Talk:Reiki

——————————————— REIKI ARTICLE TALK PAGE ———————————————	Please, add new entries to the bottom and don't forget to sign your name by typing four tildes: ~~~~.
Please, no spam.
/archive1 March, 2003 - July, 2005, /archive2 August, 2005 - November, 2005

This article is part of the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine, which is an attempt to to facilitate the development of professional looking articles on all aspects of alternative, complementary, and integrative medicine on Wikipedia. If you are interested in editing this article, please remember to keep it in line with our Standards of Quality Guidelines. Be sure to add the project's announcement page to your watchlist.

Redirect

Propose to merge Reiki Tummo into Reiki since it is a minor article and does not add new information. Actually, as it stands now Reiki Tummo has a commercial flavor, and may even be removed completely, as far as I am concerned. JohJak2 12:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

A fine idea. Done. --Fire Star 16:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

non-traditional reiki

i think it would be best if non-traditional flavors were discussed here before they are added to the main article. Of the three currently listed (celtic, tummo, and something something mantra...), reiki tummo is the only one i've ever heard of. We need to keep in mind that reiki has become extremely commercialized, and to market a new product it needs a new name. There are now hundreds of "new" reiki practices out there, a minority of which I feel are popular enough for mention in this article. If you are not sure if yours is a well known reiki, try scanning for regular mention of it in a general reiki forum. Shaggorama 06:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Celtic Reiki gets about 10,000 Google hits, which makes it fairly notable for this sort of thing. The other one got 44, which practically vanishes when WP and its mirrors are factored in, so I removed it. --Fire Star 19:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Syncretization

From the Encarta World English Dictionary, Bloomsbury, 1999:

syncretize To combine, or try to combine, elements from different systems of philosophical or religious belief or practice. syncretization.

--Fire Star 14:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Scientific research

I was reading in askmen.com about Reiki and they mentioned quite alot of scientific research is currently being done on Reiki. To balance the wiki article (which in some parts on the controvisories seems very negative) should it not have some details about what real scientific reseach has so far been done, weather positive or negative instead of the sweeping statements made in the wiki article. Please see the secions on "what about reseach?" http://www.askmen.com/fashion/body_and_mind_60/97b_better_living.html If not then lets consider removing the sweeping stament sections. Tummo1 15:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC) Tummo1

As the link you provided states: "the data on it is preliminary". When multiple double blind and peer reviewed medical studies have clearly shown effects beyond that expected by the placebo effect (as the FICSIT trials [1] [2]have done for T'ai Chi, for example), then they will be notable enough to include in the article. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service. The language in the article isn't intended to be negative, but objective. --Fire Star 18:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require doubleblind peer reviewed data. Notability is not defined this way. If someone prominent in a field related to Qi is noting the information, it is notable enough for inclusion. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think a doubleblind peer reviewed data is a good standard to use where it makes sense, and Reiki is a good enough candidate to require this standard because it is technically feasible to produce this kind of data. -- Newhoggy | Talk 11:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A compromise would be to mention these other studies, but note that there are no double blind peer reviewed studies which are the golden standard in medicinal research. -- Newhoggy | Talk 04:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reiki controversies

Why is there a page Reiki controversies, but no link from here to there? --Hob Gadling 15:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it seems to be a fork of a previous version of the main reiki article which has been created to maintain some earlier statements. Its content is very similar to content that already exists at this article, and it should probably be merged. --Fire Star 15:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've redirected it to the main article. There was no material in the old article that hasn't been covered here, indeed, it was just a reposting of an older version of the main article from its page history. It seemed to be an attempt at reposting material that consensus has deemed too negative. --Fire Star 17:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Reiki Endorse by Doctors and Practiced in Hospitals

Reiki is practiced in hundreds of hospitals round the US including many that are respected and well known. These include M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, The California Pacific Medical Center, The Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center at the National Institutes of Health, Wentworth-Douglass Hospital in Dover, New Hampshire, Concord Hospital, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Bennington Southwestern Medical Center, Frisbee Memorial Hospital, Catholic Medical Center, Elliot Hospital all in New Hampshire, and Anna Jacques Hospital and Union Hospital in Massachusetts. AT the Portsmouth Regional Hospital in New Hampshire, over 8000 Reiki treatments have been given. This information comes from articles authored by Pamala Miles and appearing in the Reiki News Magazine. There is also a Consortium of 27 Academic Health Centers that promote integrative medicine including Reiki see - [3] See -[4]

In addition, double blind scientific studies have demonstrated that the value provided by Reiki comes from more than just the placebo effect. A recent study was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal: Autonomic Nervous-System-Changes During Reiki Treatment: A Preliminary Study, THE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE Volume 10, Number 6. And in fact in the field of spiritual healing, there have been over 100 studies conducted, many of which demonstrate positive results. See Spiritual Healing, Scientific Validation of a Healing Revolution, by Daniel J. Benor, M.D. The previous 2 paragraphs were added by William Lee Rand [5]William 20:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the first paragraph is that the only reference provided in support is a self published article -- this is the seconde reference. The first reference says nothing about Reiki. However, the preliminary study should certainly be mentioned in the main page, if it is not already mentioned. --Lumiere 01:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• While I do publish the Reiki News Magazine the articles describing Reiki in hopsitals were researched and written by Pamela Miles. The Consortium website does list Reiki as one of the modalities in many of the member hospitals, but you do have to follow the links to the program descriptions. Here is an example: [6]-- William Lee Rand 14:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ethical Principles Concerning the possiblity of those with serious illnesses choosing to be treated solely by Reiki rather than seeking medical attention, and thus eliminating the benefit that could come from medical treatment, this rarely occurs as the majority of Reiki practitioners have the view that Reiki is complementary to Western medicine and usually advise anyone with a medical condition to also be under the care of a licenced health care provider. This is evidenced by the code of ethics of most major Reiki organizations which includes this stipulation. [7], [8]

Religious Concerns While members of some religious groups are opposed to Reiki, many others are either neutral or actually practice Reiki. In fact there is a website created by Christians who practice Reiki. [9]

Popularity of Reiki According to a study published in Alternative Therapies, Jan/Feb 2005 issue, in 2002 there were over one million U.S. adults who recieved one or more Reiki treatments. [10]

_______________________________________________________

Possibly, but I the word "claim" does not seem to be neutral, which is the point of wikipedida information. If I were to use that word in the sentence, Quantum mechanics "claims" to explain Newtonian mechanics and classical electromagnetism at the atomic and subatomic levels, it wouldn't sound neutral it would sound like I personally didn't believe it. That is what the language of this article sounds like to me. brymerrick@yahoo.com Feb 3 2006

Well, saying that reiki definitely does miraculously cure people definitely isn't neutral. We (Wikipedia) can't say it works, we can't say it doesn't work. Wikipedia can't say that it believes anything in the articles, we are reporters, not salesmen. We report the claims of reiki adherents and the rebuttals of reiki critics, that's all. Please read the neutral point of view policy, and the archived discussion of this article. --Fire Star 15:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I would reccomend everyone (the biast people too) to look at this book which perports and claims by the words alleged to have been written by a sceptical Medical Doctor http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1886785112/002-1064284-4565619?v=glance&n=283155 that there is Scientific Evidence for Reiki/Spiritual healing and that it works. You can even browse the books pages.

Introduction seems biased

I oppose the use of word "claim" in the introductions. Why isn't the word "states" used instead? Most of the introduction seems to have an air of skepdicism about it. Is it quite possible it is too one sided?

"Reiki is claimed by its adherents to be a technique for healing physical or mental disease. Reiki was formulated during the early 20th century by Mikao Usui (usui mikao 臼井甕男) in Japan. Practitioners use a technique similar to the laying on of hands in which they claim that they act as channels for Reiki energy — which they say flows through their palms to specific parts of the body in order to facilitate healing. Scientific studies have not confirmed the existence of this specific Reiki energy. Most of the explanations of the technical aspects of Reiki rely upon the existence of "subtle energies" and "auras." Reiki practitioners and holistic healers believe these descriptions of such energies and also believe in the validity of the practice."

Well, what reiki theory states does indeed seem to be claims that it is able to heal with the ability to generate an energy that is debatable at best with a method that hasn't been proven to exist beyond simple physical metabolism. That justifies the word "claim" to my mind. Many other of our New Age and Alternative medicine articles have similar language. --Fire Star 18:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree the introduction is a bit biased, having just looked at the Shamanism pages(where it is treated with more respect) I am concerned that a Bad press for Reiki, does more harm than good! As Christian Reiki Master, what happened to tolerance and a balanced presentation? User:Toom 15th January MMVI

Whole Article Needs Scrapping

This is basically a biased article from a Skeptical point of view.

I dont even know whether a Skeptical view deserves any merit.

I am Skeptical about whether crank telephones existed. I dont have to have a reasonable base behind it, just believe that they didnt exist, and its a figment of peoples imagination. So therefore I must rewrite the whole article - on Crank Telephones - & say that crank telephones are rubbish & didnt exists.

This is a poor but 'bugger-it, that'll do as an example' useless ...example... of a Skeptical-ist view on life. Its ideology. When its ideologically driven, dont expect to hear many viewpoints.

Thats is NOT what I went to 'Reiki' to hear. I dont care about your ideology against Reiki, I want to read the facts about Reiki.

How come Anarchists arent interviewed for world political event stories? It would be "fair" & "balanced" to have them contribute to everything on the news...but you dont see Noam Chomsky being given airtime on Fox News or the Murdoch Press.

Please please please, can we scrap this & move onto a more pure descriptive article about Reiki without this directed interference. I would be happy to write a completely new article.

I'll put skeptical links down the bottom with a note "many people have challenged the validity of Reiki. Here are some of their websites". That'll do...

Happyez 14:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Eric Vigo, RMT, Reiki 3

Well, I'm sorry that you feel that way, but you have to read our neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not policies to understand what is going on. Wikipedia isn't free advertising for any group. You believe in reiki, not everyone does. Some consider it harmless New Age fluffy bunny wishful thinking, others consider it demon channeling sorcery that preys on its victims. We can't say those things any more than we can say "Reiki is wonderful, it cures cancer, eliminates war and world hunger and reverses baldness with every treatment." Many sceptics would be as insulted by a pro-reiki "description" such as you propose as true believers would be by a right wing fundamentalist coming here and saying reiki was a tool of Satan. So, we concentrate on simple reporting. As it happens, there is a lot of scepticism out there on the subject. Also, if you look through the article's edit history, you'll see that we have removed much blatantly anti-reiki POV that has been inserted into this article over the years. --Fire Star 20:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fire Star. Actually, I was thinking of editing the article myself a few days ago for POV issues but couldn't really decide where to start. I think the article lays on a few too many unecessary POV qualifiers and ends up sounding resoundingly like it's panning Reiki. The opening sentence particularly is pretty much overkill:

• Reiki is claimed by its adherents to be a technique for healing physical, emotional, spiritual or mental disease.

Saying 'claimed by its adherents' is a huge qualifier that detracts from what the sentence is actually trying to say. I'd like to workshop a better version of this and I don't really have an alternative that I'm satisfied is NPOV. How about something like:

• Reiki is a spiritual healing technique for treating physical, emotional, spiritual or mental disease.

I think that covers the unscientific aspects of Reiki without overloading the qualifiers. Any thoughts? Anyone? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 10:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps:

• Reiki is a spiritual healing technique proposed for the treatment of physical, emotional, spiritual or mental disease.

ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 10:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Greetings! I agree we can reduce the (over)qualifiers, but we have to keep at least a few for attributive purposes. My theory is, the drier, the better. I don't want to pan or promote reiki (or Tai Chi, or yoga, etc.), only to report it. How about: Reiki is said by its practitioners to be a spiritual healing technique for the treatment of physical, emotional, spiritual or mental disease. ? Regards, --Fire Star 21:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Greetings! said by adherents immediately posits that the writer thinks this is a false statement. What's wrong with the lesser POV qualifiers I suggested? Namely spiritual healing and proposed? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 22:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Or, said differently: It's immediately obvious when you say a technique is proposed for something that we are talking about adherents. To mention said by adherents/practitioners as the second phrase in the article directly sets up opposition. We don't do this kind of POV for the vast majority of other articles about healing techniques. Why do we set Reiki up for a fall? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 22:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. "Said by adherents immediately posits that the writer thinks this is a false statement." That is reading an intent into it. Taken at face value, it more simply posits that not everyone agrees that the practise in question is what it says it is, while truthfully reporting what reiki groups publish about themselves. Those assertions are controversial and unproven to many people, and that should be reported, as well as any answers reiki practitioners have made to those criticisms in public. Dry language set forth in a measured, straightforward idiom. Wikipedia isn't a place to publish definitively that reiki is what Usui and subsequent devotees have asserted that it is. I don't believe we should say that reiki is spiritual healing because it has yet to be established that it actually has the ability to heal anyone beyond the statistical artefact predicted by the placebo effect, any more than our article at Mars should say there is definitely life on that planet, or that the Earth is flat or that Jesus rose from the dead after 3 days. Some people believe those things, others don't. We can say that reiki groups say they practise spiritual healing, though. As for other practises that get the same or similar treatment, please see Astrology, Homeopathy, Scientology, Falungong etc. Regards, --Fire Star 16:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I think I pretty much agree with everything you said. I also read the links you provided and found that none of them use any phrases such as "Homeopathic adherents claim" in the first sentence. They start by clearing defining the field before talking about who claims what. I feel the wording I provided takes into account all viewpoints. I am not a supporter or Reiki. Please read the wording carefully and if you disagree with it please state why clearly. I am a supporter of a neutral viewpoint. If anyone would like to add Reiki is controversial (ala homeopathy) I am open to that, but I think that's a separate issue being NPOV in the opening. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I will (when I have a bit more time) go over the article and try to take out as many unncessary and redundant qualifiers as I can. The article as we have it is pretty unwieldy, IMO, the result of many editors over a long period. It isn't consistent even with itself, as my finding, in three different places, three sentences that said the same thing yesterday, or your discovery of the word "rediscovered" today shows. Cheers! --Fire Star 21:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm into that. I like how the wikiprocess works. The word "invented" was changed to "rediscovered" and now it's more neutrally "developed". I wish you every success bringing balance through the wikiprocess. Best of luck. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remind all of you of a little passage in the npov article. "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one" This page has a consistent anti scientific bias. all criticisms of reiki are blanked by firestar. that is a blatant violation of NPOV. -User:Speaker Of Absolute Truth

Actually, I am very critical of reiki, but the criticisms have to be fair. "Flavordynamic"? The use of such idiosyncratic words led me to believe I was dealing with vandalism. --Fire Star 14:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

its all right here Fundamental interaction, and here Quantum flavordynamics. HOW is this criticism not fair? all I said was that in order for reiki energy to exist, A: the laws of physics are wrong, or B: Reiki is not noticably subject to the laws of physics, it is subject to different laws, the laws of psychology, in which case, science deems it "placebo effect." You HAVE to aknowledge conflicting POVs if you claim to follow the principles of this wiki. I was simply stating facts. I would even argue that what i was saying was even more factual than the pro reiki stuff, but thats niether here nor there. I say put it back and let people modify it as they want, but dont take out every single criticism... thats not really NPOV. "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one" -User:Speaker Of Absolute Truth

OK, but the word wasn't linked to its Wikipedia article, it didn't show up in a Google search and it wasn't in any of my dictionaries. I'm not averse to having your criticisms in the article, so I will put them back in in the "controversies" section. --Fire Star 22:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

thank you for being reasonable. I am not trying to disprove reikis effects... im just saying i think the lack of scientific evidence is because it is not a scientific phenomenon... I think most scientists (and maybe most reiki practitioners) would say the energy is more of a psychological thing... now i just have to convince the admins that i am not a vandal after they marked me as one. The Speaker Of Absolute Truth 00:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to worry, I'm an admin and I don't think you are a vandal. I didn't mark you or otherwise complain, and you convinced me that the terms you used were valid. If that isn't enough, I'll say: Keep up the good work! Cheers, --Fire Star 00:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no real problems with the article other than the opening sentence and I am happy for you two to work out the rest of the article. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hiya Happyez. I support your suggestion to write a new article, in part. Is it possible you could start a sandbox page and write your entirely new article there so that we have another source of wording to draw on? Sometimes it's hard to imagine what the problems with an article are without someone providing the alternative. It's quite possible that editors will use only a little bit from your article but it could be a great help in finding a middle ground. Of course, it's completely possible that other editors will use a lot of your article. Up to you. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to disprove reikis effects... im just saying i think the lack of scientific evidence is because it is not a scientific phenomenon... I think most scientists (and maybe most reiki practitioners) would say the energy is more of a psychological thing.... I think this shows how little some people know about science and about reiki. A lack of scientific evidence does not have to suggest that the laws of science are wrong or that it is not a scientific phenomenon. Science is an ongoing learning process as is Reiki. Just because there have been no "laws" developed as yet for Reiki does not mean that they will not be determined in the future. As a scientifically minded Reiki Master I believe there is a great deal of correlation between science and Reiki. I must admit I did find the article as a whole quite negative and biased against Reiki, but this is not a worry to me, I know that Reiki exists (I used to think it was a load of rubbish myself until I experienced it first hand). ;) GC

What Reiki is

The previous opening sentence:

• Reiki is asserted to be a spiritual healing technique...

is akin to saying

• Christianity is asserted to be a religion...

You see? Reiki is a spiritual healing technique, just as sure as Christianity is a religion. Whether Reiki works or not is a different matter. Just as whether there was a Christ or not is a different matter. I'm happy to keep workshopping this opening sentence in an NPOV way. I'd still like to hear specific reasoning if there is anything at all wrong with saying:

• Reiki is a spiritual healing technique proposed for the treatment of physical, emotional, spiritual or mental disease.

For me, the sentence makes the difference between what Reiki is and what Reiki proposes absolutely clear. You can't get more NPOV than that. Please discuss your own view on this below. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I consider the opening sentence issue closed. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Warmer Hands

Regarding this sentence:

• Some studies have, however, found that while a paractitioner is "channeling" Reiki energy, his or her palms become significantly warmer.

What's going on? Why delete? Has someone got a source for the some studies statement? Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia editors here have a long- biased and expecially self centered interest in this topic. Take some time and read through the archives and you will see what I mean. I call it the gatekeeper syndrome. How does one overcome the troll on the bridge? Three right answers does not apply here :-)

The good news is that new evidence and supporting documentation will soon overcome most of their objections. Even if it doesn't, a new and more easily accessible bridge will be used.

Tom05

Thanks Tom. A link to new evidence would help me most. I would have appreciated your assessment of this talk page a lot better if you didn't use personal attacks. No offense intended. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, it's not a personal attack. I am just sharing the theme of this article when it comes to the Wikipedia editors in general. Look over the archives as I mentioned above. My somewhat offbeat analogy about the gatekeepers is appropriate. Don't take it personally just be aware of the many visitors and contributers to this page over time that have been treated with abrupt disregard for there point of view and shut off. The editor's comments are in general far from a professional and non biased point of view.

Tom05

Tom05

Calling people you disagree with "trolls" does indeed come under WP:No personal attacks and is sanctionable as such, FYI. There is also a difference between not providing usable material and being "shut off". As MB says, "A link to new evidence would help...most". If someone tries to insert their point of view into an article, WP editors in general will enforce a neutral point of view by removing unsourced material, speculation or original research. Unfortunately, New Age articles lend themselves to those syndromes. If you will look over the history of the page, you will see that I have also reverted a lot of unfair anti-reiki edits. I am a reasonable person, and certainly not a gatekeeper in any sense. I happen to have some knowledge of what reiki purports to be, and therefore feel qualified to edit this article. If people want to advertise reiki here in a manner that contravenes WP policy, they are going to run into problems. If anyone has the results of serious research to report, though, that is fine w/me. Fire Star

Regarding research, I would qualify the "serious research" phrase. In regards to Reiki I believe any notable enough individuals who claim to have done research are admissable if we stick to merely citing those individuals rather than saying what they've researched is evidence. Whether or not the research has been peer-reviewed or otherwise disqualified for scientific publication is becoming more and more irrelevant when you goal is to report topics like this in a neutral way. I hope that's not too controversial. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Keeping information

I reverted the edits of User:67.170.170.248 because I felt the information lost thereby was important to the article. The article's wording is the product of many authors, not one. I'm not biased against non-western medicine, but I do believe that there is a lot of chicanery in the New Age healing community. Unlike some other forms of traditional medicine, there aren't many studies at all that point to reiki making much of a difference, so for us to call it a form of "medicine" just won't work as yet. It may just be that reiki is relatively new, or it may be due to some other reason. --Fire Star 23:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your actions, and also I think there was some merit in 67's edits. I encourage 67 to bring some of the edits here for discussion. For example, using "imbalance" in the opening sentence seems good to me, but it would then force us to define imblance in usable terms to our readership. I think there's some middle ground to be reached with the other edits also, but too much at once is impossible to discuss. Again, 67, please post problem sentences and suggested changes and I'm sure we'll get consensus on this talk page. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 05:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverting is for fighting vandalism not for punching newbies

Hello editors. Please stick to restoring the parts of the article you actually have a problem with. WP:REVERT reminds us that "Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism."

Reverting is not a mechanism for avoiding editorial discussion.

Blind reversions against any editors acting in good faith are unhelpful. I recently restored the edits of an anon editor. I'm not saying I agree with all the anon's edits. However, I do agree with some and many of the edits were spelling corrections and grammar improvements. These kinds of edits should be clearly encouraged.

Also remember, as per WP:REVERT "Explain your reverts!"

Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 05:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, my bad. I meant to leave a note here but got distracted and I must apologise. My concern was the anonymous ed.s change in the dollar amount of pricing info, and that gets me thinking about any pricing info in this (or any other) article. Do we have a source for it? As well, we should mention if it US dollars or not if someone does have a source. Again, sorry about that. --Fire Star 23:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

with Thanks...

I came back to this page today after many months to refresh my memory on a couple of items. I took a moment to read the page, and am __so__ thankful to all of you editors for your work on this page. When I first read it all those months ago, I was very discouraged by the negative POV, especially after having experienced the positive effects of Reiki myself. I understand fully the wiki credo of neutrality, and truly appreciate the care you all have taken in presenting this material with a careful and delicate style. Thank you so much. In love and light. Zirx 22:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Secret Teachings

A couple of days ago I deleted the entire section on Secret Teachings as this was offensive, extremely inaccurate and possibly libelous. The whole section was simply biased, unproven and unproveable opinion. 88.108.10.83 22:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it didn't cite any sources, to be sure, so removing it was probably a good idea. --Fire Star 03:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to know where this idea has come from that Reiki is about "Secret Teachings". Any person who knows correctly about Reiki will know that the teachings and symbols used by Reiki are "Sacred" not "Secret". Yes, when students are taught Reiki level 1 they are not shown the symbols, not because they are secret, but because they are not needed at this level and it is seen that the student should become familiar with the use of energy techniques before progressing to level 2 where they will be shown the symbols. If they really want to see what the symbols look like then they can be easily found in many Reiki books or on the internet. As with teachings in any skill, students are taught what is needed for the level that they are at. I would like to request that the article is updated to say "Sacred" rather than "Secret". GC

Yes, certainly there is a valid point to be made over the issue of secret/sacred etc, but the piece that I deleted had nothing to do with symbols at all. It was an entirely derogatory statement made about the lineage of Reiki Jin Kei Do and the lineage head of that tradition, Ranga Premaratna. 88.108.3.164 11:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice attempt!

I'm assuming this is part of the the new Wikipedia Joke Articles Project (JAP). Actually quite well done. It starts off with kind of rant that almost sounds plausible:

"Reiki is a spiritual healing pseudoscientific technique proposed for the treatment of physical, emotional, spiritual or mental disease. It has no scientific basis."

There are many different kinds of research, not just "scientific", which is a word sometimes used by lay people for the quantitative research and experimental research.

and then gets into some kind of "facts information" with references.

"According to a study published in Alternative Therapies, Jan/Feb 2005 issue, in 2002 there were over one million U.S. adults who have had one or more Reiki treatments."

I'm assuming this a reference to some kind of qualitative research.

But I think the best part is the picture. That's what really tipped me off. A man of Asian descent making a goofy face! That's great. Of course a real article would have a more flattering picture.

I don't mind the fact that it is a joke article that seems to be written by a four year old with no background in research or professional writing. What I do mind is that it is not in the new "Joke Articles Project" section (JAP). When doing research I need to find data fast. I don't want to read through most of the article before I figure out it's a joke. Anyway, well done! Good luck with the new project. Max fischer 14:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Max Fischer 8:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Taking the Micky

I've removed the image from the Reiki page, as someone had replaced the "healing hand" image that was there the other day with an image of someone slapping someone else with a backhand slap. They may think it's funny, but it is not Reiki. GC

Sorry, I laughed my head off. Jefffire 18:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

User 58.178.137.47 states in an edit summary that there is consensus that Reiki is not a pseudoscience. This is untrue. I say it is a pseudoscience. Googling "reiki science" throws up many links which claim to explain reiki scientifically. Because those claims do not stack up to scientific scrutiny, they are pseudoscience. QED. I have reverted. Please discuss. Mccready 01:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Reiki is classified as a spiritual healing technique. It is not classified as pseudoscience (except amongst certain cliques, which obviously you are a member of). Please provide the following to back up your claim:

• a verifiable reference for Mikao Usui stating he believes Reiki is a science.
• a verifiable reference for a scientist who researched Reiki stating emphatically that Reiki makes verifiably unfounded claims to science.

