Talk:Street light interference/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Unverified claims 2 Observer bias 3 My changes 4 Straight Dope article 5 Videos on SLI 5.1 Forums 5.2 Controlling the Lights 5.3 Electronics 6 Third opinion request 6.1 Human "Radio Wave" Transmitter 7 Revert 8 Making good faith quality improvements 9 Videos as original research 10 Checking references 11 Reducing "The SLI Effect" to an external link 12 Back to the videos 13 ISBN 14 Comments on new additions 14.1 Third opinion 15 Prominent Adherents 16 Page 16 17 Noticing light goes out

[edit] Unverified claims

This article makes several grandiose claims that aren't cited, particularly under the "Causes" section. I'm calling shenanigans. Please cite with reliable sources or the unverified information will be deleted. Jdoty 18:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Observer bias

Removed this section since it is not a neutral Point Of View. There are such words used here as "...may believe..." and "...but in fact..." with no bases for this representation. It is only a person's opinion (whomever wrote this originally), which alone does not make it a fact as they state (only an opinion, their personal point of view: not neutral). The way this is written is to show in their point of view that it is simple a cycling of the lamp going on and off on its own, when in fact they have no proof for such an opinion(i.e. previous article written up on that fact by a reliable source). It is only what that person "believes", in other words their biased Point of View with no reference to show for this "opinion". Below is part of the wording of this completely biased Section that I removed because it is not neutral, but a slanted personal opinion. They really don't know that the lamp is going on and off on its own and there is no previously writtten up article from a reliable source that states this; therefore this is only a person's personal biased opinion as to what is happening.
The effect of this is that a failing lamp glows for a while and then goes out, repeatedly. Those who believe they cause street light interference may believe the lamp is going out specifically because they are there, but in fact the lamp is turning on and going out repeatedly whether anyone is there or not.--Doug ^talk 12:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It was an elaboration of the same thing the skeptical side of the about.com article observes -- when a streetlight goes out near you, it's a startling event and you tend to notice it -- along with some common knowledge about street lights. But if you must take it out, I will settle for leaving it out unless I happen to find more thorough sources for it. It's not something I'll lose sleep over. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Corrections on your statement should be made since they are not correct.

• First off: The article you are referring to does not say anything about the event being “a startling event” or any wording to that effect. You may have interpreted that is what it said ("It was an elaboration..."), however the article itself does not say that. You have distorted the article wording to make it fit what you believe the phenomonon to be (just a mechanical item) since you have not experienced it yourself -OR- know of others that have.

• Second: While I am not an electrical engineer with a specialty in lighting and arc lamps, my background for over 30 years was in electronics as it relates to the hardware of computers. I am pretty familiar with most electrical and electronic items and terms, however never heard of this electrical term you refer to as cycling. It certainly is not common knowledge. Maybe it is some obscure engineering term someplace in some electrical or electronic field, but I never came across it. Perhaps you can refer me to some written up article on this that shows the event as actually recorded.

Even in my original (now archived) article on this called “Human ‘Radio Wave’ Transmitter” of January 29 (2007) there are certain people very familiar with electronics that never heard of this term you say of “cycling” (i.e. User: Light current)

• Third: If these lights you are referring to were going on and off on their own, then it should be a “recordable” item, especially on video. However there is no articles anywhere (that I could find anyway through the Google and Yahoo search engines) that talk about this coming on and off of these lights in a cycling pattern and where the event was recorded on video and proof this is a real event. I personally do not believe there is such a thing in electrical terms called "cycling", but do believe in the phenomonon called Street Light Interference (a.k.a. SLI) - as thousands of others certainly do.

• Fourth: I have had others point video cameras at me while I went under these mercury vapor (and sodium vapor) lights and it was actually recorded on video (several times) that I BOTH made the lights go out and come on; while at the same time others could not affect these same light bulbs by themselves going under them. I have several eye witnesses. Also the video recording shows the lights did not turn on and off on their own.

The About article you are referring to has an ongoing forum of others that have experienced the Street Light Interference phenomenon. In this forum alone there are over 100 reports of all kinds of people (not in any way related to each other) being SLIders. There are DOZENS of other such SLI forums online showing thousands of people that have experienced this phenomenon in the United States and more worldwide. It is almost now common knowledge.

In the free downloadable book on this by Hillary Evans called the “SLI Effect” he reports: "It's quite obvious from the letters I get," Evans told CNN, "that these people are perfectly healthy, normal people. It's just that they have some kind of ability... just a gift they've got. It may not be a gift they would like to have." SLIders are not saying it is especially a "controllable power" (however somewhat predictable), but just a phenonenon coming from human beings of an unknown source (i.e. electromagnetic, radio waves, electronics, microwaves, a field of quantum elements or particles yet unknown in science, radiation of some type and in some field yet unknown in science or electronics). SLIders never said it was "controllable", just predictable.

Keep a watch on the article, since I will be adding several additional facts to it in the future from published articles of reliable sources that will be coming up on SLI in the near future as technology improves(i.e. newspapaer articles of large publishers, other books). --Doug ^talk 13:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My changes

It's clear we disagree on the content of the article, but it should be possible for us to both go on contributing to this article with a cool head.

I've worked on revising the article to meet Wikipedia policy, based on the version you wrote. Since I understand you are likely to object to some of these changes, I broke my changes down into several steps to aid the discussion.

The first steps are the technical (grammar, usage and formatting) changes, which I presume you won't object to. Incidentally, it's not in Wikipedia style to bold every phrase referring to the subject of the article; you should only do this in the first sentence.

The content changes I made are all based on policies about the content of Wikipedia, which I recommend that you should review:

• Articles must be based on reliable sources. Forums are explicitly not reliable sources, so you can't make claims based on them.
• Articles must be written from a neutral point of view. I recognize that absolute neutrality is hard to find when editors disagree, but things that are clearly excluded are statements of opinion such as "SLI deserves further study because...". One way to turn non-neutral sentences into objective ones is to report on who believes it; if the statement "Y happens" is controversial, you might instead say that "People in group X say that Y happens". I've done this in a few places.
• Articles cannot contain original research. Wikipedia isn't for publishing new conclusions that an editor has arrived at, so I removed text such as "It could therefore be the only instance where human beings actually affect their physical world surroundings with a "force" of some type now unknown in science." If you believe my description of observer bias was such a conclusion as well, I'll accept that; since I don't plan to spend time looking for a source, I won't put it back.
• As a subtler point, I think compiling together a photo gallery of supposedly-affected streetlights is original research. This is something I've drawn from other Wikipedia discussions: photographs are generally objective, but the point you illustrate with those photographs can be subjective or original research.

That said, I'd like to ask you (as an advocate for belief in SLI) a couple of questions about the content, in a sentence that I haven't revised. Why are "fictional magical devices" listed as an explanation for SLI? I don't think you seriously mean that SLIders believe that fictional devices are non-fictional, but I can't tell what you do mean.

Also, what connection do SLIders suggest exists between Planck's law of black body radiation and SLI?

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straight Dope article

What's wrong with linking to The Straight Dope? It's a widely-read newspaper column.

