Talk:Reiki/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

"pseudoscience"

The article clearly describes reiki as a religious practice. Shall we put the label "pseudoscience" on all religion-related articles? Shii (tock) 10:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

When independent reliable sources describe something as a "spiritual practice", we call it a "spiritual practice". When independent reliable sources call it a "pseudoscience", we call it a "pseudoscience". We do not remove either one based on the other as neither label preempts the other. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"Sciencebasedmedicine.org" is not an RS for something that is neither science nor medicine. Shii (tock) 13:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Reiki makes fringe biomedical claims. The relevant academic community is the medical community. We should expand on this.

Trends in Molecular Medicine says reiki is "pseudoscientific" and "faith healing". Research on reiki and similar "merely lend them legitimacy and take money away from more deserving projects" because in clinical trials reiki has "already been proved to have no benefits whatsoever".[1]

The National Council Against Health Fraud says, "There is no evidence that clinical Reiki's effects are due to anything other than suggestion, or that they are superior to massage or any other healing ritual. Reiki's metaphysical beliefs may be in conflict with an individual patient's religious beliefs. Full disclosure of the belief system should precede its use in any setting. An investigation of proponent literature casts serious doubt as to whether Reiki practitioners can be trusted with such full disclosure. Reiki literature presents misinformation as fact, and instructs practitioners on how to skirt the law in order to protect themselves from regulation and accountability."[2]

Edzard Ernst says reiki "defies scientific measurement and is biologically implausible. These circumstances render Reiki one of the least plausible therapies in the tool kit of alternative medicine."[3]

David Gorski says reiki is "highly implausible...pseudoscience", "dubious" and "quackery". Reiki is "as close to impossible from basic science considerations alone as you can imagine."[4]

There is plenty more. If you'd like, we can get into the claims that reiki works through "subatomics", "the spacetime energy field", "EMF balancing", "tachyon energy" and, of course, "quantum" something or other. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I have posted this to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Neuromuscular_scientist.27s_blog_as_an_RS_on_religious_practices and see support there. Shii (tock) 15:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Titling this section "'pseudoscience' used merely to denigrate" says it all. I've changed the section heading per WP:TALK. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion at RSN made it clear that the citation should be changed. I suggest the following neutral language from NCAHF: "There is no evidence that clinical Reiki's effects are due to anything other than suggestion, or that they are superior to massage or any other healing ritual. " Shii (tock) 14:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I took away something quite different from the discussion: The only reason that the citation should be changed is because we have better ones, not because there are any problems with the old ones in light of WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The proposed rewording violates WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The RSN discussion was aimed at the source for calling it pseudoscience. As that discussion found reliable sourcing for the term, removing it based on that discussion is an odd choice. The source continues well past that point to make additional unflattering claims which are omitted here. (Additionally, the offered text is lifted directly from the source.) I notice that this is the only source discussed so far that limits one of the accusations to "clinical" reiki, which is a bad reason to select a source. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

"(Additionally, the offered text is lifted directly from the source.)" You just removed a rewording that I added because you "didn't see it in the source", and now my direct quotation from the source invalidates my proposal. Your style of editing is both contemptuous and disingenuous. No wonder these articles are such crap when the WP:FRINGE patrol takes such an attitude towards attempts to put dubious medical claims in context. Goodbye. Shii (tock) 06:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss content, not editors.

You had complained that a source wasn't good enough to call it "pseudoscience". You replaced it with a source that does not call it pseudoscience while leaving that claim in and added apologetics for reiki that are not supported by the source in any way. The new suggestion is a copyright violation. Yes, it is supported by the source, but it is a clear copyright violation. You may NOT directly copy text, you must rewrite it.

Next is the selection of sources. The one you have chosen is the only one to make a distinction between the alternative (to) medicine and the "balancing" (or whatever). At the same time, we lose that source's additional points that run against the "balancing". This would be a WP:WEIGHT issue. As sourced, whatever the original intent of reiki was, in current common use "reiki" refers to the attempt to use thistransfer of theoretical energy for healing.

We should be reporting what independent reliable sources say about reiki: good, bad and indifferent. This reporting should be in proportion to the coverage it gets in such sources. At the moment, this article is littered with unreliable and obscure sources. We need to fix that. In the meantime, we need to avoid making it worse. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The RSN discussion is ongoing and has not reached anything that can reasonably be called consensus. In light of this the pseudoscience language in the first sentence should be removed per WP:NOCONSENSUS. If editors who which to include this material are bothered by this, my suggestion is to remain patient. There's no rush, and if you're right then further discussion will yield consensus in your favor. If the discussion stalls out without consensus then the appropriate next step would be RFC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

In the event of dispute let the stable version (i.e. since last year) remain. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What version in particular? I was under the impression that the last stable version didn't include this content, but I could have been mistaken. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Check the history. It's been there for a few months; there is a (POV-)push to remove it. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to have to call bullshit on that one. The content was first introduced on October 12. Since then it has been edit warred over constantly to this day: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. The last stable version (pre October 12) did not include the proposed content. And to suggest that the POV pushing has only been in one direction is pretty galling. Frankly I am dispirited by all of the infantile behavior exhibited on this page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

October is a few months back. Yes, you're right there have been some fly-by attempts at removal since then -- but the same pattern holds for pretty much any fringe medical article here; this is as stable as it gets for WP:Lunatic charlatans-related topics. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, it was quite stable pre-October 12, 2014. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It is disappointing to see the age-old "'pseudoscience' used merely to denigrate" stance. Pseudoscience is an informative category and the reader deserves to know that a subject has been characterized as such. Proponents of pseudoscience (I'm not suggesting anyone here is one) would surely like us to believe that the reason their views are rejected by mainstream science is due to just meanness, as if the demarcation problem concerns personal opinion alone.

