Talk:Edgar Cayce/Archive 1

message: :The following was posted by 68.35.53.80 at 04:04, 8 January 2006 Lumos3 23:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts 

message: This article needs work.  -- Zoe
:Quite. It's both credulous and poorly written: "sickness and other ailments"? Vicki Rosenzweig
Funny how people with very little knowledge on the subject post early and often.  That is a major flaw.
:As of June 2005, it's still poorly written.  It's generally disorganized and repetitive, it uses catch phrases without explaining them (e.g., calling something "shotgunning" without explaining what it is or why that matters here), and contains a lot of one-sentence paragraphs without any apparent link to what comes before or after.  
Much of the research is not finished. The article could be expanded. As far as "other ailments", evidently the author was not prepared to dive into the Akashic Files or the myriad of other documented Cayce readings. This could become another in-depth similar to New Age. "Poorly written" may be correct also since it appears the ongoing wiki problem with copyrights might prohibit even paraprhasing some of the 100,000+ readings which would validate or appease the finer authors here. BF
:What part of these amazing abilities is the result of attempts to avoid copyright violations? -- Zoe
The readings may be viewed at the online Edgar Cayce Foundation. Permissions to quote ad lib haven't been granted. Perhaps "retelling the story" would be ok. If anyone wants to dive into the over 100,000 readings, that's what Wikipediahololics do. Apparently this author is not willing to spend a month doing so. Others may. BF
Sounds like self-justification to me.  -- Zoe
I moved this comment from the article page to here for discussion:
: ...Dr. Hugo Münsterberg, a professor from Harvard University who investigated Cayce to determine if he was a fraud, or not-- the results were supportive.
This claim needs a citation and more detail: professor of what, investigation published where. Just tossing names like Harvard University into the article without proper citations would give credibility to a claim that otherwise is lacking. --Zippy 00:39, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortcomings 

message: I created a section about Karma based on Edgar Cayce's readings in the Wikipedia Karma article.  The book, Many Mansions (about E.C.) was my first introduction into Reincarnation and Karma.  I don't know if I should copy the Karma section here.  Would that create a needless duplication? What appeals to me is E.C. 's Christian orientation towards Hindu concepts of Reincarnation and Karma.  
:I suggest the section should remain over there only. I am doing some similar articles on people and their doctrines, and a natural line seems to occur between the events in the life, which go in the person's article, and the content of the doctrine, which go in the doctrine's article. Otherwise, if the doctrines are comprehensive and someone does a good job including them all, the personal article just bloats up and diffuses. Some doctrine will naturally end up included in the personal article, but mostly just summaries or how the doctrine interacted with events in the life.--Gary D 19:13, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karma 

message: Anyone with better info should contribute to (edit) the article.  Whoever wrote the article didn't do a thorough research or reading on Edgar Cayce.--Say Yang
----
I am hardly "credulous" when it comes to Edgar Cayce. I'm the one who peppered the article with Cayce's massive mistakes and spectacular strikeouts. The man was a puppet in the hands of people with an agenda to promote. It took all I had not to insert a (polite) word or two on the concept beloved by the New Age religion that anything said while in a hypnotic or trance state is The TRVTH. 
The problem with Cayce's "doctrine" is that it was an eclectic mix of whatever he'd picked up from assorted books on theosophy and Hindu philosophy, combined with the belief systems of whoever he'd allowed to hypnotize him. Cayce was a people-pleaser whose audience liked to hear a good story in which everything was explained (thus the Ra Ta business et al). A sampling of Cayce past life readings reveals the usual mixed bag; lonely, bored housewives told that they'd been queens who were suffering now because they'd been unjust to their people; a boy with polio and epilepsy told that his sufferings were the result of "severe sexual misconduct"; and so forth. Cayce also said that God arranged for innocents to suffer in order to raise their spiritual consciousness.  What does that say about the people who cause the suffering of the innocents -- a man who rapes his daughter, for instance? Is he absolved of his crime because he contributes to her spiritual elevation? 
Actualy A man that rapes his daughter will be subjected to being later raped by the Goverment he is under or in a future life be a daughter of a child raping father. No one excapes Karma I.E. you reap what you sow. Cheers!  
           
'Course I can't say any of that in the article 'cause that isn't NPOV. Have to find another source that makes similar observances and cite it. Shouldn't be too hard. Also, police reports about his monumental failure in the Lindbergh case.  --Bluejay Young 03:41, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
   
:It would be nice to read a more informed person that does not assume truth is theirs to mold.  Then again, this is wikipedia.  The truth has no place here - only truthiness.  And the answer is, no.  If you read a bit more, you would know that.  By the way, have you heard how the african elephant population has tripled in the last six months?      
-----
I too added a lot of the skepticism.In fairness, the New Agers have a perfect right to submit whatever they like--this is wikipedia--but the skeptics have a right to debunk every word. Cayce was a fraud. -- 
 dino 16:49, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs work. 

message: dino, (and perhaps others) I would like to work with you to remove all of the "new age worship" out of the article. I don't take the word worship literally, but this idea does portray a good image. It has been discussed that one of the problems people see with the article is its heavy new age influence. I hope to come to an agreement that everyone likes.
:The problem is that Cayce's statements on karma, reincarnation etc. contributed a great deal toward the origin of the New Age religion in America. He was deeply influenced by his handlers, who were apparently devotees of Alice Bailey, C.W. Leadbeater, etc.  He also worked for a bookstore that carried a lot of titles on alternative medicine and metaphysical themes. Cayce's readings and other people's commentaries / explanations of them popularized these beliefs. He was considered the "first American mystic" (he wasn't, as far as I'm aware Mother Ann Lee was).  It's very hard to take the New Age out of any report on Cayce. The best you can do is to say "Cayce reported accessing the Akashic Records" or "Cayce was acclaimed as a highly spiritual person." that way you don't say he was one. --Bluejay Young 20:00, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
:The readings would often describe incarnations where the individual was at its spiritual highest,
would it be agreeable to say:
:Cayce said the readings would often describe incarnations where the individual was at its spiritual highest,
Or am i way off the mark? Please comment.
:I don't think you need to go that far. Cayce dictated the readings, so we can assume everything in them was stated by him. I would say more like "Cayce's readings often described the subject as someone of a highly spiritual state", or "Cayce's readings often included descriptions of the subject's supposed past lives.." and so forth. --Bluejay Young 20:00, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
"Cayce dictated the readings, so we can assume everything in them was stated by him. "
Actually, I was just watching the History Channel last Night and Cayce's surviving family stated that no, Cayce did not feel that what he spoke during his self-induced trances were in fact his own statements.  He often used the 3rd person 'we' when speaking in trance. For example, he would say "We see this" and "Wee see that".  The statement was also made that he had no recall of what was said during the trances.  
I came here to see what Wikipedia had to say about him and I must say - this discussion is both encouraging and discouraging.  It's encouraging in that there is real dailog going on but the edit-wars that are clearly ongoing between a minority are disappointing.
I will spend some time on this article in the next few months and do my best to add some quotes from citable sources and from the History Channel Show which I will also reference.  the show as called 'The Other Nostradamus'
Peace  - Lisa Pollison
Be careful with the History Channel show; it has a fair amount of misinformation. It tends to generalize and exaggerate several elements, such as implying that Cayce regularly read books by sleeping on them.  (As far as I've read, there was one incident he related where he heard a voice tell him to put a spelling book under his pillow, and he knew its contents the next day.  I don't know of any other incidents that have been mentioned.)  Double check with other sources.  Gentaur 14:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New-Agey Worship 

message: Here i want to (so long as i have a partner), go over the skeptics section.
:Skeptics do not believe Cayce had any paranormal powers whatsoever..
To me, skeptic means unsure with a tendency toward the answer no. but it would appear as though scepticism is defined as no belief whatsoever in the article. Please explain.
:The word skeptic formerly meant one who questions established or assumed beliefs. "How do you know?" and "Don't take anything for granted." However, colloquially it has come to mean a person who has no belief whatsoever in anything that cannot be conclusively proved by the scientific method. Instead of staying on the fence about questionable ideas, many modern skeptics tend to treat such concepts as "guilty until proved innocent". They also tend to make value judgements about the people who choose to believe in unproved or non-mainstream things (for example, herbal medicine or chiropractic). A tendency toward sneering sarcasm, cheap shots and nasty asides cannot be overlooked in the writings of famous skeptics such as Martin Gardner and in some places the movement has degenerated into trollish trash best exemplified by sites like "The Portal of Evil".  (Example: old-time skeptics might say "There's no evidence as yet that fairies exist." Modern skeptics might say "Fairies do not exist and it is pathetic and immature to believe in them."] It is my personal belief that skeptics, like everyone else trying to make a case for something, are best served by a journalistic approach and sticking to the facts. You can say "Bernadette Soubirous reported visitations of the Virgin Mary 18 times" without believing in Mary or believing Bernadette saw her. --Bluejay Young 19:35, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
------
I am going to remove that statement.  This is not about what Skeptics believe.I will be making edits, hopefully it will be NPOV and acceptable to all.--Jondel 10:37, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skeptics Explanation 

message: I have added a section on Cayce’s life which is lacking in the article and which can generally be told without offending supporters or sceptics since its a matter of record. My sources are the time line of his life at www.kyseeker.com/ christian/cayce.html and the biography in Many mansions by Gina Cerminara pub 1950. Lumos3 22:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life History 

message: To be a pseudoscientist one has to make the claim that one is using science to support claims being made. Cayce never claimed he used science to gain knowledge. He was a mystic. Either the pseudoscience category should be removed or all mystics are pseudoscientists which is nonsence. Lumos3 23:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cayce A Pseudoscientist ? 

message: I would like to request a summarized version at the simple English wikipedia as a base for translations. Translators normally organize and simplify before translating --Jondel 00:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple English Request 

message: This entire section should be deleted - it is promotional. Most of the well-respected new age writers and lecturers do not consider David Wilcock to be Cayce reincarnated, but instead, consider him to be a relentless self-promoter and inauthentic. (Just take a look through his web site) He has also written a book "The Reincarnation of Edgar Cayce" which is full of inaccuracies. He provides nothing new in terms of information, and doesn't come close to the mastery of Cayce.
:Why not separate into a David Wilcock article? (For myself, I don't know anything about him.)  --Jondel 11:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted the 2 links to Ascension2000.com in the Belief section of links.  http://ascension2000.com/ is the website of David Wilcock, who claims to be Cayce reincarnated.  These links constitute self-promotion, and furthermore, are far outside any "mainstream" discussion of Cayce. The links to an article should at least lead to generally accepted sources within the Cayce community (or, alternatively, within the community of Cayce skeptics).  Additional note: I also deleted the link to the Law of One article (which I recommended for deletion).  That article is an entirely transparent promotion of David Wilcock, and adds nothing at all to the discussion on Cayce in this article. --StrangeAttractor 06:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Wilcock - Cayce Reincarnated? 

message: I'm thingking of adding a section here from Cayce's readings. --Jondel 02:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Atlantis]] 

message: "Cayce people"  is used several times in the article to describe followers of Cayce and yet a Google search on this finds almost no use outside of the article. I suggest it is replaced by another term like followers   Lumos3 20:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term "Cayce people." 

message: This article repeatedly uses words like "claimed" instead of words like "stated" or "posited" or "taught" for Cayce's positions. This makes it palpably evident what the author(s) think of Cayce's work, and job of Wikipedia writers is to inform people; not to give weighted opinions intended to color the interpretations of others.
For example:
"He may have been the source for the idea that California would fall into the ocean (though he never said exactly this)." The second sentece of the article concerns a claim that we have no idea whether Cayce ever made?
Compare:
"Jesus may have been the source for the idea that alcolhol should be used to celebrate weddings."
As written, this may be true. But as nobody knows whether it's true or not, nor does it matter, why would anyone include it in the article? If others are attributing the "fall-into-the-ocean" theory to Cayce, it might be proper to mention that some people attribute this theory to him, though there is nothing in the Cayce readings to support it. Even then, it shouldn't be the second sentence of the article.
Compare:
"Cayce became famous for answering questions while in what appeared to be a trance or 'sleeping' state."
to
"Cayce became famous for answering questions while in a trance or sleep-state."
The first sentence assumes the trance is a charade, or that its interpretation by others was a mistake.
A distinction should also be made betweeen Cayce's waking life and his trance-life. Several phrases begin, "Cayce believes..." or "Cayce teaches..." These should say, "The Cayce readings teach..." because the waking Cayce at times had difficulty accepting what his trance-self had posited. (Reincarnation, for example.)
There is no reason for the word "readings" to be in quotations. It makes them sound fake. Whether they are or not is for the reader of the article to decide. The proper rendering would be to capitalize it:
Readings.
Compare this to an article on Christianity which said, "The 'scriptures' claim that Jesus is God." vs "The Scriptures claim that Jesus is God."  You don't have to believe them yourself to use fair language about them.
The first sentence makes it sound as if they are clearly, obviously not truly Scriptures. Agree or not, your bias should not be blatantly clear for an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jason R. Peters (talk • contribs) .
:These are some very fine points, and I've had to struggle with exact word choice in this regard in numerous articles of this type -- to make it clear I was trying to give an on-the-fence interpretation rather than detracting or debunking.
:I do resist using the word "claim" because it has come to have a detracting connotation, as in "unsubstantiated claim". A quick google define lookup on the word 'claim' shows that this connotation is nowhere present in the actual definition. On the other hand, I stand by the "while in what appeared to be a trance state" type of thing, because that was a subjective thing experienced only by Cayce -- observers could report only what they saw. I agree with you about the word "readings" always being in quotes; it only needs to be in quotes when it first appears (e.g., Cayce's assistants called these sessions "readings").
:California falling into the ocean: This is part of the "earth changes" statements and maybe we should write in exactly what Cayce did say or provide a link to what he actually said. --Bluejay Young 18:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well he did claim to receive this information via occult means. Since it's not proven, it is a claim. If he received letters from someone giving him information about a subject, it's not a claim, it's an observable fact. There's nothing wrong with claim. As far as his answering questions "in a trance state" of some sort, he claimed it, and there is no way we could prove that he was a) in a trance, and conversely that he was b) faking it. 66.93.100.253 19:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent Bias 

message: I've cleaned the article up a bit. I came through :Category:Pseudoscience and simply wanted to transcribe the pronunciation of "Cayce" in IPA, but then I saw a huge amount of other things... I haven't read the whole article, though I will. I've never been a New Age person and I'd never heard of Cayce, so maybe the article shouldn't make him look as universally known, even by New Agers. There's much POV checking to do here, but regarding format only, the "timeline" seems to me excessive and very unencyclopedic. For the time being, I've removed the links to solitary years, as per the Manual of Style, and correcting some of the other links (bypassing redirects and disambiguation pages, etc.). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Channeled answers to questions" is more accurate than "lectured".  The sessions were more like "Ask Jeeves" than a classroom or forum setting.  Gentaur 09:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Pablo - Cayce is indeed very well known to communities interested in several topics -- 1) new age beliefs; 2) alternative health treatments; 3) reincarnation.   A Google search will reveal that Cayce is probably one of the most written-about American psychics.  I would have to say that within the communities I mention above, he is indeed "universally known."  I agree with you, however, that this article needs a lot of work.  I also agree that the timeline is probably unnecessary; this information would be better summarized within the article. --StrangeAttractor 06:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag 

message: The following was added to the "Other Cayce-like figures" section by Freddie LaFemina:
The Cayce Institute of North Massapequa has since early 2006 espoused many of the principles of Cayce's teachings.  Headed by Frank Seminario, a college dropout who claims Cayce's predictions still hold much promise for the future of the world, the Institute promises to be a useful resource for Cayce followers worldwide.  Seminario has predicted that Atlantis will soon be discovered in Indonesia, unearthing pre-history revelations of the lost civilization.  Seminario has also, based on his reading of Cayce, predicted that a massive tsunami will strike the East Coast of the United States on May 16, 2007.  Seminario has attracted a very small but devoted following on Long Island and is likely to expand in the near future, espousing all sorts of ideas from his Institute, including biblical literalism and global warming.
The questions I have are whether the guy is notable enough for inclusion, and if so, whether he should be in that section.  He's not a Cayce-like figure with powers of his own, but someone who started a group to interpret Cayce's readings.  Coyoty 19:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frank Seminario 

message: I reverted a mess of unsourced New Age info.  I debated this, as even the New Agers (with whom I, a skeptic with no spiritual belief whatsoever, vehemently disagree on almost all points), have the right to their say, but ...
:many foreseen events are not immediate??? Meaningless
:including the spiritual talents Jesus taught??? Source?
:and because Roman influences destroyed the teachings for developing the spiritual tools they have not understood that Jesus taught the use of dreams and visions for healing and foresight??? Incomprehensible, unsourced
:The Creator does not support killing or death (war, murder, executions etc), only life??? What creator?
:The Source's communication to humanity via dreams, visions or remote viewing support this, however most church's are devoid of the spiritual tools Jesus taught so they lack the ability to confirm this in real time from their Living God??? Source?
Sorry, there is simply not the slightest, remotest evidence of a spirit world or of psychic phenomena, and superstition deserves to be treated as superstition.  
dino 18:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted unsourced new age info 

message: Obviously some new ager decided that Wikipedia was a forum for their religious evangelizing. Under the Criticism section there were numerous supporting arguments that involved the critics lack of spirtual talents as taugh by jesus, the nature of god, and Cayce's prophethood. I couldnt believe no one had gotten rid of it yet. Now its gone, but the article is full of repetition.
Well I time the people will realise Wikipedia is only for Secular Humanism evangelizing.
dispite the findings of modern science the fat end of the bell curve tends to have the most agreement and a dominate point of view through out Wikipedia.
Articals involving spiritual concepts need to be on gaurd for Humanist Vandalism.
 
The new age pages have to be monitored more closely. I agree with previous editors, this page doesnt even have a pretense of academic credibility. It should be reworked. And there should be neutrality flags as well as quality clean up. Not to mention restriction of repeat silly newage posters.
For the New Agers doing this
You are undermining the credibility of Wikipedia and the "philosophies"  that you support. In the future before a post, please make sure the structure and content of your additions look like something that resembles an encyclopedic or academic article. Somone reading this with any experience in academics or religios studies will immediately observe its failings and will not be converted. Rather than the conversion or "enlightenment" you are vainly hoping to share, you cement the perception of New Agers as ideologically, academically and religiously inconsitent, and for the most part just plain silly and lacking credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkerofarabia (talk • contribs) 21:23, 1 July 2006 UTC
Well since people that academically study religions are emblued with a marxist mindset and that all religions are bogus This artical would be a faliure if anyone from academia thought it was a good artical.
 
:Yeah! Cayce did not want anyone to change religions because of him.  If you're a Muslim, be the best Muslim you can be.  Judge a tree by the fruit it bears.  I thought the fruit was delicious, but everyone has different tastes.  A lot of people like ice cream, but it makes me sick because I'm lactose intolerant--24.239.186.68 05:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism was Ridiculous 

message: Cayce's business card described him as a "psychic diagnostician".
I'm quite new with Wikipedia, so I will be starting small, but I would like to help get this biography up to an "A." I looked up the credibility of this sentence, and it appears to be factually inaccurate, so I am going to delete it shortly. The phrase did not appear on a business card. Jess Stearn states in Edgar Cayce - The Sleeping Prophet (p. 6, Bantam Books 1981 edition) that the phrase appears to originate with Dr. Wesley H. Ketchum who "used Cayce as an adjunct to his practice for several years, styling him a Psychic Diagnostician..." Sidney Kirkpatrick in Edgar Cayce: An American Prophet (Page 150) indicates that the phrase appears on a sign "a few yards" behind the sign indicating the entrance to his photography studio. The photography studio was provided to Cayce in exchange for his agreeing to a business partnership with Ketchum, Leslie Cayce (Edgar Cayce's father), and Albert D. Noe. According to Kirkpatrick (pp. 147-148), Cayce, then in Montgomery, Alabama, accepted a five-year contractual partnership on the conditions that no one would be turned away based on an inability to pay and half of the income would go to Cayce and his father. Ketchum and Noe would receive the other half, out of which they would cover the operating expenses and finance the photography studio. The "psychic diagnostician" sign was down the hall from Cayce's photography studio and "written in smaller letters" (150). 
Given the factual inaccuracy of the sentence and its dubious importance, I submit that the sentence should be deleted in its entirety. In my opinion, any importance that the sentence could have, even if it were factual, would be to imply a financial motive driving Cayce's career. I think most fair-minded skeptics would consider Cayce self-deluded but not acquisitive.
The sentence needs a citation, or it should be deleted, and this is basically the "last call" for a citation.--Derrida316 04:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go ahead and make your change. Your justification looks way beyond the standard required. The Wikipedia maxim is Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages Lumos3 16:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting small with this sentence 

message: The whole section reads like WP:OR, lacks sources, and states pseudohistory as fact. Some problem examples are "the Cayce readings affirm the existence of Atlantis," "the crucial element is that of opening up to divine influences," "Cayce readings allude to massive earth changes—perhaps in conjunction with a pole shift—in the 1930s, 1960s, or 1990s," and so on.
This section must be sourced and cleaned up to avoid WP:OR and WP:NPOV or else it will be removed. PatriotBible 21:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree that this section, at a minimum, needs to be sourced, but I don't see its primary problems being WP:OR or WP:NPOV. POV would depend on if you read "the Cayce readings affirm the existence of Atlantis" as meaning "the Cayce readings confirm the existence of Atlantis," but that seems like a neutral use of affirm. Perhaps you could explain what you mean as "pseudohistory as fact" because I don't see anything there that corresponds with "pseudohistory"; the fact that some reading mentioned "earth changes," for instance, would qualify as an historical fact, not a pseudohistorical fact. It would be pseudohistory to try to affirm that the earth changes mentioned actually happened, by my understanding. Please clarify what needs to be sourced and what violates neutral point of view. Derrida316 08:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the majority of this whole article reads like it was written by complete skeptics who wouldn't believe a thing Cayce said or did even if it happened right before them. It most certainly is NOT a neutral POV, but for the opposite reason. Compare this massive array of "claims" and "purported" abilities to the page on Jesus Christ, a figure who lived 2,000 ago without as regimented and meticulously documented work as people have for Cayce. Please note that the article on Jesus Christ does not contain the word "Claimed" except in the context of what Islam claims about Christianity, and others historic figures who claimed to be Jesus Christ. The word "purported" in the article about Jesus Christ is applied only to relics of Christ, not Christs' teachings, powers, authority, theology, philosophy, prophesy, or otherwise. Wikipedia is not a place to publish your personal views of what Cayce, or anyone, said or did, but represent the facts and widely understood beliefs in a neutral fashion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lomerell (talk • contribs) 23:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see any reason why this article should be tagged for NPOV.  The Jesus Christ article Lomerell made referance to carefully and consistantly attributes every claim as being from a particular source, never at any time simply asserting any action or belief as fact.  The Jesus article introduces possible criticisms.  Hence, about Jesus we have sections that say "according to sources X, Y and Z Jesus did A, B, C and D.  However...."  Here we are dealing with a very different situation.  This article is essentially a biography and should be treated as such.  (RookZERO 02:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its been a full week since this discussion... so far as I can see, there is not an NPOV issue at this point and I am going to remove the NPOV tag on the article.  If you feel it should be there, please replace it and comment in talk.  (RookZERO 13:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Themes NPOV 

message: In the Controversy and Criticism section, this statement is made:
"...stating that US scientists would discover a "death ray" from Atlantis in 1958."
This doesn't seem like a very good example of a failed prophecy.  In 1958 Bell Labs filed a patent application for their proposed optical maser.  Also, in 1958, Aleksandr Prokhorov, of the Soviet Union, proposed using an open resonator in lasers, the first published appearance of this idea.  The open resonator was an important advance in laser technology.  The first working laser was made by Theodore H. Maiman in 1960.
If the Atlantean's actually had some sort of "death ray", odds are that it would be some kind of laser.  This actually seems like a rather accurate prediction.Nortonew 16:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cayce's "Death Ray" 

message: Trouble is, it kind of assumes Atlantis existed, which it didn't.  I try to be nice to the New Agers, but I must revert.
dino 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trouble is ... 

message: I propose adding back the WP:NPOV tag for the entire article - it was was removed by "RookZERO" on March 28, 2007, with no discussion whatsoever. There are many problems throughout the article. Chrisbak 18:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entire article needs to have NPOV tag