Jump to content

Talk:Reiki/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16

Proposal rename

I agree that the article does not give a fair view of what reiki really is about. Even for a skeptic who merely looks for basic information to understand a pseudoscience, the article does not provide enough basic, neutral information to even begin to get an impression of what reiki is about.

I have never done any reiki, nor do i support or believe in it, but this article seems to me appropriate if it was titled "Criticism of reiki". The article should either be renamed that way, or seriously modified to include more basic information to provide more context to the criticism. Encyclopedic articles about alternative medicine or pseudo-science usually include more basic information about a therapy before mentioning its flaws. I propose a rename, and write a separate article about reiki, which contains a summary of this criticism article and a link to it.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Typically, a daughter article (which is what you are proposing me make this) is spun off from a main article when a section has begun to overwhelm the main topic. However, the articles you are proposing have several problems.
You are proposing spinning off a daughter article from an article which does not exist.
Wikipedia generally does not allow for POV fork articles, which "Criticisms of reiki" would certainly be. For similar reasons, we likely won't create a "Promotions of reiki" article. Instead, we report what independent reliable sources have to say about reiki: A practitioner puts their hands near someone with an illness, believing a "universal energy" (which does not seem to exist) comes through their hands and heals the person (though no healing seems to take place).
Reiki is clearly a fringe subject. The whole basis of the practice rests on an "energy" which -- so far as anyone has been able to demonstrate -- does not seem to exist. Wikipedia's coverage of fringe subjects is generally limited to the aspects of the subject that mainstream reliable sources discuss. For example, an older version of this article included the claim/belief/proposition that reiki was not limited by time and space, allowing for "healing" from unlimited distances and into the past or future. While a skeptic might like to include this absurd claim, I removed it as the only source for it was an in-universe source. (I have similarly removed claims in other articles where a government conspiracy to hide a healing diet was revealed by the founder's ghost through a broken radio and the belief that "healing cards" from a publisher were actually produced on a distant planet.)
Further, your proposal is complicated by the simple fact that there are so many competing claims about reiki. Various author and organizations claim legitimacy/authority based on their own criteria, unsupported by anyone outside of their system. I am not a Catholic, but I could draw up a reasonable outline of the RCC hierarchy with a little bit of work from sources completely independent of the RCC. Reiki, OTOH, has nothing to stop me from hanging up a sign, vanity publishing a few books and making whatever claims I would care to make about the practice, my abilities, my "spiritual predecessors", etc. and begin granting various levels of certifications to newly-minted practitioners at whatever pace or fees I fell appropriate. My "school", website and books are as authoritative as any other. One approach here might be separate articles on the various schools or traditions of reiki, were it not for the fact that none of the individual schools/traditions are notable. We have separate articles on the diiferent varieties of Christianity because independent reliable sources exist for various churches. We don't have to decide if "Christianity" involves transubstantiation, snake-handling and/or faith healing.
This article once was considerably longer.[1] Starting in March 2015, we slowly removed a lot of unsourced, poorly sourced and conflictingly (?) sourced material, most of it originating in books published by tiny publishing houses and/or vanity publishers. That someone pays to have their book published and sells it on their website does not make them an authority on anything. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the OP's point was that this article, like many other articles on similar topics, tells a reader who might come to this page wishing to find out "what is Reiki" next to nothing whatsoever, aside from hammering home the point that Reiki isn't scientific. I am not even going to cry POV, I do not think it is an acceptable overview of the subject. Compare this to our article on homeopathy, which actually makes an effort to explain to the reader what the system is and how the idea was conceived before debunking it. I found the "history" section of that old revision linked far more informative than what is on show now, which could be edited down to a single paragraph without losing much of the message. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 08:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Yep definitely had this convo before. Passers by and experienced editors alike agree that it should say more about the historic aspects and cultural origins of this practice, but the reliable sources we have access to all talk about its use as a fraudulent medical practice. Wikipedia in this case is giving due weight to what we as editors are able to obtain to source the article, in conjunction with the removal of stuff that is sourced poorly. We don't not agree with what you are saying, we just need anything which talks about cultural origins to be from proper translations of Japanese library books which are published properly and not written in crayon. I can contribute 5 CNY to you airline ticket if you would care to go to Japan and visit the library. All attempts at comedy aside, if you do want to pay the library a visit, you would be doing a valuable job for the encyclopedia. Many thanks for your comments. We'll keep trying.Edaham (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
also you might want to pop over to the article on Phrenology and do a comparison. You'll find that the article is stuffed full of illuminating historical information according to region and the differing levels of its practice. This is largely because phrenology is uncritically accepted by doctors and charlatans alike as pesudo-medical nonsense. Reiki, believe it or not, while being equally composed of the richest steaming compost, is still actually practiced today by care givers. That means it gets treated as a medical article, because its being dispensed as medicine. This means that in order to give the article due recognition of the reliable sources, which are talking about the subject, we have to include material from them in their article. That means stating that its flat out nonsense, because that's what doctors say it is when they write about it. They don't say that about phrenology, because its no longer medicine. Edaham (talk) 09:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
There are articles on other subjects. Some of them are nearly perfect. Others should have been deleted or completely rewritten long ago. Picking one and deciding to model other articles on it is generally a bad idea. Instead, you're encouraged to base editing on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines
Reiki is a WP:FRINGE concept. Finding independent reliable sources on the subject is hard. I'd encourage you to check what was decided on a lot of sources in this article's talk page archives. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
sorry, did you think that I was suggesting using one article as a model for another? I wasn't. I was trying to explain to the original poster why certain articles on fringe science get treated differently. Or am I reading the indents wrong and you are replying to someone else in the discussion. Edaham (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
My bad, I think I just understood you too quickly. Without looking I'd guess that there are more independent reliable sources on phrenology as it's pretty hard to get through a liberal arts education without having phrenology held up as an example of pseudoscience in history (along with N rays and canals on Mars). Reiki doesn't get near as much press, for various reasons that are off-topic here. - SummerPhDv2.0 20:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Cherry-picking

This edit adds a variety of bits and pieces from a study. There are two problems, one easily remedied, the other not.

Problem 1: The source citation is inadequate. Yes, the study exists, but to be a reliable source it must be published in a WP:MEDRS-reliable source. The cite provided does not give publication info. Please see WP:CITE. (The study in question was published in Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine.)

Problem 2: The meta-analysis found that there was insufficient data to reach any sound conclusions: "...all 12 trials meeting the inclusion criteria were lacking in at least one of the three key areas of randomization, blinding, and accountability of all patients, indicating a low quality of reporting. ...using the Jadad Quality score, 11 of the 12 studies ranked 'poor.'...The serious methodological and reporting limitations of limited existing Reiki studies preclude a definitive conclusion on its effectiveness. High-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to address the effectiveness of Reiki over placebo."

Pulling details from a met-analysis that flatly states that there are too many problems with the studies examined to draw any definitive conclusions re the hypothesis being examined is cherry-picking. This is the movie reviewer who wrote "I haven't seen the movie but the TV spot makes it look like an action packed thrill ride." but ends up quoted as saying the film is "An action packed thrill ride!" - SummerPhDv2.0 16:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is misleading

This article is misleading and neglects to acknowledge the tests done on Reiki that show it is beneficial. More research should be done with larger trials but to say that Reiki is Pseudoscience is extremely biased. Here are just a few sources that claim Reiki is beneficial in reducing pain and anxiety, amongst other conditions.


“stronger studies support the ability of Reiki to reduce anxiety and pain, and suggest its usefulness to induce relaxation, improve fatigue and depressive symptoms, and strengthen overall wellbeing. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews contains a review on the use of touch therapies (including Reiki) for pain and a protocol for use of Reiki for psychological symptoms.”

Miles, P. (2016) What does the research say about reiki. Retrieved from https://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/explore-healing-practices/reiki/what-does-research-say-about-reiki


“Testing in humans performed between 1993 and 2006 showed ratings from Satisfactory to Excellent, all suggesting that the benefit of Reiki treatments were positive in controlling pain levels in humans. There were some “confounding variables”, which is typical in hospital (as opposed to laboratory) studies; however, the placebo Reiki treatments in this experiment were by contrast ineffective in controlling pain.”

Green Lotus. (2011) Reiki really works: A groundbreaking study. Retrieved from https://www.uclahealth.org/rehab/workfiles/Urban%20Zen/Research%20Articles/Reiki_Really_Works-A_Groundbreaking_Scientific_Study.pdf


“based on the size Cohen’s statistics calculated in this review, there is evidence to suggest that Reiki therapy may be effective for pain and anxiety. Continued research using Reiki therapy with larger sample sizes, consistently randomized groups, and standardized treatment protocols is recommended.”

Thrane, S. (2014, December) Effect of Reiki Therapy on Pain and Anxiety in Adults: An In-Depth Literature Review of Randomized Trials with Effect Size Calculations. Retrieved from https://www.painmanagementnursing.org/article/S1524-9042(13)00080-5/fulltext — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteadyThought (talk • contribs) 16:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Flawed research done by proponents and believers. To call this pseudoscience is to give it too much credit. That people still believe in and push magic snake oil as medicine in the 21st is disheartening. RobP (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Really? I just posted 3 sources, two from universities and one a peer reviewed article. You comment about "magic snake oil" which has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Exactly how is this research flawed? You are intentionally dismissing valid research. SteadyThought (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The first source is written by Pamela Miles. Who is she? She is a "Reiki master". She is not an independent reliable source. (linked in source, blacklisted here)
Next is an article "published" on HubPages by "Green Lotus". Who is that? Why it's "Hillary" from Atlanta, GA, who has now been banned from HubPages. She is not an independent reliable source. (linked in source, blacklisted here)
The final source is published in a journal with a very low impact factor of 1.2. It found, using a "limited number" of studies that there is evidence to suggest it may be effective. There is evidence. It suggests. It may. That's a big stack of qualifiers to make much of a statement about. Please see WP:MEDRS - SummerPhDv2.0 17:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The following links show that the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, and NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, all incorporate/offer reiki therapy 

   https://my.clevelandclinic.org/departments/wellness/integrative/treatments-services/reiki#overview-tab
   https://dahlc.mayoclinic.org/2015/12/29/9-facts-about-reiki/ 
   http://columbiasurgery.org/news/2015/03/25/reiki-operating-room-breast-cancer-beyond

I am going to add this information to the article. It is relevant.184.155.86.34 (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC) (IP's comments moved to new section by Girth Summit)GirthSummit (blether) 11:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi 184.155.86.34, I created a new section for your comments, as they seemed not really to relate to the one you inserted them into - I hope that's OK with you?
I don't see why these links are relevant to the article - this isn't a directory where we list clinics where Reiki is available. Can you explain why you think they should be included? GirthSummit (blether) 11:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Girth Summit. I'm on the same page with you regarding the idea that this page shouldn't be a directory that helps people find reiki. However, I think including information about the mainstream adoption of reiki by hospitals could help clarify the role reiki plays in society today. The page as it currently stands, makes reiki out to be a fringe, totally pseudoscientific quasi-religion. Is reiki pseudoscience? I think so. Is it a quasi-religion? Sort of seems like it to me. But it's kind of not fringe. Many major hospitals incorporate it into their practice. At least sixty, according to the Washington Post. I'm going to go ahead and edit. If you don't like it, feel free to revert and let's chat about it.184.155.86.34 (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
By the way, earlier today, I made an edit, got reverted, and immediately undid the revert without talking (though I left a lengthy obnoxious edit summary). I realize this is not a productive or useful way of doing things and apologize sincerely to Kirbanzo and Roxy the Dog. I don't edit often (obviously).184.155.86.34 (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Health services/hospitals offer all kind of rubbish (esp. in the US). So we'd need some secondary commentary on this. The implication that adoption=legitimacy is novel and wrong. I have added the secondary material from the WaPo - see what you think. Alexbrn (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree hospitals and health services offer rubbish. Not that long ago they used leeches. However, the facts I added about hospitals offering reiki say nothing about whether reiki is legitimate. It would benefit readers to know that major academic hospitals in the United States offer the services. They can do with that information what they will. Maybe they'll think it legitimizes reiki. Maybe they'll think it makes major academic hospitals seem insane. Or maybe they won't care about what it implies about the legitimacy of reiki or the insanity of major hospitals, but will have learned something. Let's let them decide and give them the facts. I don't know, those are my thoughts. Oh, I see you re-added the Washington Post bit. Yeah, maybe that's the most informative part. Would you be kind enough to explain yourself a little more about why the Mayo, Cleveland, and NY hospital stuff should go?184.155.86.34 (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Because we should be reflecting "accepted knowledge" about topics. Building an argument from primary sources isn't doing that. Alexbrn (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I take your point. I also agree with your inclusion of 'fueled by customer demand' by the way. I will say this, though: I wasn't trying to build an argument. I was just trying to include some relevant facts about reiki and its role in society, but I now see they may not be so relevant.184.155.86.34 (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
We can certainly turn up sources showing various hospitals that sell candy bars, balloons and flowers in their gift shops. Likewise, we could generate a list of reiki practitioners convicted of sexual assault, tax evasion or theft by deception. Any of these would be ways of implying "hospitals offer reiki, so it must be good", "hospitals sell candy so it must be healthy" or "reiki practitioners are criminals". An independent reliable source discussing a phenomena is something else. It's a source discussing hospitals with fast food franchises on site vs. a list of hospitals with McDonalds. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Balance?

