Talk:João Teixeira de Faria

Style of article

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

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

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

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

Things that need citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cleaned up

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

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

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

PS. the phrase 'evidence that goes against science' is illogical. Real science is about looking at the evidence. However, sadly, science in the 20th century often tends towards a system of belief. As we have seen in our history in cases such as Aristotle, Copernicus, Darwin, and pretty much every scientific revolution, the evidence trumps the widely held belief in 'truth'. Deryk Wenaus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC).

You're taking it too literally. The plain meaning is that a blog isn't credible if it makes claims that contradict our best understanding of the world as obtained through the scientific method --- not that it matters as long as WP doesn't consider blogs to be reliable sources, period. And your claim about science "in the 20th century" (or the current one) is simply false, and amounts to special pleading ... "science" is an enterprise involving thousands upon thousands of educated and trained people, and the sum of their interpretations of the evidence, competitively cross-checked and peer reviewed, trumps that of any individual, including yourself. Talk of belief in 'truth' is a strawman -- the comment was about science, not truth; science based on a massive accumulation of evidence. And that's relevant to this article, where it is currently understated. -- Jibal (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Does he travel?

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

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

Five people

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

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

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

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

Amen.

Seigneur101 20:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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

James Randi and NPOV

James Randi does not have a NPOV. Just as sources directly from the John of God group do not represent a NPOV, James Randi's words also do not represent a NPOV. James Randi a recognized skeptic; his whole career is built upon the idea of debunking anything that is not based in the physical. Also, James Randi does not represent scientific belief (which an oxymoron - true scientists do not believe, they observe). What he does represent is the naturalist (scientific materialistic) point of view, which is only one of many scientific world views. The naturalistic POV is from the time of Galileo and Newton. Since the advent of quantum physics at the beginning of the 20th century most physicists have adopted expanded views about reality. However, naturalism it is a point of view shared by most technician scientists; in this way it is more of a belief rather than a careful study of the evidence and facts. I'm not trying to open up a big debate here, I'm just wanting to point out that James Randi does not represent a NPOV and give some backing to that claim. A few supporting articles here:

• a skeptical look at James Randi (http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm)
• The Myth of the Million Dollar Challenge (http://www.dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge)

Deryk Wenaus (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Unsourced/weak sources

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

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

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

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

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

Sexual predator allegations?

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

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

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

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

TimothyConway (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Blogs are no reliable source, especially not when it comes to talking negatively about people. someone is not guilty, until proven differently in court. So until there would be a court case proven he was guilty, I don't believe these accusations belong in this article.Maerlander (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I know you are trying to make money by promoting João. Please stop it. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The sexual predator allegations look to be in the news today though.[1]T. Anthony (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Deletions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you seriously fucking kidding me?

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

Link me to some reliable sources about him being a con man, please - with a little balance this article can be a touch better. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

My source is logic. There is no need to cite any source. Science — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.75.61.64 (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Please stop trying to promote your business. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

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

"de Faria"/"De Faria"/"John"/"John of God"

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

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

References

--Rodveleda (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please stop trying to promote your business. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

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

I know you are trying to make money by promoting João. Please stop it. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

How am I trying to make money? I am trying to edit the article to at least a neutral article. I don't think the article is neutral at the moment. Maerlander (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the first website you've tried to promote João on. I can use Google. En ik kan trouwens ook in het Nederlands communiceren als dat je meer bevalt. (translation, just in case anyone is curious: "And I am also able to communicate in Dutch if you prefer") (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

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

• Maerlander, any coincidence john of god tour guides are continually trying to edit/delete material to profit financially : http://www.bookjohnofgod.com/en/664172/guides — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante Dos (talk • contribs) 14:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Just want to note that Maerlander (talk)'s comments have aged spectacularly poorly. Bricology (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

60 Minutes YouTube video source.

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

Multiple major issues with this page

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

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

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

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

Human trafficking farm accusations

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

Rewrite needed

If João Teixeira de Faria is now serving what may amount to a life sentence in prison, portions of the article should be rewritten in past tense, as he is no longer running his schemes. — Foxtrot1296 (talk)

Agreed. I tried to tackle the main body of the article, in correcting all of the things that were stated in present-tense, to past-tense (e.g., he doesn't do any of the things claimed for him anymore, since he is in prison), but the entire article needs to be gone over to unequivocally state that he is a con-man, a sexual predator and a felon who will never set foot outside of prison. Bricology (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Necessary Rewrite To Not Have Riot/Murder

As whole, this article reads:

Criminally deceptive, unfounded, malicious and criminal labeling to indict murder through Wikipedia meant to be informative only. Not a neutral portrayal of a biography. Pointed to murder, written from a pointed perspective to take life.

Non neutral igniting violence in hate crime. This hate crime is punishable by a court of law through fine/imprisonment. Hate crime taking a human beings life through resolved suicide of mot resolved.

DO NOT REMOVE THESE CHANGES. All redraft and restructuring necessary to resolve, create neutrality in positive light. All change necessary to remove writing in criminal malice to murder, false light in criminal persecution, maliciously persecuting through terroristic reporting, terrorist sounding in criminal penalty as if Wikipedia is an arbiter of events, terrorist act to murder, those writing of terroristic sound to take life, will ignite riot in criminal act, criminal labeling a terrorist threat placing individual in danger, gang violence ignited, murder attempts from Wikipedia article at malicious labeling igniting criminals in hatred to take this human beings life.

DO NOT REMOVE THESE CHANGES. THEY ARE NECESSARY TO PROTECT FROM CRIMINALS IN HATE CRIME IGNITED TO MURDER BASED ON ARTICLE. SAFETY OF HUMAN BEING WARRANTS THESE CHANGES.

Detailed changes:

João Teixeira de Faria (born 24 June 1942), known also as João de Deus (John of God), is a Brazilian convicted rapist, self-proclaimed medium, and self-proclaimed psychic surgeon.[1][2] Criminal malice, requires change

He was based in Abadiânia, Brazil, where he ran a spiritual healing center called the Casa de Dom Inácio de Loyola. Still his healing centre, Joao Teixeira de Faria is not dead

He received media coverage on CNN, ABC News, and personally from The Oprah Winfrey Show. However, James Randi and Joe Nickell exposed his healing procedures as nothing more than carnival tricks,[3][4] and there is no evidence that the benefits reported by patients are anything more than placebo effects.[5]

These media sources targeted Joao Teixeira in criminal persecution leading up to crisis of "me too" in Brazil, nany claiming these sources to take life of Joao Teixeira to death point. This belongs in opposition section, biographical overview synopsis shouldn't target a human being in opposition.

Criminal status Under house arrest due to the COVID-19 pandemic Conviction(s) Rape, sexual misconduct, illegal possession of firearms Criminal penalty 489 years and 4 months in prison

This is criminal labeling, malicious persecution, defamatory criminal act. In no other Wikipedia article, is this biographical information. This is suicide as a header. Further, outdated as Joao Teixeira was released free of all conviction in September 2024.

I took out whole box section, repetitive information. Not married to Ana Keyla Teixeira. All names and birth date already included in beginning of prose.

In 2018, after over 600 accusations of sexual abuse, Faria turned himself in to police. In the following years, he was found guilty of a number of different crimes, including illegal firearm possession and statutory rape.[6] The sentences add up to 489 years and 4 months in prison.[7]

This is criminal malice in criminal penalty, terroristic reporting. A biographical overview of a human being is not criminality unfounded. Joao Teixeira was released from all charges and convictions. The number of women in accusation only, skepticism. Not founded. Overview should not be in terroristic light toward a human being but neutral. Achievements and accomplishments necessitate highlight here. Who a human being is, is not criminal accusation. My overview neutral.

Early Life João Teixeira de Faria was born in Cachoeira de Goiás on 24 June 1942.[8] He has no medical training and describes himself as a "simple farmer".[9] He completed two years of education and spent a number of years travelling from village to village in the states of Goiás and Minas Gerais as a garrafeiro, a sort of travelling medicine man.[10]

False light, Terrorist sound This is criminal persecution, using lack of education as paramount to discredit a human beings ability in miracle to health. This discredits in terrorist. Education of two years is irrelevant to paramount ability in God to create health. This targets Joao Teixeira as worthless and insignificant while his accomplishment is creation of healing for millions across the world. This criminally discredits a human being in malicious persecution and false light. This man's credentials exemplify greatness, early life should point at these credentials, not to a worthless trash shoot with no schooling and medical training.

Further, a Netflix source is used as evidence, a series targeting this man in horror of Terrorist act to have him murdered. This source doesn't belong in "Early Life" as a "sort of" Terrorist threat. This source is in the process of being taken down and can not be used on murder. It should be discredited in whole. My edits to this section, therefore, mandatory.

