Talk:Cold reading

Intro restore

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)

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)

Intro

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)

Yes. Also, shouldn't it refer to alleged psychics? After all, a person could claim to be a doctor, this does not make them a doctor. So as criticisms of fake psychics cannot be levelled at genuine psychics, criticisms of fake doctors cannot be levelled at genuine doctors. If you see what I mean. Also the intro over-eggs the pudding, somewhat and needs to be red-penned as a result.

Bias

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)

Merged in Warm Reading

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)

Include the denial of psychics

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)

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)

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)

Ok, I will do this soon, in the meantime I will get source-hunting. Macromonkey (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

Why not in the lead? It is a major viewpoint on the subject Macromonkey (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Macromonkey, you are being disruptive by not abiding by the advice given, and your promise at the beginning of this thread. Find the sources, then make your proposed addition right HERE before adding it. When we have worked out an acceptable addition, then you will have a consensus version that we will ALL defend. Until then, you are just being disruptive.

As to it being a "major viewpoint"... OF COURSE IT IS! It's so obvious as to not be worthy of mention. No believer in pseudoscience or the paranormal, and obviously not a fraud, will admit or believe that what they believe isn't true. They will obviously dispute any criticism. So what? It's so obvious that one normally considers it a given, and not worthy of mention. We aren't writing for three year olds here. -- Fyslee (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Edit war over unsourced inclusion

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)"

So what can be done here? The obvious and usual choice is to seek to get Macromonkey blocked for unwikipedian behavior and edit warring, which should be pretty easy to do. On second thought, I personally have no objection to the information, but just want it to be properly sourced, which is our policy here, so I'm willing to be merciful and give Macromonkey a second chance (conditions posted below).

There are currently two sections that touch on the subject of the fraudulent use of cold reading by psychics:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading#The_art_and_purpose_of_reading

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading#Magicians.2C_psychics.2C_and_cold_reading (This section even includes a similar unsourced statement.)

Since we need to develop this subject even more, maybe we should merge them and do that. I will tag the unsourced statement and then make some tweaks which will also be tagged to encourage other editors to help develop the subject.

I have now merged them into this section:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading#Contrasting_claims_made_by_performers_and_psychics

The statement should NOT be introduced into the LEAD until it is properly sourced. Then I will defend inclusion of a similar, and likely improved, statement. Until then, if it is introduced without sourcing, it is fair game for deletion and the one adding it fair game for blocking. Macromonkey, I request that you be an honorable person and respect this request. I am not interested in edit warring, and would rather see article improvement. -- Fyslee (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Sentence removed from lead

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)

Accuracy/In-world View

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)

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 {{accuracy}} tag should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)