Template:ActiveDiscussMC

Paranormal B‑class

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 Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article was a past project collaboration.

Skepticism B‑class 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance 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

I have added the totally disputed tag since the article now makes a number of claims that are simply and straightforwardly false. For example, given that many EVP researcher have been sound engineers etc., or have woeked with sound engineers, it simply cannot be true that the only sound engineers who have commented on the methods used to gather EVP have been critical of those methods. Davkal 16:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text does not say that "only sound engineers who have commented on the methods used to gather EVP have been critical of those methods". You haven't a leg on which to stand. --71.57.90.96 22:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with this way of putting a point by one man:

Scientists who have commented on EVP have said that the phenomenon is almost certainly paranormal in origin. For example, psychologist Andrew Barton (JBPA: 2005) wrote that, "it seems almost impossible to account for many of the messages recorded by Raudive by any non-paranormal means".

Davkal 10:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The summaries of self-published claims by Raudive, Jurgenson, MacRae, and other EVP proponents in this WP article are actually quite unbiased. We have purposely left out citing their more bizarre claims -- for example, Jurgenson wrote of recording 3-way conversations between himself and the ghosts of Hitler and Stalin, Raudive wrote of recording dozens of spirit voices emitted by an acquaintances pet bird (a Budgie), and MacRae writes of EVP leading to his discovery of such things as the "Fifth Dimension" and "Backward Running Time". And those are just a few of many such examples. Most people (except of course those who wish to promote EVP) would agree that these individuals were/are operating in the pseudoscientific milieu far outside of the mainstream and their "work" has no legitimacy or notability aside from that given by the paranormal community. The "Pye" experiments in particular are problematic in that their factuality is based entirely on self-published claims. For WP to single them out as significant within Raudive's body of eccentric "work" violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. --- LuckyLouie 21:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. What do you take "self-published" to mean. Macrae, for example, published his work in a per-review scientific journal. What would you like him to have done. 2. The Pye stuff: in all the world only one person seriously disputes this event took place - LuckyLouie. Evidence of fraud: none. Reasons for suspecting fraud: a British newspaper was involved - maybe.Davkal 08:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ask again: if you have any sources asserting the PYE tests did not take place as described then please cite them. In the absence of such sources the removal of a well-sourced description of this well-known event is straightforward POV pushing.

Also, no reason at all has been given for the removal of either the general point about sound engineers being involved in EVP research, or the specific point about Konig.Davkal 09:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable source do we have saying it did take place, and giving details we can trust? It's an "experiment" which was never published in a journal and received no outside scrutiny. In that context, if it's mentioned at all, it should only be in the context of historical interest and not the "hey look, proof of EVP" wording that has been pushed. --Minderbinder 13:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have Fontana's book. We have both Raudive and Bander as sources, and in addition details are all over the internet. We have Peter Hale, an expert in the field of electronic screen suppression who carried out the experiment at Belling and Lee (there were two experiments - one at PYE and one at B & L) saying in a letter to Peter Bander, which he allowed him to quote in his book (which was a source before it was removed), "I cannot explain this in normal physical terms." Yet despite the widespread accounts of these well-known experiments we have not one single source saying the experiments were fraudulent, or that they didn't take place, or anything else that casts doubt in any way. Oh, I forgot, we have some crackpot conspiracy theory, totally dreamt up on, and confined to, this talkpage on Wiki, which hinges completely on the fact that the Sunday Mirror (which at the time was a fairly reputable newspaper) paid for the tests in return for publishing rights. Short of travelling back in time and witnessing the experiments, what kind of evidence would you like?Davkal 13:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Smythe was a paranormal enthusiast who obtained a translation of Raudive's book, added his own enthusiast notes to it, published it in his own publishing company, and apparently tried to use a UK tabloid to promote the release of his own book. The "Pye tests" described in the book contain extraordinary claims. A self published source making these claims is highly questionable and unverifiable. The fact that these claims are repeated all over the Internet by EVP enthusiasts and paranormal fans is no measure of their credibility. --- LuckyLouie 15:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we have other sources. We have Fontana, we have Bander, we have quotes from the technicians who conducted the experiments. You have your opinions but you have nothing which in any way casts doubt on the fact that the experiments took place in the manner described. Davkal 16:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, re LuckieLouie's non-point and attempt at further ad hominem nonsense, Colin Smythe is a visiting professor in the English Department of the University of Ulster at Coleraine. The publishing company specialises in Irish Literature.Davkal 19:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re ScienceApologist's recent edit. How can it possibly be POV to describe members of Raudive's listening panel as scientists and parapsychologists when they were scientists and parapsychologists (sourced and cited), yet not POV to describe Federlein as a sound engineer (and as representative of sound engineers in general). Davkal 12:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't with the parapsychologist designation because that is mostly self-applied. The problem is with the scientist designation. When a "panel of scientists" is convened, it is usually in the hope of gaining the "scientific perspective" on a topic vis-a-vis scientific consensus. However, the "scientists" in question were not qualified to offer judgements in this regard, nor were they representing relevant scientific fields in offering judgement of the "voices" in question. Therefore, to avoid issues of misleading the reader, this description of the composition of the panels is omitted. --ScienceApologist 12:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is suggesting that a panel of scientists was convened (to investigate EVP) in the manner you describe. Nobody could read that into what is written. It said quite clearly that Raudive set up a listening panel consisting of scientists and parapsychologists to listen to his recordings. The identities of the people are known and their credentials and qualifcations are not a matter of debate. Your edit is just another example of the way you have systematically gone through the article and removed amended the description of everyone involved in line with your POV. The only people who are allowed to be called "sound engineers" are sceptical sound engineers. The only people who can be called "researchers" are those who arrived at sceptical conclusions. Macrae, for example, is described as a "Scottish paranormal investigator" when we know he was a lecturer in micro-electronics and a former voice recognition specialist for NASA. In short, you are simply pretending that the only people with any qualifications are all on the sceptical side and the rest are "untrained buffoons" as you put it, while in actuality, many of those involved with EVP are far better qualified than the few sceptics whose views feature so prominently.Davkal 12:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody could read that into what is written. --> when you say that the panel included scientists, that's exactly what people can read into it. --ScienceApologist 12:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists were on the panel. This is a simple fact. You don't like it and claim it makes it looks like some high level independent scientific commision was set up. But it doesn't do this. It simply makes it look like raudive invited scientists and parapsychologists to hear and interpret the voices in order to assess their content. And the reason it looks like this is because that's exactly what happened.12:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That scientists may or may have not been on the panel is irrelevant. I bet their were Welshmen on the panel, people with pet cats, and a few people that wore glasses, but those facts are irrelevant as well. Just because a description fits doesn't mean it is editorially sound to include. The point is that the plain fact that they were or weren't "scientists" is only useful if you are trying to spoonfeed the reader into thinking that the panel made scientific determinations. --ScienceApologist 14:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they were scientists also shows that they weren't just Raudive's brother, uncle and a few people he met down the pub. What the quote is intended to do is present Raudive in a fair light and to get away from the "one guy sitting in a room making things up" view that was presented previously.Davkal 14:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence that the "scientists" in question weren't just "Raudive's brother, uncle, and a few people he met down the pub"? I don't see that referenced in any of your citations. They certainly weren't "independent" in the sense of, say, proper peer review. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"we know he was a lecturer in micro-electronics and a former voice recognition specialist for NASA." If we know that, where's the source saying it? You might have a better shot at putting statements like that in the article if you included a source supporting it. --Minderbinder 14:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To SA: 1. Yes, I told you some of those involved in the listening panels above. 2. How do you know they weren't independent if you don't know who they were or how the panels were assembled?

Milo, yes, Fontana is the source (amongst others) - so in it goes then I suppose?Davkal 14:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fontana isn't a great source, and his discription of MacRae is vague, unsourced and more opinion than fact (and I don't see a mention of lecturer there). I'd be fine with something like "described by author David Fontana as..."

Is it really that hard to find info on MacRae, such as his education or work beyond the vague "consultant for NASA" which could mean a wide range of things? --Minderbinder 15:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is Fontana saying that Macrae was "a consultant to NASA who has worked [...] on unscrambling the distorted speech of astronauts" an opinion? And how is it unsourced, Fontana is the source. So yes, it is certainly hard to find sources for sources and sources within sources when those initial sources are questioned (e.g. Fontana). Say Macrae was an lecturer in micro-electronics and a voice recognition consultant for NASA. Where would you expect that to be written and what kind of source would you like in, e.g. Fontana - where it is written, for that information?Davkal 16:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to his description "leading voice expert". And where does it say "lecturer in micro-electronics"? I don't see that in the Fontana. --Minderbinder 16:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you have no objection to "voice recognition consultant for NASA".Davkal 16:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point here anyway is the complete double standard used. That is, it is not written, "David Federlein, described as a sound engineer by old chum(p) Robert Carroll" yet this type of doubt-casting qualification and guilt by association description is included everywhere anyone connected with EVP is mentioned. Davkal 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reliable verification of MacRae's qualifications aside from references by EVP-promoters, book sellers, and paranormal sites. "A paranormal investigator described by author David Fontana as..." or "A paranormal investigator described by the AA-EVP as..." would be the most you could say. --- LuckyLouie 16:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete garbage. We have sourced the point that Macrae worked as a voice recognition consultant for NASA to a book by a well qualified academic. This is not an extraordinary claim. People do work for Nasa. Unless you have some information which casts doubt on this then give it a rest. Davkal 16:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fontana self-identifies as a proponent of EVP [1] so his mention of MacRae in a book promoting his paranormal beliefs is certainly not an independent confirmation or reliable evidence of MacRae's qualifications or background. --- LuckyLouie 17:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you rule out Fontana for believing in EVP, we must also rule out Carrol for not believing in it.

perfectblue 12:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fontana is not a reliable source for who is and isn't a consultant for NASA. If you can find a NASA source for this claim, that'll be fine. Otherwise it needs to be removed. --ScienceApologist 17:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but he also says this:

Professor David Fontana is a Ph.D. in psychology, and is currently Distinguished Visiting Fellow at Cardiff University in South Wales, Great Britain, and Professor of Transpersonal Psychology at Liverpool John Moores University, also in Great Britain. In addition he has held invited professorships at the Universities of Minho and of Algarve in Portugal. He is a Fellow of the British Psychological Society, a Chartered Psychologist and a Chartered Counselling Psychologist and the author of 26 books on psychology translated into 25 languages.

