Misplaced Pages

Talk:Edgar Cayce: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:26, 26 August 2023 editA. Randomdude0000 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,008 edits Restored revision 1167256934 by Catherineyronwode (talk): non-constructiveTags: Twinkle Undo← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:26, 4 October 2024 edit undoFeoffer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers25,452 edits →There Is a River as "highly sympathetic" 
(39 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Talkheader|archive_age=1|archive_units=year}}
{{On this day|date1=2018-03-18|oldid1=830940787|date2=2019-03-18|oldid2=888351342}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Cayce, Edgar|1=
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top|NRM=yes|NRMImp=Top|Interfaith=yes}}
{{WikiProject Paranormal|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Biography}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|KY=yes|KY-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(365d) | algo = old(365d)
Line 9: Line 18:
| minthreadsleft = 1 | minthreadsleft = 1
}} }}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Religion|class=B|importance=Top|NRM=yes|NRMImp=Top|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=top}}
{{WikiProject Paranormal|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no
|class=B
|listas=Cayce, Edgar
}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=low|KY=yes|KY-importance=low|listas=Cayce, Edgar}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=B|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors}}
}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2018-03-18|oldid1=830940787|date2=2019-03-18|oldid2=888351342}}
{{Vital article|level=5|link=Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Religious figures|anchor=New religious movements (26 articles)|topic=People|subpage=Religious figures|class=B}}

== supposed clairvoyant ==
Actually, "clairvoyants don't exist" is not a "personal opinion" but fits right in with our ] guideline. Nothing wrong with "supposed". --] (]) 07:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


