin selling them on eBay for hundreds more than they are worth.
I think you need to be careful here. The three logical areas of the intro I proposed—what it is, history and explanation—should reflect what is elaborated on afterwards. However, if you say much more about the discarnate voices theory anywhere in the item than what I said in the intro, you have to explain the whole notion of personal survival, which must be tempered with quantum-holographics and the like for balance. In fact, I have not found a foundation of concepts in Wikipedia to go that far and I doubt you all are sufficiently informed to continue this pro-con discussion much past the basic definition of EVP. Rather than my spending the next few years trying to fix what you would have to write here, I would rather you leave the reader with less explanation. You do not have to explain the theories. In such a case, the item can actually be very short—not “terribly clunky and long” at all. Tom Butler 00:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
As a point of order, audio tape recorders are hardly ever used these days. Tom Butler 00:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
They are recommended in a large number of instructional books & websites. *shrug* I'll remove the "most commonly" part as being something without any citation.
I think we can leave the explanation of "personal survival" in the article dedicated to the concept. That's what wiki-links and "see also" sections are for.
The wave-form might be a good idea for latter in the article... or even up top. Could we use that image? It would need to be released under GFDL as well.
Actually, a EVP sound clip would be quite nice. We can upload to wikipedia in "Ogg" audio format and include it in the article. Some might claim it's Original Research... but it would only be used as an example of what an EVP sounds like, so it might be ok. ---J.S (T/C) 00:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
A photo of a waveform would be ideal for the article. Also a "typical" EVP as a sound file is not inappropriate.
Speaking of being careful, I think Tom should resist becoming too didactic here, as this Wiki article cannot rely on one source for guidance or represent only one group's beliefs and methods. There are many, many other sources of information about EVP such as Lou Gentile who uses tape recorders exclusively and who believes that what sounds like a click at normal speed can be slowed down and interpreted as a voice. LuckyLouie 01:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

J.S., take a look at “I found you there” at http://aaevp.com/examples/examples_voice2.htm. I think you can access the sound file but it is an mp3. I can supply it as a *.wav. I am not set up for whatever “ogg” is, although I can look into it if necessary. Also take a look at “Think Positively, Instantly away” at http://aaevp.com/examples/examples_voice11.htm . We can talk about other examples. Let me know if you see any from around the Internet that you would prefer and I will attempt to gain permission for their use.

LuckyLouie, from what I can see, Lou uses a Panasonic RR-DR60 almost exclusively (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1757646). We all evolve. I agree that I should try to teach less and that there are many other viewpoints being expressed by people active in this field. I apologize if I am being too aggressive. On the other hand, all that I am saying is mainstream in my field, and because I represent a teaching organization, I have spent years learning to be very careful to keep my comments supportable by experimental evidence. You have argued before that I am just one person, yet I do not see anyone else in this discussion working from anything other than hearsay. I will be happy top invite people from around the world to jump in here if you wish, but I had hoped to be able to complete this without turning it into a circus. Tom Butler 02:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I concede I was mistaken about Lou Gentile's digital recorder, yet my point remains: the article should reflect the variety of EVP proponent's methods and views, from Tom Butler...to the hundreds of active amateur ghost-hunting groups. And since there is dispute as to what EVP is, the skeptical point of view should be represented as well. And finally, Wikipedia operates by building a consensus WP:CON among editors, rather than one individual bringing in people from around the world to support one particular view. LuckyLouie 03:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


Here is the response to my queries about why Tom Butler's opening pragraph was not used. My responses to this are in italics.

"A number of reasons. The voices are not proven to be exclusively voices, but are often are sounds interpreted as voices (neither are they proven to be mere sounds interpreted as voices - this is simply one skeptical solution which is being presented as fact). They are not unexpected (they are insamuch as nobody knows exactly where or when they will appear, but even so, just change to "unexplained" or "of unknown origin or something), as they are heard by those who are specifically looking for them. And the last sentence ("All proposed explanations require...") reflects a singular POV (no it doesn't, it's a simple statement of fact), and is written in non-layman language which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia (no it isn't, it should be perfectly clear to anyone what the words mean ).

Also, the misuse of "past-life" has not been addressed, which is, incidentally, a non-layman term, albeit with nothing really to do with the point it is used to explain.

It is hard to resist the conclusion that a couple of skeptics are so concerened that the article might not present their view as the right one and favour it everywhere, that they will jolly well go and write the thing themselves - even if that means the article is written by people who have very little knowledge about the subjects necessary for writing such an article. The result is the first-year ("freshman", in the US, I think) essay currently on display. I think we should go with what Tom Butler has written and make minor changes to it as and when. He seems to understand the need for NPOV, is clearly a good writer, and, importantly, he understands the subject matter. Davkal 13:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Your last paragraph is insulting. Please assume good faith, we're all here to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, even if we may have different opinions on topical matters. To your point that the sentence I removed is "perfectly clear to anyone," well, I'm a layman who is not very familiar with this topic (beyond seeing some Ghost Hunters episodes) and it's absolutely impenetrable to me. I like to think of myself as rather intelligent, so what I take away from this is that it needs to be rewritten if it's to be included. — e. ripley\talk 17:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Davkal, your comments about "past-life" are about right from my experience. The term is almost exclusively the domain of the reincarnation systems of thought. Along with mediumship, near death experiences and after death communication, reincarnation is cited as one of the "proofs" of the Survival Hypothesis. Here, "after death communication" is intended as spontaneous, such as discussed by the Guggenheim (http://www.after-death.com/), and does not yet include induced ADC (http://induced-adc.com/) and certainly not EVP. "Afterlife" as in "afterlife studies" might be an alternative (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Afterlife). We prefer "Survival Hypothesis" because it requires that, while a lifetime may end, the life continues. We are beginning a new initiative called "Etheric Studies," which is a term addressing the implications of survival and the mechanism of EVP--all things nonphysical.
As to the last sentence, perhaps this would work: "All proposed explanations are based on currently accepted science except for ‘discarnate voices’ which describes a cause for EVP that is not explained by current science," might be more understandable. Tom Butler 18:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
To my ear, terms like "unexplained" and "unexpected" are subjective, and dangerously close to hyperbole, which is why I question their use in the definition. Proponents define EVP as voices. Skeptics define EVP as sounds interpreted as voices. Let's figure out how to present this issue fairly. I agree EVP are not ALWAYS 'sounds' interpreted as voices. (I have seen many ghost hunters who wander around a dark location in a large group, whispering to each other. Predictably, they always seem to find human voices on their recorders which they interpret as discarnate). So perhaps we can modify the definition to say "sounds and voices interpreted as...".
Regarding ("All proposed explanations require..."), in addition to the impenetrable prose problem, Tom's article contains many such 'definitive' statements that, if used, would need to comply with NPOV by prefacing them with "AA-EVP believes" or "According to AA-EVP" or "According to proponents". LuckyLouie 19:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


1. Lots of them are voices. That's why skeptics also use the "radio/CB" explanation. And so, nobody is really claiming that none of the recordings, never ever, are voices. (If anyone wants to hear some that are quite obviously sentence long pieces of language then I'll send them by email). 2. I think the prose for the final sentence is very straightforward. It simply means (and simply states) that all the proposed explanations except for the survival hypothesis work from current scientific principles. I fail to see what is so hard here. 3. I wasn't suggesting we use Tom's article as it stands. I was suggesting that we take it as a starting point and summarise it and work it into an article along with stuff from other sources. Finally, and anyone can take this anyway they want, if all someone has seen is a few episodes of Ghosthunters then they shouldn't really be WRITING an article about EVP. Nobody was arguing that people should be excluded from discussion, or that people are deliberately acting in bad faith, but at some point one simply has to accept that one's knowledge is not sufficient for certain tasks. Hence a first paragraph that is not as good as the one that was there before, and not nearly as good as Tom Butler's suggested paragraph above. As it is it says virtually nothing.Davkal 19:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

To my ear, terms like "unexplained" and "unexpected" are pretty specific. What grade level are we writing this for? Try your ears on, "EVP are sounds that have voice-like characteristics of frequency modulation, spectrum and formant structures that, when heard in an audio recording made by an average person who was simply trying to record a note in a voice recorder, were considered to be not deliberately recorded." :-)
I will be happy to see the AA-EVP credited with statements of position so long as the statement is something that one of us in the AA-EVP would say. After all, you are freely quoting or referring to skepdic.com whether or not they have evidence for their "red herrings."
I guess I am getting a little tired of this game as well. You can play the "insult card" if you want, but the fact is that the rules of consensus building require informed participants, and so far, most of the comments here are based on a point of view that seems a lot like people wishing an uncomfortable truth would simply go away. Go find a scientist to argue the mundane, negotiate a little harder or let us delete the entry.
As it stands now, the introductory paragraph on both the main EVP page and the temporary page is simply not acceptable from a technical viewpoint. First, "spirit voices" is a term used only by novices or people speaking in the vernacular. "Spirit" is a term for nonphysical energy when addressed from a religious viewpoint, and it is more correct to say that a discarnate entity is "in spirit," meaning ... well it gets religious.
I know of no paranormal researcher who has experimental evidence that the voices cannot be heard by human ears because they may have difficulty creating audible sounds. Once again, experimental evidence does show that they are not an acoustical phenomena. If you have a sufficiently noisy recorder, you can cut off the mic and still record the voices. MacRae recorded voices in the IONS isolation room that is acoustically, optically and electromagnetically isolated from the outside environment. We use the rule of thumb that, if the very same utterance is recorded at the same exact time by more than one recording device, the utterance should be discarded. If EVP were acoustical phenomena, then this rule would not exist. And please ... it is best to think of TV as nothing other than entertainment.
The term, "ghostly," might apply to a way that EVP is used--as a tool for hauntings investigation. The only other time the term is used is in the vernacular, as "Oh, that EVP has a ghostly sound." Such terms have little place in an encyclopedia.
In the published version, there is too little recognition that people are using EVP as a form of grief management and to ascertain information about etheric reality. I know this is an escalation, but if we continue to water down the "proponents" side, then we are going to need to balance things a little. Tom Butler 23:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I find the hostility puzzling. Am I being told that I should step aside and alllow one editor (albeit a brand new one) to dictate content because he is the only one that is qualified to elucidate on the subject? I hope this is not the case. LuckyLouie 00:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


The principle of allowing someone who knows what they are talking about (as opposed to allowing those who admit they don't know what they are talking about) to dictate content, seems to me a fairly sound one. The point being that what we have right now is two people who have watched a bit of telly about a semi-related subject deciding on content, and balance, and terminology etc. etc. etc????Davkal 00:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not come to this as an editor, and if that is the qualifications necessary to decide content of an entry, then we have finally identified the problem. I came here as a subject matter expect, and being distressed at the complexity of making content changes, I ask for technical help, which J.S. has kindly offered. Now seeing the substantial demand on my time to negotiate content, I am seeking a way to complete this process. Looking back, I see my first post on 17 November, 2006, and here we are no closer to a reasonably worded entry. So yes am saying that if your qualifications to argue meaningful content with me are that you are a senior editor, then I am asking you to step aside, or at the very least, facilitate bringing subject matter experts to the discussion who can reasonably argue meaningful content. And here, I intend that "meaningful content" is other than wording of point of view.
And no, I do not wish to dictate content. I think I have been about as reasonable as can be expected for a person who is negotiating with people who seem dead certain I am delusional. Tom Butler 00:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
To suggest that only subject-matter experts may edit this article is again insulting at the very worst, and indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of the way Wikipedia functions at the very best. I may not have technical experience with EVPs, but I'm smart, a professional editor and I'm deeply familiar with the way Wikipedia functions. I will continue being involved in this article. — e. ripley\talk 17:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Nobody came close to suggesting that non subject-matter experts should not be allowed to edit the article. The point that was made was that, at the time the point was made, we had two people who admitted they knew next to nothing about the subject, writing the whole thing - ie. dictating content. And it was pointed out that the result was crap. Davkal 17:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
To refresh your memory, you said precisely: Finally, and anyone can take this anyway they want, if all someone has seen is a few episodes of Ghosthunters then they shouldn't really be WRITING an article about EVP. In fact, you said that I should not be WRITING this article. I will continue to do just that. — e. ripley\talk 17:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Writing the article, not editing the article. Nobody had a problem with you editing. But what was happening was that you and LL decided to rewrite the thing from scratch. The result was a first paragraph full of false claims, dodgy terminology, and no real information. That was what was being objected to. My point still stands: anyone can comment and edit for various things but only people who know something about a subject should write the base article. Davkal 18:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I noted your distinction; it still flies in the face of what Wikipedia is all about. I never attempted to "rewrite the thing from scratch," I tackled rewriting the introductory paragraph along with two other editors, and what we produced was well-written, accurate and within WP:NPOV. I will continue rewriting paragraphs if they need to be rewritten, though I think the intro as it stands now is adequate for the most part, and not really too far off from the way it was before. Also, may I remind you that Wikipedia expects its contributors to be civil with one another, such as not calling others' contributions "crap." — e. ripley\talk 18:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for the "crap" stuff. But the way it looked was like you and LL were just sort of going your own way. As a matter of fact, everybody seems to think the intro is now sound, so maybe we can all go through each of the remaining sections and get something worthwhile up there. Also, I checked out Jurgensen and it seems he was awarded the Order of Commendatore Gregorio Magno for paintings and other work he did.[3] Looks like the claim should go in it's present form.Davkal 18:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I also strongly protest the repeated personal attacks and name-calling in this discussion coming from Dakval. I hope they will cease.
Regarding the Jurgensen passage. Why is it significalt that the Vatican received his theories favorably? Why is that significant to the reader? I feel the assertions that it's "significant" have to go. LuckyLouie 19:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I don't think your delusional, and I'm glad for your input. I've been trying to create new versions of the intro... but it seems there is a fundamental disagreement on how to define EVP.
  1. One one side "EVP = Ghostly voices caught on tape"
  2. On the other side: "EVP = Strange phenomena caught on tape"
I think taking the position of number 1 is a mistake, but if that is the assumption we want to write the article from, I'm ok with that. We can then switch back to the "skeptic"/"proponent" language throughout the article and write it from there.
If we accept number 2, then we can write it from a "Something happened"-"Theory 1","theory 2", etc.
How do we want to present the article? Nothing else can continue until we sort this little bit out. I prefer #2, but I'll work from #1 if you guys want. ---J.S (T/C) 01:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Lord, Tom, no one is accusing you of being delusional. You are a subject matter expert in a subject that contains disputed minority scientific views. Moreover you are a director/clergyman in an organization that espouses minority scientific views. There is nothing inherently delusional or wrong about that. In these situations, according to Wikipedia guidelines, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific or minority theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. You could hardly be expected to represent both minority and majority views adequately. Hence, your role as subject matter expert, while appreciated, is rather limited, and does not extend to judgements about the article's readability or neutrality as a whole. LuckyLouie 01:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

From an earlier comment, I would say that "ghost" anything is making assumptions that are definitely not neutral, so Number 1 is probably not the right direction. So, Number 2 seems to more appropriate if we can figure out an acceptable adjective to describe EVP. It may be necessary to be a little wordy because there are so many previously undefined abstractions. For instance, "media" is a key term, as tapes are not often used these days, and solid state media is more common. Also, from the emails we receive from the public, I think even the occurrence of unexplained signals on a sound track is confusing because people need to visualize what is going on. Those illustrations will help there.
LuckyLouie, I am probably overreacting. It is just that skeptical objections are seldom well educated and quickly become more of an exercise in shadow boxing when we try to communicate with that quarter. It is much more fruitful talking to parapsychologists, because even though they are not usually trained to speak of things etheric, they at least understand the rules of evidence. I certainly will yield to your ability to assess readability and neutrality. That is why I have been trying so hard to find neutral terms that are still factual. Tom Butler 01:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, here's a "layman's" definition lifted from a review of a MacRae book: Electronic Voice Phenomena is believed to be a paranormal-type phenomena that involves the sampling/capturing of voices, from unknown areas, which appear on simple tape recordings and sophisticated technical equipment specifically developed for the purpose by paranormal researchers LuckyLouie 01:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

In the intro at the moment we have: 14 words devoted to an explanation of what EVP is; 29 words devoted to one view from actual researchers; and 57 words devoted to armchair skeptical speculation taken from a private website. So much for balance/NPOV/Reputable Sources etc.Davkal 06:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Dakval, you may want to do another "word count" to see if the present intro meets your standards of balance/NPOV/reputable sources. LuckyLouie 19:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added a bit more info about EVP in the intro. I have tried to make this as neutral as possible re the reality of the voices as voices.Davkal 07:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Facts

I have reverted the edits where everything that anyone says has to be treated as a claim. It is a fact that EVP are normally short, this is not a claim. What is the claim here is where EVP come from, or if they are in fact voices - nobody disputes the fact the they exist as a phenomenon. They can therefore be described in many ways without recourse to constant qualifications such as "it is claimed". Davkal 08:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

as their very existence is denied by the sources in the article, alledged is appropriate. It does not have to be used in every sentence, and I suppose we could vary it with a few synonyms. Claimed has been overused. How about "supposed" -- or rewording paragraphs with the source at the top: X said that..." What X said or wrote is a fact, if there is a reliable source for it. That what he said is correct can not be assumed, and we are supposed to report objectively, not to judge. DGG

It is also a fact that people who research EVP are, ipso facto, researchers, and can therefore be described as such. Davkal 08:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Dakval. You have to specify who says that EVP are "normally" short. You also have to specify who says EVP have been captured on every form of technology capable of recording voice. Stating these assertions as scientific facts is not factual, nor a neutral POV. LuckyLouie 08:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

2. EVP are normally short. It is misleading to say that "it is claimed" that they are normally short because it is simply the case that they are normally short. Fact. 2. EVP have been found in these media. Fact. The debate concerns the source and nature of the sounds, not their existence. Davkal 09:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The way it reads now, you have Wikipedia stating as facts that EVP are short, captured on every form of technology, and thought to be polyglot. LuckyLouie 09:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Normally short, and in some cases thought to be polyglot. And yes, these are all facts. 1. EVP are normally short, fact, 2. They have been captured on all forms of media, fact. 3. They are thought in some cases to be polyglot, fact. The reasoning here is the same as the reasoning you presumably used when you inserted the claim that EVP could be the result of "nearby items that emit noise on low frequencies, such as CB radios" without feeling the need to tell us who claims that CB radios actually emit noise on low frequencies. The point being that it is a fact (presumably) that CBs actually do emit low frequency noise and so there is no need to specify who claims that they do. The claim in this case being that such noise might be interpreted as the voices of the dead, a claim that is appropriately attributed. Davkal 09:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't insert anything. You're thinking of another editor. And you're getting it completely wrong: the skeptics claims are presented as claims, not facts. In any case, you need to source your claims about EVP appearing on every form of technology capable of recording voice. What technologies are you referring to? And you need to source your claim about EVP thought to be polyglot. As far as I know, there is no scientific agreement (or even pseudoscientific agreement) on what language EVP is thought to be. Regarding the "fact" of EVP being short, what scientific study has proven this? What agreement within the scientific community supports this "fact"? Wikipedia has no problem publishing claims and beliefs. Facts must be verified by reliable sources. LuckyLouie 09:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoever inserted it, the argument stands. And if you read what I wrote it would help. I said that the skeptics' claimes WERE appropriately sourced. What I said wasn't sourced, and doesn't need to be, was the fact that "CB radios emit low frequency noise". Simlarly "EVP are normally short" is simply common knowldge that anyone with the slightest acqaintance with the subject will know, comprising, as they do, single "words" or "phrases" and, occassionally, longer segments of "language". This is a simple description of the subject matter of the article and can simply be stated without the need for a scientific study to back it up.Davkal 10:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"CB radios emit low frequency noise" and "EVP are normally short" are not comparative scientific facts. One is based in the laws of physics and widely accepted by the scientific community. The other is based on the speculations of fringe science groups. Wikipedia should not give equal weight to minority scientific views. "According to proponents, EVP is normally short, etc." would be acceptable. LuckyLouie 16:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks Bad

This page names a lot of individuals and experiments but does not provide citations for most of what it says. Even if these attributions are 100% true, it is very important that they be properly cites with a WP:V and WP:RS source to back them up (please try to avoid Geocites type sites, there are plenty of good paranormal authors who've covered this topic who make much better sources).

Citations are very important, without them skeptics can pull apart any paranormal page by simply saying that it's WP:OR, or complete BS, because there is no verifiable evidence that most of these people actually exist, or that they think what they do, anywhere on this page.

For example, the introduction says that EVP have been recorded on Wax cylinders. This can't simply be taken on faith. If it's true it shouldn't take more than five minutes looking through back issues of FATE or some other paranormal magazine to find a WP:V reference.

perfectblue 09:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If you check my edit summaries you will see that one says "sources later". It would be nice to be given the requisite 5 minutes to find these and add them before being having the sections deleted, changed, removed and myself lectured. Davkal 10:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about you, it's about everybody editing this page. Though it would help if you used inline citations. You're using external links which don't show up in the references section. A list of the necessary inline citation formats can be found here. Simply copy and past one in, fill in the fields, and then enclose in 

 <ref name=XYZ>.....</ref>

If you want to use a citation source twice, simply give it a unique name the firsat time that you use it, and then the second time add 

<ref name=XYZ/>

, and it will automatically record the data from the original citation.

perfectblue 10:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be a hard-ass, but if we are going to have Wikipedia stating as a fact that EVP have been recorded on every technology capable of recording voice from wax cylinders to cell phones and computers, we need a bit more than a quote from "Psychic World". For example, has EVP been recorded on optical laserdisc? 2" quad broadcast videotape? Talking tickle-me-Elmo dolls? LuckyLouie 17:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if anybody has ever gotten one of those furbies things that repeats what you say to spout EVP? The statement must go.

perfectblue 17:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

1. The statement has already gone, so it's of little consequence whether you want to be a hard-ass or not. Ass(something) certainly. 2. The statement in question came from Tom Butler who has already been acknowledged as an expert so I presume he wasn't, like many here do, talking out of his arse when he said it. 3. The quote was already amended to "almost every" several hours before it was further amended to "many" and so your point has even less relevance - the words "arse" and "elbow" come to mind here. 4. The edit summaries make clear that these are temporary/first attempt sources, and in any case, "Psychic World" is a perfectly good place to get basic info about things. That is, the source simply lists some basic facts about the history of EVP - you would do well to read it, something, anything on the subject. It also comes from an article by Juduth Chisholm who is the founder of the EVP society of GB and Ireland which, for basic historical facts, makes it a pretty good source all things considered. Arse and elbow again.Davkal 18:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


It also said, not that I particluarly want to put it back in, "every form of technology". Presumably the technology used in your tickle-me-elmo dolls and furbies is common enough technology and so yes, it probably has been found on that technology.Davkal 18:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Now wouldn't that be creepy? I think the way the intro stands now is fairly decent... however, we are still using the "critic" language. ---J.S (T/C) 19:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


I agree that the intro is now fairly good. Parts of the history section are OK but I think the rest of the article is pretty poor. It may be best to just leave the proponent/critic point for now and try to get the rest into shape. If we decide to change the way it is written later is should be a fairly straightforward rewrite one we have got the basic article up to acceptable standards.Davkal 19:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It is getting better. I am glad to see the alien theory back in there, as it helps balance the spiritual theory.
Regarding this passage: It is significant that Jürgenson's work on the taped voices was made known to the Vatican in 1960 and his suggestion that these recordings are voices from the dead was sympathetically considered. In 1973, Archbishop Bruno Heim presented Jürgenson to the Pope for investiture as Commander of the Order of St. Gregory for his work. It may be true, but why does Wikipedia consider it significant? LuckyLouie 19:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
It may or may not be the case here, but special interest groups have historically attempted to use the fact that the Vatican has investigated some things (for example exorcism, numerology and weeeeeegie boards) to make it appear that the topic has some sort of legitimacy. I think that the wording needs changing.
perfectblue 19:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's significant enough to include in the history of EVP section. And I don't think that here it would do anything to legitimise the phenomenon. It is also a fairly interesting point given the Catholic Church's traditional views on such things as mediums.Davkal 13:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

it's certainly significant enough to rate an inclusion on this page, but it's not actually significant in relation to the Vatican. Although there's a lot of urban myth and more than a little propaganda out there, the Vatican has actually investigated a lot of different supernatural, paranormal and pseudo scientific things. In some situations it's know your enemy thing, and in others (for example possessions and healings) it goes right back to early/pre Christian beliefs.
perfectblue 14:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
This misses the main point -- couching or arguments of significance aside, it's completely unsourced. The first question that mus be answered is whether or not this event can be backed up by sourcing. When last I looked, I was unable to find anything to substantiate that this actually occurred. — e. ripley\talk 17:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The way that I got around the for/against in one or two other articles was to do a chronology.