and that makes him a fairly distinguished academic who is probably not in the business of lying about so mundane an issue as someone's former job. If you have any evidence that Macrae's credentials are in doubt then please cite them. Davkal 17:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't see a Royal College of Sound Engineers source for Federlein's credentials.Davkal 17:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fontana doesn't work for NASA and is not a NASA spokesperson. Therefore, Fontana is not a reliable source about who worked for NASA and under what capacity. If MacRae was a consultant for NASA, it should be easy to find a NASA source documenting this. Credentials are not just listed here on hearsay, they need to be verified. That's the essence of WP:ATT. --ScienceApologist 17:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a 100% reliable source SA. Just FOIA NASA. NASA don't publish lists of their consultants from decades ago. It would be madness to expect them to do so.

perfectblue 12:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What utter rubbish. There is nothing in Wiki rules to say that only NASA can be used as a source for who worked for NASA or anything like it. And we don't need to speculate on the "essence of [[WP:ATT]" because the essense is provided in the "in a nutshell" section, which says "This page in a nutshell: All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." And which clearly doesn't say anything like, "all material in Wiki must be attributable to the most appropriate source the most belligerent editors can think of". Davkal 18:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop complaining. If MacRae is really a NASA consultant, you should be able to point to his contract. All of their dealings are public information and available on the internet. [2] --ScienceApologist 20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectblue, you added "microelectronics lecturer" again without a source. What's your source on this? --Minderbinder 12:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fate Magazine for starters, plus several articles about EVP and the film White Noise. For example [3]. It's basic biographic information. Haven't you ever read this any of his books?

perfectblue 12:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Fate Magazine" is harldy a reliable source on such matters and neither is the film "White Noise". The "basic biographical information" should be verified independently. --ScienceApologist 12:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being purposefully obtuse? There was nothing in White-noise about Macrae, it was in interviews "about" white-noise where they discuss what EVP is. Besides Fate is just as WP:RS non-scientific data as your pal Carrol is. I suppose that you're now going to try to tell us that we can't use the biography sections form any of his books now on the grounds that he's the writer?

Would you like me to call NASA for you and ask why their website doesn't have the name of a decades old contractor on it. oh, wait, that would be a primary source, wouldn't it. Just give it a break. Fate might withhold the truth or exaggerate about ghost stories, but it doesn't outright lie about biographic details. You're seriously pushing your credibility.

perfectblue 13:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't writing a biography here, we're trying to verify credentials. To verify credentials, one goes to the source. Fate is not the source of these credentials and just because Fate decides to ascribe certain credentials to a person does not mean they are a verifiable or reliable source for this information. If you want to dig through the contractor records (which are all matter of public record) and show to us where MacRae was paid by NASA and in what capacity, then I'll be happy to help you reference MacRae's position in this regard. As it is, I am dubious as to what he was exactly paid to do for NASA, if he was paid at all. There are a lot of crackpots out there who claim to have worked for some organization or have "analyzed data" when they actually haven't done anything of the sort. I am simply asking for evidence that he actually had a NASA-contract beyond his say-so or the say-so of the paranormal investigators who want to trumpet their cause. --ScienceApologist 13:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have neglected to include a URL for these pubic records. If you want to know what he did at NASA, he worked on the production of a speech system to mitigate the communications difficulties caused when NASA switched from pure oxygen to a helium-oxygen mix (which was done to reduce the fire risk caused by pure oxygen).

The reason why so many people say that they've worked for NASA is that it is true. Need I remind you that NASA is the world's largest user of oursourcing, and the world's largest provider of research and development grants. Everything from shuttle paint that won't fade under extreme sunlight to mark external hatches with, to sensors to detect changes in air pressure, is designed, developed and built by external companies.

FYI, have you actually read Senkowski's piece?

perfectblue 14:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is [this] the one you're referring to? --Minderbinder 14:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Details of Macrae at NASA

If anybody is interested, MacRae was brought into NASA by the SRT after NASA moved their cabin mixtures from pure oxygen to helium-oxygen in order to prevent fires. Which, predictably, caused problems with the crew's speech making it less intelligible during radio communications. He worked on the sealab program and an experimental orbital lab program which was later canceled.

perfectblue 13:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your source for that information was...? --Minderbinder 13:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source? --Minderbinder 15:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for further verification of MacRae's work with NASA, please check out the work titled "Analysis of Anomalous Audio- and Video-Recordings" presented by German Professor Dr. Ernst Senkowski to the US based "Society For Scientific Exploration" in June 1995. He explicitly references MacRae's work at NASA but he spells his name incorrectly (McRae, not MacRae) meaning that some of you may have missed it in the past.

perfectblue 13:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, a presentation to SSE is not a verifiable source for who does and doesn't work for NASA. We need a source from NASA to verify this. --ScienceApologist 13:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judge a piece by the qualifications of the person who wrote it, not to the audience that listened to it.

perfectblue 09:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Ernst Senkowski is not a NASA spokesperson so he doesn't verify this either. --ScienceApologist 11:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is interested please see the mediation case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-13 Electronic Voice Phenomenon. Thanks. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has it been determined if Tom Butler is participating (since he's supposedly left WP...although he has posted since then)? --Minderbinder 13:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very noticeable the none of the so-called sceptics have responded yet to the mediation request. Much better to simply prevent and NPOV stuff by constantly reverting or removing anything that doesn't tally with your POV and then citing ludicrous imaginary interpretations of Wiki rules in support. If you're so sure of your position then join the mediation.Davkal 19:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both Louie and I have responded, we just haven't accepted. I'd like a clarification on Tom's position and I suggested doing formal mediation instead of informal. Any further questions? --Minderbinder 20:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does Tom's position have to do with it? Also, let's go for formal mediation. Then at least when the ridiculous interpretation of rules you keep citing are shown to be ridiculous you won't be able to just ignore it.Davkal 20:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because generally mediation needs all listed parties to accept to go forward. --Minderbinder 20:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer formal mediation, and also a mediator who has past experience with cases involving science and fringe science topics. --- LuckyLouie 20:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we have 6 statements, minus Davkal, We can continue working on the mediation that we have set up if Davkal is willing to give medcab a shot. If we fail, we can always bump it up to formal mediation, as long as we are all talking. As far as I know, formal mediation expects that you guys have attempted other means first, MEDCAB is one such item that you can attempt. :). —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a few days before Davkal can participate there, he's currently on a one week block for repeatedly violating 3RR on this article and using a sock puppet to evade the block. --Minderbinder 13:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we can wait, the idea of mediation is to allow us to reach a compromise that will stick. :). —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The background material on EVP's paranormal proponents is too extensive for NPoV and I would like to suggest that some of the detail be merged into their separate articles. Gwen Gale 21:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest the opposite. If you think that there are too many "believers", then add some non-believers. Deleting or moving information should be a last resort. I would also like to point out that this is the history of EVP, not the history of research into EVP or the history of the scientific investigation of EVP.

perfectblue 11:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this here...

In the 1920s, the American inventor Thomas Edison told a reporter with Scientific American that he was working on a machine that could contact the dead, and the story was printed in many newspapers. However, Edison announced a few years later that he had been making a joke at the reporter's expense, and that he had not been working on such a device.^[1]

... in case anyone feels it should go in a trivia section or something like that. The reason I pulled it from the article is that it was in the section on famous investigators of EVP, whereas if you read the sentence, Edison actually says that he was not investigating the subject - and while Edison is certainly notable, this particular joke might not be. SheffieldSteel 22:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say put it back, it's a rational take on the topic. Gwen Gale 22:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put it back or clarify it as an introduction to the topic. It's significant because the bulk of Internet references to EVP propagate the myth that Edison was working on a machine to contact the dead. --- LuckyLouie 22:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the more helpful reason to put it back then. Gwen Gale 22:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the last section could be reworked as a trivia/culture section? As long as he isn't listed in the "research" section, I'm happy. SheffieldSteel 22:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does it look now? I think LuckyLouie is right, and his notability warrants being put first. It's also chronological! SheffieldSteel 22:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you did works fine, Sheffield. It identifies the common misconception posted on many EVP sites. LuckyLouie 22:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call it the research section if you like, I think that's so misleading myself. How about "activities" ...?

I think it's good as is. Certainly I'm glad you attributed the "common" bit. Thanks for correcting my spelling correction too! **** word won't stay spelt. SheffieldSteel 23:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I originally had this in the rivia section, it was moved into the main article quite recently.

perfectblue 11:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're devoting far too much time and energy to describing MacRae - or rather, to fighting over which words should be used to describe him. One side doesn't want to see ad hominem remarks that cast his research in a bad light; the other doesn't want to see descriptions of academic or NASA connections that given the impression that he is a more respected or mainstream scientific figure than he is.

This is particularly odd considering that Baruss's name isn't even mentioned until the very end of the paragraph describing his work. I think the only way to avoid accusations of POV pushing is to use no descriptives of MacRae at all.

Personally I feel this is a shame, because the reader probably ought to know that he has a background in investigating the paranormal, and in speech recognition (particularly since in the cited work he is approaching the recordings as a speech recognition problem). But if we can't agree on any descriptive phrases, they ought to go, and we should leave the reader to either research further or judge his work without such context.

SheffieldSteel 13:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem indicating that MacRae has the background in paranormal investigations or in "speech recognition", but I do have a problem stating that he has NASA connections when these haven't been verified and I have a problem stating that he is an academic when we don't know whether he gave an invited talk, was a paid lecturer, or just came and discussed some matters with a campus club. The sources do not indicate what MacRae's status with regards to these claims are. If MacRae were a lecturer at a university or college, there would be a source for this at the college in question. If MacRae had a NASA contract, that would be a matter of public record and could easily be verified. That those wanting to include this information in the article can't seem to find these things makes the points unverified and they should not be included per WP:ATT. --ScienceApologist 13:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck finding an the lecturing role for a British college over 20 years ago when computerized records weren't generally in existence. Don't ask for the impossible. It does nothing but damage your own credibility. Can you independently verify Bauss' background in the same way that you are asking of Macrae?

perfectblue 14:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will this do? [http://www.uwo.ca/kings/academic_programs/departments/psychology/faculty/baruss.html] --Minderbinder 14:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. 1) It only proves that he's on the staff, not what he does. He could be a junior researcher, or even a librarian. 2) All of his actual background information is on a self published website. If paper or book written by Macrae doesn't count, then a self published website by Baruss doesn't count either.

Based on SA's arguments for Macrae, it would need to be a third party source from somebody who disagrees with Baruss' work, and it can't be in a "popular publication" either. Find me a copy of his payslip from several decades ago, or a peer reviewed paper by somebody who doesn't support his work work that was published in a mainstream journal. Better yet, find me records of a somewhere he worked 20+ years ago, prior to the mass computerization of employee records.

That's what SA is asking me for, it's only fair that I ask you for the same, isn't it?

perfectblue 14:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The university lists him as "faculty" and "professor" as well as his "Dr." title. Would the definition of either of those include "junior researcher" or "librarian". And that's exactly what SA is asking for, the equivalent would be a confirmation from a NASA source.

And has MacRae done anything besides study EVP in the last twenty years? --Minderbinder 15:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where? not on the page that you've provided me with. It just says that he's on the faculty. There's no title or anything. For all that page says he could a bursar of some other non academic faculty member. I'm not asking you to do any more than I'm being asked for.

perfectblue 09:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as "faculty" here: [4] and as "professor" here along with classes he's teaching [5]. There are also multiple pages including him in "Publications of Faculty & Staff": [6] (and all very easy to find). You still think he's a bursar? So where's similar reliable verification for MacRae? --Minderbinder 15:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say that one reason it may be a bit hard (but not at all impossible) to find credentialed scientists and academics working on this topic is that it is widely discredited in both the science community and among audio engineers. Aside from spurious electromagnetic interference, cross talk and what have you, hearing voices in static is spot on like seeing faces in clouds. Gwen Gale 14:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason is that a lot of the research was done in Europe, 30 years ago. You can't google it from the US.

Incidentally, I'd be most grateful if you could find me some of these "credentialed scientist" whose work has "widely discredited" EVP. So far, Baruss is the closest that there is here to anybody qualified in the field finding against EVP.

perfectblue 14:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to oblige, but right now I'm busy looking for a reliable scientific source that says the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. SheffieldSteel 17:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The human brain and ear are both hard wired by nature (so to speak) to be keenly sensitive to the human voice, hence folks tend to be able to hear even the faintest bits of radio interference cropping up in audio devices and even spurious bursts of noise or only the random patterns of static (white noise) can trick our finely tuned heads into hearing stuff as faint voices. If editors want the article to also report on the paranormal claims that's ok since they're notable but I truly don't see what all the fuss is about. We hear voices in static like we see faces (another thing our vision system is finely atuned to spot) in clouds and some people want to read more into it than is already thoroughly explained. Again, disputing PoVs are ok in the article so long as they're sourced and reasonably weighted/placed in the text. Gwen Gale 17:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We're either designed, or we evolved, to be very good at recognising human faces, voices etc - even among noise and interference, and sometimes we perceive them when they don't exist. These are essentially the concepts of pareidolia and apophenia, which are put forward in the article as rational explanations for the observed phenomena.

SheffieldSteel 17:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen, I tampered with your definition a bit. We should make it clear that EVP is only those sounds which certain folks intentionally listen for. Otherwise it reads as if static, RFI, digital glitches, etc. are all EVP. You could also say it's people's interpretation of the sounds they hear on electronic devices. --- LuckyLouie 18:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you did it in good faith, no worries there at all, but EVP is "heard all the time" by people who aren't listening or looking for it. Most though, have the sense to know it's not ghosts but either an illusion or some kind of crosstalk. Gwen Gale 18:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"EVP is "heard all the time" by people who aren't listening or looking for it" - If you please, can you give more information/explanation here. What people in what situations, etc. Do we have any reference from orgs such as Audio_Engineering_Society referring to crosstalk, etc. as "EVP"? --- LuckyLouie 18:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ever seen a face in a cloud? Lots of folks can make out faint voices in static the same way. As I say, most quickly grok it's not a ghost, but an illusion having to do with how our ears and brains work, erm, except when it's faint audio interference from emf (radio), which is common. Either way it's a "true" and routine phenomenom with a couple of scientific explanations. Gwen Gale 18:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This skepdic article puts it helpfully enough. Gwen Gale 18:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has an ok technical description of what's happening. Gwen Gale 18:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what LL is trying to say is that EVP is generally considered to be the term used by paranormal proponents. Others (read skeptics) may prefer pareidolia. --ScienceApologist 18:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm getting that now :) Gwen Gale 19:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Skepdic article defines the alleged phenomenon from proponents perspective ("Electronic voice phenomenon is the alleged communication by spirits through tape recorders and other electronic devices. "). The "illusion" aspect is pareidolia and apophenia, not "EVP". More to the point, people who hear faint voices in static which they realize are an illusion, don't call it "EVP". Which is why I have a problem with it being defined that way. LuckyLouie 18:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and one more then, comparing it to visual TV static Gwen Gale 18:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see what you're getting at but it is a phenomenon, like an eclipse, optical mirage or a rainbow, with a wholly naturalistc, testable explanation. Gwen Gale 18:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search is by no means definitive, however it gives you a good feel for what the term is generally considered to mean. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Electronic+voice+phenomenon%22&btnG=Google+Search) LuckyLouie 20:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that (or hear it? haha!) Anyway I do understand and agree that the term seems to be used mostly by advocates of the paranormal. Truth be told I think EVP as a term is an abuse of the word "phenomenon" but that's a trivial worry I guess. Gwen Gale 20:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this were called Spiritual Voice Phenomenon I'd be very unhappy about an article suggesting it existed. As it is, though, it's okay to say that it happens. SheffieldSteel 13:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we move on now gentlemen.Davkal 01:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davkal, you are in danger of going into POV meltdown [here]. I urge you to revert these edits and attempt in good faith to produce a balanced and fair article. SheffieldSteel 01:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nonsense you have been writing is extraordinary. I urge you to re-examine it immediately.

One example, written by you:

Science has not considered EVP. Science has not accepted EVP. Science has not purchased or subscribed to EVP. Science has not disproved or adopted EVP. Science has not respected or cooked a meal for EVP. Science has not been returning EVP's calls.

And yet we have the claim, apparently endorsed by you, that there are scientific explanations for EVP events. Have you no shame.Davkal 01:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As FP Ramsey almost said: what science hasn't said it hasn't said, and it hasn't whistled it either.Davkal 01:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have raised a valid point regarding that sentence. I will take steps the rectify the situation. SheffieldSteel 01:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I don't think Martinphi's contribution is at all bad. Let's see how others feel about it. SheffieldSteel 01:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope you guys don't mind what I've done. It did some re-arranging, mostly because you had the skeptical explanations before there was anything to skeptical about. I also re-named the history to history, and put it first- no use explaining anything before you know about what is being explained. The rest of the changes were rather minor. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. I think you were absolutely right to put the paranormal before the skeptical. It's more in keeping with the wikipedia style. SheffieldSteel 02:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (: I should have seen the one you got. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) The bad news: MacRae's article is no longer available at the original location and/or the reference is now broken. The good news, if instead of searching for "Report of an Electronic Voice Phenomenon Experiment inside a Double-Screened Room" you substitute "Anomalous Speech Products" for EVP you can still find it in its entirety. SheffieldSteel 02:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. My essay comes up 3rd on Google for that. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we singling out Fate Magazine for the report of Macrae's experiment when we have about 10 different sources for this ranging from a peer-review journal in which it was published, to a book by a noted academic, to a paper delivered to a scientific organisation etc etc. This is a clear attempt to prejudice the reader by associating the whole MacRae story with the most unreliable source we can attribute it to.

I have amended this to avoid the problem of singling out Fate, but it now reads:

According to Professor David Fontana, the peer-review Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, the AA-EVP, Fate magazine and others, in March 2003, paranormal investigator Alexander MacRae, conducted an experiment...

But this seems extraordinarily long-winded compared to just saying that it happened and citing the sources as references.Davkal 08:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we have about six sources now for Macrae working at NASA and nothing to suggest otherwise. Removing this relevant point is, in my opinion, simple vandalism.Davkal 07:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except you don't have NASA, do you? It looks like its just a lot of people failing to do fact-checking. --ScienceApologist 11:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need NASA, we have six sources and no reason to doubt it.Davkal 11:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have six unreliable sources. Therefore, we need NASA. Read WP:RS. --ScienceApologist 11:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you read it. It's you who doesn't understand it. WP:ATT, This page in a nutshell: All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Fontana, senior academic. Davkal 12:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, it looks like you didn't read the page I linked to despite putting on pretenses. Reliability for a claim must be based on the claim being made. If the pope said that MacRae worked for NASA that wouldn't be a reliable source. It's really not that hard to understand. --ScienceApologist 12:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the Pope didn't. A professor whose field of expertise extends over Macrae's work did. And such a professor is therefore a perfectly reliable source on the people and events that make up his field of expertise. It's not that hard.Davkal 13:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying, "But the Pope didn't." totally misses the point. A person who worked for NASA and said something to the effect "MacRae worked with me on the following NASA projects" would be a reliable source for this information. A professor who studies the same thing that MacRae studies is not a reliable source of information as to who works for NASA. A professor, as any expert, is only a reliable source for subjects related to his expertise. NASA personnel is not the expertise of the professor in question. --ScienceApologist 16:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the dubious tag to: a) the claim the "a common urban legend" is that Edison was the first EVP reporter; and b) that David federlein is a sound engineer. The Edison one may just be that it is worded very badly, but I don't think this is a common urban legend, indeed it doesn't look like an urban legend at all rather than a well understood misunderstanding, if indeed that turns out to be true. The Federlein one is simply because we have no reputable source to suggest Federlein is a sound engineer, and it is not clear from the source we do have what "sound engineer" entails - looks like an argument from (dubious) authority to me.Davkal 07:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added the dubious tag to the "false dilemma" point about MacRae. This is simply unpublished critical speculation by editors here. It may or may not be valid (I think not since the NR response in MacRae's test seems to show that another option was available, and such a further response may not have been warranted in the particular circumstances anyway - who knows?), but in any case such criticism should not be included without a verifiable published source.Davkal 08:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a false dilemma questionaire by definition and by the admission of MacRae himself since he admits to the set-up. --ScienceApologist 11:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NR responses would suggest otherwise. And a dilemma is only false if there are other viable options. Nobody has published anything to suggest there were other viable options. Davkal 11:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one need publish anything to show that MacRae assumed that the voices were real. He himself reports that assumption in his paper. --ScienceApologist 12:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To say that the questionnaire offered a false dilemma is to say that other viable choices were omitted. Where has the claim that other viable choices were omitted been published. Macrae certainly doesn't say so, and he doesn't call it a false-dilemma quetionnaire. This is merely your unpublished speculative analysis of MacRae's paper.Davkal 12:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MacRae explictly says in his publication that he only allows for a limited number of interpretations and purposefully assumes that the sounds are voices. It is a false dilemma questionaire by definition. --ScienceApologist 12:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that is your unpublished speculative analysis.Davkal 13:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inasmuch as anything written at Wikipedia is "unpublished speculative analysis". --ScienceApologist 16:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also put the dubious tag on the claim that Raudive's interpretations were criticised for being "without logical structure or content" since the source(reputable???), simply doesn't support it. That is, the source says:

Raudive’s messages also came under fire for their seemingly nonsensical content, which sometimes included comments on the color of the sweater he was wearing, tidying up his house in preparation for anticipated guests, or even on the virtues of living in Upsala in Sweden. A counter-argument to this criticism is that...

It is clear, then, that although the word "nonsensical" is used the examples here are not nonsensical but merely trivial. That is, to comment on the colour of a sweater is perfectly sensible. There is therefore no way we can interpret this in good faith as meaning, "apparent sentences that were without logical structure or content". Words which simply do not appear in the source.Davkal 08:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to clear up some confusion.

It was O'Neils Spiricom that was the speech synthesizer. MacRae's ALPHA is a biofeedack device. It was was CONNECTED to a speech synthesizer during initial experiments, but NOT during the experiment discussed on the page.

perfectblue 09:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That it was "disconnected" is questionable, and the Fate article seems to think the opposite. Plus, there are big problems with his paper. Among other things, MacRae assumes the existence of "mediumistic" functionality in humans, and treats it as a component of his 'experiment'. And then there's his opening statement regarding his own work, which he proclaims: "has considerable importance for us all. It has importance not just for the subject it addressed, but also for the study of the paranormal, and indeed for science in general." Then he goes on to disparage the "orthodoxy" of mainstream scientific views. For editors to portray MacRae's work as "scientific findings" or attempt to misrepresent his isolated workings as something other than psuedoscience would be a crime. Thankfully, WP:SCI, WP:FRINGE, WP:ATT, and WP:NPOV support us in preventing this from happening. LuckyLouie 16:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read up on David Federlein's background.

He's a member of several skeptics groups including www.skepticality.com, his http://www.randi.org/ handle is fowlsound. Last year he started admininig http://www.skepticwiki.org/ and http://www.skepticwiki.org/blog. His education as a sound engineer comes from this [7] group. Much of his industry experience appears have been gained as a performer.

His home page (down today due to host swapping but due to return tomorrow) listed that he was featured on skeptics dictionary, and that he once interviewed Adam Savage Jamie Hyneman from Mythbusters, though it doesn't name any companies hat he worked for or gigs that he engineered for.

Is their somebody a bit better known that we could quote? Like maybe somebody from a big studio.

perfectblue 11:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have plenty of sound engineers who we could quote on the "pro-EVP" side, or discuss their involvement in the production of EVP (e.g, Peter Hale, Hans Konig, the technicians fom PYE, Belling & LEE or Radio Luxembourg, Raymond Cass etc etc), but at the moment we're not allowed to use any of them because, as best I remember it, WP:IJUSTMADEITUP forbids it.

Re the point at hand, I think Federlein's credentials to comment here are more as a sceptic than a sound engineer. The way it is it looks like here's some totally neutral sound engineer who felt a professional view of EVP was needed, when it's nearer the mark to say here's this sceptic who wrote an ill-informed hit-piece on EVP and who just happens to have done a bit of recording. Davkal 11:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't actually find very much to say that he has any actual experience as a sound professional engineer (most of what I've found is self published, and doesn't mention any gigs or organizations other than the one who trained him). Most of what I've found about him is related to his skeptical writings (he admins a couple of skeptic sites and is active on a couple of other websites, too). Does anybody have a resume on him? Who was his last paymaster, does he do concerts or broadcasts, is he a recording engineer or a post recording engineer (does he make recordings, or edit them).

The other thing is that he says that he has 15 years experience with music [8], but he was only 29 when Skeptics dictionary was written (making him 30-31 ish now). Meaning that he either was in the biz part time (garage band, weekend job, etc) or he sidestepped college to play.

His primary point of notability as far as WP:RS is concerned is that he was quoted in skeptdic.

perfectblue 12:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking Federlein is WP:POINT, tit-for-tat, and very, very disruptive, pb. Let me explain, we are not out to disparage MacRae and others who publish extraordinary paranormal claims. However, as per WP:REDFLAG, these folks fall under much more scrutiny than someone like Federlein, who makes statements that support the majority rather than the fringe. Per REDFLAG:

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.

• Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
• Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
• Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.

*Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

• Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people.
• For guidance related to the creation of entire articles about said topics, see WP:Fringe theories

LuckyLouie 15:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disrupting anything. WP:Point only counts if you are doing it on the page itself. Which I'm haven't touched. I'm simply having a discussion on the notability of an individual being cited.

There are two primary sources calling Federlein a sound engineer. One is self published, and the other is skepdic. Can you prove his notability? It shouldn't be too hard for somebody to find out which studio he works for. He says that he was in a band. Which one?

perfectblue 16:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the skepticism over his being a sound engineer or playing in a band. Is that really such an extraordinary claim that it requires more sources? He doesn't claim to be an expert, or lecturer, or to have been in a famous band or recorded hit records. He simply studied recording (and lists specifically where) and now does sound work - I don't see what reason you'd have to doubt that. And it's not like he's claiming to work for NASA or something. --Minderbinder 16:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, is he notable enough to be used as a source? I'm betting that if he'd said that many EVP fans used sensible and defensible recording techniques, you would be asking what his credentials were.

perfectblue 17:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davkal This Peter Hale?

perfectblue 17:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly not that Peter Hale. He was involved with the tests at Belling and Lee in 1970.Davkal 18:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think perfectblue has hit the nail on the head. We demand a higher standard of attribution from a source that supports a paranormal viewpoint than from a source that supports a skeptical one. If you think this sounds like bias, I think you're right, but I think that bias is a matter of wikipedia policy. To take two arbitrary examples, claims of discarnate spirits are held to be extraordinary, thus requiring extraordinary justification, whereas claims of radio interference are not. SheffieldSteel 18:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that previously Federlein was being put forward as in some way representative of professional sound engineers. Then it turns out he is an old mate of Carroll and really part of the sceptical expert-on-everything community. Just anther example of the disingenuous tactics used by Carroll in the Skepdic, about which Carroll himself says, "The reader is forewarned that The Skeptics Dictionary does not try to present a balanced account of occult subjects." Davkal 18:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federlein is being put forward as a skeptic offering a critique. --ScienceApologist 20:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do we have that MacRae is a "microelectronics expert"? Has he been certified as such? Has he testified in court as an expert witness in microelectronics? What makes him an "expert" in this particular subject? --ScienceApologist 12:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's been doing it for over 40 years. That's all the proof that is needed.

perfectblue 13:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need evidence. We need sources. And we have them.Davkal 13:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MacRae, et al, are making extraordinary claims, and per WP:REDFLAG, we need better referenced sources in order to cite what they say as factual. Pseudoscientific and paranormal literature won't do. It's like UFO buff George Adamski calling himself "professor" or "doctor". It gets repeated in UFO literature, but that doesn't mean it's verifiably true. LuckyLouie 15:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Redflag doesn't apply here. There's nothing extraordinary about being called a microelectronics expert after spending 40 years in the field. There's also nothing extraordinary about being a college college lecturer, either. Remember, I'm a former college lecturer, and I didn't have to levitate or breath fire to get the job. I just had to have 15 years experience in my field.

Ordinary claims require ordinary proof. Frankly, self published evidence should be enough to say what your job title or specialist field is. It's not like he's claiming to have a PHD quantum physics.

perfectblue 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, in other words (in Adamski's case), question the UFO claims, but accept the professor and doctor titles? Sorry. I don't buy it. -- LuckyLouie 16:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing extraordinary about being called a microelectronics expert after spending 40 years in the field. -- Yes there is. What establishes the "expert" character of a particular person isn't the number of years they spend in a field. What establishes the "expert" character is outside evaluation. If MacRae fancies himself an expert, it needs to be confirmed by a reliable source. --ScienceApologist 16:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"We need sources. And we have them." So what are they? All I've seen are fringe publications. He was published in a journal, how exactly does the journal describe him, if at all? --Minderbinder 16:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have already provided the sources about fifteen times - none self-published. The main one, Fontana says he worked for Nasa and that he is a "leading voice expert". If you don't like these facts, too bad. Davkal 18:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So since every single one of your sources is unreliable, you are giving us tacit permission to remove the claim from the article. So be it. --ScienceApologist 18:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is a senior academic writing about his field of study "unreliable".Davkal 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a senior academic in the field of microelectronics writing about his field of study? --ScienceApologist 18:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we have a senior academic whose field of study covers Macrae's work (as shown by the various posts Fontana holds). As such he is a reliable source about the people and events covered by that field of study.Davkal 18:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that he is not a reliable source as to the employment or expert status of people in question? --ScienceApologist 20:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I say the opposite. I say he is a reliable source about the people and events that fall within his area of his expertise. Davkal 20:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since he is neither a biographer by position nor by profession, but instead is a paranormal/psychological researcher, what we have is a allegation of expert status by someone who is themselves not an expert in the field in question (microelectronics). --ScienceApologist 20:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have this at the start: "Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) is a term used by paranormal investigators"? Firstly, a lot of people in the field don't actually use it. Macrae prefers ASP, Fontana prefers ITC. Secondly, many people who are not involved in paranormal investigation use the term and, especially since White Noise, it has now pretty much become public property so to speak. Why do we then need to specify it in this way?Davkal 13:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proponents then. LuckyLouie 15:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Proponent considered a WTA/weasel word?

perfectblue 16:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. See WP:WTA. "Proponent"/"Opponent" dichotomy is discouraged but the word itself isn't considered weasly. --ScienceApologist 16:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the phrase "used by paranormal investigators" just clutters up the first sentence. The job of the first sentence should be to define the term, not document who uses it. SheffieldSteel 18:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd agree, but in this case I think it's pretty clear that EVP is used almost exclusively and invented as a neologism by one group of people: paranormal investigators. --ScienceApologist 18:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In this case, the term is defined by those who use it, similar to how Scientologists use the term "auditing", or UFOologists use the term "greys". The term is specific to proponents as it is originated by them. The media may use the term, but only in the context of discussions regarding believers theories, beliefs, claims, etc. --- LuckyLouie 18:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it seems to be a niche term and not one used much by the general public. If it is commonly used outside of the EVP community, I'd like to see sources showing that. --Minderbinder 18:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to documenting the usage of the term; I just think it's making the first sentence more complicated than it needs to be. SheffieldSteel 18:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was exactly my point. There is no need for it to be there at all, especially now the term has completely entered mainstream society with the release of White Noise.Davkal 18:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the term has completely entered mainstream society"? Really? Where? --Minderbinder 18:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the release of the Hollywood mainstream blockbuster White Noise.Davkal 19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Blockbuster (entertainment): "The threshold for a blockbuster film in North America has often been placed at $100,000,000 in ticket sales..." White Noise grossed under $57,000,000. Ergo, not a blockbuster. --ScienceApologist 20:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think mainstream Hollywood film still hits the mark. And the X-Files, and so on and so on. It's not like stone-tape theory which very few people have ever heard of.Davkal 22:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone clearly does not think much of wikipedia: [[9]] SheffieldSteel 18:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he has edited this article in the past and is pissed that he can't get it to reflect his particular POV: User:Tom Butler. --Minderbinder 18:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davkal, you do realize that "rvv" stands for "revert vandalism", right? --Minderbinder 18:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and when someone who has been involved in a discussion about sources on this page (and therefore knows the sources well) says "fancies himself as an microelectronics expert", it is vandalism.Davkal 19:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...that might not be such a good idea, you know, improperly marking of content reverts as vandal reverts...but I guess you should know that by now. --Minderbinder 19:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is described as, amongst other things, making any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. In other word writing in something you know to be false (integrity of Wiki) and removing sourced claims. Also, you do know it's considered a personal attack to cite blocks on an article talk page. Also also, to comment on Tom the way you have above.Davkal 19:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"it's considered a personal attack to cite blocks on an article talk page" Really? I didn't know that. Which WP policy says that? --Minderbinder 19:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you know it now. Comment on content, not on the contributor.Davkal 19:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you missed my question. Which WP policy says that? Thanks. --Minderbinder 19:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one on personal attacks that says comment on content not on the contributer. Davkal 20:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that wikipedia doesn't consider it a personal attack, you consider it one. Thanks for clearing that up. Would you consider it a personal attack if I asked you to please indent your replies? --Minderbinder 20:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I told you the page and I told you the policy. Comment on content not on the contributor.Davkal 20:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. Could you please indent your replies on talk pages? Thanks. --Minderbinder 20:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism at Wikipedia is very strictly defined. Davkal will have a hard time justifying his claim to reverting vandalism. --ScienceApologist 20:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, "fancies himself as an microelectronics expert" would appear to fall outside of the boundaries of a good faith edit. If MacRae is still alive, that's a violation of the rules governing the biography of a living person.

perfectblue 12:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that's exactly why I removed it with the RVV edit summary. A bad faith edit done knowingly to undermine Wiki integrity.Davkal 12:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louie, I note that you say the screened room allegedly belonged to Belling and Lee and took out a source that replaced the ow deleted fact tag. Are you suggesting that Peter Hale doesn't know where he works.Davkal 20:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this pargraph is just a farce.

A number of books authored by EVP proponents report that Raudive conducted a number of recording sessions inside an RF screened laboratory in Enfield, England allegedly provided by British defense contractors Belling and Lee, Ltd, during which he is said to have recorded a number of clearly audible voices. Raudive's sessions are further claimed to have been supervised by "RF specialist" Peter Hale and "electronics expert" Ralph Lovelock. Of the results, Hale is reported by proponents to have said, "In view of the tests carried out in a screened laboratory at my firm, I can not explain what happened in normal physical terms

You are surely just having a laugh here. This is all well known and well sourced. We have numerous sources, not all from books by proponents of EVP. The letter from Peter Hale is also well known. It was his letter. To pretend there is some doubt about the very existence of the room, the letter, the tests etc. is just ridiculous.Davkal 20:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re SA's recent edit. Petre Hale is not "a fellow researcher", he was the RF screening expert at Belling and Lee who supervised the test. To describe him as "a fellow researcher" is highly misleading.Davkal 20:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was researching with Raudive, therefore he was a fellow-researcher. He's also a member of IEE which may be worthy of note. --ScienceApologist 21:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davkal, if you look into the "numerous sources" who mention Raudive's alleged Belling & Lee sessions and the "experts" testimony, you find that none of them are original, independently verifiable sources. Rather, they are all simply repeating material that originated from publisher/writer Colin Smythe's literary efforts in conjunction with Raudive's book. (And no, I am not, as Ricky Gervais says, "havin' a laugh") -- LuckyLouie 21:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked up Hale in the library database search. He was asked to comment on the experiments in an interview well after the fact. What was quoted in our article was his flippant response meant to get the interviewer to change the subject. The context of the interview seems to be that Hale doesn't want to talk about the Raudive matter. This seems to align with LL's digging into The Daily Mirror working the publicity angle. Interesting stuff but certainly not worthy of inclusion in the article. Removed. --ScienceApologist 21:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hale's comment was from a letter to Peter Bander, not from an interview.Davkal 21:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, for example, is the report of it from Senkowski's paper.

After the experiment which had been significant to the experts Mr. Hale wrote a letter to Peter Bander from which he allowed him to quote to the press: "From the results we obtained last Friday, something is happening which I cannot explain in normal physical terms." Several months later Hale confirmed this opinion and added in a letter to Ellis: "….I feel we have something which is not associated with normal radio transmission…."Davkal 21:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, SA, can you provide details of the source for the "interview" claims you make above.Davkal 21:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red flag:

• "In view of the tests carried out in a screened laboratory at my firm, I can not explain what happened in normal physical terms"
• "From the results we obtained last Friday, something is happening which I cannot explain in normal physical terms."

Various EVP authors can't even agree on the text of Hale's alleged "quote". It ain't exactly reliable reporting, folks. -- LuckyLouie 22:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another conspiracy theory. Maybe Hale doesn't exist. Maybe there's no defence contractor called Belling and Lee. Maybe Raudive doesn't exist. Or maybe they all do, and maybe the solid published sources we have are right.Davkal 22:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If these "solid published sources" are all right, why can't they even agree on the quote? --Minderbinder 22:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bander is the source for the quote. He recieved one of the letters. The other was sent to david Ellis. Both letters say the same things and this probably explains the slight difference in wording. Matters not anyway, since Bander is the source.Davkal 22:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason the link to the online version of the MacRae article was removed? Someone has confirmed that the online version is the same as the published version, right? Was there some objection to linking, or is it OK to put the link back? --Minderbinder 22:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that link keeps being removed also. I wonder if it's just a formatting screw up (or cock up for you Brits). --- LuckyLouie 22:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2003, Alexander MacRae, a paranormal investigator, conducted a series of recording sessions inside a room that he reported was screened against external audio and RF interference. MacRae connected a human subject to a device of his own design (known as ALPHA) that was intended to convert fluctuations in the RF field picked up around the subject's body into voice-like sounds, including simulating vowel sounds, and send them to an AM radio. [23] Recordings of the radio's output were then analyzed by MacRae. In an attempt to prove that different individuals would interpret the samples the same way, MacRae isolated what he considered to be the strongest anomalies found on the recording and distributed them to 30 volunteers who were asked to identify the words being spoken from a list of alternatives carefully selected by MacRae. Volunteers were required to choose from five choices which did not include options such as "uninteligible" or "not a voice". Based on the environment in which the samples were recorded, and the number of respondents providing what he considered the "correct" interpretation for what the recordings said, MacRae concluded that the samples represented genuine voices whose origins could not be explained through conventional means.[2][24][25][12] MacRae's work was published by the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research in 2005.

This is pretty much full disclosure and accurately stated. Well, except for the fact that MacRae assumed the existence of "mediumistic abilities" as a factor in his workings. And the human body does not emit "RF". --- LuckyLouie 23:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're having a laugh again. Davkal 23:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just couldn't bring yourself to admit it: " that he reported was screened against external audio and RF interference". On no occasion has anybody provided any cause for doubt about this.Davkal 23:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've decided to include your unpublished speculation that "unintelligible" or "not a voice" were relevant choices. And this even though MacRae's paper clearly notes a number of NR responses. You have excluded MacRae's background as a NASA consultant and/or electronics expert. Davkal 23:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's your source for a faraday cage keeping out 100% of radio transmissions (as MacRae claims)? That's certianly not what the WP article on it says, and I have been unable to find any other sources saying that. --Minderbinder 00:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dav, who knows what really happens at Institute of noetic sciences facilities? Maybe Gary Schwartz was testing Alison Dubois that day and left the screen door unlatched. Like Vegas, what happens there stays there. (Yes, I'm now "having a laugh") Someday when I'm across the pond I'll buy you a pint and we'll sit down and swap apocryphal stories. LuckyLouie 00:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best answer to the Faraday Cage question is to state that it was a Faraday Cage and let the reader judge the implications. RF energy is far from being the only natural explanation of the recordings that were made. SheffieldSteel 02:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louie, don't take this as a criticism of your efforts, but I cut the sentence about the lack of "unintelligible" options and edited some of its meaning into the previous sentence. MacRae does not say that they weren't options - or that they were. (It is, of course, implicit in his probability calculations, which feature plenty of 5's. His failure to figure the possibility of an NR from the respondent into his calculation is not too significant in the grand scheme of things.) Nevertheless I think it is sufficient to report that the respondent had to choose from a list of five phrases provided by MacRae (who somehow knew what the correct answer was, but we don't have a reliable source asking how, so let that pass too). I believe that if we provide enough neutral information about MacRae's methods and reasoning, the readers will be able to judge for themselves. SheffieldSteel 02:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, MacRae gives a sample of his multiple choice options, and it doesn't include any non-voice options. So he does say they weren't options. I agree with letting readers judge for themselves, but I think that's part of the neutral (and verifiable, straight from the guy himself) information. --Minderbinder 14:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody please check these two pictures and see if they think that they are of the same person [10], [11].

perfectblue 09:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly look similar enough that they could be the same person. SheffieldSteel 18:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't tell me you plan on editing this article based on whether two pictures look the same or not. --Minderbinder 18:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I plan on double checking whether two people with the same name and extremely similar backgrounds (both worked on military projects and both are electronics experts) are the same person. One picture is from a corporate website, the other is from the experiment at Belling & lee.

perfectblue 12:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are almost certainly not the same person. Peter Hale of Belling and Lee must be much older now.Davkal 18:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In 1997, Imants Barušs, of the Department of Psychology at the University of Western Ontario, conducted a series of tests using the methods of EVP investigator Konstantin Raudive, and the work of Instrumental Transcommunication (ITC) researcher Mark Macy, as a guide. A radio was tuned to an empty frequency, and in 81 sessions a total of 60 hours and 11 minutes of recordings were collected. During recordings, a researcher either sat in silence or attempted to make verbal contact with potential sources of EVP. [5]

Barušs did record several voices during the sessions, including one identified independently by two out of the three researchers as saying "Tell Peter". The words themselves were "apparently spoken by a woman’s voice at a regular speed juxtaposed at one point on a cacophony of voices". One of Baruss' co-researchers also "thought that she could identify the voice as that of a woman she had known who was now deceased and whose husband's name had been Peter." Nonetheless, Baruss concluded that since none of the voices spoke in Latvian (Baruss', like Raudive's, native tongue), since none were from Raudive himself, and since none addressed any of the researchers by name, they could not be definitively identified as EVP. He then used this problem of identification to draw the erroneous conclusion that the samples were definitively not EVP. The findings were published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration in 2001.[5]

I forget how it goes. Full disclosure...Davkal 18:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Touche. Funny. But very POV and WP:POINT. --- LuckyLouie 18:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. Thanks for not putting that version into the article. I'm still trying to improve on the MacRae description. And for what it's worth, I'm not trying to make his work look bad. I'm trying to write it up as a piece of scientific research. SheffieldSteel 19:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield,you should not try to portray something that's not scientific research as if it is scientific research. WP:FRINGE is actually quite clear about what consititutes pseudocience and fringe efforts outside the mainstream. MacRae meets the criteria for pseudoscience. --- LuckyLouie 19:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that parapsychology is part of science overrides WP:FRINGE, additionally, anything said by scientifically trained observers such as Hale (a neutral electronics expert) counts as being mainstream as he used scientific techniques to observe the experiment (using scinece to observe pseudo science is essential in rational skepticism)

perfectblue 12:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield, I like the direction you've been going with your recent edits. We have to be neutral in our presentation, so while we don't want to make him look bad, we don't want to make him look good either - as you said before, we need to figure out whatever details are relevant and let the reader decide for themself if he's a groundbreaker or a crackpot. --Minderbinder 19:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield, we appreciate your effort to satisfy both believers and skeptics. But saying that MacRae's device was "designed to convert electrodermal responses from the subject's body into a more speech like form" is rather generous. According to (http://www.skyelab.co.uk/review/bb.htm) it is described as "Alpha Unit - to produce a signal based on around 1.2 MHz that is modulated by the interface system so as to produce sounds on the radio." (That's 1200 on your AM radio dial, fellas.) MacRae built the device to mimic human speech (according to http://www.skyelab.co.uk/review/aa.htm) "...to facilitate pattern recognition, it was decided to make the device simulate voiced (vowel) sounds. " and says so several times, as in "to make this sound voice-like, (in order for the hearing to exercise its primary function, that of recognising patterns)". He actually writes that triggering his home-made RF squawker via electrodermal response was intended to "to test for mediumistic abilities". In other words, the closer you look at MacRaes "work", the more you see that the "farady cage" claim is a minor issue. The EVP advocates feel that publishing certain details (the faraday cage, completely incidental to MacRaes "findings") are crucial to proving their point that EVP is legit, and so want to focus only on those, and leave out MacRrae's actual procedures and intentions. For a moment, I thought full disclosure of all MacRae details was appropriate, but now I see it's not a solution. The article would then be 90% MacRae, which is not appropriate. This article should not cater to EVP advocates or be spun to reflect the beliefs of paranormal advocates. The subject of "EVP research" cannot be given undue weight or mischaracterized as anything more than a fringe belief that was investigated by paranormal experimenters. MacRae deserves a mention...a brief mention...and certainly not the ink he's currently getting. The original summary of MacRae created by SA is most appropriate. LuckyLouie 20:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think one big mistake here is that the only person actually advocating the paranormal origin of EVP is probably Tom. The rest of us are simply trying to have well known facts included in the article citing appropriate sources in an attempt to accurately describe the history and current situation re EVP. A number of others, the pseudosceptics, are resorting to bizarre interpretations of rules to exclude completely some well sourced claims, to present others in extraordinarily POV ways, while presenting the armchair speculation of a few "sceptics" (who may never actually have even heard a single example of alleged EVP between them) as legitimate or default scientific explanations. Let us be clear about this: Carroll, Shermer and the like have not studied EVP, and have no intention of studying EVP, in any way shape or form. Davkal 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, I'm simply trying to include historic information about well known EVP experiments and experimenters. Frankly, I don't believe in EVP. I think that it's people hearing voices in static or picking up radio signals etc, but unlike some of you, I accept that BS matters because people listen to it regardless of whether or not its grounded in science.

perfectblue 12:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier I said that one of the problems we face is that there's only so many times you can say random noise in one article. It seems I was wrong. You can say it an unlimited number of times. The point being that some sections of the article consist of nothing more than the same point being rehashed again and again. We already have it in the article that this is what sceptics think. One description, a quote and then a list of sources should be more than enough to cover the each point.Davkal 02:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is also strange that virtually every "sceptical" point raised in the article (all two of them) comes from people who one way or another, make their living out of being a professional doubter. Shermer we know about, Carroll we know about, Federlein we know about. What about Chris French though? Well, it turns out he's the editor of "The sceptic" a CSICOP publication in the UK. And here's how he describes himself in it: "I am biased in my approach to evidence relating to the paranormal…..I make no claim to be a neutral assessor of the evidence". Is there nobody casting doubt on EVP who's not a fully paid up member (and paid member) of the minority, but very vocal, Church of Scientism.Davkal 13:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not sure the quote from Professor of Political Correctness Hines is appropriate "the Indians used to believe that the dead spoke as the wind swirled through the trees." Which Indians, the Indians from India or the Native Americans, and if so which ones? All of them? His point being, I take it, that the only people who believe in EVP are as stupid as the Indians. Next he'll be telling us what the stupid superstitious darkies think (you know the ones, bones through their noses, live up trees).Davkal 02:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the racist garbage you inserted a few days ago Louie. It astonishes me that you felt your POV pushing was sufficiently important to include this kind of stuff. Replace the word Indian with Jew and you'll probably get the picture. (All part of "my struggle" eh- I forget the German for this phrase)Davkal 01:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly you're joking. Removing skeptical content because of the use of the word "indian"??? Better check out Indian_reservation, Bureau_of_Indian_Affairs, Indian_Health_Service, Pine_Ridge_Indian_Reservation, Indian_Removal, Indian_Territory first. --- LuckyLouie 02:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How surprising, you miss the point and make something up to argue against. I don't think the word "Jew" is offensive. Therefore my suggestion that you replace "Indian" with "Jew" to see why what is written is offensive clearly shows that that is not my point. My point is, that there is the basic assumption behind Hines' point that the Indians (which is a bit off these days) are stupid, backward supistitious fools. That is, it is enough for Hines merely to liken a belief to one held by the "Indians" to show why it is wrong. That is what is offensive here.Davkal 12:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a counterexample. The Britons used to believe that the best way to ward off the demons that caused disease was with an unholy stink. Nowadays, we use antibacterial soap. Is this offensive to Britons? I don't think so. It is not an attack on a people for holding a superstitious belief, merely an illustration that superstitions can be mistaken. SheffieldSteel 14:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. How does this illustrate that the superstition is mistaken?

2. How does it relate to Hines' quite different point?

3. Since when did we use antibacterial soap to ward off demons?

Davkal 15:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having demonstrated the acceptability of the term "indian" in WP and the acceptability of using ancient people's beliefs as illustration of superstition, it has become clear that the only reason why you want it removed is that it contains a skeptical statement. Your edits are no longer being made in good faith or NPOV, which is why I reverted them. -- LuckyLouie 20:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if what you say is right rather than shite, where's the argument for the removal of the other edits. Davkal 21:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fontana is not a reliable source about what Raudive did or didn't accomplish. Extraordinary claims cannot be listed as factual merely by repetition, they need to be verified. That's the essence of WP:ATT. And please stop adding angry attacks on skepticism to the article text. It will be reverted. --- LuckyLouie 21:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Fontana is a noted academic, who is employed by academic institutions to study the work of Raudive, amongst others. He is therefore as reliable a source as it gets. Secondly, no extraordinary claims are being made here. What we have are staemnents of fact that tests took place, and peoples opinions of those tests are then quoted. Neither is extraordinary in any way. At no point does the text say paranormal occurances took place. Your edits are therefore bad faith removal of sourced material for no other reason than you don't like it.Davkal 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Hines, the points I made, which have not been addressed are: a) Hines presents a simplisitic caricature of Native American beliefs; and b) the role of the Native Americans in his point is that of the obviously deluded fools - so obviously deluded that merely identifying that it was they who held a belief is enough to show why it is wrong.Davkal 21:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/schoolsanddivisions/academicschools/socsi/staff/visitors/index.html

Now give it a restDavkal 15:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that seems to settle it. Cardiff is a top branch university. It's part of the Russell Group, too.

perfectblue 12:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What should also be noted here is that Fontana is Professor of Transpersonal Psychology at Liverpool John Moores University. What this means is that in addition to being a distinguished visting fellow at one of the UK's top universities, Fontana is also actually employed by another UK academic institution to know about, amongst other things, the subject matter of this article. This is very different from other individuals, including academics, who are mere hobbyists. Given this, Fontana must be accepted as a reputable and reliable source on EVP.Davkal 12:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest series of edits are now clearly WP:POINT and disruptive editing: e.g. adding fact tags to well sourced material such as here, here, and here and adding pro-paranormal POV, e.g. here and here. You have a long history of going into POV meltdown [12]. And you know that edits which unbalance the article and tilt it toward favoring a pseudoscientific fringe POV will be reverted. You need to stop such angry demonstrations and tantrums. You are doing WP no good. --- LuckyLouie 03:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the fact tags are placed at well sourced material then where are the sources. Also, to comment on content rather than contributer can hardly be what you intended when the heading of this section is my name. Please refrain from further personal attacks and please remove/change this one.Davkal 03:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you cared to think about it, you would see that all the examples you give of my supposed disruptive editing are perfectly reasonable. For example, ghost hunting is only one aspect of paranomral investigation. To say the two ar the same is simply wrong. Who says that EVP proponents populate HUNDREDS of Internet message boards, regional, and national groups. Hundreds of national groups, really!. And apophenia telated to, but distinct from pareidolia when some websites say one is a form of the other. Also, what you call pro-paranormal POV is merely stating plainly the bias of several commentators in their own words. I don't think it is fair to the readers to, say, portray Chris French as a professor of psychology and not tell them that he openly admits to being biased and not considering the evidence for the paranormal neutrally. Such an attitude is a clear indication of pseudoscepticism (as is Carroll's confession of much the same thing) and so that was why the category was added.Davkal 03:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This citation request, at least, is fully justified: [13]

You really need to read the article before you start complaining. There are dozens of articles in the mainstream press which qualify the text. If you don't like the ghost hunters blurring the distinction between amateurs and "professionals" then you need to talk to the ghost hunting groups who call themselves paranormal investigators and give interviews to newspapers around the world in which they claim to record EVP. -- LuckyLouie 07:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But please don't use that valuable pseudoskepticism Cat in a POINT way to make people hate it and me. It is true that Davkal tends to go overboard sometimes, but given a bit of tweaking, most of his edits are good, and balance out the POV positions of the article. But the article has been getting generally better under Davkal's influence, so cut him some slack while we try to moderate between extremes. His edits are less POV than some of the skeptical editors. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the pseudoscepticism tag is essential here because three of the the main sceptical commentators used (Carroll, French and Shermer) have been identified on numerous occasions as pseudosceptics. Two of them have even admitted to their total lack of objectivity in their dealings with the paranormal (Carroll and French) - which is almost the definition of pseudoscepticism.Davkal 04:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'd accept that reason, especially the Carroll quote. I'd have added it after the mediation, though. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I don't think I'll still be alive by the time somebody gets round to mediating. Maybe I'll comment by EVP.Davkal 04:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, lol, it is wearing, isn't it. I've never heard "comment by" before. Hang in there. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also interesting (to me anyway) that almost every edit from what Louie calls POV meltdown has either been kept as is or tweaked slightly or the whole thing that I made changes to removed. That is, on no occasion has the original text, or anything like, gone back into the article. This suggests to me that Louie is simply making personal attacks without any substance, i.e. throwing a tantrum.Davkal 04:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davkal, you a treading on thin ice here. I'm getting very tired of this kind of posturing. Shape up or I will file a User RfC and begin the process of administrative sanction. I encourage editors who are tiring of Davkal's inappropriate actions to begin collecting evidence as well. --ScienceApologist 06:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're all disappointed in the lack of initiative from our mediator. Both Minderbinder and Davkal have gotten no response from him regarding next steps. In the absence of mediation a User RfC may be a solution for the interim bad behavior. -- LuckyLouie 07:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs are horrible timesinks, and they don't tend to have much effect on inveterate edit warriors. A look at Davkal's talkpage history and block log suggests arbitration to me. ArbCom don't seem to be into demanding a previous RFC in blatant cases any more. Just my 2c. Bishonen | talk 08:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

They can be horrible timesinks, I agree, but sometimes the people get the message and shape-up and if the RfC is thoroughly documented it can serve as an excellent basis for evidence collection in an arbitration. I do agree with you that perhaps we should recommend dispensing with the antiquated RfC business altogether. I think having arbitration over "paranormal articles" in general might be a good idea (just as we had one ostensibly over "pseudoscience" last year). --ScienceApologist 08:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd absolutely support a user RfC, or an arbcom case if it becomes necessary. This has gotten ridiculous, and the POV pushing is becoming disruptive. --Minderbinder 13:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And lots of people are tired of you SA- you're posturing, your blatant POV edits, your ludicrous interpretations of rules, your constgant personal attacks (including some off wiki attacks) and your (extraordinary given what you write) I know everything edits. Let's go for arbitration.Davkal 11:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded.

perfectblue 12:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's the difference: ScienceApologist supports the mainstream, per WP:NPOV, whereas some others here support minority, often tiny minority views, and seek to rewrite the article to better reflect tiny minority views while obscuring the fact that the dominant independent opinion is that these things have a mundane explanation. Previous arbitration rulings support the fact that, while we should document significant minority views, we should do so in a way that makes it plain that they are minority views, and that they are disputed or ignored by all but their proponents. You ignore this at your peril: other editors have been banned or restricted from editing for failing to respect this core and non-negotiable Wikipedia policy. Guy (Help!) 15:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above. Only one comment and immediately tiresome.Davkal 18:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting how you remove comments like yours above as "personal attacks" on your user talk. Tiresome? You have no idea how tiresome I could be if I put my mind to it, I am one of those rouge admins you hear about. I have come here because of complaints to the administrators about your editing. I see that they are in large part justified. Time to stop agitating, I think. Guy (Help!) 19:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there is no mainstream opinion - you simply made this up to push your POV. Nobody is trying to push a minority opinion - you simply made that up to push your POV. If you have any evidence of a bad faith, POV pushing edit by myself that even comes close to science apologists' "Macrae, who fancies himself as an electrionics expert" then let it be cited. Otherwise, these are simple personal attacks since they make no reference whatsoever to any specific content but merely wave of vaguely as some general point about me being a bad man. And this is true rogue admin or otherwise.Davkal 22:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second much of what he says. Although I also believe some of his edits crossed the NPOV line. But compaired to SA, they are nothing. If you want the real perspective on SA, go read Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Last time I brought this up, he edit warred on many of my edits on other pages. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have now enough people willing, so I think we should go forward with arbitration (I doubt that mediation at this point will help). I would ask that someone else make the request because I am very busy this week and will probably not be able to respond until the second week of April. --ScienceApologist 18:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's harsh. OK so Eagle missed my post but that doesn't say anything about his expertise in what is relevant to mediation here. I also don't think too many points need to be addressed - once we have some basic groundrules for sources the rest should, in my opinion, follow straightforwardly.Davkal 18:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The history of this article says otherwise. Reccommend aribitration as the next step. - LuckyLouie 18:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• At this point I think the arbitrators will reject the case. I suggest an RfC, and if Davkal does not quickly show signs of willingness to accept others' perspective on his work, which at present he appears to reject, then we should simply take this to the community sanction board and go for a community editing restriction or ban. Simple cases do not require extensive processes. We have restricted less bothersome users from editing nominated articles before now. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have got any evidence of any edits that I have made that are pushing minority opinion, or iin bad faith, then let's have them. Put up or shut up.Davkal 22:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is silly to attack one user while letting others off the hook because their POV is closer to your own. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found this lying around.

What on earth could it possibly mean.Davkal 22:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As requested http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_voice_phenomenon&diff=118153498&oldid=118082007 SheffieldSteel 22:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good examples SS. I think the one where I added: "EVP are the most paranormal of all known phenomena and certainly exist", is a clear example of my minority POV pushing. Unfortunately it doesn't exist. What does exist in your link are many edits that were subsequently accepted pretty much as is (the very first lines of the intro being a notable one); many edits that were incorporated into the text after further rewriting; and a few edits that were removed along with the much larger sentences/sections they were part of. Hardly a damning indictment of my behaviour. Is that the best you can find? Surely you must be able to find all the ones where I have been as obviously POV pushing as SA when he wrote: "MacRae, who fancies himself as an electronics expert." Davkal 23:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davkal, you asked for examples of your POV pushing, bad faith edits, edit warring, etc. Here are but a few:

• (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_voice_phenomenon&diff=119344862&oldid=119329992)

• (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_voice_phenomenon&diff=119407573&oldid=119407342)

• (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_voice_phenomenon&diff=prev&oldid=119406686)

-- LuckyLouie 23:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All three can easily be justified and sourced. The firt one is a direct quote from Carroll about his book that is pertinent to the inclusion of text from that book. The point being that it should be noted that even the author of the book admits that it is not supposed to be a balanced account. The second one is: "Virtually no scientific literature on EVP exists, although skeptics have put forward various naturalistic explanations" which is so obviously true and non-pov (sourced to Skepdic!) that I think you must have simply made a mistake by including it. And the third one is the addition of "Pseudoscepticism" as a category, which does not mean that everything about the article is pseudosceptical but merely that examples of pseudoscepticism can be found here. The point being that given Carroll and French's self-appraisal (Carroll - the book does not try to present a balanced account; and French - I am biased ... I never claimed to be neutral. Their own words, not mine), it is hard to see how anyone could try to maintain that this is an appropriate position of genuine, rather than pseudo, scepticism. I cite once again from CSICOP's charter: Do not reject claims on a priori grounds, antecedent to inquiry, but examine them objectively and carefully. Thus the category tag.

I would argue, then, that in light of the above, your claims that these are bad faith POV edits are plainly false.Davkal 23:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, I ask again, if anyone can come up with anything nearly as bad as SA's "Macrae, who fancies himself as an electronics expert" then let it be cited. Otherwise, give it a rest.Davkal 23:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of Davkals edits are OK, others are arguable POV, a few are POV. But I don't take the criticisms seriously, since you are picking on an editor who does not share your POV, while ignoring worse from an editor who does. Please either stop this, or make it fair. Does anyone want to address the edit which Davkal quoted above? Does no one have what it takes to say, "ScienceApologist made worse edits, but Davkal is also making POV edits"? Do you have the fairness to actually say that? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_voice_phenomenon&diff=prev&oldid=121264081 The edit by ScienceApologist that prompted the gaming of 3RR by Davkal. I really wish the two of you would try to co-operate. SheffieldSteel 21:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can we cooperate. We have a perfectly legitimate source that some editors will not accept. We do not need to provide payslips and/or contracts. We have sourced the claim to a book by a noted academic writing within his field of expertise. That should be the end of it. It is not an extraordinary claim and so it does not stand in need of extraordinary sources. It is basic biographical information that, despite numerous requests, we have been given no reason whatsoever to doubt.Davkal 22:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fontana is not an expert or a reliable source for who has a NASA contract and who doesn't. End of story. --ScienceApologist 00:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fontana is an expert on those individuals and events that make up his area of academic expertise. He is therefore a perfectly reliable source for basic biographical information about such people. Removing well sourced material like this is POV pushing plain and simple.Davkal 00:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being an expert in the paranormal does not make Fontana an expert in who worked for NASA. --ScienceApologist 00:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't need to be an expert on who works for NASA - that's just you're bizarre interpretaion of a rule in this instance so that you can push your POV. He is an expert on the people and events that make up his field of expertise and that makes him a reliable source for mundane biographical information.Davkal 00:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is about NASA. Therefore, the source needs to be reliable with issues related to NASA. --ScienceApologist 03:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is about Alexander MacRae and involves NASA, but is not about NASA per se. Davkal 11:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tell you what, try to get someone to agree with you. --ScienceApologist 11:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people agree. You can see the evidence all over Wiki where similar points are cited in similar ways. Davkal 11:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MacRae had an article published. How were his credentials described for that article, if at all? I have to say I'm a bit suspicious of any info that's that hard to corroborate. --Minderbinder 12:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's only hard to corroborate because you want to see payslips and contracts from 40 years ago. We have about 8 sources and you accept none of them. Why on Earth would the article Macrae had published a few years ago make reference to his former jobs - I don't think this is normal procedure at all - and even if it did you would reject it because it isn't NASA. One similar example, if you go to the Wittgenstein article you will see it noted that during the war LW worked at Guy's Hospital in London. No source is provided for this, and certainly nobody who has done a bio of LW is a world expert on hospital staff (Guy's or otherwise). So, if you want to dispute this, I guess you could remove it until somebody comes up with hospital records from the 1940s. I mean, you'd be right to be suspicious of stuff that is that hard to corrobrate.Davkal 12:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And while you're on your business of protecting Wiki, why don't you delete this unsourced nonsense: Gil "Scott-Heron's father, Giles "Gil" Heron (nicknamed "The Black Arrow") was a Jamaican soccer player who played for Glasgow's Celtic Football Club in the 1950s."Davkal 12:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying in a published journal article, we should expect to see zero mention of the credentials of those who wrote the article? So are you saying that the journal had no info, or that you don't have access to the source and don't know? Who here has access to the journal (someone must since it is being used so much in this article)? What does it say about MacRae, or does it say nothing and just present the article? --Minderbinder 13:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was written by Macrae about an experiment he conducted, it was not his autobiography. And I hardly think it is normal practice to include a lengthy editorial biography to accompany articles. And and, even if the journal said "former NASA consultant" you would not accept it would you, because the SPR is not an authority on who worked for NASA. If it was, then we could just go by what the ex-president of the SPR (Fontana) wrote in his book.Davkal 13:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you let the strawman arguments go for a minute and just answer the question (who ever said anything about lengthy? I'd like confirmation if they said anything at all)? I'm assuming from your failure to answer it that you have no idea what the JSPR said about Macrae when they published the article? --Minderbinder 21:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't and I couldn't care less, because the question is pointless. Whatever the SPR said will be rejected because the SPR isn't NASA. If you're so interested you look it up.Davkal 22:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believers in the paranormal often exaggerate the credentials of those who help "prove" their beliefs. Fringe experimenters who make unusual claims (e.g. MacRae writes that his experiment has great importance for Science, he hears anomalous voices, etc.). often inflate their own status as well. WP:RED FLAG tells us that such sources are subject to an extra dose of scrutiny. This is why the claims of/about MacRae are being scrutinized. LuckyLouie 18:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but Distinguished Visiting Fellows at top-flight universities don't normally lie about basic biographical information in their books.Davkal 18:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely possible that professors may write books with incomplete or inaccurate information. Don't believe everything that's in print. I think it is highly dubious that MacRae had anything more than a lackey's role if he actually worked for NASA at all. Fontana took MacRae's word for his employment and apparently didn't bother checking up on the credentials. All we need to do is provide independent verification from people who can confirm this independent of MacRae's accounting. --ScienceApologist 01:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that MacRae told Fontana that he worked for NASA and Fontana bought it is pure speculation. As such it has no place dictating content. We have numerous sources independent of MacRae. Your continued posturing on this point is of little value, please desist. Davkal 01:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is not on me to show where a charlatan like Fontana gets his information, but it is perfectly fine for us to speculate on the talkpage as this is not article space. I will not desist, so you will have to try another tactic.--ScienceApologist 01:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to withold well sourced claims on the basis that a source "is not independent" then the onus is on you to show how that source is supposed to be dependent. Your speculation that Macrae told Fontana (without the slightest evidence to back this up) has no place in dictating content. Feel free to speculate to your heart's content, but do not be suprised when nobody pays it any heed.Davkal 10:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I directed you earlier, if you want to seek out a third opinion to establish your hegemony in interpretation, be my guest. --ScienceApologist 11:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest. I sought mediation and now you and a few others seem to be trying to block it.Davkal 12:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like anyone blocked mediation, at this point it seems to have just fizzled out. --Minderbinder 12:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Speaking of dispute resolution... To all those involved: please be advised that a request for comment on the Martinphi's conduct has been made and is accessible at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Martinphi. --Minderbinder 12:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ames Research Center [14] [15] is responsible for NASA's speech recognition explorations. The archives at Ames are open to the public. They have no record of MacRae being an expert researcher. --ScienceApologist 14:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the site, but I couldn't find the list of past contractors, please provide the exact URL.

perfectblue 14:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hang on, nobody ever said that Macrae worked at AMES. As I recall he was subcontractor through SRI.

perfectblue 15:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recall? Why does all your information seem to come from "recalling" things instead of a source? --Minderbinder 15:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very much like an ad hominem criticism to me, shame on you. Wiki regs do not permit me to cite myself or my own research, I therefore must cite something from a source that is third party to myself as well as to the topic. As such I "recall" what I "read" in a "source".

perfectblue 15:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PB. Did you know MacRae personally? Just curious. LuckyLouie 17:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess then you're being overly sensitive. This claim, and many others you have made, is unsourced, and pointing that out that failure to follow WP:RS is absolutely justified. You need to provide sources for claims. It's not good enough to recall something you might have read somewhere - if it is sourcable material, find the source and provide it. Otherwise it doesn't provide anything useful here. --Minderbinder 15:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"As I recall" is an expression you can't seriously expect me to include citations in my talk page comments. You appear to be trying to distract fro my original argument which is that the URL provided are not as advertised because they don't include a list of contractors. They prove nothing.

perfectblue 16:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of where claims are, they are worthless if they're not sourced. I strongly urge you to provide sources when you make claims about items in the article, otherwise you're wasting our time. --Minderbinder 16:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SRI lists their former staff members and visitors here: [16] MacRae doesn't appear. --ScienceApologist 16:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NASA's website lets you search through everything they have. There four MacRae hits, but none is the guy we're looking for. It looks as though we're not going to find a source (other than Fontana's book) that says he worked for them. The question is, then, should we allow any mention of this NASA background or not? Putting it another way, how does it misrepresent the situation if the assertion is wrongly included - or wrongly excluded? Is his credibility so borderline that it must be boosted - or eroded - in this way?

Personally, I can't see it. Reading his report as a scientific research paper, I find its failings to be more damning than any criticism we could make of it (within the rules of wikipedia) and I cannot imagine any open-minded rational reader being convinced by it. And surely anyone who believes that surviving spirits or whatnot are contacting us via EVP isn't going to be dissuaded from their beliefs either.

So, looking at the big picture, it probably isn't that important. Wikipedia's one non-negotiable rule, however, says that we must not present opinion as fact - we must convert the opinion to fact by attributing it. In other words, if there is to be any mention of MacRae being a speech-recognition consultant for NASA, it has to be attributed to Fontana, not stated as a plain fact. SheffieldSteel 20:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of this matters, because we have a perfectly reliable source that says Macrae was contracted to work for NASA on voice-recognition. Also, how quickly Minderbender seems to forget that about 8 different sources have been provided for MacRae at NASA. To try to make out now that this simply hinges of Perfectblue's memory is breathtaking in its dishonesty. Also, re SheffielSteel's point, it is not Fontana's opinion that Macrea worked at NASA, he simply reports the fact. Davkal 20:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think re-asserting "I am right and you are wrong" is going to advance this discussion in any way. Some sort of a compromise or consensus is going to have to be reached if we are to make any progress. The best compromise I can see (and the most in keeping with wiki policy) is to attribute this background info to Fontana. And no, it is not a fact that MacRae worked at NASA. That is Fontana's opinion. Please read WP:NPOV for details on the difference between the two. SheffieldSteel 20:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If re-asserting "I am right and you are wrong" does not help us advance things then why are you so intent on doing it. It is simply not a matter of opinion where someone has worked it is a matter of fact. As such it should be presented as such.Davkal 21:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why accuse me of such a thing? I'm trying to get everyone to look at this question in a way which is less confrontational, and which might result in us being able to move forward. I'm hoping that one or more editors will respond to my post above by saying, "actually, this one issue really isn't all that important" or, better yet, "actually, it's not about trying to change peoples' minds, as you implied, but being open and fair about informing them so that they can make up their own minds." SheffieldSteel 21:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with something like "described by Fontana as..." I also agree that getting across the content of Macrae's article is most relevant to the article. --Minderbinder 21:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To say something is A's opinion (or described by A as) is to suggest that there is some doubt or that in some way doubt is inevitable - that the fact of the matter is somehow difficult to acertain and so all one can have is an opinion or a description. One might as well say it is Fontana's opinion that his first name is David; or, Fontana describes his first name as David. We simply don't speak this way about things like names, or jobs.Davkal 21:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's precisely my point. The fact of the matter is difficult to ascertain. We've looked at NASA records, SRI records... no sign of MacRae. Presumably you've been looking too. And all we have, between us, is a book that, presumably, mentions this only in passing (though I could be mistaken, and Fontana might go into detail about MacRae's time at NASA, the projects he worked on there, the people who knew him as a result of that consultancy etc) and other sources which seem to cite the book. So either we attribute this information to Fontana, or we descend into further edit-warring and dispute. SheffieldSteel 21:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, the Senkowski source currently being used as a "reliable" source (just added a link to the online version) doesn't even get MacRae's name right. I'm not sure why some are so insistent that any information a college professor puts in a book automatically must be 100% factual and correct, even if it that info can't be confirmed by any other reliable source. --Minderbinder 21:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I especially enjoyed Senkowski's conclusion that a voice saying "Here is Berlin" on his shortwave receiver was of paranormal origin. -- LuckyLouie 21:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found this by searching for McRae rather than MacRae at NASA: a research paper listing... Seidenberg, M. S., Plaut, D. C., Peterson, A. S., McClelland, J. L., & McRae, K. (1994). Nonword pronunciation and models of word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance The most likely hypothesis is that someone mistook one M[a]cRae for another. SheffieldSteel 22:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was my impression when I first read about Senkowski's account. I think that the investigators in question did not do proper background checking and (worse) MacRae himself has allowed his publisher to promote the lie that he once worked for NASA. I say we need to resist including this at all in the article as it looks like it is the wrong McRae and is likely a case of appeal to (false) authority! --ScienceApologist 23:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that what you have just said is libelous. Davkal 10:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]