== Overall skepticism - too many things accepted un-critically ==
:You have to step over a mountain of evidence to make such a claim as "clairvoyants don't exist." It's especially true about Edgar Cayce, the most credible, provable psychic in history.
:Also, Edgar Cayce never "claimed" to be. Saying such a thing is bound to offend the New Age community as insulting and demeaning. He ever came out and said, "I proclaim myself able to ......" He didn't have to. He demonstrated his abilities many times and they were recognized. Saying he was "recognized as" might be a better term and less apt to cause offense. ] (]) 19:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
::We would need some pretty strong reliable sources to state things this way. Cheers. ] (]) 19:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
:::The English language is the my source. Unless the subject makes a claim, using terms that approach legal language is not correct. I doubt we want to be called on it by, say, the A.R.E. That's why I say, "he was recognized as" <ref>{{Cite web |title=CAYCE HISTORY |url=https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1997-12-15-9712110677-story.html |access-date=2022-08-06 |website=Sun Sentinel}}</ref> is closer to the truth than saying he made an audacious claim like "I am a psychic," Edgar Cayce was a humble man who doubted himself more than others did. Since this is just talk, I'll refer you to the Sleeping Prophet for confirmation on that bit of information on Cayce. I can cite many sources for my own claims no matter what you want to say back to me.
:::I'll politely see you back here once I edit out "channeled his higher self," which isn't correct either. I welcome your valuable feedback. cheers ] (]) 15:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
::::Please read ] and ], "claimed" does not mean "self proclaimed". ] (]) 15:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
:::::it greatly depends on the context, doesn't it? I didn't say self-proclaimed. I said "proclaim myself to be." I probably should have simply used, "I claim that I am . . . ."
:::::Please excuse me, but haven't I heard "wikipedia is not a dictionary" somewhere before? ] (]) 05:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
::If facts offend people, that is their problem, not the problem of the people who speak about the facts.
::Your opinion about what has been demonstrated does not matter. What reliable sources say about it does. --] (]) 09:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
:::When facts are being discussed, not offending people with inflamatory terms when a more neutral term is available is policy. "claims to be" calls into question that which needn't be questioned at a particular moment, especially if it becomes an indictment of the subject's integrity in the opening paragraph of his biography. Saying something doesn't matter or someone's opinion doesn't matter is cavalier. Opinions do matter. They contribute to the fabric of truth, and that is not something one individual can dictate. Facts can change, and reliable sources can and should be questioned. ] (]) 06:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
::::If we have to delete everything that could make people look around for a fainting couch to fall on, without violating our integrity, we have to completely delete articles such as this one.
::::Other approach: Deleting the "claim" wording without replacing it by another wording that also calls the veracity of the claim into doubt would deeply offend me. What do you say now? --] (]) 10:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
:::::It also violates ] and ] as he was not a clairvoyant (nor did he claim to be), so we can't say he was in our words. ] (]) 10:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
:::::I didn't know it was possible to deeply offend you, hob gadling. My point is that the term "claims to be" could use some toning down. Most people believe in psychic phenomena so it seems WP:fringe doesn't apply
:::::Cayce was not a clairvoyant. He was a psychic.
:::::I wanted to say that the person or people who made this page did a beautiful job. I had been thinking that maybe someone else edited in the word, clairvoyant, rather than the original creators
:::::I'd didn't understand the fainting couch thing ] (]) 05:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
:::::: Most people believe in psychic phenomena] (]) 05:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
:::::::So what? Encyclopedic entries are not determined by voting. --] (]) 18:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
::::::::I wasn't talking about entries in an encyclopedia. The rules you referred to above WP:fringe are derived from "mainstream." I thought wpfringe stood for western pocket fringe. I'm saying that the mainstream belief is that psychic phenomenon exists, which means WP:fringe doesn't apply here. I said it's not fringe. It's mainstream by at least 57%. ] (]) 16:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::If you are not talking about entries in an encyclopedia, you are in the wrong place, because this page is for nothing else but improving an entry in an encyclopedia. And in this encyclopedia, ] refers not to things ignorant people reject but... why don't you just click on the link to find out what it refers to? You could have done that before too, BTW.
:::::::::Can we stop this now? You are ] to build an encyclopedia, as you said yourself. --] (]) 19:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
::As plenty of evidence was provided he was not, we must say it is only a claim. ] (]) 10:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
:::But Cayce didn't claim it. Others did. He just went about what he was doing and people seemed to want more. He never asked for or received payment for those readings, just did them as favors for people who wrote him and vowed to quit doing them if they ever hurt anyone (ever, just once - and they never did). There are over fourteen thousand documented and well-researched readings, every one of them done as a kindness. Saying he "claimed to be" wouldn't be accurate or encyclopedic, he didn't operate like that. ] (]) 07:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
::::So? Do we say "self proclaimed". IN fact that makes it even more important we point out this is only a claim (that others made about him). ] (]) 10:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
:::::i must politely disagree ] (]) 05:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
:::I don't accept that. Cayce's diagnotic readings are beyond reproach. The rest of it can be questioned. That doesn't mean he was not a psychic. It can mean a lot of things, but it doesn't throw away his amazing credibility as a psychic in the medical aid he gave. He had a rare interface between the metaphysical and the scientific world.
:::I notice that it's not necessary for the Jesus Christ article to qualify their statements with the word, claim
:::It's possible that the rest of it I that I refer to came from a source other than the medical diagnoses. There's a lot of speculation that goes along with that idea. ] (]) 18:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
::::'''it's a claim''', there's no scientific evidence for existence of paranormal abilities, our content shouldn't imply otherwise - and that goes for Christ, or any other religious/pseudo-religious/spiritual etc. figure you care to mention. That one or other article frames things a certain way, and has gone unchallenged, doesn't mean it won't be. ]] 20:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
:::::I had put in "putative" and then "purported" psychic. When someone got rid of those, I put in "attributed." I was simply trying to straddle the ongoing dispute and the problem. IMHO, like lots of religions, there is no scientific basis for the claim of psychic powers. The article discusses that in connection with Edgar Cayce in particular, both pro and con. But that folks believe it or 'attribute' the power to him is a fact. 'Attributed' is less argumentative than 'purported.' <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 13:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
::::::"Attributed" seems the best solution, and proves that when editors call other editors enough names it uses up most of the names, and then what's left is "attributed". Compared with some fringe "psychics" and their personal promotional schemes, Cayce's life, researched work, and humbleness in the face of what he was attributed to do, towers. ] (]) 15:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


Most of this article reeks of un-critically accepting hearsay. Here's the worst example:
== Comments ==
"When Gertrude became ill with tuberculosis, they used the readings after the doctor had given up and the treatment cured her."
Such a big bold statement requires some serious reference(s), or at least some weasel words like "apparently" or "according to ___".


