Talk:Reiki/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Needs Work

I appreciate the work that has gone into this article so far. However, several improvements would make it more useful to the general public.

• The identification of Reiki as pseudoscience needs to be stated only once. More than that implies a non-neutral point of view. Much of the article is repetitious and cites irrelevancies (as one example, "the youngest person to publish in the medical literature" has nothing to do with the content and does not contribute to its reliability.)
• After reading the article I still had no idea what Reiki is. There is no mention of practice levels or any intimate knowledge of its current use.
• Up-to-date references would be appropriate, and there are many.

How can I help improve this article?

Pamxz (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

When I started at Wikipedia, I was given some advice by a veteran editor. He said that you needed three things to succeed at wikipedia. Sources, sources and sources. It was good advice. I will leave a welcome message on your talk page. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the advice. I've reviewed the policies and see I had made a lot of mistakes. So I'd like to start talking about the first two sentences of the intro section. My minor change is 1) to use the term 'complementary and alternative medicine' which is a common term and makes clear that Reiki is an adjunct rather than a primary therapy (the NIH uses 'Complementary and Integrative Health'), and 2) to remove the scare quotes around universal energy. Here is my suggestion, let me know what you think:

Reiki (霊気, /ˈreɪkiː/) is a form of complementary and alternative medicine called energy healing. Reiki practitioners use a technique called palm healing or hands-on healing through which a universal energy is said to be transferred through the palms of the practitioner to the patient in order to encourage emotional or physical healing.

Should I make this change on the page or put it here for discussion first?

Pamxz (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't see any improvement to the intro as it exists already, so I would suggest not making the change. The scare quotes are imho completely appropriate in order to emphasise the nonsensical nature of this 'therapy'. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I concur, not an improvement. It is considered pseudoscience and we have to state that clearly at the begining. Energy healing is nonsense so if we are going talk of energy healing we need to identify that as pseudoscience also. Encouraging emotional and physical healing what does that mean, "hey you healing buck up?" Doesn't seem an improvement. MrBill3 (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I do feel it is an improvement. Reiki is not an alternative to medical care, so calling it alternative medicine is incorrect. As for the second sentence, read it without the scare quotes. It reads less threateningly. Our goal in educating people about Reiki is to give them information, not our fears or our biases, and not to insist they believe what we believe.

So if I choose to make the changes above, which are minor, obviously, what will happen? Does one of you revert it to the previous entry?

I have many more changes to discuss. Happy to take this one step at a time.

Thanks Pamxz (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

At the moment, the status quo does not include your change. Had you made the change without discussion, the normal flow would allow anyone to revert your change and have anyone (you or another editor) bring it to the talk page for discussion, requiring a consensus to make the change.

As you seem to have brought it here first (which is not a bad idea for a potentially contentious change), we've merely skipped a couple of the steps. At the moment, there is a small consensus against the change.

Adding to that, I am also not seeing an improvement in the proposed text. I do not see independent reliable sources in any way backing away from calling it "alternative medicine" or seeing that label as meaning replacing science-based medicine. Rather, this buts up against your topic of the repeated use of the term "pseudoscience" in the article.

With fringe topics such as this -- especially when medical claims are involved -- Wikipedia clearly errs on the side of science, stating in no uncertain terms what is or is not proven, what is actively contrary to accepted science and limiting coverage to what reliable sources say. Reliable sources on reiki give precious little on the apparent diversity of practice and claimed efficacy, leaving us with little to say on that. What they universally do say is that it is a pseudoscience based on a purported energy which simply does not seem to exist. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I would not substitute "complementary and alternative medicine", which sounds like whitewashing/softening the language instead of pseudoscience. Call it what it is. It's not non-neutral to call out pseudoscience for what it is. It's simply stating the facts in a reality-based way. We should be crystal clear that it's pseudoscience and nothing more. High-quality reliable sources agree that it's pseudoscience-it's not controversial.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the continued discussion. The NIH considers Reiki under its Complementary and Integrative Health Center. https://nccih.nih.gov/health/reiki-info I have seen no documentation for Reiki to be called alternative medicine. Can you provide some that's more prestigious than the NIH? I suggest we go with the NIH label of Complementary and Integrative Health.

As to the scare quotes around Universal Energy: I interpret the term as a neutral address for God or Allah or Brahma or any of the other terms people use for the Deity. I would not put scare quotes around God, so I don't see why the term needs scare quotes. Could you tell me how you interpret the term?

I should add that we haven't even begun to discuss the science. I'm gathering my references for you...

Pamxz (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Choosing in-world terminology over more descriptive terms simply won't work.

Please make an edit request, with independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok I hope I did it right this time -- let me know --

Pamxz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems we're back to the same point: we cannot offer an interpretation that is not found in independent reliable sources.

Various reiki believers likely have various beliefs as to what "universal energy" is: qi, vitality, (a) god(s), magic, ancestors, etc. The sources we have basically say there is no indication it exists in any form and is, for all intents and purposes, the "stilts" in reiki being "nonsense on stilts".

In clearing out unreliable sources (mostly self-published material from reiki believers) some time ago, there was lots of conflicting information for various sources concerning what was and was not "true" reiki, who can certify practitioners, etc. including a lot of attempts to say what the supposed energy is, where it comes from, what it can do, etc. Some of it was vague, unverifiable but fairly simple claims that the energy is everywhere and reiki is more of a lighting rod than anything. Other claims were far more involved, with claims the energy has agency/consciousness and that reiki can use the energy only for "good" (?), possibly without being limited by space and time. One extreme has the energy as akin to an electric charge in the atmosphere, following the path of least resistance. The other has the energy as a supernatural being, leaping through time to alter the outcome of the Battle of the Nile for the betterment of the world.

