Talk:Hot reading

Cold reading

Does anybody know a good example we could add here, like John Edward is on the cold reading page? I know of James Randi intercepting the radio transmissions from a confederate a faith healer was using to diagnose the illnesses of his would-be patients before their eyes, but I can't remember the healer's name and I'm not turning anything up on Randi's webpage. Might be in one of his books.

Samnell 17:15, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

• Peter Popoff. --BillC 05:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What about early in The Wizard of Oz, when Professor Marvel sneaks a peek at Dorothy's photo? It's a scene that a lot of readers will have seen. 129.7.152.16 05:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Time

I guess we should discuss here before starting a revert war, Dreadlocke: the article can say that Time claimed that Edward used hot-reading, or that it reported that Edward allegedly used hot-reading, or that it alleged that Edward used hot-reading. It can't say that Time claimed that Edward allegedly used hot-reading, it's the same logic that prevents "barely" and "hardly" from describing the same thing in one sentence. Icewolf34 20:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

First, I don't participate in revert wars, no editor should. Secondly, the situation with the Time article was actually a little more complex than that. The reporter for Time magazine made a claim about someone else's allegation. The reporter wasn't there, and didn't personally or properly investigate the issue. I'm not sure how best to give the information in a manner that doesn't violate NPOV. I suppose it's ok to leave it that Time reported an allegation, but the way the reporter went about it doesn't lend itself to what I would call proper "reporting" - it's really more of a claim than anything else. One can fully well claim that an allegation was made. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Nevertheless, it should at least be a matter of public record that the claim was made, no? (Unless we're talking Stephen Glass levels of shady reporting here, of course).

Also, I apologize if I sounded like I was accusing you of revert-warring; that wasn't at all my intention. I'll check out the Time article later and maybe work out a better way to phrase it. The part you added about Edward denying the allegation is definitely helpful to balance it, in any case. Icewolf34 20:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's all a matter of English and spin...:) If you get a chance to read John's account of his dealings with the Time reporter and the gentleman who actually made the allegation, you'll see what I was trying to convey. "Crossing Over" is a good read - check it out. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, actually the OZ thing isn't a bad idea. It's a simple illustration. Anyone care to try their hand at writing it in or should I?Wellesradio (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Wellesradio

Needs better references if not to appear a neologism

The current initial reference 1[1] as well as primary reference for "warm" reading[2] both are from a personal website. The Times article[3] actually defines the term (suggesting the reader needs a definition) by directly quoting without reference either the same personal website, or this wiki article. Wikipedia should not be used to promote neologisms.

Additionally, the reference used to support the differentiation from cold reading[4] has been reported to Firefox as an "attack site"; thus the 'dubious' tag was placed. - Steve3849^talk 21:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to take a stab at giving a couple examples of hot reading from an investigation I found into James Van Praagh. If this example isn't what you are looking for please comment here and I'll see if I can find something else. Sgerbic (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

History

I have just started a history section. Much could be added, but I will just stick to a few notable cases. HealthyGirl (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hot reading. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130104233353/http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0%2C8599%2C100555%2C00.html to http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,100555,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)