And you can't just reference Sugrue & Cerminara: They didn't see Gertrude get cured.
In spite of the negative criticisms noted in the “Criticism” section, I would like to point out that though the criticism that were mentioned there were notable, it is hard to balance those minimum number of complaints with the 14,306 plus readings that presumably had some merit. Perhaps a better overall analysis is warranted.
In fact, major sections of this whole article are simply summaries of Sugrue and Cerminara; they should simply be prefaced as such.
:With all due respect, a lot here depends upon just who might be doing the presuming. Cheers. ] (]) 19:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


I'm thinking this whole article needs one of those tags at the top, that says "This article suffers from major weaknesses etc". Any reason not to do that?? ] (]) 20:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::hi, just asking for clarification. paraphrasing: hard to balance a minimum amount of complaints by wikipedia skeptics with 14,306 successful readings by Cayce? Or, "a small number of complaints by Cayce believers against a large amount of readings of the evidence by people who interpret Cayce as being a fake?
::I might be the only one who didn't understand, so thanks for your patience. ] (]) 19:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC) :Of course, it would be even better to improve the article, but that looks like a lot of work, probably with some opposition by people who like it uncritical. I notified ]. --] (]) 08:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
::I seem to recall reading that if a page is beyond repair delete and start again. ] (]) 08:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
:Have fixed the sentence concerning the op by adding "and she believed that she improved after using the treatment." An easy fix. Uncritical language is easily obtained while at the same time assuring that the topic is well-covered. ] (]) 11:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
::Jjjoyride wrote, {{tq|Here's the worst example}}. Okay, that was the first step.
::The article is a conglomerate of tales about weird things and commonplace things happening to Cayce or being done by him. Saw a ghost, read the Bible a lot, saw a woman with wings, got knocked by teacher, fell asleep, knew all the answers, became the best student, got hit in the ass, diagnosed it in his sleep... Yes, adding attribution is marginally better, but that is not how an encyclopedic article should read. I can't tell which parts should remain. --] (]) 11:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
:::The sourced material should all remain as part of Cayce's biographical history. He was researched by independent authors and journalists, and they reported on "what they found to be true", which is how journalists and historians should work. ] (]) 23:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Your reasoning is invalid. Misplaced Pages is not obligated to add everything that any reliable source writes. Otherwise, many articles would be millions of characters long. We have to choose what to include and what not. --] (]) 09:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)


Still getting my bearings, but obviously the text has been based on Sugrue, who is anything but an independent historian, closer to historic novel or something, describing the internal thoughts and feelings and direct quotes without sourcing.] (]) 04:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
I’m shocked that nobody mentions Edgar Cayce’s “ Messiah” prophecies, since these were so influential in keeping a compromised J. Edgar Hoover in office as FBI Director (and led him to order, with Nixon’s approval, the assassination of Mrs. Dorothy Wetzel Hunt, Michele Clark, and Rep. George Collins), in driving the Hoov’s unconstitutional persecution of MLK, Malcolm X, and other Civil Rights leaders, and ultimately led George HW Bush and Son (with help from John L. Turner Yale ‘95 and others) to groom and install Barack Obama as President so they could put him on the one-cent coin. Somebody should consult and quote the essay on this topic by Admiral Henry Louis Gates Jr. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Thomas Sugrue had been a reporter for the '']'' and '']'' before writing the book on Cayce, written while living at Cayce's home and receiving "readings" and advice for his own illness. It seems that Sugrue was a legitimate journalist historian who interviewed and researched Cayce over a period of years in order to write his book. There is no indication he did so with bias as much as interviewing a research subject, witnessing him work, and preparing a book about what he had found. Cayce was a unique subject, and Sugrue, an experienced well-travelled journalist, became his biographer. The sourcing was Cayce himself, who likely read and discussed the manuscript with the author. In that respect the honesty of Cayce should be taken into account, who by all indications did not exaggerate or give Sugrue false information, but simply elaborated on his life as he lived it. The "readings" existed, Cayce's secretary Gladys Davis Turner, family members, and others, gave Sugrue background and real-time evidence of the viability and accuracy of the subject as he wrote and edited. ] (]) 10:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::Sugrue isn't writing a biography so much as facilitating a memoir. It's a completely valid genre, and Sugrue isn't somehow 'wrong' to choose that style. But we can't just go from a line in Sugrue's narrative to knowing it's a fact. Rather, Sugrue's content really can be best understood as being prefaced with 'In the 1940s, Cayce told Sugrue...'. It makes a difference: Cayce can report recollections of seeing angels and ghosts as a child, but that doesn't tell us when those elements became part of the public narrative about his life. Would a follower from the 1920s have heard that story, or only someone who'd read Sugrue book? ] (]) 11:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Of course a descriptor would be needed at the points in the article where "claims are made", they should not be in Misplaced Pages's voice. "Cayce believed that he had seen..." may work. Since the incidents are based on Cayce's recollection of his experiences, he may have gotten something wrong due to the lens of time, but may have gotten a lot right too. But they should be in his or Sugrue's voice and not Misplaced Pages's. Thanks for your work on the page, early sources and the rest. ] (]) 11:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)


