Talk:Reiki/Archive 6

Avoiding pseudoscience

Attribution, clarity, specific wording, and scientific qualification are not weaseling. In this change [3] as I explained in the edit summary, I put a little more information in, and stated exactly what the situation is. It paraphrases the NIH, using the same word "not been validated" and also the word "researcher." This put the claim in line with the sources, in contrast to the previous version where the claim did not reflect the sourcing. Please provide sources which make the claims stated before returning it to the previous version, and you will also need to attribute such an absolute claim to its source. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This whole skeptics idea is ridiculous. We've had twenty years of science as fundamentalist religion. Don't let them take over wikipedia. Science is open an mind not censurship in a word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.149.237 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 28 November 2008

Ahemmmm ....

"Sourced" is not the same as "valid" or "true." A lot of biased edits on this article and POV wars, and they are unnecessary. Reiki believers state their belief in healing is what this is about. The edits and debates here seem to be religious debates and attempts at clinical grandstanding. Emotional health is as important as physical and they are correlated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.238.44 (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"True" isn't a criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia. Reliably sourced, however qualified, is. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the point I was making. I also note you failed to read any of the material, just put it all back in without checking the sources and reverted. The sources are inflammatory. Use of the word "fraud" for what is described in the first paragraph of the article as a "spiritual belief system" as apposite points is entirely illogical. Sadly, this article appears to entirely miss the merits of the quoted sources and misstate them. Hopefully, other editors will come along and address many of these points and sort out this quagmire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.238.44 (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I must take issue with the claim that emotional health is as important as physical. Counseling can help one to deal with many mental illnesses for which there is no cure, this is not so for physical diseases which lack a cure. I'd much rather have depression than the plague. --Paul Anderson (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced statements

Statements -especially about science- need good sourcing. Statements like "There is no scientific evidence to support of this technique as effective in the treatment of any physical ailment beyond any other placebo" need sources. I've put in requests, as this stuff has been edit-warred back in. I do not believe that there are any sources for this statement, as it contradicts the body of the text. But it there are, we need to put them in, or take out the statement. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So if no one has objections, that is to say well-sourced objections, I'd like to go back to the edit which was reverted here. No reason for biased wording, nor for statements which not only are not sourced, but are contrary to the sources we have. Per:

Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. "Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that contains that material. However, even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are also engaged in original research; [4]

and

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. [5]

and

I can NOT emphasize this enough.

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of

random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. [6][7]

I bent over backward and put in a cite tag, which has not been honored. And no, the burden is not on me to prove Reiki, the burden is on anyone who wants to make claims, and negative claims are still claims. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I am only involved in this article as a copyeditor and have no knowledg of Reiki, but seems to me this statement needs a source to be Wikipedia compliant.(olive (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

No Martinphi, you are absolutely incorrect. Burden of proof does not fall equally on those who make an unsubstantiated claim and those who demand evidence for it. If I say "unicorns exist", the burden of proof is entirely on me to provide evidence for it, not on others to disprove it. And as far as I've read, the effectiveness of reiki has about as much evidence as unicorns.VatoFirme (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources again

The following statement is not supported by the source- and not correct.

It's classified by academic scientists as "not even wrong", a pejorative quipped first by Wolfgang Pauli now saved in academia for reference to quackery and pseudoscience.

Therefore, I upped the tag to totally disputed. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now removed that quote - and replaced it with a reference to a Times article on alt med (inc. reiki) and a quote from Prof Ernst. I hope that's OK - the Times is a reliable source, and Ernst is a prominent expert on complementary therapies. Jon m (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. The only issues before were with the reliability of the source used, the generalization from a personal website by an associate professor to "academic scientists" as the originators of the position claimed, and the fact that the source was little more than a collection of links attached to a brief pejorative comment covering them all rather than providing actual information on why they should be considered "not even wrong." Jarandhel (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks great to me. There was also the nasty tone before, which you also removed. See if you can do something about the other absolute statements like "There is no scientific evidence to support this technique as effective in the treatment of any physical ailment beyond any other placebo.[citation needed]" which contradicts the sources where 4 of 6 studies were positive, and "There are currently no positive studies that have been accepted into any science based medical publication.[citation needed]" which just means that the author is judging the studies cited. Anyway, with three people now here, it isn't just reverting everything I try to change anymore (; ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Council of Australian Reiki Organisations Ltd.

CARO is a national non-profit organisation established in Australia to deal with many of the issues debated. It might be worth keeping up to date with their activities. David Woodward (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientific research

In light of my recent change diff to the Reiki#Scientific research section to reflect this new systematic review of the literature, I would like to remove the {{Totally-disputed-section}} tag from this section. Thoughts? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's very good. I made some small changes in other sections and removed a WTA in the section you improved, and took out the disputed and POV tags as requested. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the tag should be restored after seeing (controversial rewrite) edits like this. QuackGuru 00:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it back in myself, if you wish. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Including both sentences may be the best option. QuackGuru 00:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really - that is the Teachings section. The placebo issue is still treated under Scientific research. Neither version says that research (clinical, at least - basic plausibility is also treated under Scientific research, where it belongs) supports ineffectiveness, only that it does not support effectiveness. The stronger wording will require a different source. If you want to reword anything in line with this source, here is an infobox-style summary from the review:

Message for the Clinic The decision to include reiki on the list of complementary medicines recommended for pain management, anxiety and depression by the NHS Trusts and Princess of Wales’s Foundation of Integrative Medicine, is not evidence based. Patients who are using (or considering using) reiki for management of these symptoms should be provided with current evidence of effectiveness. Whilst a lack of evidence does not mean that reiki is ineffective, patients should be informed that the only systematic and critical appraisal of RCTs demonstrates that there is currently no robust evidence to recommend a course of reiki for management of several chronic conditions.

- Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 00:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, exactly. What you just posted has scientific nuance. There is simply no source for the following statement, except the opinion of one scientist: "There is no scientific evidence to support this technique as effective in the treatment of any physical ailment beyond any other placebo." It needs to be attributed to Professor Ernst or removed. It's also redundant.

Nah, strike that. The quote is "There is no good evidence that Reiki is effective for any condition" [8]. Even attrubution can't save the statement as it is. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Jefffire's version works for me with the placebo language being cited to the Lee review and the no scientific support being cited to both. I do not think it is too great a conceptual leap to go from "The RCTs included in this review fail to fully control for placebo effects. It is therefore impossible to tell to what extent the therapeutic response (if any) is due to specific or non-specific effects." to 'no evidence of effect beyond placebo response'. We can (and do) point out the lack of scientific plausibility for the underlying idea, but I agree that strictly speaking any possible therapeutic benefits despite this are "unproven" rather than "disproven". - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 22:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Just make it "The review concludes that there is insufficient evidence to recommend reiki as being more effective for any condition than a placebo." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Weasely. Just make it "The review concludes that Reiki is no more medically effective than a placebo." ScienceApologist (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Correctly reporting what the report says is not weasly. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Eldereft's and ScienceApologist's versions fairly report the results of the report. Antelan^talk 20:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, actually I disagree with ScienceApologist - the review concludes that even the best research on this topic sucks is methodologically unsound. If a crappy poorly designed underpowered study lacking sufficient rigor fails to discard the null, you have learned almost nothing. Compare with the evidence against proton decay or the lower bound for Higgs - failure to see a signal in those well-designed experiments actually provides information.