Incidentally, reading that article was all I needed to do to find a source about "cycling". Quoting a GE engineer, no less. I hope you don't mind if I soon add the cycling explanation and source it to the Straight Dope article. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Videos on SLI

The videos I put into the article 11 February 2007 is based on the only book known written of this phenomenon called Street Light Interference. In Hilary Evans book (free download into PDF) he explains the phenonenon of Street Light Interference being an apparent phenomenon, based on claims by many people that they involuntarily, and usually spontaneously, cause street lamps to go out. Generally the effect is intermittent, infrequent and without an immediately discernible sequence of cause and effect. This is contrary to cycling, as explained in detail in the section of Electronics below. My videos on SLI show exactly this (as written up in 1993 in The SLI Effect by Hilary Evans), not something different or original. These digital videos are far better than the CNN videos because it shows that other outside security lights are ON when on the same bank of lights to an apartment outside staircase. This shows that others can not be "fiddling" with light switches and also shows that night light sensors are not affected somehow (since there is none on these light fixtures). These are the same types as used on many modern street lights.

Wikipedia defines original research as research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified). It further defines it as: In experimental work, it typically involves direct or indirect observation of the researched subject, e.g., in the laboratory or in the field, documents the methodology, results, and conclusions of an experiment or set of experiments, or offers a novel interpretation of previous results. These video show what has already been estabished in Hilary Evans book written originally in 1993. It is based on 30 years of testimonies by hundreds of people he researched for his book (being the only source book to reference). These videos do not show anything different than what is in his book (i.e. does not offer a "novel interpretation" of previous results). It has been previously established in this book The SLI Effect since 1976 that many people involuntarily, and usually spontaneously, cause street lamps to go out. These videos are showing exactly this, nothing new or original, in a new form (digital video). They are not showing new knowledge, ideas, concepts, or philosophies {i.e. by giving certain thoughts (images in the mind of lightning) that one could make the lights go out). It only shows that the SLIder effects the lights in some unknown fashion. The SLIder himself even makes statements saying that "I appear to effect the gases in the lights somehow". This is already existing knowledge referenced to the book.

Wikipedia further defines original research as unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, which is included in an article and appears to advance a position. The SLI phenomenon I am showing in these digital videos has been previously published in the book The SLI Effect, by Hilary Evans. ISBN 0-9521311-0-2. These video recordings then are primary sources since they act as an eyewitness to the event that anyone can then observe themselves. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. How many words is an actual video of the SLI event worth then? This also shows that the video has not been "tampered with", since one can view the consistent flow of the video itself. In addition there are three (3) videos showing lights being turned on and off to show as much of the SLI phenomena as possible (as previously reported).

Your videos are an unpublished analysis. The book is published. You are not. You don't get to count yourself as "published" because you're talking about the same thing as a book. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[Snipped large quantities of article content. Talk pages are not for forks of article pages.] rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just below the title on page 1 of the reference source book compiled by Hilary Evans (coordinator, The Slide Project) is the words with ASSAP Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena. It is definitely a scientific study and this article should be under that category (which presently is not allowed) since that is what it is (pure science).

Um, no. ASSAP calling itself "scientific" doesn't make it so, any more than all the dictatorships in the world that call themselves "democratic republics" are. There is no verification of the hypothesis as opposed to the null hypothesis, no falsifiability, and no controls. In fact, no study of SLI has come close to meeting the scientific method. If you demonstrated SLI using the scientific method, James Randi would give you a million bucks. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forums

The below language I entered 9 February 2007 did not reference any text to forums, but only referred to it as showing there are thousands of people reporting the SLI phenomena. Street Light Interference is not secret information (or information that needs to be surpressed for any security reason) nor is it validating anything by saying thousands of people report it worldwide. My reference is to the fact many people report the phenomenon, not validating or proving anything other then that.

This phenomenon is presently reported in dozens of independent forums that can be found on the internet by anyone using normal search engines, such as Google and Yahoo. While most have scores of reports, some have hundreds of reports that have occured in the last few years. This then shows SLI occurs to not only thousands of people in the United States and Canada, but to just as many in Europe and Asia.

No, it shows that thousands of people claim SLI happens to them. Which we knew already. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controlling the Lights

In Hilary Evans book (The SLI Effect) on page 4 it says: Street Lamp Interference (SLI) is an apparent phenomenon, based on claims by many people that they involuntarily, and usually spontaneously, cause street lamps to go out. Generally the effect is intermittent, infrequent and without an immediately discernible sequence of cause and effect. This is saying the same thing that it is not within the mental and physical control of the person affecting the lights. The videos show this also in that there was not a spontaneously response, however it was predictable (obviously since it was caught on video). Entering in the word "anecdote" conjures up the (biased) idea that it is only an amusing event. This is then biased toward the Point of View that it is only interesting or amusing (lending to a biased undocumented reference that it is "amusing" at best). My use of the words I used is more neutral and is closer to the reference book usage of the words "spontanous" and "intermittent" showing it is more than "amusing", but something that deserves study because it gives the appearance of being an anomalous phenomenon in its own right (Hilary Evans words in the Preface of the source book). Since these are his words (not mine) then this article should be allowed to be under the categories of Science, Pseudoscience, and Philosophy of science so that others of these interests have access to this information. It should be available to others interested in this type of science, not surpressed. On page 4 of this book Hilary says: SLI deserves study because it gives the appearance of being an anomalous phenomenon in its own right. That is to say, it appears to be an effect which is not consistent with our current knowledge of how people interact with the physical world, and which occurs in specific circumstances.

[edit] Electronics

Another reason why the Arc Lamp diagram is needed in the article is to help technically understand the electrical term called "cycling" that some associate with this phenomonon. In electrical engineering this term is more correctly referred to as hertz. One cycle is one hertz. The SLI phenomonon is not a wave function as inferred by "cycling". It also does not have a frequency or oscillation. These are functions that are associated with events consistently happening within certain periods of time (i.e. 1 hz, 60 hz, 870khz, 2.5 Ghz, ultra violet light, infra-red light, microwaves, gamma rays, x-rays). This square wave diagram demonstrates an "on / off" cycle (a.k.a. hertz). Notice it is consistent with time, meaning it occurs at regular intervals; hence the term "cycling". The definition of "cycle" is recurring series (Random House Dictionary version 2006). That means it has to occur on a reqular basis (not random).

In the Wikipedia mercury vapor lamp article they speak of End of Life of the lamp mechanism, which explains the function of the Arc Lamp diagram:

At the end of life, mercury-vapor lamps commonly exhibit a phenomenon known as cycling. These lamps can be started at a relatively low voltage but as they heat up during operation, the internal gas pressure within the arc tube rises and more and more voltage is required to maintain the arc discharge. As a lamp gets older, the maintaining voltage for the arc eventually rises to exceed the voltage provided by the electrical ballast. As the lamp heats to this point, the arc fails and the lamp goes out. Eventually, with the arc extinguished, the lamp cools down again, the gas pressure in the arc tube is reduced, and the ballast can once again cause the arc to strike. The effect of this is that the lamp glows for a while and then goes out, repeatedly. More-sophisticated ballast designs detect cycling and give up attempting to start the lamp after a few cycles. If power is removed and reapplied, the ballast will make a new series of startup attempts.

What this means in layman's terms is that the lamp is "weak" because it is older. The actual physical properties of the lamp have changed over time; making it "weak". The electrical ballast can no longer supply the voltage necessary to maintain the arc discharge within the gas bulb itself when it is hot (technically: it is too much resistance). When the lamp cools the resistance decreases and the electrical ballast supplies enough voltage to maintain an arc then. However in this "weak" state (old age) the lamp gets too hot and then cools on a consistent time (i.e. 100 seconds). It can then be seen as "cycling" constantly within this time frame (i.e. 100 seconds +/- 10 seconds). This is entirely different than the Street Light Interference phenomenon, which is quite random (not doing a consistent cycle). A Lamp that is cycling will present that display (rather someone is there or not) on a regular timed basis.

