Talk:Reiki/GA2
GA Reassessment[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This has major neutrality problems (GA criterion 4).
I think most people will agree that the theories and practices of Reiki are, at the least, controversial, but almost the entire article is written solely from that perspective, often implicitly accepting them as true (this may well be unintentional, but is the overall effect). Most criticism is delayed until very late in the article, past the point that most readers will reach.
Some examples will serve:
| “ | Through the use of this palm healing (sometimes referred to as "tenohira" (掌, meaning "the palm"), practitioners transfer healing energy in the form of qi through the palms. | ” |
| “ | It is reported that the recipient often feels warmth or tingling in the area being treated, even when a non-touching approach is being used. A state of deep relaxation, combined with a general feeling of well-being, is usually the most noticeable immediate effect of the treatment, although emotional releases can also occur.[91] As the Reiki treatment is said to stimulate the body's natural healing processes, instantaneous "cures" of specific health problems are not normally observed. A series of three or more treatments, typically at intervals of one to seven days, is usually recommended if a chronic condition is being addressed,[89] and regular treatments on an on-going basis can be used with the aim of maintaining well-being. The interval between such treatments is typically in the range of one to four weeks, except in the case of self-treatment where daily practice is common.[89] | ” |
There are also the occasional non-sequiturs, such as this section, which rather abruptly switches to being solely about the UK, when nothing preceding is about the UK
| “ | There is much variation in training methods, speed of completion (i.e., attunement), and costs. Though there is no accreditation and central body for Reiki, nor any regulation of its practice, there exist organisations within the United Kingdom that seek to standardise Reiki and Reiki practises, such as the UK Reiki Federation[80] and the Reiki Council (UK).[81] Reiki courses are also available online, although traditionalists state that attunement must be done in person in order to take effect, as the Reiki Master/Teacher doing the attunement must be able to actually touch the energy field of the person being attuned. A distance Reiki attument is not always recognised by certain Reiki federations, such as with the UK Reiki Federation, who state, "[a]ll training must have been "in-person" or "face to face" (distant attunements are not accepted)."[82] Some traditionalists also hold the ideal that methods that teach Reiki "quickly" cannot yield as strong an effect, because there is no substitute for experience and patience when mastering Reiki. | ” |
I get the feeling this article is trying, but it really needs a lot of work - mainly just clarifying the difference between beliefs and objective facts - to truly reach the needed standards.
A secondary issue is the Bibliography: I'm going to presume these are notable books amongst Reiki practitioners, but it's maybe a little unbalanced to only give books for practitioners emphasis. Maybe put them in <small> tags, and drop it to an H3 header? It's a relatively minor issue, though one worth spending a little time on. 86.** IP (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- The article builds upon information throughout the article itself; ideas presented earlier on will be explained and elaborated, as is done with all articles. Any criticism about the subject itself is always near the bottom of articles. There are controvicies within the Reiki communtiy about what IS and what ISN'T Reiki, its practises (whether from Japanese or Western POV) etc etc, and this again is discussed in the article.
- The first example you give (of tenohira) is stated early in the article. This, and its common effects, are then elaborated by explaing what some recipients feel.
- The Reiki Fed of the UK is mentioned as it is a body that volunterily regulates the stanards of Reiki within the UK - something which isn't being done in the US or any other country. It's included out of interest and that the venture is currently unique.
- Books included in the Bib. should have been mentioned in the article, and they all are. Anthing that doesn't appear in the article will not appear in the bib. (Bibliography: A list of the books referred to in a scholarly work, ie, books that have already been mentioned). -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 18:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Before I reply, let me just point out this isn't a bad article, it just has a few problems. That said,
- The point about the tenohira is not that it's not mentioned, but that it's presented as a factual method of healing, instead of the beliefs of [some] practitioners. The article tries to make the distinction, but - and I realise there's a balance to strike here, given that too much attribution will make it unreadable - but it also needs to avoid presenting beliefs of practitioners as fact. Integrating the scientific critique a little more might be one way to do this, I'm sure there's many other ways.
- Check the mention of the Reiki Federation of the UK in context: an unrelated discussion suddenly transforms into discussion of Reiki in the UK - and it's that sudden transition to the UK alone, without explanation, that feels very abrupt. Perhaps there's a better place to bring it up?
- Understood they're used in the article, but they seem to be given a little too much prominence compared to the rest of the references, given they're all one-sided. Making the font size match the other references (with maybe a third-level header instead of second) would fix this. 86.** IP (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Before I reply, let me just point out this isn't a bad article, it just has a few problems. That said,
- No where does it say that tenohira is factual, but "practitioners transfer healing energy in the form of qi through the palms." This is a belief found in EVERY system of Reiki. If it's not there, then it's not Reiki. Having said that, tenohira, though the most popular aspect of systems of Reiki within the Western (and probably Japanese) world, it is not the be-all-and-end-all of Reiki.
- I agree with the suggestion of a better place in which to place the UK statement. When revamping, I didn't know where to put, and its current placement seemed most logical to me.
- The bibliography on all articles, as far as I'm aware, is a level two, as it shows a list of reading material in its short form (i.e., different to the references as the bibliography doesn't contain page numbers etc). -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 18:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Think Point 1 is probably the crux of the issue - Point 2 only needs a little work, and Point 3 isn't that important, so let's focus on phrasing. As I read "practitioners transfer healing energy in the form of qi through the palms" - it's a statement of fact - that practitioners really do transfer healing energy through their palms. If it said "practitioners believe they can transfer healing energy", that's a statement of opinion, that doesn't need balanced.
Now, to a certain extent, that something is what practitioners believe can be taken as read, but I think this article doesn't quite hit that balance. Large sections go by without stating these are beliefs, as opposed to facts. 86.** IP (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I can see where you're coming from now. Would "practitioners believe that they are transferring universal energy (reiki) which allows for self-healing and equilibrium" be better? This gets rid of the ambiguity and also includes the implied statement that some Reiki practitioners see the reiki energy as a healing energy itself, where is is actually just rei ki (universal energy). I'm not sure where to place point two... -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 16:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Aye, that'd be fine, the main problem, though, is that there's a lot of lines like that, and I don't want to overdo it, so that we end up with an near-unreadable (but accurate) article with too much repetition of "practitioners believe". So, I suppose the issue is - I think it needs more such clarifications, but we also want to try to avoid too much... Is there any sort of half-way zone where it's not as noticeable that we're attributing beliefs? 86.** IP (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Erg, sorry, been a very busy week. Will do this ASAP. 86.** IP (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)