Talk:Psychic surgery/Archive 2

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.  ––– Martinphi  (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 Len  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 Len  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.

Jenny Len 12:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "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 Wikipedia regarding style.
 * As you may have realized I didn't challenge the term "Psychic surgery" but psychic "surgeon", please se next thread.

Do not remove the flags
Please leave the flags in place until complying with the requests. Jenny Len 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 Jenny Len  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 )</b> 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 <sup style="color:#00551B;">Len  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 <sup style="color:#00551B;">Len 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. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 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. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 14:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It strikes me that we could leave the specific geography out of the introduction. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  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? Ante lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  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 <sup style="color:#00551B;">Len  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).

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 <sup style="color:#00551B;">Len 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. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  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 (Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed_decision). This is a call for NPOV editors to put this article on their watchlists. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead
Antelan, wow, that's a great job on the lead(: ––– Martinphi  (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. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 23:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good catch, took it out. ––– Martinphi  (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. Ante lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  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. ––– Martinphi  (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. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 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. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  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. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And Ornis's instinct to call a spade a spade was even better. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  00:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Too bad about the NPOV thing, tho. ––– Martinphi  (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? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  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. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 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. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Your version violate undue weight. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 01:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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


 * "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia 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. ––– Martinphi  (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". <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 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. ––– Martinphi  (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. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 01:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming you mean "And now you're ignoring the fact the relevant population we are supposed to represent is that of the scientific community, not the dupes that travel to the philippines for treatment." ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You've quoted NPOV's undue weight clause, but that's the principle that Ornis and I are operating under. Find reliable sources that demonstrate that this is more than a fringe belief and we'll talk. Ante lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  02:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Find sources quantifying the belief, period. If we can't quantify, I guess we have to assume the belief is notable. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Surveys. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  02:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What we're dealing with would be a survey of the literature, not poll numbers. In other words, belief among those who know about the subject.   But that aside, it's either a significant belief, or this article should be deleted. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is completely beside the point, we already have references in the form of the FTC and ACS statements, and the legal status of the practice. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 03:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe I've found a middle ground here. The lede no longer defines psychic surgery as a health fraud, but promptly describes it as such. Ante lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  03:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Better, though "healing practice" still bothers me a bit. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 03:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite right. I've updated it to "phenomenon" since that's what the source actually says. It was my fault for changing it in the first place. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  03:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems ok, I still prefer stronger language, but this is a fair compromise. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 03:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's better than just defining it as a medical fraud, but a little too prompt. We should describe it first -so that people know basically what we're talking about-, then put that it's a medical fraud.  Surely you can't think that people won't read to the end of the lead? We aren't here to baby people who can't read beyond the first paragraph.


 * We can't have an article which places judgment on a subject before the subject is even described. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's work on better tagging, then. Now you say you have a problem with the structure. But, if the reader is going to read the whole introduction as you say, there should be no problem with calling it a "20th Century phenomenon" first and then describing the phenomenon in greater detail in the second sentence. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  04:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The correct structure is: describe first, charicterize/talk about second. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected
Hi all. The article is now fully protected at some arbitrary revision due to time-wasting edit warring. Please discuss your diffferences here with a view to coming to some sort of consensus/compromise. When you have agreed, report back to either myself or WP:RPP for review. Thanks - A l is o n  ☺ 04:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look above, you'll see we have been discussing it. This whole mess is because of martinphi being an obstructionist troll. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 05:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

3rd opinion
Request filed for 3rd opinion ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice gesture, but it will be declined; 3O only does disputes between 2 parties. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  05:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, forgot that ): ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup. If we can't work it out here, then it may be best to go for an RfC or Formal Mediation per Dispute resolution.  I would recommend Formal mediation if talks fail.  But I don't see why this can't be easily worked out.  Dreadstar  †  05:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead section dispute
Generally speaking, I believe an article lede should be structured so that it first describes its subject, thus supplying context; this description is then followed by any notable criticisms or controversies about the subject. I believe we can refer to WP:LEAD to help guide us in this issue, which says: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies."

WP:Lead Establish context, states “The first paragraph needs to establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it.”

So, the first paragraph should establish the context, which is what “Psychic Surgery” is, and then in the next paragraph we can briefly describe its most notable controversies. Right now, both are mixed together in the very first sentence: “Psychic surgery is a phenomenon that originated in the 20th Century and has been deemed a form of medical fraud.”

My suggestion is to describe the subject in the first paragraph, then the criticism/controversy in the second paragraph. This structure clearly follows policy and guideline. Psychic surgery is described by the medical community and the US government as a total hoax and medical fraud, but we need to say what it is before we can logically say what it is that is a hoax and fraud. Dreadstar †  05:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To push the most important, best-sourced information to the second paragraph would be a rather unusual violation of WP:UNDUE, in my opinion. It is first and foremost a medical fraud; this fraud takes many different forms, which we try to summarize in the intro and in the next section. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  05:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the subject of the article should be described first, then the criticism. Undue would only apply if the article were about "Medical Fraud", but it is about "Psychic Surgery", something that needs to be defined before it is faulted.  Prominence of placement requires that a subject be defined, and although it is a fraud/hoax, that's not the definition to those that beleive in it an perpetuate its existence.  Believe me, I'm having trouble arguing this, because of my own personal views that are in agreement with you...but I'm trying to apply policy. Dreadstar  †  05:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And it's not like we're pushing it to the end of the article, it's right there, in the lead section. Which I think can actually be larger than the description because of the overwhelming number and nature of reliable sources that show it's a fraud and a hoax.  That's where WP:UNDUE comes into play...imho...;) Dreadstar  †  05:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's just it though, I think per policy and the source we can safely define it as medical fraud. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 05:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You might be right, Ornis, I've been mulling that over myself. I'm just not sure we can define something as fraud without actually defining it first.  This is a toughie.  Dreadstar  †  06:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dreadstar, you need to either point to a specific violation of policy or propose an alternative version and explain why it is better. If you simply think "phenomenon" is too brief a descriptor, propose an alternative. Undue weight isn't simply about size; ghettoizing the scientific and legal findings to the second paragraph is also a huge WP:UNDUE issue in this most obvious of cases. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  06:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did make a proposal on how it should be structured and I quoted Wikipedia policy and guideline to back it up. You're more than welcome to take your accusations of WP:UNDUE up the chain.  Right now, I oppose the changes you propose for the article, so there's no consensus for them.  Dreadstar  †  06:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm asking that we show, not just describe, what changes we'd like made. I'll get it started for us. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  06:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(RI) As for defining it, what I'm advocating, is that we describe it as a sleight of hand trick, that is, "Psychic surgery is a type of medical fraud, originating yada yada... Practitioners use sleight of hand, to make it appear as though they are reaching into a patients body to yada yada yada.." Or something along those lines. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 06:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Version B
Which policy would you point to in requiring that the information explaining that "this fraud is a fraud" be located in its own paragraph? The fraud is the most interesting, best sourced, and arguably most important aspect of this article; it is also intrinsic to this illegal pseudo-medical practice - even more intrinsic than any specific description of the practice itself (whether it is done by hand, with tools, with chicken entrails, etc). Despite your apparent agreement with all of this, you seem to think that policy requires this partitioning, which is why I'm asking if you can point me to some text in a specific policy that you might have in mind. Ante lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  06:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Chicken guts is somewhat important, as it's one of the key pieces of evidence that this is fraud. I seem to remember reading somewhere, when a group of doctors tested some of the blood and found it was chicken blood, John of god's response, was something along the lines of "Ah well that's the power of god! Only he can turn human blood into chicken blood!" <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 06:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong, I think it's important. I just think that it's less important than the fact that, whether using chicken guts or not, psychic surgery is inherently fraudulent. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  06:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No I know what you're saying, it was just an amusing anecdote I'd forgotten, that your comment brought to mind. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 06:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I forgot to mention that I chortled when I saw the anecdote you posted. Very nice. ;-) Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  06:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

While it may be true that the fraudulent aspects of this topic are the "most interesting, best sourced, and arguably most important aspect of this article", the sources mentioned actually give credence to the view that the egg came before the chicken guts. The popularity of this is exactly what prompted the FTC and the Federal government to issue their statements, e.g. "F.T.C. Curtails the Promotion Of All Psychic Surgery Tours":
 * ''The Federal Trade Commission today ordered four West Coast travel agencies to stop promoting psychic surgery tours to the Philippines and told the agencies to warn hundreds of patients who had gone there that the hoped-for miracle cure was a "total hoax."'

This is only a minor example, but the obvious history is that someone started this "phenomena" before the critics got wind of it. So the article should follow that pattern. We can't describe the controversy or criticism (or warning) without first describing what the issue is. We have to provide context. Dreadstar †  08:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Non sequitur. Just because it was initially believed to be true, then proved a fake, it doesn't follow that we need to present it in that fashion. Oxygen for instance, doesn't start with a description of phlogiston. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 08:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro
Psychic surgery is a phenomenon that originated in the 20th Century and has been deemed a form of medical fraud. During psychic surgery, practitioners appear to perform painless surgery using their fingers and unsterile tools. They say that they extract "tumors" or other pathological masses such as pus or bones from the patient's body through an incision. Psychic surgery is most prevalent in its countries of origin: Brazil and the Philippines.

Psychic surgery 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.

Version "B"
Psychic surgery is a phenomenon that originated in the 20th Century. During psychic surgery, practitioners appear to perform painless surgery using their fingers and unsterile tools. They say that they extract "tumors" or other pathological masses such as pus or bones from the patient's body through an incision. Psychic surgery is most prevalent in its countries of origin: Brazil and the Philippines.

Psychic surgery has been deemed a form of medical fraud. , and 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.


 * I used your excellent example, Antelan, and my only real change besides the minor structural change would be for the first sentence in the second lead paragraph to have stronger wording than even "deemed", for example:
 * "Psychic surgery has been condemned by the medical community as a form of medical fraud"
 * Dreadstar †  06:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * On problem with both versions is the term "Professional skeptics". I don't think there are a whole lot of "professional" skeptics, and I think the line should read something like: "Medical professionals and skeptics.." <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 06:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems fair. Dreadstar, if you agree, would you update Version B (or I can if you'd like)? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  06:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Whatever we can source, of course...;)  You can change'em both, if you like.  Dreadstar  †  06:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The sourcing shouldn't be a problem, since the American Cancer Society has quite a bit to say about it. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  06:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. How do you both feel about replacing ( in para 1, sent 3 ) "say that they" to "claim to". The meaning is exactly the same, but I think it flows a bit better. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 06:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that WP:WTA says, "The word claim can be used to mean "assert, say". Its usage must be considered. The American Heritage Dictionary notes this connotation: "['claim' means] to state to be true, especially when open to question".", I think that is acceptable in this case, because their "claims" are certainly open to question (and legal answers). Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  06:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, my, but "claims" is the third rail of all things paranormal...let's leave that can-o-worms for much later. I honestly think that "says" says it almost as well as "claims".  The biggest bar is where that one little statement should go. Once we've agreed on that, all else should be cake...so just agree to my version...:-D Dreadstar  †  07:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No need for the word "claim," since "say" will do. This version is good. Version C suffers from the same problem as the current lead- it puts the fraud before the definition. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fraud is the definition. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 07:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Then source it as such. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is sourced, stop asking the same questions over and over again. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 07:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Version C
Psychic surgery is a form of medical fraud that originated in the 20th Century. During psychic surgery, practitioners appear to perform painless surgery using their fingers and unsterile tools. They say that they extract "tumors" or other pathological masses such as pus or bones from the patient's body through an incision. Psychic surgery is most prevalent in its countries of origin: Brazil and the Philippines.

Psychic surgery 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.


