Talk:Reiki/Archive 5

Practice

As you can see, I've expanded the Practice section. I've not put in as many references as in the Theory section, assuming the material to be less controversial. I am happy to add more if you think it appropriate: either discuss here or put in a [citation needed] and I'll see to it (or, of course, find one yourself!). Andy Beer 19:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Faith Healing or Complementary Therapy?

I would like to change the opening definition to something like: "Reiki is a form of spiritual practice, used as a complementary therapy proposed for..." I think that the current "...often compared to faith healing..." is not really adding much and is, strictly speaking, not true. I had never come across any such comparison until I read reference number 1, which seems to be a web page debating some law suits where it was expedient to consider Reiki to be in the same category as faith healing. Any objections to "complementary therapy" instead? (I can provide refs, of course.) Andy Beer 21:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

We would have to make clear who uses it as such. We have to be careful not to say ourselves that it is a complementary therapy. Reiki fits the definition of faith healing, because the mechanism is said to rely on something that is noncorporeal, something from the "other side". This isn't a value judgement by me, it is a comment on the characters 霊気, which explicitly read "supernatural" or "ghostly energies" in Chinese and Japanese. --Fire Star 火星 02:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that whatever we write should be based on references. Of course, Reiki might well fit both categories of complementary therapy and faith healing. My main reasons for wanting to include complementary therapy in the definition are: It gives the reader an immediate understanding that all the controversy around CAM is going to apply to Reiki; and Reiki is listed in both US and UK CAM organizations (we already have the NCCAM reference). My main reasons for wanting to exclude faith healing, at least from the primary definition, are that: it is not a phrase that occurs in any of the 16 books on Reiki which are piled up on my desk; Reiki is currently being 'compared to' faith healing (which doesn't say much); and I think that the term 'faith healing' is ambiguous. On the latter point, I personally agree that Reiki is faith healing based on your definition above; but I don't think that Reiki is faith healing if the term implies that the method is only effective if the recipient has faith in it. (Several of the Reiki books claim that it does not depend on belief.) Andy Beer 11:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are a couple of UK listings of complementary therapies, both include Reiki. The first[1] was published by the BMJ, which is 'the' mainstream medical journal in the UK. The second[2] is the listing of the Institute of Complementary Medicine, a charitable organization (complementary medicines are mostly unregulated in the UK, so there is no official governing body). Based on these, plus the NCCAM reference, I think that it is a simple fact that Reiki is a complementary therapy, at least as it is used in the US and UK. Andy Beer 12:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with this change and also tidied up some of the references in the definition. Andy Beer 11:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Image

I propose that we replace the picture of a hand with a picture of a Reiki treatment. I should be able to provide a suitable photo. Any thoughts? Andy Beer 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made this change and added a second picture in the Practice section. Andy Beer 11:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism: exploitation

I'd like to get a stronger citation for the POV that Reiki practitioners are just exploiting people's gullibility in order to extract money. I'm guessing that this is the main criticism of Reiki and (if that is the case) it is definitely a POV that needs to be represented. The current reference is rather weak because, in relation to Reiki, it actually says something like "People use Reiki as a feel-good entertainment, until they get ill, whereupon they go to see a doctor." So, the current reference is really saying that people are not being exploited because they don't really expect Reiki to heal them anyway. Therefore, we're rather misrepresenting it as things stand. Andy Beer 11:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We're also somewhat misrepresenting the critical reference in the Science section. The referenced page says "There is no evidence that clinical Reiki's effects are due to anything other than suggestion..." whereas our article talks about placebo effect (which I guess is the same as "suggestion"), post hoc reasoning and the regressive fallacy. Perhaps we should cut this down to placebo effect alone to be more in line with the ref.? Andy Beer 22:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Kiko and Qigong

Fire Star, could you please confirm that there is a Japanese version of Qigong called kiko? I've put this in the text (History section) based on one book reference but I'd never heard of kiko and this use is not listed in WP's disambiguation page. Andy Beer 21:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andy. I hadn't heard of it, but a quick google search on kiko and qigong turned up 37,500 hits, the first one being http://www.change.jp/yunhp/qi-gong.html which spelled it Kikou. Neither Chinese or Japanese romanisation schemes are set in stone, so it would be good for us to get the Japanese characters for this one if possible. It is probably notable enough for its own Wikipedia article with a hit like that... --Fire Star 火星 22:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks FS, I'll leave it as it is in the Reiki article for now, as this reflects the reference (I notice that the kikou article uses the kiko spelling in the running text). I'll put a stub in place sometime but I know nothing of Japanese kanji. Andy Beer 10:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, kikou is the Japanese pronunciation of the Chinese qiqong. The Japanese characters appear as "気功". Trane Francks (talk) 07:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see a Taoist(and qigong) influence ... passing of energy through the crown chakra(Pai Hui), the gathering of the universal energy...are there any proven links between the two?Domsta333 06:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I posted on this at my blog (http://reiki.whatitallbelike.com/?p=31) but hesitate to add any comments due to COI limitations. Feel free to use any information that might be of use. DuaneFlowers (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuaneFlowers (talk • contribs) 04:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Gestures in the air

I've removed "gestures in the air" from the introduction as this doesn't seem to reflect any of the descriptions of reiki treatments which I've come across. Perhaps it was intended to refer to: (a) hands held still, a small distance away from the recipient; or (b) a dynamic 'scanning' of the recipient before the treatment begins. Andy Beer 18:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

While attending first and second level courses in reiki, we were taught certain figures that were to be drawn in the air. Later it was explained that these could be imagined. The purpose of the figures was to focus the energy for particular uses (healing, distance healing, magnifying the effects of other symbols, or providing attunements). These characters were supposedly discovered by the founder and were to be revealed to students only. Alexander Moore 20:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment Alexander. You are refering to the reiki symbols, which are usually taught in the second level and not in the first level. They are touched on in a paragraph towards the end of the "Theory" section and in the "Second degree" subsection of the "Training" section of the article. We could add more material about the symbols, including their use to enhance the first degree treatment methods, in the "Practice" section. On the whole, I think that the introduction should be kept simple though. Andy Beer 16:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be nice to mention how the symbols are applied (be they gestures, be they particular hand motions, be they visualizations, etc..) in some section somewhere, since upon first scan, I have to admit that I was wondering just how these symbols played into it. Youngwilliam 10:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think it is important to stress that the symbols are used as visual aids only, as a method to focus the mind on the energies required for a particular treatment. Usui gave his students these symbols as a means of helping them practice and feel the differences between energies. For those that found it easier to focus more on a tangible object, the symbols provided a perfect method. These should be tied in with the Kotodama for each energy symbol. (Kevin Thomas 10.12.07) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.8.252.2 (talk) 08:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Symbols have Various functions, some are aim to intensified the induction of energy, some are used to heal, some are used to deal with Karma issues, ...etc. And I strongly opposed to visual aids only idea. Although from my Reiki Master's word of mouth, there are quite a number of variation of Usui's teaching. Some have no symbols at all, some have a little more and little less. Using symbols requires ones intention, will, faith, experience and focusing. This is the reason why there are variation between different people using the symbols. Through the process of attunement, the symbols are pass on to the person being attuned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.148.218.122 (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Training and costs

I've reworked the Training section, keeping some of the material but not all, and adding a few book references. The main cut was the paragraph on costs. My feeling is that within the training section, actual prices are not needed but I could add some links to published costs if appropriate (don't want to be seen to be advertising for anyone!). Otherwise, the topic could be handled under "Internal controversies". Andy Beer 13:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree it can be handled in internal controversies. I suspect actual figures might convey the controversy best. Good work, all round! ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 17:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE DELETE The Reiki Network Reference, as this is one particular set of Reiki schools, which follows a Reiki Alliance fee structure. OR Balance it by including the IARP.ORG or Reiki.org for balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.32.17 (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Qualifiers

I restored some qualifying words to the article. There's been a lot of back-and-forth with these, but I thought we were in agreement on keeping them. --Ronz 17:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the qualifiers are okay with me. The prose would probably feel more fluid with fewer of them–leaving the reader to presume some perhaps–but for a controversial topic like Reiki, we're more likely to find mutually acceptable text if it is fully qualified. Andy Beer 22:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Fowler's was written for a prose paradox such as this. Keeping things in the academic passive voice yet somehow avoiding the inelegant weight of a qualifying formula attached to every single statement is quite a challenge! --Fire Star 火星 03:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page is getting a bit long, so I'll be archiving the old discussion in a day or two. I just wanted to give everyone a heads up. --Fire Star 火星 00:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Please leave July. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 09:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've left talk initiated in July, there was some overlap from June messages replied to in early July that got archived. Ususally we make a clean sweep, but a note here is probably good, since there is a limited pool of people discussing right now it should be easy enough to follow. Cheers, --Fire Star 火星 23:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tags

Do we really need two neutrality tags at the top of the page? I think one suffices and is more in accord with style policies. Are there any specific long-standing weasel words? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 17:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed one such word a few days ago. With the extensive work being done recently, I'll agree the weasel tag can come off IMO. --Fire Star 火星 23:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy for the weasel tag to be removed. Andy Beer 09:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the weasel tag. --Ronz 20:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am a Reiki Master in the USA. I just read this article for the first time and I am not concerned by its neutrality although I know many practitioners for whom the criticism about exploitation do not apply. Speaking just for myself, I have never accepted money for Reiki either from a client or a student (although students often make donations to the organization that provides the space for my classes and twice monthly practice sessions). Unlike Andy, I only have 11 Reiki books on my shelf, but having been initially attuned to Reiki in 1993 and as a Reiki master in 1999 I think I can speak with some authority on Reiki as it is practiced in the United States. I will be happy to assist in any way that I can. Feel free to ask me questions. Tony Lewis 03:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Tony, and thanks for your comments. Regarding the "exploitation" criticism, my personal experience is similar to yours. However, as Wikipedia editors, our job (if I've got it right: I'm quite new to this myself) is to reflect a range of viewpoints, including ones which are not consistent with our own understanding or experience. Andy Beer 20:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

i know when i recieved my level one training i was told that whether or not you accept money and the prices are the discretion of the practioner. so some practitioners could be very expensive, whereas some do not charge, and others do not ask for money in return.... Ruth Zeimet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.236.35.214 (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Error in translation

Firstly, I'd just like to say that the Reiki page on Wiki is now looking far better than it ever has been. Thanks to those who have made the changes.

The article states "The name Reiki derives from the Japanese pronunciation of two Japanese characters that describe the energy itself: '霊 rei' (meaning 'universal' or 'spiritual') and 気 ki (Chinese qi, here meaning 'energy' or 'life force')."

Although translation from Japanese to English is not an exact science, you will in fact find that "Rei" translates as "Spiritual", "Ghostly" or "Unseen" and NOT "Universal". Ki does translate as "Life Force", but this in itself is seen as something that is Universal. It is a common misconception that the "Universal" is a translation from "Rei", and one that is believed to have come about when Reiki came to the West; such that the translation of "Rei" was left out because it was likely to put Westerners off learning Reiki if they heard that it was something "Ghostly" (implying that it had something to do with the paranormal).

Perhaps Andy Beer may wish to update the article to reflect this. --GC 12:56, 30 July 2007 (BST)

I believe that Universal Life Energy is how Hawayo Takata translated Reiki. See page 302 of Spirit of Reiki (in the references) for a photocopy of a flyer for one of her classes. Students trained in the Takata lineage have probably accepted this translation as authoritative simply because it came from her. Perhaps if the article said that was how she translated it and then gave a better translation "reiki believers" would leave it alone. Tony Lewis 13:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added a sentence covering the universal life energy translation. Andy Beer 19:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been putting in the "ghostly" reference referring to what the character means in everyday Chinese and Japanese for a few years now, but reiki believers like to take it out and put in "universal" instead. This is an example of what could be called jargon at best and a promotional neologism at worst. The translation, as well, should have a compromise qualifier - "while in standard Chinese and Japanese the character means X, reiki adherents say it means Y..." --Fire Star 火星 12:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Fire Star. Obviously those "reiki believers" have been mis-taught the meaning. I am a Reiki master myself and this is one of the things that I am constantly having to correct other Reiki practitioners (not taught by myself) about. I prefer using "unseen" myself as "ghostly" implies some sort of spirit entity and, as an atheist, seems a little Spiritualist to me. I don't think there's a need for the "reiki adherents say it means Y" compromise qualifier as it's not really the case, it's just that they have been taught by someone who doesn't truly know the translation and is just teaching parrot fashion from what they have been taught. I was taught the same, but at least I went to the trouble of researching and looking things up for myself. ;) --GC 15:18, 30 July 2007 (BST)

I've changed the text as a quick fix, with rei now meaning "unseen" or "spiritual". The word "ghostly" would be fine if we make it clear that Reiki does not have anything to do with ghosts. In any case, I'll find a reference to back up this translation, as I've seen it in print somewhere. Perhaps we should include some comment about it often being said to mean "universal" in Western sources, along the lines of Firestar's comment? Andy Beer 16:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A few years ago I was in Japan and asked someone about the meaning of rei and the person described it as a spirit and said it was like the mist that clings to a mountain. I suspect that the translation into English is complicated and that there could be an entire article devoted to that topic alone. Tony Lewis 13:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not an expert on Reiki, so I can't speak to the specific etymology of this word, but I think the most appropriate translation of the two characters would be 'spirit energy'. This would seem correct literally, figuratively, contextually, and considering the relation of the two characters to each other. In this case, spirit would refer to an unseen force / ghost type meaning (not like 'team spirit'); energy would refer to human / biological energy, akin to vigor and vitality (not electrical energy). 76.81.117.55 03:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Alex, 25 August 2007

Alex is right... spirit energy would be the closest to a direct translation... however this does not take into account the nature of the words themselves... the word ki has a direct translation in many languages, chi in Chinese, mana in Hawaiian, prana in Sanskrit. So native users of those terms know exactly what type of energy it is referring to... it is not just energy, as that has so many connotations. I don't have an answer here... just wanted to point that out... DuaneFlowers (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

External links

Could someone please have a look at the recent "Healing Shore" link and decide whether it is suitable. I thought it was of dubious value as a contribution here. Andy Beer 21:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I was going to remove it but wanted to see if others thought the same. --Ronz 00:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I found the Healing Shore site helpful, it is a community where people interested in Reiki can find friends. Why do you think it has a dubious value as a contribution here? Pstpetrov 18:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the debate is whether it contributes factually to the article. It is nice that people find friends, but that isn't really what an encyclopaedia is for. Please read WP:NOT. --Fire Star 火星 04:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

New link added to Reiki-WhatItAllBeLike.com... author is here to help with the authenticity of the information as well as the credibility debate going on. DuaneFlowers (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why my link is being deleted... the site referred to is a much more factual Reiki site than the others linked to. Do I need to file a complaint somewhere against whoever is deleting stuff in order to serve their own interests? DuaneFlowers (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT#LINK, and WP:COI. If you don't understand the situation, I suggest you start a discussion on WP:COIN if someone hasn't already. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind... I'm one of the top 10 experts on Reiki in the world and if you don't want my input I'll go someplace that is presenting an unbiased account... not the tripe you are trying to pass off as Reiki here. I've never seen such a slanted viewpoint... keep up the good work... you are making a lot of money for someone (who I won't stoop to naming) and I hope you are getting your cut. I tried to offer my sincere help with this project and you obviously don't want it so I will find a more honest wiki that does. I'm outta here... DuaneFlowers (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to consider perhaps that to us it seems that you wanted to advertise your site. Most experts agree reiki is subjective, for now there is no way around it. You can still contribute, but reading through the policy links provided will help you avoid more frustration with our processes. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Claimed by believers

I've just undone a little edit that replaced the qualifier "it is understood" with "it is claimed by believers", on the basis that the whole paragraph begins "Reiki teachings state...". I am happy with neutral sounding qualifiers like "Reiki teachers stete", "it is said" or "it is taught". Can we keep the Theory section in that tone, please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.69.70.155 (talk) 15:49, August 22, 2007 (UTC) Andy Beer 16:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Belief system maintains?

However I am also among those unhappy with the current tone used here. IMO it exposes an insurmountable problem within wikipedia.

1. WP cannot be truly considered peer reviewed because peer review does not allow for non-peer intervention. And equally regrettably:

2. Within the bounds of a neutrality-disputed subject, peer review is precisely what you cannot have because peers within a belief system are by definition biased toward that belief.

I maintain that using the qualification "it is understood" does not qualify the statement enough toward neutral encyclopedic tone. I will be going to the library today to see how more classic encyclopedias manage the tone when describing similar belief systems. Perhaps a better phrasing would be "The belief system maintains". By the (admittedly short) time that "it is understood" is encountered, it is possible to construe the ownership of that understanding to be the world at large, and no longer confined to "Reiki teachings". Tgm1024 14:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. I'm inclined to agree with your view regarding the first use of *it is understood", which I've changed to "it is said". "Understood" is used elsewhere in the Theory section but as you have hinted, the later it is encountered, the less likely it is to be misconstrued as implying an understanding by a group broader than the reiki community. We can go through each usage of the word if you like. I'd also be very interested in your findings regarding tone in classic encylopedias: I'll have a look myself as well. Andy Beer 20:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

One other thought: It seems to me that there are different categories of belief system: From a 'pure faith' through to 'proven by the scientific method'. Due to the energy sensations which practitioners of reiki experience, I don't put it in the category of pure faith. It should be treated something like Qi Gong, I suggest. Andy Beer 20:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The very notion of belief system that is pertinent to this refers to subjects under general dispute. I'd argue (and I think it's generally accepted) that things proven by a mathematical or scientific method are not under such general dispute. I don't believe that the energy experiences noted have been accepted to be measurable in the scientific world, therefore right or wrong the possibility of something more psycho-somatic must be presumed, landing this squarely within faith. On a personal note, I am not a disbeliever in anything here per se, having studied both Tai Chi Chung and Kempo, I've seen an interesting effect or two. However I am very cautious of post hoc reasoning and conclusions. I am even more alert to authoritative tone, when one may not be sustainable scientifically. (Forgive me for indenting the replies....if that is not the norm here, please tell me).Tgm1024 23:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The distinction I am trying to tease out is between practices where the practitioner thinks that his belief is the important thing (what I was calling 'pure faith') and those where the practitioner does not think that his belief in the method is very significant (eg. Qigong, Tai Chi, acupuncture, reiki, conventional western medicine). Of course, others may argue (if the method has not been scientifically proven to have effects distinct from placebo) that it is all psycho-somatic. Nobody knows for sure. If we use the word 'believer' there is a danger that the reader will assume that the practitioner himself regards belief to be the important ingredient. Therefore, I much prefer to use phrases like 'reiki teachers' and 'practitioners'. In any case, every sentence in the Theory section is qualified in some way, so I don't think it is overly authoritative. Also, there are references for everything, so readers can find examples of who has said what. Andy Beer 09:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the distinction you're attempting here is clear to me. However, there is no danger IMO in tersely labeling belief systems and believers as such because as long as indicting tone were not present it would be simple reporting of fact no matter how believing or skeptical the reader was. The problem that is starting to become ever more clear to me here is that in some disciplines, believers view the attempt to move to a neutral tone to be itself an indictment. Almost as if the attempt at neutral tone is itself science which is itself at war with their beliefs. I'm not sure what to do about that in a wiki environment like this, other than to fully caution repeatedly. Do you understand what I'm saying here: we need not be skeptics to adopt a fully neutral tone regarding this as a belief system?Tgm1024 11:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that we should use a neutral tone, regardless of whether we are skeptical or experienced. However, I think we differ in our understanding of neutral tone. In my opinion, the current text is in a neutral tone. I think it is very clear from the introduction, where reiki is identified as a spiritual practice and a complementary therapy, that anyone who is skeptical about such things should be skeptical about reiki. In any case, it is a simple fact that 'Reiki teachers say that reiki helps healing', for example. If we just said 'Reiki helps healing' then you would have a point. As it is, the qualifiers are all there. Regarding the specific use of 'believers' and 'belief system', those words could be applied to anything, including western science. The only difference is that all the thousands of practices which have not been studied by the scientific method are often dismissed by those people who believe (unscientifically) that western science somehow gives a complete picture of existence. Every 'fact' is ultimately just a belief, albeit that some facts are agreed by a wider set of people than others. I just don't think that 'belief system' is going to help inform the reader, but rather it would mislead. For comparison, is acupuncture a belief system? I would say not, though some people believe it works and others don't, acupuncture itself is a practice, not a belief system. Andy Beer 19:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"I agree with you that we should use a neutral tone, regardless of whether we are skeptical or experienced." I just re-read this, and wanted to add that skeptical and experienced are not mutually exclusive. We deal in facts as Wikipedia defines them; not as you or I might choose to. -- Xinit 21:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a belief until there is science that can be quoted. To say anything different would be to inject more POV than already exists. WP:WEASEL "People say…" Who are the people who say it? In this case, it is believers, so say that, don't dance around it. -- Xinit 20:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Bingo. The broader problem here is that to view science as a belief system implies a level of controversy to it. Further, it claims that all belief systems are created equal in encyclopedic terms. They simply are not. You have to remember that scientific dicipline requires verification without psychological effects being potentially the entire basis of the results. I have precisely the example for this, an observation of an failed attempted proof of reiki's validity, but it is wordy. If you would like I'll share it with you here, or elsewhere by link if I can find a suitable place to host it. I am not condemning reiki based upon this, this is important for you to understand. I am very dismayed however that reiki is being equated with science for what seems like two reasons:

1. People "feel" the energy.

2. People "feel" the positive effects of this energy.

Both can be said of both prayer and pyramid power, both substantially at odds with the scientific process. Similar things can be said of surgery, but surgery is not at odds with verifiable scientific process.

I truly wish this was written more by people who don't care about whether or not reiki is real, and not by those who believe it is.

FURTHER, let me quickly state that I have spent a lifetime looking for psychological cause and effect. The strongest layman example believe it or not would be working out in a gym. You can literally convince someone with words to lift a weight that they otherwise would fail to do. You can report on that in an encyclopedia, but it had better be under the umbrella of psychological effect only.Tgm1024 14:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that effects of reiki are necessarily anything other than psycho-somatic. I just don't think it helps anyone understand what reiki is all about to call it a belief system, any more than saying that weight lifting in a gym is a belief system, even though belief might play a huge part in weight lifting, as you have indicated. Andy Beer 20:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Xinit, You have removed a lot of fully qualified and referenced material from the Theory section. In my opinion the article is much less informative as a result. I'm very inclined to revert your deletions. Would you like to say why you removed so much? Andy Beer 20:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed it in order to make the article better, easier to read, and less redundant. The citations were plentiful, but non-notable for the most part, so some of those were removed as well. The article as a whole is reading like a pamphlet released by a Reiki training institute, and is in serious need of a reduction in POV and complexity. -- Xinit 21:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I guess if the reader wants more information, they can easily find it elsewhere. You're probably right that a more succinct article is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Andy Beer 09:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What "reiki is all about" can be described without being immersed within its beliefs and specifically without implication that it is either real or imaginary. Without naming you Andy specifically, which is not my intent, it nevertheless seems to me that some are inclined to use words that lend credibility to reiki. They should not, and an encyclopedia is not the place for that whatsoever. They should be using words that report on reiki as a belief or study disconnected from words that either condemn or validate. And "belief system" does neither. "Belief system" is only an indictment of reiki when viewed from someone expecting reiki to be considered provable fact.Tgm1024 21:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should be aiming to neither condemn nor validate. The difficulty is that most words have a subtle implication one way or the other and, of course, what we as individuals feel is neutral tends to be something close to what we ourselves understand about the world. I'm happy to leave a scattering of "believe" and "claim" words in there, if you think it makes the article better. Andy Beer 09:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Studies

I plan on removing the studies from the "Science" section, as they're A) Not notable journals and B) extremely poor examples of scientific studies, as I mentioned on Archive 4 of the talk pages:

[[10]] Holist Nurs Pract. 2006 Nov-Dec;20(6):263-72; quiz 273-4. - doesn't exclude placebo, and the journal is of questionable notability.

[[11]]Integr Cancer Ther. 2007 Mar;6(1):25-35 - doesn't exclude placebo

[[12]]J Altern Complement Med. 2006 Nov;12(9):911-3 - doesn't exclude placebo

A study where one group gets Reiki, one gets sham-Reiki, one gets rest, and where the environment is maintained consistant would be nice; sound, visuals, etc. -- Xinit 13:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and a study by an honest-to-goodness scientific journal and not a Holistic Nursing or Complemetary Medicine journal would be a big bonus. -- Xinit 20:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Xinit, some of us had a much more thorough discussion regarding the Science section before it took its form with the four studies cited. Your removal of useful material and addition of unreferenced heresay is, in my opinion, not benefitting the reader at all. I've taken out the worst of the unreferenced stuff and am very inclined to take a hard line with the so-called "National Council Against Health Fraud" reference which is currently misrepresented in the article. We would all love to see more thorough studies reported so that the Science section could be more solid. Unfortunately, such studies have not yet been carried out, as far as we have been able to ascertain. In the meantime, referencing the pilot studies seemed to give a fair feel for what little science had been done on reiki.Andy Beer 20:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please identify the information you would like cited that you identify as "heresay". The science section is reading as if the entire subject has been proven true when the studies have been called into question as to their methods and results. Are you further suggesting that you plan to "retaliate" against the Health Fraud reference? It isn't worth my time to argue the point if you'd prefer to write a brochure here. -- Xinit 21:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, it should be "hearsay" of course. But come to think of it, "heresay" seems quite appropriate for stuff made up by editors without reference to anything published. The Health Fraud article is misrepresented because (a) it is unscientific, so should be in the Criticism section not the Science section and (b) it only talks about suggestion (placebo effect) and not post hoc reasoning or regression to mean, which are therefore uncited thoughts. Andy Beer 09:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't entirely sure if you were going for "hearsay" or "heresy", as either might have read in equally well. :) Honestly, I haven't even looked at the Health Fraud article yet, so I can't comment on it specifically. It does, however seem biased; though no more biased than any of the anecdotal documentation that the article is currently citing for the efficacy of the treatments. I still feel that if "skeptic" is a perfectly acceptable term, then so is believer. -- Xinit 12:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's not overstate what was accomplished with the past discussions, Andy. I found the discussions on the Science section frustrating and pretty ineffective in making the section meet WP:NPOV. --Ronz 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair cop, Ronz. I remember that you were unhappy with citing any science that hadn't reached the point of secondary review of studies. Mostly I was annoyed at major cuts to the text without sufficient discussion first. Andy Beer 09:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm new at this, forgive me if I'm doing this wrong, but just a question, someone mentioned earlier about "removing the studies from the "Science" section, as they're A) Not notable journals and B) extremely poor examples of scientific studies". Of course the 'gold standard' research is randomised double blind within subject cross over designs. But it does not mean that others forms of research, particularly preliminary and investigative, even if small in subject number and 'lower' in the research standard. These smaller less rigorous studies can set the train in motion for more rigorous studies. And how is a journal considered "of questionable notability". My understanding, for example is that the "Holist Nurs Pract" is peer reveiwed (but open to correction) and is considered reputable among nurses working in Comp health.

Now if you do want a "study used a randomised, double-blind, within subject, crossover research protocol" see Wirth, D. P., Brenlan, D. R., Levine, R. J. & Rodriguez, C. M. (1993). The effect of complementary healing therapy on postoperative pain after surgical removal of impacted third molar teeth. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 1, 133-138. Brnathan (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC) brnathan author of "The Mystery and Meaning of Reiki"; a phenomenological study of both my and the participants’ experience of using this healing art.

Precisely what I'm talking about

I have had nothing to do with this change, nor its prior incarnation, but it illustrates the problem here perfectly.

Before: Reiki is also offered by some believers as preventative medicine, claiming that the 'energey' will encourage healing before any noticeable symptoms have emerged.

After: Reiki is also used by practitioners as preventative medicine, as the 'energey' is said to encourage healing before any noticeable symptoms have emerged.

The "After" is a mistake: Saying "something is said to do something else" does not answer the question Who says this and can leave the distinct impression of some ubiquitous acceptance. Was the "Before" something that xinit wrote? The "by some believers" could have a POV toned down, but the "claiming that" is proper. Andy, do you see how "is said" attempts to lend credibility and should be removed? Tgm1024 02:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You raise two points: Regarding "who says this", I had carefully referenced all statements in the Theory section, so that readers could see exactly who says it all, in published books. The second point regards which words lend too much credibility to the subject: on this point, I've bowed to your inclination and put the "claim" word back in. Personally, I find that "is said" introduces just the right level of non-condemnatory doubt as to the truth of the matter. If the sentence just said that "the energy encourages healing before any noticeable symptoms have emerged" then it would be giving too much credence. Andy Beer 09:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, however we're still at a disconnect here. That there are other ways of expressing that statement that lend too much credence is neither here nor there: I can concoct a number of equally inappropriate statements that subtly or otherwise lend support to reiki. I'm trying to fault isolate (I'm an engineer) why it is we're missing each other's points here, and the only thing I can come up with is that you have a resistance to the claims and beliefs qualifiers because they seem to you to deprecate reiki outright. I'm fully of the opinion that they do not, and further, it is entirely outside the charter of an encyclopedia to have reiki defined by those within the reiki belief system if they define it without words placing distance from their descriptions and their beliefs. The same cannot be held for scientific discovery, because scientific discovery is labeled as such, and when you get down to it, it is simply far more encyclopedic in nature. It's what encyclopedias are "supposed to do" (to shamelessly quote myself :) ) The weasel words page makes this fairly clear to me. I deeply regret that I didn't have to time to find a library (I was on vacation when I wrote that) so it will take some time for me to find a turn-of-the-century :) encyclopedia. On a personal note, I think you've done a good job at explaining your point. I just think we're talking past each other to some extent.Tgm1024 13:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Starting with a personal note, may I say that I very much appreciate your constructive discussion style, Tgm. And I don't think that the disconnect is too huge. I do think that there are various areas where we have different views but I feel we are gaining an understanding (if not agreement with) each other's views and from that some middle ground can emerge. To summarize where I think we might differ: 1. Linguistic nuances, to me are all relative, so in a sense there is no absolute neutral language; whereas I get the feeling that you see language as being capable of a more absolute neutrality; 2. I feel that you regard the scientific method as more solid and reliable than I do; Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great method, but of limited scope; And also, I observe scientific theories coming and going, so I regard them as current working models of the world, rather than facts in a more solid sense. 3. (following from 2) I feel that an encyslopedia should be conveying information about all human knowledge and social behaviour, and much of that information is not really scientific, whereas I feel that you regard "scientific discovery" as being a method capable, in principle at least, of capturing all information that should go in an encyclopedia. 4. And, of course, I think reiki is great whereas you are more reserved on this matter. I actually agree with you that such articles would be better written by someone who cares less about the subject, ideally someone with a purely scholarly interest. The trouble is, it would have to be someone interested enough to go and read up about the subject and preferably have some experience of it and also be not interested in condemning it. Regarding weasel words, my understanding is that the fault with "They say" is the "They" rather than the "say". (Replace "They" with "practitioner", "believer", "skeptic" or whatever and "say" with "claim", "believe" or whatever.) Ideally the person or group doing the saying is identified in the text (e.g. Oschmann in the Science section). With Reiki, there is no definitive source or even a dominant (published) teacher, so I took the stance of using the weasel words but putting in references which give examples of who has said it in print. Andy Beer 08:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... Probably best to list this out like you did to answer your points.

1. I believe that language can be measured in purely relative terms sure. This is more neutral than that, etc. However I also believe that the following statement is fully neutral in an absolute sense: "2 plus 2 equals 4." As well as "The Reiki belief system holds that (insert reikian ^(?) assertion)."

2. The scientific method is labeled as such even in encyclopedias. You will see statements similar to "The following experiements suggest that electrons exist in dual states." An encyclopdia should never state without preamble, for example, "Electrons exist in dual states." The argument I've made is that in particular subjects that seem provable only by personal reporting of feelings and the like need to be reported with GREAT care taken to establishing who believes what, even if it requires repeatedly pointing out that the opinion is held by a certain group.

3. Science should be reported as science. Reiki should not be reported as science because IMO it does not satisfy the criteria as such. The scientific "method" you describe is by its nature very factual "sounding", so it may be partially what you're reacting to.

Here's where we dance around an issue, so maybe let me tersely spell it out. Reporting on science is by its nature a report on what has been scientifically discovered. Reporting on Reiki beliefs is also factual. There is no argument that an encyclopedia should hold what Reiki believers maintain, but it has got to be stated as such painfully if necessary. Any observable effects of reaki can be listed, but they are subjective by definition: people sometimes feel better. People sometimes feel this. People sometimes feel that. That must be stated carefully IMO.

4. Down to my beliefs? I personally suspect that there is a psychological and/or physiological explanation for much of reiki that is yet to be discovered that has nothing to do with healing "energy" per se. The reasons I suspect this have to do with experiences with a member of my family who is a reiki instructor, and another, and their failed attempts at "proving" the validity of her subject. Each example of theirs had causality contorted, as well as were dripping with both post hoc ergo propter hoc, and cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Physiological effects in life are often confusing. And psychosomatic effects are extremely powerful, and can far too easily be identified as something more magical (or if you prefer non-scientific) in nature. It's to the point where I will not ask for proofs from additional friends of mine who have been trained in reiki, because no one enjoys having a broken chain of causality unveiled.

It may be easy to view these as the opinions of someone with an axe to grind, but I assure you, I have none other than my concerns about broken logic. I sincerely apologize if it seems otherwise. Further, it may well be that the explanations and "proofs" I have been shown would be considered mistakes even among reiki followers. I wouldn't know either way. It may well be that reiki is a spectacular notion even complete with scientific discovery yet to occur, but it hasn't yet been shown to me how. But most importantly, it doesn't need to be proven to me, so long as the tone is neutral in its reporting.Tgm1024 13:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts refering to your numbering above. Andy Beer 11:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

1. An excellent example! "2 plus 2 equals 4" seems to be consistent with my personal everyday subjective experience (just like the Reiki 'theory' seems to be). To say it as an objective (encyclopedic) statement, we should really refer to the mathematical theory to which it belongs, highlighting the (unprovable) axioms from which it is derived, perhaps mentioning Principia Mathematica. Then, we would be failing in our duty if we did not also mention Godel's Incompleteness Theorems which show that any vaguely useful mathematical system is incomplete and can only be shown to be consistent if it is inconsistent (if I've understood it correctly). All that would make the statement so unwieldy that it's best just to run with the subjective statement and hope not too many people disagree with it. But in what sense can a subjective statement be neutral? (PS. "Reikian" is a new one to me but I like it!)

2. I basically agree with you. The problem is, I know many reiki teachers and practitioners who don't 'believe' the theory in the sense that you seeem to be implying. I'm very lukewarm about it myself. To me, it is 'just a theory' and a very wooly theory at that. But a theory is needed because ever since the Western world has wedded itself to the scientific method, we can't seem to accept our own empirical observations without having a 'theory' to go with it. And this comes back to my point that even scientific theories are just current working models, albeit quantified in a way that the reiki 'theory' isn't. (For example, Newton's theory about gravity and laws of motion, now superceded by Einstein's theories of relativity but still widely used because it's an excellent approximation in most real world situations, the maths is much more manageable and it seems to fit better with our subjective psychological view of the world, which loves to have a frame of reference.)

3. I agree that reiki should not be reported as science. I think that the fundamental difficulty that we are having is that I see scientific theories (and even the scientific method) as belief systems (as well as any 'theory' about reiki). You are right that both need qualifying language. I would prefer wording like "According to the theory..." because, frankly, the theory is largely irrelevant to the practice of reiki.

4. Perhaps the word "energy" causes some trouble. I guess those of a scientific tendency think of measurable energies, especially electromagnetic energy. In the reiki world, as with many complimentary therapies, spiritual practices and new age thinking, the word is used more poetically, I feel. It seems to be the best word to describe the very real sensations which, as you point out, could well turn out to have a more psychological and physiological explanation than the reiki theory suggests. I absolutely agree with you that there is much post hoc rationalization going on in the reiki world, as well as in other areas of human thinking (including many areas accepted as science: Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, which I firmly believe in, is only really usable in a post hoc way, for example). As for my own viewpoint, and this might shock you, I no longer see causality as a fundamental property of the universe but rather a secondary product of the mind's tendency to look for patterns in time as well as space. Those patterns are all approximate because everything is unique until we selectively ignore certain information.

I have no urge to prove reiki's effectiveness, much less the related 'theory', to you or anyone else. I also want to use neutral language. I'm just trying to avoid language that makes this very practical, empirical pastime sound like it requires a strong faith. All it requires is a willingness to try it and then run with it or discard it depending on one's personal feelings about it. Andy Beer 11:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. However that assertion, and any tone like it, do not belong in a generalized encyclopedia. Further, establishing repeatedly that reiki belief systems maintain certain things do not devalue the belief. It only does so if you wish to establish that it goes beyond mere belief, which it may or may not. And doing so does not belong here. I can only repeat this: establishing something as part of a belief does not indict it as part of a belief only.

By the way, that Kurt Gödel was able to establish that somethings are not provable yet nevertheless true is not the criterion for establishing the arithmetic statement as part of a belief system, though it may be. Let me unwind that a little since even I got dizzy writing it.  :) That 2+2=4 might require proof within the mathematical world, it does not within an encyclopedia, since the charter of an encyclopedia include mathematical domains.Tgm1024 15:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I accept that stating that reiki belief systems maintain certain things does not devalue the belief. And I accept that the reiki theory is a belief system for those people who believe it. For me, as indicated, I don't differentiate much between such a 'belief system' and a scientific 'theory' such as the Higgs Field theory, which has been around for longer than reiki theory (in the West) without anyone finding the Higgs boson. The point I'm trying to get to is that a scientist doesn't accept a theory as a fact, so he doesn't believe it in a strong sense. And because he doesn't believe it in that strong sense, he doesn't label it a 'belief system'. The same is true of most reiki practitioners (of those that I have met) and the reiki 'theory'. It's the only explanatory story that we have at the moment, just as the Higgs Field theory is about the only explanatory theory that we have for the existence of mass. Maybe the Large Hadron Collider will prove that theory, or cast more doubt on it, when it is switched on in November. In the meantime, I still get my vegetables weighed down at the market. Not knowing what mass actually is, or how it comes into existence, doesn't stop us making practical use of it. The same was true of fire for tens of thousands of years, until relatively recent advances in chemistry and physics came up with some explanations. Andy Beer 11:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Reiki effects cannot be measured without subjective description. It lives within the domain of "people say they feel this". If that is the case, then *that* is what the encyclopedia should point out. An encyclopedia is not the place to introduce people to reiki as something that may do them well. It is a place for reporting on reiki from an external viewpoint. Such a viewpoint requires attributing the opinions relentlessly.Tgm1024 11:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I am confused. There have been lots of studies carried out about the measureable effecacy of Reiki. I found several mentioned at http://www.reiki.org/reikinews/reikin24.html. I'm sure the studies could be quoted directly, tho I don't have access to them for the proper references. Why aren't these studies listed? ~Suzanne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.202.41 (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Safety citation needed

The fact tag relating to "it is feared that patients might avoid clinically proven treatments for serious conditions, in favour of Reiki" has been removed but it would be good to have a source for this because I just made up these words a while back, which was very naughty of me, especially as I don't fear that myself (I mean, I think it could happen but I'm not afraid of it), so it may be that nobody in the whole world fears it. At the moment, the only related reference (Quackwatch) actually says exactly the opposite: that people don't expect reiki to heal them, so when they get seriously ill they go to a medical doctor anyway. Andy Beer 08:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. For personal reasons I'm deep into the medical world researching various homeopathic and non-homeopathic remedies for various illnesses, big and small. There is a general concern expressed among many with an AMA affiliation (typically non-homeopaths) that ANYTHING homeopathic might eclipse an important need for something more science based, with disastrous consequences. Unfortunately, I don't have time to research this right now (I'm up to my eyeballs with something time consuming) so leave your edit as is. If I discover what I'm talking about here, I'll add it myself.Tgm1024 13:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Some good recent edits in the last bunch, Andy. Thanks. I did some digging and among the best rational critiques I've been able to find from scientists are posted to sites like QuackWatch, and similar radically biased sounding names... It's kind a down side from the skeptical end of things, as many of the most vocal are also the most angry sounding... I'm off for a week and I'll check in on things after the long weekend, see if I can't scare up a decent source or two. -- Xinit 17:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In the past I've come across some general discussions and criticisms of alternative medicine (from the scientific viewpoint) but not much specifically talking about reiki. We might be stuck with that: by definition, the rational argument based on lack of scientific evidence applies to the whole field of alternative medicine, so why would someone making that point focus on reiki in particular? Enjoy your week off, Xinit. Andy Beer 09:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The statement would focus on reiki because it is a reiki page. Anything offering a health option that relates to an associated warning should have that warning, even if the warning is part of a larger umbrella of concern. And Audi page would not contain the statement "cars have tires," as that would belong on the cars page. It *would* contain (just as an example) "Audi's are equipped with Firestone's, which should be evaluated carefully as this brand of tire has become a primary suspect in numerous accidents in the US" (with link of course). No one would argue "the Firestone tire problem applies to all cars carrying the firestone brand...why focus on Audi in particular?"

The holistic warning statement does not apply to all of health care, it applies to a subset of health care, so it begs a bit of concern on our part to make sure that members of that subset contain it.Tgm1024 16:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In case there is any misunderstanding, I am not suggesting that we remove the safety concern criticism from the article. My question is, if we cannot find a source for the concern specific to reiki, do we reference a source which gives the concern in a more general way (e.g. applied to the whole of alternative medicine), or do we leave it unsourced? Andy Beer 10:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I didn't read that into what you said. In general, I do not like hardly anything unattributed in an encyclopedia. This would be a case of me recommending the removal of something I believe to be true nonetheless, until we can find it spelled out someplace credible.Tgm1024 23:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the fact tag for now. Andy Beer 17:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Tags

I have tagged all paragraphs that contain claims unsupported by sources, as per WP:V. That material will be deleted from the article unless such sources are forthcoming within a reasonable period of time. Happy research and editing! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I am confident that I can find sources for most, if not all, the tagged material. However, I'm away from home at the moment, so please wait till the end of the month before cutting it all. (Of course, I'm happy for anyone else to find sources.) Andy Beer 10:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. No rush. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I don't fully understand something here about the WP:V intent. Strictly speaking of the NPOV problem: What good are the attributions (sources) if the sources are all from reiki literature? I understand that you're here in a broader capacity, but there is still the NPOV problem, which would exist with or without named sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgm1024 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SELFPUB, in regard of self-published sources. NPOV means that all significant viewpoints about a subject need to be fairly described (within the caveats of WP:V, of course). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Back in the 1980s some of the reiki books may have been self-published, as far as I can tell. In recent years even some big publishers have been happy to run with them, probably because they sell well. Are there any indicators (other than my common sense) which I should use to determine which books are appropriate to use as sources? Andy Beer 18:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The items listed in that selfpub page you mentioned are filled with subjective litmus tests. There may be little consensus on that list here, but we'll see.Tgm1024 23:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I notice that a couple of the statements with new fact tags already had references until they (the references) were recently deleted. Could we take some care not to be going round this circle more than necessary, please. Andy Beer 15:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Andy, is it even worth it? I'm thoroughly disheartened by this process. We can't even hope to approach a certain level of lasting quality, because that quality is fleeting....it vanishes the moment that someone, anyone, decides to devolve the article of their own accord. Which is, of course, the fundamental principal behind anything wiki. Not that anyone cares of course, but as an exercise of talking to the wind I'll just say that I don't believe I'll be using wikipedia for anything any longer. I'll be monitoring this discussion, because I still feel mid-conversation, but other than that, I'm among the faithless. I wish you well with this process...you're a far better man than I to see potential in it.Tgm1024 16:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not far better...probably just more selfish! The potential I focus on is: What am I learning in the process? It might turn out to be no more than a belief that we humans are an argumentative bunch. Regarding that fleeting aspect and talking to the wind: I once watched a couple of Tibetan Buddhist monks putting the finishing touches to an intricate pattern made of coloured sand, which had taken a month to prepare; It was for a particular ceremony, after which the doors were opened and the wind blew the beautiful sand mandala away. Best of luck with your research. Andy Beer 17:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm placing this dialog here because of the [unlikely] possibility that a speed reader is trying to understand the above discussions. I've done some thinking about this, and I've figured out why the question mark forms over my head during my reading of your interpretation of relative vs. absolute tone. I'm using the term absolute incorrectly, and without context, if that's possible. Here: A little bit of text art; a visual metric (spectrum) from relative to absolute tone/statements/terminology.

relative <--------------------------1---2------> absolute

I perceive life, the universe, and everything in relative fashion. Number 2 above is the point where my encyclopedia-targetted term "absolute" lies. "Two plus two equals four" lies here. Number 1 above is a threshold I belief to be point where all tone to the right of it can be safely considered absolute within the context of an encyclopedia. That is, encyclopedias bring with them this assumption that there is a magic point #1 to the right of which can be mentioned without qualification. I was compelled to explain this better. My argument is of course still unresolved with you, because of where the tone lies. My argument is simply that the tone used here strays to the left of 1 but goes properly to the right of 1 when qualified by the belief system context. Dizzy yet?Tgm1024 12:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If I'm following you, you're saying that all information is relative but some is more relative than others; stuff which is not very relative doesn't need qualifying at all (in an encyclopedia) whilst stuff which is very relative needs heavy qualification in order for the end result to be sufficiently not-very-relative. (I hope I got that right, it has been a remarkably long day.) Then, of course, we can have the debate about where point 1 lies and what tone is needed to give sufficient qualification in a particular case. So, I think that I agree with your analysis of what is going on but might position point 1 differently and would almost certainly feel a different tone is appropriate for an article on reiki. Andy Beer 21:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

But even if we had agreement on all that, I still reckon that 'belief system' implies that people who use the method believe the explanation. So, in using that term, we are making an assumption about the state of mind of the 'believer' (unless he has declared himself to be a 'believer', which is not a description that reiki practitioners use about themselves). If 'he' (for example me) just regards the 'explanation' as an unproved theory, then the very same story is no longer a belief system but a theory. So, for me, we should either talk about "Darwin's Belief System of Evolution by Natural Selection" or we should phrase the 'explanation' of reiki using the language of theory (bearing in mind that the term is used in softer ways than science might demand: e.g. political theory, economic theory). In short, the tone of qualifying language says more about the beliefs of us editors (and is therefore OR) than imparting any real information about the subject matter. But I don't see any solution to that problem: the requirements of NPOV are not compatible with those of OR, in my opinion. We can only muddle along hoping to find compromises, on the whole. Andy Beer 21:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.....Citizendium then? Eventually?  :) Tgm1024 23:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There are things which are self evident; the sun rises in the east every day and the moon is relatively brighter at night, when a person is knocked over they fall down, etc. Reiki is notable, but it is based on the premise that its inventor has and its practitioners do vouch for it. That's all. As such, it is squarely aligned with practises like pop music, voodoo, scientology, Roman Catholicism, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the New Age, Jedi Knights, parapsychology, phrenology, etc. Interesting subjects all, but still all verbal constructs. This makes it different from mechanism drivien disciplines like martial arts, dentistry, surveying, sculpture, agriculture, sailing, etc., where if you invest X effort according to the demands of the applicable mechanisms Y usually results. To say this isn't a value judgement either way if the voice used is passive, just a bland categorical description based on common sense. No one has ever demonstrated an ability to physically move a resisting human subject with "reiki energy" which despite failing this conclusively obvious test is still claimed to influence humans, so it is labelled as subjective. As the sun predictably rising in the east (or flattening someone with a judo throw) is demonstrable and therefore objective. --Fire Star 火星 01:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. However, the problem with taking this approach is that the argument inevitably becomes one involving the shades of gray of demonstrability. Did reiki demonstrate this or that or not? The degree to which they are demonstrable is clearly only metered by personal reactions (hence your, our, argument that it is subjective).....unless someone can point to a true double-blind study where the practitioner waved his hand over someone's arm, not knowing if it was an arm or a 2x4, and the person didn't know if there was a hand, nothing, or a tickle-me-elmo waved over his arm.Tgm1024 02:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A judo throw is only really proving something to the person doing the throwing and the person being thrown: to an outsider watching, it doesn't prove anything at all. So, it's definitely in exactly the same basket as reiki, along with all the other martial arts. Any other opinion is clearly a personal bias. And nobody claims that reiki energy is capable of moving a resisting human subject, neither can sunlight or pop music (sound waves), but that doesn't mean they are not energy, capable of having other effects on the subject. Andy Beer 21:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I know what you're saying here. That all things come down to a human interpretation/observation of events, even in the physics world. However, regarding the reiki vs. judo: A judo throw can be observed *externally*. I can watch you throw Fire Star through a window.  :) But is there a study that shows conclusively that there is a statistical healing advantage to reiki? Is there a measurable result from a double-blind study showing, say, that injured ankles are significantly helped in a non-psychosomatic way? Broken bones can be externally measured.Tgm1024 17:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

My point about the judo is that if you see FireStar standing there and me doing some movement and FS flying through the window, it doesn't prove anything to you about the technique I'm using. From your viewpoint, FS might have jumped through the window, we might have been doing a little dance together, a large implosion outside might have sucked him through the window and, not least, someone with no judo technique or other training might have been able to do exactly the same thing. I admit, though, that judo is a much more scintillating spectator sport than reiki, which is about as exciting as watching paint dry if you're not on the giving or receiving ends. Regarding clinical trials of reiki, there was quite an extensive discussion a few months ago, it should be in the archives if you're feeling keen. Basically, though, it hasn't been done yet but almost all the pilot studies showed some effect and recommended further research. I haven't seen any double-blind trials of martial arts either, though. As a complimentary medicine, reiki can, and (if anyone can be bothered) should, be subjected to clinical trials. As a spiritual practice, which for me is the more important aspect, it will remain forever subjective (just like the spiritual practice aspect of martial arts or anything else). Andy Beer 20:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Your point as stated then begs the following questions: Do you feel that encyclopedias are unfairly biased toward traditional science? Do you feel that encyclopedias should not be?

I don't know about other encyclopedias but in my opinion Wikipedia uses a very different tone when qualifying mainstream theories (be they scientific or otherwise) from theories which seem (to some) to be at odds with science. Personally, I would regard it as more neutral if the same tone were used for both. In short, yes I do think there is an unfair bias and yes, I think there should not be. Bear in mind that for a billion people in China and about the same number in India, the human body is first and foremost an energy system. On a democratic basis, the materialistic Western scientific viewpoint is in the minority. Andy Beer 10:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(Replied within 3rd paragraph below here.)Tgm1024 00:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Further: There is a notion out there somehow that doctors and traditional scientists are at visceral odds with holistic practices. That they are somehow emotionally wedded to using the rigors of scientific discipline to support the destruction of a counter position to their own. To this I would point out that the opposite is far more common: Doctors strain at the leash to find a break-through position proven. Even if we remove all altruistic reasons for this, the blunt but potent lure of being The One (tm) to discover or prove something is powerful and ever present. The reasons that doctors are likely to hold some holistic practices at bay is because the attempted proofs have not survived. And maybe this is by definition: Had they survived, I don't believe the corresponding practices would have been called holistic any longer.Tgm1024 21:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't feel that doctors are out to destroy complementary therapies. Practising doctors in the UK are usually rather in favour of anything that might help reduce their workload. However, medical scientists (a different breed) are generally insistent that only "evidence based medicine" (i.e. proven by the scientific method of clinical trials) is valid. I take a much more individualistic stance: if someone feels (subjectively) that something is helping them, then it is good, with or without other (objective) evidence. You are right that labels such as "holistic", "complementary" and "alternative" are only used until the proof emerges. Reiki is quite new in the Western world and it might be that such proof will one day be found. But if a method really is having a holistic effect, it cannot really be proven or disproven by the scientific method, which requires the "success" outcome to be defined in advance and the same for everyone. (What use is a healed bone if the "healed" person is going to get stressed and over exerted and have a heart attack?) So, by saying that only the scientific method is valid, we are saying that holistic medicine is impossible. Andy Beer 11:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(Placed here, because usenet-style interleaved conversations are problematic here methinks). Ah....but encyclopedias are not collections of commonly held beliefs, dissimilar to dictionaries, which are collections of common usage. If the charter for encyclopedias were such, it would likely hold numerous myths and wives tales as fact.Tgm1024 00:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that reiki "theory" should be presented as fact. I am suggesting that it should be presented in the same tone as Darwin's theory regarding the origin of species. Anything else is OR in the sense of the belief of us editors about what is "mainstream". Nobody has conducted a poll (as far as I am aware), so we are guessing. If we were to conduct a poll, who do we allow to vote? If it were everyone on the planet, those who regard themselves as aligned with the Western materialistic view would not get the results that they want. If the subset allowed to vote were those living in the Southern US, then Creationism would be mainstream and Darwin would be fringe. All theories are just theories. Whether we editors choose to believe them or not should not effect the tone that we use in qualifying them. Andy Beer 16:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"All theories are just theories." I strongly disagree. This ignores NPOV. There is no reiki theory. (There is no creationist theory either.) We don't make decisions by voting, nor do we make content decisions by looking at how others have voted. --Ronz 16:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe what Andy means by this is that theory requires qualification, and those qualifiers we might dig up also need qualification. An atom seems to behave like something. Why? An atomic scientist says so. In what way is the experiment valid? Other scientists say so. In what way are there observations valid? There knowledge is based upon preceding scientific experiments. In what way are they valid? (Etc.)

I think where he is going awry is that (we need a term here, can we settle on "classical science" ?) there can be no unfair bias toward classical science, almost by definition. Such science strives to establish objective facts to the best of its ability. It would quickly embrace Reiki as such if it were only possible within its own rule set. The validity of classical scientific discipline is measured entirely by itself under its own rules.Tgm1024 14:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tgm, I think your last sentence above sums it up, from my point of view. And I might add that developments in quantum theory during the last century really knocked a huge hole in the idea of objective observation. But if objectivism is the comfort blanket we've collectively decided to cling to, so be it. Andy Beer 10:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Even the blood brotherhood of objectivism can have its black sheep. :) Most physicists I've read have been quick to point out that QM and QED both have essentially gone nowhere in the many decades since their conjecture. And even the strongest of the QED pundits have been equally quick to point out how weird the notion is in the first place. Perhaps among the most famous:

What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it. ... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does. (Feynman, Richard P. Nobel Lecture, 1966, 1918-1988, QED, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter)

But even as such, every place of potential hooey is labeled "as seen in experiments" or "experiments seem to imply" or "it was [insert nutjob]'s idea that this would happen", etc., etc. It is the persistent labeling of such monkey business that turns the subjective into objective, and hence, encyclopedic. Tgm1024 00:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Science Section

I removed it. It was down to one sentence that presented Energy Medicine as a scientific perspective, refuted by another source. I think we need to stop trying to present any scientific basis for reiki, and instead approach the (lack of) evidence for reiki efficacy per WP:FRINGE and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. --Ronz 18:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. At present, reiki and science have nothing to do with each other. By omitting the section altogether, readers who want to establish a connection can do their own research into the pilot studies etc. Andy Beer 15:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I read the Wikipedia entry for Reiki recently after not having looked at it for a year, and discovered that two important pieces of information had been deleted; first, the fact that growing numbers of hospitals, medical centers and hospices are providing Reiki sessions to their patients, and second, the whole section on science is gone. I see no reason why information on the use of Reiki in hospitals should be hidden from readers and so I have re-inserted it, citing the website, www.reikiinhospitals.org, so that readers can see at least a partial list of hospitals providing Reiki. The fact that officials in mainstream hospitals are willing to make Reiki accessible to their patients implies that they consider Reiki to be beneficial.

