Talk:Psychic surgery: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:33, 25 August 2007 editLibrarian2 (talk \| contribs)807 edits Not an article← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:14, 25 August 2007 edit undoDreadstar (talk \| contribs)53,180 edits →Changes to page structure: agreed, must be encyclopedic in style and structureNext edit →
Line 73:		Line 73:

	:::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. - ] 10:00, 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. - ] 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 ]. ] <small>]</small> 17:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Seems a good page ==		== Seems a good page ==

Revision as of 17:14, 25 August 2007

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Psychic surgery article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

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

	Medicine portal 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

Archives

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.. It has been denounced by the US Federal Trade Commission as a "total hoax", and the American Cancer Society maintains that psychic surgery may cause needless death by keeping the ill away from life-saving medical care. Medical professionals and skeptics say that sleight of hand can best explain psychic surgery.

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

Cool. –––Martin _{(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 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 14:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If anyone waits this long without disagreeing and then starts edit warring, that's just trolling. –––Martin_{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone will find someone else to disagree with. Contention pops up out of nowhere. Wikidudeman 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)

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)

New work

Suggest taking out everything which currently has citation requests on it, and adding things in only with citation. –––Martin_{(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)

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)

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. Jenny 12:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

"FTC Decision, July-December 1975" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-08-19.
^ "F.T.C. Curtails the Promotion Of All Psychic Surgery Tours - The New York Times". Retrieved 2007-08-19.
^ ""Psychic surgery"". CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 40 (3): 184–8. 1990. PMID 2110023. Retrieved 2007-08-19.
Randi, James (1989). The Faith Healers. Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-535-0.
David Vernon in Skeptical - a Handbook of Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, ed Donald Laycock, David Vernon, Colin Groves, Simon Brown, Imagecraft, Canberra, 1989, ISBN 0731657942, p47

Categories: