Talk:Edgar Cayce/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Note: Comments in archives 1 - 3 may not be entirely in chronological sequence, with some comments in some later archives dating back to generally earlier archives, and visa-versa.

New age stuff is Not for everyone it is only an alternative

Gnostics, Rosicrucians, Cayce may not be good with out the sufficient amount of spirituality ( and Chrisitanity if you were raised as one.) I don't recommend it for everyone, although I read and follow it. It was however, a power revelation for me because with the concept of Karma (which I got from Cayce not Buddhism/Hinduism), everything because fair and just and evolving, getting better. If Cayce's Christian background helped me a lot. It would have taken me a lot longer if I had to research Hinduism and Buddhism.

Previous unsigned comment by user:Jondel as of 02:35, 20 October 2004

ARE Summer Camp?

Removed the section. A summer camp created by admirers fifteen years after his death really has no place in the guy's biography.

Previous unsigned comment by user:Theotherkg as of 21:28, 3 November 2006

Everclear Reference

Edgar Cayce is referenced in the song "Why I Don't Believe in God" by Everclear (or "Culver Palms" by Colorfinger):

I heard the truth about you yeah you And it doesn't really read at all

Scared woman in a private hell Hushed voice like electric bells Strange talk about Edgar Casey in the long lame walk of the dark 70's Strange talk about Edgar Casey in the long lame walk of the dark 70's

This is interesting, and I've always wondered of the significance of this.

Previous unsigned comment as edited by User:131.230.86.149 at 08:08, 4 November 2006

A great article !

If this gets deleted, I understand, but from the articles I've seen in Wikipedia, this is a rare one involving spiritual concepts that has not been totaly dominated by a secular humanist POV. Good Job!

Previous unsigned comment by User:207.69.139.149 as of 01:47, 17 October 2007

Bias in the section "Universal Laws"

"Properly regarded, such laws represent an aspect of God's mercy whereby no matter what our circumstances, He has promised to guide us in our spiritual path."

This sentence states as a fact that 1:god exists, 2: is merciful, 3: is a bloke etc etc. This clearly biased line needs to be edited in order to either show that it is the contributor's own opinion, or somebody else's, and not stated as a fact.

Previous unsigned comment made on 19 October 2008 at 22:36 UTC by User:202.12.233.23

explanation of my edit

Before I edited the beginning of the article, it said that Edgar Cayce "believed he had the ability". Well, he did have the ability to enter a trance state and give answers. Whether the answers were right or not was not something Cayce even claimed to know. So as far as believing in what he could do, his only proof was in the results people had and the thanks received from reading recipients. He actually struggled for many years in whether he "believed" in all this or not. Therefore, I removed the "believed". The trance state is a fact, as is seen in the case of the person who ripped Cayce's fingernails out while in his hypnotic state. Cayce did not flinch while "asleep" but after the reading he awoke to great pain. And in this state, he did give answers to questions. It is of no importance to this edit whether or not anyone believed or disbelieved these answers were true.

207.157.121.52 (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Edgar Cayce was a quack

Edgar Cayce was a quack, he was not a licensed or qualified physician and he gave out nonsensical remedies and false health advice to his "clients". There are four references on the article that describe him as a quack or his alternative medicine claims as quackery. 5.101.169.146 (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If it falls asleep and is given just the address of someone, then proceeds to analyze their illness, give personal advice, and later receive documented clarification about the extent of the accuracy of the 'remote viewing', it's Edgar Cayce. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

"Clairvoyant" vs "claimed clairvoyant"

I added "self-proclaimed clairvoyant" to the description of Edgar Cayce, as this wording appears often in articles on individuals listed as psychics or clairvoyants.

I understand there is a dispute over whether he claimed clairvoyant powers. Edgar Cayce claimed that the source of his "readings" was his own "superconsciousness," which others also possessed and could access.

Here is a lecture delivered by Cayce, from his foundation's website: https://www.edgarcayce.org/about-us/blog/blog-posts/how-to-develop-your-psychic-ability-part/. A relevant quote: "In other words, we have thought so much about ourselves and the supplying of the needs of the physical, that we have gratified the fleshly desires until we have forgotten there is still an association of our soul with its Maker. That association is what we may choose to term psychic forces, or psychic abilities."

He here very specifically claimed psychic powers. Would the phrase "self-proclaimed psychic" thus be acceptable?

From your quote he's claiming that what he was doing was a part of his superconsciousness that others also had and could access. Since he was asleep during the readings he wasn't self-proclaiming psychic powers, just that when he awoke that he was told by others, mainly by his secretary, Gladys Davis Turner, who wrote down the words and transcribed them into notebooks which still exist, that somehow he was able to consistently access information. I think any change from the long-term language "clairvoyant" to "self-proclaimed clairvoyant" would have to be contingent on good sources which prove that the high-ratio documented success of Cayce's readings was fakery or an illusion. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The article on clairvoyant itself hedges with the word "claim." The language "claimed" or "self-proclaimed" is common on Wikipedia. In the quote above, he literally declares that his readings derive from "psychic forces." Your dispute started with an assertion that you didn't have proof Cayce claimed psychic powers. You have it and you are now moving the goalposts.209.37.78.193 (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, please sign your posts, thanks. The clairvoyant page also includes in the lede: "Any person who is claimed to have such ability is said accordingly to be a clairvoyant (/klɛərˈvɔɪənt/)[3] ("one who sees clearly")". So it's already covered there, and there is no need to add "alleged" or "self-proclaimed" to this page. Will look forward to other editors commenting, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough point, but as I said I was attempting to mirror wording on other articles about psychics. "Allegedly," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hurkos, "described himself," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenny_Kingston, "self-described," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danielle_Egnew, so on and so on. Agree other editors should pick up the ball on this one. Thanks again.209.37.78.193 (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Missing section on Cayce's relationship with Nikola Tesla

See above. Zmalsberg (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Published works

Could use a section on that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

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. [1] [2][3][4]

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)

[5] 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. Acousmana 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

"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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

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 “[N-word] 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)