There is no contradiction between something being a religious practice and being pseudoscience. For a long time Reiki has been offered to Westerners who share little or no affiliation with Eastern religious traditions. Reiki is sold as alternative medicine, even if it involves what could be called spiritual practices. Manul ~ talk 01:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I just took a shot at better... limiting the pseudoscience content in the body (always, the body first). See this dif. Does that work for folks? (to explain, science doesn't care about religion per se - just about the health claims and the pseudoscience label is limited to them) Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Better, but it's written in an awfully confusing way. The subsection should be called "Medical efficacy" or "Medical effectiveness". --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The revision looks good. There place in the lede might be more difficult. Maybe something like "Reiki is a spiritual practice, developed in 1922 by Japanese Buddhist Mikao Usuri, which has since been widely used and publicized particularly in the West because of pseudoscientific claims of health benefits." That phrasing would, of course, depend on how long and how widely it has been promoted as having pseudoscientific benefits, I haven't checked, but it does seem to flow better with the later sentences in the lede describing it as an "alternative medicine." There might, maybe, be grounds for changing either the first or second sentence to remove the mild redundancy between the use of the word "pseudoscience" and "alternative medicine," which is itself so far as I can tell generally counted as pseudoscientific. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Although a minor point, maybe moving the 3rd paragraph of the lede to 2nd place, and the current 2nd paragraph to 3rd, might make the flow a bit better too, at least to my eyes, by presenting its origins or history before describing the current status of the practice. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Our western culture has taken some time to recognize the validity of non-traditional medical practices. Acupuncture is gaining acceptance within the U.S. medical community, but slower than I realized. A century from now, will we in the West wonder why it took us so long? RaqiwasSushi (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Piece-by-piece: Catholic Church

Above, Tsavage states, "The document supporting the section, 'Catholic Church concerns,' is about the spiritual or religious aspects of reiki coming into conflict with the Church and divine healing. This context should be included, not only an excerpt that highlights the Church's disapproval, without reason, and says, 'not compatible with ... scientific evidence.'"

The Committee on Doctrine United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is clearly a reliable source for the Catholic Church's opinion.

The question seems to be how that is presented. It would certainly be inappropriate to state "Reiki is not scientific.<ref>Committee on Doctrine United States Conference of Catholic Bishops</ref>" We are not doing that. Instead, we state that the decree exist and directly quote the source. We do not say reiki is not scientific or "compatible with Christian teaching" and cite the Committee, as they are not reliable sources for either statement (they would certainly be reliable for "compatible with Catholic teaching").

IMO, the "since Reiki therapy is not compatible with either Christian teaching or scientific evidence" is an explanation of the source of their opinion. I suppose we could say the Committee says it is not compatible with teaching or science,but I'm not sure how we would word it or how it would be an improvement. A movie reviewer says a movie sucks because the script sucks, we explain that, even though the sucky nature of the script is an opinion (exception: Battlefield Earth).

Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

My point here is with neutral representation of the source. In context, the impression given by the section as it stands now is that "(even) the Catholic Church finds reiki to be an unscientific crock," which in fact it does, but at the same time, and integral to the reasoning it presents for this statement, it also cites divine healing by supernatural agency, available through prayer, as one of two types of healing it recognizes (per "Christian teaching"). By extension, if it found reiki to be a form of divine healing, then the Church would not evaluate it by scientific standards and not have a problem with it. Overall, I agree it is a tricky editorial matter to find balance with this content. Regardless, I think not including a better representation of the context misrepresents the ultimate finding. --Tsavage (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Currently, we explain who issued the document, summarize what it is and directly quote its reasoning. How would you suggest we better represent the content? - SummerPhD (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I will think about that. And in terms of "summarizing what it is," that is where I have the problem with detail; for example, we could accurately summarize the Bible as "a book of stories" yet that would in many contexts be misleadingly incomplete. In any case, mentioning divine healing would seem to create new and different possibly undue impressions, and this article is about reiki, not the Catholic Church, or the Church vs reiki. I would start with determining what we want to convey. A very blunt starting point would be (and this is in Talk page language only, for discussion): "As the Church does not find reiki consistent with divine healing, it evaluates it as a natural healing method, and as such finds it unscientific." That is one way to summarize the essence of the full context, because it seems that there is an avenue for the Church to recognize reiki in spite of its scientific failing, and that is by recognizing it as some form of divine healing. --Tsavage (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

By "summarizing what it is", I meant it is a decree ending reiki in Catholic centers. We cannot say that they evaluates it in such-and-such a way because of whatever because we do not have a source saying that. The source says what it says. We quoted it accurately. If we're going to summarize rather than quote, we have to summarize what it says without speculation about why they are saying what they are saying. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, which is why it seems we need a secondary source on this. --Tsavage (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the first couple of reliable sources, a Guardian article and a PBS round table discussion. Seems like a can of worms.

• The Guardian article is pretty neutral, only a hint of the divine healing via "Christian teaching," but does manage to note in the second paragraph: "...warn healthcare workers and chaplains that the therapy 'lacks scientific credibility' and could expose people to 'malevolent forces'."

The PBS interview includes Rev. Tom Weinandy (US Conference of Catholic Bishops) who says interesting things like:

• "If you try to plug Reiki into Christianity, what you’re saying is Jesus is not good enough on his own. He’s got to be supplemented by something else, in this case, the divine forces, so you’re either downgrading Jesus and Christianity or you’re taking the heart out of Reiki."
• "God is God, and human beings are human beings, and we can petition God, but we can’t manipulate him, and we felt that this was what was happening in the context of Reiki, that the person learned how to be in touch with the divine cosmic forces such that they could now manipulate it through a laying on of hands or a massage or something that the person could be healed."
• "I want to stick with Jesus. I don’t want to open myself up to other forces that may be, you know, supernatural in some sense but not of God. I think it’s a risky business to be playing around with this sort of thing."

Another person in the interview says:

• "The bishops’ document is not a mandate, and local dioceses may implement it as they choose. But Reiki supporters say it’s already had a chilling effect. Many Catholic institutions, including hospitals and retreat centers, are no longer offering Reiki, and most nuns are reluctant to speak publicly about their use of Reiki."

So for one, it seems the decree is not an outright ban, which makes using the primary source and a quote in this case not a great choice. Anyhow, I'm sure there's a lot more, but I think this already supports that the pronouncement is more than the Catholic Church simply finding reiki unscientific as a consumer protection servvice for its members. --Tsavage (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and "halting the practice of Reiki" from the article seems to be incorrect, OR, and unsupported by the primary source document, which says only that it is "inappropriate." --Tsavage (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, this:

• "In their "Guidelines for Evaluating Reiki as an Alternative Therapy," the bishops said it lacks scientific credibility and falls outside the two types of healing recognized by the church: through divine grace and through the powers of nature, including medicine."[
• "Wisconsin bishops, so far, are not rushing to ban reiki."
• "The bishops zeroed in on reiki because they were asked by other bishops, said Father Thomas Weinandy, executive director for the USCCB's Secretariat for Doctrine. At issue, he said, is the notion that one can "manipulate divine energy to bring about healing." "We pray for healing, but we can't manipulate God," Weinandy said."
• "Doctors who've studied or recommended reiki for patients say the findings suggest a lack of understanding about the practice on the part of the bishops. Reiki practitioners aren't controlling forces, but "supporting people to help them draw from their own innate ability to heal," said Adam Rindfleisch of the Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health."

To entirely avoid any context, and essentially cherrypick the unscientific part, would seem to be giving that aspect undue weight, as this article is about reiki, not the lack of scientific evidence supporting reiki. --Tsavage (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@SummerPhD: Have you stepped away from this process? I realize it's not solely up to you, but you did start this piece-by-piece approach. Cheers. --Tsavage (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Etymology

TrishApps left the following comments in the article itself about the etymology:

Regarding "commonly written as": "'commonly written' is vague, who are the 'common writers'"

Regarding shinjitai: "What is the pertinence of including the "shinjitai" form? Have been unable to find shinjitai form used on practitioner websites, forums or books. This is a space filler. If Shinjitai form is irrelevant then the following paragraph is also. Reference to individual symbols (which as previously stated, are thus far, not cited)taken in isolation and from a high school dictionary (Kenkyuusha) seems fuzzy and as though we are letting the reader make up their mind about its meaning by throwing out a bunch of words and asking the audience to "get a feeling" about its meaning. Why not use definitions from books and recognised member sites rather than from what seems like some books this editor had lying around and websites they happened to find that passed the grade. How is the following relevant? Why does Etymology take up almost a third of this page?"

Regarding Halpern's character dictionary: "Can we get a better reference here than a high school dictionary?"

Such editorial comments shouldn't be placed in the article itself, but I agree with the gist of those comments. Particularly using character dictionaries to explore alternative meaning looks like original synthesis to me. Do those dictionaries really connect reiki (the subject of this article) to demon possession? Or is that a completely unrelated reading of the same characters? Huon (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Problems with "Scholarly evaluation" section

Back in May, I'd begun to verify the sources in the "Scholarly evaluation" section. These couple of problem items I retrieved from the Talk archives, as they have not been addressed. I will continue to check the sources as time permits. --Tsavage (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• In the "Scholarly evaluation" section, one of the multiple citations in support of the lead sentence, "Reiki is used as an illustrative example of pseudoscience in scholarly texts and academic journal articles," is a law review article titled, "Case study of inoperable inventions: Why is the USPTO patenting pseudoscience?" It mentions reiki once, and (as far as I can tell) as an example of what the article is not covering:

"Objections to the theory of operation are necessarily more complex in the biological sciences than in the physical sciences, where theories are reducible to mathematical laws. ... Reiki (another 'energy field' therapy)—can be tested for efficacy with relative certainty using carefully constructed statistical tests. In order to avoid undue complexity in the analysis, this Comment will focus inventions in the field of physics, where operability can often be determined as an objective fact using fundamental and universally accepted scientific principles."

• Also in "Scholarly evaluation," I previously mentioned in some detail (see above) the author of a quote, Larry Sarner, who appears wholly unqualified to comment as a scholarly expert, who "spent 14 years as a self-described 'volunteer lobbyist' fighting to keep Colorado's medical care 'based on scientific excellence and opposing erection of dangerous pseudo-medical cartels.'"[22]; his academic credentials appear to be BAs in political science and mathematics.

No Information about Reiki Itself

This article is supposed to be about reiki yet it mentions nothing of reiki techniques, beliefs, and systems. After reading it, all is known is that there are enough special interest groups to dominate this article and suppress opinions. More information about reiki itself must be added to this article despite the protests of special interest groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandyHat (talk • contribs) 05:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a fringe medical system. WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS apply. Please see my response in the section below. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is about a fringe medical system, yet it does not describe what that medical system actually is. At the very least the processes and techniques that are used in this system must be represented in this article to even begin to describe the nature of Reiki. There is also misinformation on this page that must be corrected due to negatively biased opinions dominating this article's content. For example, this particular sentence and its citation are simply incorrect: "although there is no empirical evidence that such a life force exists.[3]". Saying there is no empirical evidence of the "life force" is like saying there's no such thing as brain waves and a nervous system. Also, the citation goes to an article that simply states there is not enough evidence to state Reiki has a medical benefit, but makes no attempt to disprove the existence of a "life force". It is my recommendation that this claim be deleted. While it is admirable for people to emphasize the importance of truth, we should also scrutinize those who are critical of Reiki as much as those who are not to get to that truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandyHat (talk • contribs) 08:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Please recheck the sources cited immediately after the sentence you are questioning. "There is no evidence that this 'energy' exists...". If you would like to claim there is no empirical evidence that brain waves or the nervous system exist, you'll need to take that up on the talk pages for other articles. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You should really include a quote in the source link to show where in the cited article it explicitly claims to disprove the existence of such a life force. The first source should be removed since it makes no reference to disproving the existence of a life force as the sentence in the article claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandyHat (talk • contribs) 22:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems you didn't check either source before saying that the sources don't support the statement. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Just asking for the exact quote to which you are referring. If you can't supply it, the sentence will be deleted. Thanks.CandyHat (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

New framework for article

Ideally the article should read like this:

• 1Lead and introduction.
• 1.1 Outline and brief history
• 1.2 Users and uses historical
• 1.3 Users and uses present day (should include the fact that modern day practice is considered Pseudo-scientific
• 2 Subject headings
• 2.1 Etymology
• 2.2 Origins (including a more detailed history of similar practices that precede Reiki, or which may have influenced it)
• 2.3 Uses (including a subsection on other treatments associated or used in tandem with Reiki)
• 2.4 Modern adherents
• 2.5 Use outside Japan (including any splinter groups or convergent practices based on the same belief)
• 2.5 Clinical trials
• 3Images
• 3.1 Lead image should be a picture of Reiki being practiced
• 3.2 Pictures of advocates of Reiki
• 3.3 Pictures of other products sold alongside Reiki

Key points:

• Material critical of Reiki should/can be included in all sections but the section on etymology and origins.
• For the above two sections, think "anthropological study". Nobody would criticize ancient humans for being pseudo-scientific when doing a rain dance.
• Reiki as it is used today is pseudoscientific and it is also a sham and a fraud.
• This should be made clear in the lead of the article and throughout it as per WP:MEDRS Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information.[1] For this reason, all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge.
• The current knowledge regarding Reiki is that it is based on false claims. We need to go into depth on what those claims are however, and this is not done well in this article.
• In this case, fairness and avoidance of undue weight means: putting a piece of well sourced information on Reiki, from its adherents and founders, then including a scientific rebuttal if one exists.
• This article currently has lots of rebuttal, but the critics of its format are right; there's only a rebuttal. The information presented regarding the subject is messy and incoherent.

When rewriting this article, try to think what we as humans might write about it another 2000 years into the future, when people have (hopefully) stopped practicing sham medical treatments. They'd write about it impartially because it would be little more than a historical curiosity which can help these future humans get a better idea of how people come to believe things. This angle would be both a) fairer to the subject at hand and b) a more thorough and more skeptical rebuttal of any false claims that are currently being made. To this end try to think of what you'd write about the ancient spiritual customs of some tribe somewhere. The fact that people are being conned today by people who practice Reiki, can lead skeptical authors on this page to react emotionally by trying to pick apart every last detail with scientific rebuttals, and this prevents people from getting a clear idea of what the subject matter is about other than it being something bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.246.77.14 (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The major difficulty here is that this, based on all of the reliable sources, is a fringe medical belief. As such, we generally do not address claims made adherents, except to the extent that those specific claims are addressed by independent reliable sources. The vast majority of such sources get as far as someone to pulling some apparently fictitious energy from "the universe" and being able to cure absolutely anyone of absolutely anything. At this point, they sum up that it is nonsense on stilts and move on to the next topic. Various methodologies/schools, the history and such are not of interest.

An earlier version of this article was positively packed full claims and counter claims about the history, who can teach reiki, etc. sourced to numerous self-published books by self-proclaimed experts. We weeded a lot of that out.[23] When Joe Blow publishes a book through a vanity press and it happens to support his version of reiki, we are not situated to judge whether he is the authority he claims to be or not, only that independent reliable sources haven't really said anything about it.

If you feel a major overhaul is necessary and possible, I'd encourage you to take it slowly. Perhaps presenting the sources you found here before making major changes. (This article (and many others of similar ilk) is subject to occasional editing by POV editors on both sides and it can be fairly easy to unintentionally set off a fairly messy situation.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi - I am "58.246.77.14" the poster of the above suggestion "(09:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC))" I agree with you that when rewriting the information on this page, it would be beneficial to use the existing sources to form the first draft of the article and not to throw out the baby with the bath water. Obviously a lot of work has been done already. I will get back to this talk page with a proposed draft and also copy the regular editors on this talk page when I have a working draft in hand. Many thanks. Edahsh (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

All sources of information are conveniently eliminated by your definition of a reliable source. By that standard we should delete the sentence about healing hands since there is no reliable source of healing hands existing so that we can make this article completely devoid of any information about Reiki. Seems to me like you are going against all that Wikipedia stands for. It is supposed to be a culmination of all human knowledge. This article needs more descriptions of what humans know to be true about Reiki, such as information about the methods that are used by actual Reiki practitioners, including healing hand methods, distance healing, and the principles on which these methods are based. Not medical claims, but factual information that everyone who is even remotely familiar with Reiki knows to be an inherent part of this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandyHat (talk • contribs) 09:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:FRIND is key here. We only describe Reiki as it is viewed from the sensible mainstream; we don't want to import a load of silly stuff about reiki from its substantial crankosphere. Alexbrn (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, our definition of reliable sources does exclude a lot of material. It excludes the claim that "Reiki healing" is not restricted by space and time (so, a practitioner in China today can treat Abraham Lincoln's gunshot wound in Washington, DC, 1865.) It excludes sources that state quite emphatically that Reiki practitioners can heat up their cup of coffee by channeling energy through their hands. It excludes various sources that quite clearly state that the only "real" Reiki masters are those who trained through this, that or the other author's own program (Don't be fooled by imitations!). It excludes sources that state the patients' beliefs are/are not relevant to the effectiveness of the treatment. In other articles, our definition of reliable sources allows us to say Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon, HIV causes AIDS, the Earth is spherical and millions of people were murdered in German camps during WWII. Yes, there are "sources" dispute all of those things. A long time ago, though, we decided it would be better to say "Influenza .. is an infectious disease caused by an influenza virus." rather than "Influenza is caused by a virus, evil spirits, small bends in the spine, blocked channels, supporting LGBT rights, original sin, going out in the cold without a coat on, vitamin D deficiency..." - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, the resulting article is pathetic. It has no information about Reiki. Also, the criticisms on this page should be limited to a single section rather than attempting to dispute every single claim one by one. As it stands, anyone who comes to this page to learn about Reiki must go to secondary sources to find the information. I only rejoined Wikipedia because this article was simply just so bad that I had to go elsewhere to find information about Reiki and that just shouldn't be the case with an encyclopedia that is meant to encompass the entirety of human knowledge. Just because you think something is not true, and you don't support a viewpoint, doesn't give you the right to suppress information. I am not even a proponent of Reiki, but I am a proponent of making information freely available. As it stands, this article is missing information due to the suppression of facts. It is a fact that Reiki practitioners use distance healing and this information should be represented here. A description of the techniques and processes that are most common to Reiki should also be included. As it stands, this article is like a description of Christianity without mentioning the word God. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity While you may not think its correct to include the beliefs of practitioners, it is still a fact that these beliefs exist and this information should thereby be included to properly describe this topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CandyHat (talk • contribs) 21:17, May 28, 2016‎

It seems that some Reiki practitioners believe unlimited energy/transcends space/transcends time/can heat coffee/must be taught by master X (or Y or Z or...)/etc. Others dispute each of these claims or have no opinion at all.

Should we wish to state that a specific variety of Christianity believes in God/YHVH, we have reliable sources that are independent of that belief system that discuss that belief. We do not, at present, have independent reliable sources stating that a few/some/many/most/all Reiki practitioners believe that they can treat Lincoln's injury. If you have a source that you feel is reliable, please present it here. Otherwise, we are done here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Information about the specific techniques is what must be added. How do reiki practitioners apply their hands to the patient, what are the processes and belief systems that support these activities, how does reiki work from the perspective of a practitioner, etc. Distance healing, through space, is a central aspect of reiki for those who engage in it as is made clear by many texts on the subject. Put this information in a section on the quackery of reiki. I don't care. But this information should be included as it is an inherent part of the topic and that's what Wikipedia is all about. https://www.google.com/search?biw=1600&bih=799&tbm=bks&q=reiki+distance+healing&oq=reiki+distance+healingCandyHat (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually it's not "what Wikipedia is all about". Fringe material must have been considered by good WP:FRIND sources. Otherwise we descend into becoming a collection of arcana with details of alien abductions, paranormal "activity" and ... whatever shit the reiki bunch indulge in. If good sources don't care, neither should we. That said, I'm pretty sure there *are* some good sources out there that detail some of the whackier elements of Reiki. Alexbrn (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The new section can be titled: "Claims Made by Pracitoners". It should include information about the state of mind of the practitioner, distance healing, hand positions, self-administered reiki, meditation and focusing, reiki principles, prayers, etc. All of which is substantiated by good sources on the topic.CandyHat (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself: If you have a source that you feel is reliable, please present it here. Otherwise, we are done here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

This article needs to be completely revamped and will be since Wikipedia is never "done". There are only three sentences that presently even remotely describe Reiki on this page titled "Reiki": "It is based on qi ("chi"), which practitioners say is a universal life force, although there is no empirical evidence that such a life force exists.", "It uses a technique commonly called palm healing or hands-on-healing.", and "Through the use of this technique, practitioners believe that they are transferring "universal energy" through the palms of the practitioner, which they believe encourages healing." We are talking about a medical treatment option that is provided in modern hospitals. Therefore, there must be additional information about the techniques and processes these people are using to help patients. I ask you, and anyone else who may happen to read this, to help in the search for the most reliable sources describing what exactly these nurses and doctors are doing in the hospitals to assist their patients. Thank you.CandyHat (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Please forgive me If I am repeating myself: If you have a source that you feel is reliable, please present it here. Otherwise, we are done here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Addressing the duality here which is causing the bulk of disputes on this talk page. Reiki is both A)A useless and fradulent health practice used to treat ailments, which it has no hope whatsoever of curing. and B)An interesting insight into human beliefs and the culture of its country of origin from both anthropological and social perspectives.

Some how inspite of this duality we should present an article which gives a reader a good general knowledge of what Reiki is, without leaving them with the feeling that the article's been written by someone who just wants to attack it.Edahsh (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

As I have mentioned repeatedly to the other single-purpose account (above), we need independent reliable sources here. Please see WP:FRIND. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a single purpose account, I'm just a newly created account. I previously just used an I.P. address because I live in mainland China and the sporadic blocking of wikipedia here got me into the habit of not logging in. I've got no interest in promoting the subject, but I am keen to review and edit articles on TCM, and Unproven health treatments in East-Asia.Edahsh (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

So far, you are a single purpose account. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Edahsh, these people think they have absolute authority over this article. Fairly certain they are just using multiple accounts to make their opinions seem more valid. We'll have to make the edits ourselves and fight their undos if we want this article to change. LOL I mean forget about an actual description of what reiki is, they won't even let you include the fact that reiki is used in modern hospitals. Try it.CandyHat (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC) (Note: Originally signed as an IP at 22:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC). - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC))

I think "these people" are just trying to write the article. We should help.Edahsh (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, single purpose IP user defending two recently created single purpose accounts. If you believe there are any users here pretending to be more than one editor ("socking"), I would encourage you to open a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations to help sort the matter out. (Let me know if you have any difficulties, I have a good bit of experience with sockpuppetry cases and would love to clean up any socking that might be going on here.)

I would like to caution you that it sound like you are suggesting that the way to handle the situation is an edit war. This is a bad idea. Please note that one of the single purpose accounts is currently under a warning for potential edit warring.

If you feel you have independent reliable sources for the information you wish to add, please discuss them here. I've asked the two single purpose accounts to do so, but haven't heard back yet.

If, OTOH, you feel we should include the information without independent reliable sources, please review WP:VERIFIABILITY. It is one of Wikipedia's core policies. Thanks! - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Well since we are writing this together, what would be an acceptable source that states reiki is used in hospitals? How can we describe distance healing, a form of prayer, in this article in a way that is acceptable? http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/integrative_medicine_digestive_center/services/reiki.html

http://mayoclinichealthsystem.org/locations/onalaska/medical-services/complementary-medicine/center-for-health-and-healing/reikiCandyHat (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

These are not secondary sources saying "reiki is used in hospitals" These are primary sources saying that their appointment services can connect people to reiki practitioners. An analogy: Angie's list does not use sandblasting. If you'd like to have some sandblasting done, Angie's list can refer you to someone. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You need to read the requirements for "verifiability" again. It doesn't have to be a published medical journal, especially since this is not a medical topic, but a philosophical belief system. The only requirement is that they be a third-party publisher that has published publicly available material. From there, it is only a matter of reliability and the degree to which the source is known for fact-checking. Your elimination of all sources that don't fit your imaginary requirements is unjust. Here are more sources despite my knowing that you will just respond with the same blanket responses. If you really want to improve Wikipedia, if that is what you are doing here, then I would please ask that instead of fighting every suggestion, that you simply work with the suggestion to turn it into acceptable material for the wiki so that we may all enjoy greater peace of mind. Thanks.

Many of these sources should be used to add more reliable unbiased content to this article:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-09-14-alternative-therapies_N.htm https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/reiki-goes-mainstream-spiritual-touch-practice-now-commonplace-in-hospitals/2014/05/16/9e92223a-dd37-11e3-a837-8835df6c12c4_story.html http://news.aha.org/article/more-hospitals-offering-cam-services-health-forum-reports http://www.ajmc.com/journals/issue/2011/2011-12-vol17-n12/cost-savings-in-inpatient-oncology-through-an-integrative-medicine-approach/, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51552128_Immediate_Effects_of_Reiki_on_Heart_Rate_Variability_Cortisol_Levels_and_Body_Temperature_in_Health_Care_Professionals_With_Burnout, http://advancesjournal.com/pdfarticles/miles.pdf, http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=1143148&issueno=12, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10841817_Enhancing_the_treatment_of_HIVAIDS_with_Reiki_training_and_treatment, https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0826196128, http://journals.lww.com/hnpjournal/Citation/2007/07000/An_Integrative_Review_of_Reiki_Touch_Therapy.3.aspx, http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0735109710025258/1-s2.0-S0735109710025258-main.pdf?_tid=57d862aa-27c7-11e6-97bd-00000aacb35d&acdnat=1464764960_7c26663570c172ca48236d1a391acb5c, http://journals.lww.com/hnpjournal/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2009&issue=05000&article=00002&type=abstract, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49667084_Reconnecting_to_nursing_through_Reiki https://www.google.com/search?biw=1600&bih=799&tbm=bks&q=reiki+distance+healing&oq=reiki+distance+healing https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Arehab.ucla.edu%2F+reiki CandyHat (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The more I learn about this topic, the more apparent it becomes that it has three components to it: medical, philosophical, and religious. Therefore it would seem fitting to apply different citation requirements to each type of addition to the article. "Exceptions can naturally be made using common sense, in order to reach a collaborative conclusion." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples Perhaps in the new framework for the article, we can explicitly define the aspects of reiki which are medical, philosophical, and religious to help distinguish the differences between them.CandyHat (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Add Potential Acceptable Sources Here: A Discussion

The other section discusses revamping the whole article, but this section should be for discussing specific sources. Please do not state opinions as if they are final conclusions, just pros and cons. Thank you.

More hospitals offering CAM services, Health Forum reports: http://news.aha.org/article/more-hospitals-offering-cam-services-health-forum-reports

American Hospital Association, AHA, is a widely cited reliable source of trusted information.

Cost Savings in Inpatient Oncology Through an Integrative Medicine Approach: http://www.ajmc.com/journals/issue/2011/2011-12-vol17-n12/cost-savings-in-inpatient-oncology-through-an-integrative-medicine-approach/

Medical journal fact checked and reviewed.

Immediate Effects of Reiki on Heart Rate Variability, Cortisol Levels, and Body Temperature in Health Care Professionals With Burnout: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51552128_Immediate_Effects_of_Reiki_on_Heart_Rate_Variability_Cortisol_Levels_and_Body_Temperature_in_Health_Care_Professionals_With_Burnout

Published by Manuel Arroyo-morales University of Granada, Granada Medicine MD, PT,PhD.

Reiki for Mind, Body, and Spirit Support of Cancer Patients: http://advancesjournal.com/pdfarticles/miles.pdf

Written by a Reiki master

More hospitals offer alternative therapies for mind, body, spirit: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-09-14-alternative-therapies_N.htm

USA Today fact checks their information.

Reiki goes mainstream: Spiritual touch practice now commonplace in hospitals: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/reiki-goes-mainstream-spiritual-touch-practice-now-commonplace-in-hospitals/2014/05/16/9e92223a-dd37-11e3-a837-8835df6c12c4_story.html

Washington Post fact checks their information.

Enhancing the treatment of HIV/AIDS with Reiki training and treatment: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10841817_Enhancing_the_treatment_of_HIVAIDS_with_Reiki_training_and_treatment

Written by Robert Schmehr of the HIV Center of St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital, New York City, USA.

Complementary & Alternative Therapies in Nursing: Seventh Edition: https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0826196128

Seventh edition with an emphasis upon reliable sources and accuracy of the information.

An Integrative Review of Reiki Touch Therapy Research: http://journals.lww.com/hnpjournal/Citation/2007/07000/An_Integrative_Review_of_Reiki_Touch_Therapy.3.aspx

Written by an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse.

Effects of Reiki on Autonomic Activity Early After Acute Coronary Syndrome: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109710025258

Medical journal fact checked and reviewed.

Nurses' Lived Experience of Reiki for Self‐care: http://journals.lww.com/hnpjournal/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2009&issue=05000&article=00002&type=abstract

Written by an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse.

Reconnecting to nursing through Reiki: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49667084_Reconnecting_to_nursing_through_Reiki

Written by a registered nurse.

The Complete Book of Traditional Reiki: https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1594779112

Revised edition and displays an interest in properly representing Reiki and its methods.

CandyHat (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Add Potential Acceptable Article Additions Here: A Discussion

This section should be for discussing specific additions to the article. Please do not state opinions as if they are final conclusions, just pros and cons. Thank you.

Reiki is used in modern hospitals. More hospitals offering CAM services, Health Forum reports: http://news.aha.org/article/more-hospitals-offering-cam-services-health-forum-reports

American Hospital Association, AHA, is a widely cited reliable source of trusted information. The article clearly states Reiki is used in hospitals.

USA Today, a nationally recognized leader in publishing known for fact-checking. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-09-14-alternative-therapies_N.htm

Washington Post, a nationally recognized leader in publishing known for fact-checking. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/reiki-goes-mainstream-spiritual-touch-practice-now-commonplace-in-hospitals/2014/05/16/9e92223a-dd37-11e3-a837-8835df6c12c4_story.html CandyHat (talk) 09:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Not really a fair summary of the WashPo piece (by a student journalist). It would be fairer to say Reiki advocates claim it is popular in American hospitals. Alexbrn (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The USA Today article is about the AHA report. There is no need for both.

The study does not say "reiki is used in modern hospitals". It says that, as of 2007, reiki was offered in a minority of (American) hospitals surveyed. Hospitals use surgery, chemotherapy, x-rays, etc. Those are treatments that hospitals use. (While the article doesn't say it, the hospital probably does "use" reiki to boost revenue.) The hospital might offer breath mints, balloons, cable TV, wifi, Big Macs and perhaps some magic hand waving.

As for the WP piece, it is again citing the same survey. The 84% is not for reiki, it's for all alternatives to medicine in the study. I have to wonder what would happen if we used a religion piece by a student journalist for its other content: there is no scientific evidence to prove that such energy exists, its value is in the placebo effect and hospitals that do offer it only do so because of demand. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Would a fair addition then be "Reiki was used in a minority of American hospitals in 2007" as per the AHA until more information from additional sources becomes available? Reiki is a treatment option administered by doctors and nurses in hospitals. CandyHat (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

No, because the source doesn't say that. -Roxy the dog™ woof 06:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Will be adding more history soon.

I will be adding additional information covering the history of Reiki.

(Diegoluytoto (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC))

Neutrality of the Article - Discussion

The neutrality of this article is disputed since it presents a slanted perspective of the topic to the reader. To correct this issue:

♦ The tone of the article must be improved.

