Talk:Psychic surgery/Archive 3

Modified Librarian2 V
I slightly tweaked the wording, what do you think L2? Dreadstar †  18:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Is good, just remeber that of "no qualifications" needs "usually" Librarian2 18:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. I made a change, let me know if it sufficiently addresses that issue. Dreadstar †  18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds with good flow and direct to the point. For a clear view may be added "controversial" before "procedure" but I am not sure is necessary. If that is followed a a bold title "Controversy" for the first section, then solid sources can be inserted as to the two sides of the story.Librarian2 19:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I added controversial. I totally agree with the boldly titled "Controversy" section..if not an even stronger title.. Dreadstar  †  20:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism lead
After the definition, I propose the second part of the lead to be:

It is very good and thrieving in sources, just some style and grammar streaming I think but I am not the best indicated for that. Librarian2 20:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say:

Librarian2 20:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


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


 * The second version, minus sustain looks good. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

V3

How's that? Replaced 'sustain' with 'say". Dreadstar  †  04:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


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

Totally agree with definition, practicioners and controversy, shall we go ahead and request deprotection? Jenny Len 09:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Which definition, practitioners, and controversy among the many above are you referring to? Ante  lan  talk  13:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Define as fraud
If the majority of the WP:V source defined it as fraud -rather than defining it and then saying it is fraud- it would probably be OK to define it as fraud. I've looked at (I think all) the sources used, and none of them that I looked at defined it as fraud. Rather, they defined it as a procedure, then said it was fraud. I think we have to follow the sources. To do otherwise is synthesis and WP:OR. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I think you are really grasping at straws. Sorry.--Filll 03:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah... Darn all those little straws called Wikipedia policies. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, filll's right, you really are grasping at straws. ornis ( t ) 06:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yes! Darn all those little policy straws!!! ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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

From the comments above, it looks like these three segments are ahead in consensus for replacing the current lead section of the article. If we've reached consensus, then we can have the article unprotected, put this into place and hopefully continue to work together to make the article better without anyone feeling the need to resort to edit warring. If we discuss any proposed major changes on the talk page page first, then we should be good to go! Dreadstar †  15:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree to the versions directly above. Dreadstar  †  15:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. It could use some word-tweaking, such as just saying "but who enjoy credibility within certain communities or groups."  But it seems NPOV. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Difference between "psychic surgery" and "psychic"
Nothing wrong with paranormal ideas. Nothing wrong with alternative, totally psychic health treatments like Reiki and faith healing (laying on of hands, etc.). These are ideas and beliefs open to opinion. Psychic surgery, as in the sleight of hand tricks and pulling pieces of meat from a cupped bag, should start with a medical disclaimer as it's the responsible thing to do. There's a stark difference between belief treatments (the slightly skeptical would call them "placebo effects", while believers would call them "spiritual effects") and "illusion" procedures like psychic surgery. This difference is often supported by the sources. Reiki and faith healing aren't run through the ringer because they are seen as belief-centered. Psychic surgery, and its emphasis in showing something "physically removed" is most often seen as fraud, because of the physical "manifestation". One's a belief treatment and is more truly "psychic". The other plays up the illusion of being physical and can appropriately be considered fraud (with a basic definition of the elements of the fraud). Psychic surgery isn't actually psychic (like Reiki and faith healing) and that's the approach the article should take, imho. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 17:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, consider this my rejection of the above definitions that call it a paranormal procedure. It is a "procedure that plays to paranormal beliefs" rather than a procedure demonstrably paranormal (defined as lacking a solid scientific explanation). There are well-established scientific explanations for this one, unlike faith healing which "might" be explained by the placebo effect. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 18:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition includes the elements of the procedure. The practioners are Spiritualists (Tony Agpaoa, José Arigó). The controversy is that psychic surgery is not a medical procedure. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 18:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with you, Nealparr. I like this version as well, it's brief, concise, to the point and lends no credence to the process, while accurately describing it.  It's good.  Dreadstar  †  18:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think my definition above and Nealparr's definition here substantially agree. I think his is a fair compromise. Ante  lan  talk  19:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't touch the controversy section, but I think that can be slimmed up too. All it really needs to say is "Psychic surgery is a spiritual practice and not a medical procedure. It has been condemned as medical fraud by most medical organizations, including [x] because they feel it may cause needless death in keeping the ill away from life-saving medical care." Or something similarly short and sweet. It currently reads like a section in the article instead of a lead. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 19:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So long as that short and sweet version is a sentence within the first paragraph, I agree. Ante  lan  talk  19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Look good? -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 20:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good, and a one paragraph intro is probably the right length of an article this brief. Could you replace "by most medical" to "by government and medical"? Also, could you change "because they feel it" to "which states that psychic surgery"? Ante  lan  talk  20:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Done -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 20:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the original version above better, I think the lead section needs a stronger statement regarding fraud. The single paragraph intro isn't as acceptable, but I will await other opinions. Dreadstar †  21:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Now we have three versions to consider. "Good standpoint", "Nealparr 1" and "Nealparr single paragraph"...just for those keeping track...;) Dreadstar  †  21:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to say I prefer the version by neal that immediately precedes this one, and think that in spite of a somewhat grammatically unlovely first sentence, it's the best proposal so far that address all concerns expressed here. ornis ( t ) 22:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My memory is rusty on these things, but it seems to me that some of the classic so-called "psychic surgeons" such as Arigo (Surgeon of the Rusty Knife) actually did perform surgery. So we can't say it is not a medical procedure, and we can't say it only has the appearance of making an incision (I recall that Randi quotes an investigator who had a bit of fat removed from his arm by Arigo, who did actually remove it).  We can't say it is always done with bare hands- not that anyone in the trade would say that the incision is done with hands, but rather by psychic force: sometimes the hands don't touch, so the appearance isn't even there.  And we can't say in cases such as Arigo that it is not a medical procedure- even if we can get around the argument that healing by placebo effect is  also a medical procedure.  ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That would put us back to the Good standpoint version then? Or are there recommended tweaks to the latest two versions? Dreadstar  †  22:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It would if martinphi's argument wasn't entirely specious. A "rusty memory" is no substitute for a reliable source, and as it is nealpar's first version succeeds in that it defines the common element of various types of PS and doesn't conflate the practice with either spiritualism or medicine. ornis <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 22:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if Martinphi was being sarcastic.."rusty memory" on the "rusty knife", but apparently his memory serves him well, a quick search turns up sources that indicate not only did Arigo use an unclean blade, but apparently, there are others as well, such as "Pachita" .  Dreadstar  †  22:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Psychic surgery is a controversial procedure that involves an apparently invasive operation performed by a paranormal means for the purpose of curing by processes other than those of conventional medicine."

This makes few claims. We just need to describe what it looks like- which is:

1 it looks like the patient is cut open

2 it looks paranormal

3 it is supposed to heal

No claims, just a description which people coming here from other sites/books will recognize. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Some notes (without getting too involved): The bare hands do touch. It is a physical act. The "psychic" part of it is that the appearance is created that the hands pierce the skin and leave the body uncut afterwards. The Arigó case involved the use of unsterilized blades (sissors I believe), but they were only shown to cut "material" away from the body, not to open the skin. That's why it's called "psychic". We're speaking generally anyway and leaving specifics for the rest of the article. Generally speaking it is a bare handed physical act that has the appearance of "psychic". It is not a medical procedure because it does not have the approval of the medical community. That's a given. It can not be called a medical procedure. That would be irresponsible. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 22:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, the subject of this section, it is not "psychic" in the same sense that Reiki and faith healing is. There's a physical component and the appearance of having physical effects. That aspect is generally (uncontroversially) seen to be fraudulent. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 22:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with your reasoning. My only concern with your latest version was that it is somewhat too condensed, and still think the penultimate version you submitted is the best we've seen to date. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 22:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It could probably use some twinking, but the principles are sound I believe. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 23:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * For those who've never seen it and are looking for an example to describe/define the thing, here's video:


 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roCounjrXf8


 * This is "actual" psychic surgery in the Phillipines (versus Randi or Chris Angel, etc.)
 * -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 23:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The AMA source says "appears to make an incision with a finger held six inches or more above the skin."  Arigo used a pocket knife .  The version above won't work. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Typically" makes it work much better. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Typically" covers Randi's entry. "Anecdotal" covers the AMA account. Their source for "six inches away" was an article in World Tennis magazine. Since this lead doesn't actually say "right up on the skin", it's all good. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 23:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed so far- changed combined verions below. Now, "Psychic surgery is a spiritual practice and not a medical procedure." This is a negative proof kind of thing- you'd only need one white crow. As such, it can't be sourced. And what about the times when actual surgery is performed? Randi, I think, recounts such an episode. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not opposed to any version that doesn't define it as a medical procedure (stickler on that one). Times? As in it's supposed to be done at a certain time of day/year or something? I would suggest that might be minutia but I don't recall anything like that in general descriptions. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 00:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Occasions when they used knives. See ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It says he used a knife, not that the knife actually was used to cut into the patient. In a previous version of the lead I had pointed out that unsterilized tools were also occasionally part of the act. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  00:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In anycase, use of other props is best left to the body of the article. The lead should stick to describing the common features of PS. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 00:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, I agree with that. I think "typically" covers us until the body where greater detail and variations can be covered. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 00:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Could do that. According to Randi, this part is not an act. I'll revise the current verion as you say. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that anyone but you is working on the version you've proposed. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 00:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Are there other things that people think should be changed about the current version (Nealparr's, above)? Ante lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  00:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Depends, are you talking about the one paragraph version or the three paragraph version. Personally I still favour the three part version. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 00:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The version above does not have consensus, because of the reasons I've made clear. I've changed it re your concerns.  But if you have a better version which might aquire consensus, then by all means present it.  I'm listening. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Martin's is mostly the same as mine with small wording diffs and expanded criticism. I think at the very least the Definition and Practitioners can be one paragraph. Dreadstar wanted a better explanation of the fraud and the Controversy section in the first table would do that (I think it's better slimmed but not opposed to the bigger one). For style reasons, that would be a separate paragraph, but Antelan wanted one paragraph. I think that about sums it. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 00:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe a short introduction is sufficient for this short article; introduce the subject, let the reader see the extended description of the procedure in the first section of the article, then the medical and governmental findings in the second section of the article, and the regional variations and history in the third section of the article. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  00:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, are we talking about this the one below?

If so, I suggest:

"A psychic surgery operation involves apparently making an incision into the body typically with bare hands, removing pathological matter, and sometimes causing an instantaneous healing of the incision.  Accounts of psychic surgery began appearing in the in the Spiritualist communitites of the Phillipines and Brazil in the mid-1900s."

The reason for this small change is that "apparently" leaves more room for the occasions when they use knives and actually do surgery. Otherwise, our versions are the same, and we have a good lead.

For those who think they don't need consensus on Wikipedia- that's not something that wins the day. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, let's keep working on Nealparr's versions. We're making good progress with those. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  00:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is Nealparr's version. That short version above is a non-starter at present. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A non starter? How so? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  00:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with any of the three version (my long, my short, and Martin's long), so you guys can work it out. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 00:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, let's talk about Nealparr's version above- that's the one he's been changing toward consensus. I'll go for it if we put in the slight wording change:


 * "A psychic surgery operation involves apparently making an incision into the body typically with bare hands, removing pathological matter, and causing an instantaneous healing of the incision.  Accounts of psychic surgery began appearing in the in the Spiritualist communitites of the Phillipines and Brazil in the mid-1900s." ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Another version
––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's keep working on Nealparr's versions for now. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  23:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a combination of both versions. Dreadstar  †  23:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

New version
Ok, here is where we are now:


 * Looks acceptable to me. Dreadstar  †  04:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Could simplify the first sentence: A psychic surgery operation typically involves the apparent creation of an incision, removal of pathological matter, and then the instantaneous healing of the incision.

Slightly more understandable, I think. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good, less clunky. What about the 'bare hands' aspect?  "Unclean tools"?  Do we need them?  Or just leave them both out? Dreadstar  †  05:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I think we don't need them in the lead.  We need to describe the procedure well in the article, and also to include the use of knives etc.  What do you say? But not being clunky in the lead has something to recommend it.  I'd normally say the thing had a WEIGHT issue, but with this subject probably not.  ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Later, we may need to introduce a sentence or two giving more context to the subject- like if we can get a source on the extent of the phenomenon. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs)


 * I concur. I think the weight is appropriately placed in the "controversy" section, that is definitely the key issue.  The description looks fine to me.  I say it's a go.  Dreadstar  †  05:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Omitting bare-hands would render the definition so vague as to be useless. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 05:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to admit, I did like the 'bare hands' part, it really focuses in on the illusion created. Let's put it in.  Dreadstar  †  05:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

How's this:

Might be better as:
 * "A psychic surgery operation typically involves the apparent creation of an incision using only the bare hands, removal of pathological matter, and then the instantaneous healing of the incision."

The more that's added the more clunky it gets. Dreadstar †  05:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's good. We could also give a little more context with a whole sentence, because we also should mention "paranormal" or delete the last sentence of the controversy section:

A psychic surgery operation typically involves the apparent creation of an incision, removal of pathological matter, and then the instantaneous healing of the incision. The incision is often apparently made paranormally under the bare hands of the surgeon, and the surgeon's hands seem to enter the patient's body painlessly. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Adds nothing. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 05:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A bit more concise version, perhaps?
 * "A psychic surgery operation typically involves the painless apparent creation of an incision using only the bare hands, removal of pathological matter, and then the instantaneous healing of the incision by paranormal means."
 * Dreadstar †  05:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "A psychic surgery operation typically involves the apparent painless creation of an incision using only the bare hands, removal of pathological matter, and then the instantaneous healing of the incision by paranormal means."


 * Could. We need so many concepts in there is makes the sentence hard to understand.  Now, it's as if only the healing is supposed to be paranormal. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A psychic surgery is an apparently paranormal operation which typically involves the creation of an incision under the surgeon's bare hands, removal of pathological matter, and then the instantaneous healing of the incision. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Any mention of paranormal only serves to bloat the lead without helping in anyway to pin down the subject being described. It also smacks of undue weight, by attempting to lend whatever tenuous credibility the term "paranormal" might carry. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 05:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fine as long as we don't actually say it's paranormal...appearing as paranormal might be fine...but I'm ok with or without it. It's sort of implied by the name of the darned thing.  Dreadstar  †  05:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it does, but that doesn't mean the lead needs to be bogged down with any more "apparent"s or "appear"s than are absolutely necessary. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 05:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just posting almost the very same thought: I'm not sure if the leading "apparent" carries all the way through the entire sentence, but I don't want to make it even more convoluted by adding yet another qualifier to it...Dreadstar  †  05:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you guys are still bothering with it. There was nothing really wrong with mine. All the changes introduced are just seeing how many -ly's fit in a sentence before it becomes crazy. It's getting really apparently typically paranormally and silly : ) -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 05:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is indeed pretty pointless. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 06:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We have to say something about paranormal, or else the controversy section doesn't work as-is. So what do you want to do? ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Eh? That makes no sense whatsoever. The first paragraph describes what PS typically looks like, the second where it arose, and the third what actual doctors think of it. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 06:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Kay, this has no more problems, by avoiding "paranormal" completely. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Now you've left out the mention of hands, once again rendering the def. too vague to be useful. Do you enjoy chasing your tail like this? <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 06:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently you do. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 06:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Cool. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Any objections to this version? Dreadstar †  17:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Minor ones that don't mean much and would require more explanation than they're worth. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 18:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

- I'm going to unprotect the article now, per request on my talk page. Any objections, seeing as you guys all seem reasonably happy with Option V here? - A l is o n  ☺ 08:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think if it's unprotected then an edit war is bound to ensue. I wouldn't oppose unprotecting it to see what happens but I'm pretty sure that's what would happen. I guess we'll have to see. So you can unprotect it now and hope for the best.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If anyone waits this long without disagreeing and then starts edit warring, that's just trolling. ––– Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone will find someone else to disagree with. Contention pops up out of nowhere.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm unprotecting now. If the war re-starts, prot is going back on in a hurry & you guys will have to take it to MEDCOM or something. Make the best of it :) - A l is o n  ☺ 23:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus lead
I've put the new consensus version lead into place. The article needs work, but I sincerely hope everyone involved will talk it out here on the discussion page before making any major changes to the article. Please no further edit warring, we'll just end up here again with a protected page and egg on our collective faces...;)

I want to thank everyone involved for helping to bring this to a consensus and getting the article unprotected. Let's keep it that way! Dreadstar †  01:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

New work
Suggest taking out everything which currently has citation requests on it, and adding things in only with citation. ––– Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed most of the uncited content and tried to find suitable sources for the rest. That's about all I care to do with it, hopefully some of the other editors who were previously engaged in the article can make further improvements. Dreadstar  †  06:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes to page structure
While I have modified the structure, of the page, as per the above I have not added or deleted any actual content, only reordered it.

There changes were made in order to bring this page into line with standard section ordering. Lit: an entry should introduce the topic, define the topic, discuss the history of a topic, then introduce dissenting ideas and concepts. As was, the entry discussed criticism of the topic before history of the topic. This is academically incorrect on the grounds that the reader should be informed of the different facets of the topic in a pure form before they are introduced to conflicting ideologies. For example, it would be wrong to launch into a criticism of Communism before the reader knew what Communism was or why it came into being.

perfectblue 07:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You changes grossly violate undue weight and are just going to get the page locked again. For god sake. IT"S FRAUD. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 07:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My changes REMOVED NO CONTENT, I merely changed the structure to reflect the academically correct layout in which discussion follows definition. - perfectblue 10:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please calm down Ornis. I agree that major changes to this contentious article should be discussed before implementing, even structural changes.  One of the primary concerns with this particular subject is that it has been strongly identified as fraud, so certain adjustments must be made to accomodate this.  Perfectblue was just being bold, she was not engaged in the previous edit war, and her reasoning for the changes was sound, so give her a break.


 * And Ornis, it takes two to edit war and get the article locked, or possibly get one or more editors blocked - so I suggest that none of you revert, but instead discuss here on the talk page to find consensus. WP:3RR is clear, rather than reverting multiple times, discuss the matter with other editors.  Dreadstar  †  08:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In order to gain credibility it is very important that a correct section structure is followed. Let me give you an example. Suppose I were to write a detailed account of WWII, under your structure I'd start with the introduction and then move straight on to criticism of the firebombing of Tokyo and the riots in Shanghai over the Japanese war shrine in 2005, but would leave the bit about Pearl Harbor to the end. - perfectblue 10:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, for this article to be credible and to deliver information to the reader in the most effective way, it needs to be written in a clear, encyclopedic manner. I believe the type of structure you mention is described in the WP:Manual of style.  Dreadstar  †  17:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You always put the definition and description -the basic content of the article- before criticism. That was one of the problems with the POV-lead, which said "Psychic surgery is a form of medical fraud." I, also, was intending to make these structural changes. I've seen this done before (putting the criticism before the description and history), and it's just a way to try and influence the reader's opinion. ––– Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems a good page
I just added "apparent" to the removal of pathological samples as are not really pathological samples. I also changed some wording position by the sake of style.

I changed fraud by "claims of Fraud" because the guy is a magician, not a law enforcement agency or a tribunal.

It seems to be missing an explanation that in Brazil are two currents, that of the kardecists which works with tools and try to approach more real surgery and that of Umbanda "curandeiros" who work just with hands.

It also should be a citation where says that originated in Phil and Braz.

Seems that for a neutral article is missing the voice of the "cured" ones which can be related with some placebo explanations.