Content here has been copied over to ] to preserve the excellent summary of Cayce's life based just on ''There is a River''. ] (]) 10:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
==Published works==
Could use a section on that. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 15:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


== Notes to Self and others ==
== What is the correct story re: "Pit" card game? ==


*Find earliest dates of publication of claim of:
The article gives two different versions re: the "Pit" card game. What is the correct story?:
** Ghost of grandfather -- ''There is a River''
** Encounter with 'woman with wings' -- ''There is a River''
** Magical learning
** coccyx miracle cure ''There is a River''
** seeing aura
** Encounter with Stanley Hart -- Hart wasn't in Kentucky in 1901 so far as I can tell. He was there in 1900 before April and again in 1903. If first recorded mention of Hart as being the hypnotist is 40 years later, questionable. ''There is a River''
** Claimed card game invention
* Criminal issues? arrested for fortune telling on at least one occasion
* Continue to Split excellent summation of There is a River to its own section in author's bio so we can keep it indefinitely


] (]) 06:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
"1893–1912: Kentucky period
In May 1902, ... He invented Pit (or Board of Trade), a card game which simulated wheat-market trading. The game became popular, but when he sent the idea to a game company it copyrighted it and he received no royalties...
"1912–1923: Selma period
... He invented Pit, a card game based on commodities trading at the Chicago Board of Trade, to help raise money; the game is still sold today."
] (]) ] (]) 02:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
: I deleted the second iteration because the game was first marketed in 1904, during the "1893-1912" era, and hence too early for the "1912-1923" era. ] (]) 17:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


:Hi, thanks for your work in the article, but I'm not seeing edit summaries in most of the edits you're making, and I saw someone because they didn't understand why you were removing what they thought was key content. It's best to explain every significant edit because other editors cannot read your mind, and thus when these summaries aren't filled in, it can end up being seen as disruptive. ] <sup>'']'' • ]</sup> 19:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
== Paul Solomon another sleeping phrophet. ==
::Will do. ] (]) 10:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)


== '' There Is a River'' as "highly sympathetic" ==
Maybe an article should be written about him for wiki. He wrote several books.


The phrase is sourceable to the UVA bio, but I agree it's subpar verbiage: it sort of hints that it's ''too'' sympathetic, which is not what the source intends. We could of course cite "highly sympathetic", but it'd be better if we could just find some other way to say, in wikivoice, that Cayce came out looking really good to readers of the book, or other such characterization? Perhaps something about the response to the book? ] (]) 14:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
~~Ted~~ ] (]) 18:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
:Put on your writing cap, research him and add sources and, whoola, you have a Misplaced Pages article (even if short, which is called a stub). ] (]) 12:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC) :If the source said it, it is what they intend to say. ] (]) 16:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::Per your third opinion, I've restored it. I'm open to more neutral verbiage, but the reader can't fully understand the topic if we don't convey that the 1942 biography portrayed Cayce as heroic and had the effect of promoting him. ] (]) 16:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:Who? And what has this to do with Cayce? ] (]) 13:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:26, 4 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edgar Cayce article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 12 months 
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 18, 2018 and March 18, 2019.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconReligion: Interfaith / New religious movements Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconParanormal Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
WikiProject iconUnited States: Kentucky Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconSkepticism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Overall skepticism - too many things accepted un-critically

Most of this article reeks of un-critically accepting hearsay. Here's the worst example: 

 "When Gertrude became ill with tuberculosis, they used the readings after the doctor had given up and the treatment cured her."

Such a big bold statement requires some serious reference(s), or at least some weasel words like "apparently" or "according to ___".

And you can't just reference Sugrue & Cerminara: They didn't see Gertrude get cured. In fact, major sections of this whole article are simply summaries of Sugrue and Cerminara; they should simply be prefaced as such.

I'm thinking this whole article needs one of those tags at the top, that says "This article suffers from major weaknesses etc". Any reason not to do that?? Jjjoyride (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course, it would be even better to improve the article, but that looks like a lot of work, probably with some opposition by people who like it uncritical. I notified WP:FTN. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
I seem to recall reading that if a page is beyond repair delete and start again. Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Have fixed the sentence concerning the op by adding "and she believed that she improved after using the treatment." An easy fix. Uncritical language is easily obtained while at the same time assuring that the topic is well-covered. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Jjjoyride wrote, Here's the worst example. Okay, that was the first step.
The article is a conglomerate of tales about weird things and commonplace things happening to Cayce or being done by him. Saw a ghost, read the Bible a lot, saw a woman with wings, got knocked by teacher, fell asleep, knew all the answers, became the best student, got hit in the ass, diagnosed it in his sleep... Yes, adding attribution is marginally better, but that is not how an encyclopedic article should read. I can't tell which parts should remain. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
The sourced material should all remain as part of Cayce's biographical history. He was researched by independent authors and journalists, and they reported on "what they found to be true", which is how journalists and historians should work. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Your reasoning is invalid. Misplaced Pages is not obligated to add everything that any reliable source writes. Otherwise, many articles would be millions of characters long. We have to choose what to include and what not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Still getting my bearings, but obviously the text has been based on Sugrue, who is anything but an independent historian, closer to historic novel or something, describing the internal thoughts and feelings and direct quotes without sourcing.Feoffer (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thomas Sugrue had been a reporter for the New York Herald Tribune and The American Magazine before writing the book on Cayce, written while living at Cayce's home and receiving "readings" and advice for his own illness. It seems that Sugrue was a legitimate journalist historian who interviewed and researched Cayce over a period of years in order to write his book. There is no indication he did so with bias as much as interviewing a research subject, witnessing him work, and preparing a book about what he had found. Cayce was a unique subject, and Sugrue, an experienced well-travelled journalist, became his biographer. The sourcing was Cayce himself, who likely read and discussed the manuscript with the author. In that respect the honesty of Cayce should be taken into account, who by all indications did not exaggerate or give Sugrue false information, but simply elaborated on his life as he lived it. The "readings" existed, Cayce's secretary Gladys Davis Turner, family members, and others, gave Sugrue background and real-time evidence of the viability and accuracy of the subject as he wrote and edited. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Sugrue isn't writing a biography so much as facilitating a memoir. It's a completely valid genre, and Sugrue isn't somehow 'wrong' to choose that style. But we can't just go from a line in Sugrue's narrative to knowing it's a fact. Rather, Sugrue's content really can be best understood as being prefaced with 'In the 1940s, Cayce told Sugrue...'. It makes a difference: Cayce can report recollections of seeing angels and ghosts as a child, but that doesn't tell us when those elements became part of the public narrative about his life. Would a follower from the 1920s have heard that story, or only someone who'd read Sugrue book? Feoffer (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Of course a descriptor would be needed at the points in the article where "claims are made", they should not be in Misplaced Pages's voice. "Cayce believed that he had seen..." may work. Since the incidents are based on Cayce's recollection of his experiences, he may have gotten something wrong due to the lens of time, but may have gotten a lot right too. But they should be in his or Sugrue's voice and not Misplaced Pages's. Thanks for your work on the page, early sources and the rest. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Content here has been copied over to Thomas Joseph Sugrue to preserve the excellent summary of Cayce's life based just on There is a River. Feoffer (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Notes to Self and others

  • Find earliest dates of publication of claim of:
    • Ghost of grandfather -- There is a River
    • Encounter with 'woman with wings' -- There is a River
    • Magical learning
    • coccyx miracle cure There is a River
    • seeing aura
    • Encounter with Stanley Hart -- Hart wasn't in Kentucky in 1901 so far as I can tell. He was there in 1900 before April and again in 1903. If first recorded mention of Hart as being the hypnotist is 40 years later, questionable. There is a River
    • Claimed card game invention
  • Criminal issues? arrested for fortune telling on at least one occasion
  • Continue to Split excellent summation of There is a River to its own section in author's bio so we can keep it indefinitely

Feoffer (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your work in the article, but I'm not seeing edit summaries in most of the edits you're making, and I saw someone had to revert some of your changes because they didn't understand why you were removing what they thought was key content. It's best to explain every significant edit because other editors cannot read your mind, and thus when these summaries aren't filled in, it can end up being seen as disruptive. Stefen 𝕋owers among the rest! 19:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Will do. Feoffer (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

There Is a River as "highly sympathetic"

The phrase is sourceable to the UVA bio, but I agree it's subpar verbiage: it sort of hints that it's too sympathetic, which is not what the source intends. We could of course cite "highly sympathetic", but it'd be better if we could just find some other way to say, in wikivoice, that Cayce came out looking really good to readers of the book, or other such characterization? Perhaps something about the response to the book? Feoffer (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

If the source said it, it is what they intend to say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Per your third opinion, I've restored it. I'm open to more neutral verbiage, but the reader can't fully understand the topic if we don't convey that the 1942 biography portrayed Cayce as heroic and had the effect of promoting him. Feoffer (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Categories: