I see it's been rewritten since I looked yesterday. Now, ''in general'' my view is that having the ''names'' of modern scholars/whatevers in the lead of an article like this should mostly be avoided, though a summary of their ''views'' is often [[WP:LEAD]]-appropriate. Also, ''none'' of the names included have very much coverage in this article, so repeating them in the lead is not "appropriate weight". That's my 2 qi. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 10:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I see it's been rewritten since I looked yesterday. Now, ''in general'' my view is that having the ''names'' of modern scholars/whatevers in the lead of an article like this should mostly be avoided, though a summary of their ''views'' is often [[WP:LEAD]]-appropriate. Also, ''none'' of the names included have very much coverage in this article, so repeating them in the lead is not "appropriate weight". That's my 2 qi. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 10:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, the situation seems to going from bad to worse. I do not see how any of these names are important to the topic of Reiki. <small><small>This seems like POV pushing, something which I have been accused of to no end concerning this article (and I have edited the article all but twice to add a POV tag).</small></small>
:I have at least tallied the current consensus on the very bottom of the appropriate section of [[WP:NPOV/N#Use_of_contentious_labels_in_lead_of_an_article|WP:NPOV/N]], but I think it is discourteous to be significantly editing the article while it is being debated without notifying the appropriate discussion venues. -[[User:Konanen|Konanen]] ([[User talk:Konanen|talk]]) 11:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 10:25, November 15, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.
USE OF TECHNICAL TERMS AS BUZZWORDS
The terms "scientific" and related forms, and "metaphysical" and related forms are used in ways that have little accuracy. This article should be rewritten to use such terms more carefully, or to avoid them altogether. As it stands this article is just twaddle. 100.4.205.238 (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ways that have little accuracy What ways are those?
I have to agree with OP′s criticism. The first sentence in the article alone is showing bias by terming Reiki “pseudoscientific form of...”, which is not what Wikipedia is (or should be) about. It would already suffice to have “energy healing” link to the appropriate article where the efficacy of such healing methods are called into question.
In the first two paragraphs of the article, Reiki is again called a pseudoscience (though I am not aware of direct scientific claims made by Reiki practitioners), as well as “quackery”. This is, in my opinion, a serious breach of neutrality and objectivity, which is one of the fundamental principles guiding Wikipedia.
On a side note, the claim of clinical research not showing “reiki to be effective as a treatment for any medical condition” is, with the exception of Reference [6], seriously outdated, with support for the final conclusion that studies reporting positive effects having had methodological flaws being 15 years out of date, which is a very long time as seen from the lens of ever-evolving medical research. Indeed, there are a few results of clinical trials out there which suggest at least some benefit of reiki in managing pain and anxiety (e.g. doi:10.1093/eurjcn/zvae051, or doi:10.3389/fpysg.2022.897312), but I am not in the medical field and while I enjoy reading medical research, I cannot with certainty judge whether those trials/reviews have methodological flaws that would render the articles unreliable.
Going back to the topic at hand, the Wikipedia article goes on (Section: Conceptual Basis) to use loaded words such as “claim”, which the Manual of Style warns against, and reiterates the view of Reiki being “thus [a] pseudoscientific practice based on metaphysical concepts”. We again have a third (fourth?) mention of Reiki being a pseudoscientific practice, which is seriously and unduly influencing readers of this article by now, if it has not already happened in the first few paragraphs.
To be clear, I am not advocating for complete removal of all scepticism or reference to the questionability of Reiki from this article, but I am seriously calling out the assigned value, lacking impartiality and imbalance of its tone. --Konanen (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read WP:YESBIAS and WP:FRINGE. No, we will not hide the fact that reiki is bullshit behind the energy medicine link. WP:CLAIM says To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question. It does not say that this is always a bad thing. Here, it is not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to ask you to retract the “bullshit” wording, and I am going to ask it only once. If you do not, I consider you as not acting in good faith or with neutrality, and will escalate this issue. Thank you. Konanen (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Bullshit" is just a short summary of what reliable sources say: magic handwaving is not effective against any afflictions. Pointing that out is not a violation of WP:NPOV and not a reason to violate WP:AGF. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We try to avoid using terms like pseudoscientific unless they are used correctly. That is, we want to use this term when it's "strictly speaking, it's a type of pseudoscience" rather than "I like to call things pseudoscience when they don't work – let me tell you about the pile of pseudoscientific garbage I had to have hauled back to the car dealer's repair shop last week...".
If Reiki puts itself forward as a scientific practice, then it's pseudoscience. If it puts itself forward as a non-science (e.g., if Reiki were to claim to be a type of fine art, or a new religion), then it's not.
--Dustfreeworld (talk) has hugged you! Hugs promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better (and hopefully wasn't meant as an invasion of personal space). Spread the WikiLove by hugging at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! This hug is not quackery, not pseudoscience. Hug others by adding {{subst:Hug}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
You state that "I am not aware of direct scientific claims made by Reiki practitioners" but the fundamental claim of Reiki is that it can "heal" people. It is often called the "Reiki system of natural healing." This is the scientific claim that Reiki is a form of medical treatment, which is defined as "the management and care of a patient to combat disease or disorder."
At its core, what makes Reiki a pseudoscience is that it relies on faith, not the scientific method. This is due to its claim that its healing powers come from the practitioner's control of a "life-force energy" when there is no empirical evidence that such an energy exists or can be controlled even if it does exist. Presently, any belief in a "life-force energy" is based on faith which is the opposite of belief based on science. MoralMoney (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's correct. I don't think that Reiki relies on faith, and even if it did, faith isn't pseudoscience.
Religion/faith is a Non-science. There's a popular slogan that "non-science is nonsense", but like most slogans, it will lead you astray. Being non-science doesn't mean "wrong" or "pseudoscience". History, languages, and fine art are all non-science, but they're not nonsense and they're not pseudoscience. Non-sciene doesn't even mean unimportant; human values are non-science, and they're important.
Let's lay it out. The wiki article states that "Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method." The scientific method requires two main things: 1) a testable hypotheses, and 2) empirical data to test the hypothesis.
Reiki makes the claim that practitioners can use qi to "heal" people. This is not a testable hypothesis because we can't get data to support it. The reason is because this "life-force energy," or "qi" is not observable and cannot be shown to exist. Because Reiki formulates a hypothesis that is neither testable nor measurable or observable, it is the prototypical example of a pseudoscience.
To wit, if practitioners claimed that waving their hands around, concentrating and relaxing helps treat anxiety and perceptions of pain, then okay. We're being scientific. We can measure the gestures, we can measure perceptions of pain and anxiety and see if they relate. But as soon as you attribute the effects to "life force energy," something that cannot be observed, then it's a pseudoscience. It claims to be scientific and factual (with a cause and effect) but is incompatible with the scientific method because "qi" is unobservable an immeasurable. MoralMoney (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MoralMoney, you said above that what makes Reiki a pseudoscience is that it relies on faith. I disagree with this statement. Your analysis here disagrees with that statement. The definition of pseudoscience disagrees with this statement. Reiki is IMO pseudoscientific, but not because it relies on faith. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, do you not know what a non-testable hypothesis or a testable hypothesis is? Testable hypotheses are the foundation of science. A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. Reiki posits a non-testable hypothesis because its causal variable is unobservable and requires a practitioner's faith for them to believe they are providing actual medical treatment. So, yes, it is most certainly their faith, as opposed to actual observation of a life-force energy, that makes their assertions untestable and therefore pseudoscience.
To elaborate, because I'm at a loss as to why you don't get this, a hypothesis may be impossible to test either 1) because it is logically impossible to falsify, or 2) one or more of the variables are unobservable. The statement that "alien lifeforms exist" is not testable because we cannot currently observe enough of the universe to prove this to be false. It requires faith to believe they exist. Honestly, I'm spelling this out like 1+1=2 here so please don't come back saying 1+1=3 anymore. MoralMoney (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, what are you doing? Anyone reading this will understand that Reiki practitioners don't just claim they are healing people. They claim they are healing people by using some kind of "life-force energy." Please see above to understand how and why that is pseudoscience. You should probably stop now. MoralMoney (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them do. Consider what this source says: "none of these mechanisms make sense scientifically. Some believe trauma is stored in our cells and therapeutic touch can restore communication between cells (a claim cell biologists would definitely frown upon). Others say the iron in our blood creates an electromagnetic field as it circulates, and this aura can be manipulated. Finally, Reiki traditionalists simply claim to channel their god’s divine energy."
That last is strictly religious, and therefore not pseudoscience. Detecting the existence of and any changes in an electromagnetic field, on the other hand, should be easily testable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that both parties agree that Reiki is in fact a pseudoscience, that it purports to make scientific claims, and that said claims are not in fact science, and thus no change in relation to this point is currently required for this article, might I suggest that discussion on the finer points of what may or may not constitute a pseudoscience and which specific claims are pseudoscientific be relegated to a different forum? Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Konanen, ...pseudoscience ... “quackery” ... in my opinion, a serious breach of neutrality and objectivity...
Reference ... seriously outdated ... 15 years out of date, which is a very long time as seen from the lens of ever-evolving medical research.
While I agree that the intro does lean heavily into the "quackery" side of the facts which revolve around reiki, the use of the term "scientific" and "pseudoscience" is accurate. In referring to science, we are referencing the scientific method, which at its base involves making testable statements (hypotheses) and testing the validity of the statement with evidence. What is unscientific about reiki is it's claim that the healing effects are due to qi, or some universal energy. On its face this may sound like a testable hypothesis, but in practice it relies solely on faith. Faith and science are logical opposites, in that faith relies on belief without evidence while science requires evidence for the belief. While faith, in any form, may be beneficial to a healing process, it should not be confused with actual scientific-based medicine which can cure disease and treat injury.
The other problems with reiki come from the evidence used to support the more peripheral testable assertions. For example, if we set aside the faith-based aspects of reiki (i.e. the belief in qi) and focus on the claims of "healing," there is little support. I think what can be said is that reiki may relieve some specific subjective symptoms, such as perceptions of pain and levels of stress or anxiety, the claims that reiki can "heal" in any conventional sense of the term, are shown to be unsupported by evidence. So the claims that reiki can "heal" along with the lack of evidence for the claim, make reiki a pseudoscience.
Maintaining the statements regarding science are important to this article and to the people who inform themselves with the article. For example, if a parent believes that reiki has proven healing powers they may forgo conventional medical treatment for their child when the child faces a real illness which requires actual medical treatment. MoralMoney (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a pattern that you are tag-bombing alt-med articles. Even assuming that you're basically right: why so many tags? tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”…assuming that you're basically right” Thanks. Perhaps the more appropriate question that we should ask would be: why our article has so many problems that need tagging/fixing? May be because those who would have fixed the problem were scared away already? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to my initial point, saying that Reiki is a pseudoscientific form of energy healing implies that there is an actual scientific form of energy healing. I propose to strike that word without replacement from the sentence, since reference to pseudoscience is made elsewhere in the lead, so that the first sentence of the lede reads as follows:
Furthermore, I propose to remove the subclause referring to quackery from the first sentence of the second paragraph in the lead, for running afoul of WP:SOAPBOX, and because WP:YESBIAS does not allow editorial bias, which the inclusion of this word clearly is, since it serves no other purpose than to push a specific WP:POV unwarrantedly. In fact, the first reference [4] does not even use the word in question at all. All that the referred-to page 20 of the book has to say about reiki is:
These pseudoscientific theories may be based upon authority rather than empirical observation (e.g. old-school psychoanalysis, New Age psychotherapies, Thought Field Therapy), concern the unobservable (e.g. orgone energy, chi), confuse metaphysical with empirical claims (e.g. acupuncture, cellular memory, reiki (emphasis added), therapeutic touch, Ayurvedic medicine), or even maintain views that contradict known scientific laws (e.g. homeopathy).
— David Semple & Roger Smyth, “Psychomythology”, Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry (2013)
The other reference tagged to the word quackery, however, does attribute said word to Reiki. Yet that source amounts to nothing more than a WP:QUESTIONABLErant opinion piece whose inclusion in the lead definitely skews the balance of the article unduly. Thus, I propose the first sentence of the second paragraph to be modified as follows:
I welcome suggestions for additional changes or modifications of that last proposal, and I will be adding the {{POV}} template to the page immediately. Thank you for your consideration! –Konanen (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the word “quackery” is inappropriate. It strikes a slangy, unencyclopedic tone, and carries connotations of fraud that would need much stronger sourcing. For the practice to be genuinely fraudulent, practitioners would have to know that it’s nonsense, rather than merely having religious or spiritual beliefs about it. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...the word “quackery” is inappropriate. It strikes a slangy, unencyclopedic tone, and carries connotations of fraud that would need much stronger sourcing.
"Quackery" is the standard terminology for medical pseudoscience, harsh though it may be on the ears. Definitions of "quackery" (such as those cited in our article on the term) do not require that quacks be frauds - sometimes they are just ignorant of proper medicine. MrOllie (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that it's standard (the article is linked in 2,000 articles; we have more articles about medical pseudoscience than that), and I'm not sure that it's necessary. The implications of the word are different from "just wrong" (like a doctor recommending ineffective, though mainstream, cough syrup to someone with the common cold) or "pseudoscience" (like someone claiming that Haloperidol prevents psychotic breaks through quantum effects in the neural network).
Does anyone have the Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry source to hand to verify what exactly is said with respect to quackery? The only other source we have is essentially polemical. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It says "These pseudoscientific theories may...confuse metaphysical with empirical claims (e.g., acupuncture, cellular memory, reiki, therapeutic touch, Ayurvedic medicine....". The word quackery is not used anywhere in the book, and this is the only sentence in the book that mentions reiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because that source doesn't mention quackery doesn't mean we can't use the word. I don't understand why some people are allergic to it. It's a good description of "over promotion of dubious methods". That's what quacks do, and is the working definition at Quackwatch, the world's foremost mainstream authorities on quackery. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Reiki does not have to "puts itself forward as a scientific practice" for the word "pseudoscience" to apply. Quacks and charlatans never use pejoratives about themselves. What they "put themselves out to be" has no influence on the matter. Reiki makes falsifiable claims that go beyond the realm of religion and metaphysics. The moment a practice makes falsifiable claims, it enters the scientific arena where legitimate criticism applies. That's where many religions get in trouble. Their metaphysical claims are not pseudoscience, but their falsifiable claims are. That's where Christian Science and Creation science get in trouble. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to argue against using the word pseudoscience. That seems fine. Quackery, on the other hand, is not an appropriate term, since it has connotations of wrongdoing (fraudulence). I'm not swayed by the argument that quackery can also mean mere ignorance, because (a) dictionaries aren't aligned on this: e.g. a Google search for "quackery" (arguably the first port of call for most readers) returns a definition from Oxford Languages of dishonest practices and claims to have special knowledge and skill in some field, typically medicine., and (b) even where dishonesty is given as just one possible aspect of quackery, that still grants a connotative quality to the word that makes it imply wrongdoing.
We know that some practitioners of reiki are sincere, or at least we cannot prove that they are not, and so a charge of dishonesty would be wrong. It's not a lot different to intercessory prayer: just because it's nonsense (scientifically speaking) doesn't mean the people doing it are liars. (OK, perhaps some of them are, but all of them? Or even a majority?).
There is no proof of the effectiveness of reiki therapy compared to placebo changed to Studies have shown that Reiki therapy is more effective than a placebo[1]
There's no source given for the claim that there is no proof of Reiki's effectiveness compared to placebo, and there are studies that show its effectiveness beyond placebo (see source).
In addition, the sentence In 2011, William T. Jarvis of The National Council Against Health Fraud stated that there "is no evidence that clinical reiki's effects are due to anything other than suggestion" or the placebo effect. should be struck for accuracy
^McManus DE. Reiki Is Better Than Placebo and Has Broad Potential as a Complementary Health Therapy. J Evid Based Complementary Altern Med. 2017 Oct;22(4):1051-1057. doi: 10.1177/2156587217728644. Epub 2017 Sep 5. PMID: 28874060; PMCID: PMC5871310.
Lock this article?
Can wiki editors lock this article for a bit? It seems like it has been headed toward an edit war. There are sound, logical arguments that Reiki is a pseudoscience, however those arguments are not being heard. Perhaps those wanting to change this have too much stake in the Reiki industry? MoralMoney (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a tentative consensus that the term quackery is considered too loaded to be contained in the lead. Reversions of removals of such are not appreciated without full consensus. I furthermore object to the removal of the POV Template, @Valjean. Please revert, or I will do so myself. -Konanen (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, some have opined that quackery is not fitting. But rationally I fail to see why Reiki should not be called quackery: they are pretending that they are able to heal people suffering from real diseases. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Konanen, your own statements above, and those of a now topic banned editor, don't count for much in a discussion of this topic as you reveal a lack of understanding of how we allow biased terminology in articles when they are backed by RS. Quackery is not exactly synonymous with pseudoscience, and is a properly-sourced term. Enough with the whitewashing of Reiki. The word is in the second paragraph, not first, so be happy for that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve seen this discussion for a bit now, only started reading up on it today. I have not seen any valid evidence or arguments provided by anyone (be it the now topicbanned editor or any others) to support why we cannot call a duck a duck in wikivoice, so to speak. It is a medical pseudoscience and that fact is not disputed by any reputable scientists. People do dispute (rightfully so) how much of a placebo effect reiki has on people - but there is broad consensus that there is no scientific basis for any actual effect resulting from the reiki treatment. Unless editors intend to start attempting to prove this assertion wrong (against the plethora of sources in the article now, in other words virtually impossible), I think it would be good to seek further topic bans, as it is unproductive to allow people who refuse to accept pseudoscience as pseudoscience to participate in the topic area and waste time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my views - the article is neutral, it simply calls a duck a duck, which some people who think a duck is a unicorn (at least sometimes) don’t like. That is not grounds for an NPOV tag, it is not grounds for removing the statements calling a duck a duck, and it’s not grounds for including immense detail of those who call a duck a unicorn. The article is more than sufficient in the claims of efficacy and how they’ve been debunked, as well as noting its historical significance (though that section correctly has an expansion needed tag, which is proper imo). There is absolutely no grounds for NPOV tags just because some people don’t like the fact we report facts as they are, not as the person wants them to be. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don’t see a problem with it - to find the energy medicine sentence it’s in a different article. I’d be neutral to a rewording to something like is a form of energy healing, a pseudoscientific category of treatments, but it’s longer and I don’t see any real benefit in it since it’s not actually repetitive. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV tag
I completely understand why @Valjean: added the NPOV tag back - but I think it is prudent to start a discussion to allow people to identify exactly what is not neutral about this article. If no editor comes with a new argument as to why the article is non-neutral within a week or so (7 days), at the absolute most, then it should be removed. For the record, I am against an NPOV tag and I see no neutrality issue - but I am opening this section to allow for the discussion to take place and any editor with neutrality concerns for this article to come forward and present the exact concerns for resolution. I understand the above discussion is still ongoing - but that discussion is about one specific thing (the word quackery and more broadly the use of pseudoscience as a descriptor).
If that is the only concern, it is better addressed by simply removing it until a consensus forms here (even though one seems close already), rather than a tag at the top of the article as a badge of shame. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the current article I agree with you - but in the potential article size, it isn’t. It seems a bit interesting that the Catholic church (which has a foothold on a significant minority if not majority of hospitals in the USA) has formulated a viewpoint on it that has resulted in it being effectively banned from those hospitals. Perhaps the section could/should be reworked to be about the medical practice in the USA rather than the Catholic church - but it’s still significant given the number of practicing Catholics in the world imo. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that there needs to be any qualified raison d’être of the POV tag that delivers any further justification other than those I have given about my POV concerns on WP:NPOV/N. Indeed, the Dispute over tags section at WP:TAGGING clearly states:
Some tags, such as {{POV}}, often merely indicate the existence of one editor's concern, without taking a stand whether the article complies with Wikipedia policies. It is important to remember that the POV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is a current discussion about whether the article complies with the neutral point of view policy. In any NPOV dispute, there will usually be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some who disagree. In general, you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved or—according to the rules for this specific template—when the discussion has stopped for a significant length of time.
The discussion has been stagnant for all of six (6) days, and I would argue that that does not qualify as a significant length of time. I do not know about others, but I tend to be WP:BUSY in my social, academic, and professional life, and usually have time during public holidays, sick days, or especially low-activity weekends to edit on Wikipedia. While that is neither here nor there, since I trust I need not justify six days’ lack of engagement on my part to anyone (There is no requirement in Wikipedia policies that editors must "pay their