These are all minor, the article is a far cry from the original and it looks like an article. Jenny <sup style="color:#00551B;">Len 12:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not an article
Yes I agree, seems a good page, however not an article, it needs working in style, grammar and structure. Any volunteers ? Librarian2 16:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have done some general work on the article, added placebo effect reference and went to placebo effect article to improve it. Thank you MartinPhi for grammar improvements. ℒibrarian 2  20:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed wiki-links to Faith Healing
I have removed the mutual links between this Psychic Surgery article and the Faith Healing article and vice versa. My reasoning is based on the knowledge that faith healing ipso facto requires the patient's faith in a religious paradigm of one sort or another (note that all examples on the faith healing page are religious in context and content), whereas psychic surgery does not require any such spiritual belief.

All that is required of a patient who consults a psychic surgeon is a gullible acceptance that the psychic surgeon -- like a stage magician -- can somehow violate well-known physical laws.

Trying to involve faith healing with psychic surgery, to the detriment and ridicule of faith healing, is NPOV on the part of the anti-paranormal patrol writers at Wikipedia and is seriously embarrassing to the encyclopedia's reputation for neutrality.

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 19:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, and with faith healing, all that is required is a belief in an invisible being who can "violate well-known physical laws." —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:Civil. ("Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.") I will certainly report you for incivility if this line of heckling continues. cat Catherineyronwode 01:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And unfounded accusations of incivility are incivility. As are threats.  I wasn't uncivil to you, I just tried to elucidate a point, which was logical and relevant to the situation.  —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like you to stop mocking my religious beliefs. I would like you to consider, also, that to those with panentheistic beliefs, Deity is anything but "invisible." Were i to open my heart a little more, i have no doubt i would see see God even in you. cat Catherineyronwode 08:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope you do see God in me. But I was not mocking, but making a real point. Nor do I know anything at all about your beliefs. But here is a way we might connect: You say that Psychic surgeons violate well-know physical laws. God is creator of those laws. We are created -or so it is said- in the image of God. Why is it so much less believable that a psychic surgeon could violate physical law than that God could do it directly? If you talk of pantheists, then aren't Psychic surgeons endowed with the power of God? If in a pantheistic universe God does not violate his laws, then I ask again why faith healing is more believable than psychic surgery? I'm not talking about my own beliefs here, only asking questions.

If we are to have peace in the world, it would be well to assume good faith of each other. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It helps to have email. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I said panentheistic not pantheistic. I do not believe that we (people) are "created in the image of God" anymore than that a bale of alfalfa hay is created "in the image of God" -- i believe that the entire universe is an expression of the Divine. I don't claim to know all of the laws that God has created. I do know that psychic surgery looks fake and that it violates my practical experience of the way things work in the world. Faith healing is more believable than psychic surgery to me because i know from personal experience that a great deal of what i experience is based upon my expectations of experience, and if i change those expectations, i can also influence the way my body handles stress, exposure to disease organisms, exposure to toxic chemicals, sleep deprivation, and various sensations of pain. The New Thought version of faith healing through affirmative prayer is pretty simple and straightforward. Try it some time. You may already be using it to some extent without knowing it. cat Catherineyronwode 05:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting, never heard that word before. This is the Conversations with God view, I think.  But who said that a bale of hay is not in the image of God?  And of course we do this- that is proven in placebo effect.  And some studies point to it being more than placebo.  But you have to admit that with most faith healing, the psychic surgeon is just replaced by the man in the sky.  Most people don't have the concepts you're talking about, and both systems are suggestive (and thus they both work to some extent). —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A "See also" does not require the articles to be identical in every respect (if they were, we'd have a single article). They both have in common that they are non-scientific methods that claim to cure a patient. Reverted. I'm not sure why this is a POV issue - you are the one labelling psychic surgery a "medical fraud", surely people who believe in psychic surgery would disagree? Mdwh (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to add - I agree with transferring the psychic surgery material from there to here, as it makes sense to include it in the most appropriate page". But I see nothing wrong with a "See also" for topics. Mdwh (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)