The videos show this was not the case. The lamps stayed off until a SLIder came within range (i.e. 10 feet) to effect the function of the lamp (i.e. either turn it off or turn it on). The lamps in the videos on their own stayed in the one state (either stayed on or stayed off) when the SLIder (one that effects these type lamps) was not present. They did not display a cycling function on their own. Now it could be that the SLIders are affecting "weak" lamps only (that has not been determined for sure). If that is the case, then perhaps they are affecting the properties of the gas somehow to effect the resistance within the lamp causing it to turn off or turn on (since they are highly susceptible to this anyway being in a "weak" state). If they are affecting the properties of the gas to increase the resistance then the lamp turns off. If they are affecting the gas properties to decrease the resistance internally, then the lamp turns on (since the ballast then has enought voltage to sustain an arc). In any case, the videos are showing that it is the "presence" of the SLIder person causing the lamp to go on and off - not the lamps themselves cycling on their own accord! This then would explain the reason they do not effect these other bulbs (because it is a function of internal gas property resistance). --Doug ^talk 22:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your explanation is interesting. Let me (not the article page) know when you test it using a controlled experiment. If you get a statistical significance of p < 0.01, then you may be on to something. Until you do that, your claims are "not even wrong". And no matter what, they're original research that can't go on Wikipedia until they're published in a reputable source. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to prove IF this is the cause or not, since that would be considered original research (theorizing the exact cause). At this point in time I have no idea what in fact is causing the street lights to go out (and sometimes to go back on if they have previously been put out by a SLIder). I am just showing on video that the phenomona happens. What exactly causes it, I have no scientific evidence to show. These videos here below

(Guidance information in italics for those wanting to play Wikipedia videos)

The videos are large files. While they may take up to 30 minutes to download with dialup, they only take a few minutes with broadband (i.e. wireless, ethernet, cable, DSL, LAN). It is recommended that those with Windows download this file in order to allow the Windows Media Player to play these "ogg" files used in the Wikipedia articles with videos. Without this file (2 minute download) it may not play properly or at all. The installation is very easy. Download, then follow instructions of the Setup Wizard (Next, Next, Next, Install, Finish). It installs automatically. This allows the Windows Media Player to play Wikipedia videos ("ogg" files), like these above.

are just showing what has already been published in the source book on the research that had been combiled and put into a book called The SLI Effect by Hilary Evans in 1993. These ideas of certain people (called "SLIders") having some mysterious effect on street lights is not anything new that I have brought in. It is a well known phenomenon by thousands of people worldwide (evidenced by dozens of forums on the subject), which information about it just happened to be compiled and reported by Hilary Evans. I do not personally have to be a "qualified" photographer (i.e. previously been written up in photography industrial journals as a recognized professional) in order to photograph something myself showing the item. An example would be of the 90 pictures I have uploaded showing items of Brookgreen Gardens. They have been divided in several groups (Stone Sculpture, Metal Sculpture, Botanical, Azaleas). I am not a professional photographer, nor a sculpter expert, nor a botanist. However I can enter in my own photographs in Wikipedia projects on these items. Someone else (the sculpturest) already determined that it was a sculpture. Is it a good sculpture or a bad sculpture is not the issue, or even what kind of stone (i.e. marble) it is from. The fact is, it is a picture of a sculpture.

This is the same for video. I am just photographing the item (phenonenon of certain people being able to effect lights to go on and off ). The concept has already been established in a reference source book that compiled the information (The SLI Effect). I am not a professional photographer nor an electrical engineer (similar to Brookgreen Gardens idea of not being a sculpturest). I am only photographing the item and putting these photos on Wikipedia. Because these photos happen to be a series of hundreds of photos (a.k.a. video) does not disqualify my photo's. Many have various moving GIF files called "videos" on their articles; which is nothing other than a series of photographs (or animations).

What I am showing has already become known knowledge and published in England in 1993 in a research book that compiled the information called The SLI Effect. I am within the guidelines of not presenting original research. Wikipedia defines original research as research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form. I am only presenting the existing knowledge in a new form (video, being a series of photo's). The new "video" files called GIF's are similar to digital video and are used on Wikipedia articles all the time. My photographs of Brookgreen Gardens stone sculpture does not establish that they are in fact stone scuptures; they may very well be metal (many times I am confussed even when I touch them).

If my videos are considered "unpublished analysis", then all photographs taken by anyone that have been entered into an article could be considered an "unpublished analysis". Take for example the article you worked on of Serge Lang. Do you know for sure this is that person? Since there is no previously published articles directly linking this exact photo to that of a Professor Serge Lang, it could very well be anyone (an imitator; its done all the time, especially to promote certain products to increase sales). Also how do you know this person displayed certain characteristics (marked in the article as original research and unverified claims). In all my articles I have started (Street Light Intereference not being one of them) I have not once had any administrator (or editor) mark the article (or any sections) as original research and unverified claims; because I have backed up all the information with extensive sources and many times external internet links too boot. I have entered in hundreds of pictures on dozens of articles and not one picture has been objected to. Contrary to this is your article Wearing Someone Else's Clothes of your use of a copyrighted album cover. I use only photographs that I have taken personally and released the rights to public domain. I do not believe it is proper to use someone else's photographs (i.e. photograph taken by a professional photographer paid by the record company to make the album cover). You are using their photograph and have not been given release from the record company (anyway that is the way the photograph is marked now). It shows that you just downloaded it from Amazon.com. You know, as well as most Wikipedia editors and administrators, that material like this on the internet (i.e. other's photographs or other's text) is automatically copyrighted; unless the material copyright expired due to age (highly unlikely in your case of the album cover photograph since its only a few years old). Even this diagram showing an "On / Off cycle" I did myself, explaining furhter the concept of cycling in relationship to time. --Doug ^talk 14:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is simply silly. Your videos aren't simply uncontroversial illustrations to accompany the article, like a picture of a mathematician or an album cover; you're trying to make a point that you have video evidence of SLI. You even tried referring to the videos in the article as if they were a source.

Copyright and fair use of copyrighted images is a completely unrelated issue -- go read how Wikipedia deals with it if you want. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion request

This discussion is becoming very unproductive, so I've asked for a third opinion. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not your official third opinion because I just made an edit to the article. This is what my analysis would be. The videos fail WP:EL links to be avoided #8. They require external applications to run and so should not be linked from the page. This does not invalidate them altogether, but it does create a strong presumption against keeping them in. --Selket ^Talk 08:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Turns out that all Wikipedia "ogg" video files need this file for Windows users (majority of the users) in order to allow the Windows Media Player to play any Wikipedia "ogg" videos. It is Wikipedia's preferable policy to convert and use ONLY videos in the "ogg" format (i.e. convert MPG movies made on a Sony digital camera to "ogg" files, which then does not violate any copyrights on the MPG software format). So this simple additional software (given to me by a Wikipedia administrator) is what's required to play Wikipedia videos. This is NOT an external link (i.e. Flash software as pointed in item 8), but a one time piece of software added to Windows systems. The videos do NOT require an external application, the application is Windows Media Player (built internally into all Windows systems). This one time installation is a 2 minute download and very easy to install (even I could do it). Obviously you did it also, otherwise you would not be able to play these videos (and the issue wouldn't have even been brought up, since the videos would have been unviewable). Several people (including administrators) have no trouble viewing these videos (and they all installed this additional small software piece). So, bottomline this is not an argument against not allowing the videos to be entered. It a short argument that the 2 minute one time download should be done to view all Wikipedia video "ogg" files. Then the Window user can view all the videos on any articles, where otherwise none can be viewed (a very helpful hint!). Presently there are about 400 video "ogg" files. I even provided the source how to get this software addition and exactly how to install it on an easy installation (Next, Next, Next, Install, Finish). Perhaps this Wikipedia administrator that gave me these files could be a third opinion? I am going to assume that it is proper to go ahead and add these videos back into the article if there is not a strong third party Wikipedia administrator objection in the next few days. Thanks for your help. --Doug ^talk 12:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have 2mbit broadband and it took nearly 6 minutes to download one of the files. Whatever the merits of the content its far too large to be accessible to the majority of users and probably unsuitable for that reason.Spartaz 16:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC) The other two files (SLIder turning lights "On" and one turning lights "Off") took only about 3 minutes to download.

If videos are slow for you, just don't view them! ffm ^yes? 19:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is bizarre. I'm going to have to agree with Doug, on one point, against what third-opinion people are saying. Selket seems to be objecting to the fact that the videos are oggs, as they must be. And file size is really not the issue here -- if the videos are valid article content, they could presumably be shortened and compressed to be more accessible. Can somebody comment on the content, and not the file format? Specifically, are these videos being used as original research? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If size is an issue, split each video into two or three parts. However, I'm not sure about WP:OR concerns; I have yet to download the videos. Gracenotes^T § 21:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The videos aren't working for me, so I can't comment on the content. Not even with the codec do they function (WM 11). Any suggestions? Gracenotes^T § 23:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have two different computers with AOL dial-up and they work just fine on both computers. The download file takes about 2 minutes. After you have gone through the steps of Run, Next, Next, Next, Install, and Finish; then the Windows Media Player should play the "ogg" video files just by clicking a "Street Light Interference" video link. Then just click on "Open" to play. --Doug ^talk 23:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Any video or sound on wikipedia MUST be in OGG. That is the policy. (MIDI is also used. ) ffm ^yes? 13:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Since there has not been any objects what-so-ever from any administrator, or any other editor for that matter, in the last few days (per a third opinion direct request) on these videos which are showing exactly what has been previously published in Hilary Evans book The SLI Effect I am entering back these videos into the article. I have made several additional improvements to the article, all of which are backed up with previously published reports from reliable sources of well known publications that anyone can find in a public library.
• Let's give other editors and administrators a chance to look at this material I did of major improvements to this article. Don't be Quick Draw McGraw. Let's see what others have to say.

If other third parties object to any of this material they will correct it accordingly (perhaps even with a discussion why they did so if asked). I have been more than fair by allowing a third party request. If one feels the need, go ahead and ask for a third party opinion of this new material. Let the third party, not directly attached being then at arms length, object or correct the material. They will be unbiased as to our individual points of view on the subject. If you will notice, I even helped these third parties to be able to view the videos. None objected to them.

• While there may be some parts that are somewhat technical, this alone do not disqualify the material. There are many articles with technical information that people that are not familiar with the field do not understand throughly. Parts of the phenomenon had to be explained in technical terms, however I tried to keep it as close to laymen's terms as possible.
• per Wikipedia policy article improvements should be designed with these points in mind:

All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Hilary Evans extensive source book of 1993 is this.

Ignore all the rules. The videos (while in your mind are "breaking the rules") they do show what has already been published in 1993.

Be bold in updating pages. This means in a nutshell: If in doubt, fix it.

That is precisely what I am doing here. My improvements are well designed, have good intentions behind them, have no personal gain based on them (in other words, am not putting forth a personal point of view), and are well referenced to many previously published articles on the SLI phenomenon.

This is not my own personal idea but an idea and concept that has been published over 14 years ago with references to over 30 years ago about the phenomenon. Basically the phenomenon has been in existence since the wide spread usage of mercury vapor and sodium vapor lamps in street lights and outside security lighting from the 1970's that have been in the high pressure bulb envelopes. Of the street lighting throughout history in the United States and the developed countries throughout the world, these are the only two type lighting fixtures with these additional characteristics. This phenomenon has only been reported since the 1970's.

• FYI, here is where I got the information of this phenomenon's name (at that point in time I only knew it existed, not what it was called: so you can see I am not bringing up something of personal interest only for original research). Here are some excerpts from questions I asked the Reference Desk. You can look this up for more details in the Science Archives. --Doug ^talk 23:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

Doug, your rewrite was against Wikipedia policy in many ways, most of which I've brought up before (because you wrote almost the same material before).

• Read the external link policy. Really. Every single link you added fails it.
• Please understand WP:NPOV. The fact that you think something is true doesn't make it neutral. Your new additions are clearly advocating a point of view, especially given that you start off with a ridiculous straw man. ("Cycling" is a description of the failure mode of street lights; it clearly does not refer to the unit of hertz). Similarly, if you want to include material that supposedly refutes normal explanations of street lights turning on and off, it has to be attributable to a reliable source, not your own videos.
• It is clear that your videos are not intended for illustration but as original research, since you once again referred to them in the article as if they were a source.

Also, it's not up to you to "allow" a third opinion on the page. You do not WP:OWN this page. When two editors disagree over content and can't resolve it, it's important to the way Wikipedia works that other people come in and address the issues. It's disappointing that all the commenters got hung up on the technical hurdle of the videos, and didn't talk about anything else on the page, because we seem to be back where we started.

Do you have any ideas for resolving this impasse? I'd suggest a different third opinion request that doesn't mention the videos at all.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. You can leave the videos out. I had no idea that showing pictures of the phenomenon would create such a controversy. Apparently some people have strong feeling on this subject. I'll leave the article the way you want it. If you like, go ahead and ask for third opinions on whatever parts you feel need it. --Doug ^talk 14:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Making good faith quality improvements

Before reverting these latest changes, please consider that this is being done as an improvement to the article in good faith. Each change has been given much thought and work. I pride myself on excellent articles. If interested in quality articles, look over the articles I have started. Most have been edited very little, with some not at all by others, because of the quality in the first place of the article. The only problem article (of dozens I am working on improving) is this one; and coincidently this is the ONLY article that has video. While video is a fairly new Wikipedia concept (verses still pictures) to show what the original previously published concept is all about, this is NOT being used as "proof" or validates the information. It is just a set of pictures, similar to ONE picture showing something. In the flower article there is a high quality image that shows an Orchidaceae of the Genus Phalaenopsis flower. This picture was taken by the uploader in 2005. He is NOT a botanist recognized in any publication of this field (or related ones); however he IS an excellent photographer. We are taking his word on this information based MOSTLY in related articles of similar pictures that have been referenced to this as a whole in the article in general. That PARTICULAR image has never been previously published in a related field journal or publication making identification as to the fact this is ACTUALLY that particular type flower. It is used as an "illustration" only, just like my videos.

Many other administrators were contacted PRIOR to making these latest improvements and this is the result of their advice and recommendations. The main theme of their recommendations was to make sure it was from a neutral point of view NPOV. The typical words suggested for the use of the presented videos were: Below is showing what Street Light Interference would probably look like. This is NOT my wording, but taken directly from advice from the Help Desk. In addition I have entered ONLY two short (2) videos, not putting in anything lengthy or controversial. All the information is referenced back to the main source reference book on this phenomenon called The SLI Effect published by Hilary Evans in London in 1993. The links to "See Also" is additional information related to the subject that one could look up the Wikipedia articles for additional information. If you feel these improvements are not correct, please first have additional administrators look it over to get their "third opinion". I have already done this to come up with these improvements. Then if there is a census of the community, feel free to revert or make any necessary changes. However just ONE party making the final decision on good faith improvements to an article is not the philosophy of Wikipedia. --Doug ^talk 17:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you're working on the article in good faith, but I still believe that your edits haven't met Wikipedia policies like attributability and the external link policy. But the fact that I believe that is a far cry from being a "final decision". I'm not using the admin tools here, so as far as this page is concerned I'm just another editor.

The problem, as I was mentioning before, is that when you have two editors who disagree, there can't be a consensus. This is why I've tried to get other editors involved. (They don't have to be administrators.) And since the last batch of third-opinion editors didn't tell us anything except that they couldn't play the videos, this is why I've suggested trying again but not focusing on the videos this time. I understand the videos are an important issue to you, but perhaps we can sort that out later.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you responded before I even got a chance to make any changes. You seem to be very protective of this article and on the concept of videos. Doing a quick check on Wikimedia Commons, I found over 27,000 "ogg" files. I am going to guess probably 80% of these are personal videos made by "amateurs". Obviously if they uploaded them, then a good majority are being used in articles. And none of them have been previously published before they entered them into an article. The concept of entering videos into an article to illustrate what has already been published by others is a fairly new idea for Wikipedia. It is being used because it is following the Wikipedia concept of being Bold and Ignore all rules as a different means and a different form to show what has already been in publication for over 15 years by many authors and journalists. Now since other editors (as you say) can NOT play these videos, then what are you afraid of? If editors can't play videos, then surely the general public is going to have a lot of problems playing them. If they can NOT be played, then they are not being seen. If they are not beeing seen, then there is NOT an issue concerning what is on the videos (since nobody can view them, as you say). So, based on this logic alone, I am NOT entering anything controversial, since they probably can not be viewed anyway. So, if this is true, all I am putting in is something nobody can see. What's the problem? FYI: nothing has been changed on the External Links. Look before you leap!!! In fact, as of yet: nothing has been changed! On the changes I will be making in the future, they have all been researched. I have asked much advice on them from many administrators and "experts" on video from Wikimedia Commons. The changes I will be making (if you give me a chance and wait until I actually do them before you jump in to defend your personal positions) is based on MUCH advice from several administrators and the Help Desk. Relax! Take a deep breath, smell the flowers I offered you. --Doug ^talk 13:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about your last set of changes and my revert of them. Also, I said that I was okay with not worrying about the videos until later, focusing on other aspects of the article. You can relax too. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Changed the word forum to "groups" because I know you don't like that word; because you think it is NOT from a neutral point of view - even though there is a complete article on this phenomenon. I figured then perhaps the word "groups" would be more neutral. Also, giving you a heads up on what I am doing in the way of VIDEOS. Don't have a heart attach! Stress is a killer. Added 2 VIDEOS to Colonial Williamsburg of period music. These videos have NOT been previously published in any publication; so perhaps it qualifies for removal, since in your mind it could be considered subjective and therefore original research. If you do pull these VIDEOS, please be specific as to why you did it and NOT a general statement: "original research". Now I even went a step further and placed these under their subject articles also. The cello you will find under Cello in the sound section. The Flute you will find under the acoustics section. Now here is a frighting thought: A few days ago I made a new article which pertains to Petrarch's Liber Sine Nomine (a.k.a. Book Without A Name). It contains 19 letters. Perhaps I have an ulterior motive in making this article, in an embedded secret message. What do you think? Look close, never know. Also recently wrote the articles Epistolae familiares and Petrarch's Letter to Posterity. Look them over also and make sure they are O.K. Work I'm most proud of is De Viris Illustribus. --Doug ^talk 16:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Just keeping you posted on my VIDEOS that I am adding to articles: added a video to Segway and to hang gliding.
If these changes and edits are to much for you on these articles, I would advise to just ignore them. It ain't worth it!

I'm glad you want to be friendly, and your contributions to other articles sound excellent. I certainly don't need to question you adding illustrative videos to other articles in good faith. I think you're missing my point by focusing on video formats and illustrations, instead of the overall content of an article.

I don't know what you're seeing in my recent brief statements, but if you're reading any stress into them then you're reading me wrong. I've ended up in a few Wiki situations that are actually stressful recently -- just look at my talk page for that. This discussion is a walk in the park in comparison. You got me stressed when you started questioning my edits in unrelated areas, but that's over and done with.

Anyway. I'm editing this article with two purposes in mind: (1) to make it a clear, coherent article written in Wikipedia style, and (2) to make sure that it does not promote a paranormal point of view against Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

I've made a couple of changes to the article just now. I removed the gallery of images of unaffected light types, because it was simply confusing and tangential to the article. (I thought for a long time that you were trying to illustrate lights that were affected.) It's not a policy problem, it's just that in my opinion the article is clearer and more focused without that image gallery.

An anonymous user, 66.255.74.254 -- I suppose this wasn't you -- came by and changed "what Street Light Interference would probably look like" to "what Street Light Interference looks like when a person passes under a light apparatus". I assume you would agree that this user took a statement that was at least somewhat hedged to be NPOV, and replaced it with a paranormal POV statement that asserted that SLI is real. I changed the statement, along with the video captions, to something that I hope is simple and neutral enough to satisfy everyone.

And finally, I removed the sentence that was cited to a Google search. Come on now. We've been discussing this for a while, I've pointed at WP:RS and WP:ATT before, and I assume you've read them. Since you care about this article too, I think you should take as much responsibility as I do for keeping non-sources like discussion groups and Google searches out of it.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind remarks on my other articles. I passed the test! Actually I take MOST pride on articles related to Petrarch. This article is not all that important in comparison. Your changes look good to me. We will see now if others will add more to this and edit the article. --Doug ^talk 00:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Videos as original research

Somewhere above in all the verbiage I saw the claim that a home video might be original research. That can't be the case; there are all kinds of ways to fake videos (and photographs too, for that matter), so any media created by a Wikipedian cannot be proof or disproof of anything. The purpose it serves in the article is merely to illustrate what the text is talking about, so it doesn't actually matter whether the video purports to be of a real incident, or is a simulation showing what the real event might look like. NPOV does require that the video be captioned carefully, so as not to suggest that it's proof or even evidence of anything - you would say something like "this video shows what the effect might look like", which would be equally true of a real event or a simulation. Stan 06:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, that's about the state where the article has settled down. There was a time when Doug wrote a version of the article that referred to the videos as evidence of SLI, and there was a time when I removed the videos entirely, but the current state seems to be acceptable to both of us. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Replaced videos deleted by Anonymous User 64.229.92.18 as being "stupid". Since this is his only contribution apparently he is a new user and this term might then be considered pejorative in nature. It would be considered also a personal point of view. This would be the new user's viewpoint and therefore not a NPOV. His point of it not being exactly that of a street light perhaps is true, however the artcle itself says at the beginning also "outside building security lights". These lights are of the same nature as street lights (i.e. arc lighting) and are used outside. The effect has never been talked about as happening in internal lighting, only outside lighting (flood lighting). --Doug ^talk 21:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Checking references

You can tell I've been doing a lot of editing on this article, including adding stuff based on the Cecil Adams column, and checking its existing references.

I'm looking for the publishing information of "The SLI Effect", but the places I search have never heard of a book with that ISBN. The Library of Congress hasn't heard of it. Amazon hasn't heard of it. Google Book Search hasn't heard of it. Furthermore, no book by that title appears on Amazon.

The PDF says that it's published by ASSAP, but that isn't sufficient information; if the only copies of the book that exist are the ones printed by the ASSAP organization, then that's essentially self-publishing, which makes it not a reliable source. Also, is ASSAP even eligible to assign ISBNs?

