Talk:João de Deus (medium)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Style of article 2 Things that need citation 3 Cleaned up 4 Does he travel?

[edit] Style of article

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

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

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

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

[edit] Things that need citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Cleaned up

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

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

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

[edit] Does he travel?

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