  • Date1-Date2: X happened which was of note because...., person Y said something.....

The afterwards put in a for and against section where listing , say, X people of note speaking for and X people speaking against.

Maybe that would be the best way to go about things here?

perfectblue 19:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


Doczilla, if you have a source that says all EVP are only "interpreted" as words, ie. not actual words, or even suggests that none are ever actual words, not ever ever, then let that be cited. But you won't find one because nobody disputes that some EVP are language - thus the skpetical radio interference and hoax hypotheses. As things stand in your version you're saying they are definitely not words - that is, that they are mere sounds interpreted as words. This is therefore a stronger POV claim than what is there currently which turns out to be merely your opinion. Given the various possibilities, the use of the scare quotes does perfectly well. What do you think the they are there for? Davkal 13:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Doczilla: a) some of them are words - nobody disputes this; b) some of them are almost certainly not words - nobody disputes. Therefore "words" in scare quotes covers this perfectly. Also, it makes no sense to say "interpreted as "words"". Finally, if you have a source for your POV here then please cite it as this constant inserting of your undocumented opinion is tiresome. The article already has too much unsourced speculation without addding more. Davkal 15:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Intro OK? - remaining sections

It seems that there is a fairly broad consensus now (see above) that the intro is OK as it stands. Can we move through each of the other sections because I think they all need work. With that in mind: 1. The Jurgensen stuff should probably come out and maybe an amended point reintroduced later - see here[4]. 2. Re the History section, the article cited from Psychic World is actually a very general history of the phenomenon from a fairly well informed source - Judith Chisholm. So for simple historical detail I think we could use much of the general info in it without too much controversy.Davkal 18:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that the following sentence is strategically placed in an attempt to undermine the possible CB radio RF interference explanations.: Since the first reports of EVP were made, a number of experiments have been carried out to try to verify it as a paranormal phenomena, including some that have successfully recorded EVP in laboratories shielded to prevent interference from external electrical device'.
MacRae concludes that based on the experiments of others (we do not even see the original data), it is proof of the paranormal. I must ask, what was the response from the mainstream scientific community to this paper? One must wonder why this "evidence" has made zero impact on the scientific community. Was it ever published in a mainstream peer review journal? Did it undergo the scrutiny of the scientific establishment?
I feel this is not a legitimate scientific paper, does not meet Wiki's criteria for reliable sources under WP:CITE WP:REF, and should be referenced as a claim. LuckyLouie 19:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

In what sense is it not a legitimate scientific paper? And it what way does it fail to meet wiki standards for RS? It was published in the peer-review journal of Society for Psychical Research.Davkal 19:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Has the material been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community? This means published in peer-reviewed sourced, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by academic journals.
According to WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE the claim that voices were successfully recorded in shelded laboratories would be better noted as a claim and not a fact. LuckyLouie 19:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

All these communities that suddenly spring up - now the "scholarly community" (whatever that is) has to have "throughly vetted" (whatever that means) something. The SPR journal is one of the oldest peer-review journals in the world devoted to the scientific examination of the paranormal. So yes, I think it passes the criteria with flying colours. In any event, we are not even saying that voices were actually recorded, or trying to cite this article as proof of the paranormal. We are simply stating the base claim of the article, which is that EVP - whatever they turn out to be - have been recorded in a lab specially shielded to prevent contamination from electrical devices such as CB radios etc. (Thus, if true, falsifying that particular hypothesis in the manner of the scientific method.) And we are using the publication of the results of the experiment in a peer-review scientific journal as the source for the fact. It's hard to see how this fails Wiki standards when armchair speculation from a personal website makes it in OK.Davkal 19:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Your inference that MacRae's assertion successfully falsifies competing theories or opinions is precisely why it must be substantiated as a legtimate source. If Wikipedia is going to tilt the article's POV in that direction, there must be well-documented acceptance by the mainstream scientific community to justify it. Not knowing what the scholarly community is, and how it works is no excuse. We know, for example, that SPR papers are not published in mainstream journals like Physics or Science and are not subject to peer review as defined by the established scientific community. Therefore they are not vetted, and results of secondhand research published in them cannot be cited as factual according to WP:RS. The best solution (and the one most commonly used in controversial Wiki articles) is to cite them as a claim. It should be changed to read, ...including some that have claimed to successfully record EVP in laboratories shielded to prevent interference from external electrical device LuckyLouie 20:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

And the word "claim" is listed as a word to avoid in the Wiki "words to avoid" policy. Davkal 01:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if maybe the way through this particular logjam is to move away from the abstract and instead talk about the citation in the concrete. Instead of the generic language about "some experiments," reference this one in particular. Then it makes more sense to use the "claims to have" or "said their results were" verbiage, I think. Also, this piece from WP:FRINGE may be useful: Any non-mainstream theories should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual. In other words, though the SPR has some sort of peer review, because the findings aren't the mainstream opinion, it must also be supported by some mainstream research in order for us to present it in an authoritiative manner. It did give me a bit of pause to read through the study and find that the experiment upon which the study's conclusions are based was performed in a facility operated by the Institute of Noetic Sciences — an organization itself deemed questionable in some arenas. — e. ripley\talk 20:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thats why we provide sources. The reader can verify and decide for themselves. ---J.S (T/C) 20:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, we provide proper sources taht the reader can verify and decide about for themselves. We are expected to exercise good editorial judgment; otherwise we'd just have a gigantic linkfarm. — e. ripley\talk 20:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


Peer-review scientific journals are the best source we have. If some editors don't like that then I suggest they look elsewhere for somehwere to push their opinions. There is hardly a single scientific theory in the world that could withstand the requirement of publication in journals not devoted to that topic - the latest dinosuar find would not be published in a physics journal for example, nor should it be. We have here a perfectly reputable source that some editors don't like because it doesn't tally with their opinion gleaned from personal websites. So what. The article is already bending over backwards to accommodate the unpublished in peer-review, untested, unsubstantiated web blog speculations of non-scientist Robert Carroll - let us remove every word of that until you get your sources out. Davkal 01:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, please produce the sources you are using for the claim that EVP cannot be produced in sealed labs according to the "mainstream" scientific community. Davkal 01:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:V and WP:VERIFY the burden of proof is on the source or editor making the claim. If it weren't, anyone could cite blue fairies as fact by saying "the mainstream scientific community must first prove that blue fairies cannot exist".
Blaming the scientific community for not having a category in which EVP fits is not helping your case. According to WP:RS and WP:FRINGE, an assertion cannot be implied to be authoritative if it is not supported by the mainstream opinion. I don't think SPR is a proper, reliable source on which to base factual assertions made by Wikipedia. LuckyLouie 01:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


And a personal web blog is? Where are your sources for any of the claims you have made. Where is your source for the claim that the SPR journal is not suitable, on what er you basing that other than dislike for something you hadn't heard of until a few hours ago. What is the mainsream opinion, and where is your source for it? All we have had from you is your opinion - Wiki has rules on that too.Davkal 01:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Also, the scientific community does have a place for EVP - the departments that study it would be the departments of parapsychology now found at a number of major universities, and the journals that publish the findings are those of the SPR, the ASPR and the JoP. Davkal 01:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What claims have I made? You don't seem to understand how NPOV works. No one is trying to say Bob Carroll's (or any skeptics) opinions are fact. They are prefaced by "skeptics say" or "according to X" or X claims". LuckyLouie 02:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And which opinions am I saying are fact?Davkal 02:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Source does not conform to WP:V, WP:VERIFY

researchers have successfully recorded EVP in laboratories shielded to prevent interference from external electrical devices
The above is not a fact. I am not going to argue with you further, because you clearly do not understand how NPOV, WP:V, and WP: VERIFY works. I'll leave it to others to explain. LuckyLouie 02:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT A FRINGE CLAIM. The fringe claim is, if anything, the CONCLUSION of the article, which has not been cited as a fact - not cited at all. The claim I have included is a straightfroward starting point for discussion (EVP, whatever they are, were recorded) and since it was reported in a scientific peer review journal, it can be treated as a fact. Re your claims, you don't even have a reputable source for what skeptics claim, let alone for the truth, or even the possibility of those claims. You have web blog speculation and nothing more, who knows what skeptics actually claim - please provide a reputable source for their inclusion.Davkal 02:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Re the idea that EVP (whatever they are) have been recorded in sealed labs; if you put "Raudive" and "Pye", or "Macrae" and "EVP" into a search engine you will see that it is a fairly well known fact that this has indeed happened. In addition, there appears to be a distinct absence of anyone challenging this basic fact. That is, it seems that examples of the phenomena known as EVP were in fact recorded in sealed labs. And since Raudive's tests at the Pye lab took place in the early 70s and have been fairly common knowedge since then, this would give the skeptics (or anyone else with a mind to) plenty of time to challenge the assertion, yet there appears to be no trace of such challenges - scientific or otherwise. I have found sites that have disputed whether what was recorded were voices, and I have found articles that challenge the interpretation of the "voices" and the methods used to validate the idea that they were voices in the first place, but I can find nothing to suggest that the actual recordings did not take place as described. In the absence of any information or suggestion to the contrary, then, I think the fact that such recordings were made can be treated as a well established fact. Especially given the fact that one such experiment was reported in a respected peer-review scientific journal.Davkal 09:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The scientific community does not make it a practice to challenge assertions made in SPR, and a lack of challenge does not validate the SPR assertions. Wikipedia should not be calling this claim a well-established fact (based on secondhand information of one experiment), and should not be deeming SPR a respected, i.e. mainstream scientific journal. LuckyLouie 17:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's more than one experiment - Raudive at Pye in the 70s, and Macrae several times (have you even had a cursory glance at the article - it is not second-hand, it is his own experiments he is reporting). Also, the Wiki policy is all about verifiability, and it can easily be verified from a variety of sources that the experiments took place in the manner described. And, the lack of a challenge to that fact in skeptical articles dealing with those very experiments can be used to verify it according to Wiki policy. That is, it is clear from those articles that the experiments were: a) conducted; and b) conducted as described. The only person doubting this is you - it is not a contentious point.Davkal 18:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Perfectblue, I don't understand why, with the change from "EVP" to "anomalous sounds", you are shying away from simply reporting what was published.Davkal 16:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Psychology. If you tell a skeptic that you recorded "EVP in a screened room", they hear that you "recorded ghost voices in a screened room" even if that isn't what you said, and will likely they dismiss what you're saying without giving it a chance and presume that you're nuts. However, if you tell them that you "recorded unexplained sounds" or some other non-paranormal phrase, they are less likely to close their minds to the possibility that you recorded something, and will think more about what that something might well be.

I guess what I'm saying is that, if you wrap something up in paranormal phraseology, personal bias means that people will often be less willing to take it seriously. For example, if you dial 911 and tell the operator that there's a monster in your back yard, they will put the phone down on you, but if you tell them that there's a prowler, the will send a squad car to have a look.

perfectblue 17:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

But the choice here is between "prowler" and "anomalous sounds" in the back garden - no monsters involved. That is, there were no paranormal claims in the amended section to begin with and we have solid sources for it as it was written.Davkal 17:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think one of the stumbling blocks here is that there are two different defintions, or senses, of EVP floating around and this neeeds to be clarified. In one sense EVP is synonymous with paranormal voices - in this sense it makes sense to doubt the very existence of EVP (this seems to be the sense you are using above). In the other sense, EVP are simply what is captured/found on tape recorders etc. and is neutral as regards the exact nature or source of the sounds. In this sense it makes no sense at all to dispute the existence of EVP (this is the sense I am using). I think both senses are valid, and are in common usage, but it is clear that they are different in important respects. I think we should say something about this in the article. Davkal 17:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've actually seen this happen before, and it's fairly simple to fix. Just start the article out with "EVP is X which some believe to be Y", and let the language trickle down from there. --InShaneee 17:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Having looked briefly at definitions of EVP on the web I think the problem is this. The term "Electronic voice phenomena" was clearly intended to be neutral as to the source and nature of the sounds - here is something, let us investigate. However, as the discarnate entity explanation gained popularity it has become increasingly difficult to disassociate "EVP" from "paranormal voices". I think we could add something like the following to the intro, just before we talk about what paranormal proponents & skeptics think.

No one has seriously questioned the fact that EVP exist in the sense that unexpected sounds are being found on recording devices. There is, however, signifcant disagreement over the nature and source of those sounds.

This, I think covers the ambiguity and means we talk a bit more freely without hedging everything at every turn. It also leads nicely into the "Paranormal researchers belive X" and "Skpetics believe Y" sections. Davkal 17:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to publish an "undisputed" definition of EVP, then that definition must be very precise and agreed upon by all parties (i.e. undisputed). For example you cannot be so broad as to infer that EVP is an everyday phenomenon that is noticed by people who aren't looking for it. LuckyLouie 17:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, so we add the "on occassion" or some such thing. Bear in mind though, that many peeople find EVP who are not looking for it - that's how it was discovered.17:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I still think mine is more neutral, something along the lines of "EVP is defined as unexpected sounds in recordings that resemble voices that some believe are ect ect". --InShaneee 17:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That's sort of what we have in the very first sentence of the article, but every time anybody says "EVP are found ... " it causes an uproar. Davkal 17:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I have a problem with the phrase "unexpected." I know what you mean by it Davkal, but the distinction your making might not be clear to someone who hasn't read the talk page. (unexpected implies that no-one expects to hear the EVPs when I think it's clear that many researches record with the intention of doing exactly that). I don't know a better way of saying it.... I'm just being critical.
If we write the article from the position of "EVP = An unexplained phenomenon" then "EVP are found" is verifiable and acceptable. However, if we write the article from the position that "EVP = Paranormal voices on tape" then "EVP are found" is not acceptable. I think we've all agreed that the first option is the right way to approach this article... so from that context, then I don't see the problem with "EVP are found."
"EVP is an everyday phenomenon that is noticed by people who aren't looking for it." - Well, it sometimes is. But primarily not. ---J.S (T/C) 18:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


JS, I agree with you. But, when I tried to insert the point about EVP being recorded in screened rooms which, on the definition we are supposed to have agreed on, is uncontentious, all hell broke loose and this has now been changed to anomalous sounds which means that we haven't all agreed on this definition at all.Indeed Perfectblue, above, says explicitly that this definition can't work.Davkal 18:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


One point about Inshanee's defintion. When you say that "X resembles Y" you are in effect saying that X is not actually Y. This then seems to be prejudging the issue the other way. This is why I thought, JS thought, that we had agreed that the term "EVP" would be neutral - that is, the term "EVP" as used here would simply mean the actual phenomenon whatever it turns out to be. Davkal 18:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Dav, we KNOW that EVP is anomalous noises. Some THINK they are something specific. Thus, this is a verifiable definition. --InShaneee 18:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


I think that it is better like that - without "resemble". But that's virtually what we have in the first sentence.Davkal 19:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Sealed Rooms

(broken up to make conversation easyer)---J.S (T/C) 19:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of 'sealed rooms', it is notoriously difficult to seal a Faraday cage against a broad spectrum of frequencies. The Faraday cages I've used in a laboratory setting (for RF detection of partial dischange) were high quality metal-skinned boxes with knife-blade copper door seals, but still you could detect noise within them. Poor shielding can result from effects as varied as insufficient skin depth in the metal enclosure, to HF leakage through the seals. Sub-millimetric frequencies can even crawl along bolt threads and enter the enclosure. It would be wrong for the article to assert (or imply) that 'sealed room' could mean that no noise whatsoever could enter the room. --BillC 18:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

BillC, I appreciate your experience with Faraday cages. If I'm understanding the cage-concept the the level of RF interference is highly reduced. Given that a significant RF field is required to interfere with a devices that is not setup to record radio waves... then it seems like a fairly reliable system.
Since you have access to a Faraday cage, take a portable radio into the cage and see if you can pick up any stations. (I've not done this myself, so I'm interested in the results). Does it pick up anything intelligible? If not, then would it be reasonable to assume that a recorder not set up for RF reception could pick something up? ---J.S (T/C) 19:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
BillC, I dare say that your detection equipment was build to the same standard as your cage. Meaning that you would be able to pick up interference at levels many times lower than would impact upon a house hold casset recorder.
With regards to the use of the term EVP, the point that I was trying to make was that, regardless of the actual meaning of EVP, a lot of people (rightly or wrongly) either use the term to mean "Ghost voices", or see the term as meaning "Ghost voices", which colors the way that they read the page. Because of this, I feel that it is better if we avoid using the term EVP (even though it is the correct term to use) in favor of more obviously neutral (to skeptics) terms like unexplained noises or anomalous results.
You can write the best most accurate entry in the world, using only the finest sources, but if somebody sees your primary terminology as being synonymous with disreputable psychics conning old ladies with fake recordings of dead husbands, the entry just won't be accepted as reliable.

perfectblue 19:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Re the sealed room. The article from SPR deals with this point and it is maintained that there was "total radio silence" in the double screened room (double no less). However, I am no judge of whether this is possible, even to the extent that signals capable of producing EVP type phenomena could be screened. Perhaps you could take a look at the relevant sections of the article[5]] and comment on them here.

Re the definition of EVP. We get this now, but thought that the neutral definition had been agreed upon in earlier discusssions.Davkal 19:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Speculations about the efficacy of Faraday cages in general do us no good if we cannot verify details such as the nature of the Faraday cage and the IF and RF detector circuit design of the broadcast receiver in question, since the SPR paper written by MacRae is a secondary source describing results claimed by Ellis, D.J., in (1978), 'The Mediumship of The Tape Recorder', the Society for Psychical Research. In addition, Ellis's paper has not been vetted by mainstream scientific opinions. LuckyLouie 19:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Having thread the McRae paper, it is not one to inspire me with confidence. There is little in the way of description of the experimental apparatus and a number of terms are vague (The IONS screened room is screened to Mil. Spec., The utterances were processed to reduce noise). Since one of the principal skeptical charges against EVP is that it is likely noise, efforts taken to eliminate that noise are paramount and should have been carefully described. A description is not made of the filtering algorithms, nor of any efforts to prevent aliasing errors. Statements such as The neural impulses affect an electrical parameter called admittance run contrary to fact. As for the Faraday cages I used to work with, I'm afarid I no longer have access to them, the laboratory having closed down in the 1990's, and I am now engaged in a different line of work. --BillC 23:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Let us make one thing clear - in caps - in bold - for all to see. NOBODY IS TRYING TO USE THE MACRAE PAPER AS PROOF OF THE PARANORMAL. THE MACRAE PAPER REPORTS, AMONST OTHER THINGS, ONE INSTANCE OF A PHENOMENON THAT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED A NUMBER OF TIMES - ANOMALOUS SOUNDS BEING RECORDED INSIDE SCREENED ROOMS. IT IS NOT PRESENTED AS PROOF THAT EVP ARE THE VOICES OF THE DEAD. IT IS BEING OFFERED AS A VERIFIABLE SOURCE (AND AS PART OF MANY OTHER SOURCES VERIFYING THE SAME POINT) FOR THE CLAIM THAT ANOMALOUS SOUNDS CAN BE PRODUCED INSIDE SCREENED ROOMS. IT PASSED PEER-REVIEW AND WAS PUBLISHED IN A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL. IT THEREFORE CAN STAND, WITH THE OTHER SOURCES, AS ESTABLISHING APPROPRIATE VERIFIABILITY FOR THAT SINGLE POINT TO BE USED IN WIKI.Davkal 00:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You asked me to "take a look at the relevant sections of the article and comment on them here". And thus I did. Why the screaming boldface? --BillC 00:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So that people would see it, and so that I would hopefully not need to go round this particlular mulberry bush for the rest of my natural life.Davkal 00:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, I think it might be wise to read the article before you embarrass yourself further. Davkal 19:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIV, please. For the second time. — e. ripley\talk 19:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That is civil. I could have said many much worse things to someone who has been arguing for over a day about the legitimacy of a source based on a complete misconception of the nature of that source. (Especially after having been told exactly that a few hours ago.) To repeat: Ellis' experiment only features in the brief history section of the paper to give Macrae's experiment some context. It is Macrae's first hand account of his own experiment that is reported in the article and it is that which interests us here.Davkal 19:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It is by no means civil. You imply that Louie hasn't read the article, one; and imply that he is stupid by suggesting his comments are embarrassing. From WP:CIV: incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Please control yourself, comments like this help nothing. — e. ripley\talk 19:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

