Talk:Reiki/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Reliable sources

As a fringe medical theory, Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Reliable_sources applies here. Some of the most heavily used sources here seem to be self-published or from very small publishers. At the moment, I'm merely cleaning up the vague references ("Jones {1999), page 52" doesn't tell us much). If anyone has any reliable sources for the history of this practice, we can certainly use them. If anyone feels like weeding out some of the garbage, have at it. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

First up, the Trevor Gollagher book, published by the "Australian School of Traditional Reiki". I cannot find an ISBN for this book. I find no sign that the "school" still exists. However, Gollagher is the co-founder of the school.[1] I see no indication that this is a reliable source for anything here. I'll leave this note here for a few days to see if anyone disagrees. Then I'll yank it. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the Gollagher book as an unreliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Next up: Lotus Press. Per WP:FRINGE, "Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Of these, Lotus Press might be a "respected publishing house" -- it is clearly none of the others. At first brush, I cannot see using sources from Lotus that are in any way contentious. Beyond that, I'm not sure. Best case,I would think, would be to find neutral descriptions in clearly reliable sources. Thoughts? - SummerPhD (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no doubt that some of the "science" supporting reiki is fringe. But labeling reiki as a whole as a fringe medical theory seems fairly bold (given its widespread use) and requires not only reliable sources labeling it as such (see above discussion, "pseudoscience") but also a showing of scientific or academic consensus per WP:FRINGE/PS. I do not see that consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Magick energy flows through your hands and heals? ... Reiki is bollocks as obvious as bollocks gets, as Ernst, Quackwatch, Novella, a 11-year-old girl, or any source considering the question tells us. Wikipedia is a reality-based project and the obvious can simply be asserted, with even a lightweight source. However, I've added a ref to a OUP textbook just in case there's any doubt. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

A single textbook source isn't nearly enough for a fringe finding. I'm also don't even think that source satisfies MEDRS. Are you saying it's so obvious to you that you can't or won't even explain why or cite anything in WP:FRINGE that supports your view? Come on, convince me, don't insult my intelligence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's plenty (and the question of whether or not something is "fringe" or pseudoscience is not biomedical, but more in the realm of philosophy of science, outwith the scope of MEDRS). But oh wow, you're arguing that WP:FRINGE doesn't apply here? Really? I suggest if in doubt seeking guidance at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You haven't explained why FRINGE applies except for a big DUH IT'S OBVIOUS. I have no desire to press the issue, so I won't be going to any noticeboards over it. I just wanted to make clear that Summer's comments were not uncontested. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE applies here because RS discussing pseudoscience, categorizes Reiki as such (it's also obvious). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Pulling back a bit, is Lotus Press a reliable source? I cannot find anything to suggest that it is. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I've removed two more self published sources. More to come, I'm sure. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Another self-published source removed. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for any opinions on Lotus Press. Failing that, I'll have to see what the RS noticeboard has to say. We have been losing a lot of sources here. Far too much of this article seems to be based on random reiki practitioners who have self published books. I've weeded out a bit of it. I'm sure there's a lot more. Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

If it disagrees with sources of similar quality, then definitely leave it out. As for providing some general in-world perspective, it probably is worth keeping where we don't have better sources. Using it for historical information seems a bit of a stretch. Does that cover most of its use? --Ronz (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It's all "in-world" perspective, but the perspective is limited to the world of the particular practitioner. There is no way of knowing if any given view is that of the individual or held by most practitioners. For instance, there is a claim in the article that the "connection" between practitioner and recipient is not limited by time or space. The magic can be sent forward or backward through time. I have no way of knowing if this particular idea is from the mainstream fringe or the fringe of the fringe. Basically, I don't think we really have any way of knowing. We need to figure out what is and what is not a reliable source for claims of what reiki believers believe. Sources of poor quality result in a poor foundation. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm also unsure what to do with Ulysses Press. I see no indication they are reliable. All I can really find on them is that they publish a mixed bag of books on far flung topics: comedy, trivia, diet books, etc. They bill themselves as "one of the leading indie publishers" (whatever that might mean). Any insights? - SummerPhD (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Next up: Shuffey. I find three separate publishers for this: Headway, Hodder & Stoughton and Trafalgar Square. I have not, however, been able to find any indication that any of these are reliable sources. Anyone? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Lotus Press

I'm making this a separate subheading because it is a huge part of the article.

While digging through and removing self-published and other unreliable sources, it has become clear that most of the "in-universe" material here comes from a handful of sources published by Lotus Press. I am unable to find anything substantial about them. Their website states only that:

Lotus Press is a specialty publisher of books in the fields of:

• Alternative Health
• Native American
• (sic)Philosophy and Spirituality
• Inner Worlds Music label

Discussion at the RS/N hasn't turned up anything either. It seems that Lotus Press is not a WP:RS.

Additionally, a lot of material cites The Original Reiki Handbook of Dr. Mikao Usui. As the creator of reiki, Usui is a primary source, to be used for limited, simple factual statements. The source, however, is used with considerable range in this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I am adding consideration of New Leaf Distributing Company as their article indicates they have been acquired by the founder (or maybe parent company) of Lotus Press. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I am still waiting for any comments on Lotus Press/New Leaf Distributing Company. I can find nothing to indicate they are reliable sources. I'll wait a few days more before removing them. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree, the Lotus Press homepage also lists their "specific specialties" [sic] as Aromatherapy, Ayurveda, Reiki, Herbalism, Vedic Astrology—woo woo. Not a RS publisher. Deleting all these references will winnow the chaff out of this article. Thanks for your useful improvements. Keahapana (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Last call before I yank the Lotus Press sources... - SummerPhD (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yank away. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I've removed all of the Lotus Press/New Leaf sources, other than the Usui (primary) source, which is next. After that, I'll let it sit for a bit before losing all of the unsourced material. After that is the grueling work of weeding through all of the other sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The Original Reiki Handbook of Dr. Mikao Usui

This is a primary source and should not be used as the basis for large portions of the article. At the moment, it is cited over 30 times. At best, it should be mentioned in the history section. If independent reliable sources do not discuss an issue of reiki, this article should not discuss that issue. Taking info from primary sources that is not found in independent sources gives weight to that material which is not supported by secondary sources. Comments before I start paring this down? - SummerPhD (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Principles of Reiki

Any indication this is a WP:RS? Is "Thorsons"? - SummerPhD (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No responses. I haven't been able to find anything. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Unknown source

"Miles, P. & True, G., 2003, p. 63" is currently cited. If anyone can find this source, provide a usable cite and argue that it is a reliable source, I'm all ears. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Assorted publishers

Any indication Piatkus, Crossing Press and Adams Media Corporation are reliable sources? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Various "federations"

UK Reiki Federation, International Reiki Federation and The Riki Council all need independent reliable sources to establish them as authoritative. Anyone? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

One-off sources

"Reiki News Magazine", angelreiki.nu and threshold.ca are all cited once each. Any indication any of these are reliable sources? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

pseudoscience categorization requires a WP:V citation

a distinction needs to be made between a claim something is pseudo-scientific, and absence of claim it is scientific, or a claim that it is not scientific. regards 89.216.196.129 (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the expression "Reiki is a pseudoscience" by "currently considered as a form of pseudoscience". Also added a second reference about that. --Dan editor (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this article under "ArbCom enforcement" and if so, what does that mean?

I was just informed on my Talk page: "The article is under ArbCom enforcement, so no new cases should be necessary at all. Instead, editors are informed that such enforcement applies, are given a formal notice if the problems continue, and are considered for sanctions if the problems continue still."

Where is this indicated? And what does it mean? --Tsavage (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see Jytdog has added the ArbCom notice to this page, as well as helpfully answering my question by putting an alert on my Talk page. I now understand what ArbCom enforcement and Discretionary sanctions are about! --Tsavage (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarcasm is soooo helpful. I don't know which case(s) them were referring to, but I see several that apply under Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Arbitration_cases. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Any sarcasm you may detect is directed at Jytdog, who rather than answering here my question about "ArbCom enforcement" posted here, put a "Notice of discretionary sanctions" template on my Talk page, followed by a note saying, "in answer to this question, which i happened to notice," linking to this thread. I've now read some of the discretionary sanctions background, and find it disturbing that an editor would even mention invoking that in regard to any part of my discussion above. Anyhow, the article is now clearly tagged for Discretionary sanctions, so future unaware editors will be able to inform themselves. --Tsavage (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)