Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:44, 20 August 2007

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Paranormal This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Spirituality This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Timeline Tracer (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Timeline Tracer, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Timeline TracerWikipedia:WikiProject Timeline TracerTemplate:WikiProject Timeline TracerTimeline Tracer

NPOVness

"Psychic Surgery" is, and always was a sleight-of-hand trick. NPOV does not require equivocation of fact and fraud. -- 17.203.20.170

It is not equivocation. It is simply providing a neutral, disinterested approach that all parties involved can agree to. I have explained the NPOV position to you at least four times now. It is not negotiable. If you continue to make the same edits, I'm going to have to get admins involved which may possibly lead to you being banned. I don't want that and neither do you. -- FP 05:58, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

17.203.20.170, although I agree with that "psychic surgery" is a con game, your edits, which simply assert this on no authority but your own, are not acceptable. Currently, and in its form before your first edit, the article states clearly that "Scientists, traditional medical doctors and stage magicians generally dismiss such practices as mere sleight-of-hand tricks, where the psychic doctor simply produces concealed blood and parts that he had suitably hidden in advance. Notably, debunker and retired magician James Randi has shown an ability to mimic psychic surgery." The current article contains a paragraph which uses carefully-weaselled language to associate the practice with superstition and fraud. There is no danger at all that anyone would read the article as an endorsement of the reality of psychic surgery.

If you are not happy with the article, you can include additional material on the "anti" side--for example I think that in the United States there have been authorities who have taken action against the practice as fraudulent. But they have to be neutral and properly sourced and reference. You must imagine that this article is being reviewed by someone intelligent who believes in psychic surgery, and you must imagine that person saying "I really don't like your putting that in, but I have to acknowledge, grudgingly, that it is factual."

Third-party quotations are your friend here. The formula is "X said Y about Z." You can't say "Psychic surgery is a fraud," but if you can find a newspaper article that says "Attorney-General so-and-so denounced psychic surgery as a fraud" you can put in a quotation from the article.

And if an editor shows up who believes in and is knowledgeable about psychic surgery, you and I have to accept any similar material that they put in the article.

Do not simply conduct a revert war with User:FirstPrinciples or he may file a Request for Comment on your behavior or take other steps. Believe me, you cannot "win" a revert war simply by pitbull tenacity; it doesn't work. You must address the real issues and work with other editors on this. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced statement removed, pending discussion...

The procedure is practiced predominantly in underdeveloped countries such as the Philippines and Brazil, where practitioners can arguably take advantage of a superstitious populace, and where enforcement of anti-fraud statutes is low on government's priorities.

Primarily in Phillippines and Brazil... OK. The rest seems awfully POV. Is Brazil really an "underdeveloped country?" Is there any backing for the statement that "enforcement of anti-fraud statues is low on government's priorities?" Dpbsmith (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe that for reasons of perceived political correctness, the person who wrote that was using "underdeveloped" to mean the classification of countries formerly known as Third and Fourth World countries. In fact, the term "lesser-developed nation" was the preferred term in the european economist community in 2002, and I have not become aware of any change; the term in its economic sense would definately apply in a general way to both Brazil and the Phillippines. Of course, I also think the original quote was written and presented in an awfully unprofessional and decidedly un-Wikipedian fashion, and deserves cleanup. That said, neither can be considered a world power at this point, in any arena in which countries are usually compared. I can't speak to the stance of their governments regarding anti-fraud, since I'm not up on their policies, but while I agree that any such statement should be backed up with sources, I don't think it's so suspect as to be taken out without counter-evidence. Trying to be helpful, hope I haven't stepped wrong.

FTC action highly relevant

I'm restoring this paragraph:

The procedure was discredited by the U. S. Federal Trade Commission in 1975. In a unanimous opinion, the commission declared that "'psychic surgery' is nothing but a total hoax." Judge Daniel H. Hanscom, in granting the FTC an injunction against travel agencies promoting psychic surgery tours, said: "Psychic surgery is pure and unmitigated fakery. The 'surgical operations' of psychic surgeons ... with their bare hands are simply phony."

It's highly relevant, and probably the most important single action taken in the U. S. in regard to psychic surgery. The sources are two New York Times articles cited in the "references" secton. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Globe and Mail links?