1. He hasn't read, can't have read, the article because he keeps banging on about it being a second hand account on the basis of, presumably, his misreading of onlt that section in the intro dealing with historical context. 2. It is embarrassing to see someone go on and on about the same point when that point is, well, stupid. I say again, the article is not Macrae's second-hand account of Ellis' experiment, it is Macrae's first-hand account of Macrae's experiment.Davkal 20:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you disagree over something related to the article, by all means refute his points, but don't hurl insults that are not only useless but possibly detrimental to finding a consensus on article disagreements. It's fine to say you think he's wrong, misguided, etc., and talk about why, but it's not okay to imply that he's stupid; it's in no way acceptable here. Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor is it Usenet, and editors are expected to be cordial with one another even when they disagree. — e. ripley\talk 20:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
A quick search on the Ellis paper turns up several opinions that Ellis made negative conclusions with regard to EVP: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=D.+J.+Ellis+evp&btnG=Search LuckyLouie 19:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, I must point out that MacRae's paper does not meet Wikipedia standards as an authoritative source, established by WP:V, and WP:VERIFY. LuckyLouie 19:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
And again you would be wrong.Davkal 20:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
We strongly differ. However, I won't edit war. If this particular violation of WP:VERIFY is not corrected, a Cabal Mediation will be warranted in the near future. LuckyLouie 20:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Be my guest, but I think you should probably read the article first - it really is about Macrae's own experiment, I'm not making this up. And, you should also note that the section in question has been changed to "anomalous sounds" since PerfectBlue has argued (reasonably convincingly) that the term "EVP" has become too associated with paranormal voices to be used in the neutral way agreed upon above (the way I was using it) since people will simply assume that that's what's being talked about. I fail to see why you would take issue with that uncontroversial claim that now appears. Davkal 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Because MacRae's paper regarding MacRae's experiments, or the experiments of others fails to meet Wikipedia standards as an authoritative source, established by WP:V, and WP:VERIFY. Therefore, Wikipedia must specify that MacRae claims' to have successfully recorded anaomalous sounds in screened rooms, but this claim cannot be cited as a fact. LuckyLouie 20:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


It meets the standards as an authoratative source better than anything else in the the article. It is a non-paranormal claim (ie. not a fringe-claim) which appeared in a scientific peer-review journal and is refrred to in numerous other sources than a quick chekc of the web will demonstrate. It has never been challenged, and it is merely one example of a phenomenon which has been demonstrated, and reported, without challenge on many occassions. In other words, the source is completely adequate given the non-controversial nature of the claim.Davkal 20:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

One, single paper published in SPR is not considered an authoritative source by the mainstream scientific community. Further, it has not been peer-reviewed by the mainstream scientific community due to the questionable research institution (Noetic Institute). Lack of challenges is not proof of fact. It does not meet the WP standards that would allow it to be cited as fact, and must be reported as a claim by MacRae. LuckyLouie 21:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Nobody is saying that lack of challenges is proof of fact so you're point in neither here nor there. What I am saying is that there are many other sources that confirm the basic fact identified in the peer review journal. Some of these are skeptical of the conclusions and other things about Macrae's paper, but none are skeptical about the fact that anomalous sounds (if we must) were recorded in the manner described. This is evidence that nobody is contesting the info, and offers some support (not proof) for the idea that the experiment happened the way it was reported - otherwise the skeptics could have challenged it. However, that is not my argument in its entirety. This is: a) we have a non-contentious claim (i.e. no scientific laws need be breached for it to be true, so it should not be considered fringe or extraordinary or anything else); b) we have that claim published in a reputable peer-review journal; c) we can verify that the experiment happened the way it was repoprted in that journal be reference to numerous other sources; d) we can verify that the same phenomenon has been demonstrated in a number of other similar experiments by refernce to numerous further sources; and e) we have no instance of anyone (except LuckyLouie) contesting these facts. Taken together this adds up to well established verifianble fact. Davkal 00:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


LET'S PUT IT TO MEDIATION.Davkal 00:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd sign onto a RfC if you wish to start one... ---J.S (T/C) 00:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The reliability of the Noetic Institute has been called into question by another editor besides myself. The reliability of the MacRae findings have also been questioned by editors other than myself. According to WP: VERIFY the SPR is not an authoritative source. I am not alone in my opinion. I do not appreciate being shouted at. The claim that anomalous sounds (defined as EVP in the article's opening) have been successfully recorded in screened rooms is unsupported by reliable, authoritative sources, according to WP:VERIFY and WP:FRINGE. You have committed Wikipedia to a contentious claim, and this is going to be challenged, as are all contentious claims made by Wikipedians. LuckyLouie 00:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed it will be scheduled for mediation. LuckyLouie 00:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


And how exactly, or even roughly, can I shout at you. Using EVP perhaps through your computer.Davkal 00:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


I note that, despite numerous requests, no reliable sources have been produced for any of the skeptical speculation the page. I will remove this tomorrow if sources are not forthcoming.Davkal 00:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you really question that there exist people who are skeptical about paranormal explanations for EVPs? If the answer is no, and you proceed along this path, you will be dangerously close to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Please reconsider, or risk a real edit war, complete with implications for possibly violating the rule against reverting an article more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, which is a blockable offense. What citations do you dispute exactly? Perhaps better sources can be found, but I'm curious to see which you dispute. — e. ripley\talk 01:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


Wiki is very clear on this - "unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time." And "be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long." I have been asking for proper sources for this skeptical speculation for about a week. Nothing has been forthcoming. Fair warning has therefore been given. As you know even deleted pasages can easily be obtained from the article history and reinserted if and when valid (any) sources are found. The section I intend to delete tomorrow if sources are not found is this:

"Skeptics
Those who are skeptical of paranormal phenomena insist that there are more plausible explanations for EVP. The Skeptic's Dictionary summarises a number of common[citation needed] observations on the subject: "While it is impossible to prove that all EVPs are due to natural phenomena, skeptics maintain that they are probably due to such things as interference from a nearby CB operator or cross modulation. The phenomena has been recorded in Faraday cages since the 1970s at Pye Electronics in the UK. Some of the 'voices' are most likely people creating meaning out of random noise, a kind of auditory pareidolia or apophenia. Now that the phenomenon has a number of devoted followers some hoaxers have probably entered the fray."
Another suggested explanation is that people may have used old tapes for EVP sessions, and that the voices they hear come from a previous recording "bleeding through".[citation needed] There are several cases of people being spooked by what turned out to be voices from a radio program or a nearby baby monitor[citation needed], suggesting that many unexplained voice phenomena could have equally mundane origins.[citation needed] When using language, humans are constantly sorting out noise, recognizing speech patterns and so on, all unconsciously. [citation needed]
This training can also make us pick up words that are not even there, just as it can make people hear something other than what was said.[citation needed] Digital audio recording devices may also be chosen on the basis of a poor Signal-to-noise ratio, believing that they are more "sensitive" to "life energies".[citation needed] Poor quality A/D and DACs on cheaper digital recorders create artifacts not present from the ambiance being recorded.[citation needed] For digital voice recorders, the audio compression is also tuned to record only to the frequency bands optimal for properly recognizing the human voice, all other bands are discarded.[citation needed] Any static will therefore not be broad-spectrum and may be confused with garbled speech.[citation needed]"

Which contains, at last count, 10 seperate claims, many of which seem doubtful to me, without a single source for those claims currently cited. The only two parts that can remain are the quote from the skeptics dictionary and the bit about Pye Electronics since we have a source, but since that is not a skeptical explanation it would be ludicrous to leave it as about the only thing in the skeptical section.Davkal 01:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just took a closer look at these passages, and while I think a lot of the tags can be cleaned up by some more careful language (take a look at what I've done to the top portion), this bottom portion probably does need some citations. It reads like someone's interpretation of the way digital audio recordings work and in order to retain something like that, we really need it coming from a source. Is anyone familiar with any treatise on this particular subject that can be drawn from? — e. ripley\talk 16:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


The way to deal with fact tags is to provide sources rather than simply rewrite the unsourced claims and remove the tags. If you're so sure in your assertions then get some sources - they should be easy to find. For example, who says people have been "spooked" by baby monitors in a way that has any bearing on the isssue of EVP. Who says this, first and formeost, and when that is done we can look at trying to make some sense of the argument. As things stand, there is simply one claim after another without the slightest indication of where they come from. This is why the parts identified above that are to be removed will be removed. Rewriting is not necessary at the moment, sources are.Davkal 16:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote claims primarily that were already supported by the earlier skepdic citation (there was lots of repetition about paraeidola for instance that I simply cleaned up and elaborated on for those who don't know what paradieola is). I do agree about the baby monitor bit, though, and you'll notice I left that fact tag in place. — e. ripley\talk 16:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing question

In 1973, Archbishop Bruno Heim presented Jürgenson to the Pope for investiture as Commander of the Order of St. Gregory, an award which honored meritorious service to the Church.

I see that a citation has been added for this item -- thank you for that. However, the citation is a self-published piece by Tom. Generally, self-published sources are rarely allowed (see Verifiability), and in the rare instance that they are they're given extra scrutiny. I don't mean to impugn Tom's motives as nothing could be further from my intent, but I'd like to ask Tom, since he's contributing here, where this fact was obtained. Is there some other source we could check? — e. ripley\talk 19:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

In the very least, the phrase at the beginning of that section, "It is significant that", must be removed as it is POV. LuckyLouie 20:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that phraseology is problematic. But if the fact itself can't be adequately sourced, the whole thing will end up being removed, so I'd rather deal with the sourcing question before we address the aesthetics of the way it's phrased. — e. ripley\talk 20:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to Tom, I've taken the information pasted below and swapped the source out for Jurgenson's himself. This will make the fact less assailable as self-published sources (unless referencing the author's personal opinions on a topic) are difficult to defend here. — e. ripley\talk 16:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Device/devices

I won't edit war over something as silly as a piece of grammar, so perhaps others would like to weigh in on which they prefer. "Types of device," or "types of devices?" We're obviously both convinced of our rightness, so perhaps some consensus-building will help. — e. ripley\talk 20:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a subtle difference in the meaning. For example, "there are many different breeds of dog"; now this means we are treating each individual breed, e.g poodle, as a singular term referring to all poodles (THE POODLE IN GENERAL: having the property of poodleness or some such thing) and saying that there are more than one breed, e.g. the poodle breed, alsation breed, labrador breed etc. It is not clear to me, on the other hand, what "different breeds of dogs" would mean. Similarly, "many different types of device" means that we are treating each type of device, eg. the cassette recorder as a singular type (as in the general history of the cassette recorder - not one, but all, in general) and saying there are many different types of device, e.g, the cassette recorder, the mobile phone, the computer etc. that can record EVP. It is not clear to me what many different types of devices would mean. That is, the cassette recorder (general term for all cassette recorders) is a device, not a devices, and so we have many different types of device. That was my main reason for not including the letter "s".Davkal 20:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What about "They have been recorded with many different devices,..."? Types is unnecessary redundant. ---J.S (T/C) 21:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I think types is there to show that it wasn't 16 different individual cassette recorders. I prefered, "many differnt types of technology" myself.
Ah, I see the concern now... Maybe we could say "on many different recording media?" Computer mic, DVD, CD, digital recorder/cassette recorder are all different media; I think it gets the point across and is perhaps more descriptive. Though different types of technology would work too I think. — e. ripley\talk 22:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Either way works for me. I think the basic point is that it's not limited to a single bit of hard-ware. ---J.S (T/C) 22:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We already have the wax cyclinders to mobile phones and computers which I think gives good breadth to the claim - which is broad. As I said, my preferred option would be, "..have been recorded on many different types of technology, from early wax cylinder recorders to modern cellular phones and computers." I think that covers things nicely.Davkal 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I really wanted to get back to work but I feel a little like I have abandoned Davkal.
First to the question about the Order of St. Gregory awarded to Jürgenson. I did not look, but if No Dead is referenced for that, we referenced:
1. Jürgenson, Friedrich—Voice Transmissions with the Deceased, (German to English Translation, T. Wingert & G. Wynne, 2001) Friedrich Jürgenson Foundation, Sweden (Original work published 1964) www.fargfabriken.se/fjf/
Perrfictblue, I understand your logic about the term, "EVP," being irrevocably associated with paranormal voices, but I think the logic is shortsighted. The entire Wikipedia entry is for EVP. That is the subject. if your concern is well founded, then the entire entry is already going to be seen as a discussion of paranormal voices. Isn't there one of your "WP:???" for trusting the reader to have a little common sense? We have received thousands of emails from people who think the plot of White Noise is real or at least possible, so I know there will always be the gullible, but it is not your job to protect them from themselves. Besides, if we followed your logic, all of the references to quantum physics would have to be changed to something more abstract, such as step-wise energy loci, because about half of the New Age web sites now use quantum principles to make their theories sound legitimate. Where do you stop?
LuckyLouie, have you stepped over the line of reasonable negotiation? You have raised the bar higher and higher for what can be claimed as fact, as if you are afraid we might catch satisfy your requirements.That MacRae experiment has been conducted many times by others. In fact we have a member now conducting a series of such experiments to further verify MacRae's work--both signal isolation and listening panel. I have notified the SPR that you have so easily discounted them. Perhaps they will send reinforcements. In the meantime, David Ellis is the JSPR Production Editor and has published negative conclusions about EVP yet he saw fit to pass MacRae's work. If I am being unfair, then please do call in your arbitrators. As it is, I doubt that all of us are willing to surrender to your will and I don't buy this WP:POV as an excuse to include misinformation about EVP in this entry.
The article is a factual account of an experiment that has produced verifiable EVP--without regards to what EVP implies. If that article is not accepted as a reference, then all other references must be even more suspect. This is especially true of the skeptic articles, because it cannot be any more clear that they are creating reasons to object. A good example might be from BillC, and forgive me if I just don't understand your comments. I am an electronics engineer and I am pretty sure you are trying to apply a possibility that is approaching infinitely small that a Mill-Spec screen room will pass sufficient RF of any type to be detected by a device that is not specifically designed for RF detection. Your comments are simply a red herring, evidently to cast doubt on the validity of an offered reference. If you cannot show us the evidence to the contrary, you have no grounds to argue that the room was anything less than Mill-Spec--as reported!
For all, Raudive reported polyglot EVP but he understood the languages. If you all would look at the dominating material today, you would see that what we count as one of the more important characteristics of EVP is that they are in the language understood by the experimenter or interested witness. I only understand English, but once I recorded a Korean EVP--I had a Korean film crew with me.
Also, " types of technology" would do. The unexpected voices are found in virtually all technologies capable of supporting voice. And yes, that Elmo doll would do except that it is a digitized transmitter. If it were a receiver, then it would also be capable of producing EVP. The problem is that, real-time, EVP are too often very low volume and oddly spoken, making it unlikely that the casual listener would hear recognize an EVP. I do know a person who refuses to wear his hearing aid because he once heard his "dead" mother's voice while wearing it. Tom Butler 02:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Tom, re the JSR article. To clarify, we do not have any problem quoting or accepting JSR as a source. The problem arises when findings contained in JSR are being quoted as authoritative fact. Unless there is widespread support among authoriitative sources for these findings and conclusions, they must be quoted as claims, or "according to's". Also, we should not obscure the origin of the research by saying "some researchers in laboratories". Instead, we should identify who is making the claims, and/or who did the research. For example, it would be in keeping with WP:VERIFY and WP:FRINGE to say "...according to Alexander MacRae, anomalous sounds have been recorded in laboratories that have been specifically designed to prevent interference from external electrical devices and noise sources". LuckyLouie 03:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In what sense is the claim fringe, and what part of it is open to doubt? Why not say, for example, "Someone calling himself Alexander Macrae claims to have conducted what he says was an experiment inside what he alleges is a Faraday cage, in which what he claims are anomalous sounds were reported to have been recorded on what he describes as a cassette so-called recorder" or some such thing. That is, what are you suggesting didn't take place here? What is it that is in doubt? Are you saying that nothing was recorded at all, or that there was nothing on the tapes and Macrae just made it up. If this can legitimately be doubted, then how can we be sure that he even conducted an experiment in the first place, or that there even is an Alexander Macrae? Why not doubt everything and hedge it in the way described above. The point is that no part of the claim is any more fringe than the trivial details here so that rule doesn't apply. The JSPR being adequate for the particlaur content of this particular claim.Davkal 03:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a fringe claim because its research has not been backed up by mainstream science. — e. ripley\talk 16:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


Which part? Is is a fringe Cclaim that his name is Macrae, or that he did an experiment. None of these have been backed up any furthr than any of the claims made in the artciel here but it would be ludicrous to say "someone caling himslef Alexander Macrae". Davkal 16:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Because it was not published in a mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journal (a la Science, among others), in order for us to trust the results enough to consider the results authoritative, it needs to be backed up by mainstream research. Some would question its inclusion at all because it's fringe research (take a look at all the fighting over Aetherometry -- some people think it shouldn't have an article at all (oops, looks like it's been deleted -- supports my point)). Nobody has suggested it can't be included (though others might), what Louie is asking is that some couching language be used, i.e., "In 19xx researchers for the XXXX claimed to record EVPs in a shielded room" rather than "In 19xx researchers for the XXX recorded EVPs in a shielded room." Because it's a fringe claim, and especially because the research wasn't done by an institute or published in a journal respected by mainstream science (CalPoly, for instance; or Science), it has to be backed up by mainstream research in order to trust its findings enough to present it without couching language. — e. ripley\talk 16:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
But the fact that such commonplace phenomena happen in the first place is not a fringe claim - it's the conclusion of Macrae's article that is fringe. But we're not trying to cite the conclusion. We're citing the well known fact that anomalous sounds still appear when the instruments are sealed in a faraday cage. It's common knowledge. It was done at pye in the 70s and again by Ellis (although there is a problem with the acoustics on that one) and it has been done by Macrae this century and is being done by members of AAEVP, and it's cited everywhere, and nobody ever disputes it, and everbody knows it. It is therefore a well established fact to everyone except you a nd LuckyLuoie and that is because, as noted above, it wasn't included in the Ghosthunter series and Carroll's website conveniently excludes it and that covers your sum total of knowleldge about the subject. The point being, that it is only your lack of knowledge about the subject that makes you think there is some doubt here rather than any problem with the uncointentious claim or this particluar one of the many sources used to support it.Davkal 16:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
How can MacRae be making fringe claims in one part of his article (the end), yet be making factual claims in another part of his article? We can't cherry-pick statements in his paper, and call some portions reliable and other parts unreliable. WP:VERIFY doesn't work that way. LuckyLouie 18:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


I do understand the distinction, but the reason Wikipedia treats fringe research in this manner is because we can't have a reasonable level of trust in the quality controls for experiments done outside the realm of mainstream science. We consider the New York Times an acceptable source where we (generally) wouldn't accept a high school newspaper because we have a reasonable expectation of trusting the methods of the NY Times whereas that same level of competency can't be assumed from a high school newspaper. That's the basis for the policy. So, back to the specific point, we can not have any reasonable assurance -- because this was fringe research published in a journal not respected by mainstream science -- in the quality controls of the Faraday cage used, nor in the instrumentation. Ignoring the insulting portion of your remarks, Ghost Hunters and/or my personal level of technical knowledge about the subject is entirely irrelevant. I'm interested in the subject as an intellectual curiosity but I freely admit that I've never attempted EVP work in the slightest; to my mind, this makes me a fairly neutral party as I have no strong feelings either way. What I do know about, however, are Wikipedia's policies and the proper way to handle information and citations, which applies equally across all articles, including this one. So, you may continue to insult my intelligence and suggest not so obliquely that you think me unqualified to participate in this discussion, but it won't dissuade me, and if our disagreements reach the level of involving administrators or mediators this type of behavior will not be looked upon kindly. Also, may I ask that you please start nesting your comments? When you respond to someone, generally you place another colon at the beginning of your remarks. The next person places two. The next person places three. Otherwise it's difficult to follow threaded discussion. — e. ripley\talk 16:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Peer-review scientifc journal (of which the JSPR is one) are the best sources we have. If you don't like it, and don't understand why it is adequate as a source for one example of an well known fact, then too bad. It's not even the only source now.Davkal 16:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I have nested your comment for you again. Who are the peers that review this journal? — e. ripley\talk 17:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Look it up, there is an article about SPR on Wiki, and there is plenty about them and their journal on the web.Davkal 17:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Davkal, I appreciate it. I looked at the article, but all it states is that it's "peer reviewed and respected in the field of parapsychology." If the peer review consists other parapsychologists, that's not enough to consider it accepted by mainstream science. — e. ripley\talk 17:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


Nobody is claiming that EVP paranormal theories are mainstream science. Nobdy is claiming that everything to be found in the pages of the JSPR is mainstream science. What is being claimed is that EVP (in the sense of anomalous sounds) have been recorded inside a Faraday cage. We have numerous refernces noting Raudive's tests as Pye in the 70s, and we now have an article in the JSPR explicitly detailing an experiment in which exactly that was found. Nowhere are these well publicised facts challenged in any way. And no evidence has been provided of any kind to suggest that the basic facts here are debatable or fringe or whatever. The basic fact, then, "anomalous sounds found inside Faraday cages" is as verifiable as verifiable gets. Davkal 17:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is a quote from the abstract by Baruss pulished in "Failure to Replicate Electronic Voice Phenomenon": Given the lack of documentation of EVP in mainsteam scientific journals, a review of its history is given based on English language information found in psychical research and parapsychology periodicals and various trade publications and newsletters. http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v15n3a3.php The fact that papers on EVP are not published in mainstream scientific journals is noted by a psychologist in a mainstream scientific journal. I think that pretty much nails it. LuckyLouie 18:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I won't ponder the obvious contradiction concerning "paper on EVP published in mainstream journal claims no papers on EVP ever published in mainstream journals" - except for this one, ooooops. I won't ponder it because it's not really a contradiction, here's why. You want to include the Journal of Scientific Exploration as a mainstream scientific journal. Be my guest. Go and take a look Louie, you may not like what you see.Davkal 18:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My error, the JSE is not mainstream. Could be Baruss couldn't get a paper on EVP published anywhere else. It seems to lend proof to the idea that papers on EVP are not published in mainstream journals, and that mainstream scientific peers in physics, psychology, etc. do not pay attention to the subject of EVP. LuckyLouie 18:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has ever claimed EVP is mainstream science. Nobody needs it to be. Baseball is not mainstream science but there are plenty of articles about it. Davkal


LuckyLouie, you said, "Unless there is widespread support among authoriitative sources for these findings and conclusions, they must be quoted as claims, or 'according to's'." and then e.ripley added, "It is a fringe claim because its research has not been backed up by mainstream science." The standard for veracity of evidence these statements put on the term, "EVP," is impossible to reach without a global change in worldview. There cannot be an affirmative academic or mainstream science peer review article on the subject because the subject is not within the realm of what mainstream or academic studies and there are hardly any academically trained scientists to act as judges. This includes the Parapsychological community, although by your rejection of an JSPR article it is clear that Wikipedia experts do not accept parapsychology as mainstream enough. With this sad truth in mind, all entries--all--must be couched in the same "claimant" tone or as with whatever aetheromety is, the entry should be deleted.

It seems to me that all references should also be somehow marked as "Claimant."

I understand the need to address any subject in a way that fairly depicts it without violating the sensibilities of the established community. Knowing this, I would have preferred that EVP and related topics not be discussed in Wikipedia. Most of us in the community are aware of how difficult it is for rational people who have been trained in mainstream thought to accept these concepts unless they have personally experienced some etheric influence. This is why many of the people involved have come because of the loss of a loved one and apparent contact initiated by that loved one. With this said, I also am aware that most of the editors are not studied in this field and do not understand the nature of the evidence or the methodologies used to gather it. MacRae is a scientist in every respect. The 4Cell EVP Demonstration experiments are conducted to a strict double-blind protocol and many experimenters use a control recorder and listening panels. If the editors were, they would understand that the "claimant" caveat is both insulting to the community and a blatant effort to protect the establishment.

