This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jjjoyride (talk | contribs) at 20:24, 16 September 2024 (→Overall skepticism - too many things accepted un-critically: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:24, 16 September 2024 by Jjjoyride (talk | contribs) (→Overall skepticism - too many things accepted un-critically: new section)(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. |
|
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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Categories:- Selected anniversaries (March 2018)
- Selected anniversaries (March 2019)
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in People
- B-Class vital articles in People
- B-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- B-Class New religious movements articles
- Top-importance New religious movements articles
- New religious movements articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class paranormal articles
- Top-importance paranormal articles
- WikiProject Paranormal articles
- B-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- B-Class Kentucky articles
- Low-importance Kentucky articles
- WikiProject Kentucky articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- Low-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors