This is an archive of past discussions about Reiki. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
From my reading of WP:FRINGE/ALT, reiki is an alternative theoretical formulation, not a fringe view, as it does not propose changes in the basic laws of nature (e.g. creationism) but rather purports to work with natural forces that are as yet poorly understood.
Not a WP:MEDRS source. Studies are not enough. Homeopthy and acupuncture have studies, and they are pseudoscience. You need well-received secondary sources that analyze those primary studies and conclude that it works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Can this be expanded to the history and cultural aspects of the topic and not just comment calling it placebo. The Inkling 12:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YourCaptMorgan (talk • contribs)
I agree with Hob. We simply reflect what high-quality scientific sources say about reiki. They are highly critical of it being bunk and rightly so. I have yet to see any compelling evidence published in a reputable journal or a compelling argument to suggest otherwise. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the only wikipedia article I've ever come across where it was so obviously biased in its presentation that I actually bothered going to the talk section to point it out. The person claims that if others want to "cleanse information" they do not like that they're "in the wrong place" while essentially doing that himself. Every single statement about anything contained within it is immediately refuted, a pointless exercise that's (thankfully) not even replicated in articles on something as ridiculous as Nazism.
The fact that it's the same person replying to virtually every instance of others oberserving the hack job only reinforces the likelihood that it's more a crusade against something they have a personal relationship with than an objective criticism. I'm thankful that whoever's flavored this article hasn't spread the same unfortunate character to a significant amount of other articles as well. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic site, not a biased party's newsfeed. You want to refute the claims? Put it in a "controversies" or whatever section rather than littering your retorts throughout the entire page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsaakHyde (talk • contribs) 17:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
You haven't made much sense with your comments above, so I wont respond except to say that we use good sources to support what is written about this therapy, per wikipedia policy. To change it, you need to supply reliable sources too, WP:RS and medically reliable sources for biomedical claims, WP:MEDRS. Sources are all important on wikipedia. - Roxy thedog18:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
@Roxy the dog I was interested in understanding the concept of this subject. The bias here gets in the way of the information. I'm looking for the definition, history, and spiritual components of this concept. A section about the medical significance or lack thereof, that I could skip over, would be tolerable but this is just an annoying read. The implication of being pseudoscience could be stated once but is repeated and takes away from the subject matter. Maybe an article on pseudoscience with Rieki listed under a different title could get your point across. I know what pseudoscience is; this is not what I came here to learn about. Definition and history. There are plenty of sources to support the definition and history. Wikipedia isn't a medical journal. 216.255.44.231 (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Since all reliable sources regard Reiki as pseudoscience, that is what the article says; if that annoys you, there is nothing we can do about it. If someone has reliable sources for what you want, they can add it. Without reliable sources, it cannot be added. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Author: Dawn A. Marcus was a professor of anesthesiology and associate professor of neurology
Published in a peer-reviewed journal with 40 years of publication highlighting the interdisciplinary team approach to hospice and palliative medicine. Jonthedrummer (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
If you need a source with a literature review, then the above is cited in:
Alarcão, Z. and Fonseca, J.R., 2016. The effect of Reiki therapy on quality of life of patients with blood cancer: results from a randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Integrative Medicine, 8(3), pp.239-249.
The European Journal of Integrative Medicine is a quarterly peer-reviewed medical journal covering integrative and alternative medicine
If any of these sources are not compliant for any other reasons, it would be helpful if you could point out what those reasons are. 90.152.60.250 (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
This is at least not primary. I suspect there is something wrong with it but I do not know what. I will leave further responses to medical experts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
The full text of the review is less than one page long. The full conclusion of the report is reproduced here - "While the number of studies is limited, based on the size Cohen’s d 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." -
On the subject of currency, I've noticed that source 7[1] in the article points to a study from 2007. There is an updated version of the same study. Shall we fix that link?
The small sample sizes for Thrane and Cohen (2014) are a problem and, for that reason, I would agree that this source is not sufficient to overrule any other sources this article already has. But I would disagree that anybody is claiming to overrule anything here. The aim of research is to refine knowledge, not overrule it.
Your other criticisms seem to be based on the idea that nurses are not sufficiently qualified in the field of pain management. I don't know if psychiatrists are psychologists are necessarily better qualified in that arena.
It could be worth including simply to qualify (not necessarily counter) the stance that research does not show it to be effective for *any* condition.
It could also serve as a reference to inform the opening paragraph which in its current form seems to be a misrepresentation of what practitioners believe. Jonthedrummer (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Re: 2007 vs 2015, yep. Done.The aim of research is to refine knowledge, not overrule it.And we are not engaged in research here. We are engaged in writing an encyclopedia. In fact, to do research here is considered a violation of the policies and guidelines.Your other criticisms seem to be based on the idea that nurses are not sufficiently qualified in the field of pain management. I don't know if psychiatrists are psychologists are necessarily better qualified in that arena. Physicians are more qualified to conduct medical research into anxiety and pain. Nurses must have prescriptions already made on patients before they can dispense efficacious treatments for these conditions. Since Reiki is just touching hands onto people and saying "presto!" it doesn't require a prescription. In fact, I'm doing it to myself right now. I feel nothing.It could be worth including simply to qualify (not necessarily counter) the stance that research does not show it to be effective for *any* condition.Nope. We only include content from the highest quality sources on biomedical topics of illness and disease. To apply a source like this which makes no attempt to overrule the decades of research demonstrating not only no effect, but no plausible mechanism for any effect, would be pushing a FRINGE pov unsupported by the scientific consensus.It could also serve as a reference to inform the opening paragraph which in its current form seems to be a misrepresentation of what practitioners believeWhat qualifies these authors to be the authoritative source on what all Reiki practitioners believe? As far as I am aware, they are not scholars of Reiki, its history, or its anthropological aspects. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)17:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Nobody suggested that editors should be the ones doing the research. I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion.
"We only include content from the highest quality sources on biomedical topics of illness and disease". Could you perhaps consider removing content citing source 12? This is, by your own metric, not appropriate. Jonthedrummer (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
^Joyce, Janine; Herbison, G Peter (2007-10-17), "Reiki treatment for psychological symptoms", in The Cochrane Collaboration (ed.), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. CD006833, doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006833
Repetition and Redundancy
I'd like to spark a discussion purely on the repetition found throughout the first half of the article. Clearly, there's no evidence to support Reiki as anything but pseudoscience, but the article feels VERY heavy-handed on that note, which affects its tone and makes it feel biased when it's not. We only need to say it's unproven poppycock so many times before it's redundant and counterproductive, and if a reader doesn't get that after saying it once or twice they probably never will.
I'd attempt a cleanup of my own, but after reading the Talk here it's clear at least one person has made it their mission to gatekeep the page, plus I have no experience on the subject anyway. There's my two cents on the matter. Mousenight (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Sanctions apply to this article. Please strike out your accusations about your fellow editors, then work to gain consensus with them in a civil and collaborative manner as our behavioral policies require. Focus on content, references, and policies. --Hipal (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2023
This edit request to Reiki has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This article states unequivocally that reiki is pseudoscience with no scientific evidence, however this is an outdared view.
The NIH National Library of Medicine states that 'Reiki Is Better Than Placebo and Has Broad Potential as a Complementary Health Therapy', the title of a scientific paper which collates and reviews the evidence of 13 peer reviewed studies. This study by David E. McManus is conducted using scientific methods and should be reflected in the Wikipedia article.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5871310/
Further such modern studies and reviews exist:
British Medical Journal of Supportive & Palliative Care, 2019 Dec. Reiki therapy for pain, anxiety and quality of life.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30948444/
It is increasingly believed that the evidence base for energy medicine is now much more substantive (Reiki is now offered in settings such as John Hopkins), and this should be reflected in a rewrite of this article to reflect current thinking. 77.102.150.252 (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm new to this. Can you please explain how the McManus article is primary? He is reviewing 13 other studies (they are primary), and in the article he does discuss and critique methods used by those studies. I understand how the second article is primary, now I have read the wiki information referenced above by your colleague. Thanks. 77.102.150.252 (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
The McManus article is in a disreputable journal; the other might be okay but all it does is say that Reiki doesn't work (with some vague hopium wording threaded round that). Bon courage (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Page needs a section on history and practices, more than just scientific critique
As a reader wanting to find out what this thing was, I found this page uninformative, because this page has very little content explaining what Reiki actually is. An encyclopedic article should actually attempt to explain what the subject is before critiquing it. A reader would expect to find information about what practices are involved in Reiki, how widely it is practiced, the cultural context and history behind this practice, and the spiritual or religious beliefs of the practitioners. Instead, there are about two or three sentences distributed throughout the article actually explaining what Reiki is. Even academic journal articles that ultimately serve to 'debunk' or 'disprove' the practice do a better job of explaining Reiki in the introduction. For example.
Yes, there is absolutely no doubt in the scientific community that this practice is a pseudoscience, and no serious academic or expert is claiming that it can replace medicine for treatment of disease. But an encyclopedia article about a pseudoscientific topic should tell the reader more about the subject than just repeatedly going over the fact that it's pseudoscience/ not scientifically supported. As a reminder, under WP:What wikipedia is not, pages should not be written like scientific journal articles, and in terms of encyclopedic content, when writing about pseudoscientific or fringe beliefs there is more to the subject than whether or not it is scientifically proven. Otherwise the articles about things like Greek mythology, various religions, or UFO conspiracy theories would be very short and unhelpful.
