Talk:Reiki

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleReiki was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 20, 2011Good article nomineeListed
March 9, 2012Good article reassessmentKept
April 1, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2024[edit]

ADD: History of Reiki Mikao Usui is noted as a founder of Reiki. Usui lived in Japan between 1865 and 1926.[1] A memorial to the life of Usui was erected by his students at the Saijoji Temple in the Toyotoma district of Tokyo in 1927.[2] The Usui memorial stone is 10 feet high and 4 feet wide.[3][4][5] Slsample (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikao_Usui
  2. ^ The Saihoji Temple exact address is: Toyotama district, 1-4-56 Umesato, Suginami Ku, Tokyo
  3. ^ https://ihreiki.com/reiki_info/reiki_history/usui_mikao/usui_memorial_stone/?v=7516fd43adaa
  4. ^ https://ihreiki.com/reiki_info/reiki_history/reiki_historical_places/saihoji_temple/?v=7516fd43adaa
  5. ^ https://www.trip.com/travel-guide/attraction/tokyo/saihji-temple-56007997/

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

Spiritual Practice or Pseudoscience[edit]

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

Most pastors/priests do not pretend to heal people. If they practice faith healing, we rightly lambast them as WP:LUNATICS.
So, yes, we do have respect for the religion of pastors/priests. But we have absolutely no respect for faith healing. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USE OF TECHNICAL TERMS AS BUZZWORDS[edit]

The terms "scientific" and related forms, and "metaphysical" and related forms are used in ways that have little accuracy. This article should be rewritten to use such terms more carefully, or to avoid them altogether. As it stands this article is just twaddle. 100.4.205.238 (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ways that have little accuracy What ways are those?
use such terms more carefully How?
Your contribution is not helpful the way it is put. If you are that vague, we cannot tell what you want. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with OP′s criticism. The first sentence in the article alone is showing bias by terming Reiki “pseudoscientific form of...”, which is not what Wikipedia is (or should be) about. It would already suffice to have “energy healing” link to the appropriate article where the efficacy of such healing methods are called into question.
In the first two paragraphs of the article, Reiki is again called a pseudoscience (though I am not aware of direct scientific claims made by Reiki practitioners), as well as “quackery”. This is, in my opinion, a serious breach of neutrality and objectivity, which is one of the fundamental principles guiding Wikipedia.
On a side note, the claim of clinical research not showing “reiki to be effective as a treatment for any medical condition” is, with the exception of Reference [6], seriously outdated, with support for the final conclusion that studies reporting positive effects having had methodological flaws being 15 years out of date, which is a very long time as seen from the lens of ever-evolving medical research. Indeed, there are a few results of clinical trials out there which suggest at least some benefit of reiki in managing pain and anxiety (e.g. doi:10.1093/eurjcn/zvae051, or doi:10.3389/fpysg.2022.897312), but I am not in the medical field and while I enjoy reading medical research, I cannot with certainty judge whether those trials/reviews have methodological flaws that would render the articles unreliable.
Going back to the topic at hand, the Wikipedia article goes on (Section: Conceptual Basis) to use loaded words such as “claim”, which the Manual of Style warns against, and reiterates the view of Reiki being “thus [a] pseudoscientific practice based on metaphysical concepts”. We again have a third (fourth?) mention of Reiki being a pseudoscientific practice, which is seriously and unduly influencing readers of this article by now, if it has not already happened in the first few paragraphs.
To be clear, I am not advocating for complete removal of all scepticism or reference to the questionability of Reiki from this article, but I am seriously calling out the assigned value, lacking impartiality and imbalance of its tone. --Konanen (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read WP:YESBIAS and WP:FRINGE. No, we will not hide the fact that reiki is bullshit behind the energy medicine link. WP:CLAIM says To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question. It does not say that this is always a bad thing. Here, it is not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to ask you to retract the “bullshit” wording, and I am going to ask it only once. If you do not, I consider you as not acting in good faith or with neutrality, and will escalate this issue. Thank you. Konanen (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Bullshit" is just a short summary of what reliable sources say: magic handwaving is not effective against any afflictions. Pointing that out is not a violation of WP:NPOV and not a reason to violate WP:AGF. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We try to avoid using terms like pseudoscientific unless they are used correctly. That is, we want to use this term when it's "strictly speaking, it's a type of pseudoscience" rather than "I like to call things pseudoscience when they don't work – let me tell you about the pile of pseudoscientific garbage I had to have hauled back to the car dealer's repair shop last week...".
If Reiki puts itself forward as a scientific practice, then it's pseudoscience. If it puts itself forward as a non-science (e.g., if Reiki were to claim to be a type of fine art, or a new religion), then it's not.
("Magic handwaving" can do wonders for people whose needs are primarily emotional. Human touch is important to human health.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The placebo claim is incorrect[edit]

Initial proposed change:

There is no proof of the effectiveness of reiki therapy compared to placebo changed to Studies have shown that Reiki therapy is more effective than a placebo[1]

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

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

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

Aie-118 (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That study has been presented here twice already (here and here) and was rejected each time. --McSly (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ McManus DE. Reiki Is Better Than Placebo and Has Broad Potential as a Complementary Health Therapy. J Evid Based Complementary Altern Med. 2017 Oct;22(4):1051-1057. doi: 10.1177/2156587217728644. Epub 2017 Sep 5. PMID: 28874060; PMCID: PMC5871310.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reiki&oldid=1225829908"