Talk:Reiki/Archive 3

message: Propose to merge Reiki Tummo into Reiki since it is a minor article and does not add new information. Actually, as it stands now Reiki Tummo has a commercial flavor, and may even be removed completely, as far as I am concerned. JohJak2 12:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A fine idea. Done. --Fire Star 16:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: i think it would be best if non-traditional flavors were discussed here before they are added to the main article. Of the three currently listed (celtic, tummo, and something something mantra...), reiki tummo is the only one i've ever heard of. We need to keep in mind that reiki has become extremely commercialized, and to market a new product it needs a new name. There are now hundreds of "new" reiki practices out there, a minority of which I feel are popular enough for mention in this article. If you are not sure if yours is a well known reiki, try scanning for regular mention of it in a general reiki forum. Shaggorama 06:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Celtic Reiki gets about 10,000 Google hits, which makes it fairly notable for this sort of thing. The other one got 44, which practically vanishes when WP and its mirrors are factored in, so I removed it. --Fire Star 19:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-traditional reiki 

message: From the Encarta World English Dictionary, Bloomsbury, 1999:
syncretize To combine, or try to combine, elements from different systems of philosophical or religious belief or practice. syncretization.
--Fire Star 14:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be written as Syn-cretin-ization. 68.152.95.130 20:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syncretization 

message: I was reading in askmen.com about Reiki and they mentioned quite alot of scientific research is currently being done on Reiki. To balance the wiki article (which in some parts on the controvisories seems very negative) should it not have some details about what real scientific reseach has so far been done, weather positive or negative instead of the sweeping statements made in the wiki article. Please see the secions on "what about reseach?" http://www.askmen.com/fashion/body_and_mind_60/97b_better_living.html If not then lets consider removing the sweeping stament sections. Tummo1 15:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the link you provided states: "the data on it is preliminary". When multiple double blind and peer reviewed medical studies have clearly shown effects beyond that expected by the placebo effect (as the FICSIT trials  have done for T'ai Chi, for example), then they will be notable enough to include in the article. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service. The language in the article isn't intended to be negative, but objective. --Fire Star 18:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia does not require doubleblind peer reviewed data. Notability is not defined this way. If someone prominent in a field related to Qi is noting the information, it is notable enough for inclusion. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 00:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think a doubleblind peer reviewed data is a good standard to use where it makes sense, and Reiki is a good enough candidate to require this standard because it is technically feasible to produce this kind of data. -- Newhoggy | Talk 11:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  A compromise would be to mention these other studies, but note that there are no double blind peer reviewed studies which are the golden standard in medicinal research. -- Newhoggy | Talk 04:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific research

message: Why is there a page Reiki controversies, but no link from here to there? --Hob Gadling 15:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, it seems to be a fork of a previous version of the main reiki article which has been created to maintain some earlier statements. Its content is very similar to content that already exists at this article, and it should probably be merged. --Fire Star 15:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've redirected it to the main article. There was no material in the old article that hasn't been covered here, indeed, it was just a reposting of an older version of the main article from its page history. It seemed to be an attempt at reposting material that consensus has deemed too negative. --Fire Star 17:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Reiki controversies]] 

message: Reiki is practiced in hundreds of hospitals round the US including many that are respected and well known.  These include M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, The California Pacific Medical Center, The Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center at the National Institutes of  Health, Wentworth-Douglass Hospital in Dover, New Hampshire, Concord Hospital, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Bennington Southwestern Medical Center, Frisbee Memorial Hospital, Catholic Medical Center, Elliot Hospital all in New Hampshire, and Anna Jacques Hospital and Union Hospital in Massachusetts. AT the Portsmouth Regional Hospital in New Hampshire, over 8000 Reiki treatments have been given. This information comes from articles authored by Pamala Miles and appearing in the Reiki News Magazine. There is also  a Consortium of 27 Academic Health Centers that promote integrative medicine including Reiki see -   See -
In addition, double blind scientific studies have demonstrated that the value provided by Reiki comes from more than just the placebo effect. A recent study was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal: Autonomic Nervous-System-Changes During Reiki Treatment: A Preliminary Study, THE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE
Volume 10, Number 6. And in fact in the  field of spiritual healing, there have been over 100 studies conducted, many of which demonstrate positive results.  See Spiritual Healing, Scientific Validation of a Healing Revolution, by Daniel J. Benor, M.D.  The previous 2 paragraphs were added by William Lee Rand William 20:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, saying that reiki definitely does miraculously cure people definitely isn't neutral. We (Wikipedia) can't say it works, we can't say it doesn't work. Wikipedia can't say that it believes anything in the articles, we are reporters, not salesmen. We report the claims of reiki adherents and the rebuttals of reiki critics, that's all. Please read the Neutral point of view policy, and the archived discussion of this article. --Fire Star 15:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reiki Endorse by Doctors and Practiced in Hospitals

message: I oppose the use of word "claim" in the introductions. Why isn't the word "states" used instead? Most of the introduction seems to have an air of skepdicism about it. Is it quite possible it is too one sided?    
"Reiki is claimed by its adherents to be a technique for healing physical or mental disease. Reiki was formulated during the early 20th century by Mikao Usui (usui mikao 臼井甕男) in Japan. Practitioners use a technique similar to the laying on of hands in which they claim that they act as channels for Reiki energy — which they say flows through their palms to specific parts of the body in order to facilitate healing. Scientific studies have not confirmed the existence of this specific Reiki energy. Most of the explanations of the technical aspects of Reiki rely upon the existence of "subtle energies" and "auras." Reiki practitioners and holistic healers believe these descriptions of such energies and also believe in the validity of the practice."
:Well, what reiki theory states does indeed seem to be claims that it is able to heal with the ability to generate an energy that is debatable at best with a method that hasn't been proven to exist beyond simple physical metabolism. That justifies the word "claim" to my mind. Many other of our New Age and Alternative medicine articles have similar language. --Fire Star 18:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction seems biased 

message: answer: the energy and activities of god and religious people
effect: healing, living, feeling good, changing parts of your body etc.
It really is not good if you call the power of God Reiki .. there is too much confusion!!!
The previous opening sentence:
* Reiki is asserted to be a spiritual healing technique...
is akin to saying
* Christianity is asserted to be a religion...
You see? Reiki is a spiritual healing technique, just as sure as Christianity is a religion. Whether Reiki works or not is a different matter. Just as whether there was a Christ or not is a different matter. I'm happy to keep workshopping this opening sentence in an NPOV way. I'd still like to hear specific reasoning if there is anything at all wrong with saying:
* Reiki is a spiritual healing technique proposed for the treatment of physical, emotional, spiritual or mental disease.
For me, the sentence makes the difference between what Reiki is and what Reiki proposes absolutely clear. You can't get more NPOV than that. Please discuss your own view on this below. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 04:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Reiki is 

message: I reverted the edits of User:67.170.170.248 because I felt the information lost thereby was important to the article. The article's wording is the product of many authors, not one. I'm not biased against non-western medicine, but I do believe that there is a lot of chicanery in the New Age healing community. Unlike some other forms of traditional medicine, there aren't many studies at all that point to reiki making much of a difference, so for us to call it a form of "medicine" just won't work as yet. It may just be that reiki is relatively new, or it may be due to some other reason. --Fire Star 23:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with your actions, and also I think there was some merit in 67's edits. I encourage 67 to bring some of the edits here for discussion. For example, using "imbalance" in the opening sentence seems good to me, but it would then force us to define imblance in usable terms to our readership. I think there's some middle ground to be reached with the other edits also, but too much at once is impossible to discuss. Again, 67, please post problem sentences and suggested changes and I'm sure we'll get consensus on this talk page. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keeping information 

message: Hello editors. Please stick to restoring the parts of the article you actually have a problem with. WP:REVERT reminds us that "Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism."
Reverting is not a mechanism for avoiding editorial discussion.
Blind reversions against any editors acting in good faith are unhelpful. I recently restored the edits of an anon editor. I'm not saying I agree with all the anon's edits. However, I do agree with some and many of the edits were spelling corrections and grammar improvements. These kinds of edits should be clearly encouraged.
Also remember, as per WP:REVERT "Explain your reverts!"
Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, my bad. I meant to leave a note here but got distracted and I must apologise. My concern was the anonymous ed.s change in the dollar amount of pricing info, and that gets me thinking about any pricing info in this (or any other) article. Do we have a source for it? As well, we should mention if it US dollars or not if someone does have a source. Again, sorry about that. --Fire Star 23:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting is for fighting vandalism not for punching newbies 

