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 12:43, 16 January 2024 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,923 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Edgar Cayce/Archive 3) (bot← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:26, 4 October 2024 edit undoFeoffer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers25,458 edits There Is a River as "highly sympathetic" 
(34 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|archive_age=1|archive_units=year}} {{Talk header}}
{{On this day|date1=2018-03-18|oldid1=830940787|date2=2019-03-18|oldid2=888351342}} {{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 banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Cayce, Edgar|1=
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top|NRM=yes|NRMImp=Top|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=top}} {{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top|NRM=yes|NRMImp=Top|Interfaith=yes}}
{{WikiProject Paranormal|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Paranormal|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Biography}} {{WikiProject Biography}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|KY=yes|KY-importance=low}} {{WikiProject United States|importance=low|KY=yes|KY-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=low}} {{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors}}
{{GOCE}}
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 19: Line 19:
}} }}


== Overall skepticism - too many things accepted un-critically ==
== Comments ==


Most of this article reeks of un-critically accepting hearsay. Here's the worst example:
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.
"When Gertrude became ill with tuberculosis, they used the readings after the doctor had given up and the treatment cured her."
:With all due respect, a lot here depends upon just who might be doing the presuming. Cheers. ] (]) 19:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
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.
::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?
In fact, major sections of this whole article are simply summaries of Sugrue and Cerminara; they should simply be prefaced as such.
::I might be the only one who didn't understand, so thanks for your patience. ] (]) 19:58, 2 August 2022 (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)
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-->
: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)
== What is the correct story re: "Pit" card game? ==
: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)
The article gives two different versions re: the "Pit" card game. What is the correct story?:


== Notes to Self and others ==
"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)


*Find earliest dates of publication of claim of:
== Paul Solomon another sleeping phrophet. ==
** 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)
Maybe an article should be written about him for wiki. He wrote several books.


: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)
~~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) ::Will do. ] (]) 10:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

:Who? And what has this to do with Cayce? ] (]) 13:05, 10 May 2023 (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? ] (]) 14:57, 4 October 2024 (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)

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: