From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Reiki has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Japan / Culture (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 14:07, July 23, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Culture task force.
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject Alternative medicine (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.


Recent review[edit]

This should be added: vanderVaart S, Gijsen VM, de Wildt SN, Koren G. A systematic review of the therapeutic effects of Reiki J Altern Complement Med. 2009 Nov;15(11):1157-69. --Ronz (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Call for a more balanced lead[edit]

Please see the 2008 summary below for current discussions on the scientific findings in the article's LEAD paragraph.

Please do not contribute here if wanting to discuss the science part.

To Ronz and Vectro and Xxglennxx: We agree that NPOV is not accomplished by presenting two "sides" of a controversy in a "balanced" manner. And we agree that there is a lack of quality research in this area. Finally, we seem to agree that at the moment, despite the efforts of many people, there is still no conclusive evidence either way.

But I think some of us disagree on what it means to have no conclusive evidence.

The study sighted in the lead of this article offers no evidence to claims that Reike is effective, yet the article distorts that conclusion in a subtle but important way, saying (A) "..there is insufficient data to judge the effectiveness of Reiki." Whereas the actual conclusion of the study is clearly quoted in the paper itself: (B) "..the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven."

To illustrate the important difference between these two sentences, consider the claim that "Doritos cure cancer". Despite millions wanting and believing it to be true, and many anecdotal stories, several tests over several years prove inconclusive. In short, no one is able to show - in clinical, blind, peer review studies - that Doritos directly affects cancer in any significant or meaningful way (beyond the documented benefits of the placebo effects, etc.) What would be the conclusion of these tests? (A) "Dorito Cancer studies to date are inconclusive" and "we're not sure whether or not Doritos does or does not cure cancer". Or would it be (B) "At this time, there is no evidence showing Doritos to be effective in curing cancer."

I suggest it would be B, and so does mainstream science. And that is *precisely* where we stand with Reike (despite me personally wishing otherwise). Therefore, the most clear, accurate and NPOV way to summarize the study is to quote the actual conclusion of the study itself.

When I changed this, it was twice changed back again by Xxglennxx, a self described "Reike master". While I appreciate the sweat equity Xxglennxx has put into this article, and respect the discipline he has chosen to pursue, I am not sure his corrections fit NPOV. I have changed the entry one last time in the hopes that you all discuss the issue, and either keep the quote, or remove the study altogether. Thank you for your consideration. --Axcelis555 (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer your wording. I think NPOV and MEDRS and FRINGE would support it. Let's see what others say. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
It'd be nice if you could get the name right, Axcelis555 it's Reiki, not Reike. I have been trained in Reiki Shiki Ryoho. My lineage traces back to Usui. I can provide it, if you like. This has been discussed time and time again here. I supplied a similar text to the one currently used ages ago. I've also suggested including the full of it, which would get rid of this whole debate in total. I'm not a fan of randomised trials, as some show clear evidence of Reiki working, and others don't. Having a mash of all of them isn't the way forward, but I'll go with whatever the majority is. Also, looking at the history, I've undone your contributions once, not twice. -- Xxglennxx talkcontributions 20:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, what about this? (I've suggested it before in the past): A systematic review of nine randomised clinical trials was conducted in 2008. Most trials suffered from methodological flaws such as small sample size, inadequate study design and poor reporting. Two of the trials suggested beneficial effects of Reiki compared with sham control on depression, while an other did not report intergroup differences. For pain and anxiety, one RCT showed intergroup differences compared with sham control. For stress and hopelessness, a further trial reported effects of Reiki and distant Reiki compared with distant sham control. For functional recovery after ischaemic stroke, there were no intergroup differences compared with sham. There was also no difference for anxiety between groups of pregnant women undergoing amniocentesis. For diabetic neuropathy there were no effects of Reiki on pain. A further trial failed to show the effects of Reiki for anxiety and depression in women undergoing breast biopsy compared with conventional care. As a result, the evidence was insufficient to suggest that Reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. If not, what's wrong with it? -- Xxglennxx talkcontributions 21:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Xxglennxx. I don't know what "Usui" means, but it sounds cool and I will check it out. I am Scottish. Very sorry about the spelling. Perhaps it is because my girlfriend's name is Heike :) And you are also right about the changes... it was someone else who changed it the second time. RE: Your suggestion, I like it a lot. It just seems too long for a quick lead, so I'd just stick with your last sentence "...evidence was insufficient to suggest that Reiki is an effective treatment.." (which is already in there), and I'd put the rest in the 'research' section. Anyone else? --Axcelis555 (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem, Axcelis555. I'm Welsh, so you know :) Usui, as in Mikao Usui developed Reiki in Japan. I agree with your suggestion of keeping the current as it is, and mention the full in the research section. I think we should wait to Ronz to reply first, as he knows more about this sort of presentation that I do. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way :) -- Xxglennxx talkcontributions 19:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible content?[edit]

Here is an article published by Jain S & Mills PJ. Reiki, which states that Therapeutic Touch and Healing Touch (that included Reiki) received acknowledgement from the science community that touch therapies do promote healing. This was based on the review of 66 clinical studies measuring the effects of "biofield therapies" all of whom had a range of ailments. Jain and Mills examined the strength of the evidence for the efficacy of these complementary therapies, and showed that overall, published work on biofield therapies is of average quality in scientific terms. There was strong evidence that biofield therapies reduce pain intensity in free-living populations, and moderate evidence that they are effective at lowering pain in hospitalised patients as well as in patients with cancer. This is interesting reading about the Catholic Church and Reiki. Xxglennxx (talk)

The Science Daily article is an adapted press release. The research review is here. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The review I mention here is more relevant. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the proper link, Ronz. I'll write a work in for the one mentioned by you above, and will post it here before adding it so others can contribute. Xxglennxx (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems this is a primary source. We need good secondary sources, preferably reviews. The scientific and medical claims in this article are subject to the sourcing requirements established at WP:MEDRS, so keep that in mind when choosing sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Are there derivative works on Reiki? Is Longevitology one of them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sn50 (talkcontribs) 07:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


There's some confusion about the review currently cited in the article.

Lee 2008 concludes, "In conclusion, the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven."

vanderVaart 2009, mentioned above, should be included and concludes, "The serious methodological and reporting limitations of limited existing Reiki studies preclude a definitive conclusion on its effectiveness. High-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to address the effectiveness of Reiki over placebo."

The article, "Prince of Wales's guide to alternative medicine ‘inaccurate’" merely summarizes the medical consensus at that time, and is consistent with both of the reviews above. While it provides some context, I'm not sure it's necessary. --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

--Vajko-- I also think that the article about the Prince of Wales' guide should not be included in reference to the scientific findings, mainly because it is not a scholarly article and it really only represents the interpretations of Mr. Ernst.
About the vanderVaart paper, I agree that in the lead we should mention the conclusion that further study is needed to "draw definitive conclusions about the efficacy of Reiki"(vanderVaart 1168). However I do feel it is important to also mention that in 9 of the 12 trials selected for analysis, a significant therapeutic effect was demonstrated by the Reiki treatment. In the actual article ( they discuss how the results of the studies are basically legitimate, however the way the trails were Reported was rated as poor because they didn't follow a very stringent and detailed set of standards for reporting called CONSORT.
Quick example: "One trial (25) provided extensive background on the process and success of therapist blinding (for Reiki Level I practitioners) but only stated ‘patients were blinded’ for the participant description. The CONSORT clearly states that this sentence is not enough to ensure that adequate blinding was achieved."
So preferably in the lead, after the 2008 study, we could put in something to effect of: "A more recent 2009 review found that while many trials demonstrated a 'significant therapeutic effect' of Reiki treatment, poor reporting of the trials renders these results unsuitable for making a definitive conclusion"
I think that something along those lines more accurately reflects the findings of the review. Hope to hear back from you guys soon. Thanks, Vajko (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm for the above changes. Go ahead and write them in. As I'm not all that "up" on the scientific studies behind Reiki (and not sure about how to cite them), perhaps Ronz or Vajko can write them in? My main goal with this article was clearing up the English and general "facts" about Reiki - now we just need to build upon this. Xxglennxx (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
"However I do feel it is important to also mention that in 9 of the 12 trials selected for analysis, a significant therapeutic effect was demonstrated by the Reiki treatment." Sorry, no, per WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV, WP:SYN, and WP:FRINGE. Such a statement misrepresents the findings. I've repeated this multiple times now. No one has addressed my concerns. Without any response, I don't know if others are ignoring my concerns, disagree, or simply don't understand.
"mainly because it is not a scholarly article and it really only represents the interpretations of Mr. Ernst" This is the opinion of an expert, based upon the medical consensus of the time. That said, I don't think it's necessary to be included in the article. However, it does provide us here with some context. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I've requested help explaining how to properly use these sources from Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Reiki. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how to present medical findings in an encyclopaedic style, which is why I've stayed away from even trying to write them in (after thinking about it). Help would be greatly appreciated. Xxglennxx (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ronz, sorry you felt as if nobody was responding to your concerns. If you read the full article and not just the abstract, I think you will agree that directly quoting the results of the review is not misrepresenting the findings. The author's found very specifically in nine of the trials that the Reiki group had a greater positive change in the measured indicators than the placebo group. Stating the results of a scientific inquiry when referencing it, is absolutely appropriate and does not violate any of the four guidelines you posted. Vajko (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I'm happy to elaborate on my concerns, which are being ignored. --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What are they? Xxglennxx (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV and Fringe Sources[edit]

No where in the guidelines of the WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV, WP:SYN, and WP:FRINGE does it state that the Journal of Complementary and Alternative Medicine is a fringe source. In fact it happens to be the leading peer reviewed scholarly authority in the field of medical research into CAM. And it should be blindingly clear that directly quoting from the Results section of a scientific paper when discussing the Results of the study is appropriate. Please provide an answer to these arguments before changing the article.Vajko (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Directly quoting in a misleading manner is simply inappropriate. If you're not clear why the quotes are misleading, please inquire here. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and moved the 2009 review mention, and tried to address some of the problems with its summary. It needs to be integrated better in the section. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you have hit on a good idea: We should relegate all mention of the scientific trails to the scientific section.Vajko (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "Provision by national health services"[edit]

Provision by national health services[edit]

The National Health Service of the United Kingdom (NHS) offers complementary therapies such as Reiki throughout a number surgeries, such as Velindre Cancer Centre (Welsh: Canolfan Ganser Felindre) in Wales,[7][8] and also offers information regarding Reiki,[9] as does the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) in the USA.[10]

I think that this section needs to be added back in. Shoemaker's Holiday's reason for removing it was that the government does not offer free Reiki, the citation is offering to let you pay for it. NHS treatments are free. No where in the above text does it say (or imply) that the UK NHS offers free Reiki, but merely points the fact that it is available to patients. Thoughts? Xxglennxx (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The NHS provides all medical treatments at hospitals and doctor's offices for free. That one hospice is allowing what may well be a one-off treatment option, not regularly, and which you have to pay for, says nothing about provision by the NHS - indeed,t hat you have to pay for it indicates it's not part of NHS policy to offer the treatment, since, as I said, all treatment by the NHS is free. The section is at the very least highly misleading, and, since it can't show even that is at all common, not actually notable. Show some NHS policy that encourages the provision of Reiki by hospitals, and then we can talk. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 04:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Just bumping the thread. I think that we should include a section to say that complementary therapies are being offered by health services such as Velindre Cancer Centre (reflexology, reiki/healing, aromatherapy, breathing and relaxation techniques), with reference to this page. In reference to this page, other complementary therapies are being offered (Indian head massage, body massage), which I think you have to pay for, including Reiki, but this to me seems to be from someone not working for the Complementary Therapy Department (see first link). Opinions? (Forgot to sign!) -- Xxglennxx (talkcont.) 23:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The beginning of this article seems biased toward disbelief.[edit]

Would you put the opinion of the Reiki community on Catholicism, at the beginning of an article describing the Catholic religion? Why do you put Catholic beliefs about Reiki at the beginning of an article about Reiki. It seems out of place and disrespectful to Reiki Practitioners. I hope it will be edited soon. This article has completely change my view of Wikipedia as a legitimate source of objective information. As long as this article remains as it is, I will discourage everyone I know from using Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that without further sources, it probably doesn't belong in the lede. Here are some worth considering to add: ? --Ronz (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind it being taken out. I added in when cleaning up as I thought the LEAD was supposed to represent major areas within the whole of the article. Thought the CC section isn't large, I thought it appropriate to include it in the LEAD (though on a personal level I disagree with their stance, being a Reiki level 2 practitioner myself). Ronz, again with referencing, I'm not sure how to go about it. If you want it referenced, add one of your choice (hmm, that sounds a bit mean and harsh, but it's not meant to!) :) Xxglennxx (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the addition of opinions expressed by the Catholic Church, prompting their opinion in the opening paragraph of the Reiki article is in poor taste and only serves to create a defensive tone for legitimacy in the entire article. Imagine if the views expressed by opinion of Captialism was quoted and stated within the definition of Communism... Not only such an act of poor taste, it inevitably supports a fictitious dichotomy between "the West vs the Rest" discourses and serves to further reflect the hegemony of power between Judeo-Christian influences with "other cultures". To me it's the equivalent "exploring the mystical realm of Orientalism." If the Catholic Churches opinion must be expressed, have it done, as it is, in the appropriate area. But for many people reading about Reiki for the first time (as many people do for articles on wikipedia), it saddens me to see the entire opportunity for legitimacy and respectability labeled and stomped upon by scientific and religious communities within the first paragraphs of someone trying to even figure out what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 02:17, 8 April 2010

I think,, you need to get of your high horse. Have you read the article of late? You'll notice that the mention of the CC has been taken out of the LEAD and can only be found in its section. I'm not sure that you're aware of it, but the role of an encyclopaedia is to provide information, both "good" and "bad." The article does not seek to promote the religious views of another, but merely to point them out and say that they're there. Personally I'm against what the CC has said about Reiki, as I am a Level 2 practitioner myself, but I'm not going to put my point of view in because the article would then be biased. What editors can you, and that's you included, it to edit an article and present the "facts" and what has been said, which is what was done when adding the information about the CC to the LEAD. If you've read the above conversations, you'll know that the LEAD contains an overview of the entire article, and includes important points. I, at first, deemed it suitable to have it in the LEAD, as it expresses a religion's specific views of Reiki - something which has not been done publicly before. I think it safe to say that if more religious speak out publicly against the use of Reiki that we'll see a piece added to the LEAD also/again, but for now, it isn't there. Xxglennxx (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I do agree with the point if maybe not the vehemency of's post, and thank you for putting the CC's views in their area in the article xxglenxx. Vajko (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

2008 summary[edit]

What I was saying a little earlier about the review study from 2008; is it should also be moved to the scientific evidence section with the 2009 study and we can leave the lead to be a general intro to Reiki. Vajko (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The lead must include a summary of the scientific evidence, per WP:LEDE, WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
If we do include a summary of the scientific evidence it needs to be an actual summary and not just the 2008 study. Also, about the mention of the 2009 study: it is essential that all the editors who want to represent the study have read the paper, so that we can be on the same page.
I also find it prudent to explain the following:
The point of conducting a scientific inquiry is to obtain data. The data the researches collect is then recorded in the Results/Data section. After the data is communicated in the Results section, then the researchers draw their own informed Opinion of the importance of the results in the Conclusion section. Understanding this, it is clear then that the Results, being the actual hard facts/data of the inquiry, are the most notable part of a study.
Including the opinions of the authors of the study, as stated in the Conclusions section of the paper, may be appropriate. However, it is paramount that the Results of the paper be included when discussing a study.Vajko (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The 2008 study is a summary, and the best we have. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The 2008 study unfortunately is only one review and not a summary of the current scientific findings. Vajko (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Vajko, I think the easiest thing to do is for you to write what you'd like to see put in the article concerning scientific findings (2008 or whatever) here on the talk page, and then we can discuss those proposed additions. I personally have been as a loss with all the scientific findings proposed in the article, and am confussed as to what's what and who's who? Out of interest, do you practise Reiki (I'm just curious :D)? (P.S., What "personal opinions" have you seen in the article?) Xxglennxx (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted [1] for the same reasons discussed above. --Ronz (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Basically, the new wording was less clear, if not outright misleading. Similar problems have been discussed throughout this talk page, but especially in Talk:Reiki#NPOV_and_Fringe_Sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, following the link on the main article to the 2008 review, the following is said: "A systematic review was conducted in 2008 into Reiki in order to summarise and critically evaluate the evidence for its effectiveness. Of a search of 205 studies, nine randomised clinical trials (RCTs) met the criteria. Two of these RCTs suggested beneficial effects of Reiki compared with sham control on depression, while one RCT did not report intergroup differences. For pain and anxiety, one RCT showed intergroup differences compared with sham control. For stress and hopelessness, a further RCT reported effects of Reiki and distant Reiki compared with distant sham control. For functional recovery after ischaemic stroke, there were no intergroup differences compared with sham. There was also no difference for anxiety between groups of pregnant women undergoing amniocentesis. For diabetic neuropathy, there were no effects of Reiki on pain. A further RCT failed to show the effects of Reiki for anxiety and depression in women undergoing breast biopsy compared with conventional care. Most of the trials used suffered from methodological flaws such as small sample size, inadequate study design, and poor reporting, and it was concluded that the evidence is insufficient to suggest that Reiki is an effective treatment for any condition, and therefore the value of Reiki remains unproven." How about including it in the article as it is? After reading it fully, and comparing it to the present expressions on the article, the article does seem biased towards having no findings what-so-ever, which simply isn't the case according to the 2008 study: it concluded the value of Reiki remains unproven, but did find beneficial effects in many of the trials, as reported above. (Also, I wasn't sure what "sham control" was. Is it the same as the placebo?). Xxglennxx (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so what are we going to do about the 2008 findings in the article? As I've proposed, the only thing we can do to avoid people misreading and misunderstanding the findings is to include the whole summary, which is what I wrote in, but Ronz reverted it, stating, "misrepresentation of sources." How is this? Currently, the 2008 article version states, "A 2008 systematic review of randomised clinical trials assessing the evidence basis of Reiki concluded that efficacy had not been demonstrated for any condition." Yes, this could be the conclusion of the findings, but I think it rude not to include the fact that there were demonstrations of benefits of Reiki. As previously stated by other contributors, just presenting this line is very misinterpreting to a reader, as if they follow the link, then they'll see that benefits were seen. Can we just include the full of it, and if not, why? -- Xxglennxx talk 20:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, this is a misunderstanding of the conclusions of the reviews. They did not conclude that reiki has any proven benefits. --Ronz (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I interpreted the line "A systematic review of randomised clinical trials conducted in 2008 did not support the efficacy of Reiki or its recommendation for use in the treatment of any condition." as that the study had shown that Reiki was not an effective means of treatment to any condition. Reading the abstract of the referenced article, this does not seem to be the case. It only states that the effectiveness of Reiki is unproven, not that it is proven not to be effective. I believe something akin to "A systematic review of randomised clinical trials conducted in 2008 shows that the methodology of existing research into the effectiveness of Reiki is lacking and therefore no definite conclusions should be drawn from it. According to the article the value of Reiki remains an open research question." Would be more true to the point of the (abstract of the) article. Lomewilwarin (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This is what I've been saying and trying to point out, Lomewilwarin. I'll ask again: Can we just include the full of it, and if not, why? If we include the full of it (the summaries, that is), then no-one can be two ways about it. -- Xxglennxx talk 14:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed your earlier comment, I think I read over the talk page too quickly. (I'm a regular reader of articles but have never commented on or edited an article before, this case bothered me particularly however because I was close to using it as an argument in a discussion, until I realized that the actual reference said something different.)
As for your question: If it is rewritten to fit in with the style of wikipedia articles then I think including the full abstract is a good idea, but probably not in the header of the article. Upon further reading I noticed that this has already been attempted under the "Scientific research" header. Perhaps the whole "A systematic review of randomised clinical trials conducted in 2008 did not support the efficacy of Reiki or its recommendation for use in the treatment of any condition." line could just be removed from the header completely, or replaced by a reference to the later paragraph? Lomewilwarin (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with adding the full summary of the review. As I've mentioned many times now already, having the full of it will not allow people to "think up what they like" about - it's there written in plain English. Though Lomewilwarin - we need to include it in the beginning (what's called the LEAD section), as this section has to give a complete ovewview of the article itself. Ronz - Can we just include the full of it, and if not, why? -- Xxglennxx talk 16:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Once again, I think this is simply a problem with properly interpreting systematic reviews. Once again, I've asked for help here.
For example, "not that it is proven not to be effective" is an arguing for an Argument from ignorance. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

2009 summary[edit]

After reading the A systematic review of the therapeutic effects of Reiki (2009), I think (some of) the following can be added to the article:

"A systematic review was conducted 2009 with the intention of trying to evaluate whether Reiki produces a significant treatment effect. The review was collaborated from studies that were identified using an electronic search of Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. The quality of reporting was evaluated using a modified CONSORT Criteria for Herbal Interventions, while methodological quality was assessed using the Jadad Quality score. with ad articles being selected based on the following features: placebo or other adequate control, clinical investigation on humans, intervention using a Reiki practitioner, and published in English. Data was independently extracted on study design, inclusion criteria, type of control, sample size, result, and nature of outcome measures. The modified CONSORT Criteria indicated that all 12 trials meeting the inclusion criteria were lacking in at least one of the three key areas of randomisation, blinding, and accountability of all patients, indicating a low quality of reporting. Nine of the 12 trials detected a significant therapeutic effect of the Reiki intervention; however, using the Jadad Quality score, 11 of the 12 studies ranked "poor." It was concluded that the serious methodological and reporting limitations of limited existing Reiki studies preclude a definitive conclusion on its effectiveness, and that high-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to address the effectiveness of Reiki over placebo."