• a verifiable reference for the research that backs up those statements (if they exist)

The onus is on you to prove that Reiki is considered a pseudoscience. Googling "Reiki science" doesn't mean anything. I couldn't care less what every man and his dog is saying about Reiki. There are standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. I can google "Reiki and gardening" or "Reiki and cooking". So what?! It's doesn't mean that Reiki is edible or that it grows when you throw dung on it. 58.178.137.47 04:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

James Randi certainly calls it pseudoscience and I can maybe look up other sources if necessary. See [11] [12] as examples. JoshuaZ 04:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV solution would seem to be just to say who calls it a pseudoscience and why, not to present the designation as fact. thx, Jim Butler 04:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ. I read the two James Randi links. The second link doesn't contain any opinion from Randi about Reiki whatsoever. It is more like an internet forum. You summarised the first link by saying "Randi certainly calls it pseudoscience". Actually, what he does expound is this:

• He interviews an anonymous Reiki practitioner
• He challenges the practitioner to prove Reiki works (and hence win a million dollar prize)
• The practitioner refuses
• Randi concludes, Reiki is pseudoscience.

The whole thing reads like a variety show performance. Which part of this anonymous interview did you want to incorporate into our encyclopedia as being a notable scientific reference about Reiki? 58.178.153.192 06:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

copied from Jim Butler's talkpage for information:

Jim, You seem to be following me around. I don't have a problem with that because I believe the definition of wikistalking MUST involve harassment. Your edits on Reiki appear to have been done without looking at the discussion and examining the links. A googling of "reiki science" throws up many sites which set out in great detail why reiki is a science. Given the fact that these claims do not stack up scientifically (prove me wrong), the pseduoscience label applies. I have reported user 58.178.137.47 whose edit summary adding cooking etc said Added other fields Reiki has no basis in... to balance out the biased science comments in opening, for vandalism and suspected sockpuppetry. Mccready 08:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kevin -- just keeping an eye on your alt-meds edits for POV, and editing them in good faith, which as we both know is not Wikistalking. (I took no offense when you did the same thing on the Adi Da and Facilitated Communication articles, although in both cases your edits reflected some lack of understanding of the topics, which you had never edited before and haven't edited since.) No harm intended by my edits, I hope you realize; we simply disagree on NPOV and on what is appropriate in lead sections. I stand corrected on Reiki as "science", as I'd never seen it portrayed as a "science" before. To the extent that it is portrayed as scientific, I would have no problem designating it as pseudoscience. In any case, since the label is contentious and not universally agreed-upon (since some Reiki practitioners don't portray it as scientific), we need to remember NPOV. As I indicated on the Reiki talk page, the NPOV solution would seem to be just to say who calls it a pseudoscience and why, not to present the designation as fact. Looks like other editors have done this already. Also, for the record, I have no particular opinion on the value of Reiki as a healing art or spiritual practice. thx, Jim Butler 04:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

User 58.178.137.47, what the "founder" believed is not the clincher in this discussion I'm afraid. What is relevant is that many practitioners seek to legitimise it by calling it a science. If you seek to disprove the label you need to show how many reiki beleivers think it's a religion and not a science. Mccready 06:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with your attempt to place the burden of proof here, Kevin. Calling something a "pseudoscience" involves a judgement call. There are no universally agreed-upon objective criteria for that category (e.g., as with the category cult, but not quadruped). What's the matter with the obvious NPOV route I mentioned above, per JoshuaZ's recent edit? Honestly, I think your passion for these issues has made you somewhat tone-deaf as to how to frame them appropriately; this latest edit is still in the ballpark of your writing in lead sections that "X has no basis in science", which other Wikipedians have criticized. No respectable encyclopedia would say such things. thx, Jim Butler 06:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, the terms "religion" and "spiritual" are not synonymous at all. It's a nescient comparison. We'd be hard pushed to find a notable Reiki practitioner that doesn't consider Reiki to be a spiritual healing technique. So I'd be interested if anyone can show us where there is a notable Reiki practitioner that considers Reiki to be more based in scientific work than spiritual/energy work. 58.178.153.192 00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Jim and believers in Reiki, you'll just have to get used to the idea that pseudoscience is a legitimate word to use in an encyclopedia whether or not you think it's a loaded term. Check the definition of pseudoscience. Reiki fits. If you can show some objective basis in science for it then we can talk about an alteration. 58, necsient is a nice word don't you think? Again you confuse the issue. Whether it is MORE science than not is not the issue. The issue is that many claim it IS science. Since it is not then it is a pseudoscience. I'll place pseudoscience in the lead again. Mccready 11:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Echoing my comments from the prolotherapy talk page: First, I don't agree that it's an appropriate designation to give without sourcing under NPOV, because it's a loaded and contentious term. Obviously, the NPOV solution is to say "Randi (or whoever) has criticized it as pseudoscience": why is that insufficient? Second, leaving aside its negative connotations, one must consider the technical accuracy of the designation: Reiki is psuedoscientific only to the degree that its practitioners call it scientific. How widespread is that designation? Bottom line, calling something pseudoscience is a POV because there are no objective criteria for putting something in that category. As I said, if ALL Reiki practitioners claimed it was a "science", I personally would have no problem applying the term. Still, I don't think that my judgement calls (or my POV, or my "original research") are what ought to drive Wikipedia. Jim Butler 20:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The point of the Randi links is that there are skeptics who call it pseudoscience (and there are other times Randi has done so), whether he is justified is a separate issue. The point is that there are prominent skeptics who call it a pseudoscience. JoshuaZ 05:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt your point, JoshuaZ. And I think your NPOV rewording was the way to go. But the reference in the lead nonetheless doesn't support the assertion, so let's find one that does. thx, Jim Butler 05:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Most of this article is completely lacking in sources. Citations would be nice. JoshuaZ 04:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. 58.178.153.192 00:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Obtuse re Randi

it's obtuse in the extreme not to make the wholly legitimate inference that randi thinks Reiki is bs. This is akin in logic to saying the pope doesn't abhore certain sexual practices which he doesn't actually name. I'm reverting. And Jim, your removal of the link altogether was also extreme. WP is about improving, not about removing stuff you don't like. In future could you please reword to achieve what you consider to be NPOV, rather than remove stuff entirely. This is not the first time you have done this. Mccready 07:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The question isn't whether Randi thinks it's bullshit, but whether he says it's pseudoscientific. Why should I leave in a reference that doesn't say what it's cited for? Jim Butler 07:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What needs to be said in the lead isn't what Randi thinks, but that scientists are skeptical; done. -Jim Butler 08:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Because you can use your brain and make the inference, that's why? Are you trying to contribute to an encyclopedia or defend BS. We are allowed to make inferences you know and this is the smallest one I have ever seen. Your attitude is tiresome and unproductive. Pls desist. Mccready 08:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You honestly think a flawed citation of Randi is better than a fact tag, or a statement saying "most scientists are skeptical" as I suggested? I'd like to hear from other editors on this. As for the reference, read it. Randi is saying Reiki is BS and that it can't be proven, which is not the same as saying it's pseudoscience. Sure it's in the same ballpark, but why not just have a better reference, or make the point differently? You're assuming I'm in total bad-faith mode here, and that's not the case. -Jim Butler 09:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop being a dick Mccready. You're applying double-standards everywhere. You can infer to your hearts content. Just don't write your inferences into the article. If Randi's opinion is so bleeding obvious then it should shine through like organic sunshine from any citation we use from him...

but it doesn't... funny that.

The truth of the matter is that Randi's words are cagey and non-specific -- other than saying that he doesn't particularly like alternative medicine practitioners and he has a penchant for picking on new agey types. If you think this man is some shining beacon of truth, then let his words stands for themselves. As per Wikipedia policy. It seems you only like to follow policy when it suits you. 202.67.127.250 12:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

My my sensitive little soul aren't we. If you think it through 202 you'll see perhaps we agree. Quote some words or find a form of words we're all happy with. DON'T DELETE THE SOURCE. That's not nice and it's not cooperative. Jim, Once again you waste more time trying to defend a position rather than make a sensible edit. If that is your position then WHY delete the source? How can I assume good faith of an editor deleting sources because references to them may not be word perfect, who has an obvious position to defend and who has placed misleading edit summaries on his edits? In fact I have read the source. I thought the reference to obfuscating drivel particularly apt. Would you or would you not be happy with the statement "Randi is skeptical of the scientific claims for reiki and notes that not a single reiki believer has taken up the offer to win a million dollars by proving reiki in a scientific test."?

