Talk:Cold reading

message: I changed the intro back to an older version, because the current one was far to stridently negative against self-proclaimed psychics. The current one was already accusing these people of 'posing' even before it explained what cold reading was.
Obviously, everyone isn't going to agree about psychics and the use of the word 'psychic' itself. But we should at least try to assume some NPOV. Ashmoo (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And the current one makes no sense now.  If the reader knows nothing about "cold reading" they will not be able to make heads or tails out of the so-called "intro."  Restoring necessary information (without reverting to avoid the previous POV). 74.215.110.214 (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Fair enough, but bear in mind that having a neutral point of view doesn't always mean equally representing two sides of an argument, sometimes that gives undo credence to a less-than-credible side. If we were talking about the structure of the earth, saying that some people believe it's flat and some people think it's round isn't really neutral, it's just wrong and makes it sound like both arguments are equally well-supported.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurak9 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro restore

message: Should the intro of this article be changed slightly? It states that cold reading is used by mediums etc, but this is obviously POV, particulary since it has not been proven. I would go as fae as suggesting a rewrits of the article, as it makes many accusations against 'mediums' and the like. I'm not strictly saying that they don't use cold reading, it is just that it makes the article far from neutral, which I'm sure you will agree, is not the point of wikipedia. Phallicmonkey (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's meaningless since all psychics are fake psychics!217.33.199.77 (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Come on, this barely informs on cold reading and is more an article filled with psychic directed insults. it is hardly informative and gives only opinions. it is, in fact, one of the worst wikipedia articles i can remember reading. Worse even than vandalised articles Phallicmonkey (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: as it was only linked from 2 articles, and just repeated info from this article anyway. i left Hot reading as it is. Catherine breillat (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged in Warm Reading

message: Ok, so I'm not going to try and get those same edits made, although i do still believe them to be right. But what i do think should be included in the article is a section or something on the fact that mediums etc deny the use of cold reading, and that some people believe that they don't. This could be easy sourced and is not POV Macromonkey (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. If you want to provide some decent sources, that would be fine, but be careful not to overstate the case. One or two sentences in the body, after the mainstream view, maybe Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perfectly acceptable idea. Just source and frame it properly so as not to make it a special pleading. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I will do this soon, in the meantime I will get source-hunting. Macromonkey (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great! Now you're going to start learning more about what is meant by "verifiable" and "reliable sources" (V & RS), which isn't always identical to what is meant in ordinary speech. This is an encyclopedia, and it has other rules and conventions than ordinary websites. -- Fyslee (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not in the lead? It is a major viewpoint on the subject Macromonkey (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It isn't a major viewpoint, it is the pov of adherents. Please find a source for it and bring it here for discussion, and we can work on a wording here rather than conversation-by-edit-summary on the article (which I recently learnt isn't very effective). Verbal chat 20:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is the view of adherents, so it should still be included, as a viewpoint cannot be left out. I will provide a source shortly Macromonkey (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Please provide a source at the same time as you introduce edits not backed up by existing references - making the claim and then suggesting you will add references after it has been challenged is less than ideal. Pedro :  Chat   20:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

text: A major viewpoint isn't worthy of mention because its obvious? It's obvious that England is part of the UK, yet it's still mentioned in the article. It's an encyclopedia, you can't ommit content because it's obvious. Macromonkey (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it were a significant detail that made a difference, it would be worth mentioning, but the proper analogy would like writing in every biography "So-and-so is a man, and he breathes air." Duh! All men and women breathe air. So what? Whatever the case, you will need to provide a source. You're still violating your promise at the beginning of this thread. -- Fyslee (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I see that Macromonkey has chosen to edit war, rather than discuss. His mass deletion has been reverted as vandalism. As a formerly blocked user who was mercifully allowed to change his originally provocative username, he should be very careful. This is all evidence that is adding up. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be fine, but you are refusing to allow obvious content, and lets face it, you would refuse to allow it (esp. in the lead) even if sources were provided. I notice that you are a skeptic, and probably atheist, so are pushing an opinion, and if I am vandalising, you are doing exactly the same, just pushing the opposite opinion Macromonkey (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You aren't AGF. I have just clearly stated that "I personally have no objection to the information, but just want it to be properly sourced, which is our policy here,..." Since you have continued to violate your own promise above by edit warring and not properly discussing and coming to a consensus BEFORE editing, I see no choice but to seek to have you blocked. -- Fyslee (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Include the denial of psychics

message: Macromonkey, contrary to their promise above, has attempted to edit war inclusion of the following statement:
 
