Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ජපස (talk | contribs) at 19:44, 26 October 2007 (→Failed GA). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:ActiveDiscussMC

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

	Electronic voice phenomenon was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 23, 2004 Articles for deletion Kept January 22, 2007 Peer review Reviewed February 12, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept October 10, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Paranormal This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article was a past project collaboration. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Spirituality This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18

We were on a roll...

We were on a roll with improving this article. Why did it all of a sudden stop? We need to stat discussing the next section now. Wikidudeman 21:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to be gone for a few days starting tomorrow. I may be able to drop by, but I likely can't do any major editing. I should be back fully by the 10th or 11th. The article has been pretty stable, so there shouldn't be any reason to hurry. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

After reading the article, User:LuckyLouie's comments this talk page and some news articles it's clear that this article is not up to the GA standard.

While it is reasonably well written, appears to be largly accurate and verifyable it fails on a few counts

• Neutral point of view - not only is the article tagged as disputed but the balance in the article does not reflect the view of the larger world. The article does not adequately present the mainstream viewpoint on EVP and the lead in particular is not neutrally written. At the very least I would expect an entire paragraph of the lead presenting the mainstream view that this is a fringe, unreal phenomenon. The lead for Flat Earth is not a bad guide (though not a great one either )
• Well written - there are lots of convoluted parts that need copyediting. Sentences like The question of whether or not audio recordings thought to be EVP are just noise mistaken by an individual listener to be words, or actually form words, has been addressed with the use of listening panels' are unduly difficult to read.
• Factual - the Criticism section appears to be a synthesis of viewpoints created in wikipedia. There are other sections that also seem to suffer from this problem
• Style - at the least the references need to follow a common style.

I do suggest that the balance between proponents and criticism be clearly looked at. The article needs to settle down, the article made neutral then best to go to peer review. --Peripitus (Talk) 11:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, we will take your points into consideration.

The article lead already has 1/3 space devoted to the skeptical point of view, as you suggest- a full paragraph. The lead is already much more devoted to being skeptical than Flat Earth, in my reading. The difference here is that the Flat Earth idea has been specifically (sourcably) studied and refuted by science, and EVP has not.

We do need to make the sentences easier to understand, I can see that.

Our problem here is that we can find lots of sources for EVP, and almost none for skepticism. The article is factually written, and I believe that it is NPOV in the sense that the paranormality of EVP is not promoted. But the skepticism section is probably OR as you say.

If you think there is a POV expressed in the article, could you tell us how to fix it? We have been unable to source the "view of the larger world" you speak of, because EVP is ignored by nearly everyone except proponents. Thus, there just isn't any view at all, that we can source, anyway. That's why the skepticism section has OR. What would you suggest we do? Should we perhaps be more clear than we already are when we say that

"Mainstream science has generally ignored EVP, but there are a number of non-paranormal explanations, which account for EVP by such mechanisms as radio interference or the tendency of the human brain to recognize patterns in random stimuli. These include:"

This has been one of the main quandaries of the article, and anything you can think of to solve this problem would be welcome. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a problem ... and looking at the talk page battle+mediation case not one that will be simple to fix. I've browsed through a few pages of google books/scholar with no enlightenment as mainstream science seems to ignore it. It seems treated the same way as the Flat Earth theory but without the timespan that would allow reliable sources. This complete lack of interest or comment by the science establishment or the press needs to the made clear in the article. Although this needs work the following reads far better as a NPOV lead:

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are speech or speech-like sounds, inaudible during recording, that some paranormal researchers claim to detect on electronic recordings. There is no mainstream scientific support for the claim although reporting of EVP in relation to hauntings is common in the press. As claimed by the paranormal community they are typically brief, usually the length of a word or short phrase and are sometimes claimed to be in direct response to the questions of researchers. The phenomena has been reported on diverse media, including: radio, hamradio, television, tape recorders and videorecorders. The term was coined by publishing company Colin Smythe Ltd in the early 1970s. Previously the term “Raudive Voices” was used, after Dr. Konstantin Raudive, an early researcher. References to EVP have appeared in the reality television show Ghost Hunters, the fictional Supernatural and the Hollywood films White Noise and The Sixth Sense as well as literature including the novels Legion and Pattern Recognition. EVP are a subset of the paranormal field of instrumental transcommunication.

Bits that are not well suited to a neutral point of view in the lead:

• Critics of Electronic voice phenomena - implies that there is an argument and criticism rather than proposition on on hand and dismissal as a nonscientific fringe theory on the other.
• The phenomena has been observed - implies that something has really been observed. As claimed by the paranormal community states the case far better
• The entire third paragraph of the lead reads as Original research

--Peripitus (Talk) 07:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (: Your lead is accurate in a lot of ways, but doesn't quite get to the heart of the matter, which is that everyone agrees that the sounds are detectable. And that they sound like speech to some people. The only controversy in connection with EVP is whether it is paranormal. So the way you have it written, it's as if only paranormal researchers detect the sounds, and that's not true.

It's a very difficult definition, and I don't know how to modify your intro really. To be purely NPOV, we'd have to say it this way:

There has been no mainstream scientific investigation or support of EVP, although reporting of EVP is common in the press.

There are critics, such as Randi and Carroll, but they are not scientists. So there is indeed argument and criticism, but not within science.

The phenomena has been observed, there is no argument about that. The argument is over whether it is paranormal, or just various forms of normal or psychological stuff.

