Talk:Reiki/Archive 7

dates and founding of reiki method and Usui Gakkai

i would like to suggest corrections to the present article....

regarding the following points: --- "...developed in 1926 by Mikao Usui. After three weeks of fasting and meditating on Mount Kurama, in Japan, Usui claimed to receive the ability of 'healing without energy depletion'."

"...originated Reiki in 1922 after a twenty-one day retreat on Mount Kurama...."

according to Dave King, Chris Marsh, and Andrew Bowling (based on interviews with surviving students of Usui), Mikao Usui did not call his method "Reiki" -- he called it a 'Method to Achieve Personal Perfection.'

also according to King, Marsh, and Bowling, Usui was teaching his method before either 1922 or 1926.

the story of Usui receiving his cosmic reiki attunement during 21 days on Mt. Kurama, in March 1922, has been discredited by a Tendai Buddhist nun, Tenon-In (aka Mariko-obaasan), who worked with Usui from 1920 until his death in 1926: "The next year [1922] on March 3 we made one final trip to Hiei-zan and set off for Tokyo on the Nakasendo. We made many stops on the way and often walked between the villages. We arrived in Tokyo at the end of March."

Brahma Satya Reiki

Brahma Satya Reiki is a self-evolved name for an applied spirituality pathway. The system relates to deep study and practice of principles of universal brotherhood and love and in coalition with the universal energy called Reiki. This spreads wellness, knowledge, truth, trust and righteous growth through the active use of naturally flowing universal core energy.This universal core energy is referred as Shiva-Shakti.This was channeled by Deepak Hardikar in 1997.

(117.196.1.193 (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Deepak Hardikar(Founder Brahma Satya Reiki))

Comments over this are invited by readers as well as moderators.This is to add this information to the types of Reiki section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.0.247 (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Need to reconcile contradictions in this article

This statement:

"Teachings

Reiki teachings claim that there is an inexhaustible, universal "life force" spiritual energy,[30][31] that can be used to induce a healing effect.[32] Believers say that anyone can gain access to this energy[33] by means of an attunement process[34] carried out by a Reiki Master.[35] Claims for such energy have no known theoretical or biophysical basis.[5][36][37]"

is later followed by

"Catholic Church concerns

In March 2009, the Committee on Doctrine of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a decree (Guidelines for Evaluating Reiki as an Alternative Therapy[77], 25 March 2009) halting the practice of Reiki by Catholics, including Reiki therapies used in some Catholic retreat centers and hospitals. The conclusion of the decree stated that "since Reiki therapy is not compatible with either Christian teaching or scientific evidence, it would be inappropriate for Catholic institutions, such as Catholic health care facilities and retreat centers, or persons representing the Church, such as Catholic chaplains, to promote or to provide support for Reiki therapy."

PROBLEMS?

1. There is no scientific evidence for God or Catholic beliefs, so to undermine the credibility of Rieki, as this article does, also undermines Catholicism using the same rationale.

2. There are no specifics given on why Reiki is "incompatible with...Christian teaching..." This sounds like an opinion piece and not an objective, substantiated, or researched article beyond the most superficial information one would find in pamphlets or brochures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.218.32 (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That was my biggest strife with the article, Problem #2 above. It was because of Christianity (he was said to be a professor in Kyoto) that he sought the method of healing, as was described in the Christian Bible. Jesus used a lay-on of hands and people were healed. That is what Usui was trying to discover, if that could be possible. So to say it is incompatible with Christian teachings when it's the very thing IN it.

Also, the other thing that bothered me was the lack of positive information, instead pulling all the negative reviews it could. Religion pages are at least full of information and not skepticism. So I think there should at least be a section for tests in which reiki showed to be helpful. They are out there. -Aurelious, at 2:27 PM February 7th, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.42.112 (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Protection?

Can we protect this article for an indefinite period so only registered users can edit please? As I'm making my way through this article, correcting English and general Reikiness, someone keeps deleting whole sections. Xxglennxx (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs protection. Someone keeps deleting all the sections that contain scientific research and criticism that is incompatible with his or her opinions. Legalskeptic (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is the person to whom I'm referring. Possibly a disgruntled Reiki practitioner :) Xxglennxx (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the information removed by 67.241.19.184 and Xxglennxx from the lede section, per WP:LEDE, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE. I don't see enough problems to justify protection, but feel free to request protection at WP:RFPP with more details on the extent of the problems. --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, as I've previously said three times, the statement 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 has already been written about in Reiki#Scientific_research. I shall again remove the above from the opening paragraphs - is isn't needed there at all; it's scientific research, and if anywhere should be included in the Scientific research part, but it's already been stated there! Xxglennxx (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ronz, the Intro needs to reflect the whole content of the article. Also WP:FRINGE clearly applies here. See Homeopathy to see a comparable example. --McSly (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead is intended to be redundant by summarizing the most salient points of the article. Most of the recent activity looks good, I think, and we could probably do with more information in the lead rather than less. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added a brief description of Trad. Jap. and West. Reiki traditions, also information on the Precepts (including a picture in Japanese), and I plan to add more to the lead later on. Xxglennxx (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation style

The citation style for this article is WP:CITESHORT, where there is a short citation (with associated notes as needed) linked inline to the Notes section, plus the full references in the References section.

