Talk:Reiki/Archive 4

message: I'm back from a long break, and am now looking over the pages I used to edit. It appears that this article has gone considerably downhill: much of the critical material has either been removed or weakened considerably, and there is a considerable amount of unsourced or unacceptably sourced sympathetic material. That there is "some controversy regarding the legitimacy of reiki" is a severe understatement. Sources which assert that Reiki is based on "superstition" have had their claims weakened to "There is no scientific evidence that ...". --Philosophus T 09:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I recieved a message from the self confessed energy healing skeptic: Philosophus about the removal of the Reiki Tummo in the additional reiki types section via user talk where he mentioned to be able to put back the article it needed to discussed why its not being included: not verifiable,not notable, a violation of spam policies.
The Reiki Tummo article was written/edited by the previous main article editor: Firestar after researching it independantly himself. Reiki Tummo has over 20k members and a total of 41 public clininc in Indonesia and 5 worldwide - 46 in total which is significant number as can be seen from: http://www.reikitummo.com/Clinic/Clinic.html, http://www.padmajaya.com/keg_kl.html and http://www.padmajaya.com/keg_f.html for pictures. Clinics are normally group healing with 5 healers on one patient as can be seen in those pictures mentioned. Comparing it to the UK's largest energy healing organisation (NFSH - National Federation of Spritual Healers) which has been going for 50 years, has 5k members and 50 public clinics as can be seen mentioned on their home page: http://www.nfsh.org.uk/ Both organisations are large charitys and so clinic patients make a donation and are not charged for recieving healing. I wouldnt be surprised if Reiki Tummo is one of the largest Formally organised Reiki organisations worldwide - though i cant prove that because i dont see anything similar to compare it to. Previously Reiki Tummo had its own wiki page but was moved into the main Reiki article. So, should it have its own page or should it be mentioned here ? Tummo88
:For a general topic which has over 21 million hits on google, I find it rather strange that the "largest formally organised Reiki organisations worldwide" would only receive less than 700 (excluding Wikipedia). --Philosophus T 17:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is whether or not this information can be verified. Jefffire 15:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It may not be apparent, but we are objecting. There aren't enough independent, verifiable sources about Reiki Tummo to allow it to be included. In fact, I am not aware of any acceptable sources. You should read the verifiability policy for more information. --Philosophus T 21:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reiki Tummo 

message: Are the energy centres described by Reiki practisioners really called by their sanskrit names (eg Sahasrara?) in this case, the connection between Reiki and the Upanishads in Hinduism needs to be explored and noted in the article. Sfacets 11:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't think they are, since reiki is Japanese. It seems to be another example of a New Age syncretism. At any rate, we should remove the "chakra" names until a source is provided showing that a notable reiki branch uses them routinely. --Fire Star 火星 16:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chakras

message: Shall we add more to the 'see also' section?  It currently only contains JohreiMerkinsmum 11:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See Also

message: Reiki energy usually awakens within someone after a Reiki Master performs an "attunement."[citation needed]
I'm not sure why it's needed here exactly, or what would be an appropriate source. Given that Reiki isn't a "proven" form of healing, it's hard to source something like that. But these may be appropriate... I'll let someone else decide (I'm not sure how to properly add a citation to the article, so..)
http://www.reiki.org/FAQ/LearningReiki.html#attune
http://www.reiki-for-holistic-health.com/reiki-attunements.html
http://www.reiki.nu/reiki/initiations/initiations.html
But I also think that the wording is a bit off: the energy doesn't "awaken" in us (as Reiki is a Universal energy). "The process of being "attuned" to Reiki energy allows one to connect with and utilize the energy" or something to that effect might be better. It unblocks and clears the Chakras, in theory, and is considered a vital before attempting to use Reiki.
Just some thoughts.
--74.14.59.139 03:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: There are 'attribution needed' tags here 'Practitioners use a technique similar to the laying on of hands as well as gestures in the air, which they say[attribution needed] will channel healing energy (ki) . They say[attribution needed] the energy then flows through their palms to bring about healing'. The 'they' in this context is obviously in reference to the aforementioned practitioners, so I don't see why they are being treated as weasel words. Using the word 'they' just stops the paragraph from getting repetative.--88.109.223.105 18:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The who tag is not to be used merely when someone replaces a proper noun with "They" on subsequent uses. The "Who" tag has been so clearly overused I have reverted all who's in the article. Some of the sentences "who"'ed already clearly described who was being refered to -- as you rightly mention. Even a cursory reading of the many references shows who is being referred to and what they believe is well sourced. 202.67.117.177 02:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  They say 