Numerous well-written pages about pseudoscientific theories exist which do more than merely reiterate that their subject lacks scientific evidence. As an example, see the page on astrology, which has been rated as a good article by Wikipedia standards. That article clearly acknowledges its subject as pseudoscience, yet includes, among other things, a detailed explanation of principles and practice, theological points of views about astrology, a history section explaining how it was practiced over the ages, and it's cultural impact. Moreover, the scientific critique of Astrology indeed makes up an important part of the article and is given the space on the page it is due, but this is organised into its own section and does not effectively take up the entire article.
Strangely, there is also a relatively (in relation to the rest of the article) substantial section on the Catholic Church's concerns, which I question the relevance of in accordance with WP:UNDUE given that they are not historically or culturally involved in the practice of Reiki in a significant way, nor are they a scientific or medical body. Notably, this section has arguably more content than the parts of the article actually explaining what Reiki is and what its practices entail.
On a separate note, despite Reiki not having any scientific evidence as a treatment for disease, some, including a recent study in the BMJ, argue that it may have some benefits at least in the setting of palliative care, including pain management and certain psychological benefits. While these benefits may not be strictly biomedical in nature, that does not mean they should be ignored. Even from a medical perspective, doctors commonly use a bio-psycho-social framework to wholistically take into account different aspects of patient wellbeing, recognizing that there is more to 'wellbeing' than just a person's medical status, and this can include things like a person's psychology or state of mind.
As I came across this article seeking information about the practice and context behind it, I am not the person to research and add this information, but this article is seriously lacking in comparison to other articles about pseudoscientific theories and practices. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I would WP:SOFIXIT as suggested, but as I mentioned earlier someone who looked up this page seeking information about the subject to begin with is probably not the best person to be adding the required information. This would require someone versed in the history and cultural context behind the subject matter. I have changed the article's rating adhering to WP:ASSESS as the next best thing, with the reasons stated above being the rationale for this downgrade. Hopefully others users more knowledgeable about the relevant areas of the subject will take the comments here as an invitation to contribute to the page and fill in those gaps. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
My downgrade to the article's rating was changed without sufficient explanation. Under WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL, users are expected to explain their changes, including reversions in edit summaries. The user, in this instance, failed to do this as such, I have reverted the article's rating to Start class. In general, articles about a 'thing' should start by explaining the subject matter. Any such article which fails to satisfactorily explain its subject matter to begin with should never be given a rating higher than Start. If anyone disagrees with me, they are welcome to debate this on the talk page. In the alternative, an independent review can always be requested which would not be a bad idea in this instance.
What is wrong with Reiki practitioners use a technique called palm healing or hands-on healing through which, according to practitioners, a "universal energy" is transferred through the palms of the practitioner to the patient, to encourage emotional or physical healing. That does explain what Reiki is and what its practices entail. If you do not find this "satisfactory", you should explain why not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
This is obviously not a "start class" article and marking it as such seems distinctly WP:POINT-y. These assessments are internal flags for WikiProjects to help their work, and not some kind of "badge of shame" opportunity. Bon courage (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Well it looks like there actually have been some improvements made to the article since my original comment on January 29, so in it's current form, it may be more in line with a C-class article. Though as already noted on the tag in the article, it would benefit from expanding on the history section and cultural context . I'll give credit where it's due, you have my thanks for improving the article in response to those comments. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Inaccurate references to dispute of claim
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.
The above quote claims there is no evidence for "chi", but the citations are only in relation to no scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of Reiki. Reiki itself is not the defining proof of "chi" and even if Reiki is bunk, "chi" might not be. The above should be edited to something like:
This edit request to Reiki has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
ADD: History of Reiki
Mikao Usui is noted as a founder of Reiki. Usui lived in Japan between 1865 and 1926.[1] A memorial to the life of Usui was erected by his students at the Saijoji Temple in the Toyotoma district of Tokyo in 1927.[2] The Usui memorial stone is 10 feet high and 4 feet wide.[3][4][5]Slsample (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
On the page about Mikao Usui, the creator of the practice, Reiki is described as a spiritual practice. However, here on this page it is discussed only as a pseudoscientific healing modality. Either the fact that the practice is also, or perhaps primarily, spiritual path should be acknowledged on the current page, or else a disambiguation landing page is needed. This would avoid confusion because spiritual and scientific practices have different purposes and are evaluated using different criteria and much of the current page is devoted to evaluating Reiki as science only. 2601:183:4601:990:4C8F:3A02:60C8:EBC5 (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Most pastors/priests do not pretend to heal people. If they practice faith healing, we rightly lambast them as WP:LUNATICS.
So, yes, we do have respect for the religion of pastors/priests. But we have absolutely no respect for faith healing. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
There is no confusion here. To believe a "life-force energy" exists requires faith, as opposed to observational evidence. This fact is exactly why Reiki is a pseudoscience. Science requires empirical evidence, faith does not. And as soon as practitioners use the term "healing" they are asserting that they can provide medical treatment. So they claim to provide medical treatment by harnessing an energy which cannot be shown to exist (or not exist). Again, no confusion here. This is the perfect example of a pseudoscience. It's exactly because they use spiritual faith-based belief to make scientific claims that it is a pseudoscience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoralMoney (talk • contribs)
The placebo claim is incorrect
Initial proposed change:
There is no proof of the effectiveness of reiki therapy compared to placebo changed to Studies have shown that Reiki therapy is more effective than a placebo[1]
There's no source given for the claim that there is no proof of Reiki's effectiveness compared to placebo, and there are studies that show its effectiveness beyond placebo (see source).
In addition, the sentence In 2011, William T. Jarvis of The National Council Against Health Fraud stated that there "is no evidence that clinical reiki's effects are due to anything other than suggestion" or the placebo effect. should be struck for accuracy
^McManus DE. Reiki Is Better Than Placebo and Has Broad Potential as a Complementary Health Therapy. J Evid Based Complementary Altern Med. 2017 Oct;22(4):1051-1057. doi: 10.1177/2156587217728644. Epub 2017 Sep 5. PMID: 28874060; PMCID: PMC5871310.
Lock this article?
Can wiki editors lock this article for a bit? It seems like it has been headed toward an edit war. There are sound, logical arguments that Reiki is a pseudoscience, however those arguments are not being heard. Perhaps those wanting to change this have too much stake in the Reiki industry? MoralMoney (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
There seems to be a tentative consensus that the term quackery is considered too loaded to be contained in the lead. Reversions of removals of such are not appreciated without full consensus. I furthermore object to the removal of the POV Template, @Valjean. Please revert, or I will do so myself. -Konanen (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Meh, some have opined that quackery is not fitting. But rationally I fail to see why Reiki should not be called quackery: they are pretending that they are able to heal people suffering from real diseases. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Konanen, your own statements above, and those of a now topic banned editor, don't count for much in a discussion of this topic as you reveal a lack of understanding of how we allow biased terminology in articles when they are backed by RS. Quackery is not exactly synonymous with pseudoscience, and is a properly-sourced term. Enough with the whitewashing of Reiki. The word is in the second paragraph, not first, so be happy for that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I’ve seen this discussion for a bit now, only started reading up on it today. I have not seen any valid evidence or arguments provided by anyone (be it the now topicbanned editor or any others) to support why we cannot call a duck a duck in wikivoice, so to speak. It is a medical pseudoscience and that fact is not disputed by any reputable scientists. People do dispute (rightfully so) how much of a placebo effect reiki has on people - but there is broad consensus that there is no scientific basis for any actual effect resulting from the reiki treatment. Unless editors intend to start attempting to prove this assertion wrong (against the plethora of sources in the article now, in other words virtually impossible), I think it would be good to seek further topic bans, as it is unproductive to allow people who refuse to accept pseudoscience as pseudoscience to participate in the topic area and waste time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
To clarify my views - the article is neutral, it simply calls a duck a duck, which some people who think a duck is a unicorn (at least sometimes) don’t like. That is not grounds for an NPOV tag, it is not grounds for removing the statements calling a duck a duck, and it’s not grounds for including immense detail of those who call a duck a unicorn. The article is more than sufficient in the claims of efficacy and how they’ve been debunked, as well as noting its historical significance (though that section correctly has an expansion needed tag, which is proper imo). There is absolutely no grounds for NPOV tags just because some people don’t like the fact we report facts as they are, not as the person wants them to be. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Personally I don’t see a problem with it - to find the energy medicine sentence it’s in a different article. I’d be neutral to a rewording to something like is a form of energy healing, a pseudoscientific category of treatments, but it’s longer and I don’t see any real benefit in it since it’s not actually repetitive. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
NPOV tag
I completely understand why @Valjean: added the NPOV tag back - but I think it is prudent to start a discussion to allow people to identify exactly what is not neutral about this article. If no editor comes with a new argument as to why the article is non-neutral within a week or so (7 days), at the absolute most, then it should be removed. For the record, I am against an NPOV tag and I see no neutrality issue - but I am opening this section to allow for the discussion to take place and any editor with neutrality concerns for this article to come forward and present the exact concerns for resolution. I understand the above discussion is still ongoing - but that discussion is about one specific thing (the word quackery and more broadly the use of pseudoscience as a descriptor).
If that is the only concern, it is better addressed by simply removing it until a consensus forms here (even though one seems close already), rather than a tag at the top of the article as a badge of shame. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I think in the current article I agree with you - but in the potential article size, it isn’t. It seems a bit interesting that the Catholic church (which has a foothold on a significant minority if not majority of hospitals in the USA) has formulated a viewpoint on it that has resulted in it being effectively banned from those hospitals. Perhaps the section could/should be reworked to be about the medical practice in the USA rather than the Catholic church - but it’s still significant given the number of practicing Catholics in the world imo. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I think that the bits about the Catholic Church ultimately serve the same purpose as the pseudoscientific label, only for a different audience. Skeptics say "Reiki is pseudoscience, so don't do it!" That's a good thing for us to say, but it only speaks to a minority of our readers. The Catholics say "Reiki is sinful, so don't do it!" List of religious populations says about 30% of the world is Christian. I wonder if we could find a similar statement from a Muslim group, so we could address the next 25% of the world's population, or from a Hindu group, for another 15%. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I do not agree that there needs to be any qualified raison d’être of the POV tag that delivers any further justification other than those I have given about my POV concerns on WP:NPOV/N. Indeed, the Dispute over tags section at WP:TAGGING clearly states:
Some tags, such as {{POV}}, often merely indicate the existence of one editor's concern, without taking a stand whether the article complies with Wikipedia policies. It is important to remember that the POV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is a current discussion about whether the article complies with the neutral point of view policy. In any NPOV dispute, there will usually be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some who disagree. In general, you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved or—according to the rules for this specific template—when the discussion has stopped for a significant length of time.
The discussion has been stagnant for all of six (6) days, and I would argue that that does not qualify as a significant length of time. I do not know about others, but I tend to be WP:BUSY in my social, academic, and professional life, and usually have time during public holidays, sick days, or especially low-activity weekends to edit on Wikipedia. While that is neither here nor there, since I trust I need not justify six days’ lack of engagement on my part to anyone (There is no requirement in Wikipedia policies that editors must "pay their dues" by working on an article before they can add a tag, so long as they explain the rationale for the tag on the talk page, as per WP:DRIVEBY), I nonetheless do not think the current discussion, which involves quite a few editors, and is lacking a clear consensus (though it does indicate enough difference of opinion to warrant a prolonged discussion) justifies the removal of the POV tag. -Konanen (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
If neither you nor anyone else is able to start "a current discussion about whether the article complies with the neutral point of view policy", then yes, it should be removed. You've not been so busy as to avoid replying a dozen times on ANI in the past 2 days. So you shouldn't be too busy to actually address your tag here. As you quote: so long as they explain the rationale for the tag on the talk page. There's a clear consensus you're wrong - so the WP:ONUS is now on you to clarify why you think this tag is necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
"I do not agree that there needs to be any qualified raison d’être of the POV tag that delivers any further justification ..." You are incorrect. The tag is a "cleanup tag", meant to draw other editors to participate in resolving the POV issue that you have identified when you add the tag. If you don't leave an explanation identifying the issue then whatever the issue is cannot be resolved. The tag cannot be left to say "this article isn't neutral!" with no follow-up, that is not its purpose, and it is also improper to add the tag with a promise to explain later. With the discussion at NPOVN being substantially resolved (in spite of your objection to the resolution; see WP:CONSENSUS) I will now remove the tag. If you have a different POV issue to discuss then you may wish to re-add the tag when you start a new discussion. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I fully agree with the removal by @Ivanvector:. Drive-by tagging is not appreciated around here. Unless one is committed to fully defending the tag in the long run, one should not tag an article. As Tim Minchin puts it in "Storm" (a hilarious and instructive nine-minute-beat poem about alternative medicine), "I've dug this far down. So I figure, in for a penny, in for a pound."
At the end of this part, he even alludes to Reiki:
"Look, Storm, sorry I don't mean to bore you but there's no such thing as an aura! Reading Auras is like reading minds or tea-leaves or star-signs or meridian lines These people aren't applying a skill, they're either lying or mentally ill Same goes for people who claim to hear God's demands or Spiritual healers who think they've got magic hands."
One has to be committed to defending that tag. As @HandThatFeeds: puts it:
"You cannot stonewall as the sole person disputing the POV tag, when multiple people have disagreed with you. See WP:SATISFY. If the consensus is that the article is NPOV, then you cannot simply demand the POV tag remain & drag out the discussion to keep it there."
That is very disruptive. It's time to walk away and stop kicking the dead horse. No one will lose any respect for you for doing so. On the contrary. It shows a collaborative spirit. I don't agree at all with your objections, yet I have removed the mention of "quackery" from the lead. Case closed. We've got better things to do around here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
USE OF TECHNICAL TERMS AS BUZZWORDS
The terms "scientific" and related forms, and "metaphysical" and related forms are used in ways that have little accuracy. This article should be rewritten to use such terms more carefully, or to avoid them altogether. As it stands this article is just twaddle. 100.4.205.238 (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
ways that have little accuracy What ways are those?
I have to agree with OP′s criticism. The first sentence in the article alone is showing bias by terming Reiki “pseudoscientific form of...”, which is not what Wikipedia is (or should be) about. It would already suffice to have “energy healing” link to the appropriate article where the efficacy of such healing methods are called into question.
In the first two paragraphs of the article, Reiki is again called a pseudoscience (though I am not aware of direct scientific claims made by Reiki practitioners), as well as “quackery”. This is, in my opinion, a serious breach of neutrality and objectivity, which is one of the fundamental principles guiding Wikipedia.