Our job is not to investigate the heterogeneous claims, weed out the outliers and summarize the remaining field of individual claims. Our job is to summarize what independent reliable sources say about the field in general. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense to me. My new edit removes the term universal energy from the first paragraph. it should be part of the pseudoscience paragraph anyway.

Pamxz (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

can you please let me know why the first paragraph was reverted? The NIH is perhaps the premier science institution in the US and it's not clear to me why its statement is not acceptable.

Pamxz (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Because you don't have consensus. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

ok. So here is my new proposal for the first paragraph.

Reiki (霊気, /ˈreɪkiː/) is defined by the US National Institutes of Health as "a complementary health approach in which practitioners place their hands lightly on or just above a person, with the goal of directing energy to help facilitate the person’s own healing response. It’s based on an Eastern belief in an energy that supports the body’s innate or natural healing abilities."[1] It is a type of energy healing also referred to as palm healing or hands-on healing.[2]

the references are the NIH Reiki website and Reiki: What is it and are there benefits?". Medical News Today. Retrieved 2020-01-29. The old version had no references so it's unclear whether the information was obtained or conceived.

It would be more efficient and more courteous to state why the revert was done at the time it is done. That would assure the publisher that it had been read and compared to the old version.

Pamxz (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, can I hear some opinions about the paragraph I've suggested? I'll repeat it here:

Reiki (霊気, /ˈreɪkiː/) is defined by the US National Institutes of Health as "a complementary health approach in which practitioners place their hands lightly on or just above a person, with the goal of directing energy to help facilitate the person’s own healing response. It’s based on an Eastern belief in an energy that supports the body’s innate or natural healing abilities."[1] It is a type of energy healing also referred to as palm healing or hands-on healing.[2]

the references are the NIH Reiki website and Reiki: What is it and are there benefits?". Medical News Today. Retrieved 2020-01-29. The old version had no references so it's unclear whether the information was obtained or conceived.

Thanks

Pamxz (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to repeat yourself. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, just looking for some thoughts about the entry.

Pamxz (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems working together here.

The lead section is meant to summarize the article. The definition selected is not a summary, it is a direct quote selected from one source. Based on the discussion here -- and the lack of a better explanation -- that particular definition seems to have been selected specifically to avoid parts of the the article that you had earlier complained are too prominant. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Yes the quote did say what I think is appropriate, but I didn't search around for a quote supporting my opinion, I went straight to NIH and accepted their definition -- it's not what I would have said. So do we put the definition in another section? One of the problems I have with the article is that after reading it I have no idea what Reiki is.

Can you help me understand what problems we are having working together? I see us going through iterations to find a best answer. I understand from a reply above that Reiki is a sensitive topic, but I'm hoping we can work together through the pain.

Pamxz (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

NCCIH doesn't seem to like the word "pseudoscience". Searching their site, I find it on two pages, both in unmoderated forums. Out of all the stuff they evaluate -- from the merely unlikely to the impossible -- I am not at all surprised they didn't roll the term out for reiki. We do not need a source "better" than the NCCIH's parent org to call it pseudoscience

From the article, I get that reiki is a form of alternative medicine's "energy healing" to direct a "universal energy" through the practitioner's palms to the patient for emotional or physical healing. From various self-published sources I know that the practitioner does or doesn't actually touch the patient who does or doesn't have to be in the same room and does or doesn't have to have a particular goal and does or doesn't necessarily have to believe in or trust the practice. From those same sources, I know a lot of conflicting things about the energy involved.

That's why we don't give much in-depth information about reiki: because we don't have much from independent reliable sources other than saying that various aspects of it, versions of it and claims about it are pseudoscience, unlikely, unsupported, implausible, etc. If you want more information about what it is, we need independent reliable sources saying what it is. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Whoa! Because the NIH, clearly an independent reliable source, doesn't use the word pseudoscience, their definition is wrong? You ask for an independent reliable source but do not accept an independent reliable source? This is a dogma instead of science or seeking the truth.

Pamxz (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

No, let's try this again. Because NCCIH (not the NIH) never, under any circumstances, uses the word "pseudoscience", that they do not call a particular practice "pseudoscience" does not tell us anything. If NCCIH never used the word "blue" under any circumstances, it would be a rather surprising coincidence if someone who does not want the sky to be labeled "blue" to point to it.

Multiple independent reliable sources cited throughout the article say lots of things about reiki, some of which you don't like. The lead section should summarize the content of the article, not select one gagged source to give a muffled explanation that does not reflect the content of the article.

When it comes to fringe theories, our guidelines are quite clear. Wikipedia calls pseudoscience "pseudoscience". Reiki purports to "channel", "guide", "direct", "focus" and/or "attract" a form of energy which is completely unmeasurable, undetectable and unknown to science through unexplained means to somehow treat every possible form of every disease. In addition to being called pseudosciece, it is cited as an example of pseudoscience. Leaving the word "pseudoscience" out of the introductory summary definition would be similar to not mentioning in Pope that he's part of the Catholic Church. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi SummerPhD, I'm requesting a third opinion to help us resolve the issue of whether the NIH is an independent reliable source. Pamxz (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

You already have six opinions in this discussion if I'm counting correctly. --Ronz (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you will find that the NIH is an independent reliable source for this article. You will not, however, find that the NCCIH definition for "reiki" should be substituted for a summary definition in the lead paragraph of this article.

You will also likely find that a third opinion is not available once you are past having two opinions. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi! 3O here. Per SummerPhD's comment above, I've declined the 3O request since there's a lot more than two perspectives here. I'd encourage you to take advantage of other dispute resolution methodologies.

<3O hat="off">I will say this: a reliable source not labeling something as pseudoscience is not the same thing as a reliable source labeling something as not pseudoscience, and conflating the two gets close to synthesis.</3O> ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, everyone. I had only heard from SummerPhD regarding the NIH description so I thought a third opinion was appropriate. Can you please identify yourself if you feel the NIH definition should not be included on the Reiki Wikipedia page? Then I will know how to proceed regarding dispute resolution. Thanks Pamxz (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, I am very confused about the placement of a definition. A comment above stated that a definition does not belong in the introductory paragraph, which should summarize the article, but SummerPhD says a definition belongs in the introductory paragraph. Help!

Pamxz (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

So I'll go ahead and change the intro paragraph to include the NIH definition. If you revert, please let me know why and we can proceed to dispute resolution. Thanks Pamxz (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Pamxz:. You don't have consensus for that change. Quite the opposite in fact. So that change will be reverted. I also feel like the dispute resolution, if you choose to file it is likely to end quickly with your change not being implemented. --McSly (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I endorse McSly's comment above. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 21:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I have placed a request on the dispute resolution noticeboard. Pamxz (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pamxz: you are required to notify all the editors listed on the dispute page which you have failed to do so far. Please do so. --McSly (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I see a pretty clear consesnsus here that does not support the proposed change. The source is not as purported NIH, the content in the lede is well supported in the article. This is verging on tenditious. MrBill3 (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

This section was the topic of a notice at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, filed by Pamxz. The volunteer's closing statement was "The majority of the editors have declined to participate due to a consensus already existing regarding change. a DRN is not a good option to overrule an existing consensus. If the filing editor wants, they can try a WP:RFC or they can accept the consensus and find another article to work on. the DRN process is voluntary and we cannot force editors to participate". The full discussion is available at [1]. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

New References

Here are some recent papers that should be included in the article. I believe they require a rewrite but would appreciate hearing your opinion.

Recent clinical research has shown reiki to be effective as a treatment for pain and stress.

1. Demir Doğan, Melike (2018-05). "The effect of reiki on pain: A meta-analysis". Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice. 31: 384–387. doi:10.1016/j.ctcp.2018.02.020.
2. McManus, David E. (2017-10). "Reiki Is Better Than Placebo and Has Broad Potential as a Complementary Health Therapy". Journal of Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine. 22 (4): 1051–1057. doi:10.1177/2156587217728644. ISSN 2156-5872.
3. Johnson, Jill R; Crespin, Daniel J; Griffin, Kristen H; Finch, Michael D; Rivard, Rachael L; Baechler, Courtney J; Dusek, Jeffery A (2014-12). "The effectiveness of integrative medicine interventions on pain and anxiety in cardiovascular inpatients: a practice-based research evaluation". BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 14 (1): 486. doi:10.1186/1472-6882-14-486. ISSN 1472-6882.
4. Thrane S1, Cohen SM2. "Effect of Reiki therapy on pain and anxiety in adults: an in-depth literature review of randomized trials with effect size calculations." Pain Manag Nurs. 2014 Dec;15(4):897-908. doi: 10.1016/j.pmn.2013.07.008. Epub 2014 Feb 28.
5. Shiflett SC1, Nayak S, Bid C, Miles P, Agostinelli S. "Effect of Reiki treatments on functional recovery in patients in poststroke rehabilitation: a pilot study." J Altern Complement Med. 2002 Dec;8(6):755-63.
6. Ferraresi M1, Clari R, Moro I, Banino E, Boero E, Crosio A, Dayne R, Rosset L, Scarpa A, Serra E, Surace A, Testore A, Colombi N, Piccoli BG. "Reiki and related therapies in the dialysis ward: an evidence-based and ethical discussion to debate if these complementary and alternative medicines are welcomed or banned." BMC Nephrol. 2013 Jun 21;14:129. doi: 10.1186/1471-2369-14-129.
7. Notte BB1, Fazzini C, Mooney RA. "Reiki's effect on patients with total knee arthroplasty: A pilot study." Nursing. 2016 Feb;46(2):17-23. doi: 10.1097/01.NURSE.0000476246.16717.65.

Reiki has not been shown to treat any medical condition, including cancer, anxiety and depression, stroke recovery, or painful diabetic neuropathy.

1. Russell J, Rovere A, eds. (2009). "Reiki". American Cancer Society Complete Guide to Complementary and Alternative Cancer Therapies (2nd ed.). American Cancer Society. pp. 243–45. ISBN 9780944235713.
2. https://about-cancer.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancer-in-general/treatment/complementary-alternative-therapies/individual-therapies/reiki?_ga=2.99657629.288349823.1580557329-1068809649.1580330016
3. Joyce J1, Herbison GP. "Reiki for depression and anxiety." Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Apr 3;(4):CD006833. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006833.
4. Shiflett SC1, Nayak S, Bid C, Miles P, Agostinelli S. "Effect of Reiki treatments on functional recovery in patients in poststroke rehabilitation: a pilot study." J Altern Complement Med. 2002 Dec;8(6):755-63.
5. Bril, V; England, J; Franklin, GM; Backonja, M; et al. (2011). "Evidence-based guideline: Treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy: Report of the American Academy of Neurology, the American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation" (PDF). Neurology. 76 (20): 1758–65. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182166ebe. PMC 3100130. PMID 21482920.

Here's a well-researched reference on the wide use of Reiki and other CAM: Russell J, Rovere A, eds. (2009). "Reiki". American Cancer Society Complete Guide to Complementary and Alternative Cancer Therapies (2nd ed.). American Cancer Society. pp. 243–45. ISBN 9780944235713.

Reiki is offered on a volunteer basis at many hospitals.

1. https://www.aha.org/news/insights-and-analysis/2019-08-01-circle-life-honoree-uses-data-and-volunteers-palliative-care
2. https://www.aha.org/press-releases/2018-10-08-aha-honors-nineteen-hospital-volunteer-driven-programs
3. https://www.brighamandwomens.org/about-bwh/volunteer/reiki-volunteer-program
4. https://www.calhospital.org/general-information/volunteertalk-reiki-volunteer-program

New page to replace archived pages: NCCIH: https://nccih.nih.gov/health/reiki-info Pamxz (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

How does this lot stand up against our sourcing policy WP:MEDRS? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 22:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

They meet the sourcing policy requirements. You will want to check that though. Pamxz (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

You either haven't checked, or haven't understood the policy requirements. I would also note that you have not noted what you want to say that those sources are supposed to support. Nobody should give you carte blanche on the acceptability of sources without knowing what you want to say. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 06:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I thought I understood the policy and thought these references met it. Can you tell me more or give me an example of how I got the policy wrong? I would use those articles to support the statement in bold above them. Should I be more specific about what each article says? This is my first attempt to edit an article and I'm sorry I need so much help figuring out how to do it right. Pamxz (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Scrolling back, the first one I came to was "Reiki is offered on a volunteer basis at many hospitals." The sources are all primary, discussing individual programs at a hospice program and three hospitals. What we need is an independent reliable source that actually says reiki is offered at many hospitals. Imagine we were trying to say that "Summer's Cola is offered at many restaurants" and linked to websites for one corner store and three restaurants. Or, if you'd prefer, we could link to four hospital's websites to show that "many" hospitals offer McDonalds food. (Not kidding: I was served McDonalds for lunch at a seminar at a world renowned hospital on pediatricians screening for child abuse.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll bet McDonalds gave the meals to them. Free trumps everything when hospitals feed their staff. I have not been able to find a summary article talking about volunteer Reiki programs at hospitals, but I will keep looking. Meanwhile, I did find another good reference for topic #1, Recent clinical research has shown reiki to be effective as a treatment for pain and stress. 8. Gantt M1, Orina JAT2. "Educate, Try, and Share: A Feasibility Study to Assess the Acceptance and Use of Reiki as an Adjunct Therapy for Chronic Pain in Military Health Care Facilities." Mil Med. 2019 Oct 23. pii: usz271. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usz271. Pamxz (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

All sources with "Complementary" and/or "Alternative" in their titles should be avoided as unreliable per WP:CITEWATCH #7. --Zefr (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! that page was really helpful. I only have 5 reliable sources for topic #1: Recent clinical research has shown reiki to be effective as a treatment for pain and stress.

1. Johnson, Jill R; Crespin, Daniel J; Griffin, Kristen H; Finch, Michael D; Rivard, Rachael L; Baechler, Courtney J; Dusek, Jeffery A (2014-12). "The effectiveness of integrative medicine interventions on pain and anxiety in cardiovascular inpatients: a practice-based research evaluation". BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 14 (1): 486. doi:10.1186/1472-6882-14-486. ISSN 1472-6882.
2. Thrane S1, Cohen SM2. "Effect of Reiki therapy on pain and anxiety in adults: an in-depth literature review of randomized trials with effect size calculations." Pain Manag Nurs. 2014 Dec;15(4):897-908. doi: 10.1016/j.pmn.2013.07.008. Epub 2014 Feb 28.
3. Ferraresi M1, Clari R, Moro I, Banino E, Boero E, Crosio A, Dayne R, Rosset L, Scarpa A, Serra E, Surace A, Testore A, Colombi N, Piccoli BG. "Reiki and related therapies in the dialysis ward: an evidence-based and ethical discussion to debate if these complementary and alternative medicines are welcomed or banned." BMC Nephrol. 2013 Jun 21;14:129. doi: 10.1186/1471-2369-14-129.
4. Notte BB1, Fazzini C, Mooney RA. "Reiki's effect on patients with total knee arthroplasty: A pilot study." Nursing. 2016 Feb;46(2):17-23. doi: 10.1097/01.NURSE.0000476246.16717.65.
5. Gantt M1, Orina JAT2. "Educate, Try, and Share: A Feasibility Study to Assess the Acceptance and Use of Reiki as an Adjunct Therapy for Chronic Pain in Military Health Care Facilities." Mil Med. 2019 Oct 23. pii: usz271. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usz271.

The BioMed Central (BMC) journals Complementary and Alternative Medicine and Nephrology are not on the Unreliable list, and they are peer-reviewed, so presumably they are ok. Pamxz (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

All those sources are inconclusive and/or primary research not usable for encyclopedic medical content; see WP:MEDSCI. --Zefr (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Pamxz, you still do not appear to have read or understood WP:MEDRS. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you both help me understand what I am getting wrong? The page you and Zefr referenced says primary sources are allowed. I do understand that summary reviews and meta-analyses are preferred, and we can wait for those to be published, as they will eventually be. But certainly, given the inappropriate references in the existing article, more reliable sources might be welcomed. Pamxz (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

FWIW I think the thing you are doing wrong is that you appear to be approaching this article as if Reike was a real scientifically proven medical therapy, instead of absolute hogwash, made up in the 1920s by a guy in Japan. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm approaching Reiki as a scientist, without prejudgment. I do not know whether the basis for Reiki claims is true or false, and I'm not particularly interested in the basis. I want to know outcomes. Can it help pain? Can it help anything? We have seen logical medical treatments have no effect, we have seen things work that should not work, we have seen things work sometimes and not others. A well-used saying in medicine is 'the only thing we know for sure is the right dose of penicillin for syphilis.' Science is slow and tedious, and often makes about-faces. The science on Reiki has been poorly done, certainly until 2015, and probably to date. So the truth about its effect is not known. While skepticism is valid, cynicism is not useful.

Pamxz (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

PLEASE USE COLONS TO FORMAT YOUR TALK PAGE POSTS PROPERLY. DO NOT USE NEWLINES BEFORE YOUR SIG. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 22:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, that is not what scientists do. Scientists use their expert knowledge when they evaluate claims. You are confusing scientists with actors pretending to scientists, such as Leonard Nimoy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Hob. Pam, you should be interested in the basis and it's easy to see that the basis for Reiki claims is false. Yes, what you said is true that there have been certain treatments tried that seemed logical on paper and didn't pan out. However, there are also studies that have had positive findings that are implausible (think positive studies with homeopathy) that are due to chance. There is really no major uncertainty about whether reiki has clinically important effects beyond those of a placebo (it doesn't). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

You're making me laugh, because I am a scientist. I have a PhD in Clinical Research and Outcomes. Scientists approach new topics with an open mind, ready to evaluate information critically, not with disbelief. I am also a physician and I really do know what I'm talking about. In medicine we find basic research often does not make it into actual usage, so the basis is irrelevant, and we find things that work without a basis of understanding for why it works, then we experiment until we understand the basis. New evidence on the effectiveness of Reiki for pain and stress is emerging. I've offered references above. I would appreciate your looking over these papers. They show improvements in methods and statistics from the pre-2015 works, and the variety of sources is growing. I found it shocking that previously the Reiki article had references from unreliable sources and unrelated topics. This should signal the need for a new and open-minded look at the topic. So Bottom Line is, you need to look at the new information. Pamxz (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, you're supposed to assume the null in science and see if the evidence rejects the null. It's very clear that Reiki does not, aside from its being implausible and its lacking a clear/proven mechanism (though the latter of a clear mechanism is insufficient since there are many things in medicine that we know work clinically but which lack a clearly defined mechanism). However, this does not make the basis irrelevant. Even though we don't always know what the mechanism is upfront, we always search for it. The search for qi has gone on for a long time without any signal of its existence beyond wishful thinking (believe me, I like the idea of qi and think it would be cool if it existed, but there's no concrete proof that it does). You say "new evidence on the effectiveness of Reiki for pain and stress is emerging". Please back that statement up with high-quality sources here if you're going to make such a statement. Please show me something reliable that demonstrates it is better than a placebo. If the article had some unreliable references in the past, this does not mean we should be "open-minded" to the idea that Reiki works now, as you say. One does not necessarily follow the other. We reflect what high-quality sources say. And science is very clear that there is no reliable evidence to support the idea that Reiki works or has any effect more than a placebo. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it here for so we may see it too. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Concur with TylerDurden. "Assume the null and see if the evidence rejects the null" is the core that makes inquiry scientific. MrBill3 (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I finally think we are saying the same thing. My open mind is your assume the null. You have asked for science to support the idea that Reiki works. I have given you 5 references above under the heading Recent clinical research has shown reiki to be effective as a treatment for pain and stress.. Please take a look at them. Pamxz (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Have they changed since the last time they were dismissed in this thread? Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Pam, as pointed out above, those are generally not sufficient sources that you're citing (especially #1, 4, and 5). They are inadequate for such bold claims. The unspoken rule is exceptional evidence is needed for exceptional claims. To claim that reiki is effective is an exceptional claim and such a claim would require exceptional sourcing (such as from a high impact journal like NEJM, JAMA or a highly regarded source like the USPSTF, NHS, etc). The evidence you're citing is largely from fringe/alternative medicine journals, which tend to find positive findings for implausible therapies that they often have a vested interest in (e.g., acupuncture articles written by acupuncturists, reiki articles written by someone trained in Reiki, etc). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I've been trying not to repeat myself, but will re-post the articles from reliable sources:

I only have 5 reliable sources for topic #1: Recent clinical research has shown reiki to be effective as a treatment for pain and stress.