message: I'm working on removing Weasel Words and poorly cited references... if I'm stepping on toes, I'm open to discussion. -- Xinit 13:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skinning Weasels 

message: Having just had a look through the article on reiki and this discussion page, it seems to me that there is a general question of style that must surely apply to all Wikipedia articles on topics which are not accepted by, or lie outwith the scope of, mainstream science.  All religion and all complementary therapies come into this category.  One approach is to prefix every statement in the description of the topic with weasel-ish words such as "Its adherents claim that..."  This makes the description largely unreadable in my opinion.  Another approach would be just to state up front, once, that the method in question has not been proven by repeatable scientific experiment, clinical trials nor reported in peer review journals (or whatever caveat is appropriate).  After such a disclaimer, surely the text can be written in a more factual sounding style?  For example, "...which will channel healing energy" rather than "...which they say will channel healing energy."  The problem with the latter is not so much the "they" but rather the "say" which implies some doubt as to the truth of the mechanism.  Reiki is all about energy flowing through the practitioner.  If the whole thing is to be questioned, let's just do it once and not with every single statement made in the description.  On the other hand, if Wikipedia is only concerned with mainstream stuff that everybody agrees about, then let's not even have articles on reiki (or religion or ...) at all.Andy Beer 22:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You say they are weasel words, others say they are qualifiers. Can the prose be improved? Yes, definitely, the style is clunky. But Wikipedia can't say that reiki actually works the way its proponents claim, anymore than Wikipedia can say that what the Pope says about Jesus is categorically true. We say that it is the Pope's opinion that the Catholic church adheres to, and we can say (if we have sources) that in reiki pracitioners opinion X happens when they do Y. It is the same with any other faith based pursuit in an encyclopaedia article. We report in the passive academic voice just what is notable about the practise in the public domain. We don't advertise for them. Readers may then decide for themselves based on a neutral presentation. --Fire Star 火星 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A newcomer's view of weasels 

message: Having accepted the desirability of qualifiers, I am now pondering the question of references (touched on under "Citation", above).  It seems to me that reiki (along with similar topics) poses a difficulty on several grounds: 1. It originated in Japan but is now most widely practised in Western cultures; 2. It is quite new in these adoptive countries (present since the 1980s); 3. It was probably an oral tradition till recently, without much being written down; 4. There has been a divergence of teaching, without a well defined mainstream, even amongst teachings presented as "traditional"; 5. The primary "evidence" for reiki is direct personal experience.
I don't really have answers to these difficulties.  I just felt that much of the debate derived from this lack of an agreed, written, authoritative source.  And that makes it difficult (but not impossible) to present the subject in the encyclopaedic style.  Over the last ten or fifteen years, there have been many books written about reiki.  But no single author or book has dominated. Perhaps it would be appropriate to use the works of a selection of the better selling authors, such as Petter (whom I've never read), as sources? Andy Beer 09:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for oral traditions 

message: It is probably true that The majority of the scientific community considers Reiki to be pseudoscience but reference number 9 says nothing of the sort and should be removed as a reference here.  I would prefer to see the whole sentence replaced with something like "Reiki remains scientifically unproven."  This is a simple assertion and if anyone feels it to be untrue then they can produce the scientific proof for reiki, e.g. properly conducted and reported clinical trials. Andy Beer 09:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted most of this, and placed a fact-tag in.  Yes, we should have this better referenced.  Perhaps we're overstating the perspective.  Let's try to find more sources.  -- Ronz  20:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree it's overstated and prefer AB's version so I've reverted back, no offense. The reference was woeful (as a support for what was said), I agree there too. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 23:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for commenting here.  As far as I can tell, per WP:WEIGHT and what sources we currently have, there is no justification for the sentence, "The effectiveness of reiki is open to dispute due to the lack of scientific, reproducible results showing effectiveness beyond that found in a placebo."  Also, it makes no sense logically, but perhaps that is just poor wording. -- Ronz  00:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of reference 9 in introduction is misleading 

message: I moved this from the article for discussion.  As well as being unsourced, it seems off-topic, promotional: 
In Vancouver, British Columbia, a fellow named Yutaka Shaun Wada and his student Maysoon Marium Ramadan would attune over 40,000 people together.  They believed that attuning people on the street by offering free initiations is the way to expediate the rising of the vibration of the planet.  Yutaka was known to have attuned over 23,000 people whereas his protege attuned 21,660 people to all the 4 traditional reiki symbols.-- Ronz  14:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from article - Yutaka Shaun Wada

message: This was removed from the article, but I think it's worth placing here for discussion, especially if someone would like to try to find a source for it or something similar.
Others maintain that a black hat practitioner could channel hostile energies to create harmful instead of healing effects. -- Ronz  00:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I followed the link and found it was about computer hacking. Failing to see what relevance computer hacking has to Reiki I deleted the edit as vandalism. If you find any sources for it I'll eat my bubbles. :) ॐ Metta Bubble puff 06:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't heard of anything like this actually happening.  I wouldn't say it's impossible though.  However, the energy involved would not be reiki (according to my understanding) as reiki is believed to enhance the organism's natural healing and growth processes.  In practice, a malevolent energy practitioner would not get many customers because it's almost all done on word-of-mouth recommendation.  So, I think the subject would be more appropriate in a non-science section of the article on alternative medicine, perhaps in a discussion of whether complementary medicine should be regulated or not? In any case, I don't think that "Black Hat" would be an appropraite term to use. Andy Beer 14:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "black hat" is certainly not being used in the same way as in black hat. -- Ronz  16:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See energy vampire. At any rate, while in my understanding of the new age business it is relatively common, we'd need a secondary source for something like that to stay in the article IMO. --Fire Star 火星 17:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow. This is all a bit weird for me. Can't this kind of thing be said of any field? I think you'd need to not only establish that it's possible but that it is actually happening with some frequency for it to be notable. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 11:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that it's not notable but it is kind of fun to discuss!  The original black hat term seemed to imply a malevolent person feeding bad energy into someone else.  The energy vampire term refers to a person sucking good energy out of someone else, so a different scenario.  I've certainly come across the energy vampire terminology and its variants in New Age circles (for example it crops up in James Redfield's popular but atrociously written novel The Celestine Prophecy).  However, in common New Age parlance, it is almost invariably used merely as a term of abuse against someone who has left one feeling drained. Andy Beer 11:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Black hat

message: I'm going try to find scientific reviews, meta-studies, and similar scientific or medical analyses of Reiki that we might consider using in the article and list them here.  Please add others and comment on their possible use:
:::Thanks for tracking these down, Ronz.  I've added my thoughts after each. Andy Beer 09:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At a quick glance, this doesn't look comprehensive enough to be of much use.  It makes a good point that reiki (like most non-drug interventions) cannot be tested by a double-blind trial, only single-blind. Andy Beer 10:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the monograph is subscriber-only:  -- Ronz  19:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you say, the monograph would be better.  The main difficulty in using the InteliHealth article is that it's purpose is to give medical advice.  So, for example, the first sentence of the Summary would be a useful citation but the rest of it would feel a bit out-of-place in our Science section.  I also lked the Theory section; maybe we could quote parts of that somewhere in the WP article. Andy Beer 10:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think we can quote this blog but I very much liked the feel of it.  It seemed honest and unbiased to me.  But really all it says is "I haven't found a good source yet."  except for that tantalizing note about an evidence-based review which you spotted too. Andy Beer 09:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I feel that the author of this paper, who works for a large pharmaceutical company, may be prejudiced against reiki.  I'd be very unhappy to quote his conclusions unless his article has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Andy Beer 09:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Andy for looking through them and commenting.  I'm going to continue to look for more potential sources.  It looks like we agree that we have at least one so far that we can use at least portions. -- Ronz  00:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviews, meta-studies, and the like

message: I propose that we split this section into two ("Theories" and "Practices", or "Theory" and "Practice" even though there will be variations).  I'd like to expand both these themes, quoting some books (I'd better read some first:-).  Any comments before I plunge in? Andy Beer 10:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm good with that. I'm a little concerned about representing different styles of Reiki across sections though. Sometimes it makes sense to say "X believes Y and practices Z, while A believes B and practices C". But if you think it can be written well without becoming like a collection of disjointed facts it's worth the effort. I haven't given it much thought. Please go for it. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 02:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, thanks.  I need to do some more reading to get a feel for the degree of divergence. Andy Beer 09:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: On a technical point, is there any WP action to take before changing a section heading?  (I'm thinking of possible cross references – unlikely in this case.) Andy Beer 09:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: See new Practice topic below for follow-up. Andy Beer 19:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Theories and Practices

message: Are we ready for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spirituality/Assessment? --Ronz 02:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good plan. --Ronz 15:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that the article is in a good enough state to submit for assessment now.  How do we go about it? Andy Beer 11:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear, but I gave it a try: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spirituality/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment --Ronz 22:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment?

message: I did a lot of the edits earlier this year because this Reiki entry was a rant slamming Reiki 99.9%.  As a Reiki (Master) practitioner I knew that most of the authoring that went into this article was done by a skeptic with no direct experience of Reiki.  It seems to me that most Wiki articles, even on controversial subjects, have much more evenness that what was done here.  Feel free to ping me if you have any questions from someone who knows this pretty well.  One thing to keep in mind is that Reiki exists in the area bridging spirituality and healing.  It does not claim to be the same as medical science and it is not a science.  Most of what science deals with cannot reach adequately into the metaphysics that underly Reiki and most of life.  Inayat  Bluejaguar 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you see, that is your opinion. Other opinions differ. Wikipedia has policies to keep those sorts of things from working their way into the article. I have experience with reiki, and my opinion is completely different from yours, for example. Our policies help people who disagree find common ground to report (not promote or attack) a practise like this. --Fire Star 火星 22:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, Bluejaguar's opinion is quite similar to my own. I think the article has improved since the earlier one "slamming" Reiki. So I'm satisfied with progress on the article. I think it's good advice to remind ourselves Reiki does not claim to be medical science. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 17:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Reiki Page Was a Rant

message: This was mentioned in passing in one of the Reiki books I'm looking at.  The implication seemed to be that the interview is dealt with in detail in Frank Petter's book Reiki – the Legacy of Dr. Usui, which I don't have a copy of.  I'll try to get my hands on a copy. Andy Beer 16:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd guess that it is public domain, but if we link to it we should find a copy that has the actual date and source to avoid linking to something that might be a copyright infringement. --Ronz 16:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interview with Usui

message: Could someone have a look at the Johrei article, please (currently linked to from Reiki#See Also).  The Johrei article looks rather like an advertisement to me: no citations or references, two of the external links look quite commercial at a glance, one seems to be broken and the fourth is in Japanese. Andy Beer 20:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a stub. Needs some indication of notability though. --Ronz 14:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ronz. I retract any critism that I had - it looks bona fide enough to me now. Andy Beer 17:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See Also: Johrei