With regard to the “Science” section, I agree that the previous version that existed a year ago was not useful due to the uncritical review of the published literature. For that reason, I scanned all 450 or so Reiki studies that appear in PubMed to determine which ones are placebo-controlled studies. Six articles fulfill that criterion, four showing statistically significant positive effects of Reiki, and two showing no difference. I have added a new “Science” section, describing the term “placebo-controlled study” and citing those six articles. The articles all appeared in peer-reviewed journals. One Wikipedia discussant, Xinit, implied that journals of Alternative and Complementary Medicine were not ‘honest-to goodness scientific journals’ and asked why studies on Reiki were not published in higher power journals. Well there is a reason for that. Unfortunately it is always very difficult to get research involving new paradigms accepted either for publication or for funding, however rigorous the science. We will just have to wait until sufficient numbers of high quality articles on Reiki are published in the more specialist journals, before we can expect to see publications in high profile journals. Just ignoring these preliminary articles will not help. It is important that there is a Science section in the Reiki entry for Wikipedia and that it is kept up to date. Many people do not consider that procedures used to promote physical, mental and emotional health are valid unless they are supported by scientific data. Annlbaldwin (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a perfectly valid point; as a Chartered Engineer I know science, and more; as a Healer (not Reiki) I understand Healing. However, this is Wikipeia and the Pseudo-Sceptic writ runs here. Specialist views, experience, knowledge do not count. Not much above school level physics and chemistry counts as science; other than the specialist science pages where there is more bowing to knowledge and expereince. [[[User:RichardKingCEng|RichardKingCEng]] (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)]

I wrote an article that might be helpful here (again I hesitate to cite myself for COI reasons) but you are free to use it. Its located at (ezinearticles.com/?The-Quantum-Nature-of-Reiki---Towards-a-Scientific-Explanation&id=994194) DuaneFlowers (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Eastern vs Western Reiki?

Has any thought been given to more explicitly comparing and contrasting the Takata branch of Reiki and those forms of Reiki derived from it, "Western Reiki" so to speak, with Usui Reiki Ryoho and those forms of Reiki derived from it, "Eastern Reiki"? My understanding of the two systems shows a number of differences in practice, such as whether or not attunments and symbols are used. I know that there are a few statements in the current text such as "The teaching of Reiki outside of Japan is commonly divided into three levels, or degrees" but no contrasting information is given on the teaching of Reiki inside of Japan in the shoden, okuden, and shindipen grades. Jarandhel [[User_talk:Jarandhel|(talk)]] 16:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A good point. The more original Japanese teachings could have a dedicated subsection under the Training section. My only knowledge of it comes from the writings of Petter but I don't have his books to hand at the moment. If you know the structure of the Japanese teaching, please add something, ideally with some references. In the English speaking world, the Takata style certainly dominates, so will probably continue to have more weight in the article, even though the Japanese style is undoubtedly more in line with what Usui taught. (A further complication is that many Takata branches still use the phrase "Usui Reiki Ryoho", on the basis that all the styles have been derived from the Usui method.) Andy Beer 05:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I posted an article about this on my blog (http://reiki.whatitallbelike.com/?p=67) but I hesitate to cite it to avoid any COI. I am able to discuss in in a completely non-biased manner if there is no conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuaneFlowers (talk • contribs) 04:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on the lack of scientific proof of the efficacity of Reiki as a healing treatment, and Hawayo Takata's practice of charging money for Reiki treatments and teachings; it can be argued that this practice of charging for training is a form of a pyramid, Ponzi-style fraud. Dr Zinj (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Merging of Reiki Symbols

First a declaration of my conditioning: I come from a traditional school of reiki where the symbols are not disclosed except to people who are being (or have been) initiated to the corresponding level of reiki. Doing my best to set aside that conditioning, I still don't think it would be useful to put the symbols into this article. It would only make sense if their use were discussed much more fully, which would be putting a lot of emphasis on second level techniques and beyond, none of which make much sense without direct personal experience of first level reiki. Also, the article would begin to look like a manual. 210.212.169.228 (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep separate: the symbols are a topic in their own right and the symbol article could be expanded with details on the history of controversy of making them publicly known, meanings, origin, differences etc that would be outside of scope of a main Reiki article. Burns flipper (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed. There is a tremendous amount of information relevant to the Sanskrit letter HRIH (Reiki "symbol" Seiheki), the Japanese words Daikomyo, Honshazeshonen, and Hayashi's version of Chokurei (which is a symbol). The illustrations are available to the public domain and may be placed into a new document. With respect to what is called "traditional" Reiki training or conditioning as it is used above, these "symbols" appear in many printed works referenced in the Reiki article such as Essential Reiki, books by Steve Murray, and Reiki For Dummies. Along with that, they appear on many websites.Stephenbuck415 (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Separate. Beyond what is stated already, there are a number of people who feel the symbols are sacred and shouldn't be known outside those attuned to them. Though it would be highly POV to keep the symbols out, against my own views none the less, they can at least not look at ones they aren't attuned to by staying away from that article. I may actually be able to expand this some this weekend. KV(Talk) 17:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Reiki Symbol Page or Keep separate without name or drawing: Reiki is an oral tradition. According this only initiates into the second degree were introduced into the symbols and their usage. To keep the true symbols sacred is for many good reasons and that time was a matter of course. Major Reiki organizations still follow this tradition, and it should also be respected in Wiki. I know there is a lot of "symbol stuff" published elsewhere, and I do not want to discuss what is correct about it or not. The motive alone is questionable and why trying to attract by "hidden things". Such approach misses the point. The not initiated person would find some useless "in-formation". --Aaxxll (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or delete. The Reiki symbols page should be merged into this one, as it is not notable in its own right; but if there is no consensus for a merge, and there does not seem to be, then it should (and probably will) be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Source then merge; if not, delete. If secondary sources cannot be found, it has to go. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Death of Takata

At present, we have two different dates shown for the death of Takata: 1979 and 1980. I have seen both dates in print. How shall we determine which one to call truth? Andy Beer (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an issue to discuss for Hawayo Takata. If we need the date here, it should be whatever is agreed to in that article. --Ronz (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You can find the correct date using The Social Security Death Index if she had an SSN. KV(Talk) 18:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Founding of ARA

The text at the moment is non-neutral, as nobody except Ray and her followers consider her to be the "only completely trained" student of Takata. Also, we need a third party source for the statement that Takata founded the ARA with Ray, rather than Ray just doing her own thing, which is the way I have seen it presented. Andy Beer (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have tried to edit it to something neutral. We need some better sources here as I've seen a number of different histories. --Ronz (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

History

A new wiki page has been added titled reiki_history. The history elements superficially mentioned in this article should be merged to the new page. Stephenbuck415 19:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Mass removal of links

This edit [3] appears to be much more than what the edit summary suggests. I think these links should be at least discussed for restoration into the article. --Ronz (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I decided to revert this edit, as some of the links are definitely to reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please reconsider which of the links I removed are REALLY necessary. It is my opinion that contributers to WIKI should rather place the content here and not just add references "as links" to direct to their own websites. Note 2: Why for example are 3 links necessary in line 1 to confirm the statement of Reiki being "a complementary therapy". Notes 88-91 are simply statements of individuals and have no significant value. Note 6: The link is not necessary. Commercial Website despite .org domain and if referring to a book the book should be sufficient. There are other websites in notes and external links I felt the same and the main question for me really is - what is the motive to put these links instead of the content. In general I think the meaning of references within Reiki is limited. It is a spiritual practice with no scientific evidence. References will always and only be personal interpretations. Best. --Aaxxll (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Origins

In the "Origins" section, shouldn't it say that Mikao Usui is credited with inventing Reiki, rather than "discovering" it? The word "discover" applies to things that were previously unknown about the natural world, like a fossil, a law of physics, or a mathematical theorem. For example, we don't say that L. Ron Hubbard "discovered" Scientology, do we? Just like we don't say that Heisenberg "invented" the uncertainty principle. --Dmitry Brant (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "Usui claimed to have discovered"? --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

'Is said to have discovered' (?) then we can add any WP:RS that say it. Because I'm not sure if Usui himself claimed that exactly. Merkinsmum 21:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I can go with the "is said to have..." wording, then WP:RS away. Most of the Usui story seems to have come 2nd or 3rd hand, unfortunately. This isn't uncommon with "semi-legendary" founders like this, though. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Reiki energies were discovered by Usui... he invented the Reiki system which used those energies.DuaneFlowers (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

come on boys and girls- WP:GA !:)

