Talk:João Teixeira de Faria

Style of article
Wikipedia articles are supposed to be "encyclopedia-like", not "magazine-like". In particular they should try to report the important facts, not debate them. It is OK to say "most scientists believe X" or "many people of group X claim Y" because those are *facts* about the attitudes of those segments of society. However, it almost never necessary to quote the statements of individuals from those groups; instead one should sumarize their positions as succintly as possible. Hope it helps... Jorge Stolfi 22:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's actually a really bad idea to do that, and wiki policy discourages that. See weasel words and WP:WEASEL. Opinions should always be attributed to someone. Tenebrous 23:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

When there is a piece of information like that which has come from his followers or whoever, it is factual to report just that. People reading can determine if the source is good enough or not to take seriously. The article would not be reporting their opinions as facts. Without adding stuff like this the article would be very one sided or practically non existant. There are articles on Wiki about myths and stories which have been passed down for hundreds of years. There are articles on Gods and people which we can't possibly prove existed but they are still included, carefully worded.

Weasel words are when you have ambiguous statements which (aim to?) mislead and don't mention the source. But the article would be mentioning the source, that the statements come specifically from his followers and that they only "claim" things or "report" things. Papa leaf 04:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Things that need citation
This is not going to be a complete list at this time, when these problems get fixed I'll add some more.


 * "According to sources, which are provided by his followers, João got only two years of education and spent many years travelling from village to village in the states of Goias and Minas Gerais healing people and administering the local herbs to whomever turned up wherever he stopped"

Sources provided by his followers are probably not the reputable third-party sources that we should be using on Wikipedia


 * "Eventually João was told by his spirit guides that he must expand his work to reach more people, so he left the protected life at the army base. He visited his friend, the late Chico Xavier, one of Brazil's most celebrated healers who told him he should go to the small Goiás town of Abadiânia where he was meant to fulfil his healing mission."

That would be, he claims to have been told by his spirit guides. "Protected life" is non-encyclopedic.


 * "This controversial figure attracts thousands to his center, the Casa de Dom Inacio, where many undergo either visible or invisible psychic operations. Hundreds line up outside to pass before the medium, who decides if the patient will get a visible or invisible surgery. According to eyewitnesses, 95% of the operations are invisible and take less than one minute."

Eyewitnesses. Who? Where does this information come from? How are we to know if this is reliable?


 * "João, who was the study of a a book by Robert Pelligrino-Estrich, called The Miracle Man, supposedly incorporates entities, spirits of famous doctors, to do the operations. Some of the most famous of these entities are Inacio de Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, Dr Osvaldo Cruz, and King Solomon of Biblical fame."

Talk about an unverifiable claim. Need to tell where this comes from, and the latter sentance needs to be done away with or rephrased to emphasize the nonfactual nature of that claim.

That's enough for now. Tenebrous 23:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

A small point, it is an unfalsifiable claim and not neccessarily a nonfactual one.


 * Factual claims are falsifiable by definition. Tenebrous 13:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of the information about João comes from Robert's and other books about the man. Most of the rest of my changes come from my personal experience at the Casa, but can be backed up by anyone visiting the center. Most people (I'm not sure it's as high as 95%, the casa probably doesn't keep records on specific numbers) who want surgery will sit in a room with approx 100-200 seats. The visible operations are not all carried out in full public view, but on the 6 "working" days I was there, I saw around 20 visible operations. These operations were carried out with very close scrutiny and filmed by many cameras (including the Casas) from the public. I've cut out the 95% claim, as it's unverifiable and largely irrelevant. I've left the NPOV tag in, as I feel it's still doesn't meet wiki's guidelines, but I'll let others point out exactly what is now wrong. --217.204.163.50 11:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your personal experience is, I'm afraid, not something we can use in this article, so please try and keep it to the books; as well, partisan websites are not good sources. I think that belief in faith healing is probably a minority view in the medical field, and probably needs to be represented as such. Also, the critical view of his work is not well represented; there are many reasons people believe he is a fraud, and we should mention the more common ones. And perhaps put in a section summarizing faith healing with a link to the main article. Tenebrous 13:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