Sorry Kevin, but I can't accept that sentence. Even as a skeptic, I cringe at the idea of having Wikipedia giving these million dollar offers any legitimacy. These offers have no bearing on truth or science are nothing more than PR stunts and have been employed by ID proponents to artificially boost their credibility. See [13] (search for $250,000). If Wikipedia were to document these things, the better place to put them would be on a Randi page or under controversy as a POV and providing a link to a page that explains that cash prizes are problematic. -- Newhoggy | Talk 13:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Newhoggy good point and one I accept. Would you like to propose or insert a form of words? Mccready 13:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm content with calling Reiki an art over psuedoscience, for a number of reasons. Firstly, while there are people who claim it is an science (ie. explanable in scientific terms) and hence supports the view that it is a psuedoscience, there are people who don't go there and in fairness we shouldn't try to paint them all under the same brush. The second reason is the fact that scientific evidence does not show that it provides any benefit beyond the placebo effect does not invalidate it as a healing art because the placebo effect can be a powerful way of giving relief where other methods have failed. I was reading about when a doctor administered a pain killer to a patient which worked, only to later discover the 'pain killer' was only a saline solution. Apparently, believing the shot contained morphine was enough to trigger the same neural-chemical response as the real thing. The pseudoscientific nature of some practises and explanations should be noted as they are found - but specifically rather than generally. -- Newhoggy | Talk 05:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Another alternative that could break the ice is to say something like "it is psuedoscientific to the extent that it is describe as having a scientific basis beyond the placebo effect (citations needed)." -- Newhoggy | Talk 06:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete the source? Just like you just did on Chiropractic? Nice double-standard. The short of it is this... find a quote, source it, put it in.

You write paragraph after paragraph crying about people deleting your words, when you could be actually looking for sources for your words. The fact that you keep arguing instead of backing up your edits really proves the point... the edit has no basis. 202.67.127.250 13:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, 202, you are very amusing. Please assume good faith. If I deleted a source in error from the chiro page please provide the diff on the appropriate page and we can have a look at it. Mccready 13:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience - Monthly notice

I edit lots of pages where pseudoscience is an appropriate appellation. I also edit other pages so don't get the wrong idea. In order to increase efficiency and avoid repetition I plan to set out on my userpage some editing principles I abide by. Once a month, or as needed, I'll post to individual talkpages on this issue. Please note this is NOT an attempt to avoid discussion as some have alleged. I have also used the revert function which does not allow an edit summary. Again this is an efficient way to handle the problem of editors who IGNORE stuff I have already written on talkpages and then have the temerity to suggest I ignore them. Again, please assume good faith and don't accuse me of being unwilling to seek consensus - that is blatantly untrue.

The problem with pseudoscientific explanations is that they pop up all the time like the multi-headed hydra, either by deluded people or by people seeking to exploit vulnerable people. James Randi in a list which makes no claim to be comprehensive sets out 28:

Dowsing. ESP. Precognition. Remote Viewing. Communicating with the Dead and/or "Channeling". Violations of Newton's Laws of Motion (Perpetual Motion Devices). Homeopathy. Chiropractic Healing (beyond back/joint problems). Faith Healing. Psychic Surgery. Astrology. Therapeutic Touch (aka "TT"). Qi Gong. Psychokinesis (aka "PK"). The Existence of Ghosts. Precognition & Prophecy. Levitation. Physiognomy. Psychometry. Pyramid Power. Reflexology. Applied Kinesiology (aka "AK"). Clairvoyance. The Existence of Auras. Graphology. Numerology. Palmistry. Phrenology.

Wikipedia lists 46 (some overlap and some are disputed by wikipedians):

Acupuncture (Williams 2000:3-4; Carroll 2003:5-7), Applied kinesiology (Hyman 1999:34-43; Kenny et al. 1988:698-704), Astrology (but this was once protoscientific in that it once tried to record measurement of the position of heavenly bodies) (Williams 2000:18-19; Carroll 2003:34-36), Anthroposophy (Carroll 2003:25-28), Biblical scientific foresight, Christian Science (Williams 2000:51), Creation science (Williams 2000:64-65; Carroll 2003:85-89) and its offshoots and many of the "theories" invoked in its defense:, , * Baraminology, * Creation biology, * Creationist cosmologies, * Flood geology, * Intelligent design ( Carroll 2003:180-83), o Irreducible complexity, o Specified complexity, , Cryptozoology (Williams 2000:70-71; Carroll 2003:9), Dianetics (The pseudoscience of Scientology.) (Williams 2000:82-83; Carroll 2003:99-102), Duesberg hypothesis (Claims that HIV is a "harmless agent" unrelated to AIDS), Eugenics (Williams 2000:98-101), Graphology (Williams 2000:137-38; Carroll 2003:156), Homeopathy (Williams 2000:148), Megalithic yard and other pseudoscientific metrology (Williams 2000:210), Melanin Theory, Modern geocentrism (see also Flat Earth Society), Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) (Williams 2000:235; Carroll 2003:252-57), New Chronology, Novelty Theory (aka "Timewave Zero"), Orgonomy (Williams 2000:248-49; Carroll 2003:267-68), Palmistry (Williams 2000:256; Carroll 2003:271-72), Perpetual motion (Williams 2000:262), Personology (Carroll 2003:282-83), Phrenology (Williams 2000:266-68; Carroll 2003:286-88), Physiognomy (Williams 2000:268; Carroll 2003:288-89), Pyramidology (Williams 2000:290-91), Quantum mysticism, Remote Viewing (Williams 2000:301-2; Carroll 2003:331-33), Scientology (Williams 2000:312-13), Spiritualism (Williams 2000:326-27; Carroll 2003:364-65), Synchronicity (Williams 2000:338), Telekinesis/Psychokinesis (Williams 2000:288; Carroll 2003:374), Telepathy (Williams 2000:346-47; Carroll 2003:374), Time Cube (also see Gene Ray), Unidentified Flying Objects (Williams 2000:359-60; Carroll 2003:146, 387-88), Vedic science (Alexander et al., Select Press; 1st edition, 2005)

So you can see the problem, we as encyclopedists are dealing with because on many pages in wikipedia there are people who will swear blind that they know their particular belief in their particular psuedoscience is true. They often cite their personal experience, not understanding their own psychology, not understanding the regressive fallacy and not understanding that anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron, or not understanding the need for replicability before such claims can be accepted in an encyclopedia or by science. It is difficult dealing with this type of religiosity in editors.

So I will continue to use the revert function, but will do so only under the conditions outlined above.

Newhoggy's suggestion

On Newhoggy's statement above. Yes we are getting closer to consensus. How about "many believers of reiki use psuedoscience to support their beliefs". I don't agree with calling it an art which I'm using in the OED meaning of skill in doing anything as the result of knowledge and practice. Anyone can set up shop as a Reiki Master (I personally know one poor fellow who has done this) and it requires no skill, no knowledge and no practice. Yes the placebo effect is powerful and, unfortunately, not well understood. But that is no reason to avoid the use of the term pseudoscience. I didn't quite understand the form of words suggested above but it is heading in the right direction. I might note that we don't need citations for every statement we make. We are quite at liberty to draw logical inferences in creating an article. Mccready 08:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Reiki is an art", or "Reiki is a skill in healing as the result of knowledge and practice". Certainly this concept is in need of explanation so I will try express my own rationalisation of how these apparently contradictory ideas can be reconciled from a skeptic's point of view: Reiki is a practise (ie. something a person does) that is used for the purpose of giving relief from ailments (usually symptoms of pain) through the use of the placebo effect. The placebo effect is not a well understood phenomenon, but it is well documented and scientifically shown to be real. The effectiveness of the placebo effect is heavily dependent on the state of mind of the patient including but not limited to the extent to which the patient believes in the validity of the practise and believes in the competency of the practitioner. The Reiki skill is therefore not how the practitioner channels energy, but rather the degree to which the practitioner can convince the patient that a substantial action is occurring and that the action is beneficial for the treated ailment. Only then will a positive placebo effect be brought forth in the patient. Unfortunately it is difficult to be convincing without believing - thus the predicament that the practise on the one hand can bring about beneficial physiological changes, but on the other hand accumulates explanations with no physical basis, that exist as a reality only in the mind of believers (ie. a useful form of knowledge despite its falseness - science usually calls these things models). Some Reiki supporters would probably be very upset with my explanation, but with this reasoning does allow me to honestly say Reiki is an art. -- Newhoggy | Talk 12:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

On citations. Though not strictly needed, its still a good practise which on the one hand improve the quality of the article and on the other hand helps editors deal with reconciling contradictory POV. The improvement in quality I believe is real because it forms the basis with which future editors (particularly those with less expertise in the topic) can verify and conduct further research. -- Newhoggy | Talk 13:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Convincing the "patient" to part with substantial amounts of their currency for the placebo effect would put it in the realm of a "confidence art," perhaps! Regardless, the proposal is perfectly acceptable as far as I am concerned. --Fire Star 火星 13:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Newhoggy, I enjoyed your thoughts, but I really don't think that using a term like "art" is NPOV just because it's amusingly double-edged. If we have to rationalize it that much, it's probably POV/OR. Why not just use "practice"? And I think "faith healing" which Kevin had earlier certainly fits; objections from some Reikiists appear to be along the lines that the patient need not believe in it, but that's actually not part of the definition. Unless a lot of Reikiists reject the term, seems like an appropriate one. -Jim Butler 07:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, I can't say I didn't try :-) -- Newhoggy | Talk 12:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Aye, 'twas a worthy screed.  :-) -Jim Butler 19:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to think of a reason why it can't be called "faith healing", but I haven't been able to come up with anything. -- Newhoggy | Talk 06:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC).

Use of the words "science" and "pseudoscience" ... in the lead section etc.

Pseudoscience refers to something misrepresented as being scientific (i.e., in compliance with the scientific method). Some have pointed to Reiki proponents' use of the term "science" as evidence of such misrepresentation, but that logic fails to take into account that the term has a generic meaning beyond the scientific method. It can mean simply an "Organized body of knowledge; any particular art or discipline"[14]. (Variations on this definition appear in other dictionaries; e.g. Merriam-Webster has "knowledge obtained through study or practice".) Thus, a Reiki practitioner may legitimately refer to Reiki as a "science" and simply mean that it is systematic.

I'm not familiar enough with Reiki to know what its proponents really mean when they call it a "science", and it's fine for the article to say (verifiably) "so-and-so says Reiki is pseudoscience", even if so-and-so's logic is faulty. However, this issue serves as another reminder of why Wikipedia's three pillars of NPOV, verifiability and NOR are important. I still firmly believe that classifying something as a pseudoscience requires NPOV wording and a citation, no matter how obvious the classification may appear to be, and no matter how much the alleged pseudoscience reeks of bullshit. Remember, if it's that obvious or noteworthy, someone will have said so already.... thx, Jim Butler 06:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm having problems with my brain physiology. After looking at Kevin's removal of the fact-tag on Randi and pseudoscience, I find myself thinking that I've entered into a world where Wikipedia has gone away and been replaced by an exact duplicate where WP:V no longer applies. Can anyone help? -Jim Butler 06:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatsidynamics?

Chromodynamically, flavordynamically, geometrodynamically, and electrodynamically? I don't think the credibility of the scientific criticism of Reiki is helped by these words because they make no sense to a lay person. Why can't we just say the four known fundamental forces of nature and leave these terms to the scientific articles that have the scope that can do them justice? -- Newhoggy | Talk 13:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree, and the section isn't even technically correct because it conflates energy with force. I tried a rewrite... thx, Jim Butler 14:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Much better. Thankyou. -- Newhoggy | Talk 01:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Faith healing

The entry for faith healing is clearly written so that it encompasses Reiki. Some definitions are written more narrowly, indicating explicit (rather than, say, implicit) belief on the part of the person receiving treatment. In popular usage, are the terms "faith healing" and "spiritual healing" distinct from one another? Probably not, as I think about it, since one hears of faith healing being practiced upon people who don't believe in it. But it may bear some research.... -Jim Butler 20:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism from Christian Churches and Groups

The recent rewrite of this section is unsourced, appears to draw heavily from the fundamentalist/Evangelical Christian POV, and portrays that view as speaking for all Christianity. Needs work from editors familiar with subject matter and Wikipedia conventions. Tagged, and moved back under controversy heading. thx, Jim Butler 20:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jim - I'm a now retired Reiki/Seichim master, and wrote that section - so you're incorrect to say that I'm unfamilar with the subject matter as I have contributed a great deal to much of the present wiki Reiki article - without blowing my own horn too much, I was the first Westerner that was known of to translate the distant healing and master symbols (I for example helped William Rand with his attempts to translate them and found errors in his claims) - I trained with Beth Gray among many others (one of Takata's masters) over 20 years ago. I also helped track down what is now called Traditional Japanese Reiki in the 80's etc, etc. I would say that it is quite incorrect to say that the POV is Christian fundamentalist/evangelical, as any sect of Christianity whatsoever condemns any and all sort of supernatural practice. There just isn't any form of Christanity that I can think of that accepts any supernatural/occult practice in any form. If you can think of one, please let me know - but I just can't think of one. I'll cite some evidence to substantiate this.

Regardless of one's particular form of Christanity, theologians agree that their are three main streams of Christanity - Roman Church, Eastern Church and Protestant Church (see the above link for info on it if you're interested) - and all of them condemn practices like Reiki directly or indirectly without any exception. Fundamentalism/ Evangelical Christianity is a relatively small (but rather loud) sect within Protestanism, but the cricticism against occult practive is universal in all Christian churches. It's quite common to hear the term incorrectly to mean "hard line" or "extreme viewed", however I'd respectfully suggest that you're using the term in this way as even the most moderate Christian Churches condem supernatural practices. I've therefore removed the tag, but will provide some sources soon. Regards - Sean White

Thanks Sean. I didn't say you were unfamiliar with the subject matter, only that the article needed attention from someone familiar both with the subject matter and Wikipedia principles WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR (the latter is one reason why your own expertise isn't sufficient unless you can source your claims). You are simply wrong that opposition to Reiki is as universal among Christians as you say it is. There are many who both practice Reiki and self-identify as Christians, as Googling for e.g. "Reiki Methodism" will show. In fact, your claims are so over-the-top that I'm moving them to the talk page for now. No offense, but unsourced statements can be removed at any time, and these are so extreme that they I feel they don't even belong in the article with an NPOV tag. (Wikilinking to terms is not adequate sourcing as you know.) I'm more than happy to put some of them back in once you have adequately sourced them, but some are so extreme that they are plainly wrong. thx, Jim Butler 19:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jim - I don't agree that I am unfamilar with Wikipedia and POV an would suggest that you are having some trouble with bias and using fairly superficial criticism to counter an idea that you don't personally like. I stated that all Christian Churches are opposed to Reiki and similar practices, Not all people who self identify as being Christian in some sort of vague personal sense - the topic pertains to Christian Churches and their doctrines not to not practicing but self identifying Christians (who may or may not be infact in line with their actual Church if they have any at all). For instance, a person may call themselves a Catholic and worship Satan etc, so they may call themselves Catholic and may perhaps not be a baptised Catholic at all, as they are clearly not in line with Catholic teaching or having recieved the baptism to call themselves one. This is all pretty much common sense.

I personally don't particularily agree with the Christian POV myself as I belive it's quite simplistic, however it is the Christian POV and so therefore must be accurately represented, regardless of you or my particular opinions about it (whether for or against). I have therefore returned it to the front page, and will continue to do so if you unfortunately attempt to censor what it clearly fact because it doesn't conform to your particular tastes. If you are able to cite Christian churchs doctrine that supports Reiki, I'd be happy to change the section, however until you do it (which won't likely happen), it will remain. to qualigy however - You might have some luck with the actual Episcopalians (and perhaps some new age Anglicans clergy) in terms of some of their clergy actually practicing Reiki but they are not generally seen as not being a coherent Church as it appears to be falling apart because of so many conflicts and divergent views (however I should add this to the section too I think). In any case, as I have said no Christian doctrine from any Church actually condons supernatual practices like Reiki. Please feel free to cite a teaching to prove me wrong, and I'll include it in the section.

Here are some brief links that support my claims on say for instance the Eastern and Western Churches (Catholic and Orthdox): "Reiki has foundational beliefs and practices that are irreconcilable with Catholicism, including not recognizing Jesus as a divine Person and the Savior of all mankind. Reiki involves a belief similar to pantheism, in which a universal life energy—not Jesus—provides life to all living beings and is also said to govern the Reiki healing process. Because Reiki practitioners believe they can harness and use this universal life energy, Reiki is not simply a form of superstition but rather opens oneself up to dangerous involvement in the occult practices of divination and magic" (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 2111, 2116-17).

A good general discussion of the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox arguement http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=200

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church nos. 2116-2117 (written by the current Pope - The CCC is the definitive encapsulated doctrine of the Catholic Church (East and West Churches)): "". . .Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, **the phenomena of clairvoyance**, and recourse to **mediums** all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.

All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others even if this were for the sake of restoring their health are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her own part warns the faith against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either powers or the exploitation of another's credulity." NB - I have added the bold markings.

Regards, Sean --59.167.69.32 22:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sean - Thanks for clarifying your view. I too am not partial to the Christian view and agree it should be represented accurately, which means we should source adequately and not overgeneralize.

I don't want to get into an edit war here, but you seem confused about burden of proof, and you aren't abiding by Wikipedia policy by putting unsourced claims back into the article after they have been challenged. Please review this, from Burden of evidence:

The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic.

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence ...

Please also see WP:NOR regarding overgeneralizing and formulating your own conclusions and arguments. There are way too many statements in that section that require sources. I didn't mean to be a dick by taking it off the page, but I hope you realize that it's very uncool to remove tags without discussion. I'm fine with leaving the material there for awhile so you can dig up sources, but in the meantime I'm at least going to put the tag back on the section.

I do acknowledge your point about the distinction between churches and practitioners, and agree on what Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox leadership say. Please feel free to add the sources you cite for those branches. However, your claim about "all Christian churches" just doesn't work for Protestant denominations given their diversity (ha, I almost typed "demon-inations" -- must have been Satan! ;-). Great latitude exists as to how much emphasis is given to concerns about the occult, or what is identified as occult. Some Christians, including leaders of churches, perceive Reiki as a valid form of faith healing. Googling for "christian reiki church" turned up this example written by the pastor of an Oregon church. So, that's a counterexample that is sufficient to refute the general claim. But it's still necessary on Wikipedia to cite a source saying that other churches, or a majority, hold that Reiki is occult. Hope you agree. Jim Butler 00:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I'll put some decent work into citing some strong sources (such as adding the CCC quotations), and will also expand the discussion to incorporate some of the actual practices of clerics such as the one in the link you've provided. There have even been cases of Catholic nuns running Reiki workshops too for example (who have subsequently been disciplined for doing so). I think from our discussion that I should also clarify what "occult" specifically means to these various churches by their particular definitions. I agree as you say that some Protestant clerics endorse Reiki, such as the link you provided however I think I really need to clarify the divergence between Church doctrines and actual Church practice, and this seems to me to be the main point of contention in what I'm claiming so I'll clarify this. - Regards, Sean

Thanks, Sean. I agree that divergence between church doctrines and practice is a big issue here. The other one is, again, what exactly the church doctrines are. Big and little Protestant denominations, and unaffiliated churches, are all over the place in terms of how much concern they give to what is "occult" and whether Reiki fits the definition. So, just because X denomination is greatly concerned about occultism doesn't necessarily mean that they automatically put Reiki in the same boat as (say) invoking pagan spirits. Denominations also vary in terms of how much latitude individual congregations and members retain to determine these things (e.g., Quakers). Therefore I'd like to remove the "all" statement, which is unsourced and, when it comes to Protestantism, most likely untrue. We can leave the RCC and Eastern Churches in there since it seems likely that their "official" position is opposed to Reiki. best regards, Jim Butler 04:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

A large part of the article appears to have been written from the skeptic POV. I have attempted to remedy the introduction for now, which should always be written in a voice sympathetic to the subject. Some sentences have been moved to their appropriate sections as well. Aquirata 03:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the voice for any of our articles should be neutral. If there are people who believe in it, we should report that. Conversely, if there are notable critics who think reiki is a load of bollocks (and I think there are) we have to report that as well. --Fire Star 火星 20:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The standard is to implement NPOV by sympathetically describing a group from its own perspective, then sympathetically describing other perspectives. NPOV requires including all significant viewpoints. -Will Beback 22:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the level of separation you are talking about here. There has been a trend recently to use this idea to write a sympathetic article with all criticisms hidden at the bottom. Doing so is not acceptable. Differing views should be integrated together into one coherent article, where the reader takes in the views at the same time. The introduction should contain an introduction to major criticism as well as an introduction to the topic, if the criticism is notable enough. Otherwise Time Cube (my favorite example article) would have a rather interesting introduction. --Philosophus ^T 00:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a very badly written intro in my view. Aquirata 12:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

An introduction should familiarize the reader with the subject. The reader must be familiar with the subject before he can understand and appreciate any criticism. By including criticism in the introduction, you are encouraging partisan mentality, which is not what an encyclopedia is about. Aquirata 12:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How is labelling Reiki 'pseudoscience' relevant in terms of the article? Do practitioners claim that Reiki is science or scientific? I'm specifically referring to the sentence: "Scientists and skeptics such as James Randi consider Reiki a pseudoscience, and point to studies finding no difference between Reiki and the Placebo effect.[4]" Aquirata 12:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not labelling it as pseudoscience. I am saying that certain groups of people consider it as such. What the practitioners claim isn't important to that - they would matter if we were labelling it as pseudoscience. --Philosophus ^T 14:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Your argument falls by the definition of 'pseudoscience': "Pseudoscience is a term applied to a body of alleged knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is portrayed as scientific but diverges substantially from the required standards for scientific work or is unsupported by sufficient scientific research." If Reiki is not portrayed as scientific, then it is irrelevant who calls it pseudoscience. Aquirata 16:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it is relevant. The definition of pseudoscience doesn't matter, since the text is just stating the opinion of a group of people. Even if that opinion makes no sense from the definitions of the words, it is still relevant. --Philosophus ^T 22:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, so the quote is non-sensical in your opinion, too. I am removing it based on violation of WP:NOT. Aquirata 00:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not what I am saying. It is a major viewpoint by a major and significant group of people. Not also that I did not say that the opinion makes no sense. I was just saying that the rationality and correctness of the opinion does not matter so long as the opinion is notable. --Philosophus ^T 00:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It is non-notable due to it bearing no relation to the subject matter. It violates WP policy, how can you disregard that? Aquirata 00:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a major view on the subject matter. It certainly is relevant to the subject matter. This argument is akin to saying that the criticism that Time Cube is nonsense is not related to the article's topic because supporters don't claim that it makes sense. --Philosophus ^T 00:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be personal attack removed. Reiki doesn't claim to be scientific, therefore the term 'pseudoscience' doesn't apply no matter who says it. Aquirata 00:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks. --Fire Star 火星 01:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please - would you address the issue? Aquirata 01:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The personal attack policy is non-negotiable. Until that is established, the only issue is how long until administrative sanctions are imposed. People usually get three warnings. --Fire Star 火星 01:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, would you please explain how my post in your view was a personal attack? I've seen various administrators interpret policies in wildly different ways, so nothing surprises me any more. My post was certainly not meant as an attack, and I'd like to know how you can see it that way. We've been dancing around this simple issue for some time now. I've explained my position several times, but understanding has not happened so far. Aquirata 02:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The machinery is now set in motion. Isn't editing other people's comments considered WP:VAND? Aquirata 01:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Fire Star, Perhaps you can actually help solve this problem we are having here? Aquirata 01:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you described Philosophus using terminology that could be seen as accusing Philosophus of not being intelligent. Traditionally, many editors when enforcing WP:NPA policy remove personal attacks on sight. It didn't have anything to do with the content of the article, it had to do with a personal attribute you were assigning to Philosophus. You are relatively new, so an explanation of the policy is reasonable expectation. As far as the content dispute goes, if a notable critic has described reiki as a pseudoscience, using that word, then we will report that. Of course, it will have to be sourced. What we want is an article written so that a reasonable reader will not be able to discern the personal biases of those who wrote it. --Fire Star 火星 02:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Like I said, that wasn't what I meant. Ultimately I guess it will be the user in question who will decide whether it was a personal attack.

The issue at hand is whether the statement in the article is relevant to the article. If I understand your reasoning correctly: can say physics be called pseudo-religious as long as a reliable and notable source says it is regardless whether or not physicists claim their discipline is a religion? Aquirata 08:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, since I'm an administrator, I decide if it is an attack. To be fair, it was in the middle of an argument, and you are taking my points seriously, so now I'm convinced it isn't a problem. Your point about physics and religion is a valid one, I've heard that proposition before actually, and if you were to find a source that you could show meets the notability requirements well enough for the people who watch the physics articles (or at least the scientific method) to be satisfied then I at least would consider it an interesting aside. I am wondering if Randi specifically said that reiki was a pseudoscience or whether it was lumped in with all the other paranormal activities Randi likes to rain on. The latter would weaken the argument for inclusion of the statement, IMO. --Fire Star 火星 13:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for this clarification. The 'Randi bit' was a letter to a hospital planning to host a 'Reiki healing clinic'. In usual Randi style, 'pseudoscience' was just one of the pejorative terms used with respect to Reiki; others included "quack notion", "retreat to superstition and medieval thinking", "quackery", "hand-waving" and "superstition". The actual sentence in which the term appeared reads: "It appears that the quackery session, an exhibit and endorsement of hand-waving, pseudoscience, and superstition, will take place under the auspices of Massachusetts General Hospital as officially scheduled." So he doesn't actually state that Reiki is pseudoscience, but this can be inferred from the sentence in the context of the letter. Aquirata 07:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What I want to avoid is passive language like "...believed to be beneficial for treating physical, emotional, spiritual and mental diseases" that implies we here at Wikipedia believe such a thing. --Fire Star 火星 15:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

The way this article is currently organised relegates all criticisms to the end of the article, essentially making it a sympathetic article with criticism tacked on the end. This is highly detrimental to the NPOV of the article. A reader should read both sides of arguments at the same time in a truly neutral article.

