Talk:Reiki#Fibromyalgia study

{{edit semi-protected|Reiki|answered=yes}}

1. Change "Japanese pseudoscientific healing practice" to "Healing practice originated in Japan";

2. Change "Reiki[a] is a pseudoscientific form of energy healing" to "Reiki is a form of energy healing";

3. Change section "Reiki is used as an illustrative example of pseudoscience in scholarly texts and academic journal articles.[2][3] The marketing of reiki has been described as "fraudulent misrepresentation",[3] and itself as a "nonsensical method",[4] with a recommendation that the American government agency NCCAM should stop funding reiki research because it "has no substantiated health value and lacks a scientifically plausible rationale".[5]" to "There is not yet sufficient evidence to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition.[2]" ACapella7 (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{notdone}} WP:PROFRINGE request. Bon courage (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:I support this change. SacredTiming (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The sentence "It is based on qi ("chi"), which practitioners say is a universal life force, although there is no empirical evidence that such a life force exists" exists early in the article, but is an unhelpful reduction expressing deep bias. To cast the term "qi" aside as lacking evidence is to deny the existence of energy, merely because "qi" is a more expansive term than "energy" (referencing both material and psychological phenomena) and is not smoothly translated into English, is careless. Qi is a term to refer to energy itself, in its polymorphous forms; but fundamental physics aside, qi is also recognized as an adequate way to understand the 'building blocks of reality' by millions of people, namely in East Asia, so its dismissal here presents itself as somewhat culturally deaf. 73.79.207.11 (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:As opposed to being scientifically blind. - Roxy the dog 04:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Reiki|answered=yes}}

This article commences with prolific value judgments. As an encyclopaedia, it is more apropriate simply to deliver the data, and then to give opinion and judgment - ideally with sources.

This way, the factual data can be known first, and the critique elemment can be entered into much more completely in its appropriate place.

As a psychiatrist, I hold no brief for reiki. As far as I have been able to ascertain it has neither substantial empirical support (although it would be interesting to know of any) and it's theoretical basis does not reflect modern scientific views.

However, for Wikipedia to remain a reputable resource, it would seem to me that a more standard "data-critque-summary" format should be observed.

The same criticism applies to other entries on traditional and "alternative" modalities. This impedes the aquisition of factual data by practitipners such as myself who want to be informed about what patients are engaged in.Alparishi (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC) Alparishi (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{notdone}} Please gain consensus for any specific change before using this template. Bon courage (talk) 06:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)