Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon

Attributing scientific views

An earlier version of the article said something like this: "EVP has not been considered or accepted by mainstream science and its existence remains controversial." That sounded OK to me, from what I could discern from the sources cited in the artlce. Above, regarding later wording, PerfectBlue stated that:

As per WP:V, you must find a third party source stating "no scientific evidence exists".

I think that's a fair enough point, given that that the interpretation of evidence (primary sources) is what scientists specialize in doing and publishing in scientific journals (secondary sources). So we shouldn't make unsourced claims about evidence, I agree, but it should be fine to make statements about the presence of absence of commentary in peer-reviewed scientific literature, and summarize those comments.

How about phrasing the issue this way: "There is no peer-reviewed scientific literature supporting the hypothesis that EVP exists." Is that not the case? The only peer-reviewed source I could find, the not-quite-mainstream-but still legitimately pper-revieweed JSE, reached negative conclusions on the existence of EVP. So we can say so accordingly in the lead, and attribute those views (or lack of published views in supprort) to scientists, not only critics or skeptics. That approach appears to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:ATT, does it not? regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 19:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There is the other source, the Macrae article, the says EVP was found under controlled scientific conditions and which was published in a peer review journal also.Davkal 19:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that no one has done a thorough search to see what literature might exist. Brauss found none, except probably the JSE one. So we could just say the first sentence, "EVP has not been considered or accepted by mainstream science and its existence remains controversial." This is true. To say that none exists is not known to be true. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I did a substantial search of the archives that I have access to and found very little peer review even mentioning EVP, let alone actually experimenting in it, and nothing that would satisfy the people who don't accept the two journal sources that we already have as being WP:RS. I was quoted over $300 for professional search quality search for the archives that I can't personally access right now. I suggest that we move away from peer-review and start quoting reliable authors (I find Clark is generally unimpeachable as a WP:RS), at least for the history, social etc sections so that we can show what people think of EVP and how it has impacted on the world in general, without touching on the "Its real"/"It's baloney" arguments.

perfectblue 08:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Jim, even the JSE isn't reliably peer reviewed. Their website says that the editor decides which articles are looked over by one or two peers, some aren't reviewed at all. I'm not sure what the standards of the other publication are, there is mention of peer review but I don't know if that's really the case. I think the current version as of this writing is an accurate statement of the situation. With all topics, the burden of proof is on those making the claim, if mainstream science doesn't accept the "evidence" there may not be sources rejecting it. That's why we describe it as lack of acceptance and describe the context of studies published in journals. Looking past the intro, there's a lot of detail given to information that wasn't peer reviewed or published in a scientific publication at all, it should probably either be cut or taken down to just a historical mention. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just as science has its own demarcation issues, so does the definition of what is a legitimate or "mainstream" peer-reviewed scientific journal. I'm cool with the current wording as quoted by Martinphi above. It's not perfect, since the term "mainstream science" may not be precise enough, but I think it reasonably conveys what is both true and verifiable: that the view of EVB proponents is at most on the order of a "tiny minority" among scientists. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A word of warning though: if we limit wiki to mentioning only those things or views that are expressed in peer-review scientific literature then 99.9% of the articles will have to be deleted. Not every subject is scientific. EVP has a scientific aspect or has the possibility of having a scientific aspect, but that is by no means all there is to the subject. There is a historical dimension, and a current social/cultural dimension, and a speculative dimension. All these things are interesting and can be covered easily without recourse to scientific peer-review articles. Whether EVP exists or not, and whether science can accommodate something like EVP can be covered in much the way we are trying to cover it, but it is by no means the be all and end all of the matter - Wiki is not simply a source of information on current scientific thinking.Davkal 00:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Davkal, I agree. Encyclopedic notability isn't only a function of what scientists say (but for the latter, peer-rev is good). regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm must agree with Davkal, here. EVP goes beyond hard science, and has cultural and social dimension much of which simply won't be covered in peer review material. It might not be scientifically accurate to say that somebody found "ghost voices", but it is historically accurate to say that they said that they did.

perfectblue 08:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and I think the way we are trying to cover the science bit is good right now, although I think there is still a tendency on this, and many other paranormal artcles, to get carried away with the does it exist or not question. We have, as far as I can see, a fairly strong consensus that: a) mainstream science hasn't touched it (and we have consensus on how to write that); b) what little scientific literature exists is not the best one could hope for (and we have consensus on how to write that); and the rest can simply be stuff about history, pop culture, social dimension, who said what, who is doing what etc etc, and it shouldn't be that hard to get a consensus on how we write that.Davkal 01:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re the question of whether the JSPR is peer reviewed - it is, and it is perhaps the most respected paraspychology journal there is.Davkal 00:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

We could just define it all as different people's opinions, and then use the peer reviewed literature where it exists. So if there are peer-reviewed paranormal sources, we use them, and if there are peer-reviewed sources which say that the thing is bunk, we use those. But elsewhere in the article, it is just opinion, and we attribute it to specific groups or people specifically? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is basically to agree with Davkal. The general quality of peer review and scientific debate in the parapsychology journals was found to be very high, when assessed. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Perfectblue's version is better in many ways, though, and is shorter. I'd agree to it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that the older version he's been reverting back to? I don't like it, it doesn't even define the term at the beginning. --Milo H Minderbinder 02:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit Protection for the Article Page

I brought this up a couple of times before and was accused of wanting sole editorial control of a Wikipedia article, but nevertheless, Candorwien, Gene Poole and KarlBunker have once again shown that we might be able to make more progress if we asked for Wikipedia:Protection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FULL In it, "An aadministrator have the ability to protect pages so that they cannot be edited except by other administrators." Tom Butler 02:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain why you are bandying my name about as a reason to protect this article? In addition, why this is once again? Your implication of "once again" is odd. I don't recall being the reason to cause copy protection on any Wiki article not even this one! Thank you. Candy 13:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that necessary unless disruptive edits out-3RR those who wish consensus? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hate to disagree with my long-lost cousin Tom ;-), but I don't think it needs to be protected quite yet. Adding my two cents, agree per Milo on reversion[1]. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful, though, if we could focus away from the intro and get the rest of the article into shape. As things stand I think the intro is fine: it defines (could be a bit better written), it gives a brief overview of the scientific state of play, it covers the most common explanations, and it gives a brief history of the term and the phenomenon - surely everything a good intro should do. We can tinker with it, but I think wholesale changes and reversions need thorough explanation here since I can't for the life of me see anything that is wrong with it in a big way. We also appear to have a fairly broad consensus for it as it is now amongst most of the regular commentators on this page (I hope my recent change to para 2 tallies with my view of the consensus), and so if we can get the rest of the article into the same broadly agreed state then all that will be left is tinkering with that as well.Davkal 12:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. As said above, the article should talk about historical, social, cultural, etc. The current version listing so many details on so many experiments is going way overboard when it should just make brief mentions of them to give history/"who said what". Right now, it comes off as trying to make a case through excessive detail on experiments that in many cases weren't peer reviewed or even published in a scientific journal. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's usually reserved for super vandalized pages, not for POV disagreements. You basically have to be GWB in an election week to get that kind of protection.

perfectblue 15:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Perfectblue97, I wondered if it was another sound good but never applied rule. I did notice a few protected pages. The state of Florida has been protected from time to time, for instance. A quick survey of the archive will show that discussion of this article has been repeatedly side-tracked by brief skirmishes caused by passing editors. I would call that both edit wars and vandalism if the new editor operates unilaterally and without sound rational. MS Hyde, being my favorite example.

I see that there is another round of pushing toward the skeptic view right now. Interesting conflict to watch. Ideology battles are happening almost routinely.

