Talk:Reiki/Archive 11

Describing Reiki as "pseudoscience" in the lead
Straightforward discussion is required here: "Reiki is a form of pseudoscience." That's a ridiculously biased way of conveying that some people classify reiki as "pseudoscience," clearly intended pejoratively, far from neutral. Furthermore, the sole source is a practically passing mention of reiki, in a parenthetical list of practices, in Chaper 1: Psychomythology, of the Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry - very weak. Furthermore, the lead should summarize the article, not provide headline news: here, "pseudoscience" is not properly developed beyond the lead.

If there is a wish to include that reiki is considered a "pseudoscience" by some, considering its generally negative connotation, fully developed article content should be created, and that content summarized appropriately in the lead. In particular, our own well-cited definition states: "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is incorrectly presented as scientific." The article gives not indication that reiki is generally presented as being "scientific" - if that is the case, it should be documented in the article.

I have edited out the first instance of "pseudoscience" in the lead, and will allow this discussion to develop or not for a while before editing the remaining entry. --Tsavage (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a pejorative. Nor is it "far from neutral".
 * Given WP:FRINGE, a high level of prominence shouldn't be a surprise.
 * The lede both summarizes and introduces the article.
 * It appears to have been (re-)added to the first sentence here.
 * In the short lede that we have now, the duplication of the term seems too much. --Ronz (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's good that we have found some common ground in considering the use of the word "pseudoscience" twice in the brief lead to be excessive. Thanks for reverting your reversion!


 * it's not a pejorative. Nor is it "far from neutral". - The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy puts it well: 'It would be as strange for someone to proudly describe her own activities as pseudoscience as to boast that they are bad science. Since the derogatory connotation is an essential characteristic of the word "pseudoscience”, an attempt to extricate a value-free definition of the term would not be meaningful.' Science and Pseudo-Science: 2. The “science” of pseudoscience. No need to dance around the point: you want to label reiki as essentially "bad," in no uncertain terms, and right up front in the lead: "Reiki is a form of pseudoscience" is essentially "Reiki is unscientific crap." I won't argue that, as long as it's well-sourced, and not written in a way that shouts at readers, "Wikipedia is making a point to label this crap," which is not neutral as in WP:NPOV/WP:IMPARTIAL.


 * I mentioned above: the sole source is a practically passing mention of reiki, in a parenthetical list of practices, in Chaper 1: Psychomythology, of the Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry The mention is in a single sentence, in a single-paragraph section titled "Pseudoscience," followed by a paragraph titled "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus." The exact mention is "...confuse metaphysical with empirical claims (e.g. acupuncture, cellular memory, reiki, therapeutic touch, Ayurvedic medicine)" 1. Please explain why how that is adequate sourcing? For one, pseudoscience is essentially an opinion, so the authority of the source of that opinion seem quite important.


 * I have no problem with any sort of criticism of reiki (and I have no connection to reiki), but it should be done with adequately verifiable sourcing, and neutral wording. A lead paragraph beginning with something like, "Reiki is controversial..." and summarizing whatever there is seems more balanced. WDYT? --Tsavage (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Bunk should be flagged up as bunk. That's core WP:PSCI policy. We shouldn't "teach the controversy" where (in RS) there is none. Alexbrn (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is an encyclopedia where evidence-based medicine and basic science have special prominence. --Ronz (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Bunk should be flagged up as bunk. That's core WP:PSCI policy." Is that a comment or a reply to one or both of my questions, about the particular use of "pseudoscience" and/or the quality of the source? My point is, this sort of writing quality makes Wikipedia look foolish, it's quite clear that somebody is having a go at reiki, and that that is being condoned, because it is there, published. It's embarrassing, and far from an impartial or neutral way for an encyclopedia to present a topic. Our society punishes transgressions, but we try not to condone tar and feathering.


 * All I'm really looking for is a comment on my questioning of the quality of the source, and the particular use of the pejorative "psuedoscience." If you are active in editing an article, you should show courtesy to other editors who are trying to discuss, instead of ignoring their questions. Since you mentioned it, where can I find more on your statement, "This is an encyclopedia where evidence-based medicine and basic science have special prominence" - interesting, and not my understanding of Wikipedia (although I'm not sure what "special prominence" exactly means). Thanks! --Tsavage (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You've been pointed to WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI. --Ronz (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * And you've been pointed to WP:NPOV/WP:IMPARTIAL. They are complementary. WP:PSCI discusses making clear with proper balance what is and is not founded in empirical evidence, it does not say, "Stamp with a warning label."


 * All of this still doesn't answer how you determine the cited source fro determining reiki to be "pseudoscience" adequate. At the very least, the source should be mentioned in the article: all it says is five words: "confuse metaphysical with empirical claims" in a single paragaph that has nothing directly to do with reiki. (Also, the wording in WP:PSCI is ambiguous on a lot of levels - e.g. "Proposals which ... are obviously bogus", "obviously bogus" is our measure? - but I will take that up there.) --Tsavage (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that you personal opinions on the matter, as expressed in the comments above ("clearly intended pejoratively, far from neutral"; "considering its generally negative connotation"; ' No need to dance around the point: you want to label reiki as essentially "bad," in no uncertain terms, and right up front in the lead'; '"Wikipedia is making a point to label this crap,"'; "Our society punishes transgressions, but we try not to condone tar and feathering."), are making editors settle with the current consensus rather than engage in the policy-based arguments you've made. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a neat argument, as if this and previous pages of discussions like this, made futile by failing to address concrete issues, didn't exist, saying, "I don't like the words you used, so we will forgo engaging in the policy-based arguments you've made." You can't address those arguments and get the outcome you want, more likely. --Tsavage (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Note – There's no shortage of reliable references. Searching Google Books for reiki pseudoscience finds 974 ghits. Keahapana (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Great. So it should be no problem to use a decent source! --Tsavage (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The source given defines and explains pseudoscience and gives the basis of categorization as pseudoscience for certain practices and lists reiki as a specific example. That is clear and unambiguous. If a source says A means this, a reason things are categorized A is because of this and lists a set of examples it clearly identifies all of the items listed as examples as A and provides a rationale. A source does not have to provide a detailed explanation of how exactly a practice meets the basis of categorization the source clearly makes the assertion by including a practice in a list of examples that the practice meets the categorization. There is no lack of clarity that the source includes reiki as a pseudoscience on a specific basis. A list of items that are exemplary is clear and unambiguous. To argue otherwise lacks rationality and is tendentious. There has been no policy based challenge to the reliability of the source nor that the source explicitly identifies reiki as pseudoscience. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a matter of verifiability and balance. When choosing to highlight a pejorative term in the lead (there are many other ways to convey the same information), the source should provide the general reader with a reasonable explanation for that weight, not simply a list check as the current source does, with a five-word explanation: "confuse metaphysical with empirical claims." We have a duty to verifiability and impartiality in order to create a neutral POV. In this case, the effect is not neutral. You and certain other editors may be of the opinion that it is neutral; I and other editors don't share that opinoin (see this page and Talk archives). This has nothing to do with promoting anything, and everything to do with proper collaborative editing and respecting WP:PAG in full, which includes discussion and good faith attempts to reach consensus. --Tsavage (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this list of sources which categorize reiki as pseudoscience will assist with verifiability, due weight and the broad consensus in the scientific and academic community that reiki is pseudoscience. See False balance, WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL. While not all of these sources are of the highest quality, many are, note the major academic publishers and established experts included.


 * - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Not very helpful, simply because I'm not arguing that reiki hasn't been described as pseudoscience, nor that it shouldn't be. If you perhaps re-read my initial post in this thread, I'm referring to the derogatory use in the lead. This isn't Quackwatch or the Skeptic's Encyclopedia, we don't unload scorn on topics that we may find negative: wars, crimes, bad art, things we classify as pseudoscience. We should present the evidence in a neutral way. "Pseudoscience" is a pejorative label representing an opinion, there is no one standard for determining what is pseudoscience, there is an ongoing philosophical debate, it's a convenient term, and a catchy buzzword for skeptic/debunk authors. We should be covering what it refers to, not using the word as a cheap shot. That's my point.

See Oscillococcinum, a commercial homeopathic preparation for which the lead points out "there is no evidence that supports this mechanism or efficacy beyond placebo," for more balanced encyclopedic coverage of "pseudoscience." The term appears in the article once, in reference to all of homeopathy, and not in the lead. Interestingly, Jimmy Wales attacked Oscillococcinum, while prominently linking to the Wikipedia article, in his Quora blog in early 2013, with comments like, "Oscillococcinum is a complete hoax product" and "What I want to know is this: why is this legal?," and quotes the WP article to support his point. What if that well-developed article were instead written to the reiki standard, calling Oscillococcinum the product of pseudoscience twice just in the lead. Wales could express a fairly extreme view AND point to WP without risk that it be seen as an extension of his forceful indictment, because the WP article was decently developed, without the appearance of a quackwatch. Currently, Oscillococcinum has better overall article coverage than reiki. --Tsavage (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On WP we follow what the sources say. I have provided numerous sources which state reiki is pseudoscience. This is appropriately stated in the lead as is due. This plain fact statement represents the mainstream academic consensus on reiki and should be clearly and predominantly presented as is clearly WP:DUE in accordance with WP:PSCI (a part of WP:NPOV a core policy). Policy is well established and explicitly explained in many PAGs. If the mainstream scientific and academic consensus is that a subject is pseudoscience that should be presented prominently and clearly without obfuscation. That is what the current content, "Reiki is a form of pseudoscience." does. If you as an editor consider the mainstream scientific and academic view presented in multiple high quality RS's as derogatory that is not an editorial interpretation in keeping with PAG. We state what is present in the sources, we don't water it down, minimize or hide it. The overwhelming number of sources that list reiki as an example of pseudoscience in unambiguous. You have not presented any policy based rationale that suggests the plain language used in the sources should not be prominently presented. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "my initial post":"ridiculously biased way of conveying that some people classify reiki as 'pseudoscience, ' " The bias you suggest comes from the sources not WP editors per WP:NPOV "balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources" again see WP:DUE. "reiki is considered a "pseudoscience" by some" by some??? no by a clear consensus of the scientific academic community, so much so it is used as an illustrative example of pseudoscience in multiple sources. "All I'm really looking for is a comment on my questioning of the quality of the source, and the particular use of the pejorative "psuedoscience. ' " You have been provided with a clear explanation that listing reiki as an example of pseudoscience when defining and discussion pseudoscience in a high quality RS is adequate sourcing for the statement, "Reiki is a form of pseudoscience." You have also been provided with other high quality sources that state unambiguously reiki is pseudoscience, many times using it to provide an example of what pseudoscience is. "There is a matter of verifiability and balance" It has been verified, read the cited source and several others given, for balance note the prominence and widespread use see WP:DUE, WP:PSCI and while your at it WP:FRINGE. "there is no one standard for determining what is pseudoscience" there are however multiple reliable sources which give reiki as an example, there are also guidelines on WP which provide guidance and reiki clearly meets those guidelines. Regardless of your opinion of what the term pseudoscience means the sources use the term to describe and characterize reiki, on WP we go with the reliable sources as due. In defining a standard for pseudoscience multiple sources cite reiki as an example. This is prominent in multiple high quality sources and should be presented on WP that way. Other stuff on WP is the weakest argument possible, we should strive to reflect PAG and represent what is published in reliable sources with due prominence, proportionality and weight.