This page hasn't had a hardcore edit war for a while. So I think we could work on trying to get it to meet the Good Article criteria,WP:WIAGA. At least in as much as we can with the amount of edit wars this article sometimes has, I've heard.:) About me- I am a Reiki and Seichim master, began studying with reiki 1 about ten years ago now, but I am also a sceptic much of the time in recent years. So I have some knowledge of the subject and hopefully I have NPOV within me a little. Because I'm a bit more removed for the page I'm hoping that I can bring a fresh eye to it, and look at things like style etc. (in the rare event they are not perfect of course.:) ) To explain- I'm ambitious now, not to be an admin, but after well over 2 years on wiki and over 2000 edits I want to step up my game, so to speak. Then we can get it reviewed eventually, but I've heard there's quite a backlog. So, anyone else up for the challenge?Merkinsmum 21:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is rather well documented, thanks to previous give and take between various groups of editors. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's go for it :) We may not even have to do much then (famous last words lol.) Merkinsmum 23:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I vote for significant cutting of personal opinions, notes, references and EXTERNAL LINKS on a subject that is hard to explain. In religion there are statements like "some believe" and yup - there is a link. Some state something else - and yup - there is another link. Reiki is something complementary and - yup - there are 5 links. The commercial background is quite obvious - so I would rather delete all external links, except maybe to the "National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine" which appears NPOV to me. In my opinion it is also NOT necessary to put references for simple statements. Let the link-setters place content here! --Aaxxll (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. IMHO, this article should be nothing more than a brief explanation of the original "theory" of Reiki and "beliefs" of its practitioners, and possibly a statement about the commercialism behind it that has developed since its inception (and of course a warning about choosing alternative "healing" techniques in lieu of clinically proven medicine). It seems that there are as many ways of practicing Reiki as there are practitioners of it, so any attempts at "explaining" how it is practiced and taught should be cut. From the "Third Degree training" section: "The duration of the master training can be anything from a day to a year or more, depending on the school and philosophy of the Reiki Master giving the training." Give me a break! Too many weasel words and meaningless assertions gives these kinds of pseudosciences undeserved credibility. --Dmitry Brant (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a "warning" would really help this article's NPOV. Srsly. I refer you to Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles, and also Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. We should assume people aren't reading this for medical advice, and aim to be as descriptive as possible. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 11:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

POV

I think we need some discussion beyond just the edit summaries of these three subsequent edits, and have tagged the article POV because of them:

• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

--Ronz (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My main contention is with the labeling/categorization of Reiki as "pseudoscience". It may very well be a prime example of pseudoscience; I don't know much about it. However, per WP:PSCI, we need to exercise extreme caution before calling it so. We need to have strong reliable sources which unequivocally verify that Reiki is generally considered a pseudoscience by the scientific community. As far as the rest of what was deleted (Reiki in hospitals, scientific studies about Reiki), I feel that this information should not be blanketly deleted without discussion first. The sources seem decent enough to be merit inclusion while discussion is going on. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll defer to you on the pseudoscience issue. I think it would be better if you had removed the category in a separate edit, because I was very confused by the edit summary. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing about pseudoscience for me is, do practitioners claim to be scientific? As far as I can see, reiki theory (and the name itself) states that they channel ghostly energy. Not the stuff from which controlled trials are made. Also, are the conclusions about the studies recently added to the article about the efficacy of reiki vs. placebo actually in the studies, or do the studies only "suggest" such results (as seems more likely)? We should get quotes from the studies cited to make sure an enthusiastic editor isn't promoting a wishful pov not published as such in the actual studies. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Having this article in Category:Pseudoscience is not necessary, because Category:Energy therapies is already a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience. To the points made though, I don't believe practitioners of Astrology pertain to be scientific either, and this was the example given in the arbcom case for things which can be classed as pseudoscience when generally considered by the scientific community. Don't see too much wrong with these edits though. Not too sure about the wording "no proven scientific mechanism", scientific foundation seems a better way of putting it, i.e. reiki practitioners do not explain their healing process in scientifically viable terms, which is true, regardless of whether it works or not. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 11:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

POV again

I made a few changes to the wording here and there to make it more NPOV. Sometimes it's just a matter of using the word "alleged" to make it more impartial.

Categorising Reiki as pseudoscience is just a value judgment which in itself is not scientific. Even if there is currently no proven basis for Reiki, that in itself doesn't prove anything. Before 1492, there was no scientific evidence that the world was round. Did that prove it was flat?

Those with scientific pretensions should appreciate that lack of evidence in itself is not proof of anything. It may simply prove that the subject hasn't been studied because the scientists may be biased against it, or because a lot of research is done by drug companies and they have no interest in finding alternatives to drugs.

But I hope no-one gets the idea I'm biased towards Reiki. I've been practising Reiki for 16 years and I'm not particularly impressed. The fact is that most people get nothing out of it. I don't myself.

Sardaka (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is a word often blown out of proportion. Calling something pseudoscience is not supposed to imply it doesn't work, that just happens to be the view of a lot of people in the scientific community about what they call pseudoscience. However, I do agree with you that the term pseudoscience is used far too selectively, and unfortunately the only basis we have for what to call psuedoscience is what the mainstream scientists say. For this reason the wording "considered pseudoscience" should really be used rather than "is pseudoscience". See WP:PSCI and the arbcom case linked. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 18:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Before 1492, there was no scientific evidence that the world was round." Actually, Aristotle documented three proofs that the world is round. --Ronz (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I just want to chime in to say that I've been practicing Reiki for about 2 years. I have had some pretty powerful experiences with it, and some pretty lackluster ones. The "skeptics" seem to think that it's some magical force straight out of Dungeons and Dragons that will rock your socks off. Well it can, but don't put it on this pedestal of unattainability. It's just another part of life, sometimes it won't even work for you, or another. Approach it like anything else in life, and you'll see its validity. Maybe then, the "skeptics" will shut up about pseudoscience and just see it for what it is. A nice little addition to living in peace with the forces of this reality. 75.69.230.132 (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you are mis-characterizing the "skeptics" here. Far from knocking off my socks, I see nothing impressive about reiki whatever. One of my personal arguments is that reiki has no demonstrable mechanism beyond a verbal construct, anything it does is apparently based on the power of suggestion (which can be quite strong for suggestible people). As far as the article goes, have a look at WP:TRUTH in order to contextualize our feelings and their applicability to Wikipedia. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Skeptics of Reiki don't need to be credulous in order to help craft a good article about this topic. It doesn't matter what one thinks about Reiki. Neither your opinion nor the skeptical opinion matter to the article. Either opinion only adds to the weight of POV in the article. Pseudoscience is anything that affects the manner of science while claiming to be immune from the rigors of scientific or reason based testing. All Energy based "alternative treatments" are labeled as pseudoscience for a reason; there is no documentation of any Energy trapped in the human body or that is capable of being manipulated. Claims that it can't be tested by science only lend credence to the field as being magic. -- Xinit (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Aristotle

Ok, before Aristotle there was no proof that the world is round.

As for "considered pseudoscience," I hope they're providing a reference for that. If anyone wants to make statements like that, there should be a reference. Otherwise, delete.

Sardaka (talk) 07:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning; I have more than enough experience and knowledge to do so. However, you are expecting a great deal (too much?). The way Wikipedia works is similar to the Pseudo-Sceptic Web Sites and it has its own heavy pseudo-sceptic bias; everyone else has to provide solid reasoning, reputable references, proof (no such thing in real science anyway, it is all probabilities), etc., while they do not have to be so rigorous. Actually, much of what they practice and argue is really pseudo-science in its own right but they are infallible, they know it all. I long ago came to the conclusion that subjects like these need a seperate, protected Wiki of their own; access restricted to those with knowledge and experience, plus real scientists. RichardKingCEng (talk) 09:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If enough users support a more exclusive approach to information in an article, then consensus along with policy (and eventually dispute resolution if necessary) can keep an article more objective. Be bold! If something looks like it should be removed, remove it. It is gratifying to see more attention being given this article by more editors, that is what will fix this mess. As you may see if you look through the talk archives here, there has been a long debate to keep the article's wording passive and conditional, to not allow advertisers or even otherwise well-meaning practitioners to assert reiki's efficacy on flimsy evidence. We should report things about reiki if there are sources for those reports, period. And they should be reports, not assertions. Unsourced material (including most of reiki's history and techniques, as far as I can see) should be removed. It should indeed make for a much shorter article than the present one. There are simply no independently verifiable accounts offered of Usui or reiki before the 1970s offered, it seems, practically everything apparently comes from the myth building imaginations of reiki pracitioners. Second and third hand stories of reiki's history or efficacy from its adherents should only be reported with a full panoply of caveats. That is what is necessary to conform with Wikipedia policy. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 13:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

symbols

I am a Reiki practitioner, but I think that the "traditional" Reiki people are exerting a little too much influence here.

This is an encyclopedia. It is meant to be a source of reference, and it is meant to be neutral. If it is forced to implicitly conceal the symbols, then it is a biased article. There are plenty of articles that certain groups of people would prefer to delete off Wikipedia - sexual content, Scientology secrets, Freemason inside info, non-belief-in-God material, anti-evolution, etc., but they still appear in Wiki because it's neutral. The symbols should be the same.

I am happy that they are kept separate from the main article out of respect for traditional beliefs, so either a separate article, or (if that won't stand) then at least a link to a site that shows them. Which would people prefer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.26.4.35 (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, now that it has been merged, there are several links to Reiki symbols that just redirect back to Reiki and do not supply the promised information. A clean-up is in order. And surely some of the material in the old symbols-article can be included here], or at least a general description of what is meant by symbols? And if they are secret, I'd love to see the article say why! PJTraill (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)