 * This is Version B, but "phenomenon" has been replaced with "medical fraud" in the first sentence. The first sentence of paragraph 2 has been shortened. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  07:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My favourite so far. I reckon: "During psychic surgery," could probably go, leaving just: "Practitioners...". <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 07:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Putting the objections before the definition will never gain consensus. The objections come after the definition- that's standard practice. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If we do put the objections before the definition, we could just rename the article to Medical Fraud and have 'psychic surgery' as the first example on the list. As for this particular article, Version 'C' doesn't really address the concerns I've outlined.  OTOH, is there a policy that says a subject should be defined by it's detractors rather than (and I shudder to say it), it's proponents? Dreadstar  †  07:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well yes there is, if it's a science of pseudo-science and those detractors are expert in the relevant field, and they vastly outnumber the proponents. It's all in WP:NPOV <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 07:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And no, redirecting it to medical fraud would not make sense, since this is a fairly specific type, that is well known enough in it's own right to warrant an article. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 07:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Especially so, since medical fraud is a redirect itself. Did you create that just for this discussion?  Wow!  Service with a smile!  ;)  If this is to be defined by its fraudulent nature, then I don't see a problem moving it under an overall medical fraud article.  I believe its notability (or notoriety) is due to the persistent belief in it, not necessarily that it's a fraud.  As for pseudoscience, yeah, I think we've all been down that road before too.  Let's focus on the issue at hand, does Wikipedia define and start an article on a subject by the definition of its detractors?  I think that's the core issue; and I think the answer is no.  Dreadstar  †  08:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Health fraud already redirected to quackery. I created the medical fraud redirect because I only just noticed it didn't exist. "I think the answer is no" You thought wrong in that case. I suggest you look at Intelligent design probably the only pseudo-science article that's even close to NPOV, and it is most definitely defined by its detractors. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 08:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent example! Intelligent design actually proves my point, the first paragraph defines it, and mentions its proponents; the second paragraph talks about its notable criticisms. Dreadstar  †  08:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * LMFAO. I guess from that comment that you aren't really familiar with ID of the Disco institute, otherwise you'd realise that the definition we use in the ID article is based more on the definitions given by forrest, numbers, scott, miller and jones, and is practically the anti-thesis of the def used by the DI, IDEA and their shills. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 01:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Version D
Psychic surgery is a procedure in which healers apparently perform painless surgery using their fingers and unsterile tools. Practitioners say that they extract "tumors" or other pathological masses such as pus or bones from the patient's body through an incision. Psychic surgery is most prevalent in Brazil and the Philippines, though it has a large following in other countries as well.

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

––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not gonna happen. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 07:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Though it has a large following in other countries as well" - are we conjuring up facts now? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  12:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Get real, you guys. Of course I can source that one, Antelan- to Time magazine.  What you don't understand is that you are trying to violate NPOV.  That is what won't happen.  If you can source your POV, do it.  If you can't, stop pushing. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 12:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Every other word from you is "POV" even when I'm telling you that I don't believe a statement - how exactly is that a POV issue? I'm contesting that "it has a large following in other countries as well", and if you have the Time reference (issue, page) I'd gladly look into it to see if I can confirm this. That is "getting real". Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  13:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The following enjoyed by psychic surgery is a non-isssue: I can source it, and it isn't important anyway. The POV I'm talking about is the POV expressed by trying to use synthesis to create a definition you seem to be unable to source. And that's what won't happen, because it doesn't work under the Wikipedia rules. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 13:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, since we're trying to produce an encyclopedia article here, please provide me with the info about the Time issue that backs what you're saying. I've produced several sources, and as a measure of good faith I'm asking you to do the same. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  13:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference
Reference number 7 is identical to reference number 3. Please merge these. Thanks. Axl 07:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Need to wait till the page is unprotected. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 08:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason I made it a new reference is so I could include the relevant quotation in #7 as this point had been contested. Should we still be merging these? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  12:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is better merged. Thanks. Axl 14:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do when the page is unprotected. Thanks, Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  14:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Brief list
Frankly, I got lost reading the debate. May I ask someone who may have the technical abilities to create a box or list with two tables where each participant in the debate enters in concise form the following:
 * Table 1 (numbered entries): The words or passages he/she believes are incorrect
 * Table 2: Proposals related to the point (number) presented by him/herself or other participant in table 1

Then I think that the debate can be looked with a more graphic point of view and easier reference. At the present chain of messages I frankly have difficulties in making a proposal without needing to go up and down the chain and writing at least seven lines for referring what I am talking about. Jenny <sup style="color:#00551B;">Len 11:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The major point of contention, it seems, is whether a statement of the fraudulent nature of psychic surgery ahould be placed prominently in the first paragraph or left until the second. (Or, in my view, should it be relegated to the second paragraph, despite being the best-sourced, best-confirmed, most-detailed part of this practice, or should it play a prominent role in the first?) Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  12:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * About that, my opinion is that "fraud" is only one of the things that "Psychic surgery" may be linked to, not its main definition, this based in that:


 * Psychic Surgery is the act of allegedly making a surgical intervention through means other than conventional surgery and by individuals not qualified as medical surgeons.
 * It can be used for deception and fraud (however this is for what it is used not what it is)
 * The Justice in almost all countries judge reported cases on a case by case basis and is not included as a crime or so per se. In the few countries where it figures in penal code it does so under "crimes of abuse of confidence and deception" and/or "crimes against the physical integrity".

Basically the article must define Psychic Surgery by what it is and not by what is used for, this can be in a later parragraph and must have solid sources as a penal code or at least a couple of tribunal decisions and even in that case must be warned "in xxx country, it is considered a fraud" or something like that Jenny <sup style="color:#00551B;">Len  13:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well put (= ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 13:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with all except for the notion that "what it is used for" (fraud) must be relegated to a second paragraph. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  14:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Generic table to use
Copy paste this table for use on making sentence proposals.

 Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That is just great. Something like that should be available for use when debates get too complex. Jenny <sup style="color:#00551B;">Len 14:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite project proposal
Who here would be willing to participate in rewrite of this article? I notice that it has been at the center of a lot of disputing recently and I also noticed that the article itself is in very bad shape and thought that the best thing to do would be to rewrite the entire article from scratch using the information and sources already in the article except taking another approach that everyone agrees upon. Without going into detail of how the rewrite process would work, who would be willing to participate in it?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Will consider this later, bur for now we seem to be making progress- thanks (: ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 13:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is. No one seems to be agreeing on anything.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Martinphi on this one. We've been rewriting this since yesterday. Your participation here would be welcomed. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  13:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a couple new angles. One is Jenny's, and one is that the definition needs sources.  Seems obvious, but some of the former proposals were synthesis.  So there are new things coming up, and I think we might be able to push forward.  There are also a couple more people involved now.  But if it doesn't work out, maybe we should take you up on it.  ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 14:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * When you get around to it, I am interested in reading the Time article that you talked about, because in addition to verifying that what you said is true, it could provide some additional material for the body of this article. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  14:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm aiming for a total rewrite. I don't think I could contribute anything as is. I'll leave you all alone and see if you make any progress in a week or so and then come back. Unless a lot of people start working together without some organizing body then I doubt it will be successful and I see conflict ahead. Though I wish you all the best of luck.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the link, Antelan. I don't think it says exact numbers, but it makes it extremely obvious. Depends on what you think is synthesis as to how it can be used.

"Just a year ago, Dorman said, 108 Americans and two Canadians"

"One of the other sources already there says 1856 tours between 1972 and 1974.... 100 persons in 5 hours...." That's the AMA one.

Making this into "many" might be synthesis. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 14:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct, I wouldn't call those numbers a "large following". The other thing is that this is from 1968, which is before the rulings that occurred in 1975 where the US government came out and called all of this a hoax. I imagine that the numbers, at least in the US, would be fewer now that there is an official statement on the matter. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  14:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You would have to read the sources. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 16:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is that these numbers are not useful, and not large. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  16:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The numbers look large to me, small to you. Like I say, really a non-issue in this debate. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 17:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Two issues
Let's get down to the nub of things. First, there is an argument that fraud is the definition of psychic surgery. The sources don't say this. If we say it, therefore, we have to dig up sources, and furthermore sources which override the ones we already have.

Second, there is the issue of where we put the statement that it is fraud. Well, first you say what a thing is, then you say it is fraud. Making statements about something makes sense only with sufficient context. It is also, BTW, a stronger statement. If the person knows thousands of people believe in it, but it's fraud, then the statement is much stronger. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 13:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I call your attention to my previous post. "Psychic Surgery is the act of allegedly performing a surgical intervention through means other than conventional surgery and by individuals not qualified as medical surgeons." Fraud is what it can be used for not what it is Jenny <sup style="color:#00551B;">Len  13:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your intro is fine, but my guess is that Martinphi will think that this medical article comes under the purview of the Paranormal ArbCom, and as such he will say that "allegedly" is inappropriate here. Martinphi, I don't mean to slander you, so correct me if I'm wrong. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  14:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No slander involved- there is probably no reason to introduce that issue here, as "apparently" can be substituted. I'd revise Jenny's verion to:

"Psychic Surgery is the act of apparently performing a surgical intervention by paranormal means, and by individuals not qualified as medical surgeons."

