Talk:Edgar Cayce

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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 365 days

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 18, 2018 and March 18, 2019.

Religion: Interfaith / New religious movements Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia'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 articles
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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
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 Wikipedia'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 articles

United States: Kentucky Low‑importance

	United States portal 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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Kentucky portal 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
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 articles

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I seem to recall reading that if a page is beyond repair delete and start again. Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your reasoning is invalid. Wikipedia 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)[reply]