Minderbinder~enwiki (talk | contribs) |
→EVP (redux): - Reply |
||
Line 200: | Line 200: | ||
*EVP has appeared in popular culture such as television reality shows, books, and fictional works. |
*EVP has appeared in popular culture such as television reality shows, books, and fictional works. |
||
--[[User:Milo H Minderbinder|Milo H Minderbinder]] 21:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
--[[User:Milo H Minderbinder|Milo H Minderbinder]] 21:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
:: I took a look at MsHyde's RfC, but it's pretty vague. I think you'd get better results with a more clearly-worded request, especially because the talkpage is scrolling so quickly. And yes, a workshop version is definitely one way to proceed. Create a draft page in your userspace, format it the way that you think it should be formatted, and then present the alternative to the community. Or, as I mentioned above, pick one clear point of contention, and concentrate on building a consensus for just that one sentence/paragraph on the talkpage. If you can get the different sides agreeing on one thing, it may make future discussion easier. To be specific: Can you show a couple diffs that indicate exactly where the disagreement is? What is an example of wording which the two sides keep reverting each other on? As for the lead, based on my layperson view of the subject, I'd probably go with something like: ''Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) is a term describing what some claim to be anomalous voices of paranormal origin which suddenly manifest on blank recording media or through electronic audio devices. Existence of the phenomena remains controversial, especially as no formal study has yet appeared about it in mainstream academia, meaning that all of the existing studies have appeared in specialist paranormal publications. Skeptics say that what is percieved as EVP is radio interference or pareidolia (mistakenly perceiving random sounds as speech). Proponents say that EVP is due to paranormal factors such as psychokinesis or messages from spirits, extraterrestrials, or other dimensions. Whichever it is, EVP often captures public imagination, and references to it have appeared throughout pop culture, especially in TV shows such as <name 1 or 2 of the most famous> and fictional books such as <name one or two of the big ones>.'' --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 22:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:13, 15 February 2007
Thank you for your contributions, you seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! If you need help on how to title new articles see the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. For general questions goto Wikipedia:Help or the (FAQ, if you can't find your answer there check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. If you have any more questions after that, feel free to ask me directly on my user talk page.
Additional tips
Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!
- For Wikipedia policies and guidelines see The Five Pillars of Wikipedia and What Wikipedia is not.
- Find everything in the Directory.
- If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
- Introduce yourself at the new user log.
- If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.
- If you have edits from before creating an account try this.
- To Upload Images with the correct Copyright tags.
- Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), this will automatically produce your name and the date.
Be Bold!!
You can find me at my user page or talk page for any questions. Happy editing, and we'll see ya 'round.
Joe I 11:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Bias
Is it possible for you to monitor the Urban Exploration page for NPOV edits? I just did a cleanup after two new users revised the page to be biased, and want further standing and backup on this. Thanks! Seicer 19:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Ghost Hunters
Just a moment now. Unsourced criticism is unsourced criticm. Which means it either needs to be removed, or tagged as such. I was merely giving the benefit of the doubt. --InShaneee 02:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
EVP
In my almost four years on wikipedia, I've had too many long, tedious, boring, annoying edit wars over paranormal articles, and have sworn off them. I'm too old to debate Iridology and cosmotheism, to cite a couple, any more ... I fear EVP, which I stumbled into by accident and couldn't help myself tweaking, might be the same, so I fear I won't be helping your struggle. - DavidWBrooks 00:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
EVP Update
I made a temp-page for the EVP rewrite. Thoughts on my organization? ---J.S (t|c) 00:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
EVP
Intresting, thanks for letting me know. I had no idea about all that. — e. ripley\talk 19:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
For your info, if you weren't already aware of this paper: Failure to Replicate Electronic Voice Phenomenon, Barušs, I. Regards, --BillC 01:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
More: Turn Me On, Dead Man: Shermer on audio pareidolia in Scientific American. text. --BillC 01:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that's necessary. I think we just need a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Keep up the good work and try to remain focused on positive changes to the article. — e. ripley\talk 20:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hammarlund
I was wrong to delete Hammarlund I've recreated with a country. Since your message followed his, I attach a copy of a message to Donahue 2. Sorry for delay in response, I've been off line for more than 24 hours.
Angry Ninendo Nerd
The text I deleted follows this note, with a deactivated db-bio template. I should point out that I was the fifth admin to delete this article, so I don't think I'm way out of line.
I always fill in the edit summary when I delete, unless there is a speedy template already there, where repetition is pointless. The vast majority of what I delete is either already listed as a speedy, is obvious junk, or a clear breach of guidelines like a blatant advertisement. I tend to NP patrol, which is why deletion is often soon after creation - creators presumably save their text when they are ready for it to be edited by others.
I fix articles or contact if I feel it appropriate. Of course I make mistakes, but whoo doesn't? Best of luck with the article. I've unprotected and deleted to allow yet another recreation of this five-times deleted nonsense (sorry if that is disrespectful). The text I deleted follows:
Template:Db:bio the angry nintendo nerd is a guy who makes videos trashing very bad nintendo games.
Jimfbleak.talk.07:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
EVP image
I tried to suggest that the other authors find an alternative image, but the best they could come up with was Tom Butler's image of some alleged EVP. While closer to something that rises to the standards required by Wikipedia, the image still defies common standards of WP:V and [{WP:RS]]. What we need is a published image of an EVP sountrack. I am skeptical that such a thing exists at all. That's fine, though, because I'm sure there are other images that we can find to use in the article. --ScienceApologist 02:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Paranormal orgs
Be bold and list them all for AFD already! :P—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
NPA
- Hi Dreadlocke, I saw your statement re: your personal dislike for James Randi on the Mediumship Talk page. That was the motivation for my original comment. Nothing personal. -- LuckyLouie 21:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand where you got the information, but that's no reason to comment on the contributor. Sorry if I came on a bit strong, but I like to nip these things in the bud. To me, comments like the one you made are generally just meant to discredit an editor - which I don't think you meant to do, but I am always careful... :) Thanks for your honest and kind reply. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Mediumship
I was not aware of mediumship until you linked to it on my talkpage. --ScienceApologist 09:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Article AGHOST
Hi LuckyLouie, I wrote a response to your post on Steel359's page: User_talk:Steel359#Deleted_Article:_AGHOST_.28acronym.29. Please read it and let me know what you think. I believe you've made some incorrect assumptions, and I'd like a chance to talk to you about it. Thanks. Obsid 05:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi LuckyLouie. I added a response to your response: User_talk:Steel359#Deleted_Article:_AGHOST_.28acronym.29. Thanks! Obsid 08:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
MacRae
I can have a try, the problem is finding a WP:V that everybody will accept.
I only have the very first part of his paper in Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, so I can't describe all of his experiment, but it would certainly help the article to expand this section.
Expect everybody's favorite skeptic to criticize it though.
perfectblue 20:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
More MacRae
I've expanded the MacRae section a bit, but in order to avoid disputes, I've left it bare of some of the more contentious details. It's a little dry, but hopefully it should be sufficiently detailed to give an overview.
perfectblue 11:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Re:List Of Haunted Locations
Its the worst article i've seen on wiki in a long time and yet i know it will be a strugle to get it deleted (Gnevin 00:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC))
EVP
Thank you for adding the attribution to Smyth, Bayless and Raudive in the opening definition, and AA-EVP in the following paragraph. I appreciate your cooperation, and hope you don't view it as a concession. My concern is that an UNattributed definition is perceived as "Wikipedia defines EVP as...". Again, thank you, and although we often differ, I hope this article can become more of a collaboration and less of a battleground. --- LuckyLouie 01:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- And thank you (: No, I may have mis-understood when there were battles over "attribution." I never had any problem whatsoever with saying who though it up, invented the term, popularized it etc. I routinely put that kind of info into summaries. I just didn't like it to say "believers," or whatever. Maybe it was all a misunderstanding.
- When people said they wanted to include "Who believes it," that to me (seeing how they changed the summary) meant "what kind of person believes it," ie, to hammer that "only believers in the paranormal would believe it."Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Summary
I'm fine with most of the summary, the only problems that I have are with "some say" and the specific naming of AA-EVP.
Largely, "some say" just grates with me. Its a personal dislike of the phrase more than anything else, it just seems too weak. I'd prefer something stronger like "Hypothesis include", but I guess that I can live with it for the sake of consensus.
My main concern though is that naming the AA-EVP ties the description to an individual group, which means that it can be disputed based on that group rather than on the description itself. I'd feel more comfortable if we used a general attribution to the paranormal community who believe many things, rather than to a group who believe a specific thing, or if we used somebody well known like Clark as a reference.
Again, I can live with your version and will sign up to it if you can get sufficient others to do so in order to outweigh the nameless ones who keep putting POV pushing "Not verified by pier review" etc in.
Peace.
perfectblue 08:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you delete the attribution to the AA-EVP we don't actually need to change the wording, you can still use them as a citation. I've no problems with citing them, just I feel that they are too much a source of contention to be quoted in line.
- Clark is Jerome Clark. He's a highly notable and well known author who writes about the paranormal. He's neither a "true believer" nor a die hard skeptic so, generally speaking, anything that you can cite to him can't be disputed on grounds of WP:V or WP:RS or WP:Notability.
- perfectblue 16:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK, how about: "EVP is currently defined by many in the paranormal community as..." (and then lose the quotation marks?). LuckyLouie 16:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I know that it's nit-picking, but "many in the ..." is just another variation on "some say". I'd prefer a simple "EVP is defined as", and then a citation.
I've got two reasons for this. Firstly you're saying as little as possible about who actually uses this definition and how many/few they are (fewer directions for attack) and secondly, When serious scientists look at EVP (many do, if only as a curiosity or a pseudo scientist, rather than as a belief in it being real), they also use this definition.
perfectblue 16:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- My concern is that an UNattributed definition is perceived as the equivalent of "Wikipedia defines EVP as X (based on a citation in a footnote that most people won't read)". Not overtly stating that the definition comes from a source because the source is controversial seems very deceptive to me. Like an article on God saying "God is defined as the supreme being who lives in heaven" with the footnote citing the Roman Catholic catechism. So...we really need an overt attribution. ....how about "many paranormal groups and some researchers who study it" ? Got any more ideas? LuckyLouie 16:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think that this will take a while "many paranormal groups and some researchers who study it" still has "many" in, I'd like to avoid any attribution that imply numbers (some, many, etc) if at all possible. Equally, I'd like to avoid actually naming any one group of people. As above, I define EVP as ABC, but I'm not "some researchers" or "many paranormal groups". How about we remove the quotes say something along the lines of "according to researchers Macrae and Baruss, who conducted their own independent studies on EVP....." that way we are naming our to sources which are closest to full peer review (and thus least disputable)?
- perfectblue 17:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- MacRae works for me since he is an active researcher who (according to his books) believes that EVP exists. But to include Baruss would make it sound as if he endorses EVP as being "(our definition)" based on one set of experiments he did which did not confirm that EVP exists. So how bout just MacRae? LuckyLouie 17:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that saying that Baruss defined EVP means that he endorsed it. He conducted an experiment so he must have had a definition as a starting point. Both makes for a stronger definition.
- perfectblue 17:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think any defintion that begins with "according to..." implies direct endorsement by the persons named. Baruss is the wrong fit. Maybe his pre-experiment defintion of EVP was the same as MacRae, but his post-experiment definition of EVP certainly isn't. OK, how about "according to researchers who conducted their own independent studies on EVP....." (Bear in mind this attribution business is a big sticking point with SA and others, and if we can get something I can sell to them, we are home free...maybe) --- LuckyLouie 18:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- "according to researchers who conducted their own independent studies on EVP" again, things are being nailed down to a specific group. How about we just say MacRae instead of AA-EVP, and dump the quotation marks, and we'll say that I agree with you on the rest in order to outnumber SA.
- perfectblue 19:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
EVP Summary
The summary you sent over to me looks far better than what we have had on the article. I'm happy to support it. Maybe now we can get on with the rest of the article? Hopefully we won't spend as long arguing over minor points though. :) --Zoe.R 21:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Cannot support it
Sorry, LuckyLouie, but I cannot support the lead version you outlined for the following reasons:
- Since EVP uses the term "phenomenon" we need to deal with phenomena. All phenomena by definition are in the purview of science so it is absolutely vital that we make it clear that this "phenomena" has never been empirically determined as anamolous or otherwise. The easiest way to do this is to keep the point that there is a lack of peer review literature and existence of null results.
- The rejection by the scientific and skeptical community (not just "some) of the paranormal is a verifiable fact and an important point to emphasize for readers.
- The supernatural is totally unobservable which means that it is not a verifiable phenomenon. That means that we need to describe the communities who do believe in this.
- The sources used to describe the mechanism for EVP definitions are only reliable in terms of their mechanistic beliefs (spirits in the fifth dimension). Since they are not recording engineers, they can't determine when a "source" for sound is there or not.
- Claiming that "some" dispute EVP is weasely. The notable people who dispute EVP are scientists and skeptics.
- The connection to pseudoscience needs to be upfront since this is a hallmark of paranormal investigations.
I will change the lead to a version that addresses these points. I do think it is possible to come to a version that everybody agrees on, but this version panders way to much to the paranormal believers.
Thanks,--ScienceApologist 00:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's an admirable thing to avoid edit wars, but it just befuddles me when I get edit summaries that claim that the person reverting my edits has "responded" on the talkpage when that is clearly not the case! --ScienceApologist 05:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Consensus imbroglio
It seems now that at least two other editors on EVP are trying to claim that your conversations with them on their user talk pages established some sort of "consensus" that now insures them against needing to discuss my points on the talkpage. I think the lesson in all this is that it's probably best to do things above the table and establish consensus on the Talk page of the article rather than going around to user talkpages. A clarification from you on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Right now there are two voices on the Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon that are adamant that there isn't consensus. If we could add you as a third at least the break-down would be 50/50 and we can force these editors to come to the table. --ScienceApologist 13:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
EVP
Hello, Very specifically, the two main problems are:
- 1. defining science as non-paranormal. This is an extreme minority definition of science. It gives a heavy POV slant to scientific explanations, defines them from the POV of psychic enthusiasts.
- 2. the highlighting of the audio sample. We have no way of knowing that this isn't a recording of the author's dishwasher. An example from a controlled experiment, published by a reliable third party publication, would still be an alleged or purported example of EVP. Including and highlighting an example from a website published by Butler is OR, COI and POV. t also functions as advertising and or public relations for Butler, I think. Removing the wording that it is an example of EVP still implies that's what it is, because it is on the page.
There is more--the whole general tone of the article is very slanted towards the paranormal POV. Sources which are reliable only to show what an extreme minority thinks are given equal or greater weight than science, which is a distortion.-MsHyde 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- This edit typifies the problem, I believe: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_voice_phenomenon&diff=106915240&oldid=106907058-MsHyde 20:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do you know how to contact ScienceApologist for Arbcom preparation?-MsHyde 02:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
TAPS
Thanks for the background. I took a quick look at the history, and saw that there had been some conflict. If I can help with editing the page or offering an outside opinion on any parts, let me know. :) --Elonka 17:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
EVP (redux)
- That EVP article is definitely a busy one! I've been scanning through the discussion, but it seems to be proceeding pretty well at this point. Different people are presenting their views in a reasonably civil fashion, and it looks like you'll get things hammered out okay. I did update some of the talkpage templates -- If you know of other items in the article's history which should be added, such as any Good Article noms or other peer reviews, let me know and I'll get them added too. Or if there's a specific debate where you think I might be able to step in with an outside comment or offer of informal mediation, just ask. Best, Elonka 19:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Have you tried an actual RFC yet? If not, I highly recommend it as a way to bring in some fresh eyes. It would also be helpful to try and boil down the dispute into a single sentence/question, so that it's easier for outside people to comment. I have to admit that I spent about an hour reading the discussion, and I couldn't entirely tell where to weigh in, because the core issue was difficult to identify. For example, pick a specific change to the article that keeps getting reverted back and forth, cite both versions on the talkpage, and ask for community input on which version to use, or for help in coming up with a compromise version. --Elonka 19:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- There's actually one up now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. I'd agree that new eyes are probably put off by the talk page and the fact that there isn't a simple question put forth beyond "is it NPOV"? At this point, it's not enough to get someone to come in and agree, we need a specific proposal for them to support. I suspect any attempt to make the necessary fixes would get reverted every step of the way, maybe it will take writing a workshop version and proposing switching the whole damn thing over to a complete rewrite? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Have you tried an actual RFC yet? If not, I highly recommend it as a way to bring in some fresh eyes. It would also be helpful to try and boil down the dispute into a single sentence/question, so that it's easier for outside people to comment. I have to admit that I spent about an hour reading the discussion, and I couldn't entirely tell where to weigh in, because the core issue was difficult to identify. For example, pick a specific change to the article that keeps getting reverted back and forth, cite both versions on the talkpage, and ask for community input on which version to use, or for help in coming up with a compromise version. --Elonka 19:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's a first attempt at wording for the intro, there's plenty of room for improvement, but I think it includes the important points and prioritizes the opinions. Let me know what you think:
- Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) is the phenomenon of anomalous voices said to be of paranormal origin heard on blank recording media or through electronic audio devices.
- While EVP has been studied, the publication of this research has been in journals specializing in the paranormal and other topics outside the mainstream. The concept has not been accepted by mainstream science. Critics say that what is percieved as EVP is radio interference or pareidolia (mistakenly perceiving random sounds as speech). Proponents say that EVP is due to paranormal factors such as psychokinesis or messages from spirits, extraterrestrials, or other dimensions.
- EVP has appeared in popular culture such as television reality shows, books, and fictional works.
--Milo H Minderbinder 21:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I took a look at MsHyde's RfC, but it's pretty vague. I think you'd get better results with a more clearly-worded request, especially because the talkpage is scrolling so quickly. And yes, a workshop version is definitely one way to proceed. Create a draft page in your userspace, format it the way that you think it should be formatted, and then present the alternative to the community. Or, as I mentioned above, pick one clear point of contention, and concentrate on building a consensus for just that one sentence/paragraph on the talkpage. If you can get the different sides agreeing on one thing, it may make future discussion easier. To be specific: Can you show a couple diffs that indicate exactly where the disagreement is? What is an example of wording which the two sides keep reverting each other on? As for the lead, based on my layperson view of the subject, I'd probably go with something like: Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) is a term describing what some claim to be anomalous voices of paranormal origin which suddenly manifest on blank recording media or through electronic audio devices. Existence of the phenomena remains controversial, especially as no formal study has yet appeared about it in mainstream academia, meaning that all of the existing studies have appeared in specialist paranormal publications. Skeptics say that what is percieved as EVP is radio interference or pareidolia (mistakenly perceiving random sounds as speech). Proponents say that EVP is due to paranormal factors such as psychokinesis or messages from spirits, extraterrestrials, or other dimensions. Whichever it is, EVP often captures public imagination, and references to it have appeared throughout pop culture, especially in TV shows such as <name 1 or 2 of the most famous> and fictional books such as <name one or two of the big ones>. --Elonka 22:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)