Talk:Reiki
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reiki article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 28 days  |
 | Reiki was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Delisted good article | ||||||||||||||||
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to complementary and alternative medicine. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
Channeling Reiki
The practitioner is meant to be a conduit for ‘universal life energy’ the energy is not transferred from the practitioner. The practitioner is a conduit for which energy flows through. 96.42.178.93 (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
- In other words, to interpret your comment above, if the practitioner is a "conduit for which energy flows through", then the (fictitious) energy is transferred from the practitioner. It's all a load of baloney anyway, so semantics in this case doesn't matter.
- I wouldn't change our article in any way following this comment. - Roxy the dog 16:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
- I thought wiki articles were supposed to be unbiased Bgmenconi (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nope, they are not. They are supposed to be biased for mainstream science. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- What @Tgeorgescu: said was very helpful to me. Despite the title of WP:NPOV, English Wikipedia is written from a mainstream Western scientific point of view. The concept of an encyclopedia is itself a mainstream Western scientific idea. So that is what you will get. I think "neutral" is a loaded term that throws people off, but, hey, that's how mainstream Western science sees itself.
- Personally I am grateful for Reiki practitioners and other energy healers, and for the mainstream scientists and skeptics who want to debunk them. Both are trying to make a more peaceful, happier world, each in their own way. As we observe, both can coexist just fine. ~2026-99194-7 (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
- Nope, they are not. They are supposed to be biased for mainstream science. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- I thought wiki articles were supposed to be unbiased Bgmenconi (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- This locked Wiki page is full of flaws & mistruths, first and foremost in calling it pseudoscience, as Reiki is in over 800 hospitals in the USA . It is from these hospitals where the numerous studies of reiki, it’s positive affects & the benefits for patients take place.
- Unfortunately it appears that there is one individual in particular who has control over this page who is determined to place their feelings about Reiki above the really and scientific conclusions which over and over conclude that Reiki is real as it results in real-life healing benefits far beyond placebo-effect. ~2025-42486-97 (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- The hospitals play a very cynical game. This source explains it: https://www.nature.com/articles/526295a tgeorgescu (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Revert
The overhaul replaced two WP:RS with sources which are not WP:IS. So, I have reverted it. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Recent edits
@Jalsever: We don't deny your civil and political rights, but Wikipedia is definitely not the place to write advertorials for alt-med.
What can you do about it? Read WP:NPOV top to bottom. Then read it again.
About WP:FALSEBALANCE: Wikipedia is not a level playing field for a match between alt-med and mainstream medicine. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)