message: I came back to this page today after many months to refresh my memory on a couple of items. I took a moment to read the page, and am __so__ thankful to all of you editors for your work on this page. When I first read it all those months ago, I was very discouraged by the negative POV, especially after having experienced the positive effects of Reiki myself. I understand fully the wiki credo of neutrality, and truly appreciate the care you all have taken in presenting this material with a careful and delicate style. Thank you so much. In love and light. Zirx 22:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  with Thanks... 

message: A couple of days ago I deleted the entire section on Secret Teachings as this was offensive, extremely inaccurate and possibly libelous. The whole section was simply biased, unproven and unproveable opinion. 88.108.10.83 22:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it didn't cite any sources, to be sure, so removing it was probably a good idea. --Fire Star 03:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret Teachings 

message: I'm assuming this is part of the the new Wikipedia Joke Articles Project (JAP).  Actually quite well done. It starts off with kind of rant that almost sounds plausible: 
"Reiki is a spiritual healing pseudoscientific technique proposed for the treatment of physical, emotional, spiritual or mental disease. It has no scientific basis." 
There are many different kinds of research, not just "scientific", which is    a word sometimes used by lay people for the quantitative research and experimental research.  
and then gets into some kind of "facts information" with references.
"According to a study published in Alternative Therapies, Jan/Feb 2005 issue, in 2002 there were over one million U.S. adults who have had one or more Reiki treatments." 
I'm assuming this a reference to some kind of qualitative research. 
But I think the best part is the picture. That's what really tipped me off. A man of Asian descent making a goofy face! That's great. Of course a real article would have a more flattering picture.  
I don't mind the fact that it is a joke article that seems to be written by a four year old with no background in research or professional writing. What I do mind is that it is not in the new "Joke Articles Project" section (JAP). When doing research I need to find data fast. I don't want to read through most of the article before I figure out it's a joke. Anyway, well done! Good luck with the new project. Max fischer 14:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice attempt!   

message: I've removed the image from the Reiki page, as someone had replaced the "healing hand" image that was there the other day with an image of someone slapping someone else with a backhand slap.  They may think it's funny, but it is not Reiki.  GC
:Sorry, I laughed my head off. Jefffire 18:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking the Micky 

message: Most of this article is completely lacking in sources. Citations would be nice. JoshuaZ 04:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. 58.178.153.192 00:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I edit lots of pages where pseudoscience is an appropriate appellation. I also edit other pages so don't get the wrong idea. In order to increase efficiency and avoid repetition I plan to set out on my userpage some editing principles I abide by. Once a month, or as needed, I'll post to individual talkpages on this issue. Please note this is NOT an attempt to avoid discussion as some have alleged. I have also used the revert function which does not allow an edit summary. Again this is an efficient way to handle the problem of editors who IGNORE stuff I have already written on talkpages and then have the temerity to suggest I ignore them. Again, please assume good faith and don't accuse me of being unwilling to seek consensus - that is blatantly untrue. 
The problem with pseudoscientific explanations is that they pop up all the time like the multi-headed hydra, either by deluded people or by people seeking to exploit vulnerable people. James Randi in a list which makes no claim to be comprehensive sets out 28: 
:Dowsing. ESP. Precognition. Remote Viewing. Communicating with the Dead and/or "Channeling". Violations of Newton's Laws of Motion (Perpetual Motion Devices). Homeopathy. Chiropractic Healing (beyond back/joint problems). Faith Healing. Psychic Surgery. Astrology. Therapeutic Touch (aka "TT"). Qi Gong. Psychokinesis (aka "PK"). The Existence of Ghosts. Precognition & Prophecy. Levitation. Physiognomy. Psychometry. Pyramid Power. Reflexology. Applied Kinesiology (aka "AK"). Clairvoyance. The Existence of Auras. Graphology. Numerology. Palmistry. Phrenology. 
Wikipedia lists 46 (some overlap and some are disputed by wikipedians):
:Acupuncture (Williams 2000:3-4; Carroll 2003:5-7),  Applied kinesiology (Hyman 1999:34-43; Kenny et al. 1988:698-704),  Astrology (but this was once protoscientific in that it once tried to record measurement of the position of heavenly bodies) (Williams 2000:18-19; Carroll 2003:34-36),  Anthroposophy (Carroll 2003:25-28),  Biblical scientific foresight,  Christian Science (Williams 2000:51),  Creation science (Williams 2000:64-65; Carroll 2003:85-89) and its offshoots and many of the "theories" invoked in its defense:, ,     * Baraminology,     * Creation biology,     * Creationist cosmologies,     * Flood geology,     * Intelligent design ( Carroll 2003:180-83),           o Irreducible complexity,           o Specified complexity, ,  Cryptozoology (Williams 2000:70-71; Carroll 2003:9),  Dianetics (The pseudoscience of Scientology.) (Williams 2000:82-83; Carroll 2003:99-102),  Duesberg hypothesis (Claims that HIV is a "harmless agent" unrelated to AIDS),  Eugenics (Williams 2000:98-101),  Graphology (Williams 2000:137-38; Carroll 2003:156),  Homeopathy (Williams 2000:148),  Megalithic yard and other pseudoscientific metrology (Williams 2000:210),  Melanin Theory,  Modern geocentrism (see also Flat Earth Society),  Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) (Williams 2000:235; Carroll 2003:252-57),  New Chronology,  Novelty Theory (aka "Timewave Zero"),  Orgonomy (Williams 2000:248-49; Carroll 2003:267-68),  Palmistry (Williams 2000:256; Carroll 2003:271-72),  Perpetual motion (Williams 2000:262),  Personology (Carroll 2003:282-83),  Phrenology (Williams 2000:266-68; Carroll 2003:286-88),  Physiognomy (Williams 2000:268; Carroll 2003:288-89),  Pyramidology (Williams 2000:290-91),  Quantum mysticism,  Remote Viewing (Williams 2000:301-2; Carroll 2003:331-33),  Scientology (Williams 2000:312-13),  Spiritualism (Williams 2000:326-27; Carroll 2003:364-65),  Synchronicity (Williams 2000:338),  Telekinesis/Psychokinesis (Williams 2000:288; Carroll 2003:374),  Telepathy (Williams 2000:346-47; Carroll 2003:374),  Time Cube (also see Gene Ray),  Unidentified Flying Objects (Williams 2000:359-60; Carroll 2003:146, 387-88),  Vedic science (Alexander et al., Select Press; 1st edition, 2005)  
So you can see the problem, we as encyclopedists are dealing with because on many pages in wikipedia there are people who will swear blind that they know their particular belief in their particular psuedoscience is true. They often cite their personal experience, not understanding their own psychology, not understanding the regressive fallacy and not understanding that anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron, or not understanding the need for replicability before such claims can be accepted in an encyclopedia or by science. It is difficult dealing with this type of religiosity in editors.
So I will continue to use the revert function, but will do so only under the conditions outlined above.
===Newhoggy's suggestion===
On Newhoggy's statement above. Yes we are getting closer to consensus. How about "many believers of reiki use psuedoscience to support their beliefs". I don't agree with calling it an art which I'm using in the OED meaning of skill in doing anything as the result of knowledge and practice. Anyone can set up shop as a Reiki Master (I personally know one poor fellow who has done this) and it requires no skill, no knowledge and no practice. Yes the placebo effect is powerful and, unfortunately, not well understood. But that is no reason to avoid the use of the term pseudoscience. I didn't quite understand the form of words suggested above but it is heading in the right direction. I might note that we don't need citations for every statement we make. We are quite at liberty to draw logical inferences in creating an article. Mccready 08:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Reiki is an art", or "Reiki is a skill in healing as the result of knowledge and practice".  Certainly this concept is in need of explanation so I will try express my own rationalisation of how these apparently contradictory ideas can be reconciled from a skeptic's point of view:  Reiki is a practise (ie. something a person does) that is used for the purpose of giving relief from ailments (usually symptoms of pain) through the use of the placebo effect.  The placebo effect is not a well understood phenomenon, but it is well documented and scientifically shown to be real.  The effectiveness of the placebo effect is heavily dependent on the state of mind of the patient including but not limited to the extent to which the patient believes in the validity of the practise and believes in the competency of the practitioner.  The Reiki skill is therefore not how the practitioner channels energy, but rather the degree to which the practitioner can convince the patient that a substantial action is occurring and that the action is beneficial for the treated ailment.  Only then will a positive placebo effect be brought forth in the patient.  Unfortunately it is difficult to be convincing without believing - thus the predicament that the practise on the one hand can bring about beneficial physiological changes, but on the other hand accumulates explanations with no physical basis, that exist as a reality only in the mind of believers (ie. a useful form of knowledge despite its falseness - science usually calls these things models).  Some Reiki supporters would probably be very upset with my explanation, but with this reasoning does allow me to honestly say Reiki is an art.  -- Newhoggy | Talk 12:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: On citations.  Though not strictly needed, its still a good practise which on the one hand improve the quality of the article and on the other hand helps editors deal with reconciling contradictory POV.  The improvement in quality I believe is real because it forms the basis with which future editors (particularly those with less expertise in the topic) can verify and conduct further research. -- Newhoggy | Talk 13:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me. Convincing the "patient" to part with substantial amounts of their currency for the placebo effect would put it in the realm of a "confidence art," perhaps! Regardless, the proposal is perfectly acceptable as far as I am concerned. --Fire Star 火星 13:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Newhoggy, I enjoyed your thoughts, but I really don't think that using a term like "art" is NPOV just because it's amusingly double-edged.  If we have to rationalize it that much, it's probably POV/OR.  Why not just use "practice"?  And I think "faith healing" which Kevin had earlier certainly fits; objections from some Reikiists appear to be along the lines that the patient need not believe in it, but that's actually not part of the definition. Unless a lot of Reikiists reject the term, seems like an appropriate one. -Jim Butler 07:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, I can't say I didn't try :-) -- Newhoggy | Talk 12:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, 'twas a worthy screed.  :-) -Jim Butler 19:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been trying to think of a reason why it can't be called "faith healing", but I haven't been able to come up with anything. -- Newhoggy | Talk 06:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience - Monthly notice 

message: On Newhoggy's statement above. Yes we are getting closer to consensus. How about "many believers of reiki use psuedoscience to support their beliefs". I don't agree with calling it an art which I'm using in the OED meaning of skill in doing anything as the result of knowledge and practice. Anyone can set up shop as a Reiki Master (I personally know one poor fellow who has done this) and it requires no skill, no knowledge and no practice. Yes the placebo effect is powerful and, unfortunately, not well understood. But that is no reason to avoid the use of the term pseudoscience. I didn't quite understand the form of words suggested above but it is heading in the right direction. I might note that we don't need citations for every statement we make. We are quite at liberty to draw logical inferences in creating an article. Mccready 08:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Reiki is an art", or "Reiki is a skill in healing as the result of knowledge and practice".  Certainly this concept is in need of explanation so I will try express my own rationalisation of how these apparently contradictory ideas can be reconciled from a skeptic's point of view:  Reiki is a practise (ie. something a person does) that is used for the purpose of giving relief from ailments (usually symptoms of pain) through the use of the placebo effect.  The placebo effect is not a well understood phenomenon, but it is well documented and scientifically shown to be real.  The effectiveness of the placebo effect is heavily dependent on the state of mind of the patient including but not limited to the extent to which the patient believes in the validity of the practise and believes in the competency of the practitioner.  The Reiki skill is therefore not how the practitioner channels energy, but rather the degree to which the practitioner can convince the patient that a substantial action is occurring and that the action is beneficial for the treated ailment.  Only then will a positive placebo effect be brought forth in the patient.  Unfortunately it is difficult to be convincing without believing - thus the predicament that the practise on the one hand can bring about beneficial physiological changes, but on the other hand accumulates explanations with no physical basis, that exist as a reality only in the mind of believers (ie. a useful form of knowledge despite its falseness - science usually calls these things models).  Some Reiki supporters would probably be very upset with my explanation, but with this reasoning does allow me to honestly say Reiki is an art.  -- Newhoggy | Talk 12:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: On citations.  Though not strictly needed, its still a good practise which on the one hand improve the quality of the article and on the other hand helps editors deal with reconciling contradictory POV.  The improvement in quality I believe is real because it forms the basis with which future editors (particularly those with less expertise in the topic) can verify and conduct further research. -- Newhoggy | Talk 13:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me. Convincing the "patient" to part with substantial amounts of their currency for the placebo effect would put it in the realm of a "confidence art," perhaps! Regardless, the proposal is perfectly acceptable as far as I am concerned. --Fire Star 火星 13:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Newhoggy, I enjoyed your thoughts, but I really don't think that using a term like "art" is NPOV just because it's amusingly double-edged.  If we have to rationalize it that much, it's probably POV/OR.  Why not just use "practice"?  And I think "faith healing" which Kevin had earlier certainly fits; objections from some Reikiists appear to be along the lines that the patient need not believe in it, but that's actually not part of the definition. Unless a lot of Reikiists reject the term, seems like an appropriate one. -Jim Butler 07:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, I can't say I didn't try :-) -- Newhoggy | Talk 12:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, 'twas a worthy screed.  :-) -Jim Butler 19:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been trying to think of a reason why it can't be called "faith healing", but I haven't been able to come up with anything. -- Newhoggy | Talk 06:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Newhoggy's suggestion

message: Pseudoscience refers to something misrepresented as being scientific (i.e., in compliance with the scientific method).  Some have pointed to Reiki proponents' use of the term "science" as evidence of such misrepresentation, but that logic fails to take into account that the term has a generic meaning beyond the scientific method.  It can mean simply an "Organized body of knowledge; any particular art or discipline".  (Variations on this definition appear in other dictionaries; e.g. Merriam-Webster has "knowledge obtained through study or practice".)  Thus, a Reiki practitioner may legitimately refer to Reiki as a "science" and simply mean that it is systematic.
I'm not familiar enough with Reiki to know what its proponents really mean when they call it a "science", and it's fine for the article to say (verifiably) "so-and-so says Reiki is pseudoscience", even if so-and-so's logic is faulty.  However, this issue serves as another reminder of why Wikipedia's three pillars of NPOV, verifiability and NOR are important.  I still firmly believe that classifying something as a pseudoscience requires NPOV wording and a citation, no matter how obvious the classification may appear to be, and no matter how much the alleged pseudoscience reeks of bullshit.  Remember, if it's that obvious or noteworthy, someone will have said so already....  thx, Jim Butler 06:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'm having problems with my brain physiology.  After looking at Kevin's removal of the fact-tag on Randi and pseudoscience, I find myself thinking that I've entered into a world where Wikipedia has gone away and been replaced by an exact duplicate where WP:V no longer applies.  Can anyone help? -Jim Butler 06:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the words "science" and "pseudoscience" ... in the lead section etc.

message: Chromodynamically, flavordynamically, geometrodynamically, and electrodynamically?  I don't think the credibility of the scientific criticism of Reiki is helped by these words because they make no sense to a lay person.  Why can't we just say the four known fundamental forces of nature and leave these terms to the scientific articles that have the scope that can do them justice? -- Newhoggy | Talk 13:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree, and the section isn't even technically correct because it conflates energy with force.  I tried a rewrite... thx, Jim Butler 14:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Much better.  Thankyou.  -- Newhoggy | Talk 01:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whatsidynamics? 

message: The entry for faith healing is clearly written so that it encompasses Reiki.  Some definitions are written more narrowly, indicating explicit (rather than, say, implicit) belief on the part of the person receiving treatment.  In popular usage, are the terms "faith healing" and "spiritual healing" distinct from one another?  Probably not, as I think about it, since one hears of faith healing being practiced upon people who don't believe in it.  But it may bear some research.... -Jim Butler 20:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Faith healing

message: This phrase in the introduction has been replaced by "ghostly", which shows a total lack of understanding of what Reiki is and what the kanji character Rei means. I have reverted this change based on the following:
*Indian Reiki Masters - Introduction to Reiki
*Dharma Memphis - Reiki
*Alef Reiki - What is traditional Reiki?
*NY International Reiki Center - What is Reiki?
*The International Center for Reiki Training - Reiki Energy
*SpiritLightWorks - Reiki - Spiritually Guided Life Energy
I can come up with more references in case the above is not satisfactory. I would also like to ask anyone not familiar with Reiki to Talk before making such changes. Aquirata 15:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spiritually guided 

message: I have moved the following section here so we can work on it and move it back to the main page when the two tags can be removed. We shouldn't have a tagged section as a permanent part of the article.
Please edit within the section and add your comments below in the 'Comments' subsection. Aquirata 15:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does that sound? --213.38.92.242 10:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me except for the lack of internal links and citations. Aquirata 15:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about adding..."Any search on the internet for 'Reiki Manuals', 'Reiki Symbols' or 'Reiki Teaching' will provide most of the varying information and techniques used by the different schools of Reiki.".  There's no way to reasonably cite links for everything relating to Reiki.  (plus I haven't quite got the hang of this Wiki editor :) --213.38.92.242 09:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section to be reworked 

message: Orthodox Christian Churches (whether Eastern Rite or Latin Rite Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and some Reformation derived Protestant Christian Churches etc) identify Reiki as being occult and so therefore a demonic power coming from Satan. Most church doctrines interpret practices like Reiki as more akin to the occult than to medicine and do not the equate Reiki to the Christian charism of Laying on of hands. Some Christians who believed in general about the existence of the supernatural (or who had some experience with Reiki and it's power) would concede that Reiki does exist in a supernatural way and works in some degree to heal, but would object to it from the perspective that it is an occult practice and therefore derived from evil regardless of good intentions or a beneficial result.  There are however Christan groups who do equate Reiki to the same healing as practiced by Jesus and as such there are more and more Christian groups who are accepting of Reiki and even practice it (see http://www.christianreiki.com/).
Churches seem to believe that Reiki, as in some other esoteric systems of belief, involve initiation into secret teachings, symbols, mantras and techniques are required. These initiation methods and their secrecy, as well as the conferring of supernatural powers (often for large amounts of money) is a hallmark of occult practice, and is similar to traditionally understood magical systems such as that of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Freemasonry, Satanism and Witchcraft (or Magic (paranormal) practices in general). The belief in summoning, controlling, manipulating or channeling an invisible energy through symbols based on pagan symbolism, is sufficient by Christian theological standards to call it occultism. Occult practice, is clearly condemned according to Christian practice and Faith. Some groups specifically speak against it (such as the Dominicans from the Catholic) Church.  In fact, the truth is that Reiki does not involve secret teachings but instead has teachings which are considered sacred by those who practice and teach it.  As with any field of learning a student is not given all the information in one go but will receive further teachings as they progress through their learning levels.  The use of Reiki symbols are merely as a tool to assist the student in focusing their intention on the required purpose of those symbols.  In general, these symbols are Japanese in nature and bear no relation to paganism.  Should anybody really wish to find out all the details of Reiki teachings, there are some people who have made these publicly available on the internet.
----
:How does that sound? --213.38.92.242 10:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed version: Criticism from Christian Churches and Groups

message: Please identify the problems with the section that warranted the two tags. Aquirata 15:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me except for the lack of internal links and citations. Aquirata 15:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about adding..."Any search on the internet for 'Reiki Manuals', 'Reiki Symbols' or 'Reiki Teaching' will provide most of the varying information and techniques used by the different schools of Reiki.".  There's no way to reasonably cite links for everything relating to Reiki.  (plus I haven't quite got the hang of this Wiki editor :) --213.38.92.242 09:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: It appears user:Rekhaa Kale is spamming the article with a section on their personal varient on Reiki, including commercial links. Clearly undue weight, non-notable and verified only from personal websites (a geocites account for crying out loud). Just remove this if you see it. Jefffire 12:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the article should be protected from anonymous edits, as he is doing the same thing without logging in. Aquirata 17:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't too bad, yet. We want to show a clear, sustained pattern of spamming for the admin who has to consider protecting the page. If it keeps up for another day or so, one of us should be able to submit a successful request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection per Aquirata's suggestion. --Fire Star 火星 19:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spamming 

message: Some new methods are being tried to be added but the dear editor is deleting them again & again.
These are the methods popular in India and are taught since 1996. 
Is it not necessary that others know about them?
How can any method get hit till it is allowed to be listed?
These methods are: 
Vishitao Reiki, a method with 25 symbols that provides you an ability to do practically anything constructive in no time!
and
Kriya Reiki, a method that teaches you to heal others while healing yourself.
Acu-Reiki, that shows a wonderful combination of acu-pressure and Reiki with proven miracles.
and 
Chiti Reiki, a method with symbols that restore and reactivate various mind related functions in a very short time and that can work even by writing physically on the affected area of the patient.
India being relatively primitive country as far as computerisation is concerned, these methods were not yet on line. Does this mean that the seekers have no right to put them on this site?
Who is to decide what is commercial and what is not?
Spreading knowledge is not commercial.
If some Master has made some achievements, letting the world know about it is not commercialisation.
But when the entries about that master are taken as spam, it just shows prejudice! Remember, this master has also found out the original sanskrit mantras from which Dr Usui got his Reiki symbols. She has also Received special blessings Of Dr. Usui has regular astral communication with him. 
If the editior still feels that such informations have no place in Reiki section of wikipedia because this section is someone's privete property, no one can say anything!
:The problem was wording and undue weight as far as I could see. Try condensing the information and presenting it in an encyclopedic manner. It would be a good idea to start discussion on it first here. Aquirata 10:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also an issue of establishing the new practise's notability. We don't use Wikipedia to make something notable, generally, a subject has to be notable first, then it can stay in Wikipedia. --Fire Star 火星 12:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post by 221.128.150.107 

message: :WHAT IS THE POINT OF HAVING A PICTURE OF A HAND [NOT IN ACTIVE REIKI USE] AS THE VERRY FIST PIC ON THE ARTICLE? Smith Jones 04:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is the 

message: 'Reiki Magick practitioners assert that one must attend a ritual of initiation and that one should be cleansed upon an altar of all the evil spirits and energies said to be invading their soul.'
Hi I don't feel I know enough to change it, but I have asked on Christopher Penczaks' website for a Reiki Magick practitioner to come and rephrase this comment about them.  Reiki Magick is worth mentioning as one of the more currently prevalent non-traditional forms of reiki. 
I really doubt this comment is how a Reiki Magick practitioner would put it though and it makes them sound a bit 'wrong.'
I suggest it be removed as there is no citation and it makes them come across as some kind of fundamentalists or is in a sense 'slanted'
'Reiki Magick practitioners liken the attunement process to the process of initiation in Wicca and other Western Magickal traditions.  They tend to be practitioners of magick and incorporate reiki into their magickal work and other spiritual practices.'
Something like that?
I definitely suggest removing the existing comment above unless an official Reiki Magick source can be cited for it Merkinsmum 10:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reiki Magick

message: I’m a newbie, so try to be patient please.  Okay, I tried to add a link to my web site, which was removed forthwith. I understand, but I’d like to discuss being able to add it again because it discusses combining modalities.  Here is what I propose: Would it be okay, if I/we create a section that would connect reiki to other things? I am working on connecting chakras with tarot – far fetched to some perhaps, but it represents the combining of therapies or modalities.  I would like to be able to contribute in this area, and have a link of supporting articles to my web site. Would that be okay?   Whitelighttarot 20:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you are the one making the connexions, it would unfortunately fall under the policy WP:OR. If you had some notable published sources concerning other people or groups who do that sort of thing (again, they should meet the criteria established at WP:Notability) then that would have a better chance of surviving. --Fire Star 火星 22:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  section suggestion : reiki and other modalities