Here are a few more sources, the last of which provides a thorough discussion of pseudoscience in relation to the subject:


 * If you think the article should contain a full section on how reiki is used an an example of pseudoscience, why it is considered pseudoscience and a more thorough, "explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included" (WP:NPOV} including why and how reiki is considered pseudoscience in the scientific and academic communities, I'm sure the sources I have given will provide adequate material for at least a couple of paragraphs in the body. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the following content should be added to the body of the article to flesh out the details of how reiki is regarded by the scientific and academic community. Some additional paraphrasing might be appropriate but I chose to include attributed quotes. Content based on the references cited in the lead could also be added to fully present the mainstream scientific, academic and medical positions regarding reiki.

Possible content to add
Reiki is used as an illustrative example of pseudoscience in scholarly texts and academic journal articles. Rhonda McClenton states, "The reality is that Reiki, under the auspices of pseudo-science, has begun the process of becoming institutionalized in settings where people are already very vulnerable." In criticizing the State University of New York for offering a continuing education course on reiki, Lilienfeld et al. (in Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology) state, "Reiki postulates the existence of a universal energy unknown to science and thus far undetectable surrounding the human body, which practitioners can learn to manipulate using thier hands." Ferraresi et al. state, "In spite of its [reiki] diffusion, the baseline mechanism of action has not been demonstrated..." Wendy Reiboldt states about reiki, "Neither the forces involved not the alleged therapeutic benefits have been demonstrated by scientific testing." Several authors have pointed to the vitalistic energy reiki claims to treat. Larry Sarner states (in The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience), "Ironically, the only thing that distinguishes Reiki from Therapeutic Touch is that it involves actual touch." Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry state (in Philosophy of Pseudoscience) that the International Center for Reiki Training "mimic[s] the institutional aspects of science" seeking legitimacy but holds no more promise than an alchemy society. An evidence based guideline published by the American Academy of Neurology, the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation states, "Reiki therapy should probably not be considered for the treatment of PDN [painful diabetic neuropathy]." Susan Palmer lists reiki as among the pseudoscientific healing methods used by cults in France to attract members. David Gorski and Steven Novella have commented on the absurdity of clinical testing of implausible treatments.

- - MrBill3 (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Once again, thanks for the effort, but you're burying my comments in citations and words, without fully addressing them. What have you said here that hadn't already been discussed? I'm talking about impartiality and balance in writing, I really don't need more pseudoscience citations.


 * "Possible content to add" at a glance certainly seems well-cited and informative, why not add it and let other editors go over it as is normal practice? It's interesting that it ends on Novella and Gorski, self-appointed champions of their own personal medical standard (speaking about what he describes as a well-designed study of reiki, Novella says, I notice the authors did not conclude “Reiki doesn’t work.” This is odd, given that both the treatment and placebo groups had the same effect on subjective outcomes,' and goes on to helpfully criticize and recast the study's conclusions - justified or not, this sort of analysis is not transparent to general readers, is every doctor or PhD scientist's opinion blog automatically a reliable source, do we include, say, Dr. Mercola?).


 * As a reminder, here is where this thread began, with the reiki lead in its entirety:


 * Reiki (霊気?, /ˈreɪkiː/) is a form of pseudoscientific alternative medicine.[1][2] It was developed in 1922 by Japanese Buddhist Mikao Usui. Since its beginning in Japan, Reiki has been adapted across varying cultural traditions. It uses a technique commonly called palm healing or hands-on-healing as a form of alternative medicine. Through the use of this technique, practitioners believe that they are transferring "universal energy" through the palms of the practitioner, which they believe encourages healing.


 * Reiki is a form of pseudoscience.[1] It is based on qi, which practitioners say is a universal life force, though there is no evidence that such a life force exists.[3] There is no good evidence that reiki is effective as a medical treatment.[3] The American Cancer Society,[4] Cancer Research UK,[5] and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health[6] state that reiki should not be a replacement for conventional treatment of diseases like cancer, but that it may be used as a supplement to standard medical treatment.


 * Perhaps some editors are too lost in debunking to forget to read the text from a general reader's perspective. For example, in recent weeks, attempts were made by THREE editors to address this pounding in of the term pseudoscience, used TWICE in the lead, and they were reverted (it would be interesting to visualize the overall recent editing pattern):


 * 23 April 2015 removed first instance - "Removed pseudoscientific because the term 'alternative medicine' sufficiently describes the practice. Including the term" - reverted by SummerPhD


 * 4 May 2015 removed both instances - "Removed 'psuedoscientific'. 'Alternative medicine' is an apt description." reverted by Yobol, reverted by editor a few minutes later, re-reverted by McSly


 * 8 May 2015 removed first instance - "'pseudoscientific alternative medicine' is at best redundant, alternative medicine is sufficient," reverted by Ronz


 * There appears to be a concerted attempt to retain obviously over-the-top language here, and that is the tip of this quackwatch approach to "science-based" editing (which also includes wholesale gutting of articles of content and references, rather than attempting to fix them). The Economist covers Edzard Ernst's career, noting in part that, "around 95% of the treatments he and his colleagues examined—in fields as diverse as acupuncture, herbal medicine, homeopathy and reflexology—are statistically indistinguishable from placebo treatments," all without using the term, pseudoscience.