Well, I'm baffled. If I search Google for alex orbito fraud the top link is to the Globe and Mail... and when I click on it I get the entire story.

But if I take that same link and paste it into my browser's URL field... I get a few lines from the article and instructions on how to purchase it.

Anyone know how to get a link like Google's that does not require purchase? Dpbsmith (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Mister Orbito

Added 2 links, one to a credulous new age website and one to rickross.com.DocJohnny 10:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Seeking expert eyes on Natasha Demkina

Hi all. I'd like to ask you, as people familiar with topics on or related to paranormal activity, to review the work at Natasha Demkina, "the girl with X-ray eyes", which has been undergoing a tug-of-war between a primary source and one of his critics. I've tried to bring it to at least NPOV but apparently I muddled the technicalities and there are still sourcing needs.

Would appreciate your comments -- the article is currently under protection but I think it can be taken out shortly.

TIA, - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscience link, Quackery category

In the light of findings by the FDA that ""'psychic surgery' is nothing but a total hoax;" by a federal judge that "Psychic surgery is pure and unmitigated fakery;" and by the American Cancer Society that it "found no evidence that 'psychic surgery' results in objective benefit in the treatment of any medical condition," the Quackery category and the Pseudoscience link are appropriate. They are neutral because of the verifiable source citations showing that some authorities find it a hoax, fakery, and valueless.

For the same reason, the links to Miracles and its inclusion in the categories Supernatural healing and Parapsychology are also appropriate and neutral.

Psychic surgery belongs in the supernatural healing category because it is factually true that a substantial number of people hold it to be supernatural healing.

Psychic surgery also belongs in the quackery category because it is factually true that a substantial number of people hold it to be quackery.

Categories and links are there to help people find related information, not to pass some kind of final judgement on the truth or falsity of something. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't pseudoscience since it doesn't pretend to be scientific for the most part.Geni 02:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Methinks that the "quackery" category tag is appropriate and NPOV. Independently of whether psychic surgery is quackery or not, it certainly is relevant to that topic. (Just as (say) "fraud" would be relevant to the topic of "law".) Besides, if classifying as "quackery" were POV, so would be classifying it as "supernatural healing".
As for "pseudoscience", many psychic surgeons make physics-sounding claims, with scientific terms like "vibrations", "energy", and the like (check Romero's quote). Many scientists see such declarations as attempts to make the craft seem "scientific". Again, independently of whether that is true or not, psychic surgery is certainly relevant to the topic "pseud-science".
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi 04:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't get ] to work. –––Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Inadequate use of terms, lack of references and sources

The article lacks most references and citations and reads as an essay because of its narratory tone, this could be improved to a more editorial or encyclopedic tone for compliance.

I have inserted requests for sources and citations where needed.

The terms "doctor" and "surgeon" relate to physical realm of work (aka physicians) and largely contradict the term "psychic" that relates to the non physical realm. "Psychic doctors" is a terminology used and accepted only at common language and is not encyclopedic. A more correct term should be "Psychic Healers" which is the most accepted term in scientific circles sometimes with the added -pseudo- to healers ( but this addition may denote parciality or lack of neutrality). The article has many good points and with the requested improvements may have good acceptance Jenny 10:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Not single thing you said makes any sense at all. Try again in english. ornis (t) 11:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In brief:

• There is general lack of citations and references
• It is narratory
• Psychic healers are not doctors and less surgeons, the correct term is "Psychic Healers"

Furthermore please keep civility and don't remove the banners which put the article under scope and request references, unless the article provides the requested references the banners will be placed again. The correct way is to provide the requested references. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation Jenny 11:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact it is largly referenced, the problem is that the statements are not attributed to the references they come from. I don't know what narratory is supposed to mean, but you're in no position to complain about poor grammar. The last point is a non-sequitur. The correct term is "fraud", since they don't actually do any surgery or healing, but the common term ( attested to by WP:RS's ) is psychic surgery. ornis (t) 11:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes that could be part of the problem with the citations.

• "Narratory" is an ab populis term popularized in some countries when refering to "narrative style". Style is not grammar and there are clear guidelines and policies in Misplaced Pages regarding style.
• As you may have realized I didn't challenge the term "Psychic surgery" but psychic "surgeon", please se next thread.