Because of the importance of Wikipedia, and its success as a dominating source of information, the EVP entry shows up on the first page in Google.com. I am sure the editors will understand why we find it so necessary to have EVP represented in a reasonable way, and that it is my job to make sure the public reads the rest of the story. Tom Butler 17:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Using the "claimant" phraseology is not intended to be insulting; it simply is the way Wikipedia functions. The mainstream scientific view has precedent here. But I can certainly see how it would be insulting if you disagree. I certainly don't mean to be insulting -- I'm actually fairly sympathetic to independent EVP researchers, whose curiosity I share, if not their conviction.
I have heard similar strains of the "they don't review it because they're simply not interested enough" reasoning on other pseudoscience articles, and it's simply not enough to do away with claimant-type language -- mainstream science has not been disinterested in EVP work because scientists are uninformed about it (and this is true of the vast majority of fringe theories as well, I don't mean to single out EVP) -- in general it's because they don't think it has enough validity to warrant their time. While I appreciate your desire to ensure that your viewpoint is represented in the article, Tom (and I agree that all significant viewpoints should be properly represented), the goal of Wikipedia is to present a subject as fairly and neutrally as possible, without giving undue weight in certain areas. Sometimes these two goals conflict. Hopefully we can work together to harmonize them as much as possible. I don't think it's possible to not have an article on EVP, because it's seeped too far into the public consciousness. In the case of aetherometry, the only people doing "research" on the alleged phenomena were the people who proposed its existence in the first place, largely. Therefore by its very existence an article tended to lend credence to those claims. There are enough people performing independent research on EVPs, and it's familiar enough to laymen that they might come here seeking information on it, that I think Wikipedia would do a disservice to its users to simply have no article. — e. ripley\talk 18:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


BTW, there is a total misunderstanding of what the Wiki Fringe policy is all about. I suggest anyone wishing to use it read it closely.Davkal 18:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Pye Electronics

Where can we read the original research paper regarding the experiment conducted at Pye, and what journal was it published in? LuckyLouie 19:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

From There is No Death and There are No Dead (need not reference this): In 1971, controlled EVP experiments were conducted with Raudive by the chief engineers of Pye Records, Ltd.50(59-63) Precautions were taken to prevent freak pick-ups of any kind. Controls within the ex-periment also excluded random high or low frequencies being re-ceived. Raudive was not allowed to touch the equipment and was al-lowed only to speak into a microphone. No one present heard anything but Raudive speaking while the recording was being made. However, when the recording was played back, over two hundred voices were found on the eighteen minutes of tape. Many of these messages were personal and very evidential to those who were there. In his book, Carry on Talking, published in 1972, Peter Bander said that there was so much excitement from those who were there that the experiments continued into the early hours of the morning. Carry on Talking was published in the United States as Voices From the Tapes: Recordings from the Other World.50
In 1972, Belling and Lee, Ltd., at Enfield, England, conducted experiments with Raudive and the recording of the paranormal voices in their Radio Frequency Screened Laboratory.50(65-67) Peter Hale supervised the experiments. Peter, a physicist and electronics engineer, was considered the leading expert on electronic-suppression in Great Britain. The Belling and Lee lab was used to test the most sophisti-cated electronic equipment for British defense and was expressly designed to screen out electromagnetic transmissions. Before the ex-periment, Hale had expressed his opinion that Raudive’s voices originated from normal radio signals. The lab’s own recording equipment was used for the test and paranormal voices, that should not have been there, were recorded on factory fresh tape. Peter Hale said after the experiment, “I cannot explain what happened in normal physical terms.”
Reference 50: Bander, Peter—Voices From the Tapes: Recordings from the Other World, Drake Publishers Inc., New York, 1973. Initial German Language title: Carry on Talking. Tom Butler 20:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and thanks, I assume the above was written by you (?) in "There is No Death", by Tom & Lisa Butler, AA-EVP Pub. 2003. I am still looking for the original research papers, if any, written by the individuals conducting the experiments, and their distribution. Statements such as "precautions were taken to prevent freak pick-ups of any kind" would need to be substantiated if they are to be quoted as fact. Of course, reporting the claims as "according to" the author or experimenter would satisfy WP:VERIFY. LuckyLouie 22:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
"Bander, Peter—Voices From the Tapes: Recordings from the Other World, Drake Publishers Inc., New York, 1973. Initial German Language title: Carry on Talking." - Isn't that what your looking for? ---J.S (T/C) 22:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[Worldcatlibraries.org listing. ---J.S (T/C) 22:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. But unfortunately all we have is the equivalent of,"Tom Butler said that Peter Bander said that Peter Hales said". I am looking for the original data, i.e. complete transcript of statements by Hales. Was there a paper written by Hales? LuckyLouie 23:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that's what "Voices From the Tapes" is, in essence. If anyone has a copy of it near them (closest to me is 30 miles away) it might actually say if the study was published as a stand alone document. ---J.S (T/C) 23:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


Is there no point at which we have to simply say: OK, so EVP (whatever they are) have been recorded in radio screened enviroments. This constant requesting of further and further sources and sources for sources and the name, address, telephone number and sexual orientation of the peers who reviewed the peers who reviewed the stuff and so on, is becoming ridiculous. It happened, deal with it!

Not that I think what follows should be in the article, but, skeptics, have you ever stopped to consider exactly why it is that no mention of these things appear in, e.g., Skepdic??? They have not exactly been hidden away. Raudive at the Pye lab, for example, was in 1971. That's 35 years to get an argument together - how long would you like. Davkal 02:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please Assume_good_faith. I was attempting to find out if the Pye data was peer reviewed in mainstream journals. If it was, we could quote it as fact rather than claim. "Getting closer to the data" is never a bad thing, as it could possibly work in your favor. LuckyLouie 02:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

One further point. The point here is not about convicing LuckyLouie, that is not in the Wiki policies. There is, for example, no WP:CLL (convince LuckyLouie). Your request for the "complete transcript" (will typed do, or must it be written in blood, along with DNA analysis) is ridiculous. It is verified. Experiment A, well known and cited, Experiment B, well known and cited, Experiment C... and so on. Nobody cares whether you believe it, it is your perogative to deny til you die. So what. We have copious sources. You have none. Once again, deal with it.Davkal 02:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove two sections, replace with one

I'd like to remove:

Paranormal explanations,
Skeptics

And replace them with:

Theories
Ghostly entities
Radio Interference
Pareidolia
Etc...

Thoughts? ---J.S (T/C) 21:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I definitely don't like the way it's structured now, with discrete separations between the two camps, but I'm not sure there's enough text to fill out those four section heads. I could be wrong though, I'm willing to take a look at how something like that might develop organically. — e. ripley\talk 21:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the three sections I have outlined could be filled out. Each one would have a paragraph of general description and then a paragraph or two of more detailed theory. Perhapses. There is a temp page where I showed how I envisioned it, but you'll need to check the history. (my last edit). ---J.S (T/C) 22:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
JS, I have reverted the temp page to your last edit so we may more easily consider your proposed structure. LuckyLouie 01:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Either way, we going to have an article that contains proponent opinions balanced by skeptical opinions. The first way is a straightforward exposition of the controversial nature of EVP, pro and con. The second way minimizes the appearance of a controversy. Unless someone can make a convincing case for it, I am not certain minimizing the controversy about EVP should be the goal of the article. LuckyLouie 01:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
LuckyLouie, Say "According to" and be done with it. It was my intention that you use the Voices From the Tapes reference, I was just showing off with No Nead.
JS, the appraoch I attmepted at http://aaevp.com/articles/articles_about_evp11.htm was to just talk about the theories. That is factual and does not force the skeptics to be to outlandish. As the Skepticle section is now:
"...probably due to such things as interference from a nearby CB operator or cross modulation." are speculations without foundation in evidence and the "experts," Jim Alcock and David Federlein are speaking without substantiating evidence. In fact, all that they say is demonstrably wrong without resorting to fringe science. I find that even with the inclusion of "According to," the reference is too false to be acceptable. Certainly it is not on a par with the JSPR reference. All the skeptic reference does is say what is convenient to make the issue seem false. If we are going to keep the sections, to be balanced, I feel that it might be a good idea to allow each side to offer contending arguments. In other words, proponents say "this," skeptics say "nonsense, it is this" and proponents say "ya but." Skeptics can say "ya but" back, but all statements need to be referenced with something more than a web page that says something is "probably." I say super strings are probably a mathematical brain fart, but that is not apt to be included in the entry.
The phrase, "Some of the 'voices' are most likely people creating meaning out of random noise, a kind of auditory pareidolia or apophenia," is also unsubstantiated. For instance, proper support for the statement would be something like a ten person listening panel finding ten different interpretations of what we call a Class A EVP. I suspect that the critical observers have not been moved to such research.
I also find "Now that the phenomenon has a number of devoted followers, some hoaxershave probably entered the fray," to be an innuendo designed to imply that if one example might be faked, they all are probably faked. What is a "hoaxershave" anyway? Sure there are always those who like to fake things, but there are also those who fake archeological finds and I bet we don't have such warnings there.
As for the "old tapes for EVP sessions," they are hardly used these days, making this a bogus argument.
"There are several cases of people being spooked by what turned out to be voices from a radio program or a nearby baby monitor suggesting that many unexplained voice phenomena could have equally mundane origins," is simply silly. Without a citation, the comment should be struck. Who said this anyway?
The "Some have suggested that humans searching a recording for what seem like voices may be unconsciously assigning meaning to random white noise and interpreting it as 'voices'," is a valid argument but there needs to be a reference for it to stay. We fight this problem all the time with members. I would change "white noise" which is an obsolete place holder to, "mundane sounds."
I can give a reference for "Digital audio recording devices may also be chosen on the basis of a poor Signal-to-noise ratio, believing that they are more "sensitive" to "life energies. Poor quality A/D and DACs on cheaper digital recorders create artifacts not present from the ambiance being recorded" Use A Testable Hypothesis Explaining EVP Formation in Digital Recorders, by Tom Butler and James Jones (http://aaevp.com/articles/articles_about_recorders.htm) Also, Selecting an Audio Recorder by Tom Butler (http://aaevp.com/techniques/techniques_evp10.htm). In fact, it has been shown that the existence of such noise is useful for voice formation. I think the part about being sensitive to life forces is speculation and takes the subject in to the proponents court, but if you think it needs to be there, then see Formation of Electronic Phenomena by Tom Butler at http://ethericreality.aaevp.com/concepts.htm#Formation%20of%20Electronic%20Phenomena. It is wildly speculative, but it is our working hypothesis.
The sample rate of low cost recorders tends to be just above the Nyquist Criterion (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NyquistFrequency.html) for voice. As with the telephone company, that is minimum of 8 KHz for a 4 KHz bandpass in the better voice recorders. But the most effective recorders have been those with sample rates around 5 KHz. Almost all of the audio energy in our EVP are in the range of 400 Hz to 1,200 Hz. I think the compression algorithms probably do have something to do with the internal noise of the recorder and understandability of the recorded voice, so although I do not have a reference for you, I would not argue with the contention. On the other hand, the matter is easily dispelled with a listening panel and with a mind toward appropriate content. Tom Butler 23:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


Removing unsourced claims

As noted here yesterday. The section on skeptical explanation is completely unsourced. This is depsite fact tags being placed there some days ago and requests for sources being made prior to that. In line with Wiki policy the section has been removed pending the inclusion of appropriate sources. Please do not simply reintroduce the unsourced claims. Davkal 02:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point - LuckyLouie 02:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and the point is: source your claims or have them removed. You will find that point repeated ad nauseum in the Wiki guidlines and policies. Davkal 02:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Continued uncivil behavior and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point may drive away objective editors and result in an article with a unilateral POV that will stand for a while. However, eventually the unilateral POV will be noticed, an NPOV tag will be placed on the article, and the editing process will begin all over again. So it makes much more sense to be civil, assume good faith, and attempt to find consensus.- LuckyLouie 02:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a very nice policy note that says, as best I can remember: if you're so sure that what you say is true then sources should be easy to find. I suggest you go find them and then all will be well. Yes, I am being disruptive. I am disrupting the actions of those who wish to include unbounded speculation on the one hand, while on the other refusing to accept anything not carved in stone by the hand of The Almighty. "Complete transcripts" for goodness' sake, get a grip.Davkal 03:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder about the citing sources guideline process of tagging unsourced material:
To summarize the use of in line tags for unsourced or poorly sourced material:
If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the {{Fact}} tag to ask for source verification, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time.
If it is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it is as very harmful or absurd, in which case it shouldn't be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense.
All unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed from articles and talk pages immediately. It should not be tagged. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel.
It is not disrupting Wikipedia to remove unsourced material after a reasonable time from when it was tagged.
Thanks, Dreadlocke ☥ 04:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd really appreciate everyone calm down. When people start to throw "WP:" at each-ohter then it's really time to take a deep breath. The information isn't lost and we don't have a due date. ---J.S (T/C) 05:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

By deleting skeptical hypothesis (sourced or not) editors risk unbalancing the article and making it appear to support the paranormal argument. In my experience, when this happens, other editors tend to come along and delete valid text from the paranormal hypothesis in a misguided effort to even things up. Which is far from what the page actually needs. I think that fact tagging is better than deleting in all cases where the tagged text is not obviously pushing a harmful agenda (for example, when it isn't openly insulting to an individual). Something needs to sit uncorrected for weeks rather than days.

perfectblue 07:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That may be so, but at too many stages now are we being required to adjust the article so as not to offend the sensibilities of the skeptics. For example, we have to avoid certain types of perfectly sound wording because they won't read it properly and will jump to false conclusions, and now we have to leave some bizarre unsourced speculation about baby monitors in order to provide "balance". At some point I think we need to say enough is enough, the Wiki rules are there for a reason and must apply. If there is anything to these claims, and they are more than simply speculation from editors here, then sources should be easy to find. As regards the time issue, the general warning about sources has been there for weeks, the specific warning about skeptical claims not being sourced has been there for about a week, and the tags at all the specific claims for a few days. No mobement of any kind has been made to rectify the situation. Myabe some will start now.Davkal 12:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm less worried about offending skeptics than I am about #) Giving them ammunition to cause trouble with #) having people misinterpret EVP as specifically meaning "ghost voices", and go into skeptic mode.
perfectblue 13:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


This sentence

The following: "EVP are typically short, comprising single "words" or short "phrases", though longer segments of "language" have also been recorded." is now causing considerable controversy. What it currently means is this: 1. EVP are typically short. 2. They are normally the length of single words or phrases, although on occasion they are longer.

The version that is now in the article: EVP are typically short, interpreted as single "words" or short "phrases", though longer segments interpreted as "language" have also been recorded." is a) meaningless, b) about a different point entirely, and c)POV when you see what it is supposed to mean. That is, a) it doesn't mean anything to say something is interpreted as a "word" (in inverted commas). This is because "word" in inverted commas is already earmarked by precisely that device as being in some way dubious. What the sentence should say is "EVP are typically short, interpreted as single words or short phrases, though longer segments interpreted as language have also been recorded.", but this is about a different point and is heavy POV. It is about a different point because the original was simply about the length of EVP and made no claims about whether they were words or otherwise. This is now a point about their nature, with length being secondary. It is heavy POV because it now means they are not words. That is, words are not interepreted as words - they are words. So EVP must be something else interpreted as words (e.g., random noise - just as the some ultr-skeptic might say although has not yet - see below). So, the first version captures the ambiguity and the debate, whereas the second (when written in meaningful English) states an ultra-skeptical view not even held by any skeptic yet. That is, you are quite wrong when you say nobody agrees EVP are words - everybody agrees some are words (thus the skeptical "radio" hypothesis) and virtually everybody agrees some are not. Again the first version captures this nicely and the second version doesn't. Add to all this that the main point here is simply one about length and this is muddied in the second version as well, and we are left with very little (nothing) to recommend it. Doczilla, Inshanee, I would appreciate a response to these points here in the discussion page rather than constant reverting you are currently engaged in. Davkal 14:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose replacing the contentious phrase with the following sentence (or a mutually acceptable variation on it.
"EVP are typically brief; the length of a word or short phrase, though longer examples have also been recorded."
This way we don't even enter on to whether or not they are words or phrases. Is this agreeable?
perfectblue 14:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. And while I don't think it quite as descriptive as what was there it tallies enough with the source for that to be reinstated as well. Davkal 14:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

One issue I have with all of this though, is that there IS NO disagreement about some of them being voices. This is why skeptics cite the radio interference argument. That is, they are saying that what is being picked up are human voices from mundane sources. The point skeptics are making with the pareidolia claim is that SOME can be explained this way. It therefore makes no sense to keep hedging everything in line with a skeptical view that doesn't actually exist.Davkal 14:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but from the perspective of a skeptic aren't things purportedly from prosaic sources automatically discounted from the ranks of EVP? Meaning that there IS disagreement that EVP are voices because there is disagreement as to whether the recordings with voices in them are actually EVP?
perfectblue 15:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


It depends on the definition. And if that definition is going to dictate the way the article is written then it will need to be explicitly stated. It would also mean that the cases explained as pareidolia are not EVP and so skeptics would actually be saying EVP does not exist. I think this is a bad move because EVP (whtever they are) obviously exists so trying to write the thing we will end up tying ourselves in knots.Davkal 15:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My defintion can be seen on Skepdic where Carroll says "impossible to prove that all EVPs are due to natural phenomena" when, if the other definiton was being used, that would be a contradiction in terms since no EVP could possibly, by definition, be due to natural phenomena.Davkal 15:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we should take the broad view that "EVPS are unexplained voices and sounds caught on tape." That doesn't preclude some of them being identified as interference or some-one's imagination. ---J.S (T/C) 15:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
This, I think, was what we agreed before. One reason being that it made the article a whole lot easier to write. And I still think we should state that this is the view explicitly with something making that point crystal clear. As it is we have a number of quotes in the article (like Carroll's) where it is presupposed but it still causes friction everytime we just use EVP to mean the basic pre-explained phenomenon. The other way seems to me like trying to walk through a minefield.Davkal 16:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The Definition is the killer. Some people (skeptic and believers alike) use EVP purely to mean "Ghost voices", and anything that has is clearly not a "Ghost voice" (to them at least) they throw in the garbage and don't count as EVP. This why I was suggesting that we avoid using both "voices" and "EVP" except for certain key parts of the argument where we are trying to hammer a set perspective home to the reader.
perfectblue 16:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's something I find extraordiny (not quite paranormal, but not far off). The start of the article reads as follows: "EVP are anomalous voices or voice-like sounds." I take this to be absolutely unequivocal in its neutrality concerning whether these are actually voices or not. That is voices OR voice-like sounds. Inshanee on the other had keeps changing it to say merely "voice-like sounds". This he takes to capture the debate more accurately, but it clearly does not. That it, is says absolutely unequivocally that they are not voices, but merely "voice-like" sounds - voices being voices and only things other than voices having the capcity to be voice-like. Inshanee therefore, is removing a a neutral description dealing with the ambiguous nature of the phenomena and replacing it with an definite statement from only one side of the disagreement, and all the time justifying it as necessaary to capture the disagreement. My version captures the disagreement, Inshanee's settles the debate in favour of one side. Davkal 16:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Watch your tone. There is no concrete proof that these are voices. "Voice like sounds" does not preclude the possibility that that is what they are, as the article then asserts later on. --InShaneee 16:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
As above, a lot of people believe that the ones that are clearly voices are not EVP, but are instead something more boring with its own name to supersede EVP (As in, if it's an Alien ship or a weather balloon, its not a UFO because its been Identified as being something specific).
perfectblue 16:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there was an attempt to use my religion as a way to discredit the AA-EVP that was there for a long time. It was that phrase that finally brought me to this, because while it is true that I am a Spiritualist, there is no hint in the AA-EVP that EVP has anything to do with religion--quite the opposite, making the phrase inflammatory --I am sure to the delight of the religiously skeptical. At the same time, I could say that if any of you go to church, then you are obviously making a faith-based argument against EVP, which of course you are not ... right?
As we reported in No Dead, Characteristic Number Six:
6. EVP are Complete Words or Phrases: Researcher Alexander MacRae, has also conducted considerable analysis of EVP messages, determining that a message is typically one to two seconds in duration and is not truncated at the beginning or end. If EVP were crosstalk, they would often begin in the middle of a word. EVP messages are usually complete thoughts, as well.
Reference:
30. MacRae, Alexander—The Mystery of the Voices, Self published CD, 2000, Portree Skye, Scotland. See http://aspsite.tripod.com/ for details about the Alpha Device.
This point is well documented in our book, by MacRae and by other authors that EVP are complete and logical phrases, albeit often one word phrases. We have seen partial word attempts to form an EVP that probably failed because of lack of audio energy, but those are always discounted, and even though they may be seen as voice modulation of sound, they are not considered EVP. In analysis of the EVP wave form, it can often be seen that longer phrases are one or two word packets of sound that are concatenated as a sentence.
As for self-published books, at least we took the time to get an ISBN and put it into the public record with our name and ample references. The skeptical dictionary references are from a web site that can change without notice and even go away without evidence that it existed. Also, Lisa and I are verifiably subject matter experts, which is not something that can be claimed by the authors of the skeptic sites. Which is more reliable?
Also I should say again that, by definition of EVP, if the recorded sounds thought to be EVP are acoustical, then they are not EVP, they are referred to as direct voice. ( http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/crawford/directvoice.htm ) In this case, "Others believe the sounds may have been outside the range of human hearing..." and "Most commonly it is believed that EVP are the voices of discarnate entities such as spirits, inaudible to the human ear ..." are references to direct voice. Also, I have said a number of times that "spirits" is a misnomer. The more generic term would be "discarnate entities," or even more generic, "etheric entities." Spirits are a religious term sometimes used in non religious reference when speaking in the vernacular.
As a PS, If someone is making changes without discussion here, it seems that they are trying to circumvent the process of consensus building. Is there some way we can bring them to the table? Tom Butler 17:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The current (as of this writing) "voices or voice-like sounds" makes sense. It covers the phenomena as understood by both believers and nonbelievers of paranormal explanation. Believers generally acknowledge that some of the sounds might not be voices. Nonbelievers generally acknowledge that some of the sounds may be voices; they simply disagree with paranormal explanation. To simply say "voices" or "words" without qualifiers would leave out the examples that really aren't. When there was a comma between "voices" and "or", that put things back in an either/or context in that "voice-like sounds" may have simply been an elaboration of "voices" as understood by some readers. Without the comma, it leaves room for the possibility that some are voices and some are not. Regarding the "interpreted as" business, the sentence doesn't have to say that, but it needs some qualification because they're not all words. Doczilla 17:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm, alright, I see what's being said now. Still, if we must go that route, it feels like we must mention the 'confirmed' (cb spillover, ect) voices in the intro to distinguish them from the paranormal ones. --InShaneee 17:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
"and is not truncated at the beginning or end"
Sorry, but half of the EVP that I've heard to appears to be gibberish or meaningless unless put into a specific context, and in these cases that context is often very leading and is crualy to people understanding the EVP. To put it simply, the person with the EVP tells you that the EVP is a voice saying something, and provide you with some background information, and it appears to be exactly that, and to make perfect sense because, after what they have said, you are expecting to hear it. Without that introduction, half of the time they do appear to be truncated, and the other half of the time two people will hear two completely different messages.

perfectblue 18:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm personally okay with the current "voices, or voice-like sounds." — e. ripley\talk 19:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


Re the interpretation claim. Doczilla says above that "it needs some qualification because they're not all words". It did have qualification. It had scare quotes round, "words", "phrases" and "language". The purpose of scare quotes being similar to "inserting so-called to modify a word" according to wiki. So what the claim said was not, as Doczilla and Inshanee have it, that EVP are words and phrases and language, but that EVP are "words" and "phrases" and language" which is quite different. In summary, then, given that the reasons for the change to "interpreted as" were groundless, ie. the pupose was to introduce qualification due to the false belief that no qualification existed in the original. Can we now get rid of this cumbersome sentence that muddies a simple point about the length of EVP and return to my version, or the one identified by PerfectBlue above. We can also get the source back this way since, it seems to me, the article could still do with them.Davkal 15:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You’re right that the scare quotes had been there as qualifiers. They’d slipped my mind. I meant that words are needed as qualifiers because on the one hand (1) not every reader will get the point of the scare quotes and (2) to those who read them, they can come across as “so-called” which is generally negative. Interpretation is a flat fact. Interpretation can be accurate. Word-like noises get interpreted as words. What else gets interpreted as words? Words do! Doczilla 17:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC) (That’s a fun exclamation point, not a shouting exclamation.)

Two points, Firstly on the sentence in question, OK, but given that the point here was merely a descriptive one about the length of EVP, can we get rid of the cumbersome version which goes further than than and use PerfectBlue's above. Which was: "EVP are typically brief; the length of a word or short phrase, though longer examples have also been recorded.

Secondly, it is very misleading to say words are interpreted as words because there is no need for say such a thing. By saying it, and by marking EVP out in this way, we are pretty much saying that EVP are non-words, mere word-like noises, which are interpreted as words. Given theat, this is another reason to go for PerfectBlue's version.Davkal 17:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Perfectblue's version is good. Doczilla 19:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

On a related point, there has been much talk about the controversy over whether any EVP are voices etc. with many people still apparently claiming that they are not or that skeptic's use a definition which means if something's a voice then it's not EVP because its origin is known or MUST be the radio or something (not sure how that argument works????), and there is much speculation about the quality of EVP the editors here have heard. Sources please. If these opinions are to dictate the way the article is written then it is simply not enough to say "I'm not convinced any EVP are voices". So what, have you a source that says none of them are. That's what's needed here. Inshanee in particular, you've been making this type of claim for days now in your edit summaries (there is debate over whether any are voices) and have been amending the article in numerous places in line with your thinking, while staunchly resisting all requests to explain what you are basing this on. Let the sources be produced. Davkal 15:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously questioning whether there exist people who believe EVPs are not voices? — e. ripley\talk 16:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that, to my knowlegde (and I await the sources to show I am wrong) not even the archest of arch-skeptics claims none of them are voices. Why would they, because some of them are so obviously voices that to claim otherwise would be foolish in the extreme. If I am wrong then let the sources be cited. Davkal 17:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Many skeptics suggest just that -- that the bleeps and bloops are generated by random noise. Some may be voices (a la from a CB radio), some may be someone's wireless DSL (that's what cross modulation is). Therefore not all EVP can be proclaimed as voices. — e. ripley\talk 20:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Sound engineer David Federline writes in "The Skeptic's Dictionary" that although he uses expensive, sensitive audio equipment, he's never heard ghosts. He suggests that the inexpensive equipment used by ghost hunters is the culprit. He notes that one ghost-hunting Web site recommends putting the microphone on the highest sensitivity level. "Doing this raises what's called the noise floor--the electrical noise created by all electrical devices, or 'white noise,' " he wrote. "If I were to filter white noise, I could make it say just about anything." (Chicago Tribune, June 2, 2006; "Ghost busters seek supernatural at Wells St. Hooters" By Larry Potash). Just one example of the suggestion that the "voices" are really just electrical static. — e. ripley\talk 20:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Skeptics of most things paranormal debunk EVP as the product of overactive imaginations, the power of suggestion, electrical interference or even transmissions bleeding over from other frequencies. (Kansas City Star, Jan. 7 2005; "THEY HEAR DEAD PEOPLE; Paranormal investigators record voicelike sounds, but critics give them static" by Lisa Gutierrez). — e. ripley\talk 20:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The point was not that they are all voices. The point was that you, and many others, claim that none of them are, and keep trying to force the article to be written as if none of them were, or as if it was possible that none of them were, or as if there were people who claim that none of them are. That is what I called an ultra-skeptical line, that no skeptic I am aware of has taken yet. (Here it is again in case you don't believe that that was my point: "I am saying that, to my knowledgee (and I await the sources to show I am wrong) not even the archest of arch-skeptics claims none of them are voices." So, all the sources in the world saying some are not voices does not add up to the view that none are voices. This is why to keep forcing the point that we can't call them voices in the article but we can call then voice-like noises is to tip the balance over to a skeptical view that nobody even holds. Come on, it's not that difficult to understand.Davkal 21:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you've begun to talk at me instead of with me. "Come on, it's not that difficult to understand" doesn't help matters. I've never suggested that there is no-one on this planet who thinks EVPs are voices. What I'm striving to ensure is that they are not universally described as voices, as clearly there are many people who think they're simply electrical bleeps and bloops from the wireless TiVo box. Functionally, this means that where EVPs are mentioned as "voices," there must also be a counterbalance -- they must either say "voices, or other prosaic sources," or must say something like "interpreted as voices." Just because some people believe they may be voices (of whatever origin) doesn't mean Wikipedia can proclaim EVPs to be voices in all cases when this point is clearly in dispute. As long as there is a theory that says that EVPs aren't voices at all, this article will not proclaim EVPs to be voices regardless of the paranormality or mundaneness of their origins. Representing all sides fairly by presenting a claim that's in dispute as a claim isn't tipping the balance, it's maintaining the balance. To flip the script, consider how you would feel if a skeptic used your logic -- a skeptic could just as easily argue that by allowing the use of "voices" instead of insisting only on "voice-like sounds" it's "tipping the article toward the paranormal viewpoint." And that opinion would also be wrong. — e. ripley\talk 13:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I see why there are problems getting this definition right. How about looking at it from a different angle. The interpretation of the voices and voice-like sounds are the essential component of EVP. Without interpretation, you merely have noises/voices (they could be anomalous, they could be mundane). Only via interpretation does one define what the heck they are. For example, skeptics interpret the noises/voices as possibly due to prosaic effects such as A, B, or C. Proponents interpret the noises/voices as unexplained, anomalous, unexpected, otherworldly, etc. Interpretation is what defines EVP. So it would be more accurate to say something like, Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are voices or voice-like sounds captured on electronic media which are interpreted as anomalous, unexplained, or otherworldly. LuckyLouie 20:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The voices/voice-like sounds are anomalous and unexplained in the sense that nobody knows where they come from in most individual cases. There is also a significant dispute raging over whether, say, example x is a voice or example y or example z and so on. Whether any examples are otherwordly or not is a matter of explanation rather than interpretation. That is, there isthe phenomena known as EVP and, pretty much, everyone accepts that some are voices, and everyone accepts that some are not, and there is a whole lot of debate about others, or about what is generally the case. But in the cases that are agreed to be voices, or the cases which are debatable, there is no agreement about the source. Davkal 01:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether they are voices or noises, an essential part of the phenomena known as EVP is the interpretation of them as something other than mundane. It would be POV to define EVP as anomalous sounds, i.e. stating that the anomalous nature of them is a confirmed fact. However, if we describe that they are sounds interpreted by some as anomalous, that is a neutral position. LuckyLouie 03:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that's to take anomalous as almost synonymous with paranormal when that's not really what it means. EVP are straightforwardly anomalous inasmuch as nobody knows where they come from or what they are exactly. These voices and/or voice-like sounds are then interpreted/explained by some as the voices of discarnate entities, while others speculate that they likely have a more mundane source - but nobody has the definitive answer to them yet. Davkal 11:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that anomalous isn't the problem as much as the voice/voice-like sounds question is. I can see Louie's point but personally I don't object to using anomalous, in general, as long as it's used in a way that makes it clear that it's meant in the broadest possible terms (Merriam-Webster: "inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected"). I think it's possible to use the term accurately, given the debate that exists over what exactly creates EVPs. I don't think anybody really expects to hear weird moaning noises on the tape of their kid's debate team argument, regardless of what caused it. — e. ripley\talk 13:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I was looking at it as a defintion in practical, everyday use. In the real world, only a supernatural-minded person would define weird moaning noises heard on a tape made in a class of 30 teenagers as "EVP". When I was in high school, if someone audiotaped us, it would be unusual NOT to hear weird, unexpected vocal noises. But by our definition, any unusual voice-like sound on a tape is indeed EVP, including whistling, whispering, growling, yawning, farting sounds, and all the usual teenage vocalizations. LuckyLouie 15:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
That's what I've been thinking. Background noise and interference are one thing, but EVP is saying something entirely different, particularly in the sense that EVP in no way attemtps to explain ALL such voices. --InShaneee 15:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
HA! Thanks for the laugh Louie. Yes, I see the point you're making but I'm still not sure that anomalous should be completely discounted for the purpose of this article. Consider me on the fence; much depends, I think, on how the word is used practically in this article. Speaking of which, we should probably get back to talking about article specifics. We've been talking too conceptually here lately (and I'm also guilty of it). — e. ripley\talk 15:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Whatever words are chosen, the first sentence needs to be a bit more specific and less broad. I wouldn't have even mentioned it, but I realized that in trying so hard to come up with a definition that satisfies all the various partisan viewpoints, we may have neglected the most important objective, i.e. a definition that is of practical use to the average reader. LuckyLouie 15:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately sometimes clarity gets lost in the process of trying to broker a truce between warring sides. We should be careful of that. — e. ripley\talk 16:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As it is, it might be better as "EVP are anomalous sounds found in recording media which are sometimes interpreted as voices. Such anomalous sounds are not considered EVP unless they can be distinguished as voice."

I might add as an aside that they are rejected by the discerning experimenter if things thought to be EVP do not make sense. The second sentence may be a little much, but I think it would be revealing to point out the distinction between artifacts of the technology and environment and what EVP "proponents" consider voice."

A second point is that there is no experimental substantiation of the skeptical view of radio cross talk, imagination and unnoticed voices (when a control recorder is used). However, what is experimentally substantiated in mediumship experiments is that, once the existence of psi in the form of mind-to-mind communication is established, then there remains the possibility that EVP are initiated by the experimenter or an interested witness and from the experimenter's memory or powers of authorship (whatever is a good word for "the voice speaking to you as if it is self-aware is really what you would imagine the person to say if the person still existed.). To be honest, that is the most powerful argument against the Survival Hypothesis. It is legitimate, possible given psi and it requires much more experimentation. Tom Butler 16:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

More on self-published/vanity press sources

Tom, more on self-published sources. You stated As for self-published books, at least we took the time to get an ISBN and put it into the public record with our name and ample references. The skeptical dictionary references are from a web site that can change without notice and even go away without evidence that it existed. Also, Lisa and I are verifiably subject matter experts, which is not something that can be claimed by the authors of the skeptic sites. Which is more reliable?

ISBNs are irrelevant, though appreciated as it makes texts easier to access. The skeptical dictionary citations that are used in this article are in essence referencing only their opinion about the phenomena and are properly identified as such. Similarly, it's fine to use your self-published source to cite your or AAEVP's personal opinions about the phenomena. Obviously you're well-qualified to speak of your own opinions.  :) Where a self-published source (or one published at a vanity press) can't be used is to support an independent fact (such as the papal investiture). This is because we can have no expectation of real editorial scrutiny or fact-checking, as there would be at a publishing house. Of course I wouldn't trust the skeptic's dictionary as a source for a fact regarding a papal investiture either. I'd like to stress that I don't mean to impugn your motives or personal editorial practices, it's simply the way Wikipedia functions. I was happy to replace the AAEVP source with Jurgenson's; it's always better to get closer to the source when possible anyway. — e. ripley\talk 19:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I've tweaked the St. Gregory language a bit, tightened it up and linked to the wiki article on the order. Tom, in this book did Jurgenson say specifically that his investiture was because of his work on spirit voices? — e. ripley\talk 19:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
"voice-like" seems reasonable.
As for truncated messages, there is a brief explanation as to why EVP are more difficult to understand than biologically formed words at http://aaevp.com/faq/faq_evpitc.html#cleaned_up_EVP_doesnt_sound_the_same . In essence, you are correct that the poorer quality examples usually require prompting to be understood by the novice. We discourage people from sharing Class C and B examples with people who are not accustomed to the idiosyncrasy of EVP, but it is understandable that they do. Class A examples are more like one in a thousand. TEVP are phenomenal, you know. We usually depend on counting syllables or audio pulses, context and such to figure out the harder to understand examples. As you have described it, I would look at yourself as well. Belief systems have a great deal to do with what a person experiences. Pareidolia works both ways, you know. The military has the same problem with radio transactions during combat. It is only fair to recognize that EVP is not unique in intelligibility problems.
e. ripley, I have had other books commercially published without benefit of this scrutiny you refer to, For instance, the Handbook of Metaphysics was not even proofread by the textbook publisher--much to my distress as it was my first book. I really do not care if No Dead is used as a reference. What concerns me is that you (unnamed editors in general) are able to effectively neutralize all of my expertise by discounting the book because we self-published it (we did so because it needs to be available over the years for members), discounting the web site because it is largely authored by a Spiritualist and discounting other experts in the field because they are not published by universities.
As for Jürgenson's award, as we worded it, "Jürgenson had very close connections with the Vatican and Pope Paul VI. In 1969, the Pope gave Jürgenson the Commander’s Cross of the Order of St. Gregory the Great. The award is given to acknowledge an individual’s meritorious service to the Church. Jürgenson told others that he had found a sympathetic ear for the voice phenomenon in the Vatican." However, as I understand it, the church did not give him the award specifically for discovering EVP. The only relevance I believe is that the church was well aware of his work with EVP and did not condemn it. We also wrote:
Father Ernetti and Father Gemelli. In Italy in 1952, Father Ernetti was collaborating on music research with Father Dr. Gemelli68(12) in the Experimental Physics Laboratory of the Catholic University of Milan. Ernetti was a respected medical doctor and nuclear physicist and Gemelli was the President of the Papal Academy. The two were conducting oscillographic experiments with a wire magnetophone (wire recorder) in an effort to produce clearer singing voices in Gregorian chants. The wire broke frequently and it was the habit of Father Gemelli to call on his paternal father when things went wrong in his day-to-day activities. That day when the wire broke once again, he called out, “Oh father, help me!”
After the experiment, the two men played back what had registered on the magnetophone and to their astonishment, heard a voice say, “But of course I’ll help you! I’m always with you.” Gemelli recognized the voice as that of his father. They turned the magnetophone back on and Germelli asked out loud, “Papa, if you are really here, please repeat what you said before.” On playback the reply followed immediately after his request with “But Zucchini (a childhood nickname only known by his father), it is clear, don’t you know it is I?” These messages were later reported to Pope Pius XII.
I doubt that the value of the reference is so great that it needs to remain. It is not our desire to enlist the church in this. Tom Butler 01:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The St. Gregory reference IS interesting; if there's a way to describe it that's reasonably accurate I'd like to see it retained. At the least, maybe it can be inserted into a new stub article on Jurgenson himself. Anyway, we can toy with the language.
I just want to talk again about one point. Particularly because you're a recognized researcher, you're absolutely welcome to use self-published books as sources for your or your organization's opinions about items related to the paranormal, as long as they're presented as your opinions. (AAEVP believes that EVPs originate from XXXX. (citation); or AAEVP conducted an experiment it says resulted in XXXX. (citation)). If you were not recognized in the field, it would be basically impossible to use a self-published source; in that case even your opinions cited in a self-published book would not pass muster for inclusion (nor would mine -- I have no subject experience). I do understand your frustration, and agree that the policy is imperfect as most things are, but I hope you can appreciate that its intent is to protect the encyclopedia's editorial integrity to the extent possible, which is also my main focus as an editor. I want to see both "sides" of the EVP debate, to the extent that there are discrete sides, represented fairly.
From Wikipedia's verifiability policy: Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
I just want to take a second to say that I'm glad you're involved in the article. — e. ripley\talk 16:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Making Changes Without Discussion

I have just changed the reference to Sarah Estep founding the AA-EVP. It was only about 99% incorrect. I have also added a footnote to the last of the Raudive Studies section. It is important that people do not use "well it must be a foreign language" explanation for loud sounds they think must be EVP but that they cannot understand. That is not consistent with current research. The footnote can be taken out, but somewhere, the polyglot reference needs to be explained or removed.

What is the studies section intended to do? If it is a discussion of the phenomenon, then it is way out of date, and of historical interest only. If the section is more current, shouldn't there be "skeptical studies" as well. :-)

Sorry, I am not sure how to make the references correct.

The "The official website of the G.I.S. - Ghost Investigators Society " external link is pretty much of an advertisement.

I am concerned that changes are being put into the entry without discussion. As far as I am concerned, I would like to see the EVP page locked except to one or two designated editors. As it stands now, I am going to have to find a volunteer to troll for new entries in these paranormal pages to assure that nonsense does not creep in while we are not looking. Tom Butler 17:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"I would like to see the EVP page locked except to one or two designated editors." ??? Wikipedia is a collaborative effort among those holding many different POV's, it's not just for those who consider themselves experts. LuckyLouie 18:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
That is not the point LuckyLouie. It is the fact that any point of view can be put onto the page without people realizing that the change has been made. I resent having to watch the damn page all the time to make sure something like what was written about the organization Sarah Estep formed is not added. There is a difference between balanced point of view and an inaccurate and misleading statement. The Wikipedia editing policy pretty much assure chaos in content.
I was not calling for any specific point of view--even you could be one of the editors with a key. I was just calling for a discussion before changes are made. And, I resent the continuing implication that I want just my point of view included in the entry. All I want is accuracy and that is turning out to be a function of selected points of view from people who do not know enough to recognize what is and is not accurate. Nice system.
All Wikipedia has done for me is take a lot of time. It promises to take a lot more and the alternative I see is to begin trying to balance Wikipedia just as we try to balance the influence of the religiously skeptical--in the media. Tom Butler 20:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I used to have exactly the same problem as you when I was editing Why only people who say the right things should have freedom of speech, I found that the solution was to forget about open access formats like Wikipedia, where they literally let anybody in to edit, and to start up my own website where I could control what went in it and who edited it.
Seriously, you're wailing on the founding principles of Wikipedia, and that won't win you all that many friends around here.
perfectblue 21:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I now get 50 million hits a day (
perfectblue, am I to assume that you want me to make friends rather than worry about the content of a page that directly address what I do? Your sarcasm does not answer the issue I raised and seems irrelevant to the point. In fact, your choice of examples is offensive. I suppose it would be an unfriendly act if I complained to whoever is the "Judge" in such matters.
The issue is that inaccuracies creep into the page without notice or discussion. If that is satisfactory to you, then perhaps that is the problem. After your above comment, I would have to assume that it meets your standard of journalism.
I am not here to make friends! I want the entry to be based on the evidence, and I do not care which way that leans the point of view. If the material is evidential, it should not have to be snuck in! Tom Butler 22:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
You missed my point entirely. Wikipedia is user created. The ability for one user to add inaccuracies and POV to it is an inherent danger of this framework, but the ability for another user to remove them is an inherent strength. Users either need to accept this framework "warts and all" or the need to go somewhere else.
You can have your locked down EVP page where you choose what goes in and what stays out, or you can be part of the self-regulatory process that helps keep POV etc out of Wikipedia, but you can't come here and try to turn the later into the former.
perfectblue 10:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess we both missed the point then. Wikipedia happened to me. It is not my life goal to be an editor for Wikipedia. I explained the issue of time when I first posted here. Whether or not the free-for-all editing rule is a strength depends on who has the most time to work on the entries. That automatically rules out a lot of people who know a thing or two about some of the subjects. Such natural selection will automatically benefit the most zealous.
I will say again: "Let the evidence determine what is on the page." The "EVP is dead people talking" side does not have all of the evidence. If you will read an earlier post of mine, there is at least one very good point saying that it is living people thinking. I do not want an unbalanced point of view in the EVP entry or any other. I want to know when a change is made and why--pro or con because some of those people making changes obviously do not understand the nature of evidence. My example is the Sarah Estep item in the history section. It probably should not even be there unless you want to include all of the other people who have done something. Beginning the AA-EVP is not that kind of a historical event. However, if it is there, it needs to be correct. For instance, it said that the AA-EVP was formed in 1993. It was 1982. It said that members record entire audio tapes at a time. In reality it is usually about five minutes at a time. It goes on. Why should I have to read the entry every morning to see what was added? Tom Butler 17:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


"Such natural selection will automatically benefit the most zealous"
I've found that the system works very well for most pages. The truth is that many pages are not contentious and many edits are not contentious. People simply make small changes to the way that something is written or they add something that they consider appropriate in and they don't take much notice when the next editor comes along and does the same. When taken in the scope of Wikipedia, it's only a comparatively few pages where edits are made and reverted or contested on a daily basis, and there are comparatively few editors who get involved in that kind of thing.
"there, it needs to be correct."
Here you have found one of the inherent strengths of the open model. You found an error and you corrected it. If this were a closed model site, you could not have done. Just as somebody else can introduce an error, so you can correct it.
"Sarah Estep item in the history section"
If you can find a more notable person or group, please feel free to add it in in its place.
"Why should I have to read the entry every morning to see what was added"
You don't have to. If you look on your gutter, there is a link entitled "My Watchlist". Go into your user properties and set this option to the advanced views, then follow this link [6] and install the java script code. Once you have done this, simply go to your watchlist and hover the cursor over the Dif, cur or last links. Now you will be able to see exactly what was changed on this page, who made the change, and what reason they gave for making it. Nice, simple and automatic. It couldn't be easier.
perfectblue 18:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I associate myself entirely with Perfectblue's remarks throughout this subthread. — e. ripley\talk 19:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments on the intro

"discarnate entities that survived the deaths of their physical bodies, but who are still able to communicate with the living." This seems excessively wordy. Couldn't we just say "ghosts," or some one-word equivalent?

Also, this is not a sentence: "The voices of such entities being inaudible to the human ear but able to be picked up with electronic equipment."