My personal experience of the *workings* of the Casa is a verifible fact. It *IS* what happens a day to day basis. I agree that the critical view of his work should be included here but, as I believe the man is exactly what he says he is, I am unqualified to write it. That's why I left the disputed tag in. What I will do is correct any existing phrases that you suggest need changing. --Epideme12 12:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Your personal experience is not verifiable. Please read WP:V and WP:NOR. Additionally, that you believe he is what he says he is does not disqualify you from writing the critical view; we are summarizing the published opinions of others, not making any judgement ourselves. Tenebrous 23:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I've included more references to the critical view. I'm removed claims that I couldn't find any citation for. By the very nature of the subject, I could not find many NPOV references, so any information backing up claims has to come from partisan websites, but I've made it clear that the soure is biased. I've included a section which states that the scientific evidence is sparse. I've removed the disputed tag for now, but feel free to put it back in if you think it needs more work, but detail here what you require.--Epideme12 21:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why some people are nit picking and trying so hard to make the article negative instead of neutral. Even though you're saying Epideme's personal experience isn't enough to change the facts in the article basically what you're saying (Tenebrous) is that if Epideme had written a book about his experience then it would be a good enough source. I know that Epideme is just a random person who could be making stuff up but so can authors. That doesn't make much sense to me.

The conclusion of this article also needs to be re-worded, at first I thought it was vandalism it looks so childish. Papa leaf 04:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC) ______________ Biographies shouldn;t have uncited conclusions.

Cleaned up
I've done some serious clean up and sourcing. Personal blogs don't cut it for evidence that goes against science.


 * Thanks for the clean-up, it needed it. The Website stating personal testimony is used as a direct rebuttal to Randi's critism. Randi attacks the ABC documentary claiming none of the people were actually cured. Matthew's story claims he has made a full recovery from a devistating tumour.--81.155.103.15 07:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, where's source? What doctor has concluded he is cured? Was Matthew also taking western medicine? FGT2 04:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * PS. the phrase 'evidence that goes against science' is illogical. Real science is about looking at the evidence. However, sadly, science in the 20th century often tends towards a system of belief. As we have seen in our history in cases such as Aristotle, Copernicus, Darwin, and pretty much every scientific revolution, the evidence trumps the widely held belief in 'truth'. Deryk Wenaus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC).
 * You're taking it too literally. The plain meaning is that a blog isn't credible if it makes claims that contradict our best understanding of the world as obtained through the scientific method --- not that it matters as long as WP doesn't consider blogs to be reliable sources, period. And your claim about science "in the 20th century" (or the current one) is simply false, and amounts to special pleading ... "science" is an enterprise involving thousands upon thousands of educated and trained people, and the sum of their interpretations of the evidence, competitively cross-checked and peer reviewed, trumps that of any individual, including yourself. Talk of belief in 'truth' is a strawman -- the comment was about science, not truth; science based on a massive accumulation of evidence. And that's relevant to this article, where it is currently understated. -- Jibal (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Does he travel?
Does he travel to do these "healings" too? It would be helpful if there was a sentece in the article about that, with a reliable source. xleax 9 February


 * We don't add sentences about things that don't happen. If you have a reliable source that says he travels to places other than his casa to put on his shows, you can add it. -- Jibal (talk) 09:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Five people
I don't mean to burst anyone's bubble around here, but lemme quote something:

ABC's update on the five people involved lacks detail: two are making either slow progress or none at all, one is worse, but one seems to have recovered to the extent that he assumes the tumor is gone.[citation needed]

Is it just me or I count four people in that? I ain't no mathematician, but you know... :) And it's not even sourced anyway. If anyone has any information on that, and that they only have information on 4 people, then probably adding a little "we ain't gots no thang abouts the last person yo" would be kinda great.

But if it were only me, I'd just remove that part. Some firm believers around here would come here, lurk a little bit, see that "one seems to have recovered to the extent that he assumed the tumor is gone", and they'll go alakazou and be prayin' Lord my Savior to save their soul.

Amen.

Seigneur101 20:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The fifth one died of his illness. Hope that helps. FergusM1970 (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

James Randi and NPOV
James Randi does not have a NPOV. Just as sources directly from the John of God group do not represent a NPOV, James Randi's words also do not represent a NPOV. James Randi a recognized skeptic; his whole career is built upon the idea of debunking anything that is not based in the physical. Also, James Randi does not represent scientific belief (which an oxymoron - true scientists do not believe, they observe). What he does represent is the naturalist (scientific materialistic) point of view, which is only one of many scientific world views. The naturalistic POV is from the time of Galileo and Newton. Since the advent of quantum physics at the beginning of the 20th century most physicists have adopted expanded views about reality. However, naturalism it is a point of view shared by most technician scientists; in this way it is more of a belief rather than a careful study of the evidence and facts. I'm not trying to open up a big debate here, I'm just wanting to point out that James Randi does not represent a NPOV and give some backing to that claim. A few supporting articles here: Deryk Wenaus (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * a skeptical look at James Randi (http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm)
 * The Myth of the Million Dollar Challenge (http://www.dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge)


 * By a straight removal of the Critism section you have made the article NPOV. What the Randi references provided was a place to check the other POV. Now the article has no references backing up the statememt "Skeptics claim that any improvements are the result of natural spontaneous remission, a placebo effect, possibly caused by conventional medicine, or wishful thinking on the part of the patient.". Bear in mind that the references were added in the first place so that the NPOV tag that this article had could be removed. 92.43.67.35 (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your soapbox comments are irrelevant to WP other than showing that you don't understand NPOV ... it doesn't apply to individuals, so "James Randi does not have a NPOV" is a nonsensical objection. -- Jibal (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced/weak sources
I chopped this paragraph, as the csicop article does not mention John of God and the Pignotti section is copied wholesale from a blog, which is not considered an acceptable source by wikipedia policy. We should remember that this article is about John of God, and general discussions of the dubious nature of pyschic surgery to not belong here, unless the source specifically mentions the subject of the article. Ashmoo (talk)

What was not discussed on the Oprah Show, the O Magazine article and the ABC TV Primetime program is that there are a number of reasons why first hand experience without the controls of a scientific study, is not a good way to know if any particular treatment is valid. The late psychologist, Barry Beyerstein has written an article that clearly explains why this is entitled "Why Bogus Therapies Seem to Work"

He stated there are at least ten kinds of errors and biases which can convince intelligent, honest people that cures have been achieved when they have not. The 10 errors are:


 * The disease may have run its course.
 * Many diseases are cyclical.
 * Spontaneous remission.
 * The placebo effect.
 * Some allegedly cured symptoms are psychosomatic to begin with.
 * Symptomatic relief versus cure.
 * Many consumers of alternative therapies hedge their bets.
 * Misdiagnosis (by self or by a physician).
 * Derivative benefits.
 * Psychological distortion of reality.

These apply to all kinds of therapies that lack scientific study, not just John of God and this list can provide people with a good guideline for investigating alternative explanations. A good scientific study will control for these. Personal experiences, however compelling and genuinely heartfelt, will not.

Sexual predator allegations?
At Diane Spodarek's blog there are dozens of comments, including by experiencers, detailing sexual predator behavior by Joao/John. Here's the link: http://dangerousdiane.blogspot.fr/2008/01/john-of-god-from-i-dont-believe-it-file.html

I'm surprised that this has not yet been mentioned at this Wiki page on John as a "public service" warning so that younger females (or parents of young females) have more "informed consent" before visiting him.

I don't have time in a "beyond busy" schedule to monitor this talk page but one or more of the folks responsible for updating this page may want to at least add the link. Contact me at t.conway1@cox.net for further correspondence.

On this particular topic of sexual predation, there are "mandated reporting" laws for anyone in the helping professions-- and, as we've all tragically learned, in these kinds of cases it's best policy to operate on the assumption "where there's smoke, there's usually fire." Looks like there's a lot of "smoke" connected to Joao/John. TimothyConway (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Blogs are no reliable source, especially not when it comes to talking negatively about people. someone is not guilty, until proven differently in court. So until there would be a court case proven he was guilty, I don't believe these accusations belong in this article.Maerlander (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I know you are trying to make money by promoting João. Please stop it. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The sexual predator allegations look to be in the news today though.T. Anthony (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Is the BBC not a reliable source? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-46497426 What about ALL of the reference newspaper in Brazil? Folha de Sao Paulo, O Globo, O Estadão. It is all over. On Monday 10th of December 2018 alone over 40 Women called the State attorney ( Ministério Público) to complain about rape and sexual violations https://odia.ig.com.br/brasil/2018/12/5601241-forca-tarefa-do-mp-de-goias-recebe-40-denuncias-sobre-joao-de-deus.html ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisco8104 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletions
Deleted section: medical associations and scientists reject "psychic surgery" as pseudoscience, as it involves only deception by sleight of hand and the production of items such as chicken livers which are claimed to be tumours

There are no references that support there is evidence, or that John was caught using slight of hand, and chicken livers. These statements are pure allegation. Also "tumours" was misspelled, and should have been "tumors".

Deleted: ABC also reported that a local district attorney claims to have received death threats from De Faria after investigating his claims

The alleged threats made to the reporter are purely the claims of the reporter, and no one else. Furthermore said reporter offered no evidence to support his claims. His word, and possible attempt to gain fame are not important enough to mention in the article. It also creates a biased tone, and suggests the accusation holds merit. It's just the claim of one insignificant reporter with no evidence to support his claim.

Deleted Skeptics guide to the universe section. It's clearly completely biased, and whether or not it's even a valid source that would be acceptable by wiki standards is questionable.

Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously fucking kidding me?
I can't believe the POV pushers on Wiki who do not believe in creationism and think a magic snake caused human duffering even have the privilage of editing this page. Christians have tolme that computers are the product of satan and satan is evil. Why is this pseudoscientific charleton allowed any credibility whatsoever? Why is this project even considering this fucking nonsense: Oh, and by the way, map my IP adress and you will knoww EXACTLY where I'm editing from. 177.7.68.166 (talk) 13:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Link me to some reliable sources about him being a con man, please - with a little balance this article can be a touch better. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My source is logic. There is no need to cite any source. Science — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.75.61.64 (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The man, who I hadn't heard of before seeing his name in the news, looks to be a "spiritist" so I'm not sure why you're bashing Christians to criticize him or the article. Christians could be, and I think some clearly are, critical of him too. (I know this was years ago, but anti-Christian bias in Wikipedia is an interest of mine.)T. Anthony (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to have a conflict about this article, and I agree with you - common sense makes it really clear that this guy is a scammer. Of course he is. The problem is that Wikipedia requires reliable sources and a neutral point of view when making edits.

If edits are made by you (or anyone else) saying he's a scammer, without backing it up with credible sources, they will be deleted as per wikipedia procedure. I know it seems unfair and illogical to have to provide proof for something so obvious, but as editors we have to work within these rules to put the correct information out there. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello! we clearly differ in opinions here. The love for you family can not be proven. yet, hopefully we can both agree on the fact that there is something called love, but we cannot prove it! The rainbow, we can see because we have certain conical photoreceptors in our eyes, yet animals without them cannot see the rainbow. However, the fact that they cannot see it doesn't mean automatically that it doesn't excist? In court someone is unguilty until proven the differently. However in science, something doesn't exist until its proven. For me love exist, the rainbow exist, and John of God performs miracles, because I have seen it. Just because you didn't doesn't mean that this isn't true... Maerlander (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)maerlander


 * Please stop trying to promote your business. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Maerlander, I'm glad you had a positive experience with Mr de Faria, but everything you say is irrelevant to the wikipedia article. Please read WP:Verifiability before continuing to edit the article. Ashmoo (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

"de Faria"/"De Faria"/"John"/"John of God"
Shouldn't we refer to him using one single term throughout? I suggest "de Faria", and definitely "de" shouldn't be capitalized. VdSV9• ♫ 12:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

He should be referred as "Faria" as the particle "de" isn't used for name collation, see Portuguese name: The particle "de" and

--Rodveleda (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried to make the article consistent regarding use of the subject's name. Also did a rename (page move) to use the subject's REAL name as the article name. RobP (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Introduction
The first paragraph starts with accusations, something which is never proved in court, so I @maerlander think that part should be removed! On top of that, Wikipedia has two pop up boxes on the article:

1: This article's lead section may not adequately summarize key points of its contents. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page. (November 2016)

Which I agree upon, and that is the reason why I deleted the accusations.

Then I go to edit page and I see this pop up:

2:Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, see this page.

And yes, where is the source of these accusations. Does it come from a court? In the first article sourced, they don't come up with to me  convincing arguments of why he would be a fraud. Its basically a copy paste of the 60 minutes article. And I don't read anything of sexual accusations. The second article, I find a good source, it actually tries to understands spiritism (which has a deep root in Brazil). 85% of all Brazilians, see a spiritist doctor, next to their own doctor. There are spiritist houses/hospitals here in every city. (This info comes from the PHD of Emma Bragdon, who did her research about spiritism). But is also does't come with arguments on why he would be a fraud, nor do I read anything about sexual accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maerlander (talk • contribs) 20:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop trying to promote your business. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

its not my business! the difficulty with this article is that there are little to no neutral sources here. There are either people who visited and believe, like me. Before I visited I did not, and was a critic. Like you. I thought he was a fraudster. However, after hearing many positive stories, I decided to visit, with an open mind. And then my believes changed. And because I saw what I saw, I want the whole world to know about this! So yes... this divides the public into two sides: believers, and non believers. believers are people who visited, and thus have "business or some sort of relation with the topic" or non believers, who never visited and just say it is impossible....Maerlander (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I know you are trying to make money by promoting João. Please stop it. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

How am I trying to make money? I am trying to edit the article to at least a neutral article. I don't think the article is neutral at the moment. Maerlander (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't the first website you've tried to promote João on. I can use Google. En ik kan trouwens ook in het Nederlands communiceren als dat je meer bevalt. (translation, just in case anyone is curious: "And I am also able to communicate in Dutch if you prefer") &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Maelander, please read WP:LEAD. What you are calling the "introduction" just summarizes the sourced content in the body of the article.  There is well-sourced content about the criticism; it needs to be in the lead.  Removing it violates the WP:NPOV policy. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Maerlander, any coincidence john of god tour guides are continually trying to edit/delete material to profit financially : http://www.bookjohnofgod.com/en/664172/guides — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante Dos (talk • contribs) 14:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just want to note that Maerlander (talk)'s comments have aged spectacularly poorly. Bricology (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

60 Minutes YouTube video source.
The cites for the YouTube video source, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtsNfy1eVMA, use many different titles. My guess is that the video or title has changed over the years. Somebody who cares may want to figure it out. Not me -- User-duck (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC).

Multiple major issues with this page
Hi, everybody. I signed up with Wikipedia just now specifically to report this page. It’s written entirely in a subjective tone, lacking in source evidence on many occasions (ironic considering the page is about a fraud), and is it just me or do multiple sections feel like skeptic James Randi himself edited them?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m on the guy’s side here, but every instance of his name contains a link and several portions of the article read like Randi is bemoaning personal injustices.

This is an important page and it deserves a near-complete do-over. StarfleetLieutenant (talk) 03:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Be the change you want to see, my friend. 76.126.247.165 (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Human trafficking farm accusations
I think this page warrants a section on John of God running a human trafficking farm. There seems to to be several accusers who came out with this at the same time as his sex crimes which are featured prominently in this page. Why not the trafficking accusations? 75.188.155.9 (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Rewrite needed
If João Teixeira de Faria is now serving what may amount to a life sentence in prison, portions of the article should be rewritten in past tense, as he is no longer running his schemes. — Foxtrot1296 (talk)
 * Agreed. I tried to tackle the main body of the article, in correcting all of the things that were stated in present-tense, to past-tense (e.g., he doesn't do any of the things claimed for him anymore, since he is in prison), but the entire article needs to be gone over to unequivocally state that he is a con-man, a sexual predator and a felon who will never set foot outside of prison. Bricology (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)