It looks like editors haven't been consistent in following this style. Items shouldn't be removed from the References section that are listed in Notes. For any entry in References but not in Notes, I think it would be best to assume that it just needs to be properly linked inline, unless the entry was added without any corresponding changes to the article or other indication it was used as a reference. --Ronz (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What I was trying to do was cut out work by the same author (as further research on books by the author can be conducted solitary), and clean up the References section. I've no quabble with you undoing edits, but please - if you're going to restore them, have the time to clean them up, too. Why do we need to mention W. Luebeck, F. A. Petter, and Bronwen and Frans Stiene three times each? The example of "An Introduction to Reiki" is a weblink, and should be in the External links section. Please - I'm trying to bring this article up to scratch. If you're going to keep undoing justified edits, then I'll no longer contribute to this article. Xxglennxx (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above point - the example of "An Introduction to Reiki" is stated twice - in the References and External links!!!! This is why I'm trying to clean this article up!Xxglennxx (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I realize you were trying to clean up the section.

If you read through the citation style suggestions, you'll see that the short citations can be combined if identical. The format is used to indicate page numbers and provide a way to add associated notes without the redundancy of listing the full reference each time. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you clean up those references then? I'm not totaly sure how Wikipedia does them, and you know what you're talking about. Xxglennxx (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If you describe precisely what the problem is, I'll try to fix it. If something in in both the External links and the Notes/References, then it should be removed from External links.

It looks like the Notes/References problems could require a great deal of time and effort to resolve, which is why I've described the problem in some detail. --Ronz (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The style needs to be consistent and the English and grammar needs to be tidied up. Do we need to have multiple references to different books written by the same author? Xxglennxx (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The References section should only list the referenced works, one entry per each unique work.

The Notes section can include notes and short citations. Any entries in the Notes section that are identical (same work, same page number, etc) should be combined using a named reference. --Ronz (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"References" section

OK, let's tidy up the References! I've no idea how to go about it, as I'm not all that sure what qualifies exactly to go into the References section. I've mentioned before that there are links to external sites that are in both the References and External links sections. What exactly does qualify to go into the References? Books mentioned? Papers read? I remember Ronz saying "items shouldn't be removed from the References section that are listed in Notes," which means entries such as "Nina L. Paul PhD Reiki For Dummies( Wiley Publishing Inc, 2005) ISBN 0-7645-9907-0" don't qualify to be in the References, does it? (I also did a search for that mentioned book, and it's not mentioned anywhere within the article at all). It seems to me that people have just been adding books willy-nilly, and yes - while a book list can be of benefit, they mostly hinder the article and considerably lengthen it. Views? Thoughts? Opinions? Xxglennxx (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the good work.

Links that are in both References and External links should be removed from the External links.

Entries in References that do not correspond to anything in Notes, can be removed. WikiBlame (with "interpolated" searches for speed) can be used to find when the entry was added to the article, to check if it may have actually been used as a reference. If you don't want to go to the trouble, it would be helpful to list here anything you remove from References that looks like a potential source. --Ronz (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome - since getting attuned to Reiki II a few months ago, I've really taken to it, and have always said that Wikipedia is a good source of material (as long as other research is done in conjunction!), so I'd like to bring the article up to scratch to provide proper information about Reiki :) I think I understand how they work now (!), so I'll go ahead and edit, and place anything removed (that could have possible relevance) here, but anything else that has no relevance, I'll just fully delete. Xxglennxx (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the References, and taken out any that are not mentioned in the Notes, and therefore do not support the article. I think that people might have just been adding them as things went along, but here they are anyway,

References taken out on 25/02/2010 start here

• Daniel J. Benor, MD Spiritual Healing: Scientific Validation of a Healing Revolution (Vision Publications - Dec 2000) ISBN 1-886785-11-2.
  
• Kajsa Krishni Boräng. Reiki (Principles of) (Thorsons, 1997) ISBN 0-7225-3406-X.
  
• Mark Hosak and Walter Luebeck. Big Book of Reiki Symbols (Lotus Press, 2006) ISBN 0-914955-64-0.
  

• W. Luebeck. Complete Reiki Handbook (Lotus Press, 1994) ISBN 0-941524-87-6.
  
• W. Luebeck. Reiki: Way of the Heart (Lotus Press, 1996) ISBN 0-941524-91-4.
  