(I don't mean to suggest that I'm a better writer than whoever wrote those passages -- I'm not; I'm just trying to offer some constructive criticism.) Zagalejo 04:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward

I was just going to put together a 'ToDo' list of what needs to be done on this article, but I ran into a problem: where does the article need to go next? Is it time to send it to Peer Review? --InShaneee 15:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you be a little more specific? What do you mean by "problems"? If you read this Talk page again, you will see that there were many constructive suggestions by myself and others. But since you bring up the question, why don't you ask why there is an EVP entry in the first place. I see that the your "Jimbo Wales" makes it clear that original research is not allowed in Wikipedia. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research For instance, your comment, "Watch your tone. There is no concrete proof that these are voices. "Voice like sounds" does not preclude the possibility that that is what they are, as the article then asserts later on. --InShaneee 16:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)," should have read, "There is no concrete proof that is not original research..." Had I known of this admonition from Wales before, much of the following discussion would have ben skipped by me, in favor of enforcing that point. And since there is not even original research from the skeptics, then you would have to change the entire approach of the entry in order to keep it in.
If the entry is necessary because, as someone said, EVP is too widely known to ignore, then the only obligation Wikipedia has is to define what it is. I would accept something like, "Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are sounds sometimes found in recording media that are thought by some to be paranormal." End it there and provide links to both camps and let the reader decide. Wikipedia is obviously not in a position to deal with a subject that cannot be factually discussed without violating Wikipedia rules.
My next question is, what do you mean by "Peer Review"? From Wikipedia, "Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field." (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Peer_review) If you are talking about peer editors, won't you just get more of the same? If you are talking about "experts in the field," isn't it policy amongst Wikipedia editors to reject the notion of "experts"? See Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism, (spam link removed) Tom Butler 18:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
It's established that the article belongs here. Peer Review is a widely accepted process wherein a large segment of the community comments on how to further improve an article on its way to becoming Featured. Any input from people here for constructive purposes? --InShaneee 20:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, InShaneee, my last comments was made for "constructive purposes" and I will thank you to respond to them! You made an interesting comment on the Spiritualism talk page that seems to bear on this point. First Anthon.Eff said in part, "... those of us who actually contribute to this article are interested in useful feedback. For all I know, you are a 13 year old boy alone in his bedroom with a computer...." To which you responded, "... Wikipedia doesn't allow for discrimination against any type of users; a '13 year old boy' 's contributions must be given the same respect as anyone else's. --InShaneee 05:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC) " (WikiProject ratings, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Spiritualism)
I believe Anthon.Eff's point is exactly mine, and while I agree that anyone should be able to contribute, I also think that "the project coordinator for WP:PARA," as you have identified yourself in that same thread, should be realistic enough to realize that most 13 year old boys do not have the experience to distinguish between lore and empirical evidence. Even more realistic is that I have not seem evidence of that discernment amongst the present editors for the EVP entry. If you were being realistic, you would take something similar to the recommendation in my previous post to reduce the EVP entry to a line or two and refer the reader to whatever links you deem appropriate. The alternative is continuing sniping by passing editors who are offended by the very idea of personal survival.
I will say again that peer review does not work when the reviewers are not willing to divulge their qualifications as peers, and when none of the relevant research is admissible as anything more than what is said by that 13 year old boy.
Yes, if you told me you were a 13 year old boy, I would probably ask you to come back in five or six years. If you told me you were a 50 year old doctorate of philosophy, I would ask you to tell me why you think that you know enough about EVP to know the difference between EVP and direct voice, what the current evidence is for polyglot utterances (none)and what I might mean when I say that apophenia (super class of pareidolia)can also be experienced as an inability to recognize patterns that are not consistent with the person's expectations. Do you even know what the required characteristics are of an electrical circuit for it to demodulate radio frequency? If you cannot answer questions like these, how can you judge what is a valid reference or what is a relevant comment about EVP? Tom Butler 00:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Your complaints are complaints with Wikipedia in general, and thus have no place here. --InShaneee 03:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
It's no wonder progress is stalled. Send the article on to peer review. They will tell you exactly what's wrong with it. - LuckyLouie 18:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. I'll keep an eye on it. --InShaneee 20:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Boy that was quick!. I made a couple of corrections and added a reference this morning and some guy named Smith has already reversed it. I don't see any discussion from him--one of those snipers I talk about?

Since it is clear that trying to reach a consensus is not going to happen here, I was about ready to delete the "Paranormal Explanation and "Skeptic" section and add a more technically correct and neutral explanation for theories. There are also errors in the history and discussion. For instance, the American SPR is apparently defunct. I think you would be making a mistake to go to peer review, whatever that is. The entry is a laugh the way it is now.

I assume that “I'll keep an eye on it” means not making more changes, and since I do not want to make a mess of the main page, I will post the proposed changes here:


Theories Proposed to Explain EVP

1. EVP are caused by naturally occurring sounds in the environment, the recording device and/or artifacts of audio processing.[5] In this theory, the person conducting the audio recording session (the experimenter) mistakes mundane sounds as being evidence of etheric-to-physical phenomena. This is explained as, "people creating meaning out of random noise, a kind of auditory pareidolia or apophenia."[5]

Applicable Research: In most cases, listening panels are used to determine whether or not the suspected sounds are intelligble. For instance, Alexander MacRae[6] is currently conducting research with listening panels under a grant from the Society for Psychical Research. [Ref: The Society for Psychical Research, http://www.spr.ac.uk/, 31 December 2006] In principle, a majority of panel members should agree on what is said in a suspected utterance without prompting. Although more research is required, preliminary results seem to indicate that the sounds are words, and they are recognizable by more than one person.

2. EVP are caused by intrusion of radio frequency signals into the audio recording device.[5] The recording devices favored by EVP experimenters are susceptible to such interference, and instance have been reported in which a strong commercial radio signal was recorded in a digital voice recorder. [Ref: AA-EVP Member communication]. Also, radio frequency transmitters, such as baby monitors and Citizen’s band radio (CB) are increasingly present in recording situations.

Applicable Research: Experiments have been conducted in Mil-Spec isolaton rooms,[6] home made isolation chambers [Reference: AA-EVP, Bill Weisensale, Eliminating Radio Frequency Contamination for EVP, http://www.aaevp.com/articles/articles_bill_weisensale_experiment.htm, 31 December 2006] and in the RF shield of microwave ovens.[AA-EVP Member Communication]. Typically, a portable radio is enclosed in the shielded environment to assure that at least some RF is being excluded. EVP have been recorded in such experiments.

The following theories to explain EVP have been proposed for the instances that understandable words and phrases in EVP have not been explained by the above theories.

3. EVP are caused by the thoughts of physical people via a kind of psychokinesis.[17] In this theory, the experimenter, or even an interested witness, causes words to be formed in the recording media by the influence of psychic energy (psi) on the recording device. This theory is proposed as an explanation for all EVP and by others as a prediction of the Survival Hypothesis noted in number 6.

Applicable Research: Experiments have been conducted to determine if this is possible. In at least two documented experiments, a sleeping “sender” has been asked to produce EVP. Jacque Blanc-Garin conducted an experiment with his sleeping wife, [Ref: AA-EVP NewsJournal (21-2), French Sleep Experiment, http://archive.aaevp.com/aaevp_news/2002_aaevp_news/summer_2002.htm, 31 December 2006. Experimenter, Jacque Blanc-Garin, http://www.infinitude.asso.fr/Garde/EN_Garde.htm, 31 December 2006] and Lisa Butler [Ref. AA-EVP NewsJournal (20-2), Experiment – Recording the Living, http://archive.aaevp.com/aaevp_news/2001_aaevp_news/summer_2001.htm, 31 December 2006.] have conducted separate experiments, both producing EVP from a sleeping sender.

The following theories have been proposed to explain abilities claimed by mediums, EVP experimenters and others, that they are able to instantly access information wherever they are in time and space in relationship to the origin of that information.

4. EVP are caused by residual energy stored in a field of energy underlying but part of physical reality. This is the Quantum-Holographic model which is designed to explain observation of psi behavior, mediumship and EVP. [Ref: Edgar Mitchell, Nature’s Mind, the Quantum Holograph, 31 December 2006] It depends on the property of quantum physics which proposes the existence of energy levels of physical reality, depends on the concept that audio energy “echoes” in reality forever as residual energy in this hypothesized field, and the concept of nonlocality taken from holographic properties.

Applicable Research: In this case, the theory is designed to explain the entire body of observed phenomena as it has been research by parapsychology. Examples most to the point are the field research conducted by Dean Radin, [ Ref: Consciousness Research Laboratory, [deprecated source?] 31 December 2006] and Rupert Sheldrake, http://www.sheldrake.org/homepage.html, 31 December 2006]. Bother experimenters have shown that information is available via psi functioning without regard to time or space.

5. EVP are caused by residual energy stored in a field of energy underlying but part of physical reality. This is the Super Psi theory [Stephen Brause, Survival or Super-psi, http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/braude/superpsi.htm, 31 December 2006] which is based on parapsychological theory rather than physics, and argues that better than chance results of psi function experiments can be explained by the ability of a person to access a field of residual energy that represents the record of daily life. This theory also requires that the information be accessible without regard to time and space.

Applicable Research: The same results as those for quantum holographics in number 4.

6. EVP are caused by entities inhabiting nonphysical (etheric) aspects of reality. This is the survival theory more commonly known as the Survival Hypothesis. [16] and [Ref: AA-EVP, A proposed Wikipedia Entry for EVP, http://aaevp.com/articles/articles_about_evp11.htm, 31 December 2006]. It argues that a physical person has both a physical and an etheric aspect, and at the time of physical death, the etheric aspect is free to inhabit a different aspect of reality.

Applicable Research: The 4Cell EVP Demonstration [Ref: AA-EVP, 4Cell EVP Demonstration, http://aaevp.com/articles/articles_about_4cell_experiment.htm, 31 December 2006] has shown that it is possible to ask and receive accurate responses via EVP when following a double-blind protocol. Common characteristics of EVP are that the utterances are often direct responses to questions, comments appropriate to the circumstance and in the voice of the person thought to be speaking. The experimental protocol described in the next section sometimes demonstrate this fact, and has done so for researchers around the world.

The apparent “live” response in EVP is thought to be evidence that the source of the EVP is sentient and “living,” as opposed to residual energy from that person as it was created when the person was physically alive. Considering theory number 3, additional research is required to determine whether or the Survival Hypothesis or “thoughts of the living” better accounts for the evidence. In addition, the other theories should be considered possible, until the question is addressed by mainstream science.

A Basic Experimental Protocol for EVP

The following basic steps for recording for EVP are adapted by experimenters to suite their particular needs. [Ref: AA-EVP, Recording for EVP, http://aaevp.com/techniques/techniques_evp9.htm, 31 December 2006]

1. Turn on audio recorder. 2. State purpose for recording session, location, and environmental conditions. 3. Allow time on recording for possible responses and/or comments. 4. Stop recording. 5. Review recording for possible EVP.

Techniques for analysis of recording vary, depending on equipment used. It is common to transfer recording into a computer [Ref: AA-EVP, Recording Sound into a Computer, http://aaevp.com/techniques/technique_evp10.htm, 31 December 2996], and examine it with an audio program, such as the open source Audacity. [Ref: Source Forge, Audacity, http://audacity.sourceforge.net/windows.php, 31 December 2006] and [Ref: AA-EVP, Basic setup for the Audacity Audio Management Program, http://aaevp.com/techniques/techniques_evp_using_audacity.htm, 31 December 2006] Tom Butler 21:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You removed a refrence and half a paragraph and your edit summary didn't say why. I didn't make any sence... however, I did remove the placing of a citation in a diffrent place. I didn't mean to do that. I'll put it back... it just seemed realy odd to remove a citation. ---J.S (T/C) 21:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
See WP:NOT. A 'how-to' for EVP is not appropriate. --InShaneee 21:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
J.S., that make sense. I still do not know how to add or edit references. I was trying to remove the polyglot characteristic because it is seriously out of date. I was also going to go to the "Studies" section and remove from "Raudive developed several ..." to the end of that section. The information is not necessary and is out of date. There have been many thousands of EVP experiments conducted since his time. Thanks for leaving the polyglot par out.
InShaneee, the "how to" is not necessary, and I have no objection to not including it. It just seems that we are talking about something for which the reader really has no sense of reference. One of the more common questions we receive is, do you mean I just turn on the recorder?" Tom Butler 22:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Tom wrote: "I was about to delete the "Paranormal Explanation and "Skeptic" section and add a more technically correct and neutral explanation for theories." I read Tom's proposed version and it strikes me as very un-neutral -- citing only the "applicable research" which is applicable according to AA-EVP's opinion (and which happens to refute skeptics). It would appear to slant the article to favor AA-EVP as the authority in a field in which there is little consensus. LuckyLouie 22:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay LuckyLouie, add the references that will balance the section. I think you can probably find other references for the ones I took from the AA-EVP. If those give you too much heart burn, delete the AA-EVP references and ask for citations from someone. I know that the ITC Journal has run the French sleep experiment. Oh, but it is not a mainstream scientific journal either. Just one thing though, please try to keep the references in this century. This field is evolving too fast to go back much further.
I personally think the theories are better, more correctly and inclusively expressed than what is there now. And in case you don't understand, the "thoughts of the living" theory does not require survival of consciousness to be correct. It is actually the best argument the skeptics should have made. It answers the evidence as long as it is possible for a stranger to anticipate what a dead person might have said, and that can be experimentally determined.
You accuse me of being an obstructionist by innuendo, but you have proven to be the least cooperative of the editors. Where in this consensus building you claim is going on have you contributed content? Tom Butler 22:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That was fast; we've already got some great suggestions. After implementing these, I think it may be time to seek a GA. --InShaneee 15:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and for those new to the PR process, just to let you know, it's helpful to make a note of any suggestions you implement here or on the PR page, just so there's no stepping on each other's toes, and so we all can see what's left to do. --InShaneee 14:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sniping

The reference to polyglot is back, thanks to Perfectblue. This is the kind of sniping I have been complaining about. I know it is important to fix things, but the rewrite is pretty much unilateral (no consensus). My biggest complaint here is the use of outdated references.

Polyglot is an important example of this. Ghost hunters contribute much in the way of field experience for us to study and many of our more experienced EVP experimenters are in ghost hunting clubs, but they are not usually researchers. A quick survey of the ghost hunting club web pages will show that they are all quoting essentially the same sources for their history. That is why silly notions like Edison building an EVP machine so easily becomes popular wisdom.

The reference #3 that is used for the polyglot reference, about the ghost orchid, looks like just a harvesting of material off of the web to write an essay. I doubt that Poysden has ever recorded EVP. Of his ten reference links, only three are still working and one is the AA-EVP, the other two are ghost hunting clubs.

I will say again, polyglot is an old notion started by a man in the middle of last century who spoke multiple languages. One of the main characteristics of EVP is that they are in a language the experimenter or an interested observer understands. We know this today because people like Alexander MacRae and ourselves have studied the question for the last 15 years or so. Tom Butler 16:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Polyglot was part of a large section that I reworded as part of a larger rewrite of the introduction to EVP, I have no particular attachment to it. If you have issue with it make the necessary changes, but provide a full justification for doing so. Be careful to just remove the disputed passage.
"A quick survey of the ghost hunting club web pages will show that they are all quoting essentially the same sources for their history."
Would you care to name it so we can check for our selves? If that source passes WP:V etc, then it's in.
perfectblue 21:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, one of the more commonly used histories is written by Mark Macy at http://www.worlditc.org/a_02_macy_itc_history.htm
Meanwhile, line 37 needs a new reference. I have this, from The Alpha Mystery, FATE Magazine 2000-07-01 by José Feola, Ph.D., http://www.llewellyn.com/archive/fate/38/
"There was the possibility that MacRae himself was a medium of sorts-that he produced the voices by a form of mediumship without trance, or that he influenced the tapes by psychokinesis (PK). This hypothesis had been mentioned by some parapsychologists, including Dr. Gertrude Schmeidler, a past president of the Parapsychological Association, a professor at the City University of New York, and a well-known researcher of PK. In an article published by the ASPR Newsletter (July 1979), she asserted: “Electronic voice phenomena are taken as PK from the living.”
The Fate reference is second hand, but as I said earlier, the American Society for Psychical Research (http://www.aspr.com/) appears to be defunct, and there are apparently no archives. Which source should I use, for the psychokinesis reference? Tom Butler 22:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

ref #17

Hay Tom, I tried to fix that reference. Did I get it? I wasn't entirely sure if it's the right one. ---J.S (T/C) 23:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

JS, My wife and I are taking the first vacation since 2000, so I will be a little slow responding for a fer days. The reference for Nextep is bogus. The comment above for FAT by José Feola is more to the point.
Thanks! Tom Butler 04:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead image

The lead image was removed as it represents original research. It was made by a Wikipedian who claims it is an EVP. --ScienceApologist 14:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

J. Smith claimed that it is not original research to include an image generated for an illustration. Actually, this isn't true because the image caption claimed that there was some question as to whether the image represented EVP or something else. Unless there is an independent source for this claim, this represents original research. -ScienceApologist 14:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the cation, feel free to change it... But so far I see no reason for your removal of the image. Showing an image of a sound-wave (as many software packages show it) is not OR. The only difference between this image and an actual screenshot is that a screenshot would be copyrighted and couldn't be used under fair-use. ---J.S (T/C) 15:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
If you want to call this an image of a auditory signal, that's fine. It's calling it an example of EVP that is the problem. --ScienceApologist 15:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Removing a GFDL image from an article because you don't like the caption, that's a problem too. It degrades the quality of the article needlessly. ---J.S (T/C) 16:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Images are subject to the standards of Wikipedia beyond simply GFDL. This image is an artistic rendering of a soundtrack. As such, why is it relevant? What features of this rendering make it relevant for EVP? --ScienceApologist 20:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Right, I know GFDL isn't the only standard, but you didn't give any reason to remove the image. If the image is free-use and is relevant to the article it should-not be removed unless something better is found to replace it.
EVP deals specifically with sound and sound analysing. EVP is disputed, but the fact that it deals with sound (imagined or real) is not. We could have used an actual image from a notable EVP research organisation, but the "artists rendering" was used for artistic and NPOV purposes. The idea wasn't to present evidence, it was simply to create an image that represents the basic concept. ---J.S (T/C) 21:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Inasmuch as this is an "artist's rendering" it is original research. What makes this particular signal a EVP an another signal not an EVP? I think you have convinced me that this image needs to go. It isn't relevant to the article unless we allow for the original research of the artist who made this image. --ScienceApologist 22:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Artist renderings are not OR... otherwise this, this and this image in sound would also be OR. It's the same thing. Those images are using uncontroversial information to create artists rendering. Well, notable EVP research organizations create images like that for their EVPs. ---J.S (T/C) 22:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Artistic renderings are OR when they purport to illustrate something that is original. The images you link to are easily referenced by standard texts and reliable sources. So where is the reliable source which lets us know that the image you want to include is actually an image of EVP? --ScienceApologist 22:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't claim it's an EVP. I claim it's an artist rendering of a typical EVP.Here is as an example - Within the field of EVP research, AA-EVP is a notable organization and thier methods are typical of similar groups. I didn't notice that page was GFDL... we could switch to those images if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy ---J.S (T/C) 22:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I would be more comfortable using those images if I could ascertain if Tom and Lisa Butler were reliable sources. Can you show that they are? --ScienceApologist 22:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
When I was poking around through Nexis before, I found Tom, in his role with AAEVP, interviewed by quite a few mainstream papers as a subject matter expert on EVPs for ghost hunting-related stories. — e. ripley\talk 22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Is he notable enough for a Wikipedia article? Or can we establish reliability of his reporting some other way? It would be nice for readers to be able to evaluate the credentials of the person who is claiming the measurement. --ScienceApologist 22:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, AA-EVP is notable. I don't think Tom/Lisa are notable outside of their connection with AAEVP, so separate articles might fail an AFD. (I could be wrong about that...) Within the context of a "fringe" subject Tom is one of the most reliable sources out there. ---J.S (T/C) 23:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I hope you are beginning to see my problem. The issue is that as soon as we put something up as an "image", the question of reliable attribution and evaluation is going to arise. I was looking through the skeptic's dictionary the other day to see if they had any evaluations of soundtracks, but they don't. My issue is that the page you reference has a lot of claims as to how the sounds were gathered, recorded, etc. but I find those claims hard to verifiy and I'm not comfortable with their reliability. Maybe a totally different kind of image would be appropriate? --ScienceApologist 13:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:V and WP:RS were originally written with pure instances in mind, like biographies of living/dead people, literature, mainstream science, and historic events, and they were primarily concerned with ensuring that editors didn't simply put insert their own views or present fringe views as being mainstream.
However, when applying them to the paranormal, you must must do must use a sliding scale. This means that you must work in context with the fringe nature of the subject matter, not in context with the rest of the world. In many cases, it's simply asking too much for pier reviewed material because no pier review journal would touch most paranormal material for fear of damaging its own credibility, regardless of the merits of the material. Equally, something paranormal doesn't have to be scientifically true to be WP:V/WP:RS, it only has to be verifiable as existing, on the grounds that we are reporting on the existence of their claims, not the veracity of them.
perfectblue 14:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not. There is no place in Wikipedia free from the constraints of WP:V and WP:RS. If you disagree with me, ask on their talkpages or start an Request for comment. I understand that there are more unreliable and unverifiable sources for paranormal subjects, but that's no excuse to throw away Wikipedia's standards! --ScienceApologist 14:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Please read what I have written, I in no way implied that you can disregard SP:V. I stated that you need to apply WP:V on a curve based on the nature of the entry, which is quite different. For example, while a pier reviewed journal is the optimum source, and is practically a basic requirement for an article about advanced physics, it is highly unlikely that will be a pier reviewed source on the Flatwoods monster, so it is useless to demand one. Instead, you should move down the curve until you find the next most appropriate source. It might be a book by a well known author, or a newspaper clipping, but you just have to accept that the you will have to lower your standards.
perfectblue 16:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the image isn't an artists impression, it is a waveform of a genuine audio track that was digitized about 12 years ago. The image was released by the artist and can be used freely. However, it has been cropped for appearance and has not been subjected to scientific scrutiny to prove/disprove that it is a real EVP. So it cannot be claimed to as proof of anything.
Its inclusion is fully valid as Wiki policy allows for the inclusion of images as object representations, regardless of whether they are an original image, so long as they are accurate to the original description.
perfectblue 08:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I've just reacquainted myself with WP:OR, there is a specific clause advising that as images do not usually in themselves "propose unpublished ideas or arguments", so they fall outside of the boundaries of WP:OR.
perfectblue 13:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The image itself is not the problem, it is its relevance to this article that is in dispute. --ScienceApologist 13:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The image provides an object illustration of what an EVP actually looks like, and that's all the justification that it needs. It is the equivalent of adding a photograph of Bigfoot tracks to the page on Bigfoot.
perfectblue 13:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
No, you cannot just add what you think an EVP looks like because you or some group of editors think that's what it looks like. You need to have some verifiable way of being able to indicate that it has been verifiably and reliably claimed to actually be that. What you are arguing for is rather like some well-intentioned editor in the bigfoot article drawing a picture of a footprint and claiming it to be a good image for the article. --ScienceApologist 14:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
1) Since EVP is a disputed phenomena without pier review, how can I prove that something is EVP?
2) This isn't an artists rendering, it's an actual image of an actual audio clip.
3) If you don't like that particular image, find me another audio clip and I will make an image of it instead. It's the principle of having an image that matters to me, not the exact clip that that image came from. Find an clip that passes muster with you, and I will create an image from it.
4) There isn't actually any policy reason why a sketch of a Bigfoot footprint couldn't be used as an object illustration. It would have to be purposefully misleading or significantly disagree with a the body of photographs/descriptions in order to be disallowed.
perfectblue 16:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Proof is irrelevant. Attribution is what is important. Why is the "actual audio clip" relevant to this article? --ScienceApologist 17:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
SA, have you ever run a sound program? The image is VERY representative of sound, and that what the article is about. Your making a mountain out of a molehill. ---J.S (T/C) 16:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The article is not about sound. It is about EVP. --ScienceApologist 17:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
EVP is all about sound analysis. I thought that was fairly obvious. ---J.S (T/C) 17:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
How about "Researchers often use sound edit programs to search for EVP" as a tag for the illustration --LuckyLouie 17:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't quite work. What are "sound edit programs"? How do they use them? This doesn't seem like a verifiable caption. --ScienceApologist 19:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Noise reduction, playback speed, etc. ---J.S (T/C) 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
And do the researchers develop these tools, or do they do experimental testing to make sure there are no selection effect artifacts in the signal processing? Or are they just fulling around with ProTools sets or other standard "black box" sound manipulation software? We need to describe what they actually do or it may give readers an inaccurate picture. --ScienceApologist 19:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
How about "Some researchers use digital audio editing tools to search for EVP" --- LuckyLouie 00:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
(deindent)Off-the-shelf software for the most part. Historically most EVP research was done with no audio enhancement, but newer technology has lead to newer techniques. I like Lucky's caption. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to verify that caption? --ScienceApologist 01:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure.
Belanger, Jeff, "Communicating with the Dead", page 121, ISBN 1564147932. I picked the book up at B&N. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, there's a problem here. While all the references people are using are general, this is a very specific "artist's rendering" of a particular analyzed signal. As such, I'm going to remove the image. I don't think we have any way of making this image verifiably linked to the article itself since the judgement as to what corresponds to EVP is entirely subjective. If someone can determine the reliability of Tom Butler, then maybe we can use his images. Otherwise, I think we're going to have to look for some other way of illustrating the concept. --ScienceApologist 01:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting insane. The image is of some sound and the article is making no claims as to the specifics of that image. It's just a representative image. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Implication there being that it is a representation of EVP, but there is no verifiable way to make such a connection. --ScienceApologist 02:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I quote WP:NOR:

This image doesn't propose an unpublished idea or argument. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that does not seem to me to be a reason to keep the image. --ScienceApologist 02:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I've yet to see a convincing argument to remove it. Just a lot of wikilawering. If you realy want to we can use the real images from AA-EVP. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Those images defy reliabily and verifiability as well, though at least they are actually claimed by Tom Butler to be about the subject. --ScienceApologist 02:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thoe images defy reliability and verifiabiliy as well, though at least Tom Butler claims they are actually about the subject of the article and so are closer to something that should be included here. --ScienceApologist 02:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Misleading Reference

"Techniques employed in EVP anaylsis involve amplification and modification of noise to such great extents that the alleged signals become artifaces subject to selection effects rather than meaningful collection of data." [third paragraph] is apparently supported by reference 6 because of the quote by David Federlein; however, he begins that quote with, "it is safe to say that unless the EVP believer is highly bankrolled, I use much higher standard recording equipment, built to much higher tolerances. ..." Since he is unable to know what we use, how well we are "bankrolled" or our qualifications to process sound without introducing artifacts, that is simply a sarcastic comment and all of his following statement is not a meaningful reference and should not be used. Unless you can come up with one that is meaningful, I will remove that line tomorrow. Tom Butler 02:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not the place of Wikipedia to argue with you or with David Federlein, but rather to simply report on the current state of the matter. Removal of this as such would constitute POV-pushing and will not be tolerated. --ScienceApologist 02:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You cannot use references that are not to the point. Doing so is equivalent to providing fraudulent references. Your positive demeanor cannot change that point and I will be happy to test the point with whoever referees such things. Tom Butler
The way to referee such things is to go through WP:DR. I am more than happy to accompany you on such a journey. --ScienceApologist 02:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I will say again that the term, "account for" suggests they have "shown that" for EVP recordings. If "claim" is to be used for proponents, then it seems necessary to use similarly indefinite terms for the skeptical view to maintain a balanced point of view.
More important to me, is that ScienceApologist just showed up and has made change after change without discussion. Once again, an excellent example of sniping!
ScienceApologist, it has been my policy to keep the subject in the forefront and not me, or my name, but if it is important here, I will endeavor to provide a brief listings of my qualifications to address the subject of EVP. I think there is a place for where my For now, I will say that I have been studying things metaphysical, physics and electronics since the early '60s, and specifically EVP since the late '80s. With my wife, Lisa, I have directed the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena (AA-EVP) since 2000.
So, based on that qualification, I can easily show that people who record for EVP routinely use a digital voice recorder and still occasionally a cassette recorder. That is not original research. It is just using a tool. They also routinely use audio management software of varying quality with varying ability. Once again, just using a tool. We have many audiophiles, professional music producers and people trained in digital processes, including myself studying EVP, and I can assure you that the first image is a reasonable representation of what we see. At the same time, it could be any wave form, and should not unduly harm neutral point of view if it states something to the effect that EVP experimenters use audio management software to examine sound files for possible EVP. Tom Butler 02:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to have to ask you to refrain from editting this article as I believe your continued editting represents a conflict of interest. --ScienceApologist 02:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so that is about it for me. Science Apologist, I should be able to find my way without your help.

Perfectblue, I also need to ask for help in another way. The Wikipedia web page for EVP is showing up in part or in it entity on other people's web pages. For instance: http://en.allexperts.com/e/e/el/electronic_voice_phenomenon.htm and http://www.answers.com/topic/electronic-voice-phenomenon-1.

I will ask again that the "Article" page for EVP be locked and the version being changed moved to a temporary page until the contents are agreed to. Tom Butler 02:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is released under the agreement that more or less says that any text going up on it is public property. I neither have the administrative powers nor the legal right to prevent other website from copying text from this page.
perfectblue 09:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Some points in response to this last sentence:
  • This is not the place to ask. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is.
  • Page protection is granted—temporarily—only in cases where there is significant repeated vandalism or edit-warring occurring. A glance at the declined requests on WP:RFPP will show that it is not granted for anything like the activity here.
  • It is never granted because external websites have copied content released under the GFDL.
  • It is never granted to fix a 'preferred' version. — BillC talk 03:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Tom, I'm going to point out that you should really refrain from editting this article as it respresents a conflict of interest, since this seems to be something you get employed doing. --ScienceApologist 02:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You cannot seriously think I would stop trying to make this entry fairly represent the facts. First, I do not get paid for anything, second, I am attempting to be far more reasonable than you. Please explain why you think a subject matter expert should not be allowed to contribute to his or her area of expertise? Tom Butler 02:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
How is Tom's occupation creating a conflict of interest? It gives him a level of knowledge that is invaluable for this subject. Would you ask Stephen Hawking to not edit an article on Physics? --Snowflake Sans Crainte 03:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Setting aside the rather obtuse comparison of Tom Butler to Stephen Hawking, I think what you need to consider is the fact that Tom's organization stands to directly benefit from positive portrayals of this obscure and controversial subject. That's what makes it problematic. His expert opinion is helpful and welcome, but as conflict of interest points out, even when we have the best of intentions we can end up causing more problems than solutions. There is precedent for people being banned from articles where they have conflicts of interest, so I'm just making sure everyone is aware of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --ScienceApologist 03:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Obtuse comparison? There is no obtuse comparison here, only what you choose to see as a problem you can't overcome in your campaign to force out an expert from editing this article. There is no conflict of interest here, there is only you feeling threatened because someone with more knowledge than you is editing the article in a way you don't like. Tom and his organisation can't benefit from this article containing full reasoning from both sides of the discussion any more than you can so if he has to go, you have to go too. --Snowflake Sans Crainte 14:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think other editors agreed with me that comparing the two hardly makes sense, but what I can say is that any presentation of this "phenomenon" increases the visibility of the subject. This can only help an organization dedicated to studying the subject. --ScienceApologist 15:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
So now you're not only against Tom editing but you're also against increasing awareness of the subject? Are you wanting us to get rid of the article entirely now? Whether or not this article raises awareness is beside the point, the fact of the matter is that people won't be made aware of this subject just because Wikipedia has an article on it, they have to actually come here in the first place; i.e. they are already aware of it. Any benefit, real or implied, in terms of awareness is therefore negligible. --Snowflake Sans Crainte 17:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Tom is an expert in his field. His contributions are as welcome as anyone else.I won't have you trying to intimidate him out of the discussion. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no intention of intimidating him "out of the discussion". Tom is welcome and encouraged to discuss the article here. However, I do think that editing the article directly may be problematic because of the reasons I stated. --ScienceApologist 03:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Nothing personal, but I would argue that Tom Butler is a "subject matter expert" who is largely self proclaimed. That's very different from mainstream science's celebrated Stephen Hawking. --- LuckyLouie 03:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
ScienceApologist, we were actually making progress until you arrived. Please read this page before proceeding. In fact, I am the only one who has provided you with the empirically substantiated reason why EVP may not be dead people speaking.
The AA-EVP only gains when factual information is available to the public--pro and con. There is no money involved, only the study of an interesting phenomena. At my age, there is no career advancement. Only pursuit of the facts. If that is a problem for you, then I recommend that you consider your motives before acting.
I would be very careful about trying to ban me. While you may succeed, all it will do is give me fodder for attacking Wikipedia. And yes, that is a threat. Wikipedia has been something like a train wreck for the facts about EVP, and I can use my time more effectively telling people why they should not trust Wikipedia.
And no LuckyLouie, if you had been paying attention, I am claiming to be a subject matter expect because you are not, and to speak intelligently about something, you should have some subject matter expertise. isn't that is why you insist on mainstream science certification of EVP before it is allow? Tom Butler 03:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Tom, please no threats on talk pages. Threats will simply get you banned and inflame the situation further. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Tom, I have always felt you are an equal and welcome contributor to this article, the same as any other Wikipedian. Where we differ is on your role as a 'subject matter expert' here, which some interpret as giving you preeminent authority over other contributors, when in fact your views largely represent those of AA-EVP, and as a clergyman of the Spiritualist Church (http://nsacphenomena.com/dpe_reports.htm) whose organization stands to gain credibility from positive portrayals of EVP. I believe this limits your objectivity in the matter. --- LuckyLouie 03:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
...as for the status of Tom as an expert, Universal Studios considered him one when they consulted for White Noise [7]. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Are we using Hollywood to verify reliability of experts now? --ScienceApologist 03:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a fringe topic Apologist. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with him, his methods or think he's a complete fraud. Your personal opinion is irrelevant. All I'm trying to establish is that Tom is a "subject matter expert". Tom knows his EVP, and as far as a "science" with almost no peer review can get, he's the person people turn to when they need an interview on EVP. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not aware of offering any opinions on the matter. However, I will note that if this is really "fringe", we should take a look at WP:FRINGE and try to conform ourselves to editing according to that guideline. I'll also point out that there is no expert deference here at Wikipedia (despite my support for such a thing) and so Tom's opinion on matters is as weighty as you or mine or any other Wikipedian who happens to chance upon these pages and comment/edit. --ScienceApologist 04:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You claimed the image from his website was "unreliable."
I have three books on my desk right now. Two were given to my as gifts and one I purchased myself. "Communicating with the Dead," "Worlds Most Haunted Places" and "Spirit Rescue." All three mention AA-EVP and the first two mention Tom by name. (Yeah, the first two are by the same author). You may think he's a kook... thats fine. But he's quoted more then anyone else I've seen.
I'll change the caption to make it clearer that it's not wikipedia's interepritation. But the image is verifiablely created by an expert in the field. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The image is unreliable. That's not an opinion, that's a fact of honest editing. There is no indication from the source as to how the "recording" was made. There is no accounting for what processing the sound went through. There is no documentation of the determination of the sound being an actual pressure/density wave or electronic interference, no fourier analysis of the signal indicating that it is a voice, no control specifications, no standardized procedures outlined. None of these issues is discussed at all. So reliability of this image is sunk as a verifiable collection of a signal, let alone an EVP. Now we can say that Tom and Lisa Butler claimed it is an EVP, but why should we reference them? Has their work been subject to critical review? If not, can we establish a notability of this particular signal in some other fashion? I hope you begin to see the issues. --ScienceApologist 04:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

We can use them as a primary source. As a primary source and a notable contributer to the field, we can quote them. I don't want to make any statements we can't make, like "This is an EVP." But we can make the statement "This is what X claims to be is an EVP." Let the reader make up his mind over the reliability of X as a scientist. Thats how it's usually done. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It's getting closer. I have tweaked the image caption to indicate the issues with X's reliability. --ScienceApologist 15:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It might be worth mentioning in the article that our primary source is now engaged in an apparent anti-Wikipedia campaign (http://etheric-studies.aaevp.com/articles/articles_wikipedia.htm) --- LuckyLouie 04:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Irrelivent to this article. Please remain on-topic. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
But it's entirely relevant to this article - in fact -- it's all about this article (which is why I mentioned it). He even quotes ME in his rant. However, I agree such a distraction doesn't help move the process of actually editing the article forward, so I won't mention it again. But, Jeeeeez... --- LuckyLouie 05:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not relivent to making -this- article better. It's also mostly acurate, but that is besides the point. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of all of the above, I find it slightly worrying that one of the people editing this page and one of the authors of a book referenced on this page are one in the same. I suggest this it would be sporting of them to volunteer an alternate text. As a self professed expert in the field, it shouldn't be too difficult for them to recommend a text that they they hold in high regard, but which they have no personal stake in.
perfectblue 18:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I suggest that the "history" and the "studies" sections be merged into a single section that charts the chronology of EVP from the early days to modern times.

Having them split up serves no purpose, and having a third section in between them just makes things confusing. As things stand you have to reference backwards and forward between the section to get a clear idea of what happened and when.

Unless anybody has any big complaints soon, I'm going to merge the two, keeping pretty much the same information (I will leave it to others to add anything new) but in date order so that readers can see that Study X happened after history event Y etc.

perfectblue 11:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate information

The summary at the beginning contains way too much information and needs to be trimmed down to a bear minimum definition of what EVP is (as in, it is noises on a tape, and it is disputed), and little else.

For example, the introduction it contains pretty much all of the information from the paranormal and non-paranormal explanation sections, which is needless duplication. Such explanations do not belong in an introduction summary. It would be enough to say that there were both paranormal and non paranormal explanations, and then leave the body of the entry to explain what they are.

a drastic trimming is on my to do list, unless of course somebody else wishes to step in.

perfectblue 11:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's long-winded and needs a clean-up. I'll do it now since I've nothing else to do at the moment (sad but true). --Snowflake Sans Crainte 14:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Further Duplicate Information

One user appears determined to add a highly sceptical point of view to this article and is currently reverting edits to their preferred version of the text. Given that the edits they are reverting are solely the removal of duplicate information I feel their reversions are wholly unjustified. As such I will continue to remove this duplicate information unless a credible reason for its inclusion can be made. --Snowflake Sans Crainte 18:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not the "removal of duplicate information" at all. It is information about specific parts of the article. It would help if you actually read the revision before reverting. --ScienceApologist 18:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
What part of "appears determined to add a highly sceptical point of view" didn't you understand? You're trying to bias the article and you're doing it predominantly by duplicating information. --Snowflake Sans Crainte 18:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that this point-of-view is "highly scpetical", nor do I see where I am "duplicating information". Perhaps we should try dispute resolution. --ScienceApologist 18:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You wrote "there has been no peer reviewed scientific evidence supporting the claim that such phenomena are anamolous" when this is clearly not true - a quick Google search brings up several scientific studies of EVPs. If journals don't count as peer review, what does? Then there's the fact that your edit adds a reference to both pareidolia and interference into a paragraph right above where the article already describes both of these points. If that's not unnecessary duplication, what is? And don't get me started on what you keep putting into the caption on the first image, you can't possibly know whether that image has been subject to peer review or not; it's speculation, pure and simple. --Snowflake Sans Crainte 19:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Please, provide a peer reviewed reference that demonstrates the reality of EVP. The section summarizes points and then goes into detail. There's no problem doing that. It is a necessary duplication: it is a summary introduction. If the image is not verifiable, then we can certainly remove it from the page. I am glad you agree with me on this one. --ScienceApologist 19:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Demonstrates the reality? You do know science doesn't do that outside of basic physical events, don't you? Tell you what, you provide a peer reviewed reference that demonstrates the reality of the neutrino and then I'll provide the reference you want. You can't, it's that simple. However, all this is beside the point because what you stated in the article was that no peer reviewed evidence exists, which is not the case.
Not only can evidence be for or against a subject (here you are asking only for evidence for the subject, limiting the scope of the review) but the importance of science is not to prove something but that it is researched and that the research carried out is done in a manner that corresponds to the scientific method. The history of science is festooned with examples of mainstream, peer-reviewed scientists believing they have proved something exists when it does not just as there are myriad examples of science proving something doesn't exist when it does.
With regard to the image, I'm not going to argue for or against its inclusion. I don't think the article needs it in the first place but if it is used I do believe the caption needs to be accurate. --Snowflake Sans Crainte 19:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe an accurate caption is possible since the image hasn't been reviewed and is self-published by Tom Butler. --ScienceApologist 19:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Your personal views are irrelevant, this is an encyclopaedia. --Snowflake Sans Crainte 19:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between "personal views" and "editorial views". I offered the latter. --ScienceApologist 19:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
No, you said you didn't believe an accurate caption was possible. That's clearly a personal view. --Snowflake Sans Crainte 20:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect, it is an editorial opinion subject to the standards and practices of Wikipedia editting. ---ScienceApologist 20:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
No it isn't, it's your opinion and nothing else, just like every other claim you've made since you waded in here with all your bias. --Snowflake Sans Crainte 20:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Your shrill distaste for my attempts to bring neutrality to this article are getting a bit personal. I can speak from experience that advocacy such as this nearly always ends badly. I suggest you pursue dispute resolution if you really are that upset. However, posturing like this will get us nowhere in creating a good article. --ScienceApologist 20:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing personal about my actions here. What you are seeing is an attempt to prevent you adding bias and incorrect information to this article. --Snowflake Sans Crainte 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
When you claim another editor's views are "personal" and somehow not editorial, you are getting personal. You should read Wikipedia:Wikipedian, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIV and reflect on your behavior here. --ScienceApologist 01:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Having read those articles a number of times it is very clear to me that you are trying to hide behind them to diver attention from the fact that you are adding bias on unverifiable information to the article to make it correspond to your beliefs. Furthermore, the statement that your edits are personal, not editorial comes from reading your own statements here in this discussion. That doesn't mean I'm getting personal, it means I'm pointing out that you are getting personal and that you are violating Wikipedia's policies. --Snowflake Sans Crainte 11:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Your accusations of me "adding bias on unverifiabile information" will have to be corroborated by third parties. I suggest you disengage from the subject as you have positioned yourself in a very precarious situation. You have yet to acknowledge your POV with regards to this issue and you have not been a civil editor. --ScienceApologist 15:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You'll find I've placed a link to a peer-reviewed journal into the article, thus proving several of the claims you made last night are untrue. With regard to Point of View, I'm well aware that my own interpretation of EVP comes from my background in physics and broadcasting. --Zoe.R 18:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The image had a citation. What reason are you using this time? Since we've established Tom as a leading figure in the EVP field, Tom's material is acceptable under "primary source" guidelines. The claim we are making, "This is an image made by Tom, who claims it's an image of an EVP" was supported by the citation. There was nothing POV or OR about it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The original research is that of Tom Smith. There needs to be more than just "This image is made by person X and is claimed to be Y". In particular, we need to say if there are alternative explanations for the image since to do otherwise would be unbalanced. --ScienceApologist 19:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOR don't apply off-wiki and we can use primary sources. The image was self-published, yes... but thats widely acceptable when the self-publisher is an expert. Wikipedia maintains WP:NPOV and WP:V by giving credit for the interpretation where it's due and WP:NOR isn't violated because the material was previously published. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Either the image is the original research of User:Tom Butler or it is from an unreliable source or it lacks verifiability. When you try to argue against one of the three ideas you run up smack against the other two. --ScienceApologist 20:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

We've already shown the image doesn't count as original research, so that's that claim gone. Furthermore, it is only you who claims it's an unreliable source and it's only you who claims it lacks verifiability. It is clear that it is you that is the problem here, not the image. --Snowflake Sans Crainte 20:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
"We've" done nothing of the sort. When trying to circumvent the verifiability and reliability problems, the image becomes original research. I am not the only one who has worried about the reliability of this source. Please stop making this dispute personal. Excising me will not remove the problem, I can assure you. --ScienceApologist 20:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It is OR by User:Tom Butler. All research is Original Research by someone at some point. But that doesn't mean it falls under WP:NOR.

"Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia" - WP:NOR
"A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or recommends it." - WR:RS
Every book on the subject that I've seen quotes Tom, his wife or AA-EVP.
"Exceptional claims require exceptional sources"
The claim isn't exceptional. The claim being, in essence, "This is what Tom thinks is an EVP:"
---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and... "Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Also, because of copyright law in a number of countries and its relationship to the work of building a free encyclopedia, there are relatively few publicly available images we can take and use. Wikipedia editors' pictures fill a needed role." - WP:NOR ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem is with claims of pseudoscience such as this we have to be very careful about what we present when it may be perceived as "evidence". It does the reader no service to be shown images of claimed EVP by unreliable sources such as Tom Butler. --ScienceApologist 20:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
An article about a "pseudoscience" needs to accuratly explain the views of the "pseudoscientists" involved. Otherwise the article becomes hevily POV. (No, I'm not demanding "equal time", just accurate representation of all sides of the issue) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

While I do not agree with Butler on everything, particularly on some of the assertions that he makes, he has been at it for a long time, and is well enough regarded in the business, for his recordings to be included without huge disclaimers about personal interpretations and pier reviews.

perfectblue 18:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't yet objected to the recordings. That's another issue. --ScienceApologist 20:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Cooling off period

I'm imposing a cooling off period because it is clear to me that User:Zoe.r is taking this stuff way too personally. I will be focusing instead on the rather poor shape of the rest of the article. --ScienceApologist 20:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have taken nothing personal here except for the threat you added to my talk page. My actions regarding this article are nothing more than an attempt to prevent you from destroying the neutrality that was already present. Furthermore I don't believe you can "impose" any kind of cooling off period but I will welcome your decision to cease adding your pro-sceptic bias to this article until mediation can take place. --Snowflake Sans Crainte 20:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I admit to no "pro-skeptic bias" and will not cease editting the page. --ScienceApologist 00:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
So you want other people to stop editing the article in order to leave you to continue adding unverifiable comments and bias? You're sounding like a vandal now. --Snowflake Sans Crainte 11:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I never said I wanted other people to stop editting the article,except for Tom Butler for reasons related to WP:COI. --ScienceApologist 15:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR Warning

I've noticed that in one of two places (specifically the former version of the non-paranormal explanations section), one or two individuals have been expanding sections using a mass of material that is NOT included in the citation provided, and in some cases is not even implied in cited source.

Users need to be extremely careful here. While it might seem logical for you to take information to the next logical step, unless you can provide a citation covering said step, then the material that you are adding is classified as WP:OR.

Regardless of how factually valid your contributions are/you feel they are, if you step beyond a citation and into WP:OR your edits are not in themselves valid.

Please be very very careful. The next logical step is too far. You can expand on an explanation given in a citation, but you cannot expand on its contents

perfectblue 09:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are obliquely referring to me. However, all of my edits can easily be cited. I plan on reintroducing them today after my self-imposed cooling-off period expires and I will include citations to each and every sentence. Cheers, --ScienceApologist 15:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You are far from the only editor in this page, and far from the only person about whom I have reservations, but if you intend to introduce well cited material that adds to the article, rather than to the angry, then you are free to do so. As a personal request, please attempt to use neutral language.
perfectblue 16:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I only ever use neutral language, so I consider this an endorsement of my editting. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 20:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

Just to make certain that everybody knows, and so nobody puts a false statement into the entry, EVP HAS been covered by pier review in the past. In 2001, issue number 3, volume 15 of the Journal of Scientific Exploration published a pier reviewed piece on EVP.

In it, several researchers were able to capture a variety of sounds which could be interpreted as EVP, however, they were able to find prosaic explanations for most of them, and the ones that they could not identify were not of sufficient quality for them to draw any conclusions.

And I quote"

"There were 81 sessions with an average of approximately 45 minutes per session for a total of about 60 hours and 11 minutes of recording. While there are some apparent voices and interesting noises upon playback, none of these is sufficiently distinctive to merit being considered anomalous."

perfectblue 16:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

JSE is not a peer reviewed journal. --ScienceApologist 19:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
since when? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The refereeing status is dubious as illustrated by the article we have on Wikipedia. This defies peer review control since reviewers aren't allowed to exercise editorial restraint with regards to the publication of observations. --ScienceApologist 20:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
"Dubious" Again, your opinion. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
No, the unique hands-tied referees of JSE are not found in any scientific journal. That makes the peer review process bunk for this particular group. --ScienceApologist 20:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
"Not found in any scientific journal"? You can't possibly know this. The referee system looks very similar to the journals I read during my degree; the only difference is that reviewers can have their opinions on the article published alongside the article in question instead of the article being held back from publication and subjected to extensive rewrites over a year or more, as is the case in some Physics journals. Aside from that, the central referee system looks the same. --Zoe.R 20:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, after claiming I can't possibly know the difference, you put your finger right on the difference. It is a tremendously big difference to replace editorial control with editorialization. It's not at all dissimilar to the difference between wikinfo and wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 20:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You haven't answered the question about how you can know this policy isn't found in any scientific journal. Have you checked them all? --Zoe.R 23:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have. --ScienceApologist 04:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd love to see evidence of that. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You can start by reading the article you linked to. --ScienceApologist 20:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
While I apreciate condecending comments like that, "Bernard Haisch and Martha Sims, respectively past editor in chief and past executive director, describe the Journal of Scientific Exploration as "as peer-reviewed Journal following the customs and standards of academic journals but designed specifically for the scholarly study of anomalies"." Do you have any reliable source suggesting that they are liars? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, Bernard Haisch has been a bee in the bonnet of Wikipedia for some time. You can read about him in that article. His stochastic electrodynamics is still haunting us as we try to deal with the tooting of his own horn. He loves to make himself out to be a paragon of ethical treatment of the downtrodden cranks of the world, but his sympathies are dubious enough to have caused quite a ruckus on these very pages! --ScienceApologist 20:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Amuseing indeed. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't have said it (though perhaps could have spelled it) better myself. The weird thing about Haisch is that he seems to get-off on the accolades he receives from the paranormal/UFO communities when he is around their company, but he really doesn't want to see this activity mentioned in other venues. While trying to keep his left hand from knowing what his right hand is doing, he ends up contradicting himself. This is my personal opinion and so will never make it into any Wikipedia article, but I think Haisch uses the paranormal/UFO community to boost his ego while hoping to maintain a public image as a bona fide professional scientist. --ScienceApologist 21:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
"lack of peer review a fundamental hallmark of pseudoscience"
Most elements of chemistry, physics and biology lack pier review.
perfectblue 20:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
While that statement is pretty much as wrong as it gets, this article isn't about "most elements of chemistry, physics, and biology". -ScienceApologist 20:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Link to full article ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That article would be a good starting point for including information in the article about how EVP has not been replicated. --ScienceApologist 20:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem. It's in a reliable source, isn't it? :P ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
As reliable as one can get for a subject like this. --ScienceApologist 20:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
This source is as reliable as anything is likely to get. Unless anybody cares to find me a serious allegation of misconduct or misrepresentation against the publication, which has been upheld, I intend to use this as the basis for my future re-writes.
ScienceApologist, so that you know, I am not disputing the facts of your edits in the skeptics sections, but I have issues with your writing style. It doesn't do justice to the content.
perfectblue 21:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

ITC?

Should we cover instrumental transcommunication here, or just "voice on tape" EVP.

perfectblue 16:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with ITC being a separate page linked to by 'See also'. The two have enough differences to warrant a separate article. --Zoe.R 17:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, EVP is a sub-set of ITC... but ITC is much less notable. *shrug* ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps the page should be renamed to Instrumental transcommunication and have EVP as a section of this larger article. --Zoe.R 20:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Naw. EVP is notable enough to have it's own article and little enough exists that ITC would be a stub in any case. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
ITC is less well known.
perfectblue 21:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Skeptic's Dictionary

"EVP". Skeptic's Dictionary. Retrieved 2006-12-01. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Can we find a better source then Skeptic's Dictionary for some of the claims being made? It's fine for some of the general "representative viewpoints" type-statements, but we really can't be relieving on it to backup scientific claims. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Skeptic's Dictionary is a pretty good source and it holds up well to the parity of sources standards outlined in WP:FRINGE. --ScienceApologist 20:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Except SD is a self-published tertiary sources and should really be avoided if possible. Like I said, it's great as a representative of the "skeptic" community, but it's not a good source for scientific claims. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Tertiary sources are the best to use as reference. Self-publication isn't too much of a problem because self-publication is a criticism that applies equally well to the other side. The point is that you aren't going to find "scientific claims" made regarding this phenomenon because the scientific community ignores (what it deems to be) pseudoscience. The best you can hope for is descriptions of processes such as some that I outlined in the non-paranormal section. However, Skeptic's Dictionary can and should be used as a major resource per the parity of sources guideline. --ScienceApologist 21:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I've used it on occasion, but only usually in instances where I'm being general, and often only in cases where the pedantic people are the skeptics rather than the believers because Skeptdic is very dismissive.
We can keep it as a source for obvious things like people mishearing sounds and hoaxing, which don't require imagination, and for any general statements involving skeptics, but for everything harder , it's a stand in source at best. Of course, somebody could always check out the material that it uses as a source, and then cite that instead.
perfectblue 21:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Well, part of the problem is that SD is quoting the opinion of someone ("Sound engineer David Federlein thinks") and we are not making it that clear thats it's an opinion. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Oftentimes the paranormal sources are doing the same thing. --ScienceApologist 22:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Michael Shermer's article in Scientific American might be useful as a reference for opinions regarding the signal-to-noise and pattern-recognition explanations: (http://sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000EB977-12BE-1264-8F9683414B7FFE9F&chanID=sa008) --- LuckyLouie 23:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. It reads like a treatise on seeing what you want to see. I'd suggest it should be on the reading list of anyone hoping to record an EVP. --Zoe.R 17:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial entities

*'''Extraterrestrial entities''': EVP represent contact with ''nature energies'' or ''beings from other worlds'' ([[extraterrestrials]]).{{fact}}

I've remove it due to lack of sources. Has any notable EVP researcher actually presented this "theory"? Source would be nice. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sara Estep specifically mentions her communications with extraterrestrials in her book, "Voices Of Eternity", such as this excerpt on page 144:
"On several occasions the space voices have mentioned their spaceship. One morning an artificial-sounding voice said to me, "The robot wants the lights on." The space voices mentioned a black box they brought down to help them in their communications with me. When I tried to find out where the box had been placed, they remained silent. They have spoken about this box too many times for me to think it is not here, but it is apparently of a makeup incomprehensible to the human mind. They repeatedly say they are with me in my office, that they love me and help me; they say they need my help. I assure them of my love and friendship and that I want to help. When I asked how I can help, I receive only silence. It has occurred to me that perhaps they want their story told. I have become acquainted with the names of certain of my space communicants. "
http://aaevp.com/voices_of_eternity_web.pdf
--- LuckyLouie 21:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Demons & Angels

Might be worth mentioning organized religion's take on the subject. One example: "Some people believe that these voices are angelic or demonic in origin." (http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa020303a.htm) --- LuckyLouie 22:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea... but we should try to find a better source then about.com. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
This guy gets very specific about it (http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/6-18-2006-99615.asp) and Poysden mentions it in his second paragraph (http://www.anomalist.com/features/evp.html). While not authoritative sources, they do appear to indicate that there are some people who believe in the demonic/angelic origins of EVP. --- LuckyLouie 22:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Coffee Pot EVP

A huge site about a Krups coffeee maker that is a source of EVP (confirmed by the AA-EVP!).

http://coffeepotghost.com/CPG_Chronology.html

http://coffeepotghost.com/

--- LuckyLouie 05:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I realy don't think that should be included in the article. O.o Or maybe file it next to the Jesus Toast :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/82/242945425_84c9f984e3.jpg?v=0

Too bad.  : ) --- LuckyLouie 00:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

RFI and RF Rectification

I believe there may be a better footnote for the "Interference" section of "Non Paranormal Explanation" where it states, "It is even possible for circuits to resonate without any external power source by means of radio reception". Resonance may be an innacurate term. Rectification and RFI are perhaps more specific.

(http://www.analog.com/UploadedFiles/Application_Notes/493445731282210277AN671_0.pdf) deals with RFI issues in modern-day electronics. The IC's in devices used to collect EVP such as digital hand held recorders may be susceptible to RFI:

"Real-world applications must deal with an ever increasing amount of radio frequency interference (RFI). Of particular concern is where signal transmission lines are long and signal strength is low. This is the classic application for an in-amp since its inherent common-mode rejection allows it to extract weak differential signals riding on strong common-mode noise and interference. One potential problem that is frequently overlooked, however, is that of 'radio frequency rectification' inside the in-amp. When strong RF interference is present, it may become rectified by the IC and then appear as a dc output offset error. Common-mode signals present at an in-amp’s input are normally greatly reduced by the amplifier’s com- mon-mode rejection. 'Unfortunately, RF rectification occurs because even the best in-amps have virtually no common-mode rejection at frequencies above 20 kHz. A strong RF signal may become rectified by the amplifier’s input stage and then appear as a dc offset error. Once rectified, no amount of low-pass filtering at the in-amp output will remove the error. If the RF interference is of an intermittent nature, this can lead to measurement errors that go undetected." ' --- LuckyLouie 23:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

For additional reference, the ARRL on the subject of the susceptibility of consumer electronic devices to RFI: (http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/07/24/102/?nc=1) --- LuckyLouie 23:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

EVP in foreign languages

In response to the assertion that no EVP has ever been recorded in a foreign language (from the perspective of the recorder).

1) I've seen reports (which I'm not going to even attempt to introduce into this page because of all of the disputes over WP:RS would cause), claiming otherwise. Hasn't anybody here ever heard of Latin, Hebrew or other Biblical language EVP?

I was just going over this discussion again and a thought came to me: would a language such as Hebrew, Latin, etc actually be likely to turn up on an EVP recording if the recorder, as most appear to be, is in the Western hemisphere in a location where these languages are not native? I'm thinking of this from the point of view of EVP being a result of an intelligent force, since if we're looking at it from a point of view of them being random noise then the chance of any language at all should be relatively equal. If the EVP is a result of some intelligent force then surely the language of the EVP would be one that force understands, thus significantly reducing the chances of a non-native language turning up? --Zoe.R 17:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
They are only not native now. Hebrew was widely spoken among Europe's Jewish community prior to WWII, and Latin was spread around Europe by Christian scholars and Roman soldiers. If EVP are messages from the dead, they wouldn't have to be recent dead, would they? I've heard plenty of stories from Britain about ghostly roman soldiers (I've even known British people who say that they live in houses haunted by them), and it's no real stretch to think that if one of them is seen then it might also be able to be heard, is it?
One side note, according to Estep, aliens who communicate by EVP don't speak English.
perfectblue 20:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


Latin wasn't as widespread as some would think. Here in the North-East of England, Latin wasn't the major language (Celtic and Brythonic were, hence the vastly different dialects of the North of England compared with the South). I agree that there's no reason for only the recent dead to be talking but, again, I think we come back to the earlier point about pattern/language recognition as well as a basic case of numbers. If there are more people in an area speaking (or having been speaking) a certain language then that language is, statistically speaking, more likely to turn up on an EVP and those who are listening are more likely to be listening for that language.
Having said that, all this goes out of the window the moment someone puts up an example of a possible 'foreign' language EVP. I'll leave the discussion of aliens to someone else since right now I can't get my head around the concept of being able to identify an 'alien' speaking another language on an EVP. How would you know? --Zoe.R 01:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

2) If you don't speak the language, what are the chances of you recognizing a foreign language EVP as being speech, especially given the poor quality of your average section of EVP/noise. I could probably play an actual recording of fragmented Japanese, Urdu, Russia etc at EVP levels of quality, and I wonder how many people would pick them up as being human speech?

perfectblue 09:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a good point that I have been considering myself for a while. The chances of the average person recognising speech in a language they don't understand is minimal under these circumstances. A quick look at the majority of EVP websites will show that the majority of EVPs outside of "Class A" (easily understood without headphones) are difficult to comprehend even in a language the listener understands. Under these circumstances a foreign language could easily be passed off as background noise.
Perhaps the statement in the article should be removed. I certainly can't think of a way to reword the passage to make it more suitable. --Zoe.R 12:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's one of those paradoxes, isn't it. It's verifiable by the standards of this entry, but it's just so unscientific. I wonder what would happen if I played some of these EVP to non English speaking friends or colleagues. Would they hear anything? I suspect that if I told them that there was a man speaking Chinese on an English language EVP, it wouldn't take them long before they began picking out 'words' in Chinese. I know that I heard what sounded very much like Vietnamese on one of the AA-EVP recordings.

perfectblue 12:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there isn't any research on that. Would be interesting to read about if there is. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A Proposed Wikipedia Entry for "EVP"

[8]. I'm not certain what is more telling, the content of the page, the fact that if reference its writer's website about a dozen times, or the rather unfortunately worded introductory paragraph.

perfectblue 15:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, Tom wrote that when he was quite new to the discussion here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Raudive Only?

Why is Raudive the only study noted, and given several paragraphs (containing irrelevant details of his moods and elations)? It makes it seem as if the article considers Raudive special and notable and his work more significant, than say, Spiricom, or MacRae, or the Butlers etc. If it is decided that Raudive is the only study noted, then the section should be called "Raudive" and not "Studies". --- LuckyLouie 17:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Raudive is likely the most notable, but spiricom should also be noted...(It should have it's own article... it was fairly scandalous in it's time). Perhaps MacRae as well. SpiritCom was in the section originally, but it was fairly poorly written and had no sources so it ended up getting pruned. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Journal of the Society for Psychical Research

Does anybody here have access to the October 2005 issue of the Journal of the society for psychical research (I'm not currently a subscriber). It's supposed to have a peer reviewed article by Alexander MacRae on an experiment ot capture EVP in a screened lab.

perfectblue 15:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This journal should not to be regarded as a reliable source, as explained within policy WP:RS. As such it would be an unsuitable source for any kind of scientific information. Jefffire 16:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you clarify why this peer review is unreliable? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The relevant guideline-

Which science journals are reputable?
One method to determine which journals are held in high esteem by scientists is to look at impact factor ratings, which track how many times a given journal is cited by articles in other publications. Be aware, however, that these impact factors are not necessarily valid for all academic fields and specialties.
In general, journals published by prominent scientific societies are of better quality than those produced by commercial publishers. The American Association for the Advancement of Science's journal Science is among the most highly regarded; the journals Nature and Cell are notable non-society publications.
Keep in mind that even a reputable journal may occasionally post a retraction of an experimental result. Articles may be selected on the grounds that they are interesting or highly promising, not merely because they seem reliable.

So the most important question is:

Do scientists hold the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research in high regard?

As a scientist, I say no. As per wikipedia policy, it would be up to those wishing to insert to prove otherwise. Jefffire 17:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Do scientists hold the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research in high regard?" - this is a loaded question when it comes to the discussion of anything generally regarded as paranormal. The scientific community generally ignores anything deemed to be paranormal and thus citations in other journals or discussion amongst the general scientific community is going to be low to none. That is, in fact, why the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research exists in the first place, it's a journal that seeks to examine phenomena that other journals ignore. --Zoe.R 17:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this the article you are looking for? (http://www.skyelab.co.uk/review/bb.htm) The opening paragraph of the abstract hints heavily of MacRae's confirmation bias:
"Early in 2003 an experiment took place which has considerable importance for us all. It has importance not just for the subject it addressed, but also for the study of the paranormal, and indeed for science in general."
--- LuckyLouie 17:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Addressing User:Zoe.r - Your point here is irrelevant, whether correct or not. Wikipedia has to weigh opinions according to authority. The scientific community's authority completely overwhelms the authority of this journal on scientific matters. If there is a conspiracy of disregard, as you intimate, then to put it bluntly: that's your problem not mine. Jefffire 17:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
At what point have I claimed there is a "conspiracy of disregard" or, in fact, any sort of conspiracy whatsoever? As for some sort of overwhealming authority, I don't believe that can be the case. Would a physics journal have overwhealming authority over a psychology journal? The disciplines involved here are disparate, you can't claim the whole of the scientific community is involved here, it's not. We need to discuss those aspects of mainstream science that would possibly have some overlap with what we are discussing here. --Zoe.R 21:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
When addressing paranormal one must turn to "non scientific" sources to find out what exactly the beliefs of those who are involved in the paranormal are. If this journal is in "low" regard, then fine. If we use the source, lets do a few things... first of all, lets not use the name of the Journal in a way that lends false-credibility. Also, we need to make it clear that the journal specialises in the non-mainstream. Lastly, we need to make it clear that the research was done in-order to support paranormal hypotheses. If we can't do all those things, then using the research would end up violating WP:NPOV/WP:V. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, what we can do is use the journal to illustrate what paranormal researcher "believe", but anything suggesting that it has any real connection to reality is PoV. Jefffire 19:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Making any conclusions, either way, is POV. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

EVP "Ignored" By Science?

I believe that depicting EVP as "ignored by science" in the opening description creates an impression that worthy research is going unnoticed because of conspiracy and bias. While it is true that EVP is "ignored", I feel we must be more specific here. It might be more accurate to say that paranormal theories relating to EVP are not supported by the scientific community. And theories that are not supported by science get "ignored". --- LuckyLouie 18:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds a tad like OR to me, and it's shurley unverifiable. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Claiming that EVP is "ignored by science" is OR and unverified. Jefffire 19:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Does any mainstream journal carry any literature about EVP? If not, it's a subject that has been ignored by the mainstream scientific community. Besides, the opening description doesn't claim EVP is "ignored by science", it states: "no peer reviewed literature on research of EVP, as it is defined by proponents, is available from mainstream journals", which would appear to be true. --Zoe.R 21:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
A few edits ago the phrase "ignored by science" was removed. I also feel the statement saying peer reviewed research "is not available" should be modified. In the context of this article, both are examples of sensationalism, and help create the impression that the scientific community is actively ignoring and suppressing information about EVP. --- LuckyLouie 21:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I've altered the sentence in question so hopefully now it's not sensationalist and won't make anyone think there's a conspiracy of some sorts going on. However, I still believe that any inclusion of a reference to "no peer-reviewed literature" should be removed as it will lead the reader to believe that what literature there is available from journals is not peer reviewed when we've already shown here that it is. --Zoe.R 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree that the 'peer review journal' issue does not belong in the lead. It should come later in the article. But I'm still unconvinced that JSR meets the accepted definition of a peer reviewed scientific journal. --- LuckyLouie 22:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that all of you need to get a hold of yourselves and look at one basic and simple fact. Through your arguments, you have discounted pretty much all remotely scientific sources for EVP and all pretty much all remotely scientific sources against EVP. What does this leave you with? There is a very good reason why WP:RS is a guideline and not a policy, it is because sometimes you must work with what you have and not demand more because more does not exist and demanding more would leave you with nothing. I suggest that everybody take a five minute breather, put check their egos at the door, and then make the best use of what we have.

perfectblue 08:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Your points are irrelevant. If there are no scientific sources on EVP, then there are no scientific sources on EVP. Presenting junk science as science because it is the only thing available is simply not an option. Jefffire 15:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ho, hum, We've had this argument before.

When dealing with a topic that is essentially about bad science, it is essential that you describe said bad science in depth so that the audience know A) what that bad science is and how to spot it B) where it came from C) how it impacted on events. Stopping this from happening simply stifles efforts to debunk it.

To put it crudely, if you want to know what the kooks are thinking, you'd be well advised to listen to what they are saying. And if you want to debunk them, you have to show people how crazy they are. which you can't do if you refuse to print it.

Besides, the Journal of Scientific Exploration entry to which I am referring debunks EVP quite nicely. 60 hours of recording using Raudive's methods as a guide, and not one single EVP. You can throw that away if you like but .........

perfectblue 17:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Your intimations are false. This is not about debunking, this is about ensuring a standard of reliability for sources. Bad science is bad science, regardless of the conclusions. Jefffire 11:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally I have no problem quoting stuff published by the JSR or SPR or some even more funky journal. The problem comes when the quote is not reported as opinion but presented as scientific fact. Or the journal is used as the basis for a sentence that states "Scientists agree...". Or the journal is used as a footnote to make a statement appear to originate from a major "peer reviewed journal". --- LuckyLouie 18:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct date

Was Bayless' article in the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research published in 1956 or 1959?

perfectblue 09:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_voice_phenomenon/Archive_1&oldid=1133811374"