I'm not responsible for the 3rd paragraph. But as far as I can see it isn't OR, and is supported by skeptical sources- I think. See this. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Martin, you're wrong about a few things. Peripitus is right when he describes EVP as a proposition, not a fact. The human brain's pattern recognition abilities and psycho-acoustic paradolia effects are not called "EVP" by the scientific community. EVP is a fringe claim of paranormal enthusiasts, as described by mainstream news treatment of the subject. - LuckyLouie 05:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Minus the superciliousness- that's correct. To be very clear about it, EVP is a paranormal interpretation of anomalies. I proposed a nice lead which made this very clear, but it was not accepted. We could say something like this, it would be fine with me. But the anomalies exist, and there is no dispute about that- the dispute is over whether they are paranormal.... which is exactly what I said above.

Note to Peripitus: the whole thing has often gotten mixed up. In my opinion, EVP is a paranormal interpretation of anomalies, but the language often gets messed up to where we're arguing over whether EVP exist or not, and defining EVP as the anomalies themselves. Sorry for any confusion. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Anomalies" imply things abnormal, or difficult to classify. There is no discussion of audio recording "anomalies" or abnormalities in electrical engineering, audio recording, or physics journals or textbooks. And those publications would be the kind of authoritative sources we'd need to reference if Misplaced Pages was to state that some particular type of audio anomalies exist and can be interpreted as paranormal or normal. However, it would be OK to state that these EVP experimenters believe that they are finding audio anomalies in sound recordings which they interpret as EVP. - LuckyLouie 09:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That might be one reason why we simply call them "speech or speech-like sounds." An anomaly is "a deviation from the common rule, type, arrangement, or form." In this case, that is to say that there are sounds, flaws, or differences where normally they would not be any. This doesn't mean they are really strange or paranormal, but they do meet the definition. However, a different word might be better. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Louie is saying that experts don't consider them to even be "anomalies". Experts would consider them confusion, delusion or bad tech quality opposed to actual anomalies, since for instance bad instrument quality isn't an anomaly. Wikidudeman 20:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, so we need a better word. It is now only used as the POV of a researcher and an organization (and in those cases it is fine), and also in the Criticism section. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. The article mentions capture error and cross modulation as anomalies. Are the EVP'ers saying these things are what they are interpreting? Use of the word by an EVP proponent is fine with me, as long as it is stated as a claim. - LuckyLouie 20:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I just took your word for it that they weren't considered anomalies, and pointed to where the word is located. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see what you're saying. Discovering feedback in a signal processing circuit under test could be considered anomalous within the context of the test. But there are certainly no competing paranormal explanations for that type of condition. "Anomalous" is a word IMO, often misused by the paranormal community in order to lend an appearance of credibility to claims. Which is why we should take pains to clearly describe what it is the EVP experimenters are reacting to rather than use an ambiguous but technical-sounding blanket term like "anomalous". The experimenters claim to detect speech or speech-like sounds inaudible during recording, which is how the text reads. I don't see that we have any conflict here. - LuckyLouie 00:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see any conflict (: ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No, there's no conflict about the use of the word "anomalous" since it isn't in the present lead or proposed one. IMO Peripitus lead is a vast improvement. The article is far from GA status and requires much work in areas such as those suggested by Peripitus, Wikidudeman and NealParr, as well as polishing overall prose style. The article needs to abandon the concept of "competing scientific explanations" and simply explicate EVP's influences and origins, what EVPers believe, who they are, what the critics say, etc. - LuckyLouie 18:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no major argument with what you say here. It has been my past experience that what we need to watch out for is bias and original research- for instance, taking textbooks or other sources which don't mention EVP and giving their explanations of flaws in recording (or whatever you want to call them).

It's interesting to note that while you would include what the critics of the paranormal explanation say, you would eliminate what the proponents of the paranormal explanation say about why they believe it is paranormal. That would bias the article. You have:

Influences

Origins

Beliefs

Criticism

But you leave out the basis or attempts at proof of the beliefs (a very large part of the literature). Interesting.

Some of the suggestions of Peripitus did not take account of the actual unstudied status of EVP. The article does not at this time have any concept of competing scientific explanations. It simply reports the POV and activities (some of them an attempt at scientific proof), of both proponents of the paranormal explanation and proponents of the non-paranormal explanation. This is what the literature on EVP is all about, and must be reported in the article.

Let us go about things from this perspective: gradual change, or change which is easy to follow, with good edit summaries. An agreement to revert and then discuss on the talk page, if anyone has a problem with new edits. Discussion of large-scale change before it occurs, if such change would be at all hard to follow in the diffs. Consensus.

I think we are very near to GA status, and I'll be improving from the suggestions fo Peripitus. I do not think there is a need for a major re-write or re-organization, as most of the writing and content can stand.

I think that the skepticism section especially needs improvement, and I urge you to do the research and focus on that- it is the worst part of the article. We could also use more material on the culture of ghost hunting with EVP, and other pop culture items. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't advocate leaving out "the basis or attempts at proof of the beliefs", as long as they are phrased as claims by specific persons or organizations. - LuckyLouie 22:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Great, then there is no disagreement here either. Do you think there are places in the current article which are not properly attributed? ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. "Various explanations have been put forward for EVP by paranormal experimenters who have attempted to rule out non-paranormal explanations for their origins", is just the tip of the iceberg. Especially in fringe science articles, WP can only report "who said what about what". It can't publish as fact that they attempted specific protocols just because they said they attempted them. - LuckyLouie 23:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So, "According to the AA-EVP, and experimenters such as Raudive, MacRae...."

See any others? ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is this?

File:Evp1.png

What are the axes? What was the conditions under which it was collected? Who determined it was an EVP? How do we know it wasn't doctored? How do we know it was actually recorded?

In short, is this image relevant at all to our article or the encyclopedia? Delete it?

ScienceApologist 19:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class paranormal articles
• Unknown-importance paranormal articles
• Past paranormal collaborations
• WikiProject Paranormal articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Mid-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class Spirituality articles
• Unknown-importance Spirituality articles