Talk:Psychic surgery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Psychic surgery article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


This article needs more sources for chronology/history verification.
Please improve the sources if you can.
This article is under evaluation by the WikiProject Timeline Tracer.
Please remove this message only after the article has been corrected.
Archive
Archives
  1. May 2005 - Dec 2005
  2. Dec 2005 - Aug 2007
  3. August 2007 Lead discussion


Contents


[edit] Final V

Definition "Psychic surgery typically involves the apparent creation of an incision using only the bare hands, removal of pathological matter, and then the instantaneous healing of the incision."
Practicioners. Accounts of psychic surgery began appearing in the in the Spiritualist communitites of the Phillipines and Brazil in the mid-1900s.
Controversy Psychic surgery has been condemned in many countries as a form of medical fraud.[1][2][3]. It has been denounced by the US Federal Trade Commission as a "total hoax",[2] and the American Cancer Society maintains that psychic surgery may cause needless death by keeping the ill away from life-saving medical care.[3] Medical professionals and skeptics say that sleight of hand can best explain psychic surgery.[4][5]

How about that? No paranormal, and I don't think we need the painless. Dreadstar † 06:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Any objections to this version? Dreadstar † 17:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Minor ones that don't mean much and would require more explanation than they're worth. --Nealparr (talk to me) 18:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: - I'm going to unprotect the article now, per request on my talk page. Any objections, seeing as you guys all seem reasonably happy with Option V here? - Alison ☺ 08:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think if it's unprotected then an edit war is bound to ensue. I wouldn't oppose unprotecting it to see what happens but I'm pretty sure that's what would happen. I guess we'll have to see. So you can unprotect it now and hope for the best. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
If anyone waits this long without disagreeing and then starts edit warring, that's just trolling. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone will find someone else to disagree with. Contention pops up out of nowhere. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm unprotecting now. If the war re-starts, prot is going back on in a hurry & you guys will have to take it to MEDCOM or something. Make the best of it :) - Alison ☺ 23:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus lead

I've put the new consensus version lead into place. The article needs work, but I sincerely hope everyone involved will talk it out here on the discussion page before making any major changes to the article. Please no further edit warring, we'll just end up here again with a protected page and egg on our collective faces...;)

I want to thank everyone involved for helping to bring this to a consensus and getting the article unprotected. Let's keep it that way! Dreadstar † 01:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New work

Suggest taking out everything which currently has citation requests on it, and adding things in only with citation. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed most of the uncited content and tried to find suitable sources for the rest. That's about all I care to do with it, hopefully some of the other editors who were previously engaged in the article can make further improvements. Dreadstar † 06:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to page structure

While I have modified the structure, of the page, as per the above I have not added or deleted any actual content, only reordered it.

There changes were made in order to bring this page into line with standard section ordering. Lit: an entry should introduce the topic, define the topic, discuss the history of a topic, then introduce dissenting ideas and concepts. As was, the entry discussed criticism of the topic before history of the topic. This is academically incorrect on the grounds that the reader should be informed of the different facets of the topic in a pure form before they are introduced to conflicting ideologies. For example, it would be wrong to launch into a criticism of Communism before the reader knew what Communism was or why it came into being.

perfectblue 07:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You changes grossly violate undue weight and are just going to get the page locked again. For god sake. IT"S FRAUD. ornis (t) 07:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
My changes REMOVED NO CONTENT, I merely changed the structure to reflect the academically correct layout in which discussion follows definition. - perfectblue 10:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Please calm down Ornis. I agree that major changes to this contentious article should be discussed before implementing, even structural changes. One of the primary concerns with this particular subject is that it has been strongly identified as fraud, so certain adjustments must be made to accomodate this. Perfectblue was just being bold, she was not engaged in the previous edit war, and her reasoning for the changes was sound, so give her a break.
And Ornis, it takes two to edit war and get the article locked, or possibly get one or more editors blocked - so I suggest that none of you revert, but instead discuss here on the talk page to find consensus. WP:3RR is clear, rather than reverting multiple times, discuss the matter with other editors. Dreadstar † 08:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
In order to gain credibility it is very important that a correct section structure is followed. Let me give you an example. Suppose I were to write a detailed account of WWII, under your structure I'd start with the introduction and then move straight on to criticism of the firebombing of Tokyo and the riots in Shanghai over the Japanese war shrine in 2005, but would leave the bit about Pearl Harbor to the end. - perfectblue 10:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, for this article to be credible and to deliver information to the reader in the most effective way, it needs to be written in a clear, encyclopedic manner. I believe the type of structure you mention is described in the WP:Manual of style. Dreadstar † 17:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You always put the definition and description -the basic content of the article- before criticism. That was one of the problems with the POV-lead, which said "Psychic surgery is a form of medical fraud." I, also, was intending to make these structural changes. I've seen this done before (putting the criticism before the description and history), and it's just a way to try and influence the reader's opinion. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seems a good page

I just added "apparent" to the removal of pathological samples as are not really pathological samples. I also changed some wording position by the sake of style.

I changed fraud by "claims of Fraud" because the guy is a magician, not a law enforcement agency or a tribunal.

It seems to be missing an explanation that in Brazil are two currents, that of the kardecists which works with tools and try to approach more real surgery and that of Umbanda "curandeiros" who work just with hands.

It also should be a citation where says that originated in Phil and Braz.

Seems that for a neutral article is missing the voice of the "cured" ones which can be related with some placebo explanations.

These are all minor, the article is a far cry from the original and it looks like an article. JennyLen 12:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not an article

Yes I agree, seems a good page, however not an article, it needs working in style, grammar and structure. Any volunteers ? Librarian2 16:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have done some general work on the article, added placebo effect reference and went to placebo effect article to improve it. Thank you MartinPhi for grammar improvements.ℒibrarian2 20:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed wiki-links to Faith Healing

I have removed the mutual links between this Psychic Surgery article and the Faith Healing article and vice versa. My reasoning is based on the knowledge that faith healing ipso facto requires the patient's faith in a religious paradigm of one sort or another (note that all examples on the faith healing page are religious in context and content), whereas psychic surgery does not require any such spiritual belief.

All that is required of a patient who consults a psychic surgeon is a gullible acceptance that the psychic surgeon -- like a stage magician -- can somehow violate well-known physical laws.

Trying to involve faith healing with psychic surgery, to the detriment and ridicule of faith healing, is NPOV on the part of the anti-paranormal patrol writers at Wikipedia and is seriously embarrassing to the encyclopedia's reputation for neutrality.

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 19:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, and with faith healing, all that is required is a belief in an invisible being who can "violate well-known physical laws." ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:Civil. ("Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.") I will certainly report you for incivility if this line of heckling continues. cat Catherineyronwode 01:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
And unfounded accusations of incivility are incivility. As are threats. I wasn't uncivil to you, I just tried to elucidate a point, which was logical and relevant to the situation. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like you to stop mocking my religious beliefs. I would like you to consider, also, that to those with panentheistic beliefs, Deity is anything but "invisible." Were i to open my heart a little more, i have no doubt i would see see God even in you. cat Catherineyronwode 08:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope you do see God in me. But I was not mocking, but making a real point. Nor do I know anything at all about your beliefs. But here is a way we might connect: You say that Psychic surgeons violate well-know physical laws. God is creator of those laws. We are created -or so it is said- in the image of God. Why is it so much less believable that a psychic surgeon could violate physical law than that God could do it directly? If you talk of pantheists, then aren't Psychic surgeons endowed with the power of God? If in a pantheistic universe God does not violate his laws, then I ask again why faith healing is more believable than psychic surgery? I'm not talking about my own beliefs here, only asking questions.

If we are to have peace in the world, it would be well to assume good faith of each other. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It helps to have email. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I said panentheistic not pantheistic. I do not believe that we (people) are "created in the image of God" anymore than that a bale of alfalfa hay is created "in the image of God" -- i believe that the entire universe is an expression of the Divine. I don't claim to know all of the laws that God has created. I do know that psychic surgery looks fake and that it violates my practical experience of the way things work in the world. Faith healing is more believable than psychic surgery to me because i know from personal experience that a great deal of what i experience is based upon my expectations of experience, and if i change those expectations, i can also influence the way my body handles stress, exposure to disease organisms, exposure to toxic chemicals, sleep deprivation, and various sensations of pain. The New Thought version of faith healing through affirmative prayer is pretty simple and straightforward. Try it some time. You may already be using it to some extent without knowing it. cat Catherineyronwode 05:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, never heard that word before. This is the Conversations with God view, I think. But who said that a bale of hay is not in the image of God? And of course we do this- that is proven in placebo effect. And some studies point to it being more than placebo. But you have to admit that with most faith healing, the psychic surgeon is just replaced by the man in the sky. Most people don't have the concepts you're talking about, and both systems are suggestive (and thus they both work to some extent). ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)