Jenny 12:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove the flags

Please leave the flags in place until complying with the requests. Jenny 11:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision

It reads much better with your recent revision.

One concern continues to be "It is practiced chiefly in Brazil and the Philippines", it could be good if you can provide who says it and where. Another concern is " is performed by psychic surgeons", they are not surgeons, what about trying some approach in this leading parragraph which explains that they call themselves "surgeons" , perhaps "performed by who are popularly known as Psychic Surgeons..." or something which solves that definition. It is a leading parragraph.

Be careful in " Kaufman believed the cancer had been removed. However, Kaufman died of metastatic carcinoma on " because you are trying to say that he "anyway" died of that, but if you mention metastases, these could be because of "migration" of some cells of the previous existing carcinoma to other organs and therefore were not necessarily the same cancirnoma. Perhaps you should pinpoint (with a citation) where (in which organ) was the carcinoma located when he got the psychic intervention and where was when he died. Or remove metastatic if you don't have a reference to his diagnose and leave " died of terminal carcinoma". Just an idea for dodging a potential bullet, not a request.Jenny 12:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well with the Brazil, Phili thing, I'm pretty sure we don't have to say who said it, since it's not really a controversial opinion, but a plain statement of fact, and we have sources for that. While you are right, they're not "surgeons", the thing is, they aren't "healers" either, this isn't like herbalism or forms of alt.med like that, where the practitioner believes what they are doing is real. This is an out and out hoax, it's really not possible to perform it and believe it's real ( without being heroically deluded that is ). In any event, we have articles about christian science and creation science despite the fact that neither of those subject are even remotely scientific. In any case I'm sure we can some to some agreement about some more neutral term like "proponent" or "practitioner". As for the last point on kaufmann I don't know, I'll see if I can find something more concrete. ornis (t) 12:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Practitioner or proponent as you propose is quite good, if you need at the leading parragraph "surgeons" because of easily recognized term, you can think about "popularly known as.." Jenny 12:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As you may know, there is also abundant practice of that in Colombia, Jamaica, Portugal, Spain, Marroc, Gabon, Mozambique, Angola, Thailand and a few more, may be you want to consider something like " practiced in many countries been well known Brazil and Phillipines" (with better grammar of course)

Jenny 13:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find some refs for the popularity of the practice, that covers those countries. There is already a short section on psychic surgery in other countries, so I reckon they should go in there. I've made the change to proponent. Also I found kaufman's death certificate, though I'm not sure whether that by itself is good enough, it certainly suggests that he died of a metastatic carcinoma. ornis (t) 13:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This reference describes use in the Philippines. Axl 14:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

yeah, that ref is pretty good, it's already used a few places in the article. ornis (t) 14:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me that we could leave the specific geography out of the introduction. Antelan 15:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Article contents

Currently, the article goes:

• Intro
• Country #1
• Country #1
• Elsewhere
• Fraud
• Entertainment ('in popular culture')

I think a better flow would be:

• Intro
• Description of practice
• Fraud
• In specific countries
• In popular culture

That is, I think we need a section describing what psychic surgery is, since that is sorely lacking. And I think the fraud info should come after that, followed by country-specific info. Other thoughts? Antelan 15:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That should be a good flow. It is missing a "History" section, perhaps putting together the historical references which at this moment are disperse here and there. Jenny 17:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We need to have the description of what it is -which in this case is the part of specific countries sections- before fraud. Just as we have it in all the other articles. First you describe, then you discuss. Or, first you state the claims, then you state the counter-claims. We need to do the same thing here. It also allows for expansion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martinphi (talk • contribs) 20:15:56, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

A few points

• There is a possible confusion when you refer to candomble, in Brazil, most of the Psychic practicioners pertain to umbanda they are what they call "pai de santo".
• The linked article of Arigo still says surgeon instead of practitioner
• The death certificate establishes death by renal failure caused by metastases derivated froma a primary carcinoma, so to be correct, you could say "died of renal failure as consequence of the diagnosed carcinoma" or something like that
• There are I think many citations to newspaper articles, please see WP:TORIGRS you should add a few more solid references
• Qigong and Shiatsu are unfairly related with this type of practice in the article, that should be changed as the manipulations relate by lineage to umbanda ritual, the touches or movements may look similar to Qigong or Shiatsu but were not inspired on those totally different practices.
• There is a section "other countries* which need to be taken away until it has been populated

Jenny 18:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made the renal failure change. I'll have to do more research before I comfortably understand the condombe/umbanda distinctions; if the original creators of that section see this in the meantime, their help would be appreciated. Antelan 19:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Continual POV-pushing

This article has been the subject of POV-pushing for months. All NPOV editors need to keep an eye on it. At one time, the lead ran thus, and it seems to migrate back toward that state at regular intervals (previous versions were even worse).

Recently, weasel words were inserted in controversion of the recent ArbCom on the paranormal (Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed_decision). This is a call for NPOV editors to put this article on their watchlists. –––Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Antelan, wow, that's a great job on the lead(: –––Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible Copyvio

Well it appears that either original authors copied large blocks of text from here, or ( much more likely, looking at the history, and the other obviously plagarised idiocy she's got on her sight ) she plagiarised her article from here. Either way, that article is no good as a ref for this article. ornis (t) 23:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, took it out. –––Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

Martinphi, if you are going to tag the article as NPOV it would be helpful to describe why you think it is so. Antelan 23:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The lead defines Psychic surgery as a form of medical fraud. It is, of course, a form of medical fraud. However, there are plenty of sources we could get that describe it otherwise. We therefore must come up with a definition which does not label it from the start. Antelan had a good one, but it was immediately changed.

We should also mention in the lead, as well as the article, that the consensus among some very important bodies is that it is a form of medical fraud. But that is not its definition, any more than the definition of Islamic fundamentalism is a form of religious fraud. –––Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

False analogy, and a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV. Those that believe that this is anything but fraud are on the fringe of the fringe. This is most like pyramid scam which defines it as fraud in the first paragraph, because the overwhelming consensus, even among those inclined to believe, is that this is fraud. We have legislators saying it's fraud, we have medicoes saying it's fraud, we have magicians saying it's fraud, and we have proponents admitting in court that it's fraud. It's illegal in most western countries as fraud. NPOV does not require us to define it as anything but fraud. ornis (t) 00:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the very first sentence of the pyramid scheme article calls it highly illegal. We are being considerably more conservative here; I see no problem with Ornis's version of this article. Antelan 00:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And highly illegal it is. That's a statement of fact, not a definition. Your instinct to stay close to the source was the right one. –––Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And Ornis's instinct to call a spade a spade was even better. Antelan 00:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Too bad about the NPOV thing, tho. –––Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Instead of sarcasm, you would do well to explain why you think it is NPOV. Ornis and I have already considered your previously offered reasons and we haven't found them sufficient, per analogy with pyramid scheme. Do you have other reasons to consider this NPOV? Perhaps quoting from the NPOV policy and pointing out exactly where we're erring here? Antelan 00:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Yeah, look, come back when you have an actual argument. I've pointed out to you multiple times that this is fully compliant with npov, but you just don't get it. Your obstinate refusal to actually present a counter argument does you no credit. ornis (t) 00:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You have to go directly to policy. I don't know about that article, I know about this one. The fact is, that according to some, the definition is as you suggest. According to others, it is different. So, we use a definition which violates neither view. That's all. Having defined in a neutral manner -as in the curren lead- you then go on to explicate views about it. That's NPOV. –––Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Your version violate undue weight. ornis (t) 01:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It is in accord with the source. Your version violates:

"Please be clear on one thing: the Misplaced Pages neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such;"

Your version takes a stand.

It also violates:

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority."

Because it does not represent the minority view in the definition at all. As I said before, you need to read and understand NPOV. –––Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The mistake you make is assuming that belief in this rubbish is a significant viewpoint. IN fact it's a tiny minority viewpoint and as such we: "may not include tiny-minority views at all". ornis (t) 01:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. It's wrong, but it isn't a tiny minority viewpoint among the avaliable sources, or among those who are interested in it. If it's such a minority viewpoint, the subject is not notable, and the article should be deleted. –––Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And now you're ignoring the fact the relevant majority we are supposed to represent is that of the scientific community, not the dupes that travel to the philippines for treatment. ornis (t) 01:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class paranormal articles
• Unknown-importance paranormal articles
• WikiProject Paranormal articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Unassessed Spirituality articles
• Unknown-importance Spirituality articles
• Unassessed medicine articles
• Unknown-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters