Talk:Reiki/Archive 2

message: I have been practising Traditional Reiki for 11 years and teaching for 6 years.  There are at least a dozen cases of crying children stopping crying through distance healing, with only two cases where children would not stop.  Only I was aware of my channelling Reiki.  Is this placebo effect?  How about a six year old girl, struggling with severe stomach ache, overcoming it completely in 20 minutes through touch healing, without even being aware of what I was doing.  Is it placebo effect?
Too much scientific analysis is being done on a subject, which need no such analysis.  Those who want to learn, practice and benefit, let them.  Let others find fault and waste their time and energy (not Reiki energy).
59.182.45.44 05:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But, as you say, it is subjective, not objective. The article has to reflect that. We aren't here to convince anyone that reiki is real or not, just to provide info for people to make up their own minds. There are a lot of notable objections to Western medicine and the scientific method in general, too, and we have to report those as well. Fire Star 20:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: "The point is that the Reiki experience should be allowed to be written without the quackery and detractor commentary." Why? Wikipedia isn't a free advertising service. When someone asks me how a martial art works, I can show them a demonstrable, reproducible mechanism. I can also show them how the leverage is coordinated with the breath (ch'i), and that that leverage works better with the coordination than without it. Not lineage, efficacy. When I ask a reiki practitioner how reiki works, they don't demonstrate a mechanism, it is all faith as you say, subjectivity incarnate. Does that make reiki bad? No. But it does make it subjective. That is inescapable. Fire Star 05:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's more than enough criticism of reiki in this article. I agree that the poor reader should at least be given the chance to go beyond the opening paragraph before being blasted by quackery claims. The 5th paragraph does this ably, and there're also the dedicated sections further in the article, as well as wording such as 'reiki practitioners claim' or 'is said by its practioners' that implies criticism. I suggest the sentence 'Nevertheless, because of the lack of objective evidence for its theories or its results, the scientific establishment considers Reiki to be quackery.' be removed from the opening paragraph. Fire Star, are you happy with this? Greenman 14:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the language of practitioners claim or is said by its practitioners is necessary for NPOV, and doesn't imply criticism. It is the same language used on most of the alternative medicine articles, and even with subjects that would seem less controversial. Reiki is a typical example of such a practise, and as such its controversial nature is one of its most notable features. You will find similar wording at articles like Falun Gong, Scientology and Homeopathy. We aren't denigrating reiki, we are reporting it. If its theories and practise seem dodgy to many people, that shouldn't be swept under the rug in a POV puff piece. We do also imply that many people find it valuable and study it. The article should present both sides, and report controversies. The Taijiquan and Qigong articles do the same. I agree that perhaps "quackery" is a bit strong, perhaps "controversial" is a little better... Fire Star 16:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legitamacy of the Applied Placebo Effect 

message: I moved a sentence from the first paragraph down to the "Controversies" section, and now the first sentence is in bold and italics.  The codes in the edit box looked OK, but the preview did not.  I have no idea why the text came out formatted like that, nor do I have any idea how to fix it.  Just goes to show you that a little knowledge can be dangerous, no matter how bold you are.  How do I fix this?  JKM4620 04:32, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
:Fixed (I'm not sure why it wasn't working the other way - the code looked fine to me). -GrantNeufeld 04:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Be bold? 

message: There have been some recent edits by an anon user that have been seemingly in aid of taking out critical internal and external links. We have to present a balanced approach, Wikipedia isn't an advertising service. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Fire Star 01:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing links 

message: Aha. And I've discovered the discussion page. After reading the most interesting commentary here, I am compelled to note that I have moved a paragraph describing Takata's claims to occur after Takata has been introduced in the text. The article's flow doesn't suffer too badly from the move, but it seems Takata needs to be introduced before her claims can be discussed.
Postscript.
Being a student and level 3 practitioner myself, I have seen first hand the effects of Reiki upon others. Upon my initial read of this article I must admit I was rather discouraged to have almost every sentence begin with a disclaimer. Although it is very succinct and informative, I finished reading the article with a negative feeling. It may be a question of semantics, but perhaps "allegedly" and its forms could soften the tone a bit. Zirconiums 08/22/2005 16:08 (no tilde on this keyboard)
:Greetings. The move makes good sense. Fire Star 00:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Takata paragraph moved... 

message: You reiki fanatics need to start allowing all POVs to contribute to the article. The thing that makes wiki so great is the diversity of background opinions that go into each article. I dont see this happening here. Why should spiritualist/propagandistic/ignorant/closed minded/fanatical views have more validity than skeptical views? 
:The reiki people can't prohibit other views of reiki that don't violate Wikipedia policy in the article. I'm quite sceptical of reiki, to be honest, and I'm happy with the presentation. The talk page, not the article itself, is where people vent and discuss their opinions and expectations for the article. --Fire Star 01:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not a soapbox

message: I see where the article on Reiki has reverted back towards the mean spirited theme it once had. The body part(hand) photograph that is shown as one starts viewing this page is an especially wierd experience. Labeling Reiki practitoners who are attempting to contribute their perspectives on Reiki as fanatics/ignorant/closed minded etc. does little to improve the situation. Let's tell it like it is. The only people who are preventing others from sharing their views pro and con for this article are the Wikipedia staff.
Tom05
:Well, we have complaints on this page from people who love reiki and people who hate reiki. As far as that is an indication of a middle road of simple, neutral reporting of this controversial issue, it seems to me that we must be doing something right! --Fire Star 18:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Labeling others and a question of neutrality

message: We could easily go line by line in the article and disclose the flawed logic in this pseuodo- neutral presentation on Reiki. Luckily, those who do happen upon this talk page will see the merits in discovering the Reiki experience from credible sources. The only rip off and quackery here is those that claim to be neutral as they deconstruct this article into a rag of discontent and weirdness. It is a sham and a shame.  
Tom05
I tried to be npov but i couldnt find any legitimate scientific evidence supporting reiki... if anyone manages to find any i encourage them to add it. 
:That's because there aren't any reproducible studies which show conclusively to the satisfaction of the general scientific community that reiki has an objective effect beyond that predicted by the placebo effect. If there were I'd be happy for them to be listed. It's easy to just say that the logic of a presentation is flawed, but if it isn't easy to point out the flaw so that others will agree, then how logical is the argument? Just saying reiki works isn't enough to prove to outside observers, or WP editors, that reiki works. We don't have that kind of a relationship with the people who say that. Just by saying an article isn't neutral isn't enough to prove to most WP editors that it is biased. Any discipline has valid criticisms associated with it. I have also included criticisms of practises I myself know to be very valuable in the articles relating to those practises. But things like this have to be specifically pointed out, word for word and line by line. it isn't convincing to say that what one disagrees with is "weird" and a "sham," the burden of proof has to be met. So, the language stays qualified. At WP we don't say Jesus was the son of God, we say Jesus' followers say that. And a lot more people say that than believe in reiki. --Fire Star 03:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Neutrality