On a side note, the claim of clinical research not showing “reiki to be effective as a treatment for any medical condition” is, with the exception of Reference [6], seriously outdated, with support for the final conclusion that studies reporting positive effects having had methodological flaws being 15 years out of date, which is a very long time as seen from the lens of ever-evolving medical research. Indeed, there are a few results of clinical trials out there which suggest at least some benefit of reiki in managing pain and anxiety (e.g. doi:10.1093/eurjcn/zvae051, or doi:10.3389/fpysg.2022.897312), but I am not in the medical field and while I enjoy reading medical research, I cannot with certainty judge whether those trials/reviews have methodological flaws that would render the articles unreliable.
Going back to the topic at hand, the Wikipedia article goes on (Section: Conceptual Basis) to use loaded words such as “claim”, which the Manual of Style warns against, and reiterates the view of Reiki being “thus [a] pseudoscientific practice based on metaphysical concepts”. We again have a third (fourth?) mention of Reiki being a pseudoscientific practice, which is seriously and unduly influencing readers of this article by now, if it has not already happened in the first few paragraphs.
To be clear, I am not advocating for complete removal of all scepticism or reference to the questionability of Reiki from this article, but I am seriously calling out the assigned value, lacking impartiality and imbalance of its tone. --Konanen (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
You need to read WP:YESBIAS and WP:FRINGE. No, we will not hide the fact that reiki is bullshit behind the energy medicine link. WP:CLAIM says To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question. It does not say that this is always a bad thing. Here, it is not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I am going to ask you to retract the “bullshit” wording, and I am going to ask it only once. If you do not, I consider you as not acting in good faith or with neutrality, and will escalate this issue. Thank you. Konanen (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
"Bullshit" is just a short summary of what reliable sources say: magic handwaving is not effective against any afflictions. Pointing that out is not a violation of WP:NPOV and not a reason to violate WP:AGF. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
We try to avoid using terms like pseudoscientific unless they are used correctly. That is, we want to use this term when it's "strictly speaking, it's a type of pseudoscience" rather than "I like to call things pseudoscience when they don't work – let me tell you about the pile of pseudoscientific garbage I had to have hauled back to the car dealer's repair shop last week...".
If Reiki puts itself forward as a scientific practice, then it's pseudoscience. If it puts itself forward as a non-science (e.g., if Reiki were to claim to be a type of fine art, or a new religion), then it's not.
("Magic handwaving" can do wonders for people whose needs are primarily emotional. Human touch is important to human health.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Human touch is important to human health Yep.
--Dustfreeworld (talk) has hugged you! Hugs promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better (and hopefully wasn't meant as an invasion of personal space). Spread the WikiLove by hugging at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! This hug is not quackery, not pseudoscience. Hug others by adding {{subst:Hug}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
You state that "I am not aware of direct scientific claims made by Reiki practitioners" but the fundamental claim of Reiki is that it can "heal" people. It is often called the "Reiki system of natural healing." This is the scientific claim that Reiki is a form of medical treatment, which is defined as "the management and care of a patient to combat disease or disorder."
At its core, what makes Reiki a pseudoscience is that it relies on faith, not the scientific method. This is due to its claim that its healing powers come from the practitioner's control of a "life-force energy" when there is no empirical evidence that such an energy exists or can be controlled even if it does exist. Presently, any belief in a "life-force energy" is based on faith which is the opposite of belief based on science. MoralMoney (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that's correct. I don't think that Reiki relies on faith, and even if it did, faith isn't pseudoscience.
Religion/faith is a Non-science. There's a popular slogan that "non-science is nonsense", but like most slogans, it will lead you astray. Being non-science doesn't mean "wrong" or "pseudoscience". History, languages, and fine art are all non-science, but they're not nonsense and they're not pseudoscience. Non-sciene doesn't even mean unimportant; human values are non-science, and they're important.
I think the argument for Reiki being a pseudoscience is that it claims that a thing (qi) exists in the material world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Let's lay it out. The wiki article states that "Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method." The scientific method requires two main things: 1) a testable hypotheses, and 2) empirical data to test the hypothesis.
Reiki makes the claim that practitioners can use qi to "heal" people. This is not a testable hypothesis because we can't get data to support it. The reason is because this "life-force energy," or "qi" is not observable and cannot be shown to exist. Because Reiki formulates a hypothesis that is neither testable nor measurable or observable, it is the prototypical example of a pseudoscience.
To wit, if practitioners claimed that waving their hands around, concentrating and relaxing helps treat anxiety and perceptions of pain, then okay. We're being scientific. We can measure the gestures, we can measure perceptions of pain and anxiety and see if they relate. But as soon as you attribute the effects to "life force energy," something that cannot be observed, then it's a pseudoscience. It claims to be scientific and factual (with a cause and effect) but is incompatible with the scientific method because "qi" is unobservable an immeasurable. MoralMoney (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
MoralMoney, you said above that what makes Reiki a pseudoscience is that it relies on faith. I disagree with this statement. Your analysis here disagrees with that statement. The definition of pseudoscience disagrees with this statement. Reiki is IMO pseudoscientific, but not because it relies on faith. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, do you not know what a non-testable hypothesis or a testable hypothesis is? Testable hypotheses are the foundation of science. A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. Reiki posits a non-testable hypothesis because its causal variable is unobservable and requires a practitioner's faith for them to believe they are providing actual medical treatment. So, yes, it is most certainly their faith, as opposed to actual observation of a life-force energy, that makes their assertions untestable and therefore pseudoscience.
To elaborate, because I'm at a loss as to why you don't get this, a hypothesis may be impossible to test either 1) because it is logically impossible to falsify, or 2) one or more of the variables are unobservable. The statement that "alien lifeforms exist" is not testable because we cannot currently observe enough of the universe to prove this to be false. It requires faith to believe they exist. Honestly, I'm spelling this out like 1+1=2 here so please don't come back saying 1+1=3 anymore. MoralMoney (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, what are you doing? Anyone reading this will understand that Reiki practitioners don't just claim they are healing people. They claim they are healing people by using some kind of "life-force energy." Please see above to understand how and why that is pseudoscience. You should probably stop now. MoralMoney (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Some of them do. Consider what this source says: "none of these mechanisms make sense scientifically. Some believe trauma is stored in our cells and therapeutic touch can restore communication between cells (a claim cell biologists would definitely frown upon). Others say the iron in our blood creates an electromagnetic field as it circulates, and this aura can be manipulated. Finally, Reiki traditionalists simply claim to channel their god’s divine energy."
That last is strictly religious, and therefore not pseudoscience. Detecting the existence of and any changes in an electromagnetic field, on the other hand, should be easily testable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Given that both parties agree that Reiki is in fact a pseudoscience, that it purports to make scientific claims, and that said claims are not in fact science, and thus no change in relation to this point is currently required for this article, might I suggest that discussion on the finer points of what may or may not constitute a pseudoscience and which specific claims are pseudoscientific be relegated to a different forum? Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
@Konanen, ...pseudoscience ... “quackery” ... in my opinion, a serious breach of neutrality and objectivity...
Reference ... seriously outdated ... 15 years out of date, which is a very long time as seen from the lens of ever-evolving medical research.
15 years is nothing, since if one proves that Reiki works as intended they get a Nobel Prize in Medicine, and a Nobel Prize in Physics. WP:ECREE. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
While I agree that the intro does lean heavily into the "quackery" side of the facts which revolve around reiki, the use of the term "scientific" and "pseudoscience" is accurate. In referring to science, we are referencing the scientific method, which at its base involves making testable statements (hypotheses) and testing the validity of the statement with evidence. What is unscientific about reiki is it's claim that the healing effects are due to qi, or some universal energy. On its face this may sound like a testable hypothesis, but in practice it relies solely on faith. Faith and science are logical opposites, in that faith relies on belief without evidence while science requires evidence for the belief. While faith, in any form, may be beneficial to a healing process, it should not be confused with actual scientific-based medicine which can cure disease and treat injury.
The other problems with reiki come from the evidence used to support the more peripheral testable assertions. For example, if we set aside the faith-based aspects of reiki (i.e. the belief in qi) and focus on the claims of "healing," there is little support. I think what can be said is that reiki may relieve some specific subjective symptoms, such as perceptions of pain and levels of stress or anxiety, the claims that reiki can "heal" in any conventional sense of the term, are shown to be unsupported by evidence. So the claims that reiki can "heal" along with the lack of evidence for the claim, make reiki a pseudoscience.
Maintaining the statements regarding science are important to this article and to the people who inform themselves with the article. For example, if a parent believes that reiki has proven healing powers they may forgo conventional medical treatment for their child when the child faces a real illness which requires actual medical treatment. MoralMoney (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
It seems to be a pattern that you are tag-bombing alt-med articles. Even assuming that you're basically right: why so many tags? tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
”…assuming that you're basically right” Thanks. Perhaps the more appropriate question that we should ask would be: why our article has so many problems that need tagging/fixing? May be because those who would have fixed the problem were scared away already? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Going back to my initial point, saying that Reiki is a pseudoscientific form of energy healing implies that there is an actual scientific form of energy healing. I propose to strike that word without replacement from the sentence, since reference to pseudoscience is made elsewhere in the lead, so that the first sentence of the lede reads as follows:
Furthermore, I propose to remove the subclause referring to quackery from the first sentence of the second paragraph in the lead, for running afoul of WP:SOAPBOX, and because WP:YESBIAS does not allow editorial bias, which the inclusion of this word clearly is, since it serves no other purpose than to push a specific WP:POV unwarrantedly. In fact, the first reference [5] does not even use the word in question at all. All that the referred-to page 20 of the book has to say about reiki is:
These pseudoscientific theories may be based upon authority rather than empirical observation (e.g. old-school psychoanalysis, New Age psychotherapies, Thought Field Therapy), concern the unobservable (e.g. orgone energy, chi), confuse metaphysical with empirical claims (e.g. acupuncture, cellular memory, reiki (emphasis added), therapeutic touch, Ayurvedic medicine), or even maintain views that contradict known scientific laws (e.g. homeopathy).