Although I doubt that non-qualification is actually part of the definition. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 14:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand, what about "Psychic Surgery is the act of performing a surgical intervention with resource to paranormal abilities and through means other than conventional surgery. It is performed by individuals not qualified as medical surgeons who usually have established credibility as healers within certain communities or groups ."  Jenny <sup style="color:#00551B;">Len  14:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what they claim, but you're going astray of the most reliable sources here. If you said, "the act of appearing to perform..." then I would be more in agreement. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  14:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point and agree. What about ""Psychic Surgery is the act of performing an intervention, apparently surgical, with resource to paranormal abilities and through means other than conventional surgery. It is performed by individuals not qualified as medical surgeons who usually have established credibility as healers within certain communities or groups ."  Jenny <sup style="color:#00551B;">Len  14:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * or ""Psychic Surgery is a procedure, apparently similar to a surgical intervention, to which persons diagnosed with medical conditions submit themselves as alternative to conventional medical procedures. This procedure is executed with resource to paranormal abilities and  through means other than conventional surgery. It is performed by individuals not qualified as medical surgeons who usually have established credibility as healers within certain communities or groups ."  Jenny <sup style="color:#00551B;">Len  14:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The first looks better; the second is too much synthesis. FYI, it may still be synthesis to call this paranormal; at least, I'm not seeing that description in any of the RS'es. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  14:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

How would you polish it? and does anyone else agree or wants to make a point about this definition? Jenny <sup style="color:#00551B;">Len 15:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Psychic" is paranormal, thus we can use "paranormal" all we want.


 * Psychic surgery is surgery apparently performed by paranormal means. Persons diagnosed with medical conditions sometimes submit themselves to psychic surgery as an alternative to conventional medical procedures.  Psychic surgeons may not be qualified as surgeons in conventional medicine"


 * Arigo used conventional tools, such as knives and needles. We don't know that all psychic surgeons are not qualified in conventional medicine, but we can probably safely say a lot of them are not. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 16:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw your definition after I posted mine below, perhaps we could merge them ? Librarian2 16:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool- go ahead, I'll be back later... ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 17:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

About definitions
Librarian2 16:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice- especially the definition. Does anyone have a source saying that none of them have medical qualifications? ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 16:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Martinphi's right about sourcing the qualifications, but the wording is fine.  Dreadstar  †  16:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility

Librarian2 17:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you're bending over backwards to be helpful, but there's no more textual support for that version than for the version that Martinphi opposed. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  17:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Antelan, we're working towards a consensus version here. I support Librarian2's efforts.  The current version is not satisfactory.  Dreadstar  †  17:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And yet another:

Librarian2 17:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My concern with the definition is this: controversy is often found when something is disputed. Homeopathy, for example, is controversial. Psychic surgery is, as far as I have read, not controversial because there is broad agreement about its nature. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  18:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed the wording of the definition slightly, just a bit of grammar tweaking. Dreadstar †  18:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

About fraud/no fraud
I was reading the chain of the debate. It is practically impossible after a debate or when parties are at opposite sides, to avoid to defend some points. There is only one solution if you want to come out of the freezer, and is to make the definition so short and neutral that doesn't imply one thing or another, thus my short and concise proposal for a definition. Please seat back, take a breath and think a while, there is no way you will reconciliate opposite understandings, you can just avoid both understandings.

My proposal is simple, you place a short definition avoiding "fraud" and also avoiding support to the concept, just a neutral encyclopedic definition which will tell the reader what it is, not what to think about. Then, in a second parragraph says who makes it also very neutral and then, in a first titled section highly visible with possible title "Controversy" expose both views as open as you want as far as it is with solid citations and not demeaning the opposite side belief. Leave to the reader to decide. This will provide a simple, short and understandable definition and also clear picture of the controversy and the sides available to join. You can use my short definition as candidate or not, but something in that style, no party flags.