* "The use of cold reading by psychics is disputed by some, including but not limited to the psychics themselves, new age practitioners and spiritualists."
I have reverted, based on a lack of sourcing and based on Macromonkey's promise above to not do what they have been doing:
* "Ok, so I'm not going to try and get those same edits made, although i do still believe them to be right. But what i do think should be included in the article is a section or something on the fact that mediums etc deny the use of cold reading, and that some people believe that they don't. This could be easy sourced and is not POV Macromonkey 20:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that Macromonkey has chosen to edit war, rather than discuss. His mass deletion has been reverted as vandalism. As a formerly blocked user who was mercifully allowed to change his originally provocative username, he should be very careful. This is all evidence that is adding up. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be fine, but you are refusing to allow obvious content, and lets face it, you would refuse to allow it (esp. in the lead) even if sources were provided. I notice that you are a skeptic, and probably atheist, so are pushing an opinion, and if I am vandalising, you are doing exactly the same, just pushing the opposite opinion Macromonkey (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You aren't AGF. I have just clearly stated that "I personally have no objection to the information, but just want it to be properly sourced, which is our policy here,..." Since you have continued to violate your own promise above by edit warring and not properly discussing and coming to a consensus BEFORE editing, I see no choice but to seek to have you blocked. -- Fyslee (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war over unsourced inclusion 

message: I have (second time for me) just removed the following text from the lead: "The use of cold reading by psychics is disputed by some, including but not limited to the psychics themselves, new age practitioners and spiritualists". My reasons for the deletion are: First, the sentence is rather clumsy, and certainly non-encyclopedic. Second, the weasel phrase "disputed by some" stands out as requiring justification, particularly in the lead. Third, the sentence simply does not tie in with the article. The article is about a technique whereby a person can appear to display miraculous mental powers. The removed sentence seems to be an attempt to say that some psychics claim to not use the cold reading technique. That information belongs in an article on psychics. An article on card cheating techniques does not need a claim in the lead that some card players say they never cheat.
An argument could be made for putting the removed sentence (properly rewritten and justified) somewhere near the bottom of the article, but it is simply not relevant in the lead which is to introduce readers to the fact that "cold reading" does exist, and has a certain meaning, and has been demonstrated by some people (examples of the "some people" are given in the article). Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence removed from lead

message: This article seems really, really weird. It talks about cold reading as if it's a generally accepted practice or something. It talks about this as if it's a well known science. It's really far fetched. I think it needs to be completely redone. If anyone know of any better templates or something, please replace them. Should this be marked as just spam and redone entirely.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pisharov (talk • contribs) 23:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have been overloaded by nonsense on the net – this article is actually real. It is possible to learn a technique ("cold reading") whereby a performer can gather clues allowing plausible statements to be made that the gullible think are due to mind reading, or some inexplicable factor. I'm just an interested onlooker (on the science side), but it seems to me that your  tag should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy/In-world View 

message: The "In movies and on television" was removed, but I've put it back for the moment - My thought is that it seems valuable, as a number of shows (in particular The Mentalist) are based on fictional accounts of cold reading, so it seems like a valuable enough topic, given that it should probably be trimmed and turned into prose. - Bilby (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually just kill trivia sections like this because they fill up with inconsequential rubbish and they're a magnet for editors who want to promote "their article" by basically spamming all kinds of trivial factoids.  On the other hand this isn't the worst I've seen.  One thing I'd ask is that editors consider carefully in which of these films and whatnot the cold read is a really important part of how audiences and critics perceive the film. Another thing is: please refactor this into prose in appropriate parts of the article, not this great big active nuisance attraction. --TS 08:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In movies and on television 

