Talk:Psychic surgery/Archive 1

Archive 1 May to Dec 2005

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 &para; 21:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)