Mediator response

Please tell me if you will accept me below, and then make your case in the Discussion section. For clarity I do ask that we give everyone a chance to say what they might, and try not to rebuttal them at this time. I would like to have a clear overview of the issue. Thanks! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I accept (below where?). I accept anyone who is not prejudiced for or against the paranormal. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

AcceptDavkal 11:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Accept SheffieldSteel 13:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is time to hear from our mediator, Eagle 101. Otherwise, this page is beginning to look just like the EVP discussion page and that has been a complete waste of time. Tom Butler 23:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Recommend Move from Mediation to Arbitration - LuckyLouie 18:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If there are no objections in the next few days I will close this. --Ideogram 05:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SheffieldSteel on the point of the definition. I have long argued (previously) that it would be better to define EVP as the brute phenomenon (whatever it turns out to be). I think that significant improvements could be made at a stroke if we could do away with the need to qualify every time we use the term "EVP". I know others are very much against this though.Davkal 17:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not really against this. However, the only interest in EVP is that it is, or said to be, paranormal. Otherwise, it is something wrong with your equipment. But, defining it as a phenomenon in itself seperate from explanations could work well. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The EVP article should not be seen as a battleground to have Wikipedia prove once and for all that paranormal subjects are just experienced by delusional people and have no existence in reality. My personal view is that any compromise producing a simple and honest article is welcome. I certainly do not need Wikipedia to prove anything for me, but I do need it to not cause me to explain why the article is expressing things that simply are not true. So yes, a bare-bones approach (say what it is define das and stop) is a good idea.

Also, "...the general mission of the encyclopedia to portray the mainstream and conventional in the most neutral (that is to say, most conformist) fashion...." seems to indicate that Wikipedia is the bastion of the "status quo." "Most conformist" is a slippery slope which I do not think the founders wanted. That is the same kind of thinking that pitched the church against Galileo Galilei. Tom Butler 18:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. If Wikipedia were being written at the time of Galileo, we would have likely included much of the scathing critiques he endured. Being right is impossible to verify. We can only document the status quo. Attempting anything else is asking for trouble. --ScienceApologist 18:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. LuckyLouie, you are trying to use the encyclopedia to show that people are doing something that you and SA do not approve of. What people are doing or not doing has nothing to do with what EVP is defined to be. If you are afraid people are trying to use Wikipedia to promote EVP, then the best way to prevent that is to say as little as possible in the article and stick to the cold facts. Definition, theories and so on. Again, as soon as you begin characterizing those theories as right or wrong, you get into a never-ending argument.

For instance, of course you like the article as it stands now. It is strongly slanted toward Skeptical Dictionary views. I see that you have glorified Baruss and completely eliminated MacRae. You have included the quote from that sound engineer in the Skeptical Dictionary EVP page, but managed to skip the part where he states that he has better equipment than we do. Why didn't you include his self-disqualifying statement?

The reason we are here is that the Skeptics are trying to make science policy in the absence of science at the expense of a consensus in the EVP article. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Tom Butler 00:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI Tom: I hold no personal animosity toward people who attempt to contact the dead or other dimensions. They have a right to their personal beliefs. --- LuckyLouie 00:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The heading of this section aside- There is no conventional opinion to cite concerning EVP. It is the opinion of some editors that conventional science disproves EVP. This is not the case. There is actually nothing in conventional science which speaks to it (nor to the survival hypothesis); the most that can be said is that it has not been proved. This is the actual state of affairs: no proof, opinion, and also no contradiction.

The most important thing to note here is that it is Original Research for us to make up positions saying what conventional scientists, or science, would say if they noticed EVP at all. We don't have the right to make this up.

I would like to re-state that we must not mis-represent the undue weight rule. We should not give undue weight to a minority opinion. This is a rule which works well with debates such as that between Creationism and evolution. But what should we do here? An opinion is not in the majority because it is conventional. The majority opinion here is that EVP is of paranormal origin.

We thus have a problem which is not covered by the policy: a field which is notable enough to be in Wikipedia, but has been ignored by the mainstream to such an extent that there is no majority scientific opinion about it.

I know with surety that if a lot of scientists suddenly paid some attention to EVP, that they would call it bunk (whether from prejudice or not I leave to your mind). But we cannot cite this, and we should not make it up, as I just did.

We cannot, however, cite the majority opinion of those who are educated in this field. This is for practical reasons of Wikipedia, because we are supposed to be too conventional, and because the field does not have the infrastructure of a science.

Thus, what can we do? I suggest that we merely state the facts, without characterization. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"The majority opinion here is that EVP is of paranormal origin." Right there is the main issue in this dispute. Martinphi seems to think that "majority opinion" and "scientific consensus" refer to a consensus of only EVP researchers as opposed to scientists in general. Wikipedia policy says to present the mainstream view as the mainstream view, yet Martinphi insists that we should present this topic as if the views of a small fringe group are the mainstream.

Until Martinphi (and anyone else agreeing with his "interpretation") realizes that he is grossly misinterpreting WP policy, I don't see how we can agree on a compromise for this article. I wish we could, but any version that violates NPOV is unacceptable, and that is exactly what he has been insisting on all along. --Minderbinder 12:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already dealt with this. But for the record, you are arguing, for instance, that the opinion of botanists is relevant to quantum mechanics. You are also arguing that there is a scientific consensus reguarding EVP. You are arguing that there is a mainstream view of EVP. These contentions are (grossly) incorrect. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I am arguing that you should consult botanists about plant fungus, and Quantum mechanics about higher quarks. If you want to write about something that is claimed to be paranormal, you need to include the opinions of people who believe that it is paranormal,too.

perfectblue 10:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

EVP can be explained as just what and not how, who or why. Perfectblue, the quantity of publications about EVP--Wikivalid or not--greatly exceeds what has been written about it elsewhere--unless you include the skeptical rants. As you have seen Minderbinder say here, the skeptical community will not rest so long as anything affirming that EVP might be real is included in the article. Also, their interpretation of "affirming" is so broad that almost anything evokes a negative response. So I think the history of this article shows that Wikipedia simply cannot host any article about survival that deviates even a syllable from simply what it is by definition.

My personal view is that skeptics have no real platform to push their agenda and Wikipedia is in danger of becoming one for them. As I say, I have hardly any contact with people who do not seek to understand a subject before they try to destroy it. Now, all of the sudden, Wikipedia has come to dominate the scene and it is full of corn for what thousands of people routinely work with. And Minderbinder, you cannot edit a societal influence like Wikipedia in social isolation, so of course I bring up social issues here. Tom Butler 15:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"As you have seen Minderbinder say here, the skeptical community will not rest so long as anything affirming that EVP might be real is included in the article." I don't see how we can have any sort of good-faith discussion much less reach any sort of agreement if there's going to be this sort of ridiculous misreprentation. The POV pushing is bad enough, but putting words in the mouths of the other editors is a deal breaker for me. Tom, you need to decide if you want this mediation to happen, and demonstrate good-faith interest in mediation. --Minderbinder 16:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You can be as unhappy as you want Minderbinder, but your statement was pretty clear: "Until Martinphi (and anyone else agreeing with his "interpretation") realizes that he is grossly misinterpreting WP policy, I don't see how we can agree on a compromise for this article. I wish we could, but any version that violates NPOV is unacceptable, and that is exactly what he has been insisting on all along. --Minderbinder 12:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC) " That seems to pretty clearly to say that we are not going to have an agreement until we "proponent" give up our view of EVP for this article.

The "...and anyone else agreeing with his "interpretation"..." would have to be intended to mean "proponents." Who has the correct interpritation of WP policy is at the heart of the battle we have had for the past months, so your statement about "...misinterpreting WP policy,..." tells me that you are addressing that division between skeptics and the rest of the world. "...any version that violates NPOV is unacceptable,..." makes it clear that, given the above, there will be no cassation of edit wars unless we surrender.

As I put it, "As you have seen Minderbinder say here, the skeptical community will not rest so long as anything affirming that EVP might be real is included in the article." I think I fairly captured the meaning of your comment. All I did was put a name to your promise not to compromise. Tom Butler 23:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Tom, if you're going to put words in other editors mouths that blatantly, I really don't know what to say. It looks like your unwillingness to discuss in good faith has killed any chance of this mediation going forward.

Eagle, any recommendations on the best way of getting a clarification on what WP policy means by "majority (scientific) view" in NPOV? Is it a majority of scientists in general, or just what EVP experts think about EVP? --Minderbinder 23:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, not quite that. I does not mean "Is it a majority of scientists in general, or just what EVP experts think about EVP?" That is only a way of putting it which will bias the answer. The proper question should be, when dealing with a field of science, does one consult the opinion of all scientists, or only the scientists in the field? In this particular case, we are not dealing with a field of science. Nevertheless, people are trying to cite the totally unsourced opinion of the "scientific community." This community admitedly knows nothing about EVP. Thus, we must not cite a scientific consensus against EVP. Nor can we cite a scientific consensus for EVP.

We already know by a reducto ad absurdum argument what NPOV means by "majority view." It means the consensus in a field of science, as with evolution versus Creationism. The alternative is to have, as I said, botanists having an opinion of quantum physics. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting rhetorical exercise, but it's failed to convince me that Science must sit this one out. According to WP:FRINGE, established scientific principles never play second fiddle to fringe beliefs and theories. As SA points out, the prevailing consensus views of the relevant academic communities regarding "EVP" *ARE* solidly represented in mainstream textbook understandings of electronics, radio transmission, signal processing, psychology, etc. Additionally, the extraordinary claims of EVP proponents are quite often from dubious sources WP:V#Sources_of_dubious_reliability and generally fail WP:RS so we cannot give them any authority -- they are WP:REDFLAG claims not supported, or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic communities. LuckyLouie 05:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly the best argument I've heard against what I'm saying so far. But, it is doing OR on several counts: First, you assume that EVP violates established scientific principles. Second, you assume that examples of EVP, as presented by EVP experimenters, are of the same sort as discussed in the textbooks- this is only an assumption. Third, you assume that the scientific papers we do have on EVP are of dubious reliability- and this is not supported by the rules. The MacRae and Brauss articles are not REDFLAG. They are published in peer-reviewed journals. Saying they are not WP:V is OR which seems simply to be informed by prejudice against EVP- which is also OR. There is nothing in the rules that says the peer-reviewed journals in question are of lesser quality than mainstream ones.

Were we discussing peer-reviewed journals which covered only, say, "Mediterranean algae," they would be just as -or more- fringe. But probably no one would say they weren't WP:V. This serves to demonstrate that the reason people are trying to say the articles are not WP:V is because they are trying to act as if the opinion of the majority of scientists -even where it doesn't exist at all- is relevant.

You are quite right that many of the claims are from dubious sources. But the mainstream sources don't, so far as we know, actually deal with EVP. And the WP:V sources we have say that the status of EVP is inconclusive. This, therefore, is what we must represent. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Louie, the downside to your argument is that it fails to two things into account. 1) Historical events and experiments need to be covered to show the origins and progression of EVP belief and research (without Von Slazy, there may have been no Baruss). Notability as history overrides fringe as science 2) Belief. There is a huge belief in EVP that is completely unrelated to scientific facts. We need to cover what people believe and why they believe it. This means accepting unscientific sources as WP:RS on the grounds that they are a true representation of unscientific information that is believed by EVP supporters.

For example, if a tabloid prints a fake story that becomes notable because it causes a riot, then the tabloid is fully WP:RS as the source of that story, even though it isn't WP:RS as a true account of whatever the story is describing.

Disagree with much of what you say. The sources in contention will have to be discussed one by one. Baruss is a credentialed academic, as confirmed by multiple sources. MacRae is an amateur enthusiast who runs a website ("Researching the Fifth Dimension through EVP"), authors books on paranormal subjects in which he makes extraordinary (and totally unsupported) claims, and attends AA-EVP meetings. If these individuals are referenced in the article, it's pretty clear which one of them should have more weight. --- LuckyLouie 06:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that would be fine! Brauss comes to the conclusion that he didn't find EVP, but he heard something funny, just not enough to say it was paranormal- in other words, inconclusive. However, MacRae is not for us to judge. Only the published work. It is pure prejudice to say "Oh, this person goes to bars, he must be a drunk." The person might be going to the bar because liquor is good for the heart. I have no doubt that some of the people at AA-EVP meetings are true believers. But just because you, Louie, attended a church service, or met James Randi and smiled, I wouldn't impugn your intellect. As far as making "totally unsupported claims", that is purely your OR, and it doesn't matter what you think. It matters what was published, and where. LL, why do you insist on OR? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You should also read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/examples#Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine, namely the fact that all peer reviewed publications aren't equally reputable, and "The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it true. Even a well-designed experiment or study can produce flawed results or fall victim to deliberate fraud." We do need to evalutate both the sourced documents and the authors of the sources to see if they are reliable - RS isn't just a checklist where a source automatically becomes reliable if one box gets checked. --Minderbinder 11:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My intention is not to impugn MacRae's character. I'm certain he's a swell guy. But since he is claiming extraordinary results which contradict established scientific principles, the standards of verifiability automatically become much more rigorous, according to WP:REDFLAG. As Minderbinder says, RS isn't just a checklist where any source saying anything is "reliable" because the source says it's peer reviewed. LuckyLouie 19:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion about how we are going to find better sources without doing OR? We can't just assume that when some textbook talks about interference, it is talking about EVP. That seems to be the intention here. My point has never been that the sources we have are necessarily perfect. First, we can't judge the sources to be perfect or imperfect beyond what the Wikipedia rules allow- and this means that, though we must not say a peer-reviewed journal is perfect, we must generally present what it says as the best research available. Second, we have no business saying that a peer-reviewed journal is not as good as a more-mainstream source which is not peer-reviewed and which may not be educated in, or even talking about the field. We actually don't have any educated mainstream sources, unless we do OR to relate them to EVP. But, Milo, and this is really important: you just made my point for me. "Honesty and the policies of neutrality and No original research demand that we present the prevailing "scientific consensus". " The fact is, that there is no mainstream scientific consensus on EVP. However, we should present the nearest thing we have to a scientific consensus, which is the MacRae and Brauss papers. We should not do OR and try and research whether some textbook is really talking about EVP. And we must not make the biased decision that anything a skeptic says -peer reviewed or not- is more true than anything a proponent says. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

One or more editors have said things about MacRae that they have no way of knowing, and that sounds to me like someone is "impugning" his character.

LuckyLouie, you said in part, "...the standards of verifiability automatically become much more rigorous." I think that is the whole reason for this mediation. I agree that extraordinary results require extraordinary proof. The proof that something extraordinary is going on with EVP is available around the world, provided by both armatures and very well qualified researchers, but as Wikipedia rules are being interpreted, that verification cannot be used. If it is used, it has got to be written in a way that promotes the skeptical view while it insults the researchers. Also, only a small potion of it can be allowed because it must appear to be balanced by an equal amount of skeptical evidence, which is essentially nonexistent.

Non of that is acceptable. What is left is to write this article so as not to present any evidence at all, but to define EVP, and explain proposed explanations as if some neutral person who has been living in a cave for the last 100 years has written the article. Any other way will lead to continued edit wars and/or eventual deletion of the article. Tom Butler 19:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Minderbinder, now you are just posturing. I think I have your statement about right, so either show me how you did not mean it to be understood as I did or drop it!

In my view, the issue is not really about "... what WP policy means by "majority (scientific) view" in NPOV?" It is about what produces an article with a neutral point of view. We are saying that what you guys want to say slants the article so that it gives impressions that are not founded in truth. I think the parties involved are aware of the policies. I think the question now is whether or not Eagle can offer suggestions for finding a compromise between the factions. If he does, will the parties try to follow those suggestions.

I think the two sides are something like, 1) explain the basic facts without characterization or consideration of whether or not EVP is real, and 2) leave it as it is but with more verbiage to make it clear that EVP is not, can not and never will be real. I would like to see a middle ground for such conflicting versions. Tom Butler 00:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Eagle, could you give us a clarify the policy for us, or give a suggestion where we might get such a clarification? --Minderbinder 11:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that few editors here have exhibited enough understanding of either the characteristics of EVP or the physical principles that might be involved to say whether or not a text book applies. The perfect example of this is the statement, "Interference: Certain recordings, especially those recorded on devices which contain RLC circuitry,..." This is one of the sillier statements I have read in Wikipedia. Virtually all electronic equipment contains R (resistor) L (inductor or coil) C (capacitor or condenser) components. In fact, they are sometimes used to suppress induced RF energy and are (usually) only implicated in deheterodyne circuitry for RF detection. The real culprit is the diode, which is a common component and the average transistor is essentially two diode-like junctions. Diodes rectify induced RF making the signal energy available for amplification. As I remember it, AM is susceptible to reception by recorders because the RF signal envelop has amplitude changes that can represent the information.

So if you want to start proving EVP is not real with sources that only address physical principles and known technology, then you are opening all of the entries in Wikipedia to a new level of edit wars. Tom Butler 17:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Credentialed academic"? Baruss is a professor of psychology. Since when does that prepare him to study a physical process? Look at the definition of EVP. It has nothing to do with the mind, except in that there may be a PK link. Or, of course, except if EVP does not exist and thousands of people are delusional. Why is it that it is all of a sudden okay to say anything so long as it sounds good to win an argument? Tom Butler 17:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to anomalous sounds and electrical equippment, MacRae has a lot more experience than Baruss in both areas. He worked the comms system used in the London subway, plus a number of other audio-electronic systems.

EVP comes under the field of parapsychology, which is accepted as a science by the AAAS. This gives us more freedom than with things like little green men. It means that we should be using the opinion of parapsychologists to determine the facts about EVP, rather people with no experience in the field. It's all well and good talking about mainstream this and mainstream that, but what does the opinion of a mainstream astronomer or a mainstream partial physicist matter outside of their field?

Perfectblue, if you're right, it would make everything much easier. If you have some sources which contend this, I wish you'd tell me where they are. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

perfectblue 14:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

For example, the "Parapsychology Association", a recognized affiliate of the AAAS, tackled EVP and ITC as part of the survival hypothesis during their convention last year. I believe that the relevant speaker was Peter Mulacz.

perfectblue 10:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have three concerns.

1. I am extremely concerned that recent changes have been made which isolate a single researcher (Bauss) from the rest of the EVP researchers/writers. Thus making it appear that his work is A) Definitive B) The mainstream stance. C) The most notable. This is POV pushing. Bauss' work is relatively unknown. It is rarely quoted by believer or skeptics and has been subject to less scrutiny the other people mentioned in the page. It was also published exclusively in a journal dealing with anomalous/non-mainstream issues.

1. A great many past edits have been made implying that mainstream science has rejected EVP, but failing to mention that it has not covered EVP in enough depth to either accept or reject it.

1. Editors whose opinions are against EVP being paranormal have been acting to remove details about Alexander MacRae. They have deleted the fact that he is a qualified microelectronics expert and a speech recognition specialist, and have been calling into question the physical validity of his experiments. Specifically, questioning whether he really used a screened room. To my knowledge, no reputable third party source has actually called his use of a cage into question.

I propose that the page be rearranged as follows

• A definition of EVP as a phenomona (Identify what it is we are talking about)
• A list of paranormal/prosaic hypothesis to account for the phenomona/apparent phenomona
• A History of EVP in science, pseudoscience, and popular culture/imagination. From its early days to modern times, with the most notable individuals/events being included in chronological order and no one individual/event being picked out for special attention. As is currently happening.

perfectblue 11:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hardly a compromise offer. --ScienceApologist 12:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I want to include anything notable that influenced the development of EVP in science/pseudoscience and culture. Which is entirely reasonable.

perfectblue 14:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

* A definition of EVP as a phenomona (Identify what it is we are talking about)

EVP does not exist in Nature. It was invented by believers in the paranormal and named a "phenomena" by a proponent/book publisher, Colin Smythe. The only definition EVP has is what believers give it. Otherwise it doesn't exist.

* A list of paranormal/prosaic hypothesis to account for the phenomona/apparent phenomona

That is in the present article.

* A History of EVP in science, pseudoscience, and popular culture/imagination. From its early days to modern times, with the most notable individuals/events being included in chronological order and no one individual/event being picked out for special attention. As is currently happening.

EVP is not part of science. The closest we have is Imants_Barušs, since his work was associated with an accredited academic institution, which is why he's singled out in the article as notable. --- LuckyLouie 16:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

1. The Force doesn't exist in nature, yet it has it's own definition. EVP is a verifiable part of the popular imagination. This makes it's definition valid.
2. According to the Parapsychology Association, a recognized affiliate of the AAAS, EVP is defined as a "Phenomena first reported by Raymond Bayless and popularized by Konstantin Raudive, consisting of sounds said to be the faint voices of deceased individuals, recorded on previously unused magnetic tapes." [1]. That's WP:V and WP:RS.
3. Macrae is quoted by Baruss. This means that Baruss considers Macrae to be notable in the field of EVP. Macrae's research is also 80% electronic and 20% parapsychology. As an expert in electronics, MacRae is working well within his field. This makes him a valid source. MacRae is qualified to talk about erroneous signals and interference, is Baruss?

perfectblue 10:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You're correct in that The Force doesn't exist in Nature as an observable phenomenon and WP makes it's fantasy context clear. As for MacRae, I have never seen actual confirmation of the claims for MacRae's credentials anywhere (although I have found references suggesting past connections to Scientology). Paranormal advocate web sites saying he's an electronics expert and college lecturer are not reliable. LuckyLouie 18:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

But Louie, we have provided six different sources for this. From the JSE, to Amazon, to a book by a reputable academic/scientist, to the AAEVP, to Fate magazine, etc etc etc. You have nothing that casts any doubt on it whatsoever. Where in Wiki rules does it say that all LuckieLouie's unreasonable doubts must be dealt with before content can be approved for inclusion.Davkal 01:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)