According to my rough analysis, half of the sentences in this article as it currently stands are critical of reiki, stating that it is pseudoscience, ineffective, etc. The other half contain more neutral facts about reiki, such as what reiki practice consists of, its origins, and its history. Is everyone okay with this balance? If you look at the page for astrology, for example, there is much more information about astrology's origins, history, and cultural impact, relative to information about it's lack of scientific credibility. Clearly, this article should include criticisms of reiki and make it clear it's a pseudoscience. But perhaps some of the critical content could be pared down, some of the redundancies could be removed, and more neutral information pertaining to origins, history, development, cultural impact, and current practice could be expanded? This isn't Quackwatch, it's an encyclopedia. We should not be out to debunk, but to inform. I won't make any edits unless I get some consensus on this, but I thought I would propose the idea. I am going to ahead and delete reference 2, though. Reference 2 is for some reason cited after the statement "Reiki is a pseudoscience," even though the conclusion of the cited article is that, "Reiki was an effective approach in relieving the pain." Carlsonaar (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that analysis should be used to question any content.
Thanks for removing the ref. It was added [2]. It looks rather questionable. Demir Doğan, Melike (May 2018). "The effect of reiki on pain: A meta-analysis". Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice. 31: 384–387. doi:10.1016/j.ctcp.2018.02.020. ISSN 1744-3881. --Ronz (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not seek to present a balance between opposing viewpoints. Yes, there are people who believe HIV does not cause AIDS, The Earth is flat and the Holocaust did not occur. They are, IMO, quite clearly wrong. More to the point, independent reliable sources concur that they are wrong.
Instead, Wikipedia seeks to represent fairly and proportionately significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Independent reliable sources have much to say on the history and practices of astrology and little to say on the reiki. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Message received. I'll leave it alone. Thanks for your input. Carlsonaar (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Disputing presence of " energy "

I am a Reiki practitioner. I stumbled upon this very disturbing description of what Reiki is - clearly, poorly written and explained. I will not advocate what Reiki is or isn't, I wish to bring attention to other publicly accepted and practiced, so called faith healing based on superstition.


What caught my attention is " Catholic Church concerns " (that made into Wikipedia as something worthy of informing public about???!!!) Here it goes:

" In March 2009, the Committee on Doctrine of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued the document Guidelines for Evaluating Reiki as an Alternative Therapy, in which they declared that the practice of reiki was based on superstition, being neither truly faith healing nor science-based medicine ".

We have no proof about Christianity or catholic faith ( other then centuries of public brainwashing ) that, by the way, functions on prayers ( hmmm, isn't this faith healing AND superstition?). I have to ask then - how come we readily ACCEPT this kind of brainwashing? Do we have proof of any of the religion claims? No, we do not. Wake up people and start asking questions. With love and light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GBKZBJ (talk • contribs) 10:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It is all BS. Equivalently. However, the Catholic Church has a large influence on society and so it’s proclimation and actions on this subject are noteworthy. RobP (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
The problem here is that GBKZBJ seems to believe that the article says Reiki is based on superstition, is not truly faith healing and is not science-based medicine. We do not because we do not have a reliable source for that. What we do say (and do have a reliable source for) is that a faith with millions of members says those things (and sources independent of the religion have reported it).
Elsewhere in the article, obviously, we essentially say that Reiki is nonsense on stilts because independent reliable sources say that. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
At the very least it seems like it might be a bit excessive Crazynas t 07:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. Nonsense on stilts is correct. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is very poorly conceived

Let me first state that i think that Reiki is garbage. However, this article forces the reader to wade through so many critical and debunking editorial comments that it never actually gets around to explaining in clear terms what is behind the concept known as reiki. Obviously there are many criticisms to be had on this topic, but what is ordinarily a Criticisms section has quite frankly spilled over into almost every sentence of the article, and it reads like reiki slept with the collective contributors mothers. Quit grinding the axe of pseudoscience, that's what the criticisms section is for. This reader is very disappointed that i can't even begin to say i have come away with literally any information, even if it's a garbage art.