My working assumption now is that this is only a "book" in that it's a particularly long PDF, and the ISBN was made up. If this is true, we need to take it out as a source for the article, as it has no more standing than a page on ASSAP's website. But I'm not acting on this assumption yet -- Doug, can you point me to a legitimate publisher that has printed this book (even if it's out of print now)?

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am in contact with a Dr. Hugh Pincott (ASSAP Research Coordinator) in London, whom I have written to before since the beginning of the year, and have asked him of the ISBN number as quoted in the PDF free download. I have also asked him of the publishing status as to it being an actual book. Will let you know what he says when he responds. --Doug ^talk 21:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

E-mail received from Dr. Hugh Pincott on April 29:

It was definitely printed and published and the ISBN number is correct as 0-9521311-0-2. The book was sold by ASSAP and available to members and non-members alike. Regarding sceptics saying there is no such ISBN, they really didn’t try very hard, If you go to Book Butler (a Google sponsored link) at http://fr.bookbutler.com/?pid=google.gb.011&gclid=CIGDrMPP3YsCFTwHQgodC0fYcQ and type in the ISBN number in the search field, choosing Great Britain as the Catalog, it brings up the details. Best wishes, Hugh

--Doug ^talk 12:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reducing "The SLI Effect" to an external link

With no response from Doug, and with further checking convincing me that "The SLI Effect" has never been anything but self-published, I've removed the article text that depended on it as a reference and made it into an external link instead. This necessitated removing instances of the word "SLIder" from the article, as it's a neologism without a reliable source. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back to the videos

Welcome back, Doug.

I'm going to maintain that the videos you've re-added are not a particularly helpful illustration of the article. The captions say that they are meant to illustrate what a light turning off or on looks like, but every reader knows what that looks like without the help of a long video. (Also, the anon who removed the links left the comment that they "aren't even street lights", which strikes me as a valid objection when they're supposed to illustrate an article on street light interference.)

The videos illustrate something else, however, that the captions don't mention: an apparently skeptical observer behind the camera, who is then audibly astonished when the light goes off for whatever reason. That strikes me as rather biased toward making it look like SLI is real.

If you just want to illustrate "what it looks like when a light goes on or off", couldn't you cut the videos to just illustrate that moment, and why is it so important to you to illustrate such an obvious thing in the first place? Basically, what do you hope to accomplish by including these videos?

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The article does say that it is not only street lights, however could also be outside security lighting. Many times these are of the same lamp types - mercury vapor lamps. I wouldn't necessarily say it is obvious and that every reader knows of this phenomenon since there is a complete article here explaining it. The one video is 27 seconds and the other is 40 seconds - what I would say are short videos. The videos are just for "illustrative" purposes. I have not noticed others objecting to the videos. I have several videos on several subjects on several articles, however not one has been objected to. They are all for "illustrative" purposes. They could very well be faked, just like any picture that is used in an article. Many pictures show something obvious (a rose is a rose), however many are used anyway for "illustrative" purposes (i.e. to show varieties of roses). --Doug ^talk 12:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you've missed my point a bit. The article's about the belief that some people can mysteriously cause certain lights to go on and off, which is certainly not obvious. The videos, however, purport to be about what it looks like when a light goes on and off, which is obvious, and certainly shouldn't take 40 seconds to illustrate, if it's necessary to illustrate with a video at all. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC) (your remark).........the current state seems to be acceptable to both of us. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has changed since your remark, except that it has been verified that it was in fact a published book in 1993 and the ISBN is correct. --Doug Cauldwell 18:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What changed was that another user showed up and disagreed with the inclusion of the videos. It wasn't important enough for me to make an issue out of it, especially if it would just be a one-on-one disagreement that went nowhere. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ISBN

In the free download PDF it is showing an ISBN number of ISBN 0-9521311-0-2. Clicking the link on that number up on WorldCat it shows the University of Illinois as having a copy. It is also showing 3 places in Great Britian as having copies - which seems logical since this is where it apparently was written. Maybe you could order it through your local library through the Interlibrary loan system to put a physical copy in your hands. It apparently is small since it consists of only 52 pages, so the postage would be small (probably free through the library). Verification that this is a correct ISBN number can be done through ASSAP "contact us" Research Department or phone or write them. --Doug ^talk 16:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this out, and you were right to restore the word "SLIder" to the article. But why did you put it in bold and italics again? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Took this sentence that was used in the article from Feb 25 - March 1st, so thought it was a safe "agreed to" sentence, since it wasn't disputed then. However your version looks o.k. to me. I thought coined was a Wikipedia article, but if you want to remove that, fine by me. Perhaps I am misunderstanding this usage of "SLIder" as that of being a "coined" word, or I misunderstand the term. In either case removing the brackets and not refering to a Wikipedia article is fine by me. SLIder does not need to be bold or italized as far as I am concerned.--Doug ^talk 23:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on new additions

I appreciate you finding the Lighting Specialists Inc. quote, and in general expanding the article in an informative way.

Thanks for the nice comment.--Doug ^talk 20:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a few comments on the expansion:

Half this article is in italics now. It's Wikipedia style not to put things in italics just because they're quotes. It may work to reformat these quotations as blockquotes.

Put all of Hilary's remarks in blockquotes.--Doug ^talk 20:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The cycling picture is rather uninformative. When street lights cycle, they don't do it in square waves (the GE engineer quoted by Cecil Adams explicitly describes a non-square-wave phenomenon). So presenting cycling as a regular square wave, instead of the quasi-random fluctuations of a failing electric device, strikes me as a bit of a caricature. This may have something to do with how, earlier, you confused a description of a light fixture's behavior ("cycling") with a unit of measurement ("hertz").

O.K., agree to that. Took out diagram.--Doug ^talk 20:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the positioning of Hilary Evans' "rebuttal", making it sound like the final word. It is useful to the article to quote Hilary Evans in places as a source explaining the SLI point of view. He takes the scattered arguments and anecdotes in support of SLI and collects them in something we can at least cite. However, this still does not make the book a very reliable source in general, as it was never peer-reviewed or even fact-checked, it was simply published by a small paranormal organization. As soon as he purports to describe "what happens in the real world" as opposed to "what 'SLIders' think", his credibility goes away. His word does not carry as much weight as a reporter interviewing an industry expert, so it shouldn't be taken as a rebuttal of it.

That last Evans quote, in particular, severely misunderstands probability -- he says "a small fraction" with no numbers to back it up, and he likely does not have these numbers because he has never bothered to measure the negative cases (How many street lights do "SLIders" walk past that don't go on or off? How many street lights do "non-SLIders" walk by that go off?). He sets up a straw man that involves street lights failing exactly once after a predestined "life span", and he unquestioningly promotes observer bias by basing his response on anecdotes about entire strings of street lights going out.

Here's the thing: there pretty much can't be a verifiable rebuttal of Hilary Evans. No scientist is going to waste their time responding to a non-peer-reviewed, obscure book like this, and no reporter is going to bore their audience by specifically responding to this book either. So how did Hilary Evans manage to write a verifiable source where he could say anything he wanted to without being shot down? Well, he didn't.

Here's the Wikipedia guideline on fringe theories. It says that publications that promote a fringe point of view can be quoted, but need to be put in that context as a point of view. You did this fine with the first Evans quote. We need to find a way to rewrite the end of the article to do the same, so that the Hilary Evans quote explains his fringe point of view, instead of presenting that point of view as if it were factual. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In the section on Cycling, each point of view has been given exactly 197 words. Each has been given an equally fair presentation with their own particular point of view wording.

Also it does say "On the flip-side of this Evans in his book on page 16 counters", being the referenced source book of The SLI Effect point of view to the skeptics point of view.