Candorwien, I do not recall seeing you post in the discussion before those changes you made in the article. However, my comments were not to you as "once again," but to your actions as another example of why that article is going to be unstable for the foreseeable future. If I am mistaking that you were one of the editors who unilaterally made the changes, I apologize. Tom Butler 17:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Passing editors" have as much right to comment and edit as anyone else. Making an edit once isn't edit warring, nor is it vandalism. It's a bit melodramatic to use those terms to describe a content dispute. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think as Milo said. I don't have to post in discussion before I edit. Being bold is part of Wikipedia. I am allowed and encouraged to make unilateral changes by Wikipedia. I have commented my changes. I have been polite and respectful. I have edited as I believe is fit for this article. I have entered into dialogue (once met with simple rudeness by an editor on this site on their own talk page) about changes. I can't understand why you refer to me in a derogatory way - as if I am doing something wrong? Candy 01:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I don't think like Milo and I cannot see how I have offended someone by stating the facts. I am an engineer and an author from the corporate/technical world and this going around in circles month after month would not stand in any environment intended to achieve a goal. I am aware of the fact that Wikipedia encourages this sort of editing mayhem. Yes, it is your right, but it is an inconsiderate act against all of us who have tried to reach an informed consensus. It is as if you all enjoy this chaos.

And before you tell me that I can leave if I don't like it, I will say again that EVP is my field of study and with the ranking Wikipedia has in the search engines, what is in the EVP article matters. I know that it has to be neutral to avoid changes from passing editors, so I encourage supportable but realistic comments that keep the entry neutral. Most, if not all of the passing editors have pushed the article way toward the snide skeptical view. If you cannot be a considerate editor, then at least be a responsible one. Tom Butler 02:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ghost hunters

Is ghost hunters a "reality" TV show, or is it just a themed show using members of the public rather than actors (I differentiate between the two)?

I think that something like Coast to Coast, would be a better example of EVP and the public.

perfectblue 15:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's important to maintain the quotation marks around the word "reality." Ghost Hunters probably fits most people's definition of "reality TV show." Of course, that is far from saying that it shows reality on TV. SheffieldSteel 17:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the show's website, it describes itself as "docu-soap". Which sounds about as real as most other reality TV. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The wiki article on Ghost Hunters begins: "Ghost Hunters is a reality television series". If you want to take issue with that then that article is the place to start.Davkal 02:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Reputable sources needed

I'm thinking that this article uses a lot of sources which are simply not reputable. One look at the front page of PsychicWorld, for example, should be enough to convince most readers that it's a website by the credulous for the credulous. In particular, this guideline strikes me as relevant:-

A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves.

So, when I have a little more time, I'm planning on going through and moving statements that are not backed by a reputable source over to this talk page. Then people who wish to move those statements back into the main article can provide alternative sources for them. Does that sound reasonable to everyone? SheffieldSteel 21:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Candy 01:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well see before you do, why don't you cite the sections here first and give those that wish to create the article, rather than destroy it, a chance to find sources that tally with Wiki rules, or debate your claim that they dont - bearing in mind the only changes you have so far made (without discussion) have been completely unsourced and, according to you, dependant on no other source than your own beliefs for their veracity. Davkal 02:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

For example, I note that this was added (from that most reputable of all sources - the private website Skepdick) - "apophenia (a propensity to see connections between seemingly unrelated objects or ideas, often associated with psychosis)." Now, is anyone really prepared to say that they do not understand why this is offensive garbage, and why it is intended (by Carroll) to be offensive garbage. If so, then let them cite here the seemingly unrelated objects and/or ideas that someone who thinks they hear a voice on tape is relating and in what way. What objects? What ideas? Who is the real psychotic/idealogical/pathological sceptic here? You simply can't include stuff like this and expect to be taken seriously.Davkal 02:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Davkal, Davkal, Davkal. Need to watch those Fruidian slips. But you are correct (in many ways). If we are going to question one fringe, POV rant, we have to question all the others. And the fact is, that if we do this, we will eliminate all the article- except of course for the parts from the peer-reviewed journals and popular culture. There aren't any other sources. There are some books, but who will want those? They are the opinions of proponents or skeptics. So we need to use the best sources we have. I have nothing against skepdic.com, but if we use that, there is no reason not to cite the AA-EVP, and many other sites about it. If we take those out, we have to get rid of the material which is sourced to the 7 references to skepdic.