Career Faria said he was told by his spirit guides that he must expand his work to reach more people and spiritist medium Chico Xavier told him he should go to the small Goiás town of Abadiânia to fulfill his healing mission. Around 1978, when he first performed healings there, he just sat outdoors in a chair near the main road where people began to arrive seeking cures for their illnesses and conditions. Gradually the numbers increased to thousands per day and he developed his centre, Casa de Dom Inácio de Loyola.[11]

Criminal persecution, false light This source is a personal website outdated. This goes into personal belief and words unfounded. The source is both unreliable and inaccessible.

Chico Xavier is deceased. He could not have told Joao Teixeira anything. He is buried at Chiasa Dom Ignacio in Rome, Italy. This eludes a live person told Joao Teixeira to do something, not alive. Criminal insanity not for Wikipedia. Taken out.

The Casa de Dom Inácio de Loyola was visited by millions of people seeking healing. Faria also owned a nearby cattle ranch, which covered about 1,000 acres and was valued at over 2 million reais.[12][13]

This is out of prose. It doesn't fit context. Nearby cattle ranch irrelevant. Out of context and meaning previous section.

Much of his income came from selling passionflower preparations, the single herb prescribed by Faria to cure a variety of ailments. The company which bore his initials, JTF Ltda., marketed the drug and was registered in the name of his wife, Ana Keyla Teixeira, and his driver and employee Abadio da Cruz.[13][14]

Criminal persecution, take of life of a human being by enthralled enthusiasts taking a stab at greatness of a human being. [13], inaccessible, unreliable source, personal website. [14], outdated, personal stab of tabloid, malicious targeting, outdated, unverifiable information, criminal penalty

Faria regularly prescribed meditation and walking to a nearby waterfall as part of treatment. The Casa also sold herbs, "blessed" items and artefacts such as magic triangles. It was estimated by 60 Minutes Australia in 2014 that those sales earned Faria over $10 million per year.[15]

This is criminal targeting, the subject, a holy human being who is credited with money on a false light as of he shouldn't earn it. That somehow earning money goes against precept of holy. Unfounded; dumbified; irrelevant. Taken out. Malicious profiling in criminal labeling.

When called for a spiritual surgery by Faria, patients were offered the choice of "visible" or "invisible" operations. If they selected an invisible operation (or were younger than 18 or older than 52) they were directed to sit in a room and meditate. Faria said that spiritual physicians could perform surgery on the actual patient via a surrogate when the actual patient was unable to make the trip.[16]

[16], This is an unreliable source, personal website that when opened, reads "Mastering Coffee Source in Australia." Information opeb to interpretation, personal viewpoint, personal blog, not authoritative. Criminal labeling to make appear criminally insane. Criminally insane sounding.

Spiritual surgery link, not what Joao Teixeira does, dissimilar in totality, personal blog, unauthoritative, unreliable

A very small percentage of people chose a visible operation where Faria operated without anesthetic. Instead he used "energized" mineral water and the spiritual energies allegedly present, the latter of which were provided by groups of volunteers who meditated in a separate room called the 'current room'. Those practices, such as inserting scissors or forceps deep into a nose or scraping an eye without an anesthetic or antiseptics, were scrutinized by medical authorities and skeptical investigators such as James Randi, who called for Faria to stop victimizing people with stunts and trickery.[3]

[3] This source is a stage magician not personally present to events described. He is describing holy process through criminal degradation on prose to harm on malicious persecution. Source, not authoritative, personal website of a stage magician unqualified at evaluation of holy process, criminally targeting in malicious persecution through a personal blog. Taken out, criminal prosing.

Faria would tell people not to stop taking their medicine and said that not everyone he "treated" would be cured. Often the treatment included capsules containing pure passion flower which he would say carried special blessed spiritual energy to support the individual's healing process.[17]

[17] This is internal reference material to an organization and can change at any time. What Faria said is non authoritative prose, random words or non words, he said/she said, unverifiable. After pointing to cost and amount made on capsules, it is criminally deceptive to then write what Faria said with respect to taking the capsules in presumed quantity. Criminally deceptive, unfounded, malicious and criminal labeling to indict through Wikipedia. Not a neutral portrayal of a biography. Pointed to murder, written from a pointed perspective to take life. Non neutral.