I think the only thing we can do is present the whole review in its entirety, then there can be no room for possible misinterpretation by readers. The previous problems have come up, I believe, do to us not including the full review itself, which I think we'll have to from now on (although I'm sure Ronz will tell me differently ;P). Xxglennxx (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone have access to the full paper? There's the additional problem, pointed out by another editor, that this review is inferior to the 2008 review. I agree from reading the abstract, and so have not followed up on my comments to include it. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Though it's inferior, I think it would be worth while to include the 2008 and 2009 reviews, as it points out the conflicting use of Reiki though scientific means, and proves (as both reviews have said) that more scientific research is needed into Reiki. If there are no objections, I think we should add the above in soon (in full or in parts, what do you lot think?). Xxglennxx (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so what are we going to do about the 2009 findings in the article? As I've proposed, the only thing we can do to avoid people misreading and misunderstanding the findings is to include the whole summary, which is what I wrote in, but Ronz reverted it, stating, "misrepresentation of sources." How is this? Currently, the 2009 article version merely states, "A 2009 review found that "the serious methodological and reporting limitations of limited existing Reiki studies preclude a definitive conclusion on its effectiveness." Again, this could be the conclusion of the findings, but it's not everything found in the review, and think it rude not to include the fact that there were demonstrations of benefits of Reiki. As previously stated by other contributors, just presenting this line is very misinterpreting to a reader, as if they follow the link, then they'll see that benefits were seen. Can we just include the full of it, and if not, why? -- Xxglennxx talk 20:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

See my comments from 20:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC), above, on what I think could be added to the lede that includes the 2009 review conclusions.
Neither review concludes that there were benefits from Reiki. --Ronz (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
There are more current Clinical Trials as published by NCAM here where the beneficial effects of reiki have been found. I think the article should reflect these findings rather than a outdated conglomerate of trial findings. Or at least recognize the current trials to have shown benefit from reiki. CooperBass (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
At a glance, they all look like individual studies, right? Anything here a review? --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Must the article mention only reviews? Can more current information as in the trial findings also be included? If so then the article may seem more balanced and less biased toward an outdated and perhaps biased review. CooperBass (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
NCAM reviewed the individual trials before publishing them to their website.CooperBass (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at WP:MEDRS, and take some time to skim through the discussions here to see how we've addressed similar problems.
We rely on reviews to avoid bias. Individual studies should be treated as primary sources. They can be used to provide important details not covered by the better sources already in use. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Komyo Reiki False Information[edit]

I am a Komyo Reiki teacher. I learned directly from Hyakuten Inamoto. I spoke with him about this line that I deleted and was just republished. It says that he only achieved Level 1 & 2 from Mrs. Yamaguchi. According to him, she taught him how to give atunements. She did not teach using a level system. There were no levels. Whoever is continuing to post this mis-information needs to supply a reference. Without a reference, it is unverifiable and unpublishible.

Thank you.

Wormis (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the sources, but it sounds like the information is being placed in a misleading context - that there was such training available at the time he was trained. It should be kept out per WP:BLP, unless I'm missing something. I expect Xxglennxx will be able to help sort this out. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
We can keep it out for now. Is there any information published about the Komyo system, as I'm not familiar with it myself. It would also be nice to include the above information that you've provided, Wormis, namely that there aren't any levels within the Komyo system, but without reference, nothing can be added. Xxglennxx (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Komyo Reiki does have levels. It was created by Hyakuten Inamoto after being initiated into Reiki by Chiyoko Yamaguchi. Some of the literature is proprietary only to students of Komyo Reiki, but Hayakuten Sensei as we call him, does have his own website that does a good job of explaining how the system works to outsiders. Please see:


He is a devout budhist monk who left his family to further his spiritual practice. It is highly unlikely that he would lie about how he learned reiki from Mrs. Yamaguchi. I would really like to know who was writing that about him and where they got their information. Wormis (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. So it seems that he introduced levels into this system if Mrs. Yamaguchi didn't have a levelled-teaching system. Though it may be unlikely that he lied, there is a possibility (though that isn't to be taken as a criticism). Many claim Reiki to be thousands of years old, but we know it isn't - Reiki in its current form is only 88 years old, just like many claim Usui to be a Christian, when we know he was a Buddhist. There is possibly no way of knowing who initially wrote it onto the article (well, there is, but it'd be in the form of tediously going though the history files) - I myself have just cleaned up the article and added the pillars and pictures :) By the way of published material, I meant in the form of a publicly available book. If you'd like to add information about the Komyo system of Reiki (with references), that would be greatly appreciated. Xxglennxx (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am currently in the process of asking Hayakuten Sensei what he would like to see on the page. He is very intelligent, and I expect that he will write it himself, and I will edit the very slight English errors that my or may not be there. Then I will publish it with him as a reference. Wormis (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As a side note: Jikiden which is taught by the son of Mrs. Yamaguchi, also has levels. It is my understanding that traditionally Reiki is taught orally (I would have to check that with Hayakuten Sensei to be sure though). When a teacher decides that he/she wants to try to spread its practice more widely, then levels are created to make it easier to teach and be understood by people. This was not Mrs. Yamaguchi's goal in teaching. Wormis (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Good. You realise that he will have to write impartially, as Wikipedia has a no "point of view" policy. Many of the current article editors are up on this, and they will rewrite it for NPOV if need be, so don't worry. Reiki might have been taught orally, but from my understanding, it has always had "degrees," as expressed by Usui in his original handbook. Xxglennxx (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

But of course. I think he realizes this. As you said, you have editors to make sure that that standard is kept, so we're okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC) (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As a Jikiden Reiki Shihan-Kaku, i´ve had first-hand information from the vice-president of the institution than Mr. Inamoto was not a student of Mrs. Yamaguchi, but that he used to help her translating correspondence. From the Jikiden Reiki institute, they even claim that they have recorded on film Mrs Yamaguchi talking about what she felt as a "treason" from Mr. Inamoto, as he uses her name and lineage, but that she never taught him any kind of teaching degree. In fact, they address this specifically on the Jikiden Reiki website: [11]. I don´t know how this should be handled, as both parties (Komyo Reiki and Jikiden Reiki) have different views on this, and Komyo Reiki uses the Yamaguchi lineage. JuanJoseLM (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Gendai Reiki Hō, Western Reiki[edit]

I'm toying with the idea of getting rid of this section completely. I've been trying to find good refs for it, but haven't found any as of yet, and I'm starting to think that there's not a lot of published material on it. What are you opinions? -- Xxglennxx talkcontributions 22:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


Noticing the debate on whether Reiki is quackery I feel the need to observe that editors are using an article published in a journal that is not considered a high-quality medical journal. As such, one has to wonder why actual main stream journals like NEJM, JAMA, Nature, Lancet, et cetera, are not used. Usually, when a certain practise has an a priori chance of being inprobable science will lack incentive to investigate, hence the lack of RCT's. Case in point, you will not find a study, in serious medical literature, on the efficacy of lemon juice as therapy in carcinoma. We should not interpret that as basis for stating in the respective WP articles that lemon juice has not been disproven to work. In general, the hallmark of quackery, unless widely advocated (i.e. homeopathy), is the lack of rigoruos scientific rebuttal. --Nomen Nescio (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well said, but this still doesn't sort the current problems we have with all of the trials conducted. Some of us have argued to include the full summary - all of it - but has fallen on death ears. Can you propose anything? -- Xxglennxx talkcontributions 23:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Could you point out any RCT, i.e. adhering to the scientific method and published in something better than an obscure journal, that addresses Reiki? To my knowledge no reputable article exist. As such I would suggest pointing out the non-scientific nature of this "medical intervention." --Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 12:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Nomen, actually there is quite a wealth of scientific evidence which can be used to explain the nature of this "medical intervention". The primary candidate is the natural electromagnetic fields which all biological organisms emit. There is a ton of literature detailing effect of electromagnetic fields on biological systems, including those published by JAMA, a preliminary trial published by Lancet and the follow up article with results published here. There are tons of other articles published by reputable journals on this effect which have been published over the years. It is known that the frequencies of the electromagnetic fields produced by the human body are in the range known to produce these effects and influence biological systems. The main question is whether practitioners have the capacity to produce these fields at will at sufficient strength and in the correct frequency range. It may be that these fields are produced randomly, or are at least not controllable, which may explain why some studies find positive effects of reiki and other biofield therapies and others do not. The fact that these therapies are associated with "new age" thought is irrelevant since at very least there is a growing evidence base suggesting that there are some positive effects to these treatments...including this one. As for why mainstream journals don't publish these articles, well that should be self-evident. Obviously, this type of research is still considered on the fringe even if it did report positive findings, and I'm sure the editors of these major journals want to protect the integrity and image of their journal by not publishing fringe science. I think this could change if more is done to investigate the possible causal mechanism behind biotherapies such as electromagnetic field emission, which as I have stated, is already a proven healing mechanism. I think major journals would be willing to publish articles on biotherapy once the "mystical" component has been taken out of the equation. Asymnation (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

This paragraph may be grammatically incorrect. "According to Reiki practitioners and Masters, at First Degree, a Reiki practitioner is able to heal himself and others, at Second Degree is able to heal others distantly (commonly called distant healing) with the use of specialised symbols, and at Master level (specifically Master/Teacher level) is able to teach and attune others to Reiki." It may make more sense if it were changed to this. According to Reiki practitioners and Masters, at First Degree, a Reiki practitioner is able to heal himself and others, at Second Degree the practitioner is able to heal others distantly (commonly called distant healing) with the use of specialised symbols, and at Master level (specifically Master/Teacher level) the practitioner is able to teach and attune others to Reiki.

CooperBass (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

About Ichita Takahashi[edit]

According Rika Saruhashi (Reiki Master, direct student of Hiroshi Doi and translator of his writings), Masaki Kondo was relieved by Ichita Takahashi early 2010. Therefore (as Rika said in his blog), Ichita Takahashi be the 8th president of the Usui Reiki Ryoho Gakkai. Thanks--Sjg (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a reliable source, then we cannot add it in. The source I've provided is in print and is considered a reliable one. -- Xxglennxx talkcontributions 02:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Improving the article[edit]

It's been a while since I last edited the article properly. What can we do to improve it, and improve current content? What does it need to be a good article? (Just adding the following for own ref: Wikipedia:Good article criteria, Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured). -- Xxglennxx talkcontributions 17:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was just looking over the article myself and am very pleased about the NPOV improvements in it. While of course I applaud any continual improvements, it is nevertheless the case that this article has shifted from one of lending validity to Reiki to the more proper reporting on Reiki. I'm really surprised actually. Good job all.Tgm1024 (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Myself and a few other editors have worked on it for quite some time. The most recent discussions involve the scientific findings and how to present them, though I think we have that cleared up :) Feel free to add anything or suggest anything here - once I take my Masters, I'll see if I can add more information. -- Xxglennxx talkcontributions 12:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Definition quotes or alterations?[edit]

Hi Xxglennxx, and thank you for your many contributions to this article. I've added some dictionary definitions, but you've changed them twice because of "wordiness and style". Please see MOS:QUOTE, which says "Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation. Where there is a good reason to make a change, insert an explanation within square brackets". The OED uses lower case reiki and two Chinese dictionaries use circled numbers. In addition, I believe the Hepburn romanization should be italicized "reiki" instead of capitalized "Reiki", definitely for reiki 霊気 "eerie feeling". Would you please revert these changes of the original quotes and romanizations? Thanks. Keahapana (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind using the lower case "Reiki," but I keep changing it to keep with consistency - most all exampled of Reiki have been spelt with upper-case "r" throughout the article. Again, deleted the circled numbers because of consistency, and though they may be common within Chinese and/or Japanese literature (or even Wikipedia), I don't think they have a place here, which is why I replaced them with the ';'. What do you think? -- Xxglennxx (talkcont.) 20:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggested balanced external link?[edit]

Should this external link added after the current existing external link: Stephen Barrett, M.D. (4 August 2009). "Reiki Is Nonsense".  ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gil Dekel (talkcontribs) 23:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking. Stephen Barrett is a notable "source for online consumer information" meeting WP:ELNO #11 criteria. The link could also be used as a reliable reference for a skeptical viewpoint.
If you're suggesting adding the link, then I'd say it shouldn't be added per WP:ELNO #11 (and possibly others from WP:ELNO). --Ronz (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC).
Thank you. I see your point about Stephen Barrett being a "source for online consumer information", and I have no issue with this at all. My question related not to Stephen Barrett himself, but to his specific article and the epistemological issue it seems to raise - as the article argues. The article suggests there are issues in the methods by which Reiki is assessed and presented in Stephen Barrett's article. My questions are:
  1. do you think the article offers important discussion regarding the epistemological issue of assessing Reiki?
  2. If yes, then is there a place to include the article in external links? I will let you decide.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gil Dekel (talkcontribs) 11:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

pseudoscience categorization requires a WP:V citation[edit]

a distinction needs to be made between a claim something is pseudo-scientific, and absence of claim it is scientific, or a claim that it is not scientific. regards (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

reiki in islam[edit]

Reiki is against basic islamic beliefs. Reiki level 2 and 3 involve reiki symbols which are not japanese alphabet as believed by many. For example reiki emtional symbol is translated as, "budha in me and god become one". And reiki distance symbol translates as, "budha in me connects with budha in you". that is invoking something beyond God alone. That is why many other religions also consider Reiki as idolatary practice. In fact a form of reiki called, " kundalani Reiki" does involve names of hindu dieties in addition to bhudistism. Prophet PBU of Islam forbade his followers against bhudist practices such as shaving head except for pilgrimage and wearing saffron colored clothes as worn by monks. Reiki initially leads to sickness than benefit. That period is described as 21 days period of detoxification and may be for months for some. The healing follows mathetical laws of probability and chance occurance. simply, it means that if you keep throwing rocks at a target one should hit it. It may be one in 20 or 50 or 100 but probability is never zero. So healing does happen as chance occurance. But these healing claims are greatly exaggerated. Probability will also mean that one should heal if nothing is done. Some recent reiki maters advocate that traditional reiki symbols can be mixed with or changed with any nontraditional symbols such as Islamic Arabic letters. But it would be mixing God and Budha or making them partners in healing. And it should be avoided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zia9242 (talkcontribs) 18:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that. True, Reiki, as it appears here, come from a Buddhist spiritual practice and not an Islamic practice, though many faiths do practice Reiki under other names (cf: the "Kundalini Reiki" you mention here). Many practitioners of these healing traditions have been monotheists, working with the notion that belief and faith in God can help one to heal (cf: the laying on of hands practiced by many Christians). Many of the Prophets of Islam and other Abrahamic religions practiced this as well. That said, is Reiki—or whatever it's called in the many languages of the world—really against Islamic beliefs? Morganfitzp (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, The Islamic equivalent to Reiki is something called Zar. You're welcome. (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Capital R?[edit]

The article uses both capital and lower-case R's. Which is it—"reiki" or "Reiki"—and why? Morganfitzp (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Depends if you're referring to the actual energy being used or the system of Reiki. -- Xxglennxx (talkcont.) 00:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

[sic] in the intro's quotation of 2008 study[edit]

This quotation was concluded with a [sic], which as far as I can tell referred to no actual error (possible vandalism?). Perhaps it was intended to refer to the lack of capitalization on Reiki, in which case it should be placed after the offending word instead of at the end of the quotation. (Though, if that is truly an issue, I think [R]eiki would be a more appropriate correction, although I do not know if that is in line with Wikipedia policy. If someone else thinks that is an actual error which needs to be addressed they can do so with explanation here.) Walkersam (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes - I added it to show the lack of capitalisation and the fact that it has come straight from the source word for word. I propose putting it back in to show this. If there's not objection, I'll do it by Sunday. -- Xxglennxx (talkcont.) 00:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, if you're going to make note of this error, the proper way is to put the [sic] after the offending word, not at the end of the quote. I have no argument personally with reinstating it in that fashion, although your discussion above of energy vs. practice usages suggests to me that it is possibly dubious to consider this an error. I'll leave that to others if they want to dispute it. Walkersam (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for Good Article[edit]

I'd like to nominate this article as Good one. Before I do this, does anyone have any objections or want to suggest any improvements? -- Xxglennxx (talkcont.) 02:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Nominated today by myself. -- Xxglennxx (talkcont.) 20:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"Derivation of name" changes[edit]

This statement is inaccurate: "Its earliest recorded usage in English dates to 1975.[7]". I suppose it depends on what is acceptable as "earliest recorded usage": If we are looking for usage in magazine/newspaper articles, then see: "Mrs Takata and the Reiki Power" by Patsy Matsuura [The Honolulu Advertiser February 25, 1974]. (There may be even earlier articles) If any published usage of the word is acceptable, see: an advertisement from the Hawaiian ‘Tribune Herald’ [1941] which reads: "Reiki treatments, massage, cabinet baths. Mrs. H. Takata, 2070 Ki-lauea Ave., Waiakea Homesteads.". If a formal declaration signed and witnessed before a Notary Public is acceptable, see: the notarized "Certificate Of Acknowledgement Of An Individual" - commonly referred to as "Mrs. Takata's Reiki Certificate" [February 21st 1938]. Rlei ki (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Xxglenxx, thanks for reverting the mangled OED quotation. I don't think we can accurately say that English reiki is "used to mean "spiritual energy"" because it usually means the therapeutic method. Something like saying English fengshui is used to mean "wind water"? Compare these online dictionary definitions (abridged): Oxford "a healing technique", Macmillan "a medical treatment", Cambridge "a treatment", Encarta "in alternative medicine, a treatment", "a form of therapy", Wiktionary "A Japanese form of complementary or alternative medicine". I've condensed the lengthy lead sentence, but it's open to your improvements. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I sense a hint of sarcasm there, so right back at ya: No problem! :) There's a difference between "Reiki" and "reiki;" Reiki is the system that encompasses the healing, the techniques, the teachings etc, reiki refers to the energy alone. I've no problem with how it is as it stands. Thank you. I did a partial revert because I believe it important to explain where the word came from, i.e., Japan and the Japanese language. -- Xxglennxx (talkcont.) 00:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]


for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Reiki/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MacMedtalkstalk 18:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC) I am planning on starting this review now, I will update this page within an hour or two.

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Well written, assuming good faith in that the Japanese/Mandarin characters are grammatically correct.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Matches MoS in structure of sections/lead.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Just find a replacement for ref 77.

Yes check.svg Done - For some reason, it was saying with a capital 'r' instead of lower-case 'r', which was bringing up the 404.
2b. it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. I studied reiki in school, and I don't see anything missed that I learned about. I actually learned some additional items here.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Doesn't delve deep into the minutae of the practice, but supplies plenty of information to the reader on all aspects.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Presents both sides of the argument (reiki does/does not work) and allows the reader to make their own decision.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Minor debate on certain topics but they stay on the talk page and wait for consensus. No edit warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. All fair use.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. The image of Hayashi should be in the early development section rather than origins, no? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes check.svg Done - It was placed in that section because there was previously a picture of Takata above him, and the what was then three pictures followed on from each other (Usui, Takata, then Hayashi), but seeing as Takata is now gone, I've moved Hayashi up.
7. Overall assessment. Waiting for a few minor fixes.

Yes check.svg Done - Minors updated/corrected by Xxglennxx on 20 March 2011.

Additional Points[edit]

  • Reference #77 is a dead link. (404)

Immediate Effects of Reiki on Heart Rate Variability, Cortisol Levels, and Body Temperature in Health Care Professionals With Burnout.[edit]

A user has just put this link on my talk page. I read it and it's interesting, and wondering if we can build it into the article itself. I'm asking here instead of just writing it in because, as other contributors already know(!), my history in the scientific field of Reiki is hit and miss! -- Xxglennxx (talkcont.) 21:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Danger's of Reiki[edit]

Is it possible to use this article as reference to show that reiki is not as pure as it sounds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The link you gave is to a self-published source. You would need a reliable source, i.e., for a claim like this, a peer-reviewed journal. Sunray (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Apart from what Sunray has said, the website it rubbish and full of misinformation; healing with Reiki (universal energy) isn't spiritual healing - there's no faith needed nor does it claim to heal the spirit. And this is only from the "What is reiki healing" section. Bad information, bad English, bad website! -- Xxglennxx (talkcont.) 19:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Reiki/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This has major neutrality problems (GA criterion 4).

I think most people will agree that the theories and practices of Reiki are, at the least, controversial, but almost the entire article is written solely from that perspective, often implicitly accepting them as true (this may well be unintentional, but is the overall effect). Most criticism is delayed until very late in the article, past the point that most readers will reach.

Some examples will serve:

Through the use of this palm healing (sometimes referred to as "tenohira" (掌, meaning "the palm"), practitioners transfer healing energy in the form of qi through the palms.
It is reported that the recipient often feels warmth or tingling in the area being treated, even when a non-touching approach is being used. A state of deep relaxation, combined with a general feeling of well-being, is usually the most noticeable immediate effect of the treatment, although emotional releases can also occur.[91] As the Reiki treatment is said to stimulate the body's natural healing processes, instantaneous "cures" of specific health problems are not normally observed. A series of three or more treatments, typically at intervals of one to seven days, is usually recommended if a chronic condition is being addressed,[89] and regular treatments on an on-going basis can be used with the aim of maintaining well-being. The interval between such treatments is typically in the range of one to four weeks, except in the case of self-treatment where daily practice is common.[89]

There are also the occasional non-sequiturs, such as this section, which rather abruptly switches to being solely about the UK, when nothing preceding is about the UK

There is much variation in training methods, speed of completion (i.e., attunement), and costs. Though there is no accreditation and central body for Reiki, nor any regulation of its practice, there exist organisations within the United Kingdom that seek to standardise Reiki and Reiki practises, such as the UK Reiki Federation[80] and the Reiki Council (UK).[81] Reiki courses are also available online, although traditionalists state that attunement must be done in person in order to take effect, as the Reiki Master/Teacher doing the attunement must be able to actually touch the energy field of the person being attuned. A distance Reiki attument is not always recognised by certain Reiki federations, such as with the UK Reiki Federation, who state, "[a]ll training must have been "in-person" or "face to face" (distant attunements are not accepted)."[82] Some traditionalists also hold the ideal that methods that teach Reiki "quickly" cannot yield as strong an effect, because there is no substitute for experience and patience when mastering Reiki.

I get the feeling this article is trying, but it really needs a lot of work - mainly just clarifying the difference between beliefs and objective facts - to truly reach the needed standards.

A secondary issue is the Bibliography: I'm going to presume these are notable books amongst Reiki practitioners, but it's maybe a little unbalanced to only give books for practitioners emphasis. Maybe put them in <small> tags, and drop it to an H3 header? It's a relatively minor issue, though one worth spending a little time on. 86.** IP (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The article builds upon information throughout the article itself; ideas presented earlier on will be explained and elaborated, as is done with all articles. Any criticism about the subject itself is always near the bottom of articles. There are controvicies within the Reiki communtiy about what IS and what ISN'T Reiki, its practises (whether from Japanese or Western POV) etc etc, and this again is discussed in the article.
The first example you give (of tenohira) is stated early in the article. This, and its common effects, are then elaborated by explaing what some recipients feel.
The Reiki Fed of the UK is mentioned as it is a body that volunterily regulates the stanards of Reiki within the UK - something which isn't being done in the US or any other country. It's included out of interest and that the venture is currently unique.
Books included in the Bib. should have been mentioned in the article, and they all are. Anthing that doesn't appear in the article will not appear in the bib. (Bibliography: A list of the books referred to in a scholarly work, ie, books that have already been mentioned). -- Xxglennxx (talkcont.) 18:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Before I reply, let me just point out this isn't a bad article, it just has a few problems. That said,
  • The point about the tenohira is not that it's not mentioned, but that it's presented as a factual method of healing, instead of the beliefs of [some] practitioners. The article tries to make the distinction, but - and I realise there's a balance to strike here, given that too much attribution will make it unreadable - but it also needs to avoid presenting beliefs of practitioners as fact. Integrating the scientific critique a little more might be one way to do this, I'm sure there's many other ways.
  • Check the mention of the Reiki Federation of the UK in context: an unrelated discussion suddenly transforms into discussion of Reiki in the UK - and it's that sudden transition to the UK alone, without explanation, that feels very abrupt. Perhaps there's a better place to bring it up?
  • Understood they're used in the article, but they seem to be given a little too much prominence compared to the rest of the references, given they're all one-sided. Making the font size match the other references (with maybe a third-level header instead of second) would fix this. 86.** IP (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  1. No where does it say that tenohira is factual, but "practitioners transfer healing energy in the form of qi through the palms." This is a belief found in EVERY system of Reiki. If it's not there, then it's not Reiki. Having said that, tenohira, though the most popular aspect of systems of Reiki within the Western (and probably Japanese) world, it is not the be-all-and-end-all of Reiki.
  2. I agree with the suggestion of a better place in which to place the UK statement. When revamping, I didn't know where to put, and its current placement seemed most logical to me.
  3. The bibliography on all articles, as far as I'm aware, is a level two, as it shows a list of reading material in its short form (i.e., different to the references as the bibliography doesn't contain page numbers etc). -- Xxglennxx (talkcont.) 18:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Think Point 1 is probably the crux of the issue - Point 2 only needs a little work, and Point 3 isn't that important, so let's focus on phrasing. As I read "practitioners transfer healing energy in the form of qi through the palms" - it's a statement of fact - that practitioners really do transfer healing energy through their palms. If it said "practitioners believe they can transfer healing energy", that's a statement of opinion, that doesn't need balanced.

Now, to a certain extent, that something is what practitioners believe can be taken as read, but I think this article doesn't quite hit that balance. Large sections go by without stating these are beliefs, as opposed to facts. 86.** IP (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from now. Would "practitioners believe that they are transferring universal energy (reiki) which allows for self-healing and equilibrium" be better? This gets rid of the ambiguity and also includes the implied statement that some Reiki practitioners see the reiki energy as a healing energy itself, where is is actually just rei ki (universal energy). I'm not sure where to place point two... -- Xxglennxx (talkcont.) 16:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Aye, that'd be fine, the main problem, though, is that there's a lot of lines like that, and I don't want to overdo it, so that we end up with an near-unreadable (but accurate) article with too much repetition of "practitioners believe". So, I suppose the issue is - I think it needs more such clarifications, but we also want to try to avoid too much... Is there any sort of half-way zone where it's not as noticeable that we're attributing beliefs? 86.** IP (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it'd be a case by case change... Do you have sentences that you think "stick out"? I can try and reword them... Do we agree to go ahead and put the above sentence to work for the moment? -- Xxglennxx (talkcont.) 20:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Sure, that's fine; I just don't want to overdo it. Will get you a full list ASAP; but it's a big article, so give me a little time. =) 86.** IP (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Erg, sorry, been a very busy week. Will do this ASAP. 86.** IP (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Any updates on progress with this GAR? AIRcorn (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay I am going to close this as Keep as it appears to have been abandoned. AIRcorn (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes[edit]

I've reverted to a later, stable version. Here are my reasons:

  1. A user deleted a referenced piece of current research.
  2. It's "Derivation of name" and not "Etymology" as 'Reiki' is the English word, not the Japanese. This section includes how the word 'Reiki' came to be from its Japanese 霊気. A lot of OED refs were also deleted.
  3. The "Early development" is not unbalanced as sources have been provided where needed.
  4. Japanese kanji have been included to give the article depth; one kanji can have many different English words, and the reader can delve deeper into this if wanted.
  5. The info deleted from "Five Principles" is necessary as it provides information on the Japanese, English, and romaji versions of the precepts, including where they originally came from.
  6. The "Teachings" and "Healing" is not unbalanced as sources have been provided where needed.
  7. Wikipedia uses precise refs; combining them all would be saying each piece of referenced material can be found on ALL of those combined pages; they cannot. Therefore, individual refs are needed for each piece of info. If info was taken and used multiple times from the same page, then combining of refs is OK.
  8. Info was deleted from "Breathing" which outlines its importance.

Major changes like this need to be discussed BEFORE happening. This has been said here many times. -- Xxglennxx (talkcont.) 19:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Reverting changes by multiple good faith editors like this smacks of WP:OWN. I removed (again) material from what appears to be an fringe alt med journal. Yobol (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the removal - I've read all of it and agree. What I don't agree with, is the good faith edits, which weren't good faith edits, but detremental edits to the article's good quality when copious amounts of good, sourced information is deleted and "neutrality" tags placed in sections. As we know, Wikipedia works on verifibility, not personal feelings or thoughts. All the current info has a reliable source and is verifiable. I've explained why most of the recent edits have been detremental to the article in this section and above. I'm not calling this article my own - many have contributed to it to get it where it is at the moment, as can be seen from this page and the history page - I am merely keeping this article up to good Wikipedia standards. If this means reverting numerous edits by contributors who use excuses such as "this is the English Wikipedia" or "the bib. is biased", then this I will have to do. -- Xxglennxx (talkcont.) 21:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Holistic Nursing Practice[edit]

I removed an article cited to Holistic Nursing Practice and this was reverted. Per WP:MEDRS#Use_independent_sources, we should use independent sources, specifically in this case, avoid journals that focus on/promote alternative medicine (which this journal clearly is, "holistic" in the title being a dead giveaway, though previous issues discuss prayer and "biofield" energy amongst other alt med issues). These journals almost universally publish much more sympathetic to CAM modalities than higher quality journals. I should also note that WP:REDFLAG applies here; it is extraordinary to suggest Reiki works without solid evidence, and especially put it in the lead. Peer review is a necessary, but not sufficient, criterion in evaluating sources.

As an aside, I reverted the addition of the study which was added earlier 10/8/2011; per WP:BRD, it is the people wishing to add the study which should take it to the talk page, but I will not edit war over the issue. Yobol (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Having just come to this article, I doubt that I qualify as one of the "people wishing to add the study." However, I was surprised to see mention in the lead of "A 2008 systematic review of randomised clinical trials [which] concluded that 'the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment...'" (Lee, et. al. 2008). I don't think that this belongs in the lead because it doesn't tell us anything about Reiki and seems to cast doubt on it as a treatment. Coverage of the study in the "Research, critical evaluation..." section seems fine. But I think that the Holistic Nursing Practice study is also o.k. as a counter to the inconclusive study by Lee et. al. (BTW, the authors of the study admit the inconclusiveness of their study, when they say: "In total, the trial data for any one condition are scarce and independent replications are not available for each condition. Most trials suffered from methodological flaws such as small sample size, inadequate study design and poor reporting."
As a second point, the single sentence paragraph of the "Research..." section does not seem to be consistent with the citation. Can you reproduce the quote that talks about "qi or 'life force' energy"? Sunray (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
The purpose of the lead is to provide an overview of the whole article, mainly its important points. I liken it to a blurb personally. Seeing as this is, at current, is the most recent trial (albeit randomised clinical), it was deemed important enough to put in the lead. I've fought for the inclusion of what you've put ("Most trials suffered from methodological flaws such as small sample size, inadequate study design and poor reporting") in the lead, but it was deemed to long(winded) and was left out. I'd be up for putting it in. -- Xxglennxx (talkcont.) 18:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the way the study is described in the lead, it is written from a NPOV, so I agree with leaving it there. The note about the methodological flaws should be added to the "Research..." section, though, as should reference to the Holistic Nursing Practice article. We are in the early days of evaluation of CAM and some cancer centres (for example) have accepted Reiki along with therapeutic touch, as complementary therapies because some research does indeed show that it seems to work. Sunray (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
"Seems to work" is a matter of opinion since giving placebos such as reiki to cancer patients does more harm than good. Holistic Nursing Practice shouldn't be used as it doesn't meet WP:MEDRS. --McSly (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, that link you gave is an interesting opinion piece, essentially proving that whether it is in the Guardian or not, a blog is still a blog. I was struck by this comment by the journalist: "The researchers were quite clear about their interpretation of the results. They believe reiki has been shown to work." But, of course, the journalist knows better.
The multifactorial (biopsychosocial) model of illness has been well accepted in medicine since the 1960s as this article from the International Journal of Clinical Practice makes clear. They do not yet know why Reiki works, or what the psycho-social (psychosomatic) components are. Sunray (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Getting back to the point, the source Holistic Nursing Practice does not meet MEDRS and should not be used as a source. If it is accepted as working, we surely should have much stronger sources that say so. Yobol (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

"Claims for Reiki energy have no known theoretical or biophysical basis"[edit]

The sentence "Claims for Reiki energy have no known theoretical or biophysical basis" has been tagged with neutrality. In which way the tagger meant it, I'm not sure, though I've never been happy with this sentence, though it was decided to keep it in during its revamp by the majority of other contributors. I've read both references, and not one of them says, in plain English, what the above sentence is saying. I see no need to keep the sentence in, so I suggest we remove it. -- Xxglennxx (talkcont.) 18:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The main reason I tagged it was the one identified by Xxglennxx: It is a statement not contained in the studies it cites (thus OR. I would add that because of its absolutist stance, the statement is, in essence, unscientific. Sunray (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
We'll wait until Sunday for others to have their say. If there's no objection, we'll remove it by then. -- Xxglennxx (talkcont.) 16:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
It has two sources. What's the problem? --Ronz (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The statement does not say what the sources say. Sunray (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Seems a reasonable summary of medical and scientific consensus. We just need a better source to make it clearer then? --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Very doubtful, it is OR because it does not summarize the research findings. Sunray (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's see what WP:FTN has to say. --Ronz (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:FTN says: "If your question is whether material constitutes original research or original synthesis, please use the no original research noticeboard.
My concern, as I wrote, is to have proper presentation of scientific and medical consensus. --Ronz (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Sure, as determined by the editors of this article. But this thread is about whether that statement is supported by those sources. Sunray (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
What's your point? --Ronz (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Clearly the sources do not support the statement. Thus the statement is OR. Or put another way, it is unverified. Sunray (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't have access to the first reference. Given that we must present the relevant scientific and medical consensus, I've decided to focus on that instead. I hope all editors here will do the same, or at least not obstruct those who do. --Ronz (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This was referred to WP:FTN. Ronz put his question. Two people replied (one being me) that the statement did not represent a scientific consensus. There has been no further discussion, so I have now removed the statement from the article. Sunray (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have restored a previous version supported by the Lee systematic review (see the 2nd full paragraph on the last page of the article). I do not see why this is being removed when it is sourced. Yobol (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
And this seems a helpful and relevant reference: [12] --Ronz (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Since that sentence is not consistent with the conclusion of the study, would you be able to quote the exact statement that you are paraphrasing, please? Sunray (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Haven't you read the study? Yobol (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
No I have only seen the abstract and conclusion of the study as I do not have online access right now. So rather than having me go to the library, would you please quote that statement for verification purposes? Sunray (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
"The mechanisms that may be involved in reiki are hypothetical. The existence of Ki (or Qi, life energy) has not been proven scientifically." I guess I assumed that a person removing material as "unsourced" would have actually, you know, read the source to see if it was in there. My mistake. Yobol (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for providing that. What I said in the edit summary was that the statement in the article was not supported by the reference. I said that because the studies' Discussion and Conclusion sections both said otherwise. Now that you have produced the actual quote, it is evident that I was correct. The study is very clear that "the evidence is insufficient." The researchers state, in the "Discussion" section of their report: "Most trials suffered from methodological flaws such as small sample size, inadequate study design and poor reporting." To conclude that "claims for Reiki have no known theoretical or biophysical basis" is a thus a synthesis, i.e., original research. Sunray (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Now that you have better knowledge of what is actually in the source, please take it to WP:ORN. --Ronz (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
My comment was addressed to Yobol. You have shown that you are unwilling, or unable, to respond to the concern I am raising. Policy on consensus states: "Decision by consensus takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles." I have raised a legitimate concern. I trust that Yobal and other editors will abide by the policy whether or not you do. Sunray (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand the point of continuing this discussion. I changed the text to more closely follow what is actually in the source, and added another source that also supports it. The underlying theory of qi is not substantiated by science, which is now sourced to two reliable sources. The matter seems closed. Yobol (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts to fix that statement, Yobol. As you well know, hypothetical means "based on, or serving as a hypothesis," and is the second step in the scientific method. The way the statement is worded now removes my concern. I will tweak it by removing the word "purely" (we have no idea what current research will reveal). Thanks. Sunray (talk) 05:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I object to the removal of the word "purely". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we do not base what we write now on what we think might be in the future. Should future research show any indication that the underlying theory of Reiki has any plausibility, we can revisit the issue. Yobol (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't very clear. Purely means "completely, absolutely, wholly..." etc. There are no absolutes in science. A hypothesis is, necessarily, and by definition, testable. Sunray (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I am using the alternate definition of "hypothetical" in this case - as in "not supported by evidence" or "conjectural", in which case "purely" does apply. The theory of "qi" or life force energy does not have any real or plausible analog in modern evidence based medicine. I think that should be reflected in the article. Yobol (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Alas. Then I continue to have a problem with the statement. The NIC source states: "The existence of such fields has not yet been scientifically proven." Since you seem to intend a different meaning, my concern is that the reader will do the same and therefore conclude that Reiki doesn't work. That is unproven. Would you be willing to give this some more thought? Sunray (talk) 06:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Are you arguing that the concept of ki has some real plausible analog in medicine? If not, what are we talking about? The concept of ki goes against what we know about living organisms in science. We do our readers a disservice if we do not make this fact clear. Yobol (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't pretend to understand ki. We know that the body is subject to, and responds to, various kinds of energy. The laws of thermodynamics state that energy persists. There is no doubt that there is thermal energy involved in Reiki. Heat is used in physical medicine... Sunray (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The use of hands to affect the "life energy" is not anywhere close to anything that is accepted by biology. That it might work by some as-of-yet unknown means is not only speculation on your part, but it also doesn't make its current theories any more plausible. We have to reflect reality here, and reality is that the underlying theory of ki is pure speculation unsupported by science. Yobol (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The concept of ki (chi) has a long history in Eastern medicine. Obviously it has no referent in western medicine, but it's not exactly refutable. Let's not get tangled in the mire of trying to assert or refute it's ontological existence, and just treat it as a central concept Reiki which has no evidentiary basis in western science and no practical use in modern medicine. --Ludwigs2 00:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, which is why I was trying to show the speculative nature of it in the science section. Yobol (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Face-smile.svgFace-wink.svg --Ludwigs2 00:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Ludwigs2 recently added the following statement to the article: "There is no clinical or scientific evidence that Reiki is an effective treatment for any condition." This seems to be the most accurate summary, yet produced, of the source (Lee, et. al.). However, I am not sure that it belongs in the lead. Sunray (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The lead needs to have some real-world contextualization. I'm not all that fond of this particular form of contextualization, mind you, but it is important not to present Rieki as though it is a common and accepted medical practice (because - honestly - it isn't). This is a matter of neutrality. My general rubric on these matters is to try to represent the topic faithfully both in its own right and from the perspective of the greater world, so reality-checks of this sort are useful tools. Remember, we are writing for someone who may know nothing about Reiki, and so we do need to cue them in to the fact that Reiki is a small, esoteric, non-standard, off-the-beaten-path kind of thing. The phrasing effectively identifies Reiki as non-mainstream; if you can think of a better way of doing it, we're all ears, but it does need to be done. --Ludwigs2 04:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Point taken. Perhaps it can be tweaked slightly. I am concerned with the best way to present the scientific consensus. I will have a look at that. You said "we're all ears." How many ears are you listening with? :) Sunray (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Only the one that matters, grasshopper. Face-tongue.svg --Ludwigs2 04:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Summary of scientific consensus in lead[edit]

I notice that the sources we have used all add a qualification in their attempts to summarize the scientific consensus. For example:

"... the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven." (Lee, et. al.)

"Available scientific evidence at this time does not support claims that Reiki can help treat cancer or any other illness. More study may help determine to what extent, if at all, it can improve a patient's sense of well-being." (ACS)

"...The existence of [energy] fields has not yet been scientifically proven." (OCCAM)

I think that our statement in the lead should reflect this. The simplest way would be to use direct quotes:

A comprehensive review of the research (Lee, et. al. 2008) concluded: “evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition.”4 The American Cancer Society has reached a similar conclusion, stating: "Available scientific evidence at this time does not support claims that Reiki can help treat cancer or any other illness. More study may help determine to what extent, if at all, it can improve a patient's sense of well-being.”5

Comments? Sunray (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, well since there have been no concerns raised, I will add this to the lead. Sunray (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I restored a previous version; your version leaves out the position of NCCAM and the long quote seemed too long for the lead (I moved it lower in article). I actually quite liked Ludwigs2's version, but I think this version is better as it has more information without the bloated quote. Yobol (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I put this proposal up following discussion in the previous section. No one commented further for over a week, so I made the change. Given the extensive discussion that has occurred, I don't understand why you have reverted to an earlier version. As to the restoration of the term "purely hypothetical" in the lead, we have also had extensive discussion about that here. No source uses the words "purely hypothetical" I have proposed that if we cannot get agreement on wording here, it is best to stay very close to the actual wording of the sources. Would you please continue discussion here until there is consensus on different wording? Sunray (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
With respect to the NCCAM quote: We cannot use it. It no longer appears on the NCCAM site and was only available via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. It seems to me to be very important to stick to the latest findings in an evolving field (CAM). Sunray (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that I used purely, I have restored the previous version without "purely". Per WP:LINKROT, we do not remove information just because it goes to a dead link. There is no reason to think that NCCAM has changed its mind (there is no contradictory information on the NCCAM website to say so), so we should not delete that information just because it is a dead link now. Yobol (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. We need to avoid WP:OR to rationalize changes, "It seems to me to be very important to stick to the latest findings in an evolving field." --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Your comment about OR is unclear to me. I am talking about the use of reliable sources. My main point was that we must stick to what the sources actually say, especially when there is disagreement between editors. Sunray (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Yobol: WP:LINKROT is not policy. The problem is not merely that the link has gone dead, it is that the site is still there. They have chosen to omit that statement from their site. We cannot link to a former version of a site unless it is for historical purposes. If you have any doubts about this I would suggest you refer a question to WP:RSN. Sunray (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:DEADREF links to the appropriate guideline, "Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working today." The consensus here seems to be that it is appropriate, per Ronz agreement above, with your lone dissenting opinion. I will therefore revert to the guideline compliant version, and you could take it to RSN if you continue to object. You don't know the reason why that particular page isn't there (there is no page about energy medicine at all, meaning it could have been lost for any number of technical reasons besides them choosing to omit that page as you are assuming here (without any basis). As the opinion expressed by NCCAM is in line with the scientific consensus, and they do not have any indication that they have changed their mind on their website, I do not believe it is reasonable to remove this link, per our guidelines. Yobol (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Regarding OR: The argument that it is an "evolving field" appear to be special pleading. The marketing of the techniques is certainly evolving, but we're writing an encyclopedia where scientific and medical perspectives are prominent, and marketing needs to be carefully labeled as such, if mentioned at all. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
That would be your opinion Ronz. Would you be able to stick to policy? Sunray (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Please WP:FOC
The argument is special pleading, based upon personal opinion. If that's as good as the argument gets, then consensus won't change, nor should it. --Ronz (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
@Yobol: You quote WP:DEADREF as stating: "Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working today." The URL is working fine. They have replaced that comment with other text. The comment now longer exists on their website. The other sources that I used are current and state the current status of the research. I don't need to refer this to the noticeboard because it is abundantly clear. Sunray (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The ref link was to the "Energy Medicine" page on NCCAM at this URL which does not exist anymore (except, apparently, as a redirect to another page). I'm not sure what you think exists at that URL, but the Energy Medicine page not exist on the NCCAM website anymore and is therefore a dead reference (see this archived link to the actual reference. Yobol (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────No one else has commented. I will try to get this to WP:RSN in the next few days so we can get the article unlocked. Sunray (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


this is a bit redundant, isn't it? if we say there's no clinical or scientific evidence as a bald statement, why do we need to say that this group or that group also says that there is no evidence? there refs are still there (and now they are there twice), so it's not like we're gaining anything with the redundancy.

"The sky is blue. Plus, NASA and the Weather Channel claim that the sky is blue. and the theory that the sky is blue has been suggested by several other less credible sources." Is that kind of thing really necessary? --Ludwigs2 00:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Ludwigs2 here; if we use the statement there is no scientific evidence, we don't need to attribute that same position again in the next sentence to two other bodies which should fall under the first sentence already... It's probably better left in the text of the article, if we use the one sentence summary. Yobol (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Also agree with Ludwigs2 on this. The statement is redundant. Sunray (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info[edit]

These edits removed the text,

"The proposed mechanism for Reiki energy is purely hypothetical as the existence of the ki or "life force" energy used in this method has not been proven scientifically."

initially for the reason that it "wasn't needed" by the first edit summary, then saying "it is not what the references say" in the second summary. As I have already noted above, the references say from Lee, et al.:

"The mechanisms that may be involved in reiki are hypothetical. The existence of Ki (or Qi, life energy) has not been proven scientifically."

and from OCCAM:

"The existence of such fields has not yet been scientifically proven."

I will need a very good answer to why Sunray is removing sourced info from this article, as clearly "it is what the references say." Yobol (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There has been extensive discussion of this on this page. In the discussion Yobol pointed out that there are two main definitions of the word "hypothetical." The way it is used in the paper (since the paper is a review of the science) is obviously the first use: "of, based on, or serving as a hypothesis." In the discussion, above, Yobol pointed out that he used the term "purely hypothetical" because he meant the second use of hypothetical: "supposed but not necessarily real or true." That is clearly not what the sources are saying. Please refer to the section above, "Summary of scientific consensus in lead" for further discussion of the scientific consensus. As editors, if we have difficulty agreeing, it is advisable to stay very close to the wording of the sources.
Also, I don't see the need for this sentence in the "Research" Section of the article any longer. The next paragraph summarizes this source (Lee in more detail. Given that there is now a statement summarizing Lee in the lead, the article adequately covers this topic. Sunray (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Except that it is speculative in science precisely because there is no evidence that it exists. You are reading into the meaning of the word that is clearly not there. I am returning the well sourced text. This article adequately covers the topic only when all significant aspects are covered, including the fact that the mechanism of Reiki has no basis in modern science. Yobol (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Please do not start edit warring. I am saying that we have to stick to what the sources actually say. Any deviation is OR. We need the a consensus of editors before adding that statement. I have expressed my concerns as clearly as I know how and would like to hear others views. Would other editors be willing to comment? Sunray (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I am sticking to what the sources say. They say Reiki's mechanisms are hypothetical. You are simply choosing to use the wrong definition. If there is no evidence of the mechanism's existence, it is by definition speculative. Yobol (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The quotation from the source says: "The mechanisms that may be involved in reiki are hypothetical. The existence of Ki (or Qi, life energy) has not been proven scientifically." We can say that, but no more. The addition of the word "purely" is no more than one editor's POV. Sunray (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
From where I stand, the source is saying it's purely hypothetical. You are choosing to ignore the obvious definition of the word "hypothetical," for whatever reason. Yobol (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Since we do not agree, it will be necessary to quote the exact wording of authors and they do not use the word "purely." Sunray (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I have already taken out the word "purely." Yobol (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Sunray (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent study[edit]

I don't think it's worth mention. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not? It seems to show that the act of paying attention to a patient has positive effects (compared to nothing, reiki and sham (aka active placebo) produced identical positive effects in comforting chemotherapy patients), and further demonstrates another finding that helps to explain why any positive effects seeming to come from this practice, can be explained in rational terms? What is your interest in keeping this shrouded in mystery? Zaphraud (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Playing the WP:CONSPIRACY card again?!! Please stop.
"The findings indicate that the presence of an RN providing one-on-one support during chemotherapy was influential in raising comfort and well-being levels, with or without an attempted healing energy field."
Finally, it's a single study. See WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


This article has been fully protected due to a long-running edit war. See the AN3 report. Please follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Ask for unprotection if consensus is reached. In the mean time, use {{editprotected}} to ask for individual changes that appear to have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Japanese article terms[edit]

The Japanese article provides slightly different kana and kanji:


Will this be some small help?

G. Robert Shiplett 14:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The kana is a already mentioned in Reiki#Derivation_of_name. The version of kanji used in the LEAD is 霊気 and this is shinjitai style. 靈氣 has been used in reference to its Chinese origins. 霊氣 has been used in the kanji version of the Precepts. So all of those are already mentioned :) -- Xxglennxx (talkcont.) 20:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Concerns of bias[edit]

There exists a strong bias in the topmost portion of the article against this technique, and organizations with deep financial ties to totally unrelated western medical establishments are cited as sources. To balance this viewpoint, I added a brief section indicating that the FDA has approved the technique of warming tissue for pain relief. It should be obvious that, at the least, Reiki provides pain relief via the same mechanism as a heating pad.

This was promptly censored by a revert, which I have undone, but I do not expect to last given how quickly the revert occurred. Personally, I have no interest at all in Reiki, and in fact I feel that my assertion that it should be good for pain relief in the same manner as a heating pad actually adds credibility to claims made by western medical establishments against fraudsters who would charge large amounts of money for such a thing, that the technique is exploited when used to treat serious conditions, as anything that alleviates pain will make a person feel better, and this often can be the basis to provide false hope. Basically, I merely want to point out that any claim that Reiki is totally useless is simply wrong, and likely in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy as well. Zaphraud (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"with deep financial ties to totally unrelated western medical establishments" Best not add information to articles or comments on article talk pages that contain such conspiracy theories. See WP:CONSPIRACY. --Ronz (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like you are the one with the conspiracy theory, actually. I was merely pointing out that the sources cited for the overly bold claims are inherently not capable of being unbiased, that's all. Nice try, but I refuse to be painted into the same light as the people who actually believe that anything is capable of being a cure-all, especially by close-minded unscientific hard-liners who are unwilling to admit that warmth alleviates pain even in the face of an FDA approval of a device that functions by exactly that mechanism! Zaphraud (talk) 06:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Stop wasting our time here or you put yourself at risk of being blocked. Paranoia and conspiracy theories are not a substitute for evidence. --Ronz (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
To what exactly are you referring? Are you merely resorting to threats and insults at this point, or can you clarify what you mean by "paranoia and conspiracy theories"? Zaphraud (talk) 07:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Bottom line, your addition is original research, is not sourced to a reliable source for medical information and introduces a biased viewpoint about a conspiracy about "western medicine" and such. There is nothing to discuss until you first find a MEDRS compliant source that discusses your point. We do not add what you or I think, but what the reliable sources say, to the article. Yobol (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I reverted this because it seemed unrelated to the actual article, since Reiki practitioners don't claim to be glorified heating pads. In fact, some Reiki practitioners don't touch their patient's body at all. Beyond that, heating pads are not the same thing as hands (very different temperature, shape, etc.). Maybe they provide the same benefits, but Wikipedia requires sources, not speculation.Korin43 (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The notion that only non-westerners can provide a non-biased assessment of Reiki is quite simply one of the most pernicious and ridiculous things I have ever read on this site. How are "western medical establishment[s]" inherently biased? It would seem that an above commenter is confusing "bias" with skepticism, as this allows him to summarily dismiss the scientific evidence clearly demonstrating Reiki's lack of medical efficacy and the fact that Reiki's proposed mechanism of action is inherently unscientific. You can't simply dismiss peer-reviewed studies that are inconvenient to your conclusions and then slap on a justification after the fact. (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Distant Healing?[edit]

Ive heard of Reiki practictioners doing distance healing. Is this really part of traditional reiki? Can someone shed some light on it and if feasible incorporate it into the article.

Henry123ifa (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There's mention of distant healing in the article. -- Xxglennxx (talkcont.) 23:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Incoming paid spam[edit]

See [2]. MER-C 12:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone have an elance account to determine the url in question? Situations like this usually occur after editors have previously failed to add the url in question. If that's the case here, then it might be appropriate to give the url to XLinkBot, or even blacklist it. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to do that. -- Xxglennxx (talkcont.) 21:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Someone with an elance account can click the link above, then click within that page to get the full details of the proposed work, which includes the url they want added. --Ronz (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The Elance username is kltaylor. This self-revert [3] [4] looks suspicious. MER-C 12:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Shinto, Shugendo, and Tendai[edit]

The laying-on-of-hands of balancing ch'i in one's body has prior references within Issai Chozanshi's The Demon's Sermon On The Martial Arts. Dr. Usui was not just a Buddhist, but a Tendai Buddhist, whom believe that enlightenment comes from communing and energy transference between the neophyte and the Kami. Please correct this because it is a fact. (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

the Reikiki[edit]

The Ritual World of Buddhist "Shinto" The Reikiki and Initiations on Kami-Related Matters in Late Medieval and Early-Modern Japan . Someone with more knowledge of Japanese esotericism should follow this lead on the Reikiki and how this could possibly demystify the origins of reiki. Thank you (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Lübeck, Petter, and Rand[edit]

Considering the number of citations to this 2001 item, it seems like it might be helpful to actually include it in the bibliography. (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute: Research, Critical Evaluation and Controversy[edit]

The subsection "Basis and Effectiveness" currently presents an inaccurate portrayal of the scientific conclusions it is citing, and the user who twice reverted my editing attempts to address this has also made additional, broader, changes to the "Research, critical evaluation and controversy" section which impose a one-sided view of reiki rather than presenting a NPOV.

User Alexbrn asserts that the statement "The proposed mechanism for reiki – qi or "life force" energy – does not exist. Reiki is not helpful for treating any condition," is a neutral point of view, but the user's view is not supported in the citations. Examples of what the cited articles actually state include: "In conclusion, the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven," and "Biofield therapies are intended to affect energy fields that purportedly surround and penetrate the human body. The existence of such fields has not yet been scientifically proven."

In addition to Alexbrn's misattributed statement, the user's deletion of the "Scientific Research" section (last included on April 12) removed a more critical evaluation of reiki research, and created a false impression of more widespread consensus on reiki as a pseudo-science. This goes against Wikipedia's NPOV policy:

"The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and—this party is mistaken (see second example below)—that if a claim is factual, the article is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact establishes neutrality.

Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties." (see Wikipedia:NPOV dispute#How can one disagree about NPOV?).

To address this, I suggest including a direct concluding statement from the cited articles and additionally restoring the "Scientific Research" section from April 12. (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You are aware that WP:FRINGE applies here, and WP:MEDRS to any health-related claims? --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Reiki is useless bollocks. That's what RS says in essence & it's perfectly obvious & uncontested by any serious authority. If Wikipedia implied anything else it would not be neutral. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ronz, could you provide the source you're using to characterize reiki as a fringe science? I've searched for evidence to support this, but was only able to find such claims in blog posts and on wikipedia. The fringe theory page you directed me to says that "fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support," yet even in the past year peer-reviewed journals have been publishing articles citing health benefits attributed to reiki (those being largely mental health benefits since, I'm assuming, the effect is probably a self-induced calm as in yoga).

Even allowing for reiki to be a fringe theory, the wikipedia guidelines still seem to support my argument that Alexbrn's edits are not neutral and have no place in this reiki article:

"Pseudoscience: Proposals which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. For example, since the universal scientific view is that perpetual motion is impossible, any purported perpetual motion mechanism (such as Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell) may be treated as pseudoscience. Proposals which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, such as astrology, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point."

Here, reiki does not fall under the pseudoscience category because it is not universally accepted as impossible. The cited example of perpetual motion violates the laws of thermodynamics; reiki does not violate scientific principles, it is merely debated. And, unlike astrology, debate on the merits of reiki exists in the scientific community. Reiki could however fall under the category of questionable science-- there is a reasonable amount of academic debate, and so reiki cannot be unambiguously characterized as pseudoscientific. To address Alexbrn's concerns, he could create a new section documenting sources that characterize reiki as pseudoscience.

The main concern in the provided link from Ronz on reliable sources for medicine seems to be that only reputable sources are used. Below is a small sampling of recent research from peer-reviewed journals concluding that the mental health benefits of reiki are significant (and therefore also indicating that, although others may not want to believe it, there is in fact academic debate on reiki):;jsessionid=aandhJL62HbEh9rRlu3P.20

Even with a continued debate on the effectiveness of reiki, I don't think there can be any debate that a suitably significant and scientific debate exists. Therefore, wikipedia's guidelines call for such a debate to be acknowledged. Alexbrn's edits attempt to eliminate evidence of this debate and impose his own biases on the article.

Furthermore, and most importantly, I think it's a terrible precedent to allow users to misrepresent the conclusions of their citations. As I've said, the cited sources do not say that qi does not exist or that reiki is not a helpful treatment; they say that no substantial evidence exists to prove reiki is effective. As I've implied, I doubt reiki is anymore effective than yoga. While I have no real interest in reiki either way, I stumbled on this article and the curt tone of Alexbrn's section "Basis and Effectiveness" easily stood out. It is not a well-written section; it's only one sentence and could be combined with other sections, as it was on April 12. Additionally, the potential for bias in the statement "The proposed mechanism for reiki – qi or "life force" energy – does not exist. Reiki is not helpful for treating any condition" caught my attention. Upon checking the citations, I realized that Alexbrn was misrepresenting his sources and was irked enough to try to edit the section. (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

No serious person/source debates this point - your tagging is tendentious. Our sources are well represented. Neither reiki's effects nor its basis have any scientific proof: we represent this neutrally by saying they don't exist. It's obvious. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the point that there are neither serious persons nor sources debating this point, and do not think that you took the time to look at the links I provided, so I will break it down for you: Published in The American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, a peer-reviewed academic journal that publishes papers in the field of health care. Researcher affiliations: Department of Anesthesiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA |Department of Integrated Medicine, West Penn Allegheny Health System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA | Volunteer Services, West Penn Allegheny Health System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA Published in Integrative Cancer Therapies, a peer-reviewed quarterly journal focused on the scientific understanding of alternative medicine and traditional medicine therapies. Researcher affiliations: all 6, University of Pennsylvania;jsessionid=aandhJL62HbEh9rRlu3P.20 Published in the Official Journal of the American Society for Pain Management Nursing, a peer-reviewed journal offering a unique focus on the realm of pain management as it applies to nursing. Researcher affiliations: University of Pittsburgh Published in Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, a peer reviewed journal on the four major dimensions of critical care nursing - clinical, leadership, research, and education - to advance the clinical practice of health care providers in critical care settings. Researcher affiliations: don't feel like looking it up, I feel my point is made.

You do a great disservice to the peer-review process, these academic journals, and institutions such as the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Pittsburgh, and countless medical institutions by suggesting that these are not serious, credible sources. My dispute stands, and I will be reinstating the NPOV dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Weak sources and/or fringe publications - nothing here that's remotely RS to challenge the scientific and medical consensus. And now you're edit warring your tag back in. Please read WP:FRINGE. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised to hear those studies are not research science. If that's the case, don't you think you ought to go to the wikipedia pages for those journals and make the appropriate edits to let others know that such journals are not true academic sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)
Reiki is fringe. If there's some confusion with that, take some time to review alternative medicine and qi.
Thrane (2014) is interesting. The proper noticeboard for evaluating a source for MEDRS reliability is WP:RSN. --Ronz (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not reiki is fringe, this article is biased and does not represent its sources. Two arguments support this based on 1) what science does and does not do and 2) the problem area in this article is flat-out wrong about what its sources report, and therefore needs further citation

Argument 1: What science does and does not do // how to properly report on a fringe theory

Here is an example, from the astrology article, of a well-written rejection of a fringe science: "Astrology has been rejected by the scientific community as having no explanatory power for describing the universe and is considered a pseudoscience. Scientific testing of astrology has been conducted, and no evidence has been found to support any of the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions.There is no proposed mechanism of action by which the positions and motions of stars and planets could affect people and events on Earth that does not contradict well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics. Those who continue to have faith in astrology have been characterized as doing so "in spite of the fact that there is no verified scientific basis for their beliefs, and indeed that there is strong evidence to the contrary". "

This is in accordance with the guidelines of wikipedia because it accurately reports what science has found (ie. no evidence to support that astrology exists) rather than misstating what science has found (ie. if they had instead said "Astrology has no explanatory power and the proposed mechanism for astrology does not exist.") The misstatement of the second example here is inaccurate because it does not reflect how science works. Science does not prove anything, it provides evidence to support a conclusion. Simply because an editor has strong feelings on reiki does not give them liberty to misrepresent the scientific process by claiming to have captured "the essence" of the studies.

Even in articles on alternative medicine techniques I've never even heard of, the reporting is more tactful and accurate. Consider magnet therapy, where the article reads: "Practitioners claim that subjecting certain parts of the body to magnetostatic fields produced by permanent magnets has beneficial health effects. These physical and biological claims are unproven and no effects on health or healing have been established." Again, note that while it remains clear that this practice is unlikely to have real benefits, the writers still state what science actually says (unproven; no established effects) and not what they personally believe.

Argument 2: Inaccurate citations

I have already pointed out that none of the citations actually say that qi does not exist or that reiki is not helpful for treating any condition. Again, this is not because such claims are untrue, but because that's beyond the realm of what science can prove, and to say otherwise is to impose personal bias on the scientific process-- which is fine for your personal life, but not fine for wikipedia.

The citation of is particularly inappropriate. After summarizing studies that reiki did lower stress/promoted relaxation, and other studies showing that reiki was ineffective, the section concludes "We need to do large randomised clinical trials before we really know how much Reiki can help people with cancer." I can't comprehend how anyone could look at these cited pages and believe that they have not been misrepresented in this wikipedia article. None of the cited articles say reiki is ineffective. They don't even say the subject isn't worth studying. What (most) of them say is that there is no evidence to support those claims, which still gets across the point that reiki has not been effective, but does so in a way that is scientifically accurate. In the case of the page, it doesn't even say there's no evidence to support those claims; it literally has examples of evidence on the page, and debates the merits of the studies. This page especially has been grossly misrepresented. (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

As I pointed out, it may well be worth taking Thrane (2014) to WP:RSN.
As for the rest, you might want to summarize your concerns at WP:FTN to get others' viewpoints.
As for the WP:ASSERT concerns, WP:FTN or WP:NPOVN would be appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Ronz, you've been really helpful with learning more about how to edit the articles here (plus it's been interesting to see how wikipedia works and all the political/religious/etc. disputes folks had on the resolution boards!). Since I'm getting pressed for time with other things I figured I ought to say that I'm not going to respond again. I put "not in citation given" tags on the sentences I was disputing and, from my experience writing government reports and as a journalist, I know it would never fly with my editors to state something that my source didn't actually say-- researchers are very particular with their word choice by intention, and I think it's important to respect that. Plus, after looking at how other alternative med pages are written on wikipedia, this article stands alone among those I read in asserting opinion over fact while interpreting scientific studies. But I'm sure the tags will be removed anyway.

I don't really know much about reiki-- I looked it up after reading this unusual article [13] on National Geographic. The picture of the horse energy field demo is amusing, but it seems unlikely that the horse thought much of it. I don't care though- my gripe is that those two sentences I tagged easily stand out as biased because, having written research reports as well as having interviewed other researchers on various topics, I know that a study universally concluding that reiki is ineffective would not exist. There's a commitment to saying what is known, based on evidence, and allowing the results to speak for themselves. Science aims to be neutral, but humans-- and this article-- do not. (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

From my experience, Wikipedia doesn't work well when it comes to topics like this, even with the additional guidance of WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS.
From a cursory look, I think you bring up good points with the citation needed tags. If nothing else, maybe we can get more eyes on this article.
Can we focus on Reiki#Basis_and_effectiveness? Do the sources support the information or not? --Ronz (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Of interest here is a recent thread at WT:MED (see here). If strong sources state that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of some therapy (not contradicted by serious countering sources), then the only neutral presentation of that is to assert that the therapy does not work. I would add this should be particularly so for implausible fringe things like Reiki, as we need to avoid giving the unwarranted impression that it is only a shortcoming of research that has not (yet) found its effect. The context of evidence-based-medicine is that something is considered not to work unless shown otherwise: that context needs to be "translated" into lay English for effective writing for our (lay) audience. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. (I hope the ip will continue in this discusion.) Does the article have enough context to show why this applies? --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference content question[edit]

Hello. What is the content of reference [3]: "Reiki flows through hands: (McKenzie (1998). Page 18); (Ellyard (2004). Page 27); (Boräng (1997). Page 9); (Veltheim and Veltheim (1995). Page 33)"?

I couldn't find if it is a book or something else. All google search results point to references to this content, not information about the content.

Could someone clarify this? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCD0:100:C21:0:0:4E05:A9B7 (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The individual texts are listed in the Bibliography section. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A healing value of reiki is implied throughout the article[edit]

I must draw attention to the examples peppered throughout the article where people with illnesses have been "treated" with reiki. Each of the examples mention nothing about whether the patient had been cured or even helped by the reike treatment. In my opinion it implies that reiki is a legitimate treatment for the illnesses mentioned when the article clearly states in the first section that "Used as a medical treatment, reiki confers no benefit".

One example:

"Usui used specific hand positions to treat specific ailments and dis-eases (discomfort),[102] which included disorders of the nervous system (such as hysteria),[103] respiratory disorders (such as inflammation of the trachea),[104] digestive disorders (such as gastric ulcers),[105] circulatory disorders (such as chronic high blood pressure),[106] metabolism and blood disorders (such as anaemia),[107] urogenital tract disorders (such as nephritis),[108] skin disorders (such as inflammation of the lymph nodes),[109] childhood disorders (such as measles),[110] women’s health disorders (such as morning sickness),[111] and contagious disorders (such as typhoid fever).[112]"

I strongly object to the use of the word "treat" here. Was the reiki treatment of typhoid fever successful or have any effect at all? This is just one example of many in the article, I would appreciate the thoughts of others on the matter JimmyFiveShoes (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

An ineffective, irrational treatment is still a treatment: "the manner in which someone behaves toward or deals with someone or something." - SummerPhD (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)