A good page that's now stalled for various reasons. Hoping to submit for a GA/FA soon, but need suggestions for how to bring it up to standard. -- InShaneee 20:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought the article was pretty good, but it's not clear enough for people unfamiliar with the subject. It's pretty well referenced, but still needs some more in places. I don't think the article really needs the unsourced template anymore.++ aviper2k7++ 00:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
This page talks far too much about dabblings into EVP, but contains very little about what EVP actually is. At present, what we have is a potted history of people trying to prove or disprove something, but very little about said something.
What are the characteristics of an EVP and how would I know if I got one? How do you go about getting one? Do they co-relate with haunting sites? What equipment do they appear on?
I'm also extremely concerned that there is a lot of factional POV pushing going on, with one faction seemingly intent on placing skeptical comments everywhere, and continually calling things into question using science standards rather than pseudo science standards (as would be correct in this instance), and another faction adding in content from special interest website that make statements without offering any data to back them up (when claiming a result, I'd like to see the analysis).
With all due respect to the editors who have put a lot of time into this (often at crossed purposes), I think that page needs to be sliced down to:
I also strongly suggest that no image caption ever include text along the lines of "This has not been pier reviewed", or "This has not been proven". Putting such text in such a promenant place is POV pushing in the extreme as it seeks to create a vivid impression in the mind of the reader.
perfectblue 13:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Perfectblue's suggestions. There should be no need for text (such as the image caption) that denigrates the subject.
I might add that Wikipedia's policy regarding pseudoscience actually dictates that the article has a POV, which, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience is...
"The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view"
In the case of EVP, the majority (mainstream science) does not support the beliefs of the minority (EVP researchers), and I believe this can be stated by the article briefly, simply, fairly, and without rancor.
I have watched this article for a long time, and have observed that when one side decides to "pump up the volume" by adding more data to make its case, the other side responds in kind, and pretty soon the article is a mess of point-counterpoint. I will also go on record as registering my opinion that the "subject matter expert" chosen for this article was more of a hinderance than an asset. I found his advice to be counterproductive to the process of writing an encyclopedia article, e.g. "Study A is bunk and should not be mentioned since Study B is what our organization favors" and "Technique A is considered amateurish and should not be mentioned since we always use Technique B"
--- LuckyLouie 06:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)