Before his final arrest and conviction, Faria had undergone trials and scrutiny of his work, was arrested several times for practicing medicine without a licence, and was jailed once.[12]

[12] "Is John of God a Healer or a Charlatain?", reads this source. It is targeting a human being to murder not only reputation, but human bring as whole. It deserves its own Opposition Section, which is where I revised it to be. It should be taken out altogether if option.

Outside Brazil Faria travelled to other countries to perform his healing ceremonies, which he called Live Events. Gail Thackray, Casa Medium, said in her book Spiritual Journeys: Visiting John of God that the main "entities" at work in Brazil were the same ones at Live Events, along with thousands of other entities doing healing work.[18][19]

[18][19] Personal websites, non authoritative, book not in distribution, on website taken down, author non reliable, non authoritative, author not of sound mind, criminally insane, enthralled fan to meet this man, non reliable source of information. Taken down.

Media Coverage Portrayal, I reworded in relevant context to shed light on criminal exploitation of this series and Netflix in separate Opposition section

As whole, I shortened this section, restructured, and condensed down ABC News Report, The Oprah Winfrey Show, CNN Coverage, 60 Minutes Australia, Montreal Gazette, Portrayal, for following reason:

1. Sources non authoritative at pointed criminal reporting in malicious persecution 2. Sources to be discredited, written in malicious light. 3. These belong in Opposition Section 4. No single positive point of view enumerated 5. Non neutral 6. All pointed articles as sources to criminal persecution 7. Malicious reporting in wording of prose 8 Criminal malice in terroristic sound the way prise is written 9. False light, all pointed sources to either murder or ignite riot 10. Criminal persecution of a human being as if Wikipedia is arbiter, section "Media," all media pointed at criminally indicating a human being on a Wikipedia page 11. Malicious persecution in criminal malice, Oprah Winfrey not an authoritative source, especially as targeting human being for non weight loss at his Centre 12. Negative reporting in terroristic sound already touched upon, all prose from terroristic vantage point 13. Media irrelevant to terroristic quality enumerated nonsensical, focus on terroristic labeling 14. Criminal penalty for Wikipedia as if arbiter weighing a human beings life through terroristic prose 15. Terrorist acts ensued ignited to murder largely due to this Section, requires quick note in Opposition, not terroristic prose 16. Murder in no positive media being enumerated, written to kill 17. Writing, Terrorist threat to ignite riot, similar to X, Twitter, now banned in Brazil from where this human being originates 18. Criminal act to summarize a human being in terroristic quality unfounded 19. Igniting riot as thus human being is released from penalty 20.Terrorist threat as this human being is a Holy Father of Brazil akin to Pope Francis of Italy, terrorist threat to Brazil to have him criminally labeled in this manner

This page is being used to murder a human being. This section restructured and deemphasized for safety and protection from murder as criminal, terroristic act due to malicious, terroristic prose to take life as whole.

Personal Life Faria was married several times and has had an unknown number of children from his different wives and affairs.[10]

This source is violent hate crime in the process of being taken down. Netflix, The "Crimes" of a Spiritual Healer, is not authoritative for unknown in precision, exact number of marriages, and unknown number of children, not definitive as to authority, criminal menace inherent in series, setting dark tone for film, not an authoritative source as to personal life unknown to source.

In 2015, Faria was diagnosed with aggressive stomach cancer. A doctor of conventional medicine, Raul Cutait, extracted a 6 cm gastric adenocarcinoma from his stomach. The surgery and follow-up of five months of chemotherapy took place at the Hospital Sírio-Libanês in São Paulo.[46][47] Faria did not report these facts to the public, originally saying he was being hospitalised for a stomach hernia.[48]

[46] Personal websites blog, unauthoritative [47] Tabloid, author lacking credibility, Gazette Article, opinion with exaggerated hyperbole and prose, overenunciated as to criminal targeting of two non experts in competition with individual being cited, exaggerated magician looking for fame enunciated, non authoritative A stomach hernia is not "Personal Life," irrelevant to this section, criminal malice to say. "Sick," no credibility to heal, criminal pointing and terroristic targeting.

Arrest and Imprisonment In December 2018, allegations of abuse by Faria were put forward by 12 women.[49][50] The number of claims led to the Prosecution Office of the State of Goiás creating an email address and phone line to receive all accusations towards him. In 30 hours, over 200 complaints were received from nine different Brazilian states and two claims from abroad.[51] Claims were reported by the prosecution's office as having potential to be the biggest sexual scandal in the history of Brazil, overwhelming the Roger Abdelmassih case.[52] Claims included the alleged abuse of victims as young as 14 years old, as well as a woman who revealed having been abused for three days.[53] In 11 December, four days after the Conversa com Bial show, the number of sexual abuse complaints against Faria had reached 206, prompting him to limit his appointments at Casa Dom Inácio de Loyola. Questioned by reporters, he simply said "I'm innocent" and walked away.[54] On 12 December, the public prosecutor of Goiás called for the arrest of Faria.[55] On 16 December, Faria surrendered himself to the police. The number of sexual abuse accusations gradually reached 600. The rapes occurred from 1986 to 2017.[56]

This is malicious profiling in great detail, irrelevant as Faria has been released. Criminal penalty for unfounded allegation, unpremised. Exhibitionists capturing details of murder ubcapsulated, released from all penalty in 2024, unnecessary malicious profiling and criminal persecution by Wikipedia, court is decider needing fact laid out in this way, not a neutral in aim Wikipedia page. Criminal ignite to violence upon this human being's release based on what is written.

Faria's daughter Dalva supported the accusers, calling her father a "monster" and alleging that she was beaten and raped by him until she ran away when she was 14 years old.[57][58]

Faria's daughter has taken back her statements since this time, outdated. Irrelevant on a Wikipedia page what a human being's family member thinks about them.

Faria was transferred to a hospital from prison in March 2019.[59] On 19 December, he was sentenced to 19 years and four months for the rapes of four women.[60]

I detailed this Section very well re hospitalizations and conditions while detained. Further charges out of prose, irrelevant to hospitalization. Malicious reporting, criminal targeting.

He was temporarily released from prison on house arrest when the COVID-19 pandemic struck in early 2020, due to his age and poor health.[61].

Faria was permanently released from the prison with no new charges. There was no plan for him to return. Inaccurate, malicious targeting, keeping a human being incarcerated upon release.

In September 2023, Faria was sentenced to an additional 118 years, six months and 15 days in prison by the Goiás state criminal court as a result of 17 cases involving "rape, rape via fraud and rape of a vulnerable individual."[62]

Faria was set free in early 2020 to his home, as of September 2024, permanently from all charges. This is inaccurate, malicious, unfounded, criminal indictment of Wikipedia as arbiter, malicious reporting, criminal pointing, unfounded, released from all.

Joao Teixeira de Faria is a holy icon, not a street hoodlum. Every source, every sentence in prose of this Article is to criminal prosecution of Wikipedia as arbiter. All changes necessary to resolve terroristic act of writers "unhappy" with this individual, needing to take him down to death point. I added Section, "Incarceration As Path In Enlightment," to shed light on individual to the likes of Gandhi, as well as laid out very clean, neutral Sections, "Early Life," "Overview," and "Opposition." All changes to educate reade from neutral vantage point and inform. Further, all changes to treat a human being with dignity and respect a Wikipedia page requires. All changes in highest light.

This individual is close to suicide because of this page in the way its written, what's written as terroristic sound. I revised this page in entirety. Right now, this article reads as follows:

Criminal malice False light Malicious persecution Negative reporting Terrorist sound Criminal penalty Terrorist act Murder Terrorist threat to ignite riot Criminal act to ignite riot Terrorist threat to Brazil Criminal labeling Criminal persecution Used to murder a human being

Keep all changes. If you have questions, contact my law office. 425 236 8446. 2601:600:8E00:1936:9B9:6B54:5097:4D39 (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Vmarkovna,

First of all, an article on Wikipedia, even if it includes some reporting on some negative aspects of a subject's life, is not "murder". And if you think the subject is on the verge of suicide, you should contact a mental health provider, not completely change an article on them so it doesn't resemble reality. I do not know if the charges have or have not been dismissed (I'm not sure about your source here) but that doesn't erase the fact that he was charged and found guilty. Just because a criminal is pardoned doesn't mean that they weren't once found guilty of a crime.

Your rewrite of this article is all praise and that is fine for your own website but this is an encyclopedia and so it includes notable events in a subject's life and career, whether or not they are flattering. And we certainly do not compare subjects to Gandhi which you did several times in your article revision. If an independent reliable source did so, we might include that fact, attributing the comment to the source but we can not say the subject is close to God or a holy man in Wikipedia's voice. We present a neutral point of view, we don't exist to promote an article subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)