Edit: i read some more discussion on this page and the problem is very clearly user:SummerPhDv2.0. Hopefully for the sake of quality content an administrator can intervene and give this article some much needed breathing room from this problematic contributor.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.224.85.135 (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Criticism sections are discouraged. See WP:CRITICISM.
Also, identifying specific users as "the problem" is not a good idea either. See WP:NPA.
Could you please explain the problem a bit better? It looks to me as if reiki is explained in the first paragraph: "Reiki practitioners use a technique called palm healing or hands-on healing through which a "universal energy" is supposedly transferred through the palms of the practitioner to the patient in order to encourage emotional or physical healing." What did you expect? Recipes of where to put the palms for which malady and how much energy to blast through the palms (in joules)? In that case, see WP:RECIPE. So, please make suggestions which aspects of reiki should be detailed. Though, without reliable sources, we cannot do much. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
the problem is that it reads basically as a warning label rather than simply fleshing out the concepts succinctly. You're requesting sources but I'm as ignorant as anyone on the topic and it doesn't take a genius to see that any sources have been shredded by the active editors here on the basis of scientific accuracy. Readers are hit over the head repeatedly with reminders about how pseudoscientific every aspect seems to be, but to a point that's quite frankly patronizing and an uninformative repetitive bore to read. 74.50.214.39 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the editor did a good job of explaining that they feel I am the problem.
Reading through the talk page history, you will see that yes, I removed very large portions of the article, slowly, over time, asking for input along the way. This article had become a disjointed pile of random claims from various self-published sources.
What I removed is multiple examples of what I found to be individual, non-notable, unreliable claimants saying "Reiki is X". John Doe says reiki can treat people across time and space? So what? We're trying to report what "reiki" is, not what one random person says about it on their personal website or self-published book.
If, in reviewing those removals, you find that I -- alone or with input -- made calls that you disagree with, please raise them here. (If instead you feel that I have gone against Wikipedia's policies, guideline and guiding principles, feel free to address the issue on my talk page or through whatever dispute resolution suggestion you feel is appropriate, up to and including discussing my behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in the hopes of anything from a firm warning from an administrator up to a community consensus to ban me from the project.) Thanks. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
My apologies, I thought the problem was likely due to you when I read your responses to the other rare person who bothered to try to explain the same thing wrong with this article. But likely the problem is cultural. All I can say is read an encyclopedia about a topic some day--it reads nothing like this. My problem isn't at all with what has been removed from this article, but the constant beating over the head that has been added in editorial style. I can hardly believe the tale that you were simply reducing "a disjointed pile of random claims"... the problem, I'll state again at the risk of being called vague, is the littering of debunking facts (and I have no problem calling them facts) as though the reader cannot research the individual topics, such as chi (or qi, or whatever) and discover for themselves the controversy. The blue links here work, did you know? People are free to continue on to have a more fleshed out understanding of those controversies without the tiresome dogging that this article has become entirely.203.81.71.11 (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
@74.50.214.39 I'll make a good-faith attempt to explain to you why this article (and others like it) look the way they do. To make an assertion on Wikipedia, you need a WP:reliable source. For any biomedical information (e.g. anything about healing people), the bar on reliable sources is raised to WP:MEDRS. Since Reiki claims to be a system of healing, you would need a MEDRS source to back any assertion you make about its practice or efficacy. No such sources exist to indicate the Reiki actually does anything at all. Therefore, any description of what it is supposed to do, or how you are supposed to do it, needs to be phrased in such a way as to make it clear that these are unsubstantiated claims rather than facts. You can't say 'Reiki does blah blah blah' - you can only say 'Reiki advocates claim that it does blah blah blah'. This does tend to make any article a bit verbose, and even repetitive, but it's policy; and, unfortunately, it's necessary. There are people out there who would seek to use flimsy self-published sources to create a whole article, and then relegate the fact that there is no evidence that Reiki is effective to a small 'criticism' section at the end of the article. And remember, these aren't necessarily good-hearted people out to help others - Reiki practitioners charge their customers real money. We need to defend Wikipedia from people with vested interests in representing the world as other than it really is.
If there are specific things that you would want the article to beef up, if there are particular things that you want to know, then do please specify what it is you want it to say. You don't need to have the sources yourself, just say what you think is missing. Vague complaints about 'this article is poorly conceived' don't really get us anywhere, and personal attacks on individual editors are completely unwelcome.Girth Summit (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
What I would like is a basic synopsis and exploration of the presumptions of reiki, but what we have is an article that lapses into nagging critical essay. Once again, the editors here are asking an utterly uninformed person to effectively state what they simply do not know and could not derive from the information presented--no sentence in the article goes unanswered with some debunking quip. While I agree that there is a great need to defend against people with vested interests, this article is a gross over-correction that fails in a basic need of something that purports to be an encyclopedia to, god forbid, describe the basic assumptions of the subject. You chose to cite the brevity of the title I chose to use for this discussion as vague, but I've happily stated all that is missing. There is literally nothing here! If you were to start this article from scratch and remove everything but well cited facts about the subject, sure, it might not contain a lot of reputable sources, but at least it would fit the alleged title of this article (its "Reiki", not "Everything We Found Wrong About Reiki"). It would likely be a more enjoyable read that doesn't waste the reader's time with "life saving" guardrails.
I am happy turn your guidance back into guidance that should be used for this article. You said:
" You can't say 'Reiki does blah blah blah' - you can only say 'Reiki advocates claim that it does blah blah blah'."
At no point in this article does it suffice with this fair language that I agree should be the ideal encyclopedic statement. Far from it. Read it again? At no point are the claims of Reiki stated as such.
203.81.71.11 (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Something like "Reiki is a form of alternative medicine developed in 1922 by Japanese Buddhist Mikao Usui. Since originating in Japan, reiki has been adapted into varying cultural traditions across the world. Reiki practitioners use a technique called palm healing or hands-on healing through which a "universal energy" is supposedly transferred through the palms of the practitioner to the patient in order to encourage emotional or physical healing."? - ~ SummerPhDv2.0 19:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
The two sentence preamble reads admittedly much lighter than the rest of the article (but not without little hints of all the criticism to come), which, like I said, is heavily buttered with everything I have been saying. As you learn in introductory college writing classes, it can be hard to edit your own essays--which this article is.19:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we could just say "It's like The Force in Star Wars, but come people actually believe it and/or use it as a hook for health fraud". That says 90% of what one needs to know about this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It basically reads in coded form like this already, likely from similar petty individuals who aren't content beating the topic up on reddit. The attitude is well-conveyed. Great encyclopedia ya'll are running here.74.50.214.233 (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. Do you have any concrete suggestions? - SummerPhDv2.0 20:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Spend more than 3% of the article text explaining the concepts behind reiki. Not in the form of a vague preamble, not obstruce entomological history, not a vast and very well groomed supersection on criticisms and controversies. Explain, in an encyclopedic article, the subject of the article of itself for lay-persons to come away with literally any information about, which this article contains none of aside from a small blurb about palm-waiving.74.50.214.233 (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Also, not at all surprising that someone can come along and boldly make fun at the topic of hand, but you take issue with my reply to that. Golden.74.50.214.233 (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and if you are going to spend so much of your precious time right-fighting on this article, perhaps strive for something better than Category:Delisted_good_articles74.50.214.233 (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Do you have independent reliable sources for this material you would like us to add? - SummerPhDv2.0 21:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Biiig shocker I got reverted. Hyperlink for future would-be contributors to understand the level of defensiveness at play in the maintenance of this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reiki&diff=prev&oldid=844882470 74.50.214.186 (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

In terms of the lead, I'd be looking for something clearer than "alleged". We're not trying to convey that they are wrong about transferring "universal energy". Rather, the point should be that they say they are transferring an energy which apparently does not exist. It's the difference between thinking you are pumping water out of your basement when the water doesn't seem to be moving and thinking you are pumping water out of your basement when there is no indication there is any water to begin with. - SummerPhDv2.0 21:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Much as I'd love to go to 3RR land over the difference between "alleged" and "supposedly"..... and nevermind the pop-over on the "universal energy" text is plenty informative without the vague and very unencyclopedic usages of quotes. I think the pettiness involved in that revert kind of sums up "the problem" (yay another barnstar!) going on with this blatantly terrible article. I'll leave it up to the next person who cares enough to bother to come along and try to describe to your well staked-out tribe why this article fails, but I'm satisfied with the record as it is and won't be back.74.50.214.180 (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Edit warring over a word would be a great way to get blocked. If that's your goal here, you've found a method that is sure to work. If, instead, you'd like to try to improve the article, feel free to discuss that issue.
I've asked for additional independent reliable sources. If you have any to provide, that would be helpful. If not, there is no way to add the additional material you wish were here. - SummerPhDv2.0 21:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Using an allegory: you demand we build a house, but there are no bricks, mortar, concrete, wood, adobe or any other materials thatn we could use. People keep asking you where we can find those materials, but you don't know either.
No materials, no house. No sources, no article improvement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that this is been a very entertaining discussion. I'm saving your wisdom for when I have to have future discussions about pseudoscience topics like this. Trust me there are a lot of lurkers learning from you all.Sgerbic (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
As credit to the complaint that this article is poorly conceived, I still do not know what reiki is claimed to be after reading this article. If I were to compare this article to something, that some people believe in, like an Angel. I come out far less informed after reading this article compared to the angel article. The aim is to be more informative, and less about trying to tell people what to believe. Am I wrong? - Socceruci (talk) 4:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Did you not see this sentence in the lead?
"Reiki practitioners use a technique called palm healing or hands-on healing through which a "universal energy" is said to be transferred through the palms of the practitioner"
That is what they do. Put their hands on you and put qi in you. What more do you need? Where they put the hands? How they learn to do it? What is missing? --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
You forgot the waving of hands in the air in the shape of strange symbols, which I always see as the sigils of witchcraft fame. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I get the criticism here in the talk page, and I think we have mutual incomprehension. This article is written from a medical standpoint, but some visitors expect more in-depth cultural information. Compare with the German Reiki article; way fewer sources, but more information about the history of Reiki. Maybe the "Origins" paragraph needs some fleshing out. --Kraligor (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Other wikis have different standards. We can't really gauge anything by a blanket comparison like that. The independent reliable sources that we have don't say much about the origins, so we don't say much about origins. If there are independent reliable sources that you are aware of that do, please bring them here. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
There you go: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4034623/ If I find the time, I'll expand the Origins section a bit with that source. --Kraligor (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure that we should be using that reference. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Can you elaborate? The Linacre Quarterly is a peer-reviewed journal. --Kraligor (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Says who? I wouldn't think it a good source for history in general, skimming the references gave me the impression that it was not well-researched, and the author's credentials seem skimpy. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it is a peer-reviewed journal, but not all journals are created equal. This one had a jaw-droppingly low impact score of 0.15 (in 2015, it doesn't seem to have a score at all for 2016 and 2017).
From reading the article, it seems to be a regurgitation of a national organization. Were there some reason for us to believe that particular organization has some sort of primacy, we wouldn't be in this spot in the first place. If you want to know the consensus of dentists, citing the ADA (and similar orgs in other countries) is a pretty solid bet. What do medical doctors think? Check what the AMA says. Plumbers, electrical engineers, social workers, etc. each has its own recognized body. Reiki has dozens of organizations each claiming to be the recognized authority.
Further, the source is giving us that history not as a conclusion it is asserting, but merely as a broad background to assert that the question it is examining (whether a sort of spiritual/cultural warning/consent is needed before giving Reiki to Catholics) is relevant. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. I did some more precursory research, and found a very comprehensive source for the historico-cultural aspects of Reiki: Jonker, Jorian: Reiki. The Transmigration of a Japanese Spiritual Healing Practice (Nijmegen Buddhist and Asian Studies 3, 2016). Better? --Kraligor (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Better, but far from what we should be using. I'm not sure if it would be a helpful placeholder. It appears to be the authors doctoral thesis. He's a reiki practitioner, as well. I'd be very concerned about it having in-world perspective and accepting the lineage narrative for which he's a part. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really finding anything to indicate this is a reliable source. The publisher is not one I am familiar with and all I can really say after trying to find more about them is that they exist. At first blush, it seems to be another more-or-less self-published book of the type we removed so many of previously.
While every Reiki practitioner has their own understanding of the history, nature and methodology of Reiki, only an independent and reliable source can really give us any general information on "Reiki", rather than the version of Reiki they are familiar with. A similar problem would occur if we based Christianity on a single church saying what it is: the Pentecostals, Roman Catholics, AOGs, etc. would give vastly different answers. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Add a brief definition to lede

Let's add a second sentence to the lede defining reiki as an Energy medicine. Something not in-world, but that at least gives readers a brief idea of what it is before presenting it's origins and adoption.

I'm not easily finding a good reference. Maybe https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/308772.php though it is a bit brief, while https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/integrative_medicine_digestive_center/services/reiki.html jumps into the in-world woo rather quickly. --Ronz (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

How about this as a source? https://nccih.nih.gov/health/reiki/introduction.htm? It's directly from the NIH, and clearly defines it in the Energy medicine category. From the source, "Reiki is based on an Eastern belief in an energy that supports the body’s innate or natural healing abilities. However, there isn’t any scientific evidence that such an energy exists." --Btcgeek (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I moved the information about origins and adoption to a third paragraph for the lede, and added "energy healing" to the first sentence. [3]. I'm not sure if we really need further refs. --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This [4] might be a reasonable source to expand the origins section and provide a bit more historical context. It's funny though since this article actually says "there is a lot of confusion about what reiki therapy actually is." Upon further review, I actually don't think this is a quality source. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Another possible source: [5] TylerDurden8823 (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Reiki origins

I’d like to add my research on the historical and philosophical origins. There’s a lot of misinformation in other sources. Gnuhouse (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it published research in reliable sources, or is it your own original research, unpublished? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Revision, “pseudoscience” to “holistic system”

Term “holistic system” factually more accurate and consistent with treatment of similar energy based metaphysical modalities such as Qi Gong (see article <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qigong /ref> where “holistic system” used). The term “pseudoscience” is a value statement not reflecting encyclopedic more objective orientation of Wikipedia.

Reiki “hands on healing” is one of five aspects to the holistic system (system also includes meditation, symbols, mantras, philosophic precepts, etc. see books by Frans Stiene, International House of Reiki et al) so may also want to consider revision of article. Also worth noting that similar to therapeutic touch and Qi Gong “hands on” is not considered essential to the practice.

I have both an M.A. and Phd in Philosophy and have conducted deep research on Reiki Philosophy and practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdreisbach (talk • contribs) 23:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a WP:FRINGE topic. In dependent reliable sources state that Reiki is pseudoscience. It purports to be scientific (and cure diseases) but is clearly contrary to relevant academic consensus. As such, Wikipedia describes it as pseudoscience. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
It's absolutely pseudoscience. The use of more flowery terminology such as "holistic system" to water this truth down is inappropriate. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Also, appealing to credentials is useless in Wikipedia. Nobody cares who you are. But if there are reliable scientific secondary sources that come to a different conclusion than the sources already cited, possibly by favorably quoting your work, we can cite those. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The synthesis of this interaction, IMO, is that someone needs to take a look at Qigong and give a less credulous tone to its healing claims. The benefits of Qigong are those of any other type of similar exercise, "Qi" doesn't exist and TCM is pseudoscience, that sort of thing. VdSV9•♫ 13:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
handwaving about this subject is really funny. Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

References

I've been going through the References section and there are a number of errors that need correcting.

Duplicated References:

  1. 2 = #39 Lee et al.
  2. 43 = #44 = #47 Catholic Bishops guidelines

Page Not Found:

  1. 6 NCCIH
  2. 41 NCCIH

Citation is not about Reiki:

  1. 5 page has no reference to Reiki
  2. 21 Rosa et al: on therapeutic touch
  3. 27 Gorski et al: no mention of Reiki or pseudoscience.
  4. 28 Kolata in NYTimes: referring to #21 on therapeutic touch
  5. 35 Sarner: on therapeutic touch

Citation has an extremely weak reference to Reiki:

  1. 24 Winchester: this book is about Skulls. One page has a brief mention of pseudoscience.
  2. 25 Donlan: this book does not claim Reiki is a pseudoscience.
  3. 32 Reiboldt: Reiki is not a topic in this encyclopedia.

Incomplete representation of the literature:

  1. 29 Shiflett et al: Wikipedia text does not clarify that the study involved post-stroke victims and does not mention the "selective positive effects" noted by the authors.
  2. 31 Ferraresi et al: Wikipedia text does not mention the stated positive effect of Reiki noted by the authors.

I have no expertise in Japanese or Chinese, so will need someone else to check that section. Feedback please? Pamxz (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

A few to check off:
Duplicated References:
  1. 2 = #39 Lee et al. While this refers to the same document, #2 refers to a specific line which is quoted in the ref while #39 refers to other material in the document. While it is possible to build a ref specific to the document and refer to it in other references (typically done for a book in which multiple cites point to different pages, I don't see enough benefit here to bother).
  2. 43 = #44 = #47 Catholic Bishops guidelines : Resolved.
Page Not Found:
  1. 6 NCCIH : The title links to the original URL, "Archived" links to a backup.
  2. 41 NCCIH : The title links to the original URL, "Archived" links to a backup.
Citation is not about Reiki:
  1. 5 page has no reference to Reiki : The first link is to a dead URL, dumping onto the sites general page. The "Archived" link shows the original document.
  2. 21 Rosa et al: on therapeutic touch : The source does not refer to reiki. I've removed it. The material cited to it, however, has a second source.
  3. 27 Gorski et al: no mention of Reiki or pseudoscience. : The convenience link is to the pubmed abstract, which does not mention reiki or pseudoscience. The cite itself is to the underlying article, accessible through pubmed if you have access. The article itself is appropriate. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The Kolata NYTimes article does not use the word Reiki nor imply it in any way. I've read it carefully three times now -- it has no relevance to a Reiki Wikipedia article. It should be removed as a reference, as you have done with its primary topic, the Rosa paper.

Wikipedia guidelines state that Age Matters, and that newer sources are preferred. I suggest we use the new NCCIH website instead of an archived page: https://nccih.nih.gov/health/reiki-info

Pamxz (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reiki/Archive_13&oldid=1137119756"