— David Semple & Roger Smyth, “Psychomythology”, Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry (2013)
The other reference tagged to the word quackery, however, does attribute said word to Reiki. Yet that source amounts to nothing more than a WP:QUESTIONABLErant opinion piece whose inclusion in the lead definitely skews the balance of the article unduly. Thus, I propose the first sentence of the second paragraph to be modified as follows:
I welcome suggestions for additional changes or modifications of that last proposal, and I will be adding the {{POV}} template to the page immediately. Thank you for your consideration! –Konanen (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the word “quackery” is inappropriate. It strikes a slangy, unencyclopedic tone, and carries connotations of fraud that would need much stronger sourcing. For the practice to be genuinely fraudulent, practitioners would have to know that it’s nonsense, rather than merely having religious or spiritual beliefs about it. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
...the word “quackery” is inappropriate. It strikes a slangy, unencyclopedic tone, and carries connotations of fraud that would need much stronger sourcing.
"Quackery" is the standard terminology for medical pseudoscience, harsh though it may be on the ears. Definitions of "quackery" (such as those cited in our article on the term) do not require that quacks be frauds - sometimes they are just ignorant of proper medicine. MrOllie (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it's standard (the article is linked in 2,000 articles; we have more articles about medical pseudoscience than that), and I'm not sure that it's necessary. The implications of the word are different from "just wrong" (like a doctor recommending ineffective, though mainstream, cough syrup to someone with the common cold) or "pseudoscience" (like someone claiming that Haloperidol prevents psychotic breaks through quantum effects in the neural network).
Does anyone have the Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry source to hand to verify what exactly is said with respect to quackery? The only other source we have is essentially polemical. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
It says "These pseudoscientific theories may...confuse metaphysical with empirical claims (e.g., acupuncture, cellular memory, reiki, therapeutic touch, Ayurvedic medicine....". The word quackery is not used anywhere in the book, and this is the only sentence in the book that mentions reiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Just because that source doesn't mention quackery doesn't mean we can't use the word. I don't understand why some people are allergic to it. It's a good description of "over promotion of dubious methods". That's what quacks do, and is the working definition at Quackwatch, the world's foremost mainstream authorities on quackery. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
BTW, Reiki does not have to "puts itself forward as a scientific practice" for the word "pseudoscience" to apply. Quacks and charlatans never use pejoratives about themselves. What they "put themselves out to be" has no influence on the matter. Reiki makes falsifiable claims that go beyond the realm of religion and metaphysics. The moment a practice makes falsifiable claims, it enters the scientific arena where legitimate criticism applies. That's where many religions get in trouble. Their metaphysical claims are not pseudoscience, but their falsifiable claims are. That's where Christian Science and Creation science get in trouble. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not here to argue against using the word pseudoscience. That seems fine. Quackery, on the other hand, is not an appropriate term, since it has connotations of wrongdoing (fraudulence). I'm not swayed by the argument that quackery can also mean mere ignorance, because (a) dictionaries aren't aligned on this: e.g. a Google search for "quackery" (arguably the first port of call for most readers) returns a definition from Oxford Languages of dishonest practices and claims to have special knowledge and skill in some field, typically medicine., and (b) even where dishonesty is given as just one possible aspect of quackery, that still grants a connotative quality to the word that makes it imply wrongdoing.
We know that some practitioners of reiki are sincere, or at least we cannot prove that they are not, and so a charge of dishonesty would be wrong. It's not a lot different to intercessory prayer: just because it's nonsense (scientifically speaking) doesn't mean the people doing it are liars. (OK, perhaps some of them are, but all of them? Or even a majority?).
I don't think editors should take our working/practical definition of quackery from Quackwatch alone.
Also, I don't think that "over promotion of dubious methods" is a particularly useful definition, or one that really aligns with Quackwatch's contents (or with their page defining it, which settles on "the promotion of unsubstantiated methods that lack a scientifically plausible rationale" as the definition). Arthroscopic knee surgery is dubious, and it has been overpromoted, but it's not mentioned on their website. Aducanumab is dubious and has been overpromoted, but it's also not mentioned at Quackwatch.
Quackwatch also says that Most people think of quackery as promoted by charlatans who deliberately exploit their victims. Because of this fact, I think it's important to avoid this term when it doesn't appear to be a case of deliberate exploitation. We don't want to accidentally mislead readers by using an uncommon definition. (Compare myth, which we avoid unless both the common and technical meaning are both true.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Although I do not agree, I have removed the mention of Gorski and quackery from the lead. The coverage in the body may be enough. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Not done Please use this template for requesting edits after consensus has been established. Bon courage (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Not done - WP:NOTFORUM. Zefr (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