The review does include a (brief) discussion of publication bias, and we might could include a mention of prior probability (zero based on aforementioned utter lack of scientific justification for the existence, importance, and manipulability of ki) and the limitations of EBM (exhibit 1: Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False). I myself find these arguments compelling, but Lee et al. does not support a conclusion of disproof. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 21:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So is there any good evidence that it is more effective than a placebo? What do you think of "The review concludes that there is no evidence suggesting that Reiki is more medically effective than a placebo," or more simply, "Reiki has never been shown to be medically effective"? Antelan^talk 21:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, none whatsoever. I am not all that particular, but based on the fact that this is a systematic review I would prefer as a conclusion to that section the slightly stronger language of "no scientific/medical evidence" to any "this review concludes" language. This is to date the only objective (modulo the well-known problems with SRs) professional assessment of the entire body of relevant literature - I think that it can bear the weight of such a conclusion. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 21:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here is the actual conclusion in their words:

Conclusion: In conclusion, the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven.

I suggest that we simply put that in quotation marks. Can't get more NPOV than a quote. If not that, then just paraphrase:

The report says that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that reiki is effective for any medical condition, and it's value therefore is still unproven.

Either option is easy to understand for the reader, and also completely accurate on the scientific status. Ok?

Eldereft, I don't know why you think that the review can be made more emphatic than itself??? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Eldereft is right here. If this were one of many objective assessments, it would be another story. Antelan^talk 22:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there is only one means we have to state what it says accurately. We don't need to make the statement weaker or stronger than it is, and I don't know why anyone would want to. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It is the only reliable scientific evaluation of the field. It's not about "strength" of statement, it's about content. Antelan^talk 23:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If so, and you're probably right, that means we need to say exactly what it says, rather than change it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Or it means that we make statements about the field and back the statements with references to that paper. Quotation is an ungainly solution here. Antelan^talk 23:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Would we like to take this to a noticeboard or somewhere for a wider debate? I am thinking WP:NPOV/N, since whether or not this systematic review supports the statement "no scientific evidence" looks like basically a WP:WEIGHT issue. I could also see WP:RS/N since they seem to deal more in individual sources, or maybe WP:FT/N since the evidence base is frankly dreck. If they say Martinphi's direct attribution version is all that is supported then I am fine with one of those, but according to the authors Lee et al. is the only systematic evidence-based evaluation. I think that this quality makes its conclusion of unproven (again, not disproven) uniquely privileged and should be reflected in the article. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 00:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok- I would prefer NPOV/N. But give it one more go here: I agree completely (at least as far as I know) that "Lee et al. is the only systematic evidence-based evaluation. I think that this quality makes its conclusion of unproven (again, not disproven) uniquely privileged and should be reflected in the article." Here's the thing: the report says "insufficient to suggest." That just doesn't mean "no evidence." That means, in scientific language, "we couldn't get a positive result." One could have several studies which are methodologically flawed and show an effect, and some which aren't and show a small effect, and still get this result because they couldn't get the statistics to be significant once they threw out all the flawed data. So we can't say "no evidence," because we don't know that, and our source doesn't say that. What we can say is:

"there is insufficient evidence to conclude that reiki is effective beyond a placebo"

or

"insufficient evidence of any effect beyond placebo response" (which is exactly what it says, rather than "no evidence")

or

"The review concludes that there is not enough evidence to conclude that Reiki is more medically effective than a placebo"

"There is not enough evidence to conclude that Reiki is more medically effective than a placebo"

Or lots of other formulations. I'm not saying we have to attribute again, but we can't say "There is no scientific evidence" because that's really not what the source says. It says the studies had flaws, and it says there isn't enough evidence to conclude. Eldereft, you know a lot about science, and you know that telling a reader "no evidence exists" just isn't what that study says. You said it yourself, bolded above. \ The study contradicts "no evidence": "The aim of this systematic review is to summarise and critically evaluate the evidence for the effectiveness of reiki" Wait a minute....... we just told the reader there wasn't any evidence. So there wasn't anything to evaluate, was there? What was the source even talking about? "the evidence is insufficient to suggest" Wait a minute again...... we just told the reader there wasn't any evidence. What's this about there not being enough? Does that mean there was some? The source doesn't support the statement.

Another formulation which agrees with what you said above:

"Reiki has not been proven to have an effect beyond that of a placebo." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Times source says "no good evidence" and Lee et al. say "no robust evidence" (emphases mine). I think that "evidence" is being used in two different ways - you seem to be reading it as none of these data points would support a conclusion of efficacy as a singular rather than collective noun, whereas I was reading it as 'taken as a whole the body of evidence fails to discard the null'. Consider a fair coin. Flip it 100 times. Roughly fifty of those tosses come out heads - are those results evidence that the coin is weighted towards heads?

On the other hand, I am now convinced that the first reading is in fact the most direct and literal interpretation what that sentence in fact said; even if I am wrong, then at the very least the fact that an apparently intelligent and capable editor is arguing this point indicates that it should be changed.

I combined the final two sentences (diff) of that paragraph, eliminating both the 'no scientific evidence' language and changing 'physical ailment' to 'medical condition', as psychological symptoms were included in the review. Also, to the best of my semantic ability, there is no remaining subtext of either 'it works but science just has not caught up yet' or 'saying insufficient evidence is code for fails to work'.

Please feel free to revert or otherwise improve if this does not accurately reflect this discussion. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's really great, and thank you for all your patience -which I know is hard. I can be really exacting over these points and sometimes it drives people up the wall. It's been great working with you (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I never thought of reading it the way you did. Interesting... both could be correct interpretations. I guess I'd say "taken as a whole, the body of evidence cannot support a conclusion that it is effective. Some data maybe seem to point in that direction, other data may be null or negative. It's an unknown, but we can be certain that a positive conclusion based on the data is not warranted." (I didn't use their free trial to read the whole thing... maybe I should have.) ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for your help, patience, and explanations in pursuit of NPOV - it feels nice to get something to say precisely what it means without interpretation or insinuation. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 06:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are some comments regarding the introductory statements. Times is a newspaper and not published by an academic publisher. No scientist would ever quote it as "evidence base", except in perhaps media studies and anthropology. I suggest that this reference be kept and used, but following academic protocols I would abstain from coupling it to a sentence on what is scientifically accepted or not.

The statement "the evidence base does not support the efficacy of reiki or its recommendation for use in treatment" is true. Because of the nature of the data gathered in the report the authors were unable to make any inference about the efficacy of reiki. Under these circumstances, the statement "the evidence base neither supports nor rejects the efficacy of reiki or its recommendation for use in treatment" is also true. One must be careful with the wording here. For example, a statement such as "the study fails to support the efficacy of reiki" would be misleading. Perhaps, the current wording is phrased somewhat too skeptic.

To further improve clarity, I would separate referal to references 6 and 7 from the statement about the scientific stance on "ki". That science does not accept the idea of "ki" needs no reference. If science ever did, people would notice.

Kind regards, Ostracon (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Article needs shortening

This article is too long, given its subject. Particularly, health claims should be appropriately truncated or removed, and excessive detail (with or without clothing, etc.) should also be removed. I'll work on this, and would appreciate help. Antelan^talk 20:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edits look to be pretty good. Have fun. I put back in a balanced statement which was truncated a bit too much. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What you and Shoemaker did looks good to me. I'm not expert on this article or Reiki in general. I changed a few bits in the lead which were not supported by either the sources, nor by the text of the rest of the article they were supposed to summarize. They're now in harmony with the rest of the article, and the scientific studies. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Placebo

In the interest of maintaining my right to complain if others misrepresent and obfuscate sources, here is the selection from the Discussion section of the Lee et al. systematic review on which I am basing removal of language indicating even placebo effects:

Three trials were both subject and assessor blinded (13,15) or practitioner blinded (14), whereas two trials were subject blinded only (16) or assessor blinded (20). Four studies did not make any attempt at either subject or assessor blinding (12,17–19). Trials with inadequate levels of blinding are likely to show exaggerated treatment effects (24). Only two trials calculated sample size and took adequate allocation concealment procedures (15,20). All of the other trials suffered from a lack of adequate allocation concealment and sufficient sample size. The RCTs included in this review fail to fully control for placebo effects. It is therefore impossible to tell to what extent the therapeutic response (if any) is due to specific or non-specific effects.
Even the trials scoring high on the Jadad scale were not devoid of flaws (14,15). The trial by Shiflett et al. (14) had a small sample size and included nonrandomised historical controls in their statistical analysis. ... numbers refer to citations in original

This evidence base just plain cannot be used to support any conclusion. It does not even consistently indicate an 'enrollment effect', which I believe is fairly well established in well-designed trials. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 11:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have rolling around in my head that there may have been some recent studies on the relaxation response induced by reiki treatments. I'll have to dig that up. The impact of deep relaxation on the human immune system has been studied extensively - as I recall off the top of my head. I'll see what I can turn up.KyoukiGirl (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Two smallish cuts made

Hello after a long break from me! And thanks to all those who have clearly put in much time and effort on the reiki article. I've made two cuts: A final clause in the Intro said something about "not recommended" whereas the sources do not concern themselves with recommending or not recommending the use of reiki: They merely talk about clinical evidence for its effectiveness, which is something quite different. The other cut was a single sentence paragraph at the end of the Teachings section, basically summarizing the Science section. It was a duplication and out of place in the Teachings sections. (Not sure whether the changes were tagged against my username.) Andy Beer (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The source does discuss it, though not in the obvious place - see the section "Message for the clinic", as well as the quote above. It went a little too far for that particular source, though, so I tweaked it to be less dogmatic. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Shoemaker, I had missed the strange "Message for the clinic" box, unconsciously thinking it was some sort of advertisement and not part of the review! I am happy with your wording. Andy Beer (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Safety

i've added a sentence to the Safety section, based on a paragraph in the Discussion section of Lee et al. Andy Beer (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Effectiveness section redundant

I propose that we delete the little section titled "Effectiveness." This was useful before we had the scientific review to refer to. Now the Effectiveness sources just look shoddy in comparison. Any thoughts? Andy Beer (talk) 07:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer that it remain. Those references are commentary on the evidence base (both prior to Lee et al.) and would be out of place under research, but summarize a notable point of view. I think previously Effectiveness was a subsection of a now defunct Criticism section, and the tone still reflects that organization. A reorganization or representation might be in order, but the references are fine for what they say. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

For now I've combined the Effectiveness section with the Religion section, tentatively reusing the old Criticism heading. Points of View could be an alternative heading, perhaps. Or we could further combine with the preceding Safety section, using the general heading Concerns. Andy Beer (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I might lean towards Concerns or perhaps Outside commentary or something along those lines. Criticism is generally deprecated as a header, and the strongest criticism (lack of any evidence that it is in any way connected to objective reality) belongs in the Scientific research section. We should not, however, make that section a subsection of Criticism, as that would imply an editorial statement that any research showing any such effect would not be scientific. On a case-by-case basis this may remain true, but such commentary is not encyclopedic. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Derivation of name

Is it just me, or does anyone else find the Derivation of name section rather heavy and not very relevant? Are we writing an encylopedia or an etymological dictionary? I propose that we either remove it completely; drastically reduce it and move it to the end of the article; or create a separate page for it. Any feelings? Andy Beer (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what is meant by "heavy", but I do not see the section as being out of place in the article. Some of it sounds a little like it might be original research, though I know only enough about Japanese language to realize that it is complex and interesting. Might the section be more appropriate as a subsection of History? - Eldereft (cont.) 06:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As with other terms that have more or less recently come over to English from Asian languages, a bit of explanation of the etymology is an important part of the encyclopaedic process. I'd like to recommend linking the characters to Wiktionary somewhere in the article, if possible. Another suggestion; some of the Chinese named articles have nice little drop down boxes that list the characters, major romanisations in different dialects and languages etc. The Qi article has one, I believe. They can take some of the long windedness out of the etymological part of an intro. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Good ideas. I revised this section and added an infobox. Does the "1 History" section need a lead paragraph? Should the image of treatment be moved down to "3 Practice"? Keahapana (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the new version looks good, thank you. Introductory text under History but not in any subsection would be fine, but does not seem to be required. I mildly prefer having an example photograph at the top just to provide a quick 'hey, this is what this article is about' to the readers, but Practice would be a perfectly acceptable place for it. Flickr has some photos that I think would be compatible with our license. None of those jump out at me right now as 'must have', but adding a second image is also viable. Andy Beer uploaded the one that is there now - any thoughts? - Eldereft (cont.) 18:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it still has many problems. Maybe I'll edit it a bit (= delete a lot) and see if the edits survive.. -- Coffee2theorems (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

We'll see how it goes. There are still potentially parts left there to fix, but they would require sources, and I don't have any (my jpn dictionaries are Japanese-only, unfortunately, and I don't have any books about the mysticism of qi, nor do I know anything about it). Here are a couple:

Japanese reiki 霊気 "mysterious atmosphere; spiritual power" is a loanword from Chinese lingqi 靈氣 "spiritual atmosphere (esp. of mountains, shrines, etc.); vitality; ingenuity"

The "spiritual atmosphere (esp. of mountains, shrines, etc.)" part is a fair description of the Japanese word, too, so maybe the meanings are closer than indicated here? Having a dictionary reference here would be good, instead of just Spirit of Reiki.

This Japanese compound joins rei 霊 "ghost, spirit, soul; supernatural, miraculous, divine; ethereal body" and ki 気 "gas, air; breath; energy; force; atmosphere; mood; intention; emotion; attention", here meaning qi "spiritual energy; vital energy; life force; energy of life"

It would be good to have a reference that allowed us to use a few relevant word choices / character, instead of listing every possible translation choice that could conceivably apply in some compound. Something better is actually provided in the Japanese-English dictionary quotes, but those don't specify which part of the meaning corresponds to which character, and we can't explain that ourselves without a source. Also, I'm not sure to what degree the "here meaning" part here applies to the non-healing sense of the word - if it applies fully, then deleting the litany between 気 and ", here meaning" would add readability at no cost, but if it doesn't apply fully, then this is potentially incorrect. -- Coffee2theorems (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Following your suggestion, I've added some C-E dictionary entries for lingqi. Yes, I agree that quoting meanings of the polysemous rei and ki from a kanji-English dictionary would be better, but it will be lengthier. For instance, Halpern's dictionary, which is good for core semantics, gives: "departed spirit, ghost; spirit, soul; miraculous, sacred, divine" and "gas, vapor; atmosphere; vital energy, spirit, breath of life, vitality; energy, force; natural phenomenon; spirit, mind, consciousness, spirits, one's feelings, mood, frame of mind; temperament, temper, disposition, one's nature, character; mind to do something, intention, will; care, attention, precaution". Do you want to add these?

Was it useful to delete all the Usui terms (which the ja: and fr: Wikipedia articles on reiki mention)? I noticed the ja: article contrasts Japanese and Western practices between Usui reiki ryōhō 臼井靈氣療法 "Usui reiki therapy" and Seiyō reiki 西洋レイキ "Western reiki". (The History section says Japanese reiki was ittan sutaremo 一旦廃れるも "temporarily discontinued/abolished" prior to reimportation during the 1980's New Age fad. Are there any English references about this?) Keahapana (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What I meant with respect to the characters 霊 and 気 was that it would be better if there was a source mentioning which meanings of those characters are relevant in the word 霊気, instead of having to list all of the meanings, which is verbose. Adding a more thorough list of the meanings wouldn't be an improvement! There might be a dictionary or a book about reiki which does this.

The Usui terms seemed to me to be irrelevant to an English Wikipedia article as they were presented - the article simply said that "these three synonyms for reiki exist in Japanese" (paraphrased, and only one of these is mentioned in the jpn article). There was no mention of a "Western reiki" term, and if you want to make a contrast there, you'd have to say something else than what was in the article (which claimed all synonymous). The jpn article also says that the distinction is made "sometimes", implying that it's not usual. The terms are also not very interesting linguistically ("Western reiki" and "Usui's reiki therapy" work just as well in both languages). If the distinction is interesting at all, then it would probably be a better fit to the "internal controversies" section than "derivation of name" section (surely "reiki" can't be derived from "Usui's reiki therapy", as the latter contains the former). -- Coffee2theorems (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Reiki-wiki.com link to this entry

I'd like to add a link to reiki-wiki.com to the bottom of this entry. Reiki-wiki.com is hosted by my teachers, Bronwen and Frans Stiene, authors of The Reiki Sourcebook and The Japanese Art of Reiki. (I'm also one of the moderators on that wiki.) It's a great resource, with quick access to the research that Bronwen and Frans have shared over the years. And I think would be an appropriate addition to this entry. Thoughts? trishi (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Trishi. Sorry to be the carrier of bad news, but the rules here forbid wikis, with very few exceptions. I know your intentions are good and your wiki probably provides a valuable service, but so do several million other wikis, blogs, and websites. Wikipedia can't link to them all and has a very tight policy about external links and sourcing. -- Fyslee / talk 15:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Fyslee... I'll read up on the sourcing policy if I can find it. I'm a little surprised, since the Steine's work has been cited in this article. Thanks for the info, very much!!trishi (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "hosted by" isn't the same as "written by". They may be notable, but... probably not every wiki-user there. Nor is there a reasonable expectation that a random wiki article there represents the final, polished thoughts of its creator. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I see the logic there. What about their website? It has a lot of free info in the form of articles and podcasts - and that is their writing. Or, approved by them in the case of guest articles. By the way, thanks everyone, for the input! trishi (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal for Seichim into here

I propose a merge because Seichim is not very notable, it's in effect, to non-practitioners, seen as a form of Reiki. If not happy for it to be merged here, please add any suggestions you might have for another article with which it could be merged. Of course a merge would not have to include that entire Seichim article as it stands- it could be reduced to a size of mention that people think appropriate. Sticky Parkin 20:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

To what extent can Seichim be considered an offshoot of Reiki? Say on the Catholic Church analog scale from Anglicans to Baptists to Mormons. Based solely on reading the article, it looks like they share more history with each other than, say, to laying on hands, but I suspect that it might require original synthesis to state or imply that they are the same practice. Present a reliable source (in-universe from either practice or from outside skeptics or anthropologists) saying that they are related or highly similar, I would have no problem with a Seichim section here briefly describing its history and how the practice has been described as different from Reiki, possibly with brief mention of other 'spiritual energy exists and is manipulable' type practices. In looking for other merge targets, you might try writing Patrick Zeigler if he is notable for anything else, or Energy medicine and Category:Energy therapies. If nothing else, many of the statements of divergence from reality apply to both. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No we could explain the differences- sorry I expressed myself badly, but at one point Zeigler studied reiki, as did the other creators of seichim. Initially, attunement to seichim was done via a reiki-style attunement, just with different symbols. It is still passed on by most practitioners using the spelling 'seichim', in the same way. The form practiced by one of the few people to have written a book solely about Seichim, Diane Shewmaker, calls her variant of it Sekhem-seichim-reiki. This is how often the term is used with a hyphon [9] -just as an indication of how often it's used in a combined way, and here's examples of the two mentioned in the same breath in books [10] and news articles.[11] including the Washington Post. It's not WP:OR to say the two are related, or that Zeigler and the other seichim developers studied reiki and most practitioners study reiki, then the seichim is added as another level. Then they often refer to themselves as a Reiki and Seichim Master [12] . A lot of similar therapies exist, such as "karuna reiki". See top of the page for a ref saying they are similar and considered to be related.[13]. Energy medicine I thought would discuss similar things, but it doesn't seem to mention them much. Sticky Parkin 20:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That looks like plenty to justify a section, especially if it includes some notable views from non-seichim-reiki regarding seichim-reiki. Reading over my last response, I feel I should clarify that "Present" was being used like the tense (as in 'if we have ...'), not the imperative. I say go for it if nobody objects in a reasonable amount of time. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sticky Parkin, thanks for your note about this discussion –– if I can use an analogy, I think of it like the inventor of the motor car (who tapped into the invention of the internal combustion engine, which tapped into harnessing energy), then different people producing their own line of cars (Benz and so on). The idea of universal energy being tapped through a refined methodical procedure isn't new and possibly comes under Energy healing (see right hand box listing styles). I get the impression that Usui set it up as Reiki with its Japanese background and that offshoots have evolved through "experiences" of others; and that origiinally seichim was linked with the recognition factor of Reiki, but has other claims and linking back to Egyptology (?). Other things like Therapeutic Touch could be traced there, or India or wherever, ultimately, so it is possible that a separate article might happen again down the track if it gets a post-merge reaction. Is Seichim due for a revival? It's my two bits from the pov of an enclopedic article (rather than popularity), that it merits its own standalone for the historical record. Maybe it even needs including in the list in the EH info box along with reiki and therapeutic touch etc. If it's too orphanish to you though, I leave it to your cool judgement. Best, Julia Rossi (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Since there have comments made earlier that this article is too long, I think it is unwise in the extreme to include something that is not the same thing as Reiki as part of the article! They may share a common beginning, but the practices have very little in common. You will be adding to the general confusion that this article provides about the system and practice of Reiki. So much emphasis has been placed on what the practice is not (not "proven" as an effective treatment). Not so much information has been included about what the practice actually is. In fact, hands-on treatment is only a part of the practice, although it seems to be the aspect with which most people are familiar. KyoukiGirl (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I will think again as most people don't want more, for want of a better word, 'cruft' added to here:) Any help to reference and cleanup the other article (which I now have no excuse not to do lol) would be much appreciated.:) Sticky Parkin 02:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Reiki as spiritual practice

While there is a mention that Reiki is a spiritual practice, the thrust of this article seems to be on Reiki as an alternative healing modality. The aspect of Reiki as a personal path to wellbeing is largely missing from this article. Just to let everyone know, I'd like to flesh out that "personal practice" aspect of the system. Thanks to recent research, we have a little more insight today into the origins of the system, and what Usui most probably taught. I hope to help flesh that out a little more too.

There are aspects of the practice that have more in common with yoga and qigong than with alternative healing. For example, the classical practice of Reiki places a great deal of importance on personal meditation practice. Meditation has, I believe, been studied in some depth. But I promise I'll do my homework before I jump in!

KyoukiGirl (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made a small correction to the first paragraph, reference to be added in a few hours. KyoukiGirl (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Fibromyalgia study

I just removed a reference in the Safety and effectiveness section stating that the NIH is conducting a trial of Reiki as a therapy for fibromyalgia. As the reference indicates, this study was sponsored by the NCCAM and has been completed. The results, if published, do not appear in PubMed or in GoogleScholar. The latest evidence indicates that Reiki is not recommended for any medical condition, though neither is it contraindicated except if and to the extent that it interferes with medical treatment. We could generate a laundry list of conditions for which Reiki has been tried in the literature, but a general statement that evidence and plausibility are lacking would seem to serve the purposes of this encyclopedia better. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

New NCCAM information

[Reiki: An Introduction NCCAM Backgrounder] may be a useful source for objective information. --Sultec (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"Effects and Safety: Clients may experience a deep state of relaxation during a Reiki session. They might also feel warm, tingly, sleepy, or refreshed." Healing doesn't seem to be an effect (and this is from NCCAM). Verbal chat 20:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Reiki is Pseudoscience?

Based on arbitration and clarification on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this page, and to the Reiki category in general, requires a reliable source indicating that it is in fact pseudoscience to sustain its application. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this page and also from the Reiki category. Thank you.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Or just magic, take your pick - is this a serious question? Reiki makes claims of healing without a mode of action other than pure vitalism.

The Lee et al. reference details how expecting any benefits beyond those of massage is completely unfounded, as the proposed mechanism of action has never been observed and no decent studies have been performed. NCAHF provides a more direct citation, and you can put in the Quackwatch, Skeptic's Dictionary, CSI, &c. links if you would like (keeping in mind WP:WEIGHT, of course - this article is about what people do practice, not why they should not). - Eldereft (cont.) 07:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for scientific evaluations providing negative feedback as pseudoscience. I don't trust CSICOP or Skeptic's Dictionary to provide that to me, and i don't really know what NCAHF is founded upon, though i'm willing to learn. As i typically examine this and as i am familiar with the subject, i want to see practitioners proclaiming the scientific character of what they are doing and how it is studied or refined, then the evaluation by the scientific establishment as faulty, mistaken, and deceptive, before i evaluate as pseudoscience. What criteria do you use?-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Reiki, as practised in the West as a form of "healing" "massage", is clearly pseudoscience. Verbal chat 09:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please elaborate as to what is clear to you and whether you've consulted any scientific sources, whether you have read or heard from Reiki practitioners that it is scientific, etc. Thanks.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose that the following link is added to demonstrate scientific measurement of external Qi:-qigonginstitute.org And a further link that I'd like added demonstrates scientifically the beneficial effects of Reiki:-[14] In the interests of balance it's important that we hear some of the positive studies too. Johnwcorney (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The first of these is not a reliable source, so fails wikipedia inclusion standards. The second doesn't appear to have been peer-reviewed or published (or be very good), so also fails our inclusion standards. If you have further sources please bring them here for inclusion, thanks. You may also find WP:NPOV, particularly WP:UNDUE. You may also find WP:FRINGE informative as a new editor. Verbal chat 20:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience has to make the claim to be science. There have been some studies done on it, but where is the claim to science? "Reiki, as practised in the West as a form of "healing" "massage", is clearly pseudoscience." I don't get the connection to science there. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:PSCI there are 2 criteria for categorizing psuedoscience: 1) if a thing is generally considered pseudoscience which claims to be scientific, like 'Time Cube' where there isn't some kind of coherent explanation of it and it cannot be ascertained to adhere to scientific principles, let alone notions of clear logic, and 2) that a thing is regarded by the scientific community (presumably English-speaking, Euro-American) as pseudoscience. I agree with you, MartinPhi, that pseudoscience should make the claim to be science in order to qualify, but this isn't yet what Wikipedia editors or Arbcom deciders have established as important in the identification for purpose of the Pseudoscience category.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That Reiki has been studied for scientific validity and failed in those studies means the continued pursuit of reiki as a medical therepeutic modality is pseudoscientific. Practitioners clearly reject the scientific reality (i.e., no evidence of the exitence of ki) whilst making natural claims (i.e., treating disease) that have been tested and refuted. Practitioners make clearly false medical claims, like reiki "has been effective in helping virtually every known illness and malady and always creates a beneficial effect"[15] and the modality's inclusion in many health care systems (despite its lack of demonstrable medical efficacy) takes it out of just magical hand-waving and into the realm of pseudoscience, particularly as some practitioners claim scientific validation. — Scientizzle 18:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW:

"Maryland was the first state in the country to establish a comprehensive, coordinated statewide system for the delivery of emergency health care services and is a recognized national leader in the field. Now they are collaborating with UMB’s Center for Integrative Medicine to incorporate acupuncture and Reiki treatments for patients and staff."

[16] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Second degree references

The last two sentences (especially the last one) in Reiki#Second degree need a reference. All four references already in the paragraph appear to be fairly general. Would someone be willing to save me a trip to the library by confirming this and moving them to the end of the section? Alternatively, if there is prominent disagreement that should probably be mentioned somewhere. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of Tenohira to laying on of hands

I removed this comparison, as it doesn't seem fair or accurate. The original said that Tenohira was a technique similar to laying on of hands. Laying on of hands isn't a technique, so it wouldn't be correct to say Tenohira is a similar technique.

Even if one asserts that laying on of hands is a technique, to say that they are similar doesn't seem correct. These two things do not merely differ over the technical details of how to do something; they differ over the nature of what is being done. Those doing tenohira and those laying on hands would not agree that they are doing the same thing, but simply in different ways. KevinWC144 (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

External Link Removed ...

I added a link to a site called Reiki-Masters.org which is a hub for many Reiki Healers / Masters ... also this site gives a lot of information about Reiki. Why is this site being removed? This is no spam !

24.0.245.4 (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Blokh

Who said it was spam? The edit summary reads, "removed per WP:EL."

I'm not sure what the specific reasons were for the removal, but possibly WP:ELNO #2, 4, 5, and 14. --Ronz (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Could not find a valid cause that might conflict with the nature of the web site, but thanks for responding (Ronz) ... Appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.245.4 (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Added Link

I would like to propose a link be added to the link listing:

http://www.dragonflyherbals.com

Dragonfly Herbals is run by a Canadian woman who has been teaching Reiki classes for a couple of years now (2 a month), and has been practicing herself forever. "...every day on myself".

I would consider her an expert on the matter and would like to post her link for people seeking more information or who have questions on the subject.

Thanks.

74.216.9.5 (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Grand_Master_James@hotmail.com

Thanks for bringing this to others' attention. I don't see how this would meet WP:EL criteria. In general, we want links to articles or other media directly related to the topic. --Ronz (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." ? 74.216.9.5 (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Grand_Master_James@hotmail.com

It looks promotional and appears to fit some of the WP:LINKSTOAVOID criteria. --Ronz (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to propose a link added to the page of a newly introduced system of Reiki i.e Brahma Satya Reiki. The official site is launched by the founder himself and in the name of krishwellness.com

It provides the reiki trainings, reiki healings and reiki classes. This is a highly evolved system and i feel it will benefit information seekers.

However, there are online healing bookings on the site, so if the administrators feel that this is promotion, a new static informative page can be made.

All the discussion members, i request you to please review the site and add it. A very informative and elpful site for the people. The founder wants this information to spread, so he is ready to create a very informative page as per wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.chetanladdha (talk • contribs) 06:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the comments above apply here as well, as does the feedback you've received elsewhere. This is not a proper venue for requesting reviews of your website. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposing to add this link to research papers:

• Research papers - pdf

Thanks, Jan 82.208.2.200 (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientific research

In regards to the "Scientific research" section, if so much of the research has been found to be flawed or insufficient to present evidence for the efficiacy of reiki, one could just as easily say that there is likewise insufficient evidence against it's effectiveness, no? Either way, the question is unresolved and further research is necessary. I find ONLY stating that there is NO evidence for reiki is pretty unbalanced and a bit misleading. Until sufficient research IS performed, there is insufficient data for or against, and the questions remains open. A lack of evidence for is not in itself evidence against, correct? This is a basic tenet of scientific inquiry, correct? -- Elgaroo (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that an absence of evidence for is not evidence against in and of itself, this does not mean that the issue is contentious. There have been studies done to test Reiki's efficacy in a variety of situations, and these tests have largely shown that there is no difference between Reiki and placebo. That is, that you can't tell by looking at the patients which have been given Reiki treatments and which have been given a course of relaxation, or of known non-Reiki practice. This is, according to the scientific method, a failure of the modality to prove itself effective. I would go so far as to suggest that there is a likely case for scientific consensus at this point that Reiki is completely ineffectual, but I'd have to go digging to find something to cite on that front.

Think of it this way; let's say there's a modality out there that involves someone who's suffering from migraines striking their head sharply with a rod of iron three times a day to drive out the demons that cause the headaches. Well, there's not a whole lot of evidence proving that demons exist, or that they live in the human head or that a rod of iron can evict them. Science has tested the efficacy of the iron bar method, and found that it doesn't significantly help the sufferer recover quicker. This does not mean that demons exist, or that bashing one's self on the head is the way to go to effect treatment. Let's say that different tests have tested rods of different metals, have put sufferers on elaborate scales to try to weigh the demons, focused cameras and setup magnetic fields, all to test for demons, and that these tests have gone on for decades. Not a single one has found that this method is better or worse than a placebo.

Would you still want to word the science section in that case to read "Science has failed to disprove the iron bar cure for demon caused migraines"?

-- Xinit (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Significant Improvements Required

This article needs significant improvement to move from a B article to an A article; it shouldn't be regionalized to the USA and it should have a lot more information. This needs to be done according to Wikipedia standards, and should include opposing viewpoints both scientific and non scientific, as well as more history. Remember to appopriately cite your changes to this article.

Dren (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"There is no scientific evidence" (ki)

I referenced positive studies and they immediately got reverted. Not flowery "the subject kind of implied xyz and we gullibly believed him" type studies, investigation of phase behavior of ki-exposed dipalmitoyl phosphatidyl choline liposome via differential scanning calorimetry type studies. I've made no attempt to research how poorly received, replicable or ignored they might be, but this doesn't alter their scientific approach, existence or results. No undue weight is intended, just correction of misleading generalisation that's not even reiki-specific. I can't be bothered to fight so I'll just revert to the less informative "no generally accepted scientific evidence" version and seek balanced coverage of reiki elsewhere. K2709 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Me again after seeing another removal of "generally accepted". Here's another supposedly non-existent qi emission study that only took a minute's googling to find in pubmed: [17]. This is a) scientific b) evidence. General acceptance or otherwise isn't what matters here, what matters is that it exists. "No scientific evidence" is actually the weasel phrase, not "No generally accepted scientific evidence". K2709 (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that reference fails WP:MEDRS. It is not scientific, it is published in a low quality journal, and it gives WP:WEIGHT that is not supported by other studies. SciMedKnowledge (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to distinguish this from circular thinking. WP:MEDRS and "generally accepted" are largely synonymous and this study is indeed intentionally an example of WP:MEDRS-failing evidence that clearly does exist. In what non-circular way is it failing to be an example of scientific study exactly? K2709 (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Inserting generally accepted has the effect of implying that the rejection of this idea is somehow flawed, which would require a much better source showing genuine widespread serious debate. Consider for comparison the statement There is no generally accepted explanation for perpetual motion. Both of these statements are true in the same sense, but ignore salient points - the sources most reliable to make such statements dismiss and ignore the publishings of adherents and proponents. Perhaps there is some alternative wording on which we could compromise? - 2/0 (cont.) 16:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"Although some of the research does not conform to strict scientific protocol", the 4,000 abstracts here suggest something genuinely widespread. "There is no evidence in Western science" might be a workable compromise - the article is already tagged for its US bias. K2709 (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, actually the current version looks fine to me. The link you provided doesn't meet WP:RS, let alone WP:MEDRS. I'm sure they are plenty of websites on Homeopathy or astrology citing low quality studies as well to pretend to be scientific. The fact that it is widespread is irrelevant. That's why we have things like WP:FRINGE to deal with these claims. --McSly (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

