Talk:Edgar Cayce - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by StefenTower (talk | contribs) at 07:14, 14 January 2024 (→top: Talk page template cleanup for WikiProject Kentucky). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:14, 14 January 2024 by StefenTower (talk | contribs) (→top: Talk page template cleanup for WikiProject Kentucky)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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:

Religion: Interfaith / New religious movements Top‑importance

	Religion portal This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance).

Paranormal Top‑importance

	This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This 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

United States: Kentucky Low‑importance

This 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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky (assessed as Low-importance).

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This 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

supposed clairvoyant

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

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. MikiBishop (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

We would need some pretty strong reliable sources to state things this way. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 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" 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 MikiBishop (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Please read wp:or and wp:v, "claimed" does not mean "self proclaimed". Slatersteven (talk) 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? MikiBishop (talk) 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. --Hob Gadling (talk) 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. MikiBishop (talk) 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? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

It also violates wp:fringe and wp:npov as he was not a clairvoyant (nor did he claim to be), so we can't say he was in our words. Slatersteven (talk) 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 MikiBishop (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Most people believe in psychic phenomenaMikiBishop (talk) 05:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

So what? Encyclopedic entries are not determined by voting. --Hob Gadling (talk) 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%. MikiBishop (talk) 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, WP:FRINGE 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 WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, as you said yourself. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

As plenty of evidence was provided he was not, we must say it is only a claim. Slatersteven (talk) 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 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). Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

i must politely disagree MikiBishop (talk) 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. MikiBishop (talk) 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. Acous mana 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.' 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

References

"CAYCE HISTORY". Sun Sentinel. Retrieved 2022-08-06.

"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. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments

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.

With all due respect, a lot here depends upon just who might be doing the presuming. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2021 (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. MikiBishop (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2022 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.129.186 (talk) 07:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

What is the correct story re: "Pit" card game?

The article gives two different versions re: the "Pit" card game. What is the correct story?:

"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." Bhami (talk) Bhami (talk) 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. Catherineyronwode (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Paul Solomon another sleeping phrophet.

Maybe an article should be written about him for wiki. He wrote several books.

~~Ted~~ 2607:FEA8:483:8E00:C515:EE43:D835:E566 (talk) 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). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Who? And what has this to do with Cayce? Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Categories: