Talk:Edgar Cayce

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. 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)

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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia's. Thanks for your work on the page, early sources and the rest. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Notes to Self and others

Find earliest dates of publication of claim of:

• Ghost of grandfather
• Encounter with 'woman with wings'
• Magical learning
• coccyx miracle cure
• 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.
• Claimed card game invention

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