121.73.7.84 (below) seems to have hit the nail on the head unfortunately. There's no requirement for a non-reference link to meet reference criteria, a culture who only heard of qigong five minutes ago is not automatically a more reliable source about it than one studying it for thousands of years, papers appearing in relevant journals are not automatically pretend science or low quality etc, but it's clear there's an endless stream of other condoned, belief-spawned objectivity flaws ready to replace these so I think I'll just leave you all to it - seeya. K2709 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

K2709, whenever I have attempted to point out bias in favour of scientism I get bombarded by wikipedia editing policies.

On wikipedia, scientism is considered "neutral" and the use of wikipedia bureaucracy (i.e. editing rules) to create preconceived outcomes and perpetuate systemic bias would make for an excellent academic paper.

I have also attempted to highlight biases against alternative medicine but keep hitting an ideological wall because so many gatekeepers on here genuinely can't see their own ideological assumptions. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

The intro needs to be reorganized, and the issue of accepting opposing scientific evidence needs to be resolved. These discussions should be moved outside of the intro into a subcategory similar to other articles of this nature. The intro in this article is blatantly POV biased.

Dren (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We should really expand the intro more than reorganizing it. A sentence or so treating each second level heading sounds about right; WP:LEAD can help. In a similar vein, it would be inappropriate to avoid discussing in the lead any significant aspect of the topic. As there has been actual research, it gets mentioned in proportion to the space devoted in the article. The current lead, to my reading, does a decent job of summarizing the cited research. The sources mentioned in the preceding section are really not adequately respected by the scholarly community to be given weight here. If anyone would like to remove the NPOV-intro tag, I would not object. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church condemnation

I have read that the Catholic Church has decided to condemn Reiki. It probably deserves to added to the article as part of the controversies section. [18] ADM (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

you could have a list of the things the catholic church disagrees with ..for example ...

sex before marriage..homosexuality..masturbation..meditation ..buddhism..rock music..condoms.. and now reiki.

and one of the things some of the priests of catholicism do participate in..[19].. you could add :that.. compared to the national percentage a high proportion of the catholic priests that disagree with reiki have been foung guilty :of child abuse. Catholic sex abuse cases. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2009 :(UTC))

There are articles on all those things already (cf religious views on masturbation, religion and homosexuality, Buddhism and Christianity, Christian views on contraception, Christian views on magic, etc). Therefore, it would not be a bad idea to include the Church condemnation of reiki. I don't think there is any link between reiki and pedophilia however, it just a myth or a joke. ADM (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I take it you are joking?(Off2riorob (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Blaming the patient

Quote from one of our cited sources:

"While undergoing Reiki healing it is up to the recipient to decide whether he wants to be healed or not. It he decides to block the Reiki healing process then he will not be healed."

-- How extraordinarily convenient for the Reiki practitioner! "Oh, sorry. I guess you decided to block the healing process."

"Charging for Reiki healing" / "Reiki Healing Fee" -- http://www.indobase.com/reiki/info-for-practioners/charging-for-reiki.html

-- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Evolution Of Brahma Satya Reiki

Hello, i would like to add these information pages to be added to wikipedia in link/content form as the moderators feel.

http://krishwellness.com/articles/brahma-satya-reiki-evolution

http://krishwellness.com/articles/what-is-brahma-satya-reiki

Please provide suggestions and comments.

Thanks Chetan

P.S.

Please find reference of the Brahma Satya System at;

http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=brahma+satya+reiki

Are you proposing to continue your copyright violations and linkspamming? You have been warned before. Please stop or you will be blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

These are not appropriate external links. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to have offended. But please i would gently like to write a reminder that Brahma Satya Reiki is not a copyright till now but we have applied for the same.It is founded by Mr.Deepak Hardikar who is my uncle.In no ways i am trying to violate copyrights. Again apologies if any offence.I am involved in promoting the system. I have no intention of spam. Please do not consider if it is violating terms. I am discussing it out before addition as a result.Please suggest.Also,please do not add a link but information can be added is what i feel as i suggested previously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.chetanladdha (talk • contribs) 17:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Moderators,

Please review my comments and please let me know your comments. Thanks, Chetan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.chetanladdha (talk • contribs) 09:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That information shouldn't be used because it is self-published. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Ronz. I will reveryt back when i have a good reliable source. Regards, Chetan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.22.67 (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This statement is very misleading and the results of the reference misinterpreted

"There is no scientific evidence for either the existence of ki or any mechanism for its manipulation, and a systematic review of randomized clinical trials conducted in 2008 did not support the efficacy of reiki or its recommendation for use in the treatment of any condition."

---

Here is the study that was referenced by the author of the above quote:

Results: The searches identified 205 potentially relevant studies. Nine randomised clinical trials (RCTs) met our inclusion criteria. Two 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.

Discussion: 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.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven.

---

As you can see, the study was terribly flawed. So while there may not be evidence to prove effectiveness, there is also insufficient evidence to disprove any effectiveness. The whole study was a waste of time because it was not conducted properly. Therefore no conclusions should be drawn from that study. The International Journal of Clinical Practice should be ashamed to offer any conclusion, other than, no conclusion can be reached at this time based on methodological flaws such as small sample size, inadequate study design and poor reporting.

Unless there is further evidence to suggest otherwise, the statement should read something along the lines of...

"At this time there has been inadequate scientific study into the practice of Reiki and therefore it's effectiveness can not currently be determined". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.46.223 (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC) 68.236.46.223 (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Jim

Sorry. That would be original research to promote a fringe viewpoint. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Fair enough. Instead I used only fact as you suggested and added to the original paragraph.

The original paragraph was: There is no scientific evidence for either the existence of ki or any mechanism for its manipulation, and a systematic review of randomized clinical trials conducted in 2008 did not support the efficacy of reiki or its recommendation for use in the treatment of any condition."

I added the following quote directly from the referenced study: However, it should be noted that "Most trials suffered from methodological flaws such as small sample size, inadequate study design and poor reporting". 68.236.29.154 (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Jim

That would be giving some information undue weight in order to promote a viewpoint.

The researchers' observations that most trials were problematic is typical for investigations of fringe theories. Presenting it out of context as has been proposed creates the false impression that someone only need to do better studies and the results would be different. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

--- Okay, I decided to sign up for an account here.

That would not be giving undue weight to promote a viewpoint. I came here to learn about the subject and was convinced by that paragraph that the subject had been thoroughly disproved until following the link to the referenced study.

Adding that note does not give the false impression that a better study would wield different results. Rather, it presents the FACT that the study had flaws. It makes the article a more neutral one by letting the reader know that the study was not without flaws. Without including this, the paragraph gives the false impression that the study was not without flaws. It is not at all presented out of context since the added note about the flaws in the study follow the results of the study.

If it is true that most trials of fringe theories are problematic, then feel free to follow my note with a note of your own (such as... ,although most studies of fringe theories are problematic) backing it up with reference. Jahhhh (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The study does not have flaws. The researchers noted that what trials that have been done suffered methodological flaws.

"It should be noted" - Phrases such as this, unsourced, are by definition undue weight. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

---

You single out the word "methodological" as if that is an inconsequential thing different from another kind of more serious specific flaw. If the methods used to collect the data are flawed, then the results are flawed. The study is flawed if there is not a proper study design, not a large enough sample, and improper collection techniques. That is a flawed study. I learned about these things while getting my Marketing degree years ago...in Market Research, Statistics, and in Business Analysis. There is no undue weight being given by acknowledging that the study was admittedly flawed.

I take no issue with the first part which says: There is no scientific evidence for either the existence of ki or any mechanism for its manipulation By itself, I'd take no issue.

But if a study is going to be referenced, and it's results posted, it's a pretty important fact that "the methods used to collect the data were flawed". To leave that out is misleading.

I have never done Reiki and am pretty sure I never will. Nor do I know anyone who's done so. Although I do try to keep an open mind because all kinds of people have all kinds of beliefs. I was reading an article on the Laying on of Hands for the purpose of healing and it dating back to biblical times and Jesus, etc... That's how I stumbled upon this article. I have no vested interest in this other than to fix something that I see is very misleading.

Maybe you take issue with the way I word it? Then suggest another way that I might word it and maybe we can come to agreement. That way we don't have to go back and forth re-editing. I've already made suggestions. Do you have any? And thanks for the welcome, by the way. Jahhhh (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid Ronz is right, and your view that this study is flawed is incorrect - or at least we need an WP:RS to say it rather than us. They don't say their study is flawed. Verbal chat 19:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

--- Actually, verbal, they say exactly that. They say Most trials suffered from methodological FLAWS such as small sample size, inadequate study design and poor reporting. I'm not sure what you or Ronz is missing about this. It's clear as day. And that reliable source where it's pointed out, is the same source from which the results were produced. Jahhhh (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I put it in exactly their words...quoted them. There really should be no problem with that unless there is some bias here to make this an article that is one that is not neutral. Jahhhh (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you understand how these kinds of studies work. They analyse all available studies and evidence, including their weaknesses and flaws, and take those all into account to see if anything can still be deduced. The flaws they found are not flaws in their study, but some of those they looked at. They then take those into consideration. Take a look at Cochrane review and systematic review for example. Verbal chat 21:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Meta-analysis might be a helpful read as well. --Ronz (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Reiki#Scientific research addresses what Lee et al. mean fairly well (RTA for more). That whole review is full of controlled exasperation at frankly inadequate study design. They also state pretty forthrightly that the evidence for ki (or any such putative energy) and the expectation of finding any are practically nonexistent. The CONSORT Statement explains the difficulties in interpreting human aggregate data in decent detail, though in-depth discussion of such does not really belong in this article. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Notes

4carsi2 (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

--- "In April 1922, Usui moved to Tokyo and founded the Usui Reiki Ryoho Gakkai (Usui Reiki Healing Society)."

according to separate translations of the Usui Memorial stone, presented by Dave King and James Deacon, what Usui "founded" in April 1922 was simply his own dojo. and, in an email to me, Dave was very clear that there is no specific reference to the Usui Gakkai.

also, Dave King, Chris Marsh, and Andrew Bowling have all stated that the Gakkai was founded not by Usui, but by his final students, a group of naval officers (including Hayashi) -- possibly in the very last months of Usui's life, but more likely after his death.

also, a better translation of "Usui Reiki Ryoho Gakkai" is "Usui Reiki Healing Method Society."

Notes 2

4carsi2 (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC) 4carsi2 (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Modern Reiki Method (Gendai Reikiho), created by Hiroshi Doi

Hiroshi Doi, received Reiju From Kimiko Koyama (Sixth president of the "Usui Reiki Ryoho Gakkai"), who received Reiju from Kanichi Taketomi (Third president of the "Usui Reiki Ryoho Gakkai"), who received Reiju from Mikao Usui.

Hiroshi Doi is the only Reiki Master who delivers the original Reiki Reiju and teachings from Usui that are contained in the Gakkai. His Lineage, which absence is quite misterious in this biased article, is the one of the mos direct japanese ones.

Mr. Doi teaches in japanese, his manuals are written in japanese, his original techniques, who where unknown in "western" Reiki but very rapidly copied, are taken from the very same Gakkai formed by Mikao Usui.

Due to his membership, Hiroshi Doi's Gendai Reikiho is one, if not the only, teaching that could be considered as truly japanese traditional Reiki that has been kept by a formal organization despite other japanese ways belongin to individual non verified so called "masters".

Also degrading his Master degree from the Gakkai and putting his Lineage under Takata initiated "western" Lineage is not only incorrect, but reveals the poor ethic standards of "western" Takata Reiki masters and associations.

King, Deacon and these others... ¿Haven't you lied to make enough money yet?

Thanks --Filosombi (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow!

Haven't read so much nonsense as is written in this article in quite a while. Thanks for the laugh! 82.41.216.72 (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what an unhelpful comment. If it is nonsense why not explain why? Orlando098 (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

how can we use crystal in the healing process of reiki?

Can reiki help us to know our previous birth? How? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankarsoodun (talk • contribs) 09:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say wow, I was shocked to read a Wikipedia article that so discredited what it purported to write about. The only reason there is no scientific evidence to back up reiki is because western science is so primitive and is looking for the wrong things. The action of ki (Chinese, qi) is related to quantum, and ki is everywhere; reiki simply channels it. If you felt how a reiki practitioner's hands heat up like a furnace, or how the body's qi blocks break up under this influence, you would have no doubt that reiki works. But if you don't understand the whole concept of qi and have no idea how to feel it within your own body, you will laugh at it because you have been taught to laugh at it. You are laughing out of ignorance. This is intolerable in an authorative venue like Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.205.114 (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well now, there's a test that won't even take a double-blind experiment: "reiki practitioner's hands heat up like a furnace." Either Yea or Nay? Any references? This type of subject strains Wikipedia's methodology to the limits of rationality. How do you rationally describe an irrational belief-system, using objective criteria. This very topic should be bumped up to higher councils. HalFonts (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)