Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon

Instrumental Transcommunication (ITC)

ITC not mention? EVP is part of ITC. ~~ED~~ 2607:FEA8:483:8E00:1078:240D:8BA0:6B4A (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It’s mentioned 3 separate times in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Demograpics

This part of the article is highly racist and needs to be removed immediately. If this had been about any other race, you would not have put it in. 62.195.100.51 (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Edison

The material being added to promote the idea that Edison was mysteriously working on a machine to communicate with the dead is quite WP:UNDUE. It really is off topic for the subject and should not be given such WP:WEIGHT. Additionally the language being used hints at some hidden mystery, which is a WP:FRINGE view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually, Thomas Edison's "spirit phone" is a well-documented historical anecdote frequently cited in literature about the history of acoustic spiritualism, and specifically in relation to early electronic voice concepts. The goal is not to promote a hidden mystery: like many other scientists and inventors of his era, Edison was interested in researching occult and spiritualist phenomena from a strictly scientific standpoint, rather than a mystical or religious one. We can rephrase the text to simply frame his ideas about the "spirit telephone" as a historical and scientific thought experiment of the time. This is also stated by Dillon Liskai's source, which you yourself added. Salnitrum (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

from a strictly scientific standpoint in his opinion as a scientific layman. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The weight you've given to this topic is WP:UNDUE: showcasing the Baltimore Sun graphic sans any context, adding WP:PRIMARY sourced paper by (film writer and paranormal enthusiast) Francois Albera, text that seems to be arguing with itself ("no indication he constructed a device"..."told reporters it was a joke""..."and yet he discussed it in detail"..."was rediscovered after being expunged") with an obvious WP:SENSATIONAL slant. If this material about the "necrophone" was considered significant, it would not be absent from our Thomas Edison bio. I support removing the Baltimore Sun graphic and copyediting the text for a streamlined, more encyclopedic version such as this.- LuckyLouie (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The fact that the text notes he never built a device and later claimed to reporters it was a joke is not "the text arguing with itself", but rather a reflection of the nuanced and contradictory historical record. The removal and subsequent restoration of the diary chapter (Chapter 22 of Diary and Sundry Observations) is a verified bibliographical fact, not a sensationalized theory. The paper by François Albera is a reliable academic source. If the text appears to be "arguing with itself," it is actually due to the source by Dillon Liskai — which you yourself previously added to the text — not Albera's work. Furthermore, the section currently does not even explain the technical composition or the mechanical details of the proposed necrophone, which means the material is far from being overly detailed or bloated. The argument that this topic is absent from the main Thomas Edison biography is not a valid reason for deletion here. I support streamlining the section to maintain proper encyclopedic weight, but the core historical intersection between Edison's acoustic theories and the origins of EVP concepts should absolutely remain.--Salnitrum (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2026 (UTC)