As far as destroying the article, I'm all for that. Why argue for eternity? Delete this baby. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We can't delete it, because it's an encyclopedia and EVP exists as a topic. I have no doubt that manyhere would like nothigng better than to simply delete all articles about such things but they exist as subjects at the very least so we must write about them.

Maybe we should go down this route:

According to Robert Carroll's Skepdik website, which has been described as consisting of "a hilarious display of scientific ignorance" [source equal to Carroll's can be provided] EVP may be the result of apophenia (a propensity to see connections between seemingly unrelated objects or ideas, often associated with psychosis). Self-styled skeptic Carroll provides no clue to suggest which "objects" or "ideas" he has in mind here, and there is currently no scientifc evidence to support his view. And so on....

Then someone can find another inflammatory claim, and someone else can counter, and the whole article can become one long battle between scientifically unsupported ideologies. Or, we could try to write a decent article about EVP. Which is it to be?

Davkal 03:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Davkal, lol! But we could delete it!! The whole subject isn't really notable. Want to try? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

1. While we do need to maintain editorial standards, the most important thing is that we actually LIST the sources. If readers know where they come from, they can make the final decision themselves as to whether they believe them or not.
2. There is a difference between reporting what people believe and what people have proven to be true. It goes without saying, when dealing with the paranormal, that much of what we write deals with the former rather than the latter. Our choice of WP:RS therefore needs to reflect this.
3. We're talking about things that go bump in the night, how reliable is any source on a topic like that?

perfectblue 07:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I think we need to be fairly flexible while making sure that sources are adequate for the claim being made. For example, while you wouldn't want to defend certain highly dubious points by citing Psychic World as a source, when you look at what Psychic World is actually used as a source for here any controversy disappears. That is, the first reference is about what type of paranormal explanations have been offered (without any attempt to suggest these explanations are valid, or even sensible) and here Psychic World is about as good as it gets (straight from the horse's mouth so to speak). The second is a historical point about Raudive's book Breakthrough (e.g., publication date and bringing EVP into the public domain) and therefore is a very uncontroversial historical fact. The third one may not be quite so uncontroversial, but it is a viewpoint presented as a viewpoint and there would seem little reason, to me, to quibble over the source in this case either.Davkal 11:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

New Intro

In responsee to PerfectBlue's changes and edit summary.

1. This isn't an academic report.

2. A definition is given first.

3.The history of the name is not the same as a definition, and in this case the history of the name doesn't even shed any light on the meaning - it is a simply a historical point of note. Likewise, EVP having often captured the public imagination and featuring in popular culture etc., has nothing to do with, and sheds no light on the definition. There is therefore no reason to put these historical and contemporary details right at the start.

I am not sure why you keep making this change against the consensus here - ie, many editors have reverted your previous identical changes and not one word of support for those changes been offered here - not even by you. To simply say, as you do, in your edit summary "define first then explain as per any academic report" explains nothing since what you have inserted prior to the explanation has nothing to do with a definition????Davkal 12:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, as usual, the version you have left is full of mistakes and will have to have a number of changes made (words removed mainly) to simply make sense. I am not correcting it because I don't like it anyway. But if you're going to foist your version on us then at least get it right.Davkal 13:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. I don't see what's so important about the history of the name, and I'd say the possible explanations are much more relevant to defining the term. Please get consensus for changing the order and stop revert warring over this. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)