Talk:Five Tibetan Rites

How-to

The the 'How to perform the exercises' section of this article is somewhat difficult to understand. Aghost 19:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford

RE: Colonel Bradford returned to England after 23 years and looked younger. He was over 70 and looked like a 45 year old man – without his stick, youthful, agile, and his previously grey hair had turned dark. According to whom? Edwardian 22:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The classic text is by Christopher S Kilham, ISBN:0-89281-450-0. In the book, Kilham describes reading a book by Peter Kelder describing the "discovery" of the five Tibetans by "a retired British army officer". There is no mention of a near-miraculous rejuvenation. Moreover, Kilham claims that we can never know if the exercises are in fact Tibetan, which suggests that Kelder is not the source of the story of a youthful "Colonel Bradford". On a separate point, most of the external links are to sites offering the same pamphlet for purchase. Only the last three links seem to contain any useful information, namely diagrams. --Plw 11:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the original book was called "The Eye of Revelation" and was written by Peter Kelder in 1939. It was updated in 1985 with the title "Ancient Secret of the Fountain of Youth". [And still later, "Ancient Secret of the Fountain of Youth: Book 1".] Kilham's book is his interpretation of the exercises in Kelder's, from a more orthodox Yogic viewpoint. And the "near-miraculous rejuvanation" of Bradford is explicity written about in Kelder's books. -Rob, Jan 12th, 2006

A few comments to User:58.179.174.84's recent edits:

While I agree that the rites are not original tibetan lore, we should be careful not to violate WP:NPOV by emphasizing it too much. For example, replacing the "some people believe..." part by "some Westerners fall into believing ..." sounds too strong.
Please be more careful whether an s comes with an apostrophe or not (it's vs. its).
I will re-add the alternate names, since they add information (and since I, at least, originally knew the rites by one of them).

Yours, --Huon 14:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To user 58.179.174.84 Your edits have a very strong and opinionated viewpoint. An Encyclopedia is supposed to be neutral in perspective and give the facts as they are known. Whether or not you personally believe the rites are valid or not is irrelevant. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. The purpose of the article is to talk about the Five Rites and what we know about them factually. For example, it is a fact that there are many who believe the Rites have the ability to cure specific ailments. Whether or not they actually do possess such powers is irrelevant. The point that they are believed to possess these powers is a fact and comes directly out of one of the books referenced. You have taken a stance of attempting to invalidate the Rites by deleting certain portions of the article and rewording certain parts so as to make them seem like nonsense. Perhaps they are nonsense, but again, this is the reason you use phrases like "some people believe" and "there are those who dispute the Rites". The article as it was before your edits was completely neutral. No claim was made that the Rites were of a genuine origin or that they worked as believed. I am restoring some of what you deleted as well as attemting to restore a stance of neutrality to the article. If you are going to make such bold assertions, I suggest you cite specific references to support them. I have personally read all of the books cited as well as the external links which were used as references. Please do not delete or change facts that are referenced directly from the books and websites.

Here is a quote and reference which you chose to ignore in your edits: Another series of movements said to be Tibetan in origin is known as "The Five Rites of Rejuvenation" or "The Five Tibetans." These unusual, rhythmic movements, which have circulated for decades among yogis but are finding new popularity today, have been credited with the ability to heal the body, balance the chakras, and reverse the aging process in just minutes a day. Legend says that a British explorer learned them in a Himalayan monastery from Tibetan monks who were living in good health far beyond normal lifespans. Skeptics say that no Tibetan has ever recognized these practices as authentically Tibetan, however beneficial they may be.

Yoga teacher Chris Kilham, whose book The Five Tibetans (Healing Arts Press, 1994) has contributed to the practice's current popularity, makes no claims of certainty about the series' origins. "Whether or not the Five Tibetans are in fact Tibetan in origin is something we may never ascertain," Kilham writes. "Perhaps they come from Nepal or northern India...As the story has it, they were shared by Tibetan lamas; beyond that I know nothing of their history. Personally, I think these exercises are most likely Tibetan in origin. The issue at hand, though, is not the lineage of the Five Tibetans. The point is [their] immense potential value for those who will clear 10 minutes a day to practice."[1]

To the point from Kilham that "perhaps [the rites] came from Nepal or Northern India", the J M Watts edition of the Eye of Revelation explores that topic, and makes a plausible case that if the rites are "Tibetan," they are likely from an area of Tibet that's part of modern day India like Ladakh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladakh or Sikkim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikkim, - or somewhere like Bhutan. These areas aren't part of modern Tibet (or pre-China Tibet), but they were of great interest to Britain in the historical period during which "Colonel Bradford" was allegedly working for the British in northern India. Lauchlanmack (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To recent vandal

The edits you deleted are verifiably true. They linked to other articles within wikipedia and also to Chris's quotes himself. To call the Lamas who laugh at this nonsense skeptics is a wild POV. Please go to Tibet before you start asserting this program to be Tibetan in origin. All printed materials promoting the Five Rites is Western in origin -- verifiably true. If you are truly looking for a NPOV you will work with facts. If you push me on this I'll just feel like including the even more damning information there is on the Five Rites, and I doubt that will serve your agenda. Blessings to you. 58.179.182.246 00:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To 58.179.182.246

To accuse me of vandalism is ludicrous and disrespectful. My only concern is to keep the article free of opinion. I personally don't believe the claims made by practitioners of the Rites. I have practiced them personally and have found them to be nothing more than a form of physical exercise. And I do believe in a neutral point of view. It is you who seem to desire to discredit the Rites. If I am wrong in this assumption, then please forgive me. As I have already said, our purpose is not to discredit, but present and report information gathered from books and other sources, hopefully as reliable as possible. To threaten me with including more damning information is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. I have no agenda in promoting the Rites as a panacea. If you have damning information, then by all means, please include it in the article as long as you cite your sources. As it stands now, you have put much information in the article without any citing of sources whatsoever. And I'm certain that you are correct in the assertion that all printed material promoting the Rites is Western in origin. However, if you say this in the article, you have to cite your source. I have no desire to get in an edit war with you. If this is your agenda, then consider yourself victorious for I will not accomodate you. All I request is that you maintain an unbiased attitude in editing, that you cite your sources and that you do not delete that which can be confirmed through cited sources. As I said previously, the article as it stood before your edits cited all sources which were able to be confirmed. If you do not cite your sources, you won't have to worry about me; there are countless other editors who will find there way to the page and check your work. Inevitably, that which cannot be confirmed is deleted. That which can be confirmed is reverted if intentionally deleted. That which is inaccurate or biased is corrected. There are no sides to be taken, just a very large group of people who enjoy sharing information and making certain it is accurate and unbiased. As far as Chris's quote, I have already posted it in my previous comment above. I am the one who originally supplied the link in the article. Chris said that he knew nothing of the origins although he believed them to be Tibetan. Perhaps you should have said this in the article? It certainly paints a more complete picture of Chis's viewpoint than what you had written. As far as calling lamas who laugh at the Rites skeptics . . . that was never said. See the portion of the article I posted above. The sentence reads, "Skeptics say that no Tibetan has ever recognized these practices as authentically Tibetan, however beneficial they may be." In the introduction to the article, the word "skeptic" was used. It was not said that "Lamas are skeptics". The information you added questioning the origins and validity of the Rites is interesting and informative. However, where are your sources? I would like to see all factual information remain in the article, whether in favor of or against the Rites. I would encourage you to not get defensive and cite your sources, it will only make the article better. Best Wishes to you.

[(to user 58.139.132.246)]

being from Ashburton in Australia, is safe for me to assume that you have been to India or Tibet? How did you get there with travel restrictions place by China on Australian tourists? And where did you speak with these lamas? In Tibet or India? The reason I ask is your appeal to anecdotal evidence in the attempt to support your claims about the Rites. You might want to consider signing up for an account in order to edit. (As your IP is "hanging out" all over the internet. Not very secure in terms of information. Just a helpful hint, mate.)

From the Introduction:

Although the Five Rites are practiced and promoted extensively in Western countries, Tibetan Buddhist and Bon practitioners in Tibet and India opt to engage in the already well-established forms of Tibetan yoga.

From Historical inaccuracies section:

Most scholar's of Tibet and authentic lineage holders state his publications are works of fiction...
3. Yoga in Tibet never included whirling.
7. An authentic Tibetan practitioner will always reveal the name and lineage of their teacher, usually with great reverence and spontaneous poems that may go for several hundred words.
8. Authentic, and often ancient, Tibetan texts are intrinsic to all Tibetan spiritual practices. To attempt a practice without reciting from or memorising an authentic ancient text is unheard of in all Tibetan spiritual lineages.
9. To share anything but minor spiritual practices with Westerners was unheard of in Tibet in 1939.
12 It is an essential quality of all Tibetan teachings to disclose the lineage behind the teaching. This not only guarantees authenticity and protection against foreign imitations, it also ensures that practitioners develop the aspect of faith which is considered integral to all Tibetan practices.
13. There is no lineage holder, of either high or lower stature, from any tradition in Tibet, that acknowledges anything to do with The Five Rites.

71.2.170.103 19:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The books and links I added are widely accessible and authored by the higest of authorities. There is plenty more where they came from.

Now. Please. Since Kelder is not notable himself, who else asserts this yoga to be authentic? Someone who doesn't cite Kelder's work. Just give us one Rinpoche from Tibetn. That shouldn't be too hard. There are thousands of them and thousands of books and traditional texts also. If this yoga is authentic, finding a single reference in these modern times should be a piece of cake.

Without an authentic reference I feel we'll need to highlight this omission in the opening of the article. 58.178.157.210 03:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

The article reads okay at the moment but there is a persistent bunch of promoters putting ridiculous POV links in. Recently someone put 3 different editions of the same book in an attempt to fluff out the abismal number of notable references supporting the rites. If the page can't be kept as a non-advertisment it will obviously have to be deleted. 58.178.186.181 01:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 58.178.186.181, all of the books in the references section are simply that, references. Each book is supportive of the rites which is why they are in the section specifying references which support the Rites. Each book is revised and expanded with new and quite a bit of additional information not found in previous books. Accordingly, these are all valid references and shouldn't be considered as SPAM. The website links which were added relate to energy healing and the use of the rites in this field. The energy healing book devotes almost all of chapter 12 to the five rites. I think that the original purpose of this article was to disseminate information about the Five Rites. It therefore seems completely proper to include any and all information, whether positive or negative. For example, I read in the "Tang of Tibet" article that, if not performed correctly, the Rites can cause dizziness and nausea. I have also read that some of those who perform the rights have complained of lower back pain. Clearly, not positive attributes. From your choice of language both on this Talk page and on the History page it seems that you really don't care much for the Rites. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, in my opinion. However, I feel it is vitally important to maintain a Neutral Point of View. I don't think we should make a habit of deleting edits by other editors, but rather, try to "improve" upon them as Wikipedia states. Wikipedia discourages us from taking ownership of articles. We have to allow others some input. I think it's quite clear that the origins of the Rites beyond Kelder isn't known. However, this should not be the theme of the article, but an integral part of it. I also think that it would be a shame to put into action measures which would lead to the deletion of the article. This would not serve the greater good. Even though there are obviously those who don't care for the Rites, there are also those who do, regardless of their origin beyond Kelder. Many people practice them and many people testify to the benefits. Just for the record....when I tried them I also got terrible backaches. Kind of ironic for something which is supposed to be helpful ;). But still, just because they gave me backaches doesn't mean I'll abandon an attitude of neutrality. When I contribute, first and foremost in my mind is to remain unbiased. After all, that's what an Encyclopedia is supposed to be. Please do not be offended. I have carefully chosen my words so as not to offend you. If I have done a poor job of this, then please accept my apologies. I would very respectfully ask that you please allow others to contribute information which is both supportive as well as unsupportive as the article is about the Five Rites in total, not just whether or not they are valid. Thank you for taking the time to consider what I have said and have a great day or evening, whichever the case may be. With respect, The SG 14:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the "Pranic Healing" book: Choa Kok Sui was deleted from Wikipedia for being an unnotable cult leader. This book you're defending devotes half a chapter to gushing about the Five Tibetan Rites. Yet Eric B. Robins is merely an unnotable disciple of Choa Kok Sui.

That really doesn't mean anything, just an opinion of a person who did so. --Kalimera 11:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The citation should be deleted as being part of a personality cult. Perhaps even this entire article deserves an AFD nomination for being a POV magnet fad. I agree with 58.178.186.181. It is not acceptable to have four separate references to the same source book. Currently there are only 'two' actual acceptable tibetan rites citations. The rest is POV filler. 58.178.103.56 23:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Article should remain. As far as POV fillers, I think the entire section on "References contradicting or unsupportive of the Five Rites" is nothing but POV filler by an editor who has an obvious dislike for the Rites. I also think that anonymous editors 58.178.186.181, 58.178.103.56 and 58.178.186.181 are the same editor. The IP adresses and edits are both strong indicators that this may be so. I think the Rites are nothing but hype and the miraculous claims made by those who practice them are absurd. But that is my biased opinion. Let's try and remain neutral shall we? 68.232.143.152 04:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 68. I think you skipped the section "Citations needed..." above.

The section "references contradicting or unsupportive of the five rites" was actually requested by a Five Rites Fan who wanted supporting material for what is in the Questionable Origins section and Introductory paragraph. The citations have nothing to do with people trying to push their POV. As a bonus, the material balances the article perfectly. 58.178.196.55 09:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book's author

I don't have any verifications, but someone I trust, claimed to have met the author of the book at a writer's conference about 10 years ago. At that time, the author was in his thirties, and claimed that that all was just a story to sell the book. Apart from that, the rites are beneficial, but the background story is just that - a story. --Kalimera 11:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text refuting the Rites seems to be hung-up on the possible non-Tibetan origin of the rites, not on their efficacy or lack thereof.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.240.97 (talk • contribs)

I can't comment on the origin of the rites but I do have the 1939 version of "The Eye of Revelation" and the first publishing of "Ancient Secret of The Fountain of Youth". I've had the "Ancient Secret of The Fountain of Youth" version since 1985 which means it is 22 years old as of 2007. A thirty year old would have been 8 years old to have written the 1985 version. Obviously, the book was not written by the author at the writer's conference written above. The original version was written in 1939. I also agree with the comment above that "the text refuting the Rites seems to be hung-up on the possible non-Tibetan origin of the rites, not on their efficacy or lack thereof." 69.68.191.99 15:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is another source of the 5 rites. This is widely unknown. It is Samael Aun Weor: Tibetan Exercises. He claims that he personally was in the tibetan lamasery.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.10.60.85 (talk • contribs)

Interesting link. I added it to the External Link section of the article.71.63.18.205 (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to see what Peter Kelder looks like now - 18th March 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fletcherbrian (talk • contribs) 16:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga posture names and Chakras

I removed the Yoga posture name associations from the Performing the exercises section of the article due to the fact that neither Kelder nor Colonel Bradford made any such association in "The Eye of Revelation" nor did they identify the Five Rites using the particular asana names as previously identified in the article. In fact, it was made clear that all Six Rites were simply called "Rite 1", "Rite 2", etc. To attribute the Rites with these named yoga asanas is original research and prohibited by Wikipedia.

In the section of the article entitled The booklet revisions have been made in order to remain faithful to Kelder's work. Kelder never described the spinning centers in the body as vortices or chakras; he called them psychic vortexes. I adjusted the text accordingly. I also added in the location of the vortexes as originally described by Kelder. In the revised publishing which was renamed Ancient Secret of the Fountain of Youth, the editors changed Kelder's work by moving the locations of the vortexes to correspond with the location of the body's seven endocrine glands.71.63.18.205 (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intention to re-word the fifth rite

I am reading from the identical book to that which the article is based. (The Eye of Revelation, by Peter Kelder, edited by JW Watt, Booklocker, 2008) And the text in Wikipedia for the fifth rite has the two parts of the rite in a reverse order to that of the book.

I don't know whether the order changes the activation of the vortexes.

However, as other versions I've checked mention the order as in the book -- I don't see the point of keeping it as in Wikipedia at present. If you pardon, for the moment, simple yoga descriptions ..... The book explains first 'the cobra' posture, and then the 'down dog' posture whereas, in Wikipedia at present quoted as below ▪ Fifth Rite "Place the hands on the floor about two feet apart. Then, with the legs stretched out to the rear with the feet also about two feet apart, push the body, and especially the hips, up as far as possible, rising on the toes and hands. At the same time the head should be brought so far down that the chin comes up against the chest. “Next, allow the body to come slowly down to a ‘sagging’ position. Bring the head up, causing it to be drawn as far back as possible."

That's clearly 'down dog' and then 'the cobra'.

Regards Austall —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austall (talk • contribs) 11:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT downward dog and cobra. For example, in the downward dog yoga pose you keep the feet flat on the floor, as part of the stretch. In the 5th rite, you are pushing upwards through your toes.

In yoga, you hold both poses for periods of time to enhance stretching into it, in the 5th rite you hold the "downward dog" position only "for a brief moment."

They are completely different exercises, that appear similar because we are used to Indian yoga in the West. If it helps you to think of the yoga poses as an analogy or aid to help you learn the rite, more power to you - but that's not what the 5th rite is. It's the 5th rite, not yoga. Lauchlanmack (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

re Intention to re-word the fifth rite

In formulating a re-wording -- I see that in the Peter Kelder book the posture depictions on page 33, along with the descriptions, are actually written of in the reverse order on the next page. Page 34 goes into a more elaborate description - but confusingly explains the positions as in Wikipedia at present. So - I see that the writer of the original section in Wikipedia has simply chosen the p.34 description, over the p.33 one. So -- I'll now not be altering the fifth rite on the Wikipadia page. It's notable, though, that other writers describing the rites, do favour the description as in p.33

Of special note, and missing from the description as it stands, is an additional move (from page 33 of the Kelder book). After the sagging stretch (cobra), and then upturned V posture, the instructions add. "Hold this position for a brief moment and return to First position. After a moment of "hanging in suspension" perform the Rite over again." The "hanging in suspension" part isn't adequately described however. One would think that to 'perform the rite over again, one would have to be in a position other that a Position One posture, but there's no written clue as to what that would look like Regards, AustallAustall (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Authenticity/Provenance

It's hard to credit that so much fuss is made of a system that has such a dubious origin. There is no reliable evidence for the authenticity of this system of exercises. There is no proper discussion as to who Peter Kelder is/was nor who "Colonel Bradford" might have been. I have read Kelder's book and the whole thing just sounds like fantasy. I can find no indication that the rites conform to any Tibetan discipline. The whole thing is dubious. I suspect that this has snowballed into a craze, that is eagerly promoted by those with a vested interest in making money out of another easy way to health and fitness. I wish I could think of a suitable way of introducing this into the text.

It is what it is. We don't have an original Tibetan source for the "rites". The western source is, as you say, a little dubious (I think the J M Watts's edition does the best job of analysing who "Colonel Bradford" might have been and whether the "Lamasery" might have been in one of the Tibetan speaking Indian Himalayan areas like Ladakh, which might be closer to the "proper discussion" you are seeking.). You can just decide to try it and see if it works for you, or not. Lauchlanmack (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carolinda Witt is overemphasised

There seems to be a lot of emphasis on Carolinda Witt in the further reading and external references section in the text.

Christopher Kilham has also written extensively on the Five Tibetans, e.g. https://www.medicinehunter.com/five-tibetans or in https://www.medicinehunter.com/book/inner-power . That's worth referencing.

J M Watts's edition is probably the most authoritative text on the Five Tibetans.

If you're going to emphasise Caroline Witt so heavily, it's probably appropriate to emphasise that she teaches and earns a living in this area (e.g. her training product https://t5t.com/t5t-five-tibetans-online-training-course-covid-special or her team of instructors at https://t5t.com/five-tibetan-rites-instructors ) and is therefore not an entirely neutral source.

That does not take away from the value of what she has to say, but her work should be put into context as one of the teachers in this area - not the only one. Lauchlanmack (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the further reading section. I expanded the references from one vendor to multiple authors, and changed it to a chronological listing so that it's easy to see who contributed what when.

The external links section still needs cleanup, as it's dominated by links to Carolinda Witt, who has commercial trainers and services related to the topic. Lauchlanmack (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GIFs of the Rites

The first Rite is turning clockwise, but the GIF shows a person turning counter-clockwise. The second Rite says to not bend the knees, but the GIF shows a person who bends their knees during performance of the Rite. Thanks in advance for your attention. 50.246.213.53 (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have changed the animations back to the old b/w Gifs, showing all exercises correct. J. Lunau (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Curious why you think the blue gifs may be copyrighted? The images were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons on September 8, 2023. The page at https://en.rattibha.com/thread/1748592811698684022 is a copy of a Twitter thread from January 19, 2024 (https://twitter.com/OakieJs/status/1748592811698684022), and the poster does not claim to have created the images. It looks like the poster copied them from Wikipedia. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dreamyshade,

the discussion about copyright should ideally take place on Commons, and it would have been much more friendly to start the discussion before reverting my changes both here and on Commons.

I do not agree with the argument that we should "either have reasonable-looking illustrations or none," as "reasonable" is very subjective. My GIF files accurately illustrate the article's topic, "Five Tibetan Rites." They were made specifically for this purpose. Therefore I ask you to revert your deletion. It is better to have simple and correct animations than non.

I also doubt the copyright status of the previous GIFs because there is no detailed information provided on Commons (only "own work" without specifying how the GIF was created). Thank you, J. Lunau (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@J. Lunau I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the black-and-white gifs were your own creations - I would have been more careful with my phrasing if I'd noticed that. I appreciate that you put effort into making them as accurate as possible in terms of the types of movements depicted. I do think that the aliasing artifacts are distracting though, and overall the animations are harder to understand than the blue-background ones due to being more abstract.

The blue-background animations don't seem to qualify for speedy deletion, so I removed the speedy deletion tags on Commons, but if you start a deletion discussion there, I'm happy to participate. Also looks like the author already responded at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SareiAltrove with a reasonable explanation of their work. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamyshade I don't care about your phrasing, wikipedia very often is quite harsh. All I ask, is to be fair and respect the rules, for instance WP:DONTREVERT. I will add my totally correct gifs again (in use for this article since 10 years) because the one you like more are simply wong(see post of 50.246.213.53). I kindly ask everybody first to discuss before reverting or deleting any of my work.

Removing speedy deletion tag was not as thought in this case, please pay attention to the tag, which said: "Appeal: If you think that the media file does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please open a regular deletion request and remove this template", but you are right: it seems the animations in website / X-post were taken from Commons. It was my fault to think, it was vice versa, so it seems all good with copyright. I will talk to the uploader of the animation at commons. J. Lunau (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@J. Lunau Respectfully, WP:DONTREVERT is an essay, not a rule, and even that essay discusses a "one-revert rule" as well as a "zero-revert rule". A relevant policy is WP:PRESERVE and a relevant editing guideline is WP:BOLD. To me, we are within a reasonable WP:BRD cycle (also an essay).

So, to me the question is how we can get to a set of high-quality illustrations that accurately represent the rites as described by Kelder.

Would you be up for revising your gifs to improve the quality, including the aliasing?

In the first gif with a blue background, it looks to me like the person is spinning clockwise. Does it also look to you like the person is spinning counter-clockwise? I'll copy the original commenter's feedback over to @SareiAltrove on Commons to suggest revisions.

We could also reach out at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamyshade: In general, I'm always up for improvements. I would also be willing to rework my GIFs a little (with a reasonable amount of time). As already explained, the current GIFs serve their purpose of showing the movements as Kelder described them, so I don't know what exactly I should improve.

Question: Could it be a compromise to display my Gifs with a smaller, fixed size, all in a row? This makes them more decent and with less "aliasing". Please take a look to my trial change. J. Lunau (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@J. Lunau This is an ok compromise to me. If you can revisit your animations at some point, along with a higher-resolution output, it'd be helpful to make the animation frames more consistent about whether the limbs should have white outlines or not - for example, in rite #2, some of the frames show white outlines and some don't. For additional consistency, I would remove the mouth animation from rite #3, since the other ones don't have it, and since the book doesn't seem to say anything about the mouth for that one.

I'd also suggest citing specific page numbers from some version of the book for each of the rites, instead of citing the whole gallery to the whole original book, so that people can easily look up details if they want to. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Dreamyshade: I'm glad that you agree with my compromise proposal.

The GIFs are only 180 × 180 pixels to keep the file small. I can't increase the resolution, but I've removed the white outlines from Rite No. 2 and 3. I've added page numbers to the reference and the image descriptions now correspond to Peter Kelder's original description. J. Lunau (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed benefits and medical advice

Should the "Claimed benefits of performing the rites" part have some label reminding people Wikipedia does not give medical advice and to ask a professional? 95.244.232.22 (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In February I removed most of that section, renamed it to "Effects", and rewrote it with a more balanced perspective on the claimed benefits. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]