Talk:Divining rod
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
====To do: ==== Include scientific theories about how divining rods might work--Vsb 22:50, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Address its possible uses in measuring auras and other such phenomenon.
General Discussion
I also used two copper L shaped rods to follow a water pipe running underground at my grandparents. It wasnt incredibly accurate, but when we dug it was within a foot or so. its pretty uncanny really, you just hold them with the long part pointing straight ahead and as you walk over the pipe they swing inwards. so yeah, i'd advise a bit more research before dismissing them. Qleem 04:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
"....Include scientific theories about how divining rods might work--Vsb 22:50, 25 May 2004 (UTC)...."
I didn't realize there were scientific theories about how divining rods worked. ;-) Nonetheless, whoever made the suggestion about the virgula divina has my agreement. --TPB 01:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Scientifically? i believe that dowsing rods are nothing more but another form of Ideomotor responses just like spirit boards and pendulums allot of the new age paranormal investigators are using it to show hauntings. MLuedtke 06:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Mike
Divining rods are used professionally by Surveyors. They are especially handy in winter when snow is too deep or in older parcels of land where drainage was not recorded by the city and has to be found. I have personally used two 'L' shaped wires to find and follow a pipe that ran more than one quarter mile. I don't claim any knowledge on how it worked because the road it was near had long since been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.89.228 (talk) 23:07, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Is it customary to simply delete entire edits rather than add citation requests? Especially when the addition in fact cited another Wikipedia article? My addition added information also found (and allowed to stand) under Dowsing. This article uses an occassional "allegedly", but in tone and content is extremely POV in that it contains no refutation or criticism of the belief in this unproven witchery. The "allegedly"s are simply qualifiers about the extent and power of practioners, they do not act as qualifiers to warn readers that the entire subject is superstition. 204.13.195.226 (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Lengthy sweeping statements lacking sources can be removed. Refutation and criticism are fine, but should be sourced. Read WP:RS and WP:CITE. Articles can quickly turn into garbage over time, and the primary cause of this (from longtime editors' experience) are random large insertions of unsourced sweeping statements by many anonymous drive-by-editors. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-04-15 15:49Z