• W. Luebeck, F. A. Petter & W. L. Rand. Spirit of Reiki (Lotus Press, 2001, 5th print: 2004) ISBN 0-914955-67-5.
  
• Oliver Klatt etc. Reiki Systems of the World (Lotus Press, 2007) ISBN 0-914955-79-9.
  
• Pamela Miles. Reiki: A Comprehensive Guide( Tarcher/Penguin, 2006) ISBN 1-58542-474-9.
  
• F. A. Petter. Reiki Fire (Lotus Press, 1997) ISBN 0-914955-50-0
  
• F. A. Petter. Reiki: The Legacy of Dr. Usui (Lotus Press, 1998) ISBN 0-914955-56-X
  
• Bronwen and Frans Stiene. The Reiki Sourcebook (O Books, 2003) ISBN 1-903816-55-6
  
• Bronwen and Frans Stiene. The Japanese Art of Reiki (O Books, 2005) ISBN 1-905047-02-9
  
• Bronwen and Frans Stiene. A-Z of Reiki (O Books, 2006) ISBN 1-905047-89-4
  
• Durst and Borland. Reiki Away Your Achey (Penguin, 2002) ISBN 0-564690-33-8
  
• Miles, P., True, G. Reiki: Review of a Biofield Therapy (Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, March/April 2003, 9(2) pp62–72).
  
• Human Hemoglobin Levels and Reiki (Journal of Holistic Nursing, 1989, 7(1)pp47–54)
  
• Wardell, D.W., Engebretson, J. Biological correlates of Reiki touch healing, (J. Advanced Nursing, 2001, 33(4): 439-445)

"Worldwide view" tag

Does the "worldwide view" tag at the start need to be there? You can't really have a "worldwide" view of Reiki, as Reiki is Reiki. Or, shall we, where there are differences between each branch (i.e., Trad. Jap and West.), include those practises that are practised by each group? I've come across Reiki degrees both in the UK and in Germany which are almost identical, and so a "world-view" from that perspective isn't valid. Xxglennxx (talk) 10:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll take this tag away by the end of February (that should give us enough time to discuss it). Xxglennxx (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tag removed March 1st 2010. Happy Saint David's Day everyone! Xxglennxx (talk) 03:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I have tagged the article because of NPOV concerns. The second paragraph of the lead has content that states, without any qualifiers, that Reiki practitioners can heal. Without scientific proof, those claims cannot be made. They must be identified as claims or the beliefs of the practitioners, IOW that "reiki practitioners believe that they can heal.....", or something like that. Keep in mind that this article is governed by WP:FRINGE. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinarily strong scientific evidence before they can be accepted on a personal basis, or claimed in articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right. I thought I cleared that up when editing. Perhaps I over looked it or it got re-edited in with all the new changes going here at the moment. I'll go change it and remove the tag. Xxglennxx (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"Clean up" tag

OK. So, I think the article is no longer in need of general clean up. If no-one objects, we shall delete the tag on or after March 21st 2010, which will give us enough time to discuss it. Xxglennxx (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The {{cleanup}} tag has just been removed. Xxglennxx (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Added Clinical Trials in favor of Reiki

But still needs to be integrated with the old skeptical perspective as well as to maintain NPOV. Can someone do this? --Jay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.25.247 (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, your edits were undone by Verbal, and I'm not sure what they included. Write it here, and I'll see if I can fit it into the current content. There's already information in support of Reiki here, but I've yet to add it to the LEAD. Also, please remember to add your signature at the end by typing ~~~~ at the end of your messages. Xxglennxx (talk) 09:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is my version: "While there has been little scientific study of ki or Reiki, there has been some clinical evidence surfacing in support of the efficacy of Reiki in the form of clinical trials." I'm not sure why verbal just deleted it entirely--he said in the revision history "not an MEDRS" --Jay75.88.25.247 (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Because the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, and Integrative Cancer Therapies are not reliable sources, and especially not WP:MEDRS. They are fringe sources, and not suitable references for the claims you added. Verbal chat 15:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Verbal has given a verbal explanation (:P) of why s/he took out your edit, and reading the page provided, they don't comply with Wikipedia guidelines of reliable sources. I'll add the "for" Reiki into the LEAD and re-word it to flow. Xxglennxx (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the addition to the lede per WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS, WP:LEDE, and WP:NPOV. We don't achieve NPOV by choosing two "sides" and presenting them in a "balanced" manner. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, OK, no problem. Is there a way we can include the "for" Reiki part of the 2007 trial? I do think its relevent enough to go in the lead, seeing as the lead gives an overview of major pieces of the article, and I'd say that the information presented by Integrative Cancer Therapies is "major." Xxglennxx (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Why? Is the 2007 trial already covered in one of the reviews sourced, or maybe the review that I mention above? Or perhaps it was excluded from the reviews because it failed the basic criteria? --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's be good to include it for a balanced argument. At the moment, the lead as it stands is one sided. Where there has been proof of benefit of Reiki, it's been left out of the lead and added to later article. I haven't included your above mentioned review yet, as it says that Reiki was of benefit, then says that participants scored "poor" on the jaded score. Until I figure out that the jaded score criteria is, I'm leaving it out (but someone else is welcome to add it). The lead gives an overview of major points in the article - the fact that Reiki had an effective outcome on cancer patients is a major point, and therefore I believe it deserves a mention in the lead. Xxglennxx (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, read over all the guidelines that Ronz and Verbal are citing and have met them as best that I can--I removed the non-mainstream and WP:FRINGE citations and left in only the citations that are acceptable under WP:MEDRS. Also streamed in the clinical trial that does not support Reiki per WP:NPOV, and also removed Xxglenxx's long paragraph per WP:LEDE --Jay 75.88.25.247 (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Perspective of Catholic Church

I do also think its important to slightly alter the sentence in the lead about the catholic church in order to maintain WP:NPOV, as right now it sounds as if the article is supporting the Catholic Church's stance on reiki. "The Catholic Church has ALSO sought to stop the practise of Reiki within Catholic health care facilities and retreat centres AS IT IS 'unscientific' and therefore 'inappropriate for Catholic institutions'." Especially the "as it is" part violates WP:NPOV because the author is agreeing that reiki is unscientific. I propose changing it to "The Catholic Church has recently sought to stop the practice of Reiki within Catholic health care facilities and retreat centers, labeling it as 'unscientific' and therefore 'inappropriate for Catholic institutions'" This way the Catholic Church's stance is presented without the article agreeing or disagreeing with it. Let me know what you guys think. Vajko (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think such rewording would misrepresent their perspective as expressed in their guidelines and the associated press release. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the current lead for the CC. I was writing it from their POV. What about, "The Catholic Church has sought to stop the practise of Reiki within Catholic health care facilities and retreat centres as it believes it to be "unscientific" and therefore "inappropriate for Catholic institutions"." Xxglennxx (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Prominent Reiki figures

What about adding the following, or something along the lines? I think it'd bring a bit of colour to the article and think it's important to have these "prominent figures" who helped Reiki become what it is today in the article.

Prominent Reiki figures

• 
  Mikao Usui 臼井甕男 (15 August 1865 – 9 March 1926)
  
  Reiki's developer.
• 
  Chujiro Hayashi 林 忠次郎 (1879 - 1940)
  
  
  The first person to form his own association separate of the original Gakkai.

-- Xxglennxx ^★talk★ 21:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the picture of Hawayo Takata, as no fair-use rational for using that image on this talk page has been made. We would need one for using that image at this article anyway. I am not sure that such a justification could be argued, especially since the other two images you found appear to be out of copyright. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent review

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

NPOV and Fringe Sources

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

Directly quoting in a misleading manner is simply inappropriate. If you're not clear why the quotes are misleading, please inquire here. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved the 2009 review mention, and tried to address some of the problems with its summary. It needs to be integrated better in the section. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you have hit on a good idea: We should relegate all mention of the scientific trails to the scientific section.Vajko (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

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

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

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

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

--Vajko-- I also think that the article about the Prince of Wales' guide should not be included in reference to the scientific findings, mainly because it is not a scholarly article and it really only represents the interpretations of Mr. Ernst.

About the vanderVaart paper, I agree that in the lead we should mention the conclusion that further study is needed to "draw definitive conclusions about the efficacy of Reiki"(vanderVaart 1168). However I do feel it is important to also mention that in 9 of the 12 trials selected for analysis, a significant therapeutic effect was demonstrated by the Reiki treatment. In the actual article (http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/acm.2009.0036?cookieSet=1) they discuss how the results of the studies are basically legitimate, however the way the trails were Reported was rated as poor because they didn't follow a very stringent and detailed set of standards for reporting called CONSORT.

Quick example: "One trial (25) provided extensive background on the process and success of therapist blinding (for Reiki Level I practitioners) but only stated ‘patients were blinded’ for the participant description. The CONSORT clearly states that this sentence is not enough to ensure that adequate blinding was achieved."

So preferably in the lead, after the 2008 study, we could put in something to effect of: "A more recent 2009 review found that while many trials demonstrated a 'significant therapeutic effect' of Reiki treatment, poor reporting of the trials renders these results unsuitable for making a definitive conclusion"

I think that something along those lines more accurately reflects the findings of the review. Hope to hear back from you guys soon. Thanks, Vajko (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm for the above changes. Go ahead and write them in. As I'm not all that "up" on the scientific studies behind Reiki (and not sure about how to cite them), perhaps Ronz or Vajko can write them in? My main goal with this article was clearing up the English and general "facts" about Reiki - now we just need to build upon this. Xxglennxx (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"However I do feel it is important to also mention that in 9 of the 12 trials selected for analysis, a significant therapeutic effect was demonstrated by the Reiki treatment." Sorry, no, per WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV, WP:SYN, and WP:FRINGE. Such a statement misrepresents the findings. I've repeated this multiple times now. No one has addressed my concerns. Without any response, I don't know if others are ignoring my concerns, disagree, or simply don't understand.

"mainly because it is not a scholarly article and it really only represents the interpretations of Mr. Ernst" This is the opinion of an expert, based upon the medical consensus of the time. That said, I don't think it's necessary to be included in the article. However, it does provide us here with some context. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I've requested help explaining how to properly use these sources from Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Reiki. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how to present medical findings in an encyclopaedic style, which is why I've stayed away from even trying to write them in (after thinking about it). Help would be greatly appreciated. Xxglennxx (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, sorry you felt as if nobody was responding to your concerns. If you read the full article and not just the abstract, I think you will agree that directly quoting the results of the review is not misrepresenting the findings. The author's found very specifically in nine of the trials that the Reiki group had a greater positive change in the measured indicators than the placebo group. Stating the results of a scientific inquiry when referencing it, is absolutely appropriate and does not violate any of the four guidelines you posted. Vajko (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The beginning of this article seems biased toward disbelief.

Would you put the opinion of the Reiki community on Catholicism, at the beginning of an article describing the Catholic religion? Why do you put Catholic beliefs about Reiki at the beginning of an article about Reiki. It seems out of place and disrespectful to Reiki Practitioners. I hope it will be edited soon. This article has completely change my view of Wikipedia as a legitimate source of objective information. As long as this article remains as it is, I will discourage everyone I know from using Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.37.12 (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that without further sources, it probably doesn't belong in the lede. Here are some worth considering to add: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/31/us-catholic-bishops-reiki http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/february-12-2010/reiki-and-the-catholic-church/5683/ http://ncronline.org/news/spirituality/catholic-bishops-say-no-reiki-treatment http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gRnVd7ssDm6nhpNvSJG50KROQ5Cw http://blog.syracuse.com/cny/2010/03/a_healing_energy_now_in_hospitals_reiki_musters_critics_and_fans.html ? --Ronz (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind it being taken out. I added in when cleaning up as I thought the LEAD was supposed to represent major areas within the whole of the article. Thought the CC section isn't large, I thought it appropriate to include it in the LEAD (though on a personal level I disagree with their stance, being a Reiki level 2 practitioner myself). Ronz, again with referencing, I'm not sure how to go about it. If you want it referenced, add one of your choice (hmm, that sounds a bit mean and harsh, but it's not meant to!) :) Xxglennxx (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the addition of opinions expressed by the Catholic Church, prompting their opinion in the opening paragraph of the Reiki article is in poor taste and only serves to create a defensive tone for legitimacy in the entire article. Imagine if the views expressed by opinion of Captialism was quoted and stated within the definition of Communism... Not only such an act of poor taste, it inevitably supports a fictitious dichotomy between "the West vs the Rest" discourses and serves to further reflect the hegemony of power between Judeo-Christian influences with "other cultures". To me it's the equivalent "exploring the mystical realm of Orientalism." If the Catholic Churches opinion must be expressed, have it done, as it is, in the appropriate area. But for many people reading about Reiki for the first time (as many people do for articles on wikipedia), it saddens me to see the entire opportunity for legitimacy and respectability labeled and stomped upon by scientific and religious communities within the first paragraphs of someone trying to even figure out what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.69.66 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 8 April 2010

I think, 98.248.69.66, you need to get of your high horse. Have you read the article of late? You'll notice that the mention of the CC has been taken out of the LEAD and can only be found in its section. I'm not sure that you're aware of it, but the role of an encyclopaedia is to provide information, both "good" and "bad." The article does not seek to promote the religious views of another, but merely to point them out and say that they're there. Personally I'm against what the CC has said about Reiki, as I am a Level 2 practitioner myself, but I'm not going to put my point of view in because the article would then be biased. What editors can you, and that's you included, it to edit an article and present the "facts" and what has been said, which is what was done when adding the information about the CC to the LEAD. If you've read the above conversations, you'll know that the LEAD contains an overview of the entire article, and includes important points. I, at first, deemed it suitable to have it in the LEAD, as it expresses a religion's specific views of Reiki - something which has not been done publicly before. I think it safe to say that if more religious speak out publicly against the use of Reiki that we'll see a piece added to the LEAD also/again, but for now, it isn't there. Xxglennxx (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with the point if maybe not the vehemency of 98.248.69.66's post, and thank you for putting the CC's views in their area in the article xxglenxx. Vajko (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

2008 summary

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

The lead must include a summary of the scientific evidence, per WP:LEDE, WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If we do include a summary of the scientific evidence it needs to be an actual summary and not just the 2008 study. Also, about the mention of the 2009 study: it is essential that all the editors who want to represent the study have read the paper, so that we can be on the same page.

I also find it prudent to explain the following:

The point of conducting a scientific inquiry is to obtain data. The data the researches collect is then recorded in the Results/Data section. After the data is communicated in the Results section, then the researchers draw their own informed Opinion of the importance of the results in the Conclusion section. Understanding this, it is clear then that the Results, being the actual hard facts/data of the inquiry, are the most notable part of a study.

Including the opinions of the authors of the study, as stated in the Conclusions section of the paper, may be appropriate. However, it is paramount that the Results of the paper be included when discussing a study.Vajko (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The 2008 study is a summary, and the best we have. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The 2008 study unfortunately is only one review and not a summary of the current scientific findings. Vajko (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Vajko, I think the easiest thing to do is for you to write what you'd like to see put in the article concerning scientific findings (2008 or whatever) here on the talk page, and then we can discuss those proposed additions. I personally have been as a loss with all the scientific findings proposed in the article, and am confussed as to what's what and who's who? Out of interest, do you practise Reiki (I'm just curious :D)? (P.S., What "personal opinions" have you seen in the article?) Xxglennxx (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted [4] for the same reasons discussed above. --Ronz (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

This is what I've been saying and trying to point out, Lomewilwarin. I'll ask again: Can we just include the full of it, and if not, why? If we include the full of it (the summaries, that is), then no-one can be two ways about it. -- Xxglennxx ^★talk★ 14:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your earlier comment, I think I read over the talk page too quickly. (I'm a regular reader of articles but have never commented on or edited an article before, this case bothered me particularly however because I was close to using it as an argument in a discussion, until I realized that the actual reference said something different.)

As for your question: If it is rewritten to fit in with the style of wikipedia articles then I think including the full abstract is a good idea, but probably not in the header of the article. Upon further reading I noticed that this has already been attempted under the "Scientific research" header. Perhaps the whole "A systematic review of randomised clinical trials conducted in 2008 did not support the efficacy of Reiki or its recommendation for use in the treatment of any condition." line could just be removed from the header completely, or replaced by a reference to the later paragraph? Lomewilwarin (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with adding the full summary of the review. As I've mentioned many times now already, having the full of it will not allow people to "think up what they like" about - it's there written in plain English. Though Lomewilwarin - we need to include it in the beginning (what's called the LEAD section), as this section has to give a complete ovewview of the article itself. Ronz - Can we just include the full of it, and if not, why? -- Xxglennxx ^★talk★ 16:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I think this is simply a problem with properly interpreting systematic reviews. Once again, I've asked for help here.

For example, "not that it is proven not to be effective" is an arguing for an Argument from ignorance. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Gendai Reiki Hō, Western Reiki

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

About Ichita Takahashi

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

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

Improving the article

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

Actually, I was just looking over the article myself and am very pleased about the NPOV improvements in it. While of course I applaud any continual improvements, it is nevertheless the case that this article has shifted from one of lending validity to Reiki to the more proper reporting on Reiki. I'm really surprised actually. Good job all.Tgm1024 (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Myself and a few other editors have worked on it for quite some time. The most recent discussions involve the scientific findings and how to present them, though I think we have that cleared up :) Feel free to add anything or suggest anything here - once I take my Masters, I'll see if I can add more information. -- Xxglennxx ^★talk_{contributions★} 12:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Call for a more balanced lead

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

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

Display previous full discussion

The way the lead has been reading is highly one-sided and contradicts citations that appear later in the article. Someone who has had no exposure to Reiki is likely to read "There is no scientific evidence for either the existence of ki or any mechanism for its manipulation", and immediately dismiss it as pseudoscience or quackery. Not only is this sentence untrue even from the perspective of the legitmate studies listed later in the article (one of which is the same reference I am citing in the proposed revision currently), but there are many more legitimate studies to be found about Ki itself--it might be good for someone to do a bit of digging to find some of those as well and cite them...perhaps later in the article. How can we work together on this to find a happy medium that reflects the latest scientific studies on Reiki (and possibly Ki) in a way that is not as one-sided towards the skeptical as it has been reading, but also meets Wikipedia standards of excellence? I think that we could draw on the Lead for Orgone as a great example of a very balanced lead for a controversial subject. Any other input on this from anyone? Particularly would like Xxglenxx's input on this because this user has put quite a bit of sweat equity into this article whereas I am only concerned with a Lead that gives Reiki a fair but balanced shake within the standards of Wikipedia. --Jay 75.88.25.247 (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I tried to write a balanced argument for and against Reiki, which was undone by Ronz, stating, WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS, WP:LEDE, and WP:NPOV. We don't achieve NPOV by choosing two "sides" and presenting them in a "balanced" manner. My original stood like this,

"A study published in 2007 by Integrative Cancer Therapies reported that of the sixteen patients in the trial, fatigue decreased with Reiki over the course of several treatments, and the participants also experienced significant improvements in quality of life compared to participants who had not received Reiki. On daily assessments in the Reiki condition, those patients who received Reiki indicated significant decreases in tiredness, pain, and anxiety, which were not seen in those participants that were resting (i.e., not receiving Reiki). A systematic review of randomised clinical trials conducted in 2008 did not support the efficacy of Reiki or its recommendation for use in the treatment of any condition.

There have been fears of the use of Reiki within the Catholic Church, and it has sought to stop the practise of Reiki within Catholic health care facilities and retreat centres as it is "unscientific" and therefore "inappropriate for Catholic institutions"."

Which is believe is balanced. And thanks for the kudos, Jay :D (by the way - why don't you consider creating an account, Jay? This would make it easier to contact you and talk with you). Xxglennxx (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the version I am proposing:

While there has been little scientific study of ki or Reiki, there has been some clinical evidence surfacing in support of the efficacy of Reiki in the form of clinical trials. However, a a systematic review of randomised clinical trials conducted in 2008 did not support the efficacy of Reiki or its recommendation for use in the treatment of any condition.

It is similar to Xxglennxx's version, except that I shortened it a bit to try to most closely meet the guidelines of WP:LEDE and also removed citations that might not cut it under WP:FRINGE or WP:MEDRS. I would certainly be in favor with an even more expanded version more along the lines of XxGlennxx's proposal. I also would like to propose removing the catholic church segment entirely from the lead since it is already mentioned at length under the controversy and crticism section and is really very much a small footnote compared to the subject of Reiki itself. --Jay 75.88.25.247 (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The proposed version is balanced, and that's good. I wouldn't mind adding it, though it'd be nice to mention the study conducted in 2007 as to show even further balance. The part about the Catholic Church I deserves a part in the lead - it's quite a major thing (though it's mention in the main article is small), as Catholicism is the only sect of Christianity that has problems with is, and is the only religion that has spoken out actively against the use and practise of Reiki. It'd be nice to get this sorted ASAP :) Xxglennxx (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. We don't write articles by editors deciding on what viewpoints need to be "balanced" arbitrarily nor with an agenda. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, I agree there is no reason to arbitrarily strive for balance. That said, the current statement is inaccurate and misleading (i.e. A systematic review of randomised clinical trials conducted in 2008 did not support the efficacy of Reiki or its recommendation for use in the treatment of any condition.). If you even just look at the abstract for the study cited, it basically states that there were serious limitations to the way the studies reviewed were preformed, and that they all suffered from small sample size problems. Reading the Wiki article makes it sound like an authoritative study proved that Reiki is not effective, where at best, I think the conclusion you would have to draw is that the study did not find proof that Reiki is effective (a subtle, but important difference). I also don't think you can leave this as is without stating the review's own conclusion that the reviewed studies had major problems with them. I will reiterate that a more accurate description here would be something like:

'A systematic review of randomised clinical trials conducted in 2008 was not able to prove the efficacy of reiki . However limitations were cited in the reviewed study sample sizes and methodologies.' --Bob Bristol (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As I noted below, such juxtaposing is misleading and the first statement alone is problematic, if not misleading in itself. While we're summarizing in the lede section of the article, this is exactly what we should be doing ("The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." - WP:LEDE). I think it would be fine to mention the poor quality of studies to date in the lede, but we need to do so in a way where such mention doesn't lead readers to make assumptions about efficacy. --Ronz (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Synthesizing the (valid) concerns of Bob and Ronz with my own reading of the Lee 2008 abstract, I propose

A systematic review of randomised clinical trials, reported in 2008, found insufficient data from rigorous studies to judge the effectiveness of reiki as a treatment for the conditions studied (depression, pain and anxiety, and others).

I think this removes the temptation of readers, including myself, to read "did not support the efficacy..." as a statement that Lee et al are drawing negative conclusions about the effectiveness of reiki, instead of inconclusive conclusions. Dolsson5 (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to the full paper. I share Dolsson5's concerns that the current wording may be overreaching, or easily interpreted as such. It might be helpful to find someone who has access to the full paper. --Ronz (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The 2009 trials need to be included in the LEAD, too, in my opinion. But then saying, "found insufficient data from rigorous studies to judge the effectiveness of reiki" completely contradicts what both studies found - both of them found beneficial results in at least one area of treatment (such as depression) - the only thing lacking was methodologies etc. -- Xxglennxx ^★talk★ 20:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out, the poor quality of the available research might be worth mentioning in the lede.

"completely contradicts what both studies found" Not at all. As emphasized in WP:MEDRS, we're working from systematic reviews. While some of the papers analyzed in the reviews concluded that Reiki was effective, the reviews do not make this same conclusion, nor do they support this conclusion. --Ronz (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Some of the reviewed studies found beneficial effects, but those studies were not rigorous enough (random selection, control groups, etc.) for the review to state that we have determined reiki to be effective treatment for the conditions. Neither is the review able to state that we have determined reiki not to be effective treatment for the conditions. The standards for such reviews are specific and demanding. If the evidence doesn't meet the standards, the review must echo the Magic 8-Ball: cannot predict now—ask again later. Dolsson5 (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like we have a consensus for Dolsson5's proposal. We can discuss the 2009 studies, and whether and how to mention them in the lead, separately. Vectro (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this! --Ronz (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I prefer your wording. I think NPOV and MEDRS and FRINGE would support it. Let's see what others say. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It'd be nice if you could get the name right, Axcelis555 it's Reiki, not Reike. I have been trained in Reiki Shiki Ryoho. My lineage traces back to Usui. I can provide it, if you like. This has been discussed time and time again here. I supplied a similar text to the one currently used ages ago. I've also suggested including the full of it, which would get rid of this whole debate in total. I'm not a fan of randomised trials, as some show clear evidence of Reiki working, and others don't. Having a mash of all of them isn't the way forward, but I'll go with whatever the majority is. Also, looking at the history, I've undone your contributions once, not twice. -- Xxglennxx ^★talk_{contributions★} 20:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, what about this? (I've suggested it before in the past): A systematic review of nine randomised clinical trials was conducted in 2008. Most trials suffered from methodological flaws such as small sample size, inadequate study design and poor reporting. Two of the trials suggested beneficial effects of Reiki compared with sham control on depression, while an other did not report intergroup differences. For pain and anxiety, one RCT showed intergroup differences compared with sham control. For stress and hopelessness, a further trial reported effects of Reiki and distant Reiki compared with distant sham control. For functional recovery after ischaemic stroke, there were no intergroup differences compared with sham. There was also no difference for anxiety between groups of pregnant women undergoing amniocentesis. For diabetic neuropathy there were no effects of Reiki on pain. A further trial failed to show the effects of Reiki for anxiety and depression in women undergoing breast biopsy compared with conventional care. As a result, the evidence was insufficient to suggest that Reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. If not, what's wrong with it? -- Xxglennxx ^★talk_{contributions★} 21:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Xxglennxx. I don't know what "Usui" means, but it sounds cool and I will check it out. I am Scottish. Very sorry about the spelling. Perhaps it is because my girlfriend's name is Heike :) And you are also right about the changes... it was someone else who changed it the second time. RE: Your suggestion, I like it a lot. It just seems too long for a quick lead, so I'd just stick with your last sentence "...evidence was insufficient to suggest that Reiki is an effective treatment.." (which is already in there), and I'd put the rest in the 'research' section. Anyone else? --Axcelis555 (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, Axcelis555. I'm Welsh, so you know :) Usui, as in Mikao Usui developed Reiki in Japan. I agree with your suggestion of keeping the current as it is, and mention the full in the research section. I think we should wait to Ronz to reply first, as he knows more about this sort of presentation that I do. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way :) -- Xxglennxx ^★talk_{contributions★} 19:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Definition quotes or alterations?

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

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

Suggested balanced external link?

Should this external link http://www.poeticmind.co.uk/wellbeing/is-reiki-nonsense added after the current existing external link: Stephen Barrett, M.D. (4 August 2009). "Reiki Is Nonsense".  ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gil Dekel (talk • contribs) 23:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking. Stephen Barrett is a notable "source for online consumer information" meeting WP:ELNO #11 criteria. The quackwatch.org link could also be used as a reliable reference for a skeptical viewpoint.

If you're suggesting adding the poeticmind.co.uk link, then I'd say it shouldn't be added per WP:ELNO #11 (and possibly others from WP:ELNO). --Ronz (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC).

Thank you. I see your point about Stephen Barrett being a "source for online consumer information", and I have no issue with this at all. My question related not to Stephen Barrett himself, but to his specific article and the epistemological issue it seems to raise - as the poeticmind.co.uk article argues. The poeticmind.co.uk article suggests there are issues in the methods by which Reiki is assessed and presented in Stephen Barrett's article. My questions are:

1. do you think the poeticmind.co.uk article offers important discussion regarding the epistemological issue of assessing Reiki?
2. If yes, then is there a place to include the poeticmind.co.uk article in external links? I will let you decide.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gil Dekel (talk • contribs) 11:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Capital R?

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

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