I apologize if I am blunt, but you were exhausting yourselves in a loop. Please think about. Librarian2 17:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Librarian2, I support both your efforts and your proposed versions. Dreadstar  †  17:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts. Please continue working with us if you can tolerate it for awhile longer. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  17:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Antelan's definition
Ante lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  18:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, who made the unsigned entry? Librarian2 18:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  18:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I like Librarian2's versions much better. Dreadstar †  17:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, mind explaining why so I can work on a different version? Thanks, Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  18:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you really need me to. When I read this version, the portion that I object to is: "uses animal byproducts to create the appearance", which doesn't seem to be a proper definition and appears to be the same as saying "fraud".  So, my original objection applies to this version as well.  Dreadstar  †  18:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is documentation that this is what happens during psychic surgery. Hence, I felt that it would be a fair definition. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  18:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally understand, and I assumed it was a good faith attempt to define it, never thought otherwise. Dreadstar  †  18:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Sure, if you really need me to." <-- The origin of my concern about your view of my intentions. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  18:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. About the definition, it is like this, the more details you try to enter, the more concepts you need to agree upon. Why not to leave all details for a "Controversy" section? I must say that all you say is known and can be sourced but I really think that the article will be more balanced if all that is exposed in a section just for that Librarian2 18:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well put, Librarian2. Dreadstar  †  18:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd rather get the term defined up front in order to satisfy guidelines as Martinphi and Dreadstar have been noting. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  18:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see that one side has the worry that Psychic surgery appears too respectable while the other side worries that Psychic surgery appear too "cheap trick". But my personal opinion is that at the present state of things, Psychic Surgery is one thing. Controversial. While some sources condemn it others tolerate it and still others praise it. On a controversial issue there is only one way to go, to expose the controversy. Librarian2 18:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Which reliable sources praise it? If there is a true controversy, yes, we must explore it. But from what I've read, the only controversy is being imagined on this page. I'm truly not opposed to discovering otherwise; I just haven't seen a reliable source to point me in that direction. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  18:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Praise" is implicit in the fact that the FTC had to warn people and put a stop to hundreds, if not thousands of tourists who were going on a "psychic surgery" trip. That's besides the point, it's a straw man argument looking for sources that praise it, the primary driver definition is obvious, then we follow with the criticism of it.  Dreadstar  †  18:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how asking someone to produce sources to back something they want to design an article around is a "straw man". This isn't some frivolous addendum; it's about the nature of the practice. Has any controversy persisted post-1975? I do not think so, which is why I want to see sources. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  18:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I have no problem with it appearing as the cheap trick that it is, I just think we need to define what the trick is before we say it's a trick. Dreadstar  †  18:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And it is, by definition, a procedure in which someone makes it look like they're sticking their hand into you. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  18:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's the criticism of it. Dreadstar  †  18:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And this is the root of the problem, apparently. I see this as a statement of fact - a description of what literally happens during the procedure. You see this as a criticism. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  18:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the loop, Antelan. I believe Librarian2's version can help break that loop. It's a waste of both our time and effort to continue this particular debate. Librarian2 is right on the mark with everything that's been said thus far. Dreadstar †  18:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I just happen to think that my version is closer to a description of the events as they occur in reality, not what is fancied by salesmen of the practice. That is, I see my most recent description as neutral, not sympathetic. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  18:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, wrong call, there you go. Please, lets find a definition of what it is and not how is done in detail or how is used or other properties.I am not really inclined to enter in a loop I recognize as a loop from far, I can help but only if you reduce the definition to barebones and expose other properties in a Controversy section  Librarian2 18:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What I'm suggesting here is no different from what is done in other articles about procedures, such as Liposuction, Tonsillectomy, Colonoscopy, Manipulation under anesthesia, and dozens of others. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  18:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism / Description placement
The American Cancer Society article starts off with a description before the criticism:

DESCRIPTION Psychic surgery is used to remove spirits or physical manifestations of spiritual problems from a patient by the use of bare fingers and hands without any actual surgery.

OVERVIEW Available scientific evidence does not support claims that psychic surgery offers any value to people with cancer or any other disease. Psychic surgeons create the illusion that they can remove tumors, unhealthy tissue, and organs by making an invisible incision using only their fingers and hands. Dreadstar †  18:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but their published, scholarly article starts off with criticism and then describes what psychic surgery is "After study of the literature and other available information, the American Cancer Society has found no evidence that "psychic surgery" results in objective benefit in the treatment of any medical condition. Lacking such evidence, the American Cancer Society strongly urges individuals who are ill not to seek treatment by psychic surgery. The following is a review and summary of material on "psychic surgery" in the American Cancer Society files as of May 31, 1989. Reference to that material by the Society does not imply agreement with its contents." I look forward to your response to my points above.  Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  18:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a one-paragraph treatment that describes their opinion. It provides no context and isn't applicable here.  I tire of this argument, there is no consensus or policy that backs your way of handling this.  I suggest we follow the lead of our esteemed Librarian2 and stop this endless loop.  Either that, our you take it up the chain.  This is getting us nowhere.  Dreadstar  †  18:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That is the correct encyclopedic way to do it. Just a comment (for humor not for bad), the Cancer society in their first line accepts that spirits exist. You see, a definition must be solid, they were in such a hurry to make the point that nothing is physical that they made a poor definition, but brief and concise though. Librarian2 18:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point! Let's create a brief, concise definition and then pile on the criticism sections..!  Dreadstar  †  18:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)