As you pointed out in the first Evans quote I worded it as "in Evans book in the Preface he says", however in the second quote I am saying basically the same thing: ""On the flip-side of this Evans in his book on page 16 counters". Both are referencing Evans book of The SLI Effect. Looking at the policy you pointed out under the Section of "Sourcing and attribution" it makes reference to the bigfoot example. It points out that it was the Bigfoot Field Researchers Association that stated "There is now scientific proof for the existence of a giant primate species in North America", which is the correct way to present it as it had beeen carefully contextualized as a particular point-of-view from them only. The article doesn't even say SLI is scientific proof of anything, but only an alleged anomalous phenomenon. If I reworded what each source actually said to slant it towards my point of view it would be Original Research. All the references are verifiable. Wikipedia's policy is no original research. Anything other than the actual references of their wording (i.e. my injected wording) would be Original Research. Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source of information. Also it pointed out that Notability does not imply correctness or acceptance by an academic community (i.e. scientific community). The material does not have to be verified as truthful (actual proven facts), politically correct, or even approved by a community. Keep in mind there is a difference between Original Content and Original Research. I assume you did read page 16 of Evans book.--Doug ^talk 12:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did read page 16. I was in fact commenting on the fallacies in it above.

Notability is a completely unrelated issue -- I'm not talking about deleting this article. The issues at stake are verifiability and NPOV.

I am well aware that the verifiability policy does not depend on truth, but it does say a lot about "sources of questionable reliability with ... no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight". A book published through ASSAP would be such a source.

I think that giving Evans as much of the article as the electrical experts and reporters who have looked into SLI, and putting him in the "final word" position, constitutes undue weight on his view (see WP:NPOV#Undue weight). For example, there are no "prominent adherents" of SLI that I know of, so Hilary Evans' view may not even represent a "significant minority" according to the NPOV policy.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate your comments, however I do not believe a book published by ASSAP to be necessarily or automatically an unrelaible source. That would be your personal opinion, since you are one of the skeptics (correct me if I'm wrong on this point). I could just as well argue that you (because you personally believe the phenomenon to be stupid and non-existent) are putting "undue weight" on the side of the skeptics. While the reporters have "looked into SLI" it doesn't make them an expert on the subject and likewise for electrical experts. While they may be experts in electrical apparatus, they are not automatically an expert on anomalous phenomenon, as SLI is described. I'm not sure what your definition of "prominent adherents" is however I have noticed thousands of people reporting this experience personally worldwide when I search the internet on Street Light Interference (i.e. Google, Yahoo, etc). Also in the "About Us" section of ASSAP it says, "ASSAP was founded on 10 June 1981. Founders included well known authors Hilary Evans and Jenny Randles as well as Fortean Times editor Bob Rickard and scientists Drs Hugh Pincott and Vernon Harrison." In addition they also say, "ASSAP has no corporate views. Views or opinions expressed by members are theirs alone. We do, however, actively promote the scientific method." Keep in mind that I never said "final word", however I did give his rebuttal (with exactly the same number of words).

Wikipedia says "Verifiable in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Any reader can easily verify the material I am adding of the Evans book The SLI Effect because I am pointing out the exact page numbers where the material came from. In this case it is extremely easy for the reader since the book is a free download. The reader doesn't even have to go to the book strore or even the library. Cann't get any easier to verify the material than this.

Suggestion: Why don't we let other editors get in on this. I suspect there are hundreds (if not thousands) of other editors looking at this article. Perhaps they have something to say on the material I am adding. If there are several other editors objecting to some material I am adding then we have a concenses. However if it is just you objecting, then perhaps we have a skeptic promoting the skeptics side. I am entering this material in good faith. If it is actual Wikipedia policies that I am drastically breaking I believe another editor (probably not necessarily a skeptic or non-skeptic) will correct it and point out the Wikipedia policy I am breaking. By you objecting so much to everything I am putting in you are promoting the subject. I couldn't promote the subject as much as you are doing by all your objections to every little thing. So far I don't see other editors objecting to the material I am adding. Give this material some time for other editors to see and object on their own, if in fact I am breaking some Wikipedia policy. Your objections are looking more like a "skeptic's viewpoint" of the Street Light Interference phenomenon itself (i.e. scientific viewpoint), rather than from the viewpoint that Wikipedia policies are actually and intentially being broken. Please let others participate! --Doug ^talk 13:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right, of course, that I am a skeptic. An amusing thing about my SLI skepticism: I notice street lights going out around me quite often, particularly since I started editing this article. But this just illustrates how observer bias works. I didn't even think about street lights going out until I ended up editing a Wikipedia article on it, and they were, of course, going out just as often before I paid attention to them. People who believe in SLI start paying attention to the street lights going out, and therefore keep noticing them, and are startled enough by the fact that lights keep going out that they conclude that they have mystical powers. Meanwhile, I conclude that the City of Cambridge is bad at maintenance.

Yes, this puts me in the awkward position of arguing, one-on-one, that my point of view should be given more weight, but I believe that this is the point of view represented by verifiable sources. There is much more to verifiability than simply being able to read the source -- it's also important that the source carries some authority and has been fact-checked.

I'd be happy if others participated. I'll try asking for another third opinion; the dispute should perhaps be clearer now.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I was getting a little suspicious that you were a skeptic - thanks for confirming!. In my above Suggestion I believe the key would would be "let" and apposed to "ask". When you ask someone for a "third opinion" (being a confirmed skeptic) perhaps it might be slanted towards your point of view; whereas if we just "let" editors come in on their own volition then it would be more neutral. If you will notice I did not ask for other editors to support my position - I am just waiting until other editors edit on their own, since I believe there are many very intelligent Wikipedians out there that can speak on their own (without being asked to support any position). Don't you think that would be a more fair position and perhaps a little more neutral; then the editor would not feel obligated to support a position? Please let others participate! Don't worry, the article won't be interjected with unacceptable slanted points-of-view; however there may be things that you won't personally agree with. You don't need to help the other editors, they can edit all on their own to clean it up (I guarantee it). --Doug ^talk 18:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering where you expect these other editors to come from unless we ask for them. Aside from third opinions, no one else has taken an interest in this article since January -- and the people who commented before then left nothing but criticism of the state of the article at the time. Anyway, I've said numerous times how unfortunate it is that this comes down to a one-on-one debate with sporadic input from outside, because it means we hardly ever get anywhere, and I would be happy if others took an interest in this article. I'm certainly not somehow stopping people from contributing (unless I'm inadvertently exuding some mysterious Wikipedia Editor Interference), it's just that no one ever comes along.

An idea I've just had would be to invite both Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal and Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism to review this article. I feel, however, that this may be the wrong time, because many editors in those respective projects are currently involved in an arbitration against each other. Maybe it would still be the right course of action, but the last thing I want to do is to replace this small dispute with a large one.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

On the surface this sounds like a reasonable solution in getting "neutral" third opinions. Looking at these projects it looks like they are on opposite ends of the paranormal phenomenon. How about meanwhile we let other editors come in on their own volition to see what their input is. Then sometime in the future (a month or two or....), whenever they are finished with their current arbitration, then ask BOTH of them for their inputs. Since there is few people that seem to be interested in the article anyway, there will not be too many (if any) others to have to worry about. Then when these "experts" are available they can look the complete article over as it stands then and thrash it out. --Doug ^talk 21:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Let me start by saying that I am also a skeptic. However, I can agree with Doug in this instance. The Wikipedia policy on fringe theories notwithstanding, this entire article appears to be about a fringe theory, therefore I think it's impossible to give "undue weight" to verifiable sources promoting the fringe. That said, rspeer does have a point that the final word should rest with fact-checked and authoritative sources, if possible. Wouldn't it be possible to rearrange the ordering of sentences or paragraphs so that all the content each person wants is in the article? -Amatulic 18:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we can make some good progress based on this opinion. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not too sure what this opinion is: need a further explanation of what you think it means. As far as I can see there is the "skeptical" POV and the "flip-side" POV = each with 197 words. Looks pretty even to me and each side got their own point of view in. Its now up to the reader (which are very few apparently in your opinion) to determine what that means to them. Since it is now a NPOV, the reader can draw their own conclusions since it is not slanted in any particular direction. Also apparently this is again a "skeptical's POV" as to how to progress. I believe the above solution to get "professionals" in on this would be better and give a more neutral POV in the end (since it then wouldn't be slanted by either "skeptics" or "believers"). Lets get these above parties involved when they are capable to look over the article in depth. Meanwhile there won't be anybody unduly influenced or hurt in any manner since there are so few people interested in the subject (according to you). Eventually they will be available to look over the article and give their "professional" opinions as to how the Wikipedia article should be corrected and why (according to the current Wikipedia policies). Keep in mind that basically nobody is being hurt in any way since (apparently) there are so few people interested in the subject matter anyway. When the professional administrators are available (that are on opposite ends of POV's) then lets let them clean up the article according to current Wikipedia policies. If the article is slanted in any particular direction, the professions will notice. I'm not sure what you are afraid of anyway, since few people even read the article. FYI: even fewer people view the videos. --Doug ^talk 21:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to make myself clearer. My opinion made two points:

• The sources are OK. Quoting fringe sources is appropriate in this article. The number of words isn't important. Give more weight to the paranormal stuff; it wouldn't matter to me as a skeptic. What matters are the strength and validity of the arguments not the words they consume.
• The article isn't written in sense of side-by-side arguments for comparison. Rather, it's a sequential assertion-response format, with the paranormal fringe getting the final say. This "debate" format leads the reader to believe that the article has a conclusion, and it's on the paranormal side. From an NPOV perspective I find that disturbing.

Clear enough? -Amatulic 21:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me details on your opinion.

• I am taking the wording right out of page 16 of the reference book. I assumed you looked this over. The concept of "strength and validity of the arguments" I am still confused on. These are not my words, but the wording of the reference book. Can you explain further that of ""strength and validity of the arguments", keeping in mind these are not my words?
• Since I took this wording straight out of page 16 the skeptics view was first with the author's view as last. It was not my intention to place it this way. The author wrote it in this order; however if you would feel better that the skeptics have "the last word" I will be glad to rewrite it with Evans POV first and the skeptics POV last. Acceptable?--Doug ^talk 21:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is another thought on this. If what you mean by a "side-by-side" comparison, do you mean that of columns? I think I could do that if it would help the argument? Would that help? Just made a quick attempt at this; is this what you mean. I can improve later - just want to know if this is what you meant by "side-by-side"?--Doug ^talk 22:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No, columns aren't used in Wikipedia style. This kind of issue has been handled by many articles before, it simply requires finding the right presentation of ideas. I think the "side by side" comment was just a negative example that Amatulic used to show why counting words isn't important. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Took out the columns and arranged it so that the skeptics viewpoint was "the last word". It was Amatulic that said "I think it's impossible to give "undue weight" to verifiable sources" - so by putting the paranormal side last was only done that way because the author wrote it that way on page 16. It was unintentional as a "last word"; however I believe I have satisfied the situation by putting the skeptics viewpoint as "the last word". I'm assuming that waiting for the "professional administrators" (that are on both sides of the paranormal issue) until after their big arbitration and have them clean up the article according to the then current Wikipedia policies is acceptable to you.--Doug ^talk 12:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prominent Adherents

Here is some additional information pertaining to "prominent adherents" associated with ASSAP. This information I obtained from the ASSAP home page The president of the Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena ("ASSAP") is Lionel Fanthorpe. He is a well known cleric and Fortean researcher. His website is here and here is his "bio". Wikipedia has an article on Lionel Fanthorpe as well as Fortean Times and Charles Fort (a famous American writer and researcher on anomalous phenomena) of the Fortean philosophy. Here is the website for Fortean Times. Affilated groups that are associated with ASSAP can be found here that do research on anomalous phenomena.--Doug ^talk 15:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Though I won't put much stock in "prominence by association" through the Forteans or groups affiliated with ASSAP, it seems that Lionel Fanthorpe himself is somewhat prominent and specifically states his belief in SLI. So I think you have shown that belief in SLI qualifies as at least a "minority point of view" as described by WP:NPOV. However, I think it is relevant that Fanthorpe is only notable because of his advocacy for the paranormal. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Would have to disagree with you that "Fanthorpe is only notable because of his advocacy for the paranormal". Looking over The Reverend Lionel Fanthorpe's homepage it shows he is a fully ordained Anglican priest. Looking under Anglicanism it shows this as a religion associated with the Church of England, which is associated with Christianity. He has written numerous books on Christian themes, including the "Thoughts and Prayers" series. He has also given talks on "The Knights Templar and their Ancient Secrets". He is also a member of the high IQ society Mensa, which is is the largest, oldest, and best-known high-IQ society in the world. He is also a Dan Grade martial arts instructor and a weight training instructor.--Doug ^talk 17:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking under the Wikipedia article of Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena (a.k.a. ASSAP) it shows "prominent adherents" of Jenny Randles as well as Fortean Times editor Bob Rickard, Dr Vernon Harrison and Dr Hugh Pincott (previously secretary and treasurer of the Society for Psychical Research). Dr Pincott is the one I am in communications with by e-mail. Dr Vernon Harrison was a research physicist at PATRA and was appointed its director. It shows ASSAP as having a membership of about 300. The previous president was Michael Bentine who besides having had a long term interest in the subject of the paranormal was also a comedian and comic actor.--Doug ^talk 18:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page 16

This wording is not original research, however an exact quote from page 16 of the book written by Hilary Evans. It is so marked and noted in the article. The reference source is at the end and is a free download into a PDF file. This information is attributable, since it is an exact quote from a reference source book written in 1993 on this subject called: The SLI Effect..--Doug ^talk 12:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for making that more clear in the article. Someguy1221 17:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noticing light goes out

This particular statement would be original research since that has not been proven one way or the other. I have removed the statement since there is no reference from a published source that states this. The videos that show what could possibly happen when a light goes out shows that the SLIDER did not notice the bulb had actually gone out, while it was observed by the observers only. While the bulb could have been turned off by another person outside the video, it does show that the SLIDER did not notice the bulb went out while the observers did. The video shows just the opposite of this statement - rather the video is real or faked. Interestingly all the other bulbs on the bank of lights at the apartment building stayed on and only the one that the SLIDER went under went out. The bank of lights are all on the same light sensor on the outside of the building which means that normally they all go on or off at the same time. It would be most unusual for just one light to go out since they are all on the same electrical bank controlled by one sensor - however electronically it is possible and could be arranged with special wiring to show a possible fake presentation on a video. In either case, the below statement has not been published and verified by a reliably source.

Another important point worth mentioning is that those people who are not sliders do not notice that the lightbulb goes out while the slider does.^{[citation needed]} <-- this statement can be put back in IF there is a source that says this, which so far I have not been able to find. Perhaps the editor that put this in ORIGINALLY has a reference source for this statement. That is the reason I removed it - since there is no source for this information. --Doug ^talk 23:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)