There are a quite a few cases where this is very noticeable. For example, the Training section doesn't contain any of the controversy over teaching speed. In my opinion this rather makes Reiki look more like a scam. Someone wanting to learn about Reiki training would learn from the section that teaching times very widely, that some courses are very fast, and some courses can even be done over the Internet, which is rather suspect for a skill that would need finesse and experience. Nowhere in the section is it mentioned that some in the community disagree with these courses, and the section makes the situation sound as if no one really cares about quality in the teaching. If the subsection of the criticism were merged into this section, a reader would get a balanced view that would show a more positive situation, with wide variance in requirements and speed but with very fast courses being considered suspect by others in the community. --Philosophus ^T 01:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

We need to mention the criticims in the intro. I've added a brief mention, it doesn't need to go into the same detail as later in the article. NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints be included. -Will Beback 08:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? It is an irrelevant comment and simply degrades the article into name calling and labelling. Aquirata 10:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

An editor removed some text with the summary:

• Reiki doesn't claim to be scientific hence cannot be pseudoscience'.

The matter here is that we, as Wikipedia editors, need to constrain ourselves to verifiably summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view. It is not our job to say that those who call Reiki a "pseudoscience" are wrong, or right, or that those those make any claim about it are one thing or another. We just report that some folks say X, while other folks say Y. That's the WP:NPOV way. -Will Beback 10:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, so if some reputable and notable source says that "many scientists are faggots", then we include that in the 'Science' article as a relevant POV in the spirit of NPOV? Or do we include the statement "the Pope hates niggers" in the 'Catholicism' article as long as the source is reliable? The point of not including the 'pseudoscience' comment is that it is irrelevant in terms of the topic. Surely as editors we need to decide whether or not a statement is relevant to the topic? Aquirata 11:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can reliable verify those statement then yes, you could put them into the appropriate article (with a NPOV rewording). For the record, I'm sure that many scientists are homosexual. Jefffire 13:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

But can you quote them word for word? Aquirata 14:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read our core policies, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. They cover this situation. -Will Beback 18:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Spiritually guided

This phrase in the introduction has been replaced by "ghostly", which shows a total lack of understanding of what Reiki is and what the kanji character Rei means. I have reverted this change based on the following:

• Indian Reiki Masters - Introduction to Reiki
• Dharma Memphis - Reiki
• Alef Reiki - What is traditional Reiki?
• NY International Reiki Center - What is Reiki?
• The International Center for Reiki Training - Reiki Energy
• SpiritLightWorks - Reiki - Spiritually Guided Life Energy

I can come up with more references in case the above is not satisfactory. I would also like to ask anyone not familiar with Reiki to Talk before making such changes. Aquirata 15:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Section to be reworked

I have moved the following section here so we can work on it and move it back to the main page when the two tags can be removed. We shouldn't have a tagged section as a permanent part of the article.

Please edit within the section and add your comments below in the 'Comments' subsection. Aquirata 15:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism from Christian Churches and Groups

Orthodox Christian Churches (whether Eastern Rite or Latin Rite Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and some Reformation derived Protestant Christian Churches etc) identify Reiki as being occult and so therefore a demonic power coming from Satan. Most agree that Reiki is more akin to the occult than to medicine and is not the equivalent to the Christian charism of Laying on of hands. Christians who believed in general about the existence of the supernatural (or who had some experience with Reiki and it's power) would concede that Reiki does exist in a supernatural way and works in some degree to heal, but would object to it from the perspective that it is an occult practice and therefore derived from evil regardless of good intentions or a beneficial result.

With Reiki, as in most esoteric systems of belief, initiation into secret teachings, symbols, mantras and techniques are required. These initiation methods and their secrecy, as well as the conferring of supernatural powers (often for large amounts of money) is a hallmark of occult practice, and is similar to traditionally understood magical systems such as that of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Freemasonry, Satanism and Witchcraft (or Magic (paranormal) practices in general). The belief in summoning, controlling, manipulating or channeling an invisible energy through symbols based on pagan symbolism, is sufficient by Christian theological standards to call it occultism. Occult practice, is clearly condemned according to Christian practice and Faith. Some groups specifically speak against it (such as the Dominicans from the Catholic) Church.

Proposed version: Criticism from Christian Churches and Groups

Orthodox Christian Churches (whether Eastern Rite or Latin Rite Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and some Reformation derived Protestant Christian Churches etc) identify Reiki as being occult and so therefore a demonic power coming from Satan. Most church doctrines interpret practices like Reiki as more akin to the occult than to medicine and do not the equate Reiki to the Christian charism of Laying on of hands. Some Christians who believed in general about the existence of the supernatural (or who had some experience with Reiki and it's power) would concede that Reiki does exist in a supernatural way and works in some degree to heal, but would object to it from the perspective that it is an occult practice and therefore derived from evil regardless of good intentions or a beneficial result. There are however Christan groups who do equate Reiki to the same healing as practiced by Jesus and as such there are more and more Christian groups who are accepting of Reiki and even practice it (see http://www.christianreiki.com/).

Churches seem to believe that Reiki, as in some other esoteric systems of belief, involve initiation into secret teachings, symbols, mantras and techniques are required. These initiation methods and their secrecy, as well as the conferring of supernatural powers (often for large amounts of money) is a hallmark of occult practice, and is similar to traditionally understood magical systems such as that of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Freemasonry, Satanism and Witchcraft (or Magic (paranormal) practices in general). The belief in summoning, controlling, manipulating or channeling an invisible energy through symbols based on pagan symbolism, is sufficient by Christian theological standards to call it occultism. Occult practice, is clearly condemned according to Christian practice and Faith. Some groups specifically speak against it (such as the Dominicans from the Catholic) Church. In fact, the truth is that Reiki does not involve secret teachings but instead has teachings which are considered sacred by those who practice and teach it. As with any field of learning a student is not given all the information in one go but will receive further teachings as they progress through their learning levels. The use of Reiki symbols are merely as a tool to assist the student in focusing their intention on the required purpose of those symbols. In general, these symbols are Japanese in nature and bear no relation to paganism. Should anybody really wish to find out all the details of Reiki teachings, there are some people who have made these publicly available on the internet.

---

How does that sound? --213.38.92.242 10:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC) GC

Comments

Please identify the problems with the section that warranted the two tags. Aquirata 15:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me except for the lack of internal links and citations. Aquirata 15:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How about adding..."Any search on the internet for 'Reiki Manuals', 'Reiki Symbols' or 'Reiki Teaching' will provide most of the varying information and techniques used by the different schools of Reiki.". There's no way to reasonably cite links for everything relating to Reiki. (plus I haven't quite got the hang of this Wiki editor :) --213.38.92.242 09:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC) GC

The Italian article is much larger than the English - they seem to be just getting on with it, instead of these tiresome skeptic/placebo effect/etc circular arguments. Their Glossary article is huge! 62.231.39.150 15:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

endless circle of skepticism

you guys are hilarious!

couldn't you just put a big: warning, the following information hasn't been evaluated in scientific blah blah and is rejected by most blah blah

and then be done with it? Then let people get on with the rest of the friggin' article! Somebody above mentioned how great the italian wiki article is, because there aren't so many negative minded people trying to pull reiki down into nothingness. If reiki is personally offensive to someone, they should just not do it, and ignore wiki pages about it. It is a very minor movement, and I doubt it's going to take over the world any time soon.

Can we please get some positive-minded people on here to tell us what REIKI is, instead of all the skeptics telling us everything about what it is not? Most people are quite capable of deciding for themselves without having so much endless circular debate.

stop the madness please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Wwilson 1 (talk • contribs)

The problem is that all people, even practitioners among themselves apparently, don't agree what reiki is. It is demonstrably controversial, and so we have to report all notable views, pro, neutral and con. Because the Italian Wikipedia may have an incomplete article on the subject doesn't mean we have to. To call people that want to report critical things about reiki or any subject "negative" is a violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith at least, and isn't likely to persuade people to your POV in any event. --Fire Star 火星 19:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)