♦ Additional content about Reiki must be included from a greater variety of reliable sources including information about the processes and techniques that are used by Reiki practitioners.

♦ The repetitive attacks on Reiki stating there is no evidence to support its claims should be condensed to a single statement or section.

♦ Cited sources must be verified to have the actual statements claimed in the article concerning what has and has not been proven about Reiki in scientific literature and the statements should be removed if this cannot be verified.CandyHat (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. And in any case much of these complaints are not about neutrality. As his been said many times now, for the article to improve we need high-quality sources. Please also remember that WP:PSCI policy requires us to be explicit about the dubious nature of Reiki. Alexbrn (talk) 06:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• I also disagree. The tone of the article is just fine. Your second point requires these sources to exist in reliable scientific and medical sources; can you produce these? Saying these is no evidence for reiki working or even being able to demonstrate a plausible mechanism is not an attack; it is a statement of fact. If they facts do not align with your world-view, you need to ask yourself why that may be. For your fourth point, could you be more specific? Delta13C (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You can't even describe the nature of Reiki and what it actually means to receive Reiki or be a Reiki practitioner based on the information in the article; basically the very essence of the topic. A list of potential sources that should be used is listed above.

All sentences describing Reiki:

Reiki practitioners use a technique they call palm healing or hands-on-healing by which a "universal energy" is allegedly transferred through the palms of the practitioner to a patient in order to encourage healing. It is based on qi ("chi"), which practitioners say is a universal life force.

Repetitive statements saying the same thing:

Reiki is considered pseudoscience. Although there is no empirical evidence that such a life force exists. Clinical research has not shown Reiki to be effective as a medical treatment for any medical condition. The existence of the proposed mechanism for Reiki – qi or "life force" energy – has not been established. There is no reliable empirical evidence that Reiki is helpful for treating any medical condition. The existence of qi has not been established by medical research. Therefore, Reiki is a pseudoscientific theory based on metaphysical concepts.

There are more repetitive statements attacking Reiki than there are sentences describing it. Your argument that this article is not biased is invalid.CandyHat (talk) 09:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Those sentences are not attacking Reiki, they are describing it according to reliable sources. Do you have problems with any of these particular statements? -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not the statements themselves that are an attack. By repeating them over and over again though, they become an attack.CandyHat (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The lede summarizes content in the body, so some degree of repetition is inevitable. Alexbrn (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on dowsing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing is really well written. While informing the reader very clearly, in no uncertain terms that it is pesudoscience (throughout the article), it also gave me a very good summary of the origins, uses and variants. I like this article and I think it is a good template for other articles on pseudoscientific topics. There seems to be a bit of saber rattling going on on this talk forum, with people mentioning edit wars and so on, but not a great deal of actual changes to the article. I'll try and rewrite some tonight and post my suggestions here first rather than editing the article directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edahsh (talk • contribs) 08:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It's funny how other articles, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_healing are much less biased, although refering to a similar phenomenon. This is a reflection of a grater prejudice against eastern tradition than against cchristianity. --Pedro Gomes Andrade (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Quackery is quackery whether it be "western" (e.g. anthroposophic medicine, homeopathy) or "eastern" (e.g. reiki) in origin. If you think another article is not neutral, please comment on its Talk page not here where such comments are of no use. Alexbrn (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I just inspected the Faith healing article and the claim made by Andrade is just plain wrong. That article has two sections, Scientific investigation and Criticism, both of which do a fine job of applying an alternate POV. "It's funny" how Andrade missed that! RobP (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree that this 'article' is extremely biased. As someone who has followed the evolution of this article for the past number of years, it's current version is extremely antagonistic and biased against Reiki. This could be offset by either restoring some of the earlier/better content, OR modifying the sources to include more neutral references. Reiki is not something that can be scientifically proven. So endlessly whipping it to death by studies which are not equipped to be able to detect it is paradoxical. There is no way someone who has not heard of Reiki and comes to this article could come away with an unbiased impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluejaguar~enwiki (talk • contribs) 16:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

As a Master Reike practitioner, I'm not surprised by your opinion on this article. It merely reflects the mainstream view, as required by policy. Roxy the dog. bark 16:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

If Reiki cannot be examined, it falls under Hitchens's razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. While this applies to everything from the invisible, non-corporeal dragon that lives in my garage to the all-powerful diety who doesn't want anyone to know it exists, reiki makes testable claims. Reliable sources report on the outcomes of tests of those claims so Wikipedia reports on those outcomes. That those outcomes are not favorable to reiki is hardly a way to assess the neutrality of the article. Tests show that drinking water is an effective treatment for dehydration. Would reporting that be "bias" in favor of water? - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

According to that supposition, all wikipedia's articles on religions should state that the beliefs are delusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.130.52 (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

When religion pretends to be science (e.g. "Creation science"), we call it pseudo-scientific. It makes scientific claims (curing disease) but someone insists that it cannot be tested. Sure. That's swell. I can fly, when no one is looking. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

A dogmatic assertion to the effect that you do not fly is thus equally non-falsifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B026:E388:0:46:65F8:501 (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The above comment is a classic example of shifting the burden of proof! RobP (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

This article falls under WP:ARBPS. Please make a proposal for a change of content. --Ronz (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Wish to make edits to the article showing both sides of the debate but appropriately deeming the biases respectively so as to keep objectivity. Will post more primary and secondary sources to widen the discussion. Haley Wendt (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)