 * Once again, I'm not suggesting we don't use the term, or water anything down, it is a matter of IMPARTIAL PRESENTATION, not presenting an article that will appear to readers as a witchhunt. Wikipedia is not a debunker's platform, any more than it is a forum for snake oil salesmen. Balanced coverage in an impartial tone will get the message, whatever it is, across better, and it is what WP:PAGs suggest. I'm pretty sure I've made myself clear, with multiple examples, yet two-way discussion seems to be a challenge here. --Tsavage (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * NPOV means aligning with the POVs of the good sources. These say reiki is PS so we follow. Doing otherwise would not be neutral. I like Mr Bill's proposal too. Alexbrn (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Neutral and impartial. "Pseudoscience" is an optional, descriptive term, classifying reiki as "pseudoscience" is an aspect of the subject, it is not solely definitive of the subject. A quick PUBMED search for discussion context: "reiki" 2199 results; "pseudoscience" 139 results; "reiki AND pseudoscience" 2 results.


 * Agreed that a section such as MrBill3 proposed could be covered in the lead by something like, "Reiki has been characterized as a pseudoscience and used as an illustrative example of such in scholarly texts and academic journals." Provided, of course, that everything in that section holds up to scrutiny (is "used as an illustrative example of pseudoscience" possibly synthesis, deriving a conclusion from multiple primary examples - I am not being argumentative here, this is an article under dispute and close examination, so EVERYTHING should meet a reasonably high standard per WP:PAGs. in great part to encourage collaboration, respect all editors, and avoid battling).


 * Once again, I am not arguing against the use of the term, I am commenting on and seeking improvement in the way the article is currently written, and how it has been recently edited by a group of editors: content gutted rather than improved, blatantlay and redundantly stamped with a pejorative description, left to be an embarrassment, and that is not balanced, impartial writing. --Tsavage (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You have yet to convince anyone. Disparaging some of the editors here is certainly not the way to further your arguments. Are you aware that such behavior can be the grounds for ArbCom sanctions? --Ronz (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you accusing me of not discussing in good faith? If so, please do so directly. Are you opening an ArbCom case, is that a warning, or a threat? What disparaging remarks are you referring to?


 * Please review the history of this thread: I have asked straightforward questions and received few direct replies. For one, no-one has addressed the issue of impartiality of tone (WP:IMPARTIAL), which I have brought up multiple times. I also stated from the start that I have no problem with reiki being "pseudoscience," it is a matter of balanced presentation. This also has not been addressed, I've only been given mountains of citations showing how various authors have described reiki as pseudoscience. Discussion and consensus requires good faith participation from all parties.


 * I think the "Possible content to add" section should be added, and the lead modified to summarize that. There is a positive step. Why resort to warnings easily taken as threats? --Tsavage (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * To encourage two-way discussion, it would be helpful if editors being mentioned are pinged and comments included. To wit:
 * 23 April 2015 removed first instance - "Removed pseudoscientific because the term 'alternative medicine' sufficiently describes the practice. Including the term" - reverted by  "Repeatedly discussed; please take it to the talk page."
 * I should have noted that not all "alternative medicine" purports to be scientific. The inclusion had been extensively discussed. The opinion of one editor is not sufficient to overturn that consensus. 98.165.89.111 has made few other edits and is likely unfamiliar with our procedures (e.g., WP:V).


 * 4 May 2014 removed both instances  - "Removed 'psuedoscientific'. 'Alternative medicine' is an apt description." Reverted by  "better before". Undone by  "Categorization as psuedoscience is inaccurate. Mainstream hospitals employ Reiki practitioners. Psuedosciences are PROVEN false, Reiki is yet to be disproven." Re-reverted by  "This is properly sourced. please discuss on the talk page."
 * BenjaminJames13 has made no other edits and is likely unfamiliar with our procedures (e.g., WP:V and WP:BRD). They seem to feel that "widespread" usage means it cannot be pseudoscience.


 * 8 May 2014 removed first instance - "'pseudoscientific alternative medicine' is at best redundant, alternative medicine is sufficient (note: I see recent reversions of similar edits, this is a completely independent edit so please do not revert prior to Talk discussion)". Reverted by  "per FRINGE - you'll have to find some consensus".
 * Yes, independent reliable sources describe it as a "pseudoscience" and "alternative medicine". Currently, alternative medicine states that it is "usually based on religion, tradition, superstition, belief in supernatural energies, pseudoscience, errors in reasoning, propaganda, or fraud" and "Some alternative medicine practices may be based on pseudoscience..." If you feel that reliable sources state that all alternatives to medicine are pseudoscientific, that article needs some work.
 * Yes, there have been similar reverts. However, your bold removal does not overturn the consensus. Instead, the revert of your bold edit is a call for discussion.
 * At present, this article can use some more reliable sources. As we seem to have quite a few presented above, I'd guess there is room for growth here.
 * For the record, I will accept that I was partially involved in "gutting" the article, so long as it is recognized that the offal removed was found to be refuse after considerable discussion. I invite scrutiny on that basis. I did not "improve" the material as there is no way to polish a turd. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm really not here for some battle royale with a group of editors, I'm simply saying the article needs balance. It reads like an attack article, when we are supposed to be a neutral, balanced source of encyclopedic information. Perhaps certain editors cannot see that, however, many others can, as my comments, and the Talk pages here, attest to: not everyone commenting on the imbalance is out to promote reiki. How can the "other" point of view be conveyed to you? I gave the example of Oscillococcinum, but absolutely no response to that. I suggested including the content proposed above: only a tiny bit of support for that. You are arguing through my list of reversions, but my point was not to indict anyone, simply to illustrate what I see as a pattern. You say there that not all alternative medicines are pseudoscientific, yet the lead sentence of alternative medicine says, "Alternative medicine is any practice that is put forward as having the healing effects of medicine, but is not founded on evidence gathered using the scientific method." I feel like I'm in opposite world.


 * I'm sure there are numerous sources about reiki that can be used to describe techniques and whatnot, without seeming to endorse them. These sources only have to be reliable about the subject. We are not censors; on any fairly broad topic, and particularly controversial ones, people should be given balanced, comprehensive information and arrive at their own conclusions. This one-sided discussion is obviously frustrating. --Tsavage (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not looking for a "battle royale" either. I am looking for a balanced discussion. You cited one half of an argument (you and to SPA editors) as if their comments had been steamrolled. I am saying that was not the case in any way. The reverts maintained the status quo established by a loooooooong discussion. If the substantial scientific consensus is that reiki is not only a pseudoscience, but a prime example of a pseudoscience, "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." The only "balance" available here is to say that the Moon is basically rock, despite claims it is made of cheese. There are facts and there is nonsense. When explaining the nonsense, "how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included". As examples, WP:PSCI points to two conspiracy theories, both of which say in their ledes that they are conspiracy theories.
 * Yes, you gave an example and have argued that Jimbo citing it must mean something. I submit that it means he was talking about a sham product and linked to the article. Whether or not the article calls a sham product a pseudoscience or not is hardly material here. (The article on the pseudoscience is question is quite clear in its lede: "Homeopathy...is a form of alternative medicine created in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann based on his doctrine of like cures like (similia similibus curentur), whereby a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure similar symptoms in sick people. Homeopathy is pseudoscience. It is not effective for any condition, and no homeopathic remedy has been proven to be more effective than placebo)
 * We do not currently have much describing the "techniques" as we haven't found independent reliable sources describing them. Instead,we had lots of self-published material saying, "The original form of reiki is properly defined by Super-Ultra-High Master Reiki Guy John Smith, fonder of the only true form of reiki, which included psychic surgery, unlimited power and time travel. "
 * What we need in order to describe reiki is probably in that source dump above. Something along the line of "Proponents say reiki uses an unlimited energy to cure any illness, across any distance in time or space.[1][2][3][4][5] No form of energy is unlimited.[1] The claimed energy does not exist.[2] Many illnesses have no known cure.[3] Time travel is thought to be impossible.[4] Reiki is one of many pseudosciences that claims to be able to treat/cure all illnesses.[5]" If we have reliable sources (as it seems we do), we should use them and exclude the self-published bunk. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. Believe me, browsing through reiki material on reiki web sites, I can easily understand how some people can become literally enraged by what they see. I would suggest that anyone approaching such an extreme state should probably refrain from trying to edit a general encyclopedia article about the subject. In any case:


 * As examples, WP:PSCI points to two conspiracy theories, both of which say in their ledes that they are conspiracy theories. - I'm not sure of your point here, both those articles are conspiracy theories that say so in the article titles, Moon landing conspiracy theories and Pope John Paul I conspiracy theories, are you suggesting we retitle this artick "Reiki pseudoscience"? And please point me to the record of the "status quo established by a loooooooong discussion" - was that a Talk page discussion where consensus was reached, or an RfC? Again, I am not arguing about whether reiki should be classified as pseudoscience, or as a prime example of pseudoscience, simply about balanced editorial presentation and proper sourcing. You are bringing up these examples, so I am asking about them.


 * "There are facts and there is nonsense." Agreed. In addition to the fact that reiki is pseudoscience, there are the facts of what it purports to be, the techniques and practices, history, and so forth. The article should be able to satisfy the reader, while making it clear as an azure sky that there is no scientific backing for any of it, why a site search for "reiki" of the New York Times yields 323 results, the Economist 57 results, and The Guardian 2,640 results - and what I am referring to with those is both tons of potential high quality secondary source material, and a degree of general public awareness.


 * "you gave an example and have argued that Jimbo citing it must mean something" - that's not what I said. I pointed to Oscillococcinum as an example of more balanced encyclopedic coverage of "pseudoscience." My reference to the Wales quote was to illustrate how bad it would have looked if his indictment had linked to a poor quality, attack-y article, like reiki is now, instead of the more balanced, even-toned article that Oscillococcinum was at the time and still is. And I don't see how WP:WAX applies here (especially since it is about WP:NOTABILITY issues), I am using Oscillococcinum simply as an example of different editorial approach to roughly equivalent content, an article about a "pseudoscientific remedy" where that aspect is fully covered in the content, and debated on the Talk page. It's simply a writing style example, not an argument that because X exists, so should Y.


 * If we have reliable sources (as it seems we do), we should use them and exclude the self-published bunk." Agreed.


 * Anyhow, I see where this is going, it's all round and round. Thanks again for your reply, no need to continue unless you feel compelled to! --Tsavage (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The conspiracy theories, in addition to saying "conspiracy theory" in their titles, have explanations in their ledes (and elsewhere) that clearly explain they are conspiracy theories. Reiki is a pseudoscience. Saying it is "alternative medicine" does not cover this basic fact. Saying it is "pseudoscience" covers it.
 * The consensus was established (actually, re-re-re-established) starting at Talk:Reiki and following, with side trips to the reliable sources and fringe noticeboards.
 * If you have substantial coverage in independent reliable sources for what reiki purports to do/how it supposedly works, we need the coverage.
 * I should write an essay re my use of WP:WAX in these situations. I've removed outright defamation from BLP articles, citing WP:BLP and had other editors respond with "What about Jane Doe ' s article? It says she's a murderer with no source at all!" Yes, other articles exist. Some of them probably shouldn't. Some of them violate our core policies and should be corrected. That those articles and their egregious errors exist do not in any way mean that any other article should exist or make the same mistakes. To prove that the other article is a shining example for us to emulate here, you need to discuss the content of that article and how it conforms to our policies and guidelines and demonstrate that the situation here is identical to the situation there. In the present case, we have no indication that the article on the sugar pill with no rotten duck guts in it is a fantastic article to emulate. Further, Oscillococcinum is not a pseudoscience in the same way that aspirin is not a science. It is the product of a pseudoscience. The article, which gets far less attention than this one, states in the lead that it claimed to be made from a bacterium that doesn't exist, "there is no evidence that supports this mechanism or efficacy beyond placebo" and goes on to give a likely explanation for the mistakes that lead to the creation of this particular sugar pill.
 * I invite editors to incorporate some of the reliable sources we have tentatively identified. Otherwise, I'll add it to my backlog and get to it at some point. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the additional replies. Overall, I've come to the conclusion that the problems I'm trying to express here about the current state of this article are more guideline issues, and it is kind of futile to try to address them at article level. Given the results so far, I can't see how trying for further discussion is likely to lead anywhere I'd see as positive, so there is no point for me to continue here at this time. I'll keep the article on my watchlist, and check it out from time to time.


 * As for Oscillococcinum and WP:WAX, I pointed to it as an example of an alternative approach to coverage in terms of writing style. If you or any other editor couldn't see the difference, or disagreed that it was a useful example, the expectation was that that would be mentioned in reply. That would be my idea of a discussion. I wasn't trying to "make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do, or do not, exist," just offering an existing example, an illustration of what I meant. Also, in terms of discussing editorial approach, I don't see the big difference between a "pseudoscientific therapy" and a "pseudoscientific remedy." Cheers. --Tsavage (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

As a point of fact, the sources do not say "reiki has been characterized as pseudoscience" they state reiki is pseudoscience. Watering this down with editorial comment is not appropriate as we don't have a source that describes this as a characterization but we do have sources that state it as a fact. Also it is not synth to cite sources that use reiki as an example of pseudoscience it is accurate representation of the sources. More than a few describe what pseudoscience is and list reiki as an example. The assertion that the term pseudoscience is "optional" does not reflect policy if sources say something is pseudoscience we don't water that down we state what the sources say. When sources define or describe pseudoscience and list reiki as an example it is appropriate to use the term. PAG (NPOV, PSCI, FRINGE etc.) are clear and paraphrasing does not mean failing to use the key term defined and used specifically for a subject. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll reply as this conversation was already underway, but please note that, as indicated just above, I have withdrawn from this discussion for now, as I don't believe it serves any practical purpose at this time. I've stated clearly and repeatedly that I am not defending reiki or seeking to remove the word "pseudoscience," rather, I am looking for balanced and impartial coverage: in my opinion as a Wikipedia editor with no ties to or particular interest in reiki, and no historical editorial involvement here, this article is non-neutral in tone and content, and skewed toward the "skeptic" style of presentation. By that, I'm referring to a skeptic/debunker stylistic emphasis, which is reflected in word choice and organization of material, and of sources. We could argue THAT point endlessly - "there is no TONE, it's all just facts" etc - but this being an encyclopedia written by anonymous editors, at some point we have to rely on a baseline of the generally obvious, or nothing can be resolved through direct editor discussions. That said, two specific replies to you:


 * "pseudoscience" is not a "thing" that something can "be" - any more than something can BE "bad" - it is shorthand for an evaluation, a finding or opinion that something that is represented as being based on physical principles and evidence, is not in fact supported by scientific evidence. It's not a hard concept to grasp. "Snake oil" is another well-known term describing the same thing, as in our own article definition, "an expression that originally referred to fraudulent health products or unproven medicine but has come to refer to any product with questionable or unverifiable quality or benefit." Oxford University Press publishes Snake Oil Science: The Truth About Complementary and Alternative Medicine, which mentions reiki; should we include in the article: "Reiki is a form of snake oil science"? My point is, CHOOSING to use the term "pseudoscience" in Wikipedia, which is a derogatory term, and by no means necessary to describing what it represents (my meaning with "optional," previously), comes with an editorial responsibility to illustrate context and provide a reliable source (a five-word definition to me doesn't seem like an easily verifiable source, which is what I pointed out). As another example of style alternatives, the Economist article headlined "Why homeopathy is nonsense" provides a competent history and skewers homeopathy as without evidence of efficacy, without using the word "pseudoscience" (the word does appear in the Economist, but not often and seldom in articles covering alternative medicine, which they decidedly "don't like"). And my original comment wasn't just about that word, it was about the overall tone, which began with the word "pseudoscience" being used twice in a brief, two-paragraph lead - choosing to highlight derogatory terms that need clarification, when the same information may be conveyed in plain English, is an editorial choice that in my opinion requires unambiguous in-article support.


 * "The newly added "Scholarly evaluation" section is in principle an excellent, interesting section, however, some of the content seems to further the skeptic/debunk approach. I randomly did a quick check at sources. The very first, picked where my eye first fell, was Larry Sarner (who is quoted from his contribution to  The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience), who seems to have questionable qualifications as a medical expert commentator: a daily newspaper article covering his Congressional bid in 2014, noted his "lengthy and varied career. ... He also spent 14 years as a self-described "volunteer lobbyist" fighting to keep Colorado's medical care "based on scientific excellence and opposing erection of dangerous pseudo-medical cartels."; his academic credentials appear to be BAs in political science and mathematics. When reliable sources are being so bitterly contested as on this page, I'm at a loss to see how Sarner is relevant here in the context of quotes illustrating the scholarly evaluation of reiki (unless I'm referring to the wrong Larry Sarner).


 * I don't think I can be any clearer, but I think the problem lies at the WP:PAG level: at some point, WP:FRINGE and related should be examined for its specific wording, and the intended and unintended consequences of its language. Thanks for your time. --Tsavage (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll keep this brief as you clearly have a lot to say (especially for someone who has withdrawn from the discussion). Yes, there is evaluation involved in deciding whether or not something is a pseudoscience. If we remove that, where is the objective evidence it is an "alternative medicine". We can certainly find sources that say it is the very core of medicine, so "alternative" is out. "Medicine"? Geeze, we can't call it anything...unless, perhaps, we call it what independent reliable sources call it.
 * If you feel one or more of the sources cited is not a reliable source, we can discuss that.
 * Frankly the whole section seems to be hedged against saying anything at all about reiki. "John Smith, writing for the New York Times, says that "Paris is...the capital of France." The New Columbia Dictionary of Political Thought calls Paris "the most-populous city of France." - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "I'll keep this brief as you clearly have a lot to say (especially for someone who has withdrawn from the discussion)." Your discussion seems to be on point while hinting at the sarcastically personal, which is unhelpful to me, especially on an ArbCom-sanctioned page. A civil reply is a civil reply, my choice, I didn't realize we had a suggested comment length limitation as well, if that's what you're suggesting, please make it plain so I can know?


 * "pseudoscience. If we remove that, where is the objective evidence it is an "alternative medicine" - A) For maybe the fifth time, I'm not advocating the removal of the term; B) The term "pseudoscience" is not "objective evidence," it's a word, a label, the point of which is to point out that something is not supported by scientific evidence. That's conveyed by saying "not supported by scientific evidence," which any reader can understand (unlike "pseudoscience," which is a term that is not likely to be immediately clear to every reader), along with whatever details of that lack of support editors choose to include, hundreds, thousands of words detailing that lack of evidence if that seems appropriate, along with the other details of the subject, like history, practices, and so forth. Reference to labels like "pseudoscience" or any other descriptive term can also be presented, a good example of a balanced approach, especially for a negative term, is the "Scholarly evaluation" section here - the contents of a Scholarly evaluation, including description as pseudoscience, can be summarized in the lead. It's easy to find articles that clearly convey the lack of evidence and discuss in detail various negative findings concerning reiki, without ever using the term "pseudoscience" - just do a search. But again, I'm not suggesting exclusion of the term, simply, impartial tone and proper balance in overall subject coverage. --Tsavage (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Pseudoscience is not merely something which is not supported by scientific evidence. (If it were, the term would cover various religions, your favorite flavor of ice cream and whether the dress was black and gold or blue and white.) Pseudoscience involves presenting something as science that clearly is not (IMO, discuss a pseudoscience with a believer enough and they will eventually invoke supposed early beliefs in a flat Earth and/or use the word "quantum" in an idiosyncratic way.). Yes, we could spell out one of the definitions of pseudoscience instead of using the term (and then get into a protracted battle over acceptable terminology to be used in that definition. This is a very useful approach to avoiding terms like "distal phalanges". When two people say "distal phalanges", they both mean the same thing, unless one of them is wrong. When two people say "pseudoscience" they may well have slightly different meanings in mind -- as is the case between you and me here. Using the term the sources use -- with a link to the article -- avoids mischaracterizing the source.
 * In any case, I get that you are not trying to remove the word. I am not getting specifically what you are trying to do. Pehaps if you spelled it out, similar to MrBill3's 06:19, 11 May 2015 edit. -  Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "Pseudoscience is not merely something which is not supported by scientific evidence. ... Pseudoscience involves presenting something as science that clearly is not" You mention favorite flavors and dress colors, things which no-one expects to be "supported by scientific evidence" (religion seems a separate case). Pseudoscience only even makes sense when referring to something where there is a preexisting expectation of or belief in an underlying systematic explanation and tangible evidence, why call something "pseudoscience" if it hasn't already been called "science"? PS doesn't bring anything new as far as I can see, except a certain lack of clarity, and a negative tone.


 * "Yes, we could spell out one of the definitions of pseudoscience instead of using the term" - Why even consider that? As I've said, why in the first place base a general encyclopedia article on a term that has multiple definitions that may need spelling out, when what that term MEANS can be more simply and directly conveyed in plain English: "may seem to be, but is in fact not based on scientific evidence"? The term is not necessary and does not deliver any additional information, it holds interest as a label that some sources choose to apply to the subject. All this by way of saying, editorially, it needs to be handled not as a universal given, but as a special label.


 * Interestingly, the abstract for debunkers Novella and Gorski's PS paper, "Clinical trials of integrative medicine: testing whether magic works?," doesn't even use the term pseudoscience, favoring "dubious science" instead, "Over the past two decades complementary and alternative medicine treatments relying on dubious science have been embraced by medical academia." (Not sure whether "pseudoscience" is used in the full text.)


 * As for sourcing in "Scholarly evaluation," that's up to you, I do usually fix what I find, but time constraints and the editing environment here are more than I can handle at the moment. You worked hard to clean up the article, removing tons of unreliable sources and related content, if you want to stop now, that's up to you. :) I've spelled out my concerns as best I can. --Tsavage (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This is now going clearly into the area of tendentioius editing. There are eleven sources which state reiki is pseudoscience and in fact hold it up as an example of pseudoscience. When there is that kind of representation in published sources due weight demands proportional promininent representation, not whitewashing because an editor doesn't like the tone. The statement of fact is concisely representative of multiple reliable sources. If ten reliable sources say "Paris is a stinky city" on WP that is what we say unless a substantial number of other reliable sources say otherwise. We don't fail to use the word stinky because someone doesn't like the tone or implication, we follow the sources. We don't bury the statement. If the term stinky is defined and explained in the sources it is not a matter of opinion it is the application of a term for a subject that meets the definition. Many of the sources provide a definition for pseudoscience, WP even has clear explanations. It is not an opinion but a term with well spelled out, explained and analyzed meaning. Actually read the sources. Don't state you have withdrawn from a discussion and continue tendentious arguement that ignores PAG. The behavior exhibited in this thread seems to clearly fall under what is sanctionable. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "This is now going clearly into the area of tendentioius editing. ... The behavior exhibited in this thread seems to clearly fall under what is sanctionable." Please clarify your accusation: what undue point am I pushing? What I was arguing for is impartiality of tone, and this I've made abundantly clear. Open, civil discussion is the point of a Talk page.


 * "Actually read the sources." That is part of the problem, a number of sources I spotchecked don't seem to verify the content. For a couple of examples of what I see as a non-neutral POV supported by less than adequate sources:


 * The document supporting the section, "Catholic Church concerns," is about the spiritual or religious aspects of reiki coming into conflict with the Church and divine healing. This context should be included, not only an excerpt that highlights the Church's disapproval, without reason, and says, "not compatible with ... scientific evidence."


 * "The Church recognizes two kinds of healing: healing by divine grace and healing that utilizes the powers of nature. ... The two kinds of healing are not mutually exclusive.  Because it is possible to be healed by divine power does not mean that we should not use natural means at our disposal. It is not our decision whether or not God will heal someone by supernatural means. ... Although Reiki proponents seem to agree that Reiki does not represent a religion of its own, but a technique that may be utilized by people from many religious traditions, it does have several aspects of a religion. ... the fact remains that for Christians the access to divine healing is by prayer to Christ as Lord and Savior, while the essence of Reiki is not a prayer but a technique that is passed down from the 'Reiki Master' to the pupil, a technique that once mastered will reliably produce the anticipated results."


 * The lead sentence of the "Safety" section is, "Concerns about safety in Reiki are similar to those of other unproven alternative medicines," which is OR unless supported, meanwhile, the single source does not mention reiki."Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice". I only read part, skimmed the rest, and page searched for "reiki" with no hits. The lead reads, "Over the past several decades, the fields of clinical psychology, psychiatry, and social work have borne witness to a widening and deeply troubling gap between science and practice (see Lilienfeld, 1998, for a discussion)," which, combined with the title, seems to indicate a different area of concern than reiki in this document.


 * In the "Scholarly evaluation" section, one of the multiple citations in support of the lead sentence, "Reiki is used as an illustrative example of pseudoscience in scholarly texts and academic journal articles," is a law review article titled, "Case study of inoperable inventions: Why is the USPTO patenting pseudoscience?" It mentions reiki once, and (as far as I can tell) as an example of what the article is not covering:


 * "Objections to the theory of operation are necessarily more complex in the biological sciences than in the physical sciences, where theories are reducible to mathematical laws. ... Reiki (another 'energy field' therapy)—can be tested for efficacy with relative certainty using carefully constructed statistical tests. In order to avoid undue complexity in the analysis, this Comment will focus inventions in the field of physics, where operability can often be determined as an objective fact using fundamental and universally accepted scientific principles."


 * Also in "Scholarly evaluation," I previously mentioned in some detail (see above) the author of a quote, Larry Sarner, who appears wholly unqualified to comment as a scholarly expert, who "spent 14 years as a self-described 'volunteer lobbyist' fighting to keep Colorado's medical care 'based on scientific excellence and opposing erection of dangerous pseudo-medical cartels.'"; his academic credentials appear to be BAs in political science and mathematics.


 * Apologies in advance if I have misconstrued any or all of these (and that is not an exhaustive list, just a spotcheck). If on the other hand, my concerns prove valid, it is surprising that just after the article has been apparently meticulously vetted for unreliable sourcing, and a significant amount of text and references deleted, problems like these remain, and are being added. That's what I meant by maintaining an impartial tone, it's fine to "debunk" while maintaining NPOV, but it can be problematic to go too far in pointing out the demerits of a subject. --Tsavage (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In the recent clean out, I am the one who removed most of those sources. I did not meticulously check the entirety of the article. I strictly removed sources that were not -- IMO -- in any way reliable.
 * Joe Blow publishes a book through vanity press? That isn't a reliable source for anything (other than minor details about Joe Blow). In some cases, the problem was glaring and I removed the source outright. In other cases, I was unable to find anything one way or the other, posted it here and/or at the RS noticeboard, waited a week or so, then removed it. In most cases, I left the information in place with a cite needed tag for a while, to give others a further chance to find reliable sources for the information before cleaning it out.
 * Your list above is a similar approach, but rather a lot to tackle in one go. I'd suggest handling this piece-by-piece. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand what you did, and don't find fault with it, per se. My point throughout this thread - which hasn't been acknowledged, although I keep getting replies - is about impartiality and neutrality, and agreeing that "debunking" is a thing, it is a cause or a movement or whatever you want to call it, with all the trappings of such, and when checking an article that is clearly a "debunker/skeptic" target, I believe it is necessary to examine ALL claims equally, because there is a likelihood of POV pushing, albeit in different and more or less subtle ways, from all sides. My intention is not to label or insult any particular editor, simply to speak plainly based on common sense observation: when two sides disagree strongly on content, the whole content requires scrutiny. --Tsavage (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Scrutiny is fine. On a fringe topic, though, we do not present "all sides" equally. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am aware of that. I'm curious, is your impression that I have suggested so far that I am looking for some sort of "equal balance"? I have repeatedly explained with examples that WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:NPOV in general - impartial, neutral tone and content - are all that I am seeking. In my last couple of replies, I am specifically addressing problems with verifiability, including sources that do not seem to even address the subject. This are basic editorial concerns. --Tsavage (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)