Talk:Hot reading: Difference between revisions
→Time: clarify more |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
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. [[User:Icewolf34|Icewolf34]] 20:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC) |
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. [[User:Icewolf34|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. [[User:Dreadlocke|Dreadlocke]] <small> [[User talk:Dreadlocke|<span class="Unicode">☥</span>]] </small> 20:32, 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. [[User:Dreadlocke|Dreadlocke]] <small> [[User talk:Dreadlocke|<span class="Unicode">☥</span>]] </small> 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. [[User:Icewolf34|Icewolf34]] 20:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 20:47, 16 August 2006
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)
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)