1. Johnson, Jill R; Crespin, Daniel J; Griffin, Kristen H; Finch, Michael D; Rivard, Rachael L; Baechler, Courtney J; Dusek, Jeffery A (2014-12). "The effectiveness of integrative medicine interventions on pain and anxiety in cardiovascular inpatients: a practice-based research evaluation". BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 14 (1): 486. doi:10.1186/1472-6882-14-486. ISSN 1472-6882.
2. Thrane S1, Cohen SM2. "Effect of Reiki therapy on pain and anxiety in adults: an in-depth literature review of randomized trials with effect size calculations." Pain Manag Nurs. 2014 Dec;15(4):897-908. doi: 10.1016/j.pmn.2013.07.008. Epub 2014 Feb 28.
3. Ferraresi M1, Clari R, Moro I, Banino E, Boero E, Crosio A, Dayne R, Rosset L, Scarpa A, Serra E, Surace A, Testore A, Colombi N, Piccoli BG. "Reiki and related therapies in the dialysis ward: an evidence-based and ethical discussion to debate if these complementary and alternative medicines are welcomed or banned." BMC Nephrol. 2013 Jun 21;14:129. doi: 10.1186/1471-2369-14-129.
4. Notte BB1, Fazzini C, Mooney RA. "Reiki's effect on patients with total knee arthroplasty: A pilot study." Nursing. 2016 Feb;46(2):17-23. doi: 10.1097/01.NURSE.0000476246.16717.65.
5. Gantt M1, Orina JAT2. "Educate, Try, and Share: A Feasibility Study to Assess the Acceptance and Use of Reiki as an Adjunct Therapy for Chronic Pain in Military Health Care Facilities." Mil Med. 2019 Oct 23. pii: usz271. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usz271. Pamxz (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to repeat yourself The sources above are still not wp:medrs -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is a clear consensus that the NIH definition for Reiki should not be used in the intro paragraph.

Cunard (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the NIH definition for Reiki be used in the intro paragraph? Pamxz (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)— Pamxz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Arkell vs Pressdram applies in this case. Asked and answered on this page already. Stop wasting our time. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
• The current intro paragraph has no reference, so it's unclear whether the information was obtained or conceived. I propose:

Reiki (霊気, /ˈreɪkiː/) is defined by the US National Institutes of Health as "a complementary health approach in which practitioners place their hands lightly on or just above a person, with the goal of directing energy to help facilitate the person’s own healing response. It’s based on an Eastern belief in an energy that supports the body’s innate or natural healing abilities."[1] It is a type of energy healing also referred to as palm healing or hands-on healing.[2]

the references are the NIH Reiki website and Reiki: What is it and are there benefits?". Medical News Today. Retrieved 2020-01-29.

The objection to the NIH definition is that it does not include the word pseudoscience. The current definition does not include the word pseudoscience either. Pamxz (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)— Pamxz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• It is a POV violation (in this case FRINGE violation enforceable by ArbCom) to use an in-world source over better sources. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
• No, we shouldn't use the NIH definition, the current definition is fine and enjoys a well-established consensus. Time to drop the stick, I'd suggest. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and just to add, we definitely can't call it "a type of energy healing" without some additional verbiage to make it clear that no energy is transferred and no healing takes place, as far as can be measured. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Likewise "goal of directing energy" requires no defined or detectable energy, "facilitate healing" requires that it does no demonstrable healing etc. MrBill3 (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - The current lead does not give cites because, as repeatedly discussed, it is the lead section which normally does not include cites and is intended to summarize the article. A quote from NCCIH -- not NIH -- as repeatedly discussed does not summarize this article. Instead it gives NCCIH's -- not NIH's -- definition. Said definition was selected by a single purpose account editor whose stated purpose here is to downplay the word "pseudoscience". It was selected from the NCCIH -- not NIH -- who never, under any circumstances, uses the word "pseudoscience" anywhere on their website. Why? Because NCCIH -- unlike the NIH -- "funds proposals of dubious merit; its research agenda is shaped more by politics than by science; and it is structured by its charter in a manner that precludes an independent review of its performance," per Science[2] We've been through this on the talk page, through an abortive attempt at 3O, at DRN and now you're are trying one more venue. On the ground in front of you is a rotting pile of fur, flesh and smashed bones that long ago lost any resemblance to a horse. Put down the stick and move on. Maybe you can convince everyone in the homeopathy article... - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The NCCIH is part of the NIH, and saying it isn't is the same as saying the NHLBI or the NIDDK is not part of the NIH. They all are part of it. Take a look at the NIH Institutes website to refresh your memory. Your reference from Science is from 2006, 14 years ago! The same issue has a second article you did not mention, that supports the then-NCCAM: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/313/5785/303.full Your reference has been cited only one other time, in a 2018 Oncology article showing how "the original ASCO statement reflects the tone and mentality of the era in which it was written": https://theoncologist.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0518 Hence your reference has no standing.

The first two sentences of the intro are clearly a definition. The third sentence makes clear that Wikipedia's position is that Reiki is a pseudoscience, with several references. But if it is truly a summary of the rest of the article, it needs to have something about safety, the Catholic Church, and training. The entire intro uses several references, only the definition is not referenced. And since the current definition has no reference, is it an in-world source? The NIH is a better source, so is the current intro a POV violation?

Because I've never done this before, I've gone down some blind alleys -- the third opinion and the noticeboard -- and discovered that this RfC is the correct venue to try to resolve this. Pamxz (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Part of the NIH - so what? It is the clown part of the NIH, the scientists-do-not-take-it-seriously part, the we-had-to-add-this-embarrassing-suborganization-because-pro-quackery-politicians-demanded-it part. To call the NCCIH definition "NIH definition" is misleading because it does not differentiate because the real NIH and its quackery add-on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The current version of the lede is the result of extensive work to reach consensus. All statements in the lede reflect well sourced content in the article. The FRINGE guidelines clearly apply here. To attribute a statement from an individual branch of a governmental institution – to the parent institution not to the individual branch – is mis representing a source, unless the parent institution has specifically endorsed the particular statement. This has decidedly gone to the level of tendentious. Perhaps spending some time improving the encyclopedia in others ways might lend some credibility to this repeated attempt by a single editor that has been responded to by multiple editors with policy and sources. MrBill3 (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's starting to feel like a defense attorney making the case for Reiki trying every single avenue to avoid the clear conclusion and consensus. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Pam, here are a few other newer references strongly critiquing the NCCIH as a valid source of information: [3], [4], [5],[6],[7],and [8]. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Tyler, thanks for your references. The articles you gave are all opinion pieces, which have their place in our discussion but don't prove anything to me with science or logic. Be that as it may, I appreciate your input.

I am bowing to the majority and concluding my work on this topic for now. There has been some progress in removing erroneous references and duplicates, and adding relevant new references. I am sincerely grateful for the time and effort all the contributing editors have put in to improve the Reiki page (and my ability to edit). As more science becomes available, I hope we can review it all dispassionately, which is to say, I expect to re-open discussions in a year or two! Pamxz (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

You will be wasting your time, and ours too. Couldn't you do something useful instead? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Origins

Developed in Japan in 1922 by Mikao Usui, it has been adapted into varying cultural traditions around the world.

References

While looking for clearly reliable and independent sources to verify the above after it's removal [9], I very quickly stumbled upon the following that suggest the origins are more complicated and we're echoing in-world opinion and promotion:

• https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/integrative_medicine_digestive_center/services/reiki.html
• https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/health-pseudoscience/should-we-take-reiki-seriously
• https://www.reiki.org/faqs/what-history-reiki#usui

I hope there's a good history somewhere that we could use. I don't think we should be claiming Usui "developed" it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Your three sources are bit of a mixed bag.

The first, from Johns Hopkins, is clearly reliable. It says, "According to many versions of its origin, Dr Mikao Usui, a Japanese seeker of spiritual truths, brought the Reiki method of healing into human awareness in 1922 after a deep spiritual experience." So, according to some versions of the story, Usui "brought (it) into human awareness" (From where? Who believes this?)

The second, McGill University, doesn't have the same name recognition, but it's reliable. It says, "While there have been many versions of Reiki in the past, the most common one is called Usui Shiki Ryoho after its founder, Mikao Usui. Born in 1865, Usui was a Japanese man who belonged to a group that wanted to develop psychic abilities and who climbed a mountain, starved himself for 21 days, and had a vision." A bit more background here. Again, one of many stories. Now he was looking for psychic abilities. Dude was starving and had a "vision". ("Vision" vs. "hallucination" is a matter of who's talking and what they think of the episode.)

The third source is an in-universe source from a source of self-proclaimed authority. Unlike, say, the AMA in medicine, ADA in dentistry or APA in Psychiatry, it's one of several groups/people claiming to be the authority in the same field. Each group/person has their own version of the story, usually giving that group/person priority. In any case, we have nothing independent of that group to give any particular credence to their version.

Our current sources say he "developed" it. I don't think we have a conflict here. I think we have two reliable sources for the most common origin story and the statement that there are many other versions. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said, I hope we can find an even better reference to use. The original refs didn't verify the information at all, and all the in-world refs are difficult to weed through. I vaguely recall past discussions and content disputes on the topic as well, but haven't looked for them.

The Origins section was already in need of expansion. We need to be careful of using Wikipedia's voice for in-world opinions. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

It was originally called "Reike Thump", and was developed by a TV producer in Blackburn, Lancashire, between the wars. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 09:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2021

The term pseudoscience can not apply to something that is helping people by the millions. Placebo may be more appropriate but the term pseudoscience is itself coming under great scrutiny from the intellectual community because science simply can't observe everything therefore isn't completely accurate itself 72.28.188.58 (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please see also the multiple pages of previous discussions in the archives of this talk page, and multiple reliable published sources cited within the article using this precise term. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I see no evidence of the term pseudoscience "coming under great scrutiny from the intellectual community". Do you have any? And whom might you be talking about when you say "intellectual community"? 𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Totally negative inappropriate page!

Personally haven’t updated this page myself as I have never had a Wikipedia account before tonight but felt compelled to make one after reading this reiki Wikipedia page! It’s so biased which is totally inappropriate for the purposes of Wikipedia. Really negative read.

Anyone able to chip in reediting this? Teaandtoastx (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest that you read WP:YWAB. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Valfo014.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2022

Please remove the link to energy medicine from the "See also" section, since it's linked prominently in the first sentence. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Scientific backing refuting the articles claims Reiki is pseudoscience by definition and not scientifically backed.

Please refer to the following non-exhaustive list of science papers in support of reiki as a measurably effective treatment across a spectrum of symptoms. More scholarly articles supporting the above can be found doing a not too deep dive using scholastic research tools.

Reiki Therapy for Very Young Hospitalized Children Receiving Palliative Care Show all authors Susan E. Thrane, PhD, MSN, RN, CHPN, FPCN, Elisha Williams, RN, BSN, Daniel H. Grossoehme, DMin, MS, ... First Published January 21, 2022 Research Article https://doi.org/10.1177/27527530211059435 Article information

Feasibility and Effect of Reiki on the Physiology and Self-perceived Stress of Nurses in a Large US Hospital Hailey, Kellie RN; Fortin, Jennifer MSN, RN; Pratt, Patricia MA, RN; Forbes, Peter W. MA; McCabe, Margaret PhD, RN, FAAN Author Information Holistic Nursing Practice: March/April 2022 - Volume 36 - Issue 2 - p 105-111 doi: 10.1097/HNP.0000000000000475 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpkj1 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

From the existence of those papers, it does not follow that reiki is not pseudoscience. Trying to get papers into journals is exactly what people would do to pretend they are doing science, no?

You need independent secondary sources confirming that there is an effect. See WP:MEDRS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

_{Trying to get papers into journals is exactly what people would do to pretend they are doing science, no?}

The existence of peer reviewed research journals is to determine what is accepted science by definition. What credentials do you have to discount these particular sources from an objective perspective? You don't get to decide what gets published, and many people more specifically knowledgeable than you have verified this work.

By your argument, science is effectively over because it is logically impossible to contradict the existing literature at all. 73.251.38.130 (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The existence of peer reviewed research journals is to determine what is accepted science by definition. Wrong. If that were the case, Andrew Wakefield's vaccine-autism connection would be "accepted science". Science is not finished after a primary source has been published.

What credentials do you have Science is not about credentials, it is about evidence.

You clearly have no idea how science works. Or rather, you have ideas about it, but they are wrong. Please read WP:MEDRS to find out what are accepted sources about biomedical information. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

And clearly you are taking this bias to a level of extremism which undermines the value of both this article, and with similar repetition across many articles, the value of Wikipedia as a whole. How about the critics step back from being obstacles to useful contributions, do a comparison and contrast of the volume of useful information in this article versus those of related articles, such as Laying on of hands and Faith healing. Then once the discrimination is checked, repair the damage caused by making a constructive effort, such as condensing the excessively negative and repetitious scientific objection to one single section, add more on methods/techniques, add more history, add more on popularity & scope of practice, perhaps something on noteworthy modern practitioners involved in the scientific studies mentioned, perhaps link to meditation and mindfulness as similarly not well scientifically-understood practices which some people find helpful, and otherwise try to make this article useful to your typical Wikipedia user. Case in point, I saw a book on Reiki and couldn't remember what is was, looked it up here and found this mess, and was reminded about why I stopped contributing to Wikipedia about a decade ago. --an anonymous frustrated user, 98.97.182.112 (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

If we do not have reliable sources, we cannot do anything. It's not our fault that reiki does not work and that almost only those superstitious people who believe in it write about it so almost all literature about it is unusable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Lead section

@Jonthedrummer: You have removed "pseudoscience" and lack of effectiveness from WP:LEDE. That is not done. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

My bad. I still think removal of repetition is worth pursuing however, so I have tried to improve the style with another edit. Jonthedrummer (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jonthedrummer: WP:CLAIM is not an improvement. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Remedied in latest edit. Jonthedrummer (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Remedy remedied. - Roxy the dog 08:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Lack of Encyclopaedic Style

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is clear that the current edit of this article is closely guarded by a few users who hold a clear position on the topic. This, however, has led to a distinct tone to the article which is not in keeping with the encyclopaedic style requirements of the site as a whole.

Attempts to improve the language quality of the article, even those which leave the overall 'pseudoscience' message of the current edit relatively prominent, have resulted in almost immediate reversions to an original which shows a distinct lack of academic caution and hedging language. Even the inclusion of basic pronoun referencing has been rejected in favour of unnecessary repetition of the noun 'pseudoscience'. One such attempt was met with the comment "Don't water down the article".

So we are left with an article which repeats unfounded assertions of "no evidence" or that it is "not ... effective ... for any ... condition". I think this tone is self-defeating and shows a degree of zealotry which is not suitable.

I think this article would benefit from some civil discussion amongst potential contributors in an attempt to reach a consensus on its tone. Jonthedrummer (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Civil discussion is made more difficult when you start you post by asserting that "this article is closely guarded by a few users who hold a clear position on the topic". You proposed some changes; three separate editors have disagreed with your changes. I don't understand your point about 'pronoun referencing' - the edit I reverted didn't seem to touch any of the pronouns in the article. I don't think that your 'hedging language' adds anything to the article - I think it just makes it rather wooly - but I'd be willing to consider specific changes if you can point to guidance in the MOS that would support the use of such language. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Shall we start with WP:5P2? As others have mentioned here the style of the current edit is distinctly different from that which the 5 pillars seek to achieve. The widespread consensus among academics is that hedging language or academic caution is essential in achieving that tone.

As for the example of referencing, to help you understand, I used the phrase "an example of such" in one of my edits, to remove the clumsy repetition of the word "pseudoscience". This was reverted with no clear explanation other than that it was "better before". Jonthedrummer (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The widespread consensus among academics is that hedging language or academic caution is essential in achieving that tone in the cases when hedging is appropriate. When something is wrong, scientists tend to clearly say so. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Addition: On second thought, of course there are academics who are not scientists. (Postmodernists, for example, will avoid to clearly say anything.) But they are not relevant when the question is whether something is healthy or not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

5P2 has nothing to say about this situation. Anyone can edit, including you, and also including the multiple people who have reverted you. When disagreements arise, as they have here, we engage in discussion and attempt to establish a consensus.

Now, we do not need to say that something is widely considered to be something when we can use straightforward language and say that it is something. The sky is not widely considered to be blue, it is blue. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Oops - wrong pillar, 5P2 is neutrality. That pillar would definitely support calling something what it is, rather than introducing what you describe as 'hedging language' in an apparent attempt to imply that there is some doubt about its nature. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, it seems like you've admitted you're unfamiliar with the concept of hedging. You've also demonstrated this with the words 'would definitely support'.

I'd be happy to provide you some resources on this. A quick Google on the topic would reveal several, which generally make the point that hedging actually strengthens your argument. It does so by reminding the reader that the writer has the humility to admit they don't know anything with absolute certainty. This, I am reasonably certain, is one of the cornerstones of the scientific method. Jonthedrummer (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

So you want us to do WP:OR to find out how to write this article. No thanks. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.