Talk:Reiki/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Biased Information, Not Appropriate

This is an inappropriately negative bias regarding the topic. Please revise. 2601:1C2:680:7FE0:84BF:DBA2:6B53:A2CE (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

If you can give us reliable sources that warrant that, sure. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

From my reading of WP:FRINGE/ALT, reiki is an alternative theoretical formulation, not a fringe view, as it does not propose changes in the basic laws of nature (e.g. creationism) but rather purports to work with natural forces that are as yet poorly understood.

Based on its continued study by institutions such as Mayo Clinic, reiki is still of medical interest. Ruling it pseudoscience goes against WP:FRINGE/QS Zebular13 (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Not a WP:MEDRS source. Studies are not enough. Homeopthy and acupuncture have studies, and they are pseudoscience. You need well-received secondary sources that analyze those primary studies and conclude that it works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Can this be expanded to the history and cultural aspects of the topic and not just comment calling it placebo. The Inkling 12:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YourCaptMorgan (talk • contribs)

If you have reliable sources for expanding the history, you can use them. And we will not remove the sourced placebo wording. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

this isn't an encyclopedia article about reiki, it's a critique. definitely needs to be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2191:7E3F:B532:87EE:9E92:F5C (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

If you want to cleanse the information you do not like, you are in the wrong place. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Hob. We simply reflect what high-quality scientific sources say about reiki. They are highly critical of it being bunk and rightly so. I have yet to see any compelling evidence published in a reputable journal or a compelling argument to suggest otherwise. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

This is the only wikipedia article I've ever come across where it was so obviously biased in its presentation that I actually bothered going to the talk section to point it out. The person claims that if others want to "cleanse information" they do not like that they're "in the wrong place" while essentially doing that himself. Every single statement about anything contained within it is immediately refuted, a pointless exercise that's (thankfully) not even replicated in articles on something as ridiculous as Nazism.

The fact that it's the same person replying to virtually every instance of others oberserving the hack job only reinforces the likelihood that it's more a crusade against something they have a personal relationship with than an objective criticism. I'm thankful that whoever's flavored this article hasn't spread the same unfortunate character to a significant amount of other articles as well. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic site, not a biased party's newsfeed. You want to refute the claims? Put it in a "controversies" or whatever section rather than littering your retorts throughout the entire page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsaakHyde (talk • contribs) 17:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

You haven't made much sense with your comments above, so I wont respond except to say that we use good sources to support what is written about this therapy, per wikipedia policy. To change it, you need to supply reliable sources too, WP:RS and medically reliable sources for biomedical claims, WP:MEDRS. Sources are all important on wikipedia. - Roxy the dog 18:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog I was interested in understanding the concept of this subject. The bias here gets in the way of the information. I'm looking for the definition, history, and spiritual components of this concept. A section about the medical significance or lack thereof, that I could skip over, would be tolerable but this is just an annoying read. The implication of being pseudoscience could be stated once but is repeated and takes away from the subject matter. Maybe an article on pseudoscience with Rieki listed under a different title could get your point across. I know what pseudoscience is; this is not what I came here to learn about. Definition and history. There are plenty of sources to support the definition and history. Wikipedia isn't a medical journal. 216.255.44.231 (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Since all reliable sources regard Reiki as pseudoscience, that is what the article says; if that annoys you, there is nothing we can do about it. If someone has reliable sources for what you want, they can add it. Without reliable sources, it cannot be added. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The use of the phrase 'all reliable sources' is highly suggestive of confirmation bias. Jonthedrummer (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

If you disagree, the way to go is to find one that does not. Vague accusations are not helpful. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Marcus, D.A., Blazek-O'Neill, B. and Kopar, J.L., 2013. Symptomatic improvement reported after receiving Reiki at a cancer infusion center. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®, 30(2), pp.216-217.

Author: Dawn A. Marcus was a professor of anesthesiology and associate professor of neurology

Published in a peer-reviewed journal with 40 years of publication highlighting the interdisciplinary team approach to hospice and palliative medicine. Jonthedrummer (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jonthedrummer: Not a WP:MEDRS-compliant source. We have standards, you know. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

If you need a source with a literature review, then the above is cited in:

Alarcão, Z. and Fonseca, J.R., 2016. The effect of Reiki therapy on quality of life of patients with blood cancer: results from a randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Integrative Medicine, 8(3), pp.239-249.

The European Journal of Integrative Medicine is a quarterly peer-reviewed medical journal covering integrative and alternative medicine

If any of these sources are not compliant for any other reasons, it would be helpful if you could point out what those reasons are. 90.152.60.250 (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

That is a WP:PRIMARY source, so, not WP:MEDRS. Also, The European Journal of Integrative Medicine is not highly regarded, to put it mildly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. So, something like this would be more suitable?

Thrane, S. and Cohen, S.M., 2014. Effect of Reiki therapy on pain and anxiety in adults: an in-depth literature review of randomized trials with effect size calculations. Pain Management Nursing, 15(4), pp.897-908. Jonthedrummer (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This is at least not primary. I suspect there is something wrong with it but I do not know what. I will leave further responses to medical experts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The full text of the review is less than one page long. The full conclusion of the report is reproduced here - "While the number of studies is limited, based on the size Cohen’s d statistics calculated in this review, there is evidence to suggest that Reiki therapy may be effective for pain and anxiety. Continued research using Reiki therapy with larger sample sizes, consistently randomized groups, and standardized treatment protocols is recommended." -

We have far far better already. This is just tilting at windmills. - Roxy the dog 16:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I see these problems with this source:

• very small sample sizes
• pretty low impact factor (2.19) for a medical journal and especially for a pain journal [1]
• 6-day long review period? Makes it unlikely to be an external peer-review, probably editorial.
• No psychiatrists or psychologists on the author list? Both authors are Reiki practitioners (AKA in universe?)
• Nursing journal? Which would be fine if it wasn't claiming to overrule decades of scientific consensus that "healing touch" doesn't work.
• 8 years old, which would be fine if it didn't have all the other aforementioned problems...

Overall not a very high quality source, and doesn't overrule the other high quality sources we already have here. WP:ECREE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

On the subject of currency, I've noticed that source 7 in the article points to a study from 2007. There is an updated version of the same study. Shall we fix that link?

The small sample sizes for Thrane and Cohen (2014) are a problem and, for that reason, I would agree that this source is not sufficient to overrule any other sources this article already has. But I would disagree that anybody is claiming to overrule anything here. The aim of research is to refine knowledge, not overrule it.

Your other criticisms seem to be based on the idea that nurses are not sufficiently qualified in the field of pain management. I don't know if psychiatrists are psychologists are necessarily better qualified in that arena.

It could be worth including simply to qualify (not necessarily counter) the stance that research does not show it to be effective for *any* condition.

It could also serve as a reference to inform the opening paragraph which in its current form seems to be a misrepresentation of what practitioners believe. Jonthedrummer (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Re: 2007 vs 2015, yep. Done.

The aim of research is to refine knowledge, not overrule it.

And we are not engaged in research here. We are engaged in writing an encyclopedia. In fact, to do research here is considered a violation of the policies and guidelines.

Your other criticisms seem to be based on the idea that nurses are not sufficiently qualified in the field of pain management. I don't know if psychiatrists are psychologists are necessarily better qualified in that arena.

Physicians are more qualified to conduct medical research into anxiety and pain. Nurses must have prescriptions already made on patients before they can dispense efficacious treatments for these conditions. Since Reiki is just touching hands onto people and saying "presto!" it doesn't require a prescription. In fact, I'm doing it to myself right now. I feel nothing.

It could be worth including simply to qualify (not necessarily counter) the stance that research does not show it to be effective for *any* condition.

Nope. We only include content from the highest quality sources on biomedical topics of illness and disease. To apply a source like this which makes no attempt to overrule the decades of research demonstrating not only no effect, but no plausible mechanism for any effect, would be pushing a FRINGE pov unsupported by the scientific consensus.

It could also serve as a reference to inform the opening paragraph which in its current form seems to be a misrepresentation of what practitioners believe

What qualifies these authors to be the authoritative source on what all Reiki practitioners believe? As far as I am aware, they are not scholars of Reiki, its history, or its anthropological aspects. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Nobody suggested that editors should be the ones doing the research. I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion.

"We only include content from the highest quality sources on biomedical topics of illness and disease". Could you perhaps consider removing content citing source 12? This is, by your own metric, not appropriate. Jonthedrummer (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? - Roxy the dog 18:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has WP:RULES such as WP:PARITY. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I'm happy to consider that resolved. Jonthedrummer (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Repetition and Redundancy

I'd like to spark a discussion purely on the repetition found throughout the first half of the article. Clearly, there's no evidence to support Reiki as anything but pseudoscience, but the article feels VERY heavy-handed on that note, which affects its tone and makes it feel biased when it's not. We only need to say it's unproven poppycock so many times before it's redundant and counterproductive, and if a reader doesn't get that after saying it once or twice they probably never will.

I'd attempt a cleanup of my own, but after reading the Talk here it's clear at least one person has made it their mission to gatekeep the page, plus I have no experience on the subject anyway. There's my two cents on the matter. Mousenight (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Sanctions apply to this article. Please strike out your accusations about your fellow editors, then work to gain consensus with them in a civil and collaborative manner as our behavioral policies require. Focus on content, references, and policies. --Hipal (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2023

This article states unequivocally that reiki is pseudoscience with no scientific evidence, however this is an outdared view. The NIH National Library of Medicine states that 'Reiki Is Better Than Placebo and Has Broad Potential as a Complementary Health Therapy', the title of a scientific paper which collates and reviews the evidence of 13 peer reviewed studies. This study by David E. McManus is conducted using scientific methods and should be reflected in the Wikipedia article. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5871310/

Further such modern studies and reviews exist: British Medical Journal of Supportive & Palliative Care, 2019 Dec. Reiki therapy for pain, anxiety and quality of life. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30948444/

It is increasingly believed that the evidence base for energy medicine is now much more substantive (Reiki is now offered in settings such as John Hopkins), and this should be reflected in a rewrite of this article to reflect current thinking. 77.102.150.252 (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please use this template for requesting edits after consensus has been established. Bon courage (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, you will not establish consensus because those two primary studies do not meet WP:MEDRS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new to this. Can you please explain how the McManus article is primary? He is reviewing 13 other studies (they are primary), and in the article he does discuss and critique methods used by those studies. I understand how the second article is primary, now I have read the wiki information referenced above by your colleague. Thanks. 77.102.150.252 (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The McManus article is in a disreputable journal; the other might be okay but all it does is say that Reiki doesn't work (with some vague hopium wording threaded round that). Bon courage (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

...what about all these studies showing it's more effective than placebo? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5871310/ 50.238.86.141 (talk) 10:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

That is one study in a woo journal. Bon courage (talk) 10:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Page needs a section on history and practices, more than just scientific critique

As a reader wanting to find out what this thing was, I found this page uninformative, because this page has very little content explaining what Reiki actually is. An encyclopedic article should actually attempt to explain what the subject is before critiquing it. A reader would expect to find information about what practices are involved in Reiki, how widely it is practiced, the cultural context and history behind this practice, and the spiritual or religious beliefs of the practitioners. Instead, there are about two or three sentences distributed throughout the article actually explaining what Reiki is. Even academic journal articles that ultimately serve to 'debunk' or 'disprove' the practice do a better job of explaining Reiki in the introduction. For example.

Yes, there is absolutely no doubt in the scientific community that this practice is a pseudoscience, and no serious academic or expert is claiming that it can replace medicine for treatment of disease. But an encyclopedia article about a pseudoscientific topic should tell the reader more about the subject than just repeatedly going over the fact that it's pseudoscience/ not scientifically supported. As a reminder, under WP:What wikipedia is not, pages should not be written like scientific journal articles, and in terms of encyclopedic content, when writing about pseudoscientific or fringe beliefs there is more to the subject than whether or not it is scientifically proven. Otherwise the articles about things like Greek mythology, various religions, or UFO conspiracy theories would be very short and unhelpful.

Numerous well-written pages about pseudoscientific theories exist which do more than merely reiterate that their subject lacks scientific evidence. As an example, see the page on astrology, which has been rated as a good article by Wikipedia standards. That article clearly acknowledges its subject as pseudoscience, yet includes, among other things, a detailed explanation of principles and practice, theological points of views about astrology, a history section explaining how it was practiced over the ages, and it's cultural impact. Moreover, the scientific critique of Astrology indeed makes up an important part of the article and is given the space on the page it is due, but this is organised into its own section and does not effectively take up the entire article.

Strangely, there is also a relatively (in relation to the rest of the article) substantial section on the Catholic Church's concerns, which I question the relevance of in accordance with WP:UNDUE given that they are not historically or culturally involved in the practice of Reiki in a significant way, nor are they a scientific or medical body. Notably, this section has arguably more content than the parts of the article actually explaining what Reiki is and what its practices entail.

On a separate note, despite Reiki not having any scientific evidence as a treatment for disease, some, including a recent study in the BMJ, argue that it may have some benefits at least in the setting of palliative care, including pain management and certain psychological benefits. While these benefits may not be strictly biomedical in nature, that does not mean they should be ignored. Even from a medical perspective, doctors commonly use a bio-psycho-social framework to wholistically take into account different aspects of patient wellbeing, recognizing that there is more to 'wellbeing' than just a person's medical status, and this can include things like a person's psychology or state of mind.

As I came across this article seeking information about the practice and context behind it, I am not the person to research and add this information, but this article is seriously lacking in comparison to other articles about pseudoscientific theories and practices. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Bon courage (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I would WP:SOFIXIT as suggested, but as I mentioned earlier someone who looked up this page seeking information about the subject to begin with is probably not the best person to be adding the required information. This would require someone versed in the history and cultural context behind the subject matter. I have changed the article's rating adhering to WP:ASSESS as the next best thing, with the reasons stated above being the rationale for this downgrade. Hopefully others users more knowledgeable about the relevant areas of the subject will take the comments here as an invitation to contribute to the page and fill in those gaps. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

My downgrade to the article's rating was changed without sufficient explanation. Under WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL, users are expected to explain their changes, including reversions in edit summaries. The user, in this instance, failed to do this as such, I have reverted the article's rating to Start class. In general, articles about a 'thing' should start by explaining the subject matter. Any such article which fails to satisfactorily explain its subject matter to begin with should never be given a rating higher than Start. If anyone disagrees with me, they are welcome to debate this on the talk page. In the alternative, an independent review can always be requested which would not be a bad idea in this instance.

Combustible Vulpex (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

What is wrong with Reiki practitioners use a technique called palm healing or hands-on healing through which, according to practitioners, a "universal energy" is transferred through the palms of the practitioner to the patient, to encourage emotional or physical healing. That does explain what Reiki is and what its practices entail. If you do not find this "satisfactory", you should explain why not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This is obviously not a "start class" article and marking it as such seems distinctly WP:POINT-y. These assessments are internal flags for WikiProjects to help their work, and not some kind of "badge of shame" opportunity. Bon courage (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Well it looks like there actually have been some improvements made to the article since my original comment on January 29, so in it's current form, it may be more in line with a C-class article. Though as already noted on the tag in the article, it would benefit from expanding on the history section and cultural context . I'll give credit where it's due, you have my thanks for improving the article in response to those comments. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Inaccurate references to dispute of claim

It is based on qi ("chi"), which practitioners say is a universal life force, although there is no empirical evidence that such a life force exists.

The above quote claims there is no evidence for "chi", but the citations are only in relation to no scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of Reiki. Reiki itself is not the defining proof of "chi" and even if Reiki is bunk, "chi" might not be. The above should be edited to something like:

It is based on qi ("chi"), which practitioners say is a universal life force (Link to Chi entry). scientific evidence has failed to confirm the effectiveness of Reiki. 92.24.156.20 (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds fringey, like there's some other kind of evidence. Bon courage (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2024

ADD: History of Reiki Mikao Usui is noted as a founder of Reiki. Usui lived in Japan between 1865 and 1926. A memorial to the life of Usui was erected by his students at the Saijoji Temple in the Toyotoma district of Tokyo in 1927. The Usui memorial stone is 10 feet high and 4 feet wide. Slsample (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done - WP:NOTFORUM. Zefr (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Spiritual Practice or Pseudoscience

On the page about Mikao Usui, the creator of the practice, Reiki is described as a spiritual practice. However, here on this page it is discussed only as a pseudoscientific healing modality. Either the fact that the practice is also, or perhaps primarily, spiritual path should be acknowledged on the current page, or else a disambiguation landing page is needed. This would avoid confusion because spiritual and scientific practices have different purposes and are evaluated using different criteria and much of the current page is devoted to evaluating Reiki as science only. 2601:183:4601:990:4C8F:3A02:60C8:EBC5 (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Most pastors/priests do not pretend to heal people. If they practice faith healing, we rightly lambast them as WP:LUNATICS.

So, yes, we do have respect for the religion of pastors/priests. But we have absolutely no respect for faith healing. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no confusion here. To believe a "life-force energy" exists requires faith, as opposed to observational evidence. This fact is exactly why Reiki is a pseudoscience. Science requires empirical evidence, faith does not. And as soon as practitioners use the term "healing" they are asserting that they can provide medical treatment. So they claim to provide medical treatment by harnessing an energy which cannot be shown to exist (or not exist). Again, no confusion here. This is the perfect example of a pseudoscience. It's exactly because they use spiritual faith-based belief to make scientific claims that it is a pseudoscience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoralMoney (talk • contribs)

The placebo claim is incorrect

Initial proposed change:

There is no proof of the effectiveness of reiki therapy compared to placebo changed to Studies have shown that Reiki therapy is more effective than a placebo

There's no source given for the claim that there is no proof of Reiki's effectiveness compared to placebo, and there are studies that show its effectiveness beyond placebo (see source).

In addition, the sentence In 2011, William T. Jarvis of The National Council Against Health Fraud stated that there "is no evidence that clinical reiki's effects are due to anything other than suggestion" or the placebo effect. should be struck for accuracy

Link to Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28874060/

Aie-118 (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

That study has been presented here twice already (here and here) and was rejected each time. --McSly (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I see I'm treading well-worn ground Aie-118 (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Lock this article?

Can wiki editors lock this article for a bit? It seems like it has been headed toward an edit war. There are sound, logical arguments that Reiki is a pseudoscience, however those arguments are not being heard. Perhaps those wanting to change this have too much stake in the Reiki industry? MoralMoney (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@MoralMoney: Dustfreeworld has been topic-banned. They won't be editing this article any time soon. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a tentative consensus that the term quackery is considered too loaded to be contained in the lead. Reversions of removals of such are not appreciated without full consensus. I furthermore object to the removal of the POV Template, @Valjean. Please revert, or I will do so myself. -Konanen (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Meh, some have opined that quackery is not fitting. But rationally I fail to see why Reiki should not be called quackery: they are pretending that they are able to heal people suffering from real diseases. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Konanen, your own statements above, and those of a now topic banned editor, don't count for much in a discussion of this topic as you reveal a lack of understanding of how we allow biased terminology in articles when they are backed by RS. Quackery is not exactly synonymous with pseudoscience, and is a properly-sourced term. Enough with the whitewashing of Reiki. The word is in the second paragraph, not first, so be happy for that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Your disdain is noted. -Konanen (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Disdain for quackery means WP:GOODBIAS. I'm trying to warn you that you're heading towards a topic ban. I would prefer that you do not get topic banned. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I’ve seen this discussion for a bit now, only started reading up on it today. I have not seen any valid evidence or arguments provided by anyone (be it the now topicbanned editor or any others) to support why we cannot call a duck a duck in wikivoice, so to speak. It is a medical pseudoscience and that fact is not disputed by any reputable scientists. People do dispute (rightfully so) how much of a placebo effect reiki has on people - but there is broad consensus that there is no scientific basis for any actual effect resulting from the reiki treatment. Unless editors intend to start attempting to prove this assertion wrong (against the plethora of sources in the article now, in other words virtually impossible), I think it would be good to seek further topic bans, as it is unproductive to allow people who refuse to accept pseudoscience as pseudoscience to participate in the topic area and waste time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

To clarify my views - the article is neutral, it simply calls a duck a duck, which some people who think a duck is a unicorn (at least sometimes) don’t like. That is not grounds for an NPOV tag, it is not grounds for removing the statements calling a duck a duck, and it’s not grounds for including immense detail of those who call a duck a unicorn. The article is more than sufficient in the claims of efficacy and how they’ve been debunked, as well as noting its historical significance (though that section correctly has an expansion needed tag, which is proper imo). There is absolutely no grounds for NPOV tags just because some people don’t like the fact we report facts as they are, not as the person wants them to be. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Lead

"is a pseudoscientific form of energy healing,"

I don't think this quite works, since according to WP "Energy medicine is a branch of alternative medicine based on a pseudo-scientific belief".

So it's a pseudoscientific form of something pseudoscientific. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally I don’t see a problem with it - to find the energy medicine sentence it’s in a different article. I’d be neutral to a rewording to something like is a form of energy healing, a pseudoscientific category of treatments, but it’s longer and I don’t see any real benefit in it since it’s not actually repetitive. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I completely understand why @Valjean: added the NPOV tag back - but I think it is prudent to start a discussion to allow people to identify exactly what is not neutral about this article. If no editor comes with a new argument as to why the article is non-neutral within a week or so (7 days), at the absolute most, then it should be removed. For the record, I am against an NPOV tag and I see no neutrality issue - but I am opening this section to allow for the discussion to take place and any editor with neutrality concerns for this article to come forward and present the exact concerns for resolution. I understand the above discussion is still ongoing - but that discussion is about one specific thing (the word quackery and more broadly the use of pseudoscience as a descriptor).

If that is the only concern, it is better addressed by simply removing it until a consensus forms here (even though one seems close already), rather than a tag at the top of the article as a badge of shame. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see an issue requiring a NPOV-banner either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Though the Catholic Church concerns section seems to be given too much space. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I think in the current article I agree with you - but in the potential article size, it isn’t. It seems a bit interesting that the Catholic church (which has a foothold on a significant minority if not majority of hospitals in the USA) has formulated a viewpoint on it that has resulted in it being effectively banned from those hospitals. Perhaps the section could/should be reworked to be about the medical practice in the USA rather than the Catholic church - but it’s still significant given the number of practicing Catholics in the world imo. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that the bits about the Catholic Church ultimately serve the same purpose as the pseudoscientific label, only for a different audience. Skeptics say "Reiki is pseudoscience, so don't do it!" That's a good thing for us to say, but it only speaks to a minority of our readers. The Catholics say "Reiki is sinful, so don't do it!" List of religious populations says about 30% of the world is Christian. I wonder if we could find a similar statement from a Muslim group, so we could address the next 25% of the world's population, or from a Hindu group, for another 15%. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not agree that there needs to be any qualified raison d’être of the POV tag that delivers any further justification other than those I have given about my POV concerns on WP:NPOV/N. Indeed, the Dispute over tags section at WP:TAGGING clearly states:

Some tags, such as {{POV}}, often merely indicate the existence of one editor's concern, without taking a stand whether the article complies with Wikipedia policies. It is important to remember that the POV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is a current discussion about whether the article complies with the neutral point of view policy. In any NPOV dispute, there will usually be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some who disagree. In general, you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved or—according to the rules for this specific template—when the discussion has stopped for a significant length of time.

The discussion has been stagnant for all of six (6) days, and I would argue that that does not qualify as a significant length of time. I do not know about others, but I tend to be WP:BUSY in my social, academic, and professional life, and usually have time during public holidays, sick days, or especially low-activity weekends to edit on Wikipedia. While that is neither here nor there, since I trust I need not justify six days’ lack of engagement on my part to anyone (There is no requirement in Wikipedia policies that editors must "pay their dues" by working on an article before they can add a tag, so long as they explain the rationale for the tag on the talk page, as per WP:DRIVEBY), I nonetheless do not think the current discussion, which involves quite a few editors, and is lacking a clear consensus (though it does indicate enough difference of opinion to warrant a prolonged discussion) justifies the removal of the POV tag. -Konanen (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

If neither you nor anyone else is able to start "a current discussion about whether the article complies with the neutral point of view policy", then yes, it should be removed. You've not been so busy as to avoid replying a dozen times on ANI in the past 2 days. So you shouldn't be too busy to actually address your tag here. As you quote: so long as they explain the rationale for the tag on the talk page. There's a clear consensus you're wrong - so the WP:ONUS is now on you to clarify why you think this tag is necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

"I do not agree that there needs to be any qualified raison d’être of the POV tag that delivers any further justification ..." You are incorrect. The tag is a "cleanup tag", meant to draw other editors to participate in resolving the POV issue that you have identified when you add the tag. If you don't leave an explanation identifying the issue then whatever the issue is cannot be resolved. The tag cannot be left to say "this article isn't neutral!" with no follow-up, that is not its purpose, and it is also improper to add the tag with a promise to explain later. With the discussion at NPOVN being substantially resolved (in spite of your objection to the resolution; see WP:CONSENSUS) I will now remove the tag. If you have a different POV issue to discuss then you may wish to re-add the tag when you start a new discussion. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree with the removal by @Ivanvector:. Drive-by tagging is not appreciated around here. Unless one is committed to fully defending the tag in the long run, one should not tag an article. As Tim Minchin puts it in "Storm" (a hilarious and instructive nine-minute-beat poem about alternative medicine), "I've dug this far down. So I figure, in for a penny, in for a pound."

At the end of this part, he even alludes to Reiki:

"Look, Storm, sorry I don't mean to bore you but there's no such thing as an aura!
Reading Auras is like reading minds or tea-leaves or star-signs or meridian lines
These people aren't applying a skill, they're either lying or mentally ill
Same goes for people who claim to hear God's demands or Spiritual healers who think they've got magic hands."

One has to be committed to defending that tag. As @HandThatFeeds: puts it:

"You cannot stonewall as the sole person disputing the POV tag, when multiple people have disagreed with you. See WP:SATISFY. If the consensus is that the article is NPOV, then you cannot simply demand the POV tag remain & drag out the discussion to keep it there."

That is very disruptive. It's time to walk away and stop kicking the dead horse. No one will lose any respect for you for doing so. On the contrary. It shows a collaborative spirit. I don't agree at all with your objections, yet I have removed the mention of "quackery" from the lead. Case closed. We've got better things to do around here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)