Talk:Psychic surgery/Archive 3

message: Definition    	Psychic surgery is a controversial procedure that involves an apparently invasive operation performed by a paranormal means for the purpose of curing by processes other than those of conventional medicine.
Practicioners.	The procedure is performed by practicioners of paranormal healing, usually without any medical qualifications, but who enjoy some degree of credibility within certain communities or groups.
I slightly tweaked the wording, what do you think L2?  Dreadstar † 18:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. I made a change, let me know if it sufficiently addresses that issue. Dreadstar † 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds with good flow and direct to the point. For a clear view may be added "controversial" before "procedure" but I am not sure is necessary.  If that is followed a a bold title "Controversy" for the first section, then solid sources can be inserted as to the two sides of the story.Librarian2 19:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, I added controversial.  I totally agree with the boldly titled "Controversy" section..if not an even stronger title.. Dreadstar † 20:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Modified Librarian2 V

message: After the definition, I propose the second part of the lead to be:
Controversy	Psychic surgery has been condemned in many countries as a form of medical fraud., and has been denounced by the US Federal Trade Commission as a "total hoax". The American Cancer Society states that psychic surgery may cause needless deaths by keeping the ill away from life-saving medical care. Medical professionals and skeptics alike state that these paranormal abilities do not exist, and argue that sleight of hand is the best explaination for the appearance of psychic surgery. David Vernon in Skeptical - a Handbook of Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, ed Donald Laycock, David Vernon, Colin Groves, Simon Brown, Imagecraft, Canberra, 1989, , p47
It is very good and thrieving in sources, just some style and grammar streaming I think but I am not the best indicated for that. Librarian2 20:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say:
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 sustain that such paranormal talents do not exist, and argue that sleight of hand can best explain psychic surgery. David Vernon in Skeptical - a Handbook of Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, ed Donald Laycock, David Vernon, Colin Groves, Simon Brown, Imagecraft, Canberra, 1989, , p47
Librarian2 20:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: These look good.  How about "say" instead of "sustain?" –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first one doesn't say sustain.  Anything else in that one? Dreadstar † 04:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second version, minus sustain looks good. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me (: –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Which definition, practitioners, and controversy among the many above are you referring to? Antelan talk 13:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism lead

message: If the majority of the WP:V source defined it as fraud -rather than defining it and then saying it is fraud- it would probably be OK to define it as fraud.  I've looked at (I think all) the sources used, and none of them that I looked at defined it as fraud.  Rather, they defined it as a procedure, then said it was fraud.  I think we have to follow the sources.  To do otherwise is synthesis and WP:OR. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think you are really grasping at straws. Sorry.--Filll 03:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah... Darn all those little straws called Wikipedia policies. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, filll's right, you really are grasping at straws. ornis (t) 06:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes!  Darn all those little policy straws!!! –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Define as fraud

message: I have been following. Now we have something. I think is time to go ahead and reinstate the article JennyLen 09:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good standpoint 

message: Definition 	A psychic surgery operation involves apparently making an incision into the body typically with bare hands, removing pathological matter, and sometimes causing an instantaneous healing of the incision.   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 such paranormal talents do not exist, and argue that sleight of hand can best explain psychic surgery. David Vernon in Skeptical - a Handbook of Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, ed Donald Laycock, David Vernon, Colin Groves, Simon Brown, Imagecraft, Canberra, 1989, , p47
–––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's keep working on Nealparr's versions for now. Antelan talk 23:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to be a combination of both versions.  Dreadstar † 23:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another version

message: 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. David Vernon in Skeptical - a Handbook of Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, ed Donald Laycock, David Vernon, Colin Groves, Simon Brown, Imagecraft, Canberra, 1989, , p47
----
How about that?  No paranormal, and I don't think we need the painless.  Dreadstar † 06:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any objections to this version? Dreadstar † 17:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Someone will find someone else to disagree with. Contention pops up out of nowhere. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Final V

message: 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)
thread_title: Consensus lead

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: New work

message: 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)
thread_title:  Seems a good page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not an article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removed wiki-links to Faith Healing