message: There seems to be a determination on the part of one or two editors to remove the following two text items:
1:
: Penn Jillette detailed another attempt at debunking claims of psychic ability on his March 1, 2007 episode of his Free FM Radio program. In a sequence planned for an episode of Penn & Teller's Sin City Spectacular, Jillette's girlfriend at the time (unnamed) was tutored in cold reading techniques and set up at a store front at a fake book signing. There, over the course of two days she used the cold reading techniques learned (as well as improvisational skills she had acquired in acting classes) to convince 20 people she was indeed psychic. The sequence was never aired due to the emotional toll this took on his girlfriend, as well as concern by the producers that they would be exploiting the people for whom she had done the "readings".
2:
: Former New Age practitioner Karla McLaren said, "I didn't understand that I had long used a form of cold reading in my own work! I was never taught cold reading and I never intended to defraud anyone; I simply picked up the technique through cultural osmosis." McLaren has further stated that since she was always very perceptive, she could easily figure out many of the issues her "readees" brought into sessions with them. In order to reduce the appearance of unusual expertise that might have created a power differential, she posed her observations as questions rather than facts. This attempt to be polite, she realized, actually invited the reader to, as McLaren has said, "lean into the reading" and give her more pertinent information.
This latter item is referenced by "cite journal |author=Karla McLaren |year=2004 |month=May |title=Bridging the Chasm between Two Cultures |journal=Skeptical Inquirer |url=http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/new-age.html|accessdate=2006-12-11 }}"
Perhaps we could discuss the proposed removals here. --TS 16:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi there Tony. The first item is not sourced at all- and as the claims it makes are pretty large, this is quite an important fact. Without sources it could be surmised thus: She convinced people that she was psychic but they didn't want to show it etc etc. So this could be made up for all we know. Secondly, the latter item is sourced, yet it is from a complete nonentity, so her experiences are no more important than those of others. Spritebox (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  His March 1, 2007 episode of his Free FM Radio program looks like the reference. I oppose these removals. Verbal chat 16:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

text: In that case, what about the removal of the first part and leaving the second part be? Spritebox (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The first part is also referenced, and you were reverted by several editors. If you want it removed you will have to show there is a new consensus favouring removal, or that it breaks policy somehow. It clearly meets WP:V. Verbal chat 17:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is an anecdote and adds nothing to the article. And kindly refrain from warning me just because you disagree with my edits. Spritebox (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It does add to the article. It adds an insight from one of the leading magicians / psychic trick experts, and how cold reading can effect people in such a way that they claim a trick is a real ability. Despite what you have said above, it is clearly referenced. Verbal chat 20:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent removal of two large text items

message: Several times in the last few weeks, anonymous editors have removed the term psychics from the lead paragraph without any edit summary explaining why. There's also been similar anonymous edits regarding "fake" psychics, or subjective commentary stating that cold reading is not used by psychics.  As this is demonstrably false, I have also removed this. 
If these anon editors (possibly the same person) want to state their reasons for their edits, and back it up with evidence, then please add your reasoning here.--Dmol (talk) 07:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a NPOV issue. A web search for the term "cold reading" is most commonly associated with a skeptical statements regarding psychics. The primary reference for this article is such a text. When the term is rarely used by non-skeptics it regards specifically fake-psychics. - Steve3849talk 13:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous edits regarding psychics. 

message: Looking at a an investigation by the IIG giving great examples of cold reading.  There are no examples in this article and wonder if others might think the article would be improved by some.  Also James Underdown writes quite a good description of the numbers associated with the shot-gun approach when your audience is 200+/- people.  I think it would be quite informative. </ref>  Sgerbic (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it depends on what sort of example you are thinking of including. Long transcripts don't seem encyclopediac, but sort snippets of conversations that illustrate the basic techniques would be. We can also provide links in the External Links section to fuller dialogues and examples. Ashmoo (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on the road right at the moment, but will add this to my to-do list.  I love the idea of examples (I understand things better with them) but will just have to see how short to make the edit and still make the point.  I hope I can find that balance. Don't wait for me (other people reading this) there are a lot of examples from i.e. transcripts out there that will work. Including the IIG one I mentioned above. Sgerbic (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  expanding the article and including examples of cold reading 

message: ...I moved fairly quickly and was able to grab a card before they ran out. The card asked for my name, birthday and a question for E. She'd said it could be literally anything, so I wrote "How did the bee 'waggle dance' evolve?". The back of the card then asked for a private piece of information to further test her abilities, so I filled this in too then quickly headed to the stage, dropped my envelope into the bowl and made it back to my seat just before the lights dimmed. Halfway through the second act, E called out my name and told me the first song I ever played on a guitar. It was quite the thing.
E: [picks up a card] A guitar! Andy..Andrew...does that match anybody?
Me: [standing up and receiving the microphone from a scurrying usher] Yes, that's me.
E: A Taurean, right?
Me: Yes. [gasps from audience]
E: This is something musical, something to do with the guitar. I'm getting...It's the first song you played on the guitar, am I right?
Me: Yes.
E: Ok. About fifteen years old, right?
Me: No.
E: It is older?
Me: Oh, me or the song?
E: Never mind, one question at a time. Sing the song over in your head. Over and over. Try to project it to me.
Me: [actually doing so]. Ok.
E: I'm getting something about...pain, is that close?
Me: Yes, very.
E: And lots of pain. I can't quite figure it out. There are many people in pain? Something like that?
Me: That's very close.
E: I can't get the title I'm afraid, what is it?
Me: Everybody Hurts. [audience go into shock]
kazubaKazuba (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Example of Entertainment by the Art of Cold Reading on stage by E

message: Please include Lie to me. The entire show is about cold reading.84.152.24.61 (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  In movies and on television 

message: The lead section seems to imply that all psychics, fortune tellers, and medium use cold reading, either in part or in whole. A significant number of people would argue that that claim is at minimum unproven at this time. The lead show be clearer that while many skeptics allege cold reading as a primary technique of psychics/mediums/etc. whether intentionally or unconsciously, others argue (including at least some psychics) argue that that is either untrue or at least unproven at this time. I think most will agree that some skeptics/mediums/etc. do indeed use cold reading either intentionally or unconsciously either in part of in whole but it's disputed whether any true psychic ability has ever been 100% disproven as a possibility. Thus the intro section should reflect that fact. Their should at least be some mention in a sentence or two in the intro mentioning that their is a debate as to how much cold reading plays into all alleged psychics technique and that some people claim that some cold readers do not use cold reading either consciously or unconsciously at all.  --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead section doesn't seem to imply this...Regardless, lack of disproof and lack of plausibility are different things. Nothing can be "100% disproven" (we might all be brains in vats, for that matter) so invoking such a statement doesn't really mean anything. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I agree that the article needs to abide by WP:NPOV. However, it must also abide by WP:VERIFIABLE, and since no cold reader has been able to verify their abilities to WP standards, but some psychics have been verified to use cold reading, all statements will need to reflect this. Ashmoo (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV issue with intro section 

message: Dmol. I see that you made an edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_reading&type=revision&diff=923026011&oldid=923022198 on the "Cold Reading" page.
You changed what appeared to me to be a perfectly good edit by an "unregistered editor". Your edit summary "This is the whole basic of their claim. Discuss changes on the talk page if you want to reach consensus." seems a bit non sequitur.
I think you are a little out of process. A revert of the previous edit would have been more appropriate if you disagreed with the content of "unregistered editor's" addition.  
You restructured two sentences into one sentence with a conjuction of "i.e. scam artists" which is awkard and creates an unnecessay ambiguity.  Additional, inclusion of "scam artists" lacks a necessary relivance as the article is considered to be addressing "Cold Reading" as a "communication technique".
On this basis I am reverting your edit. I would entertain your thoughts on the subject by discusion on the talk page if you want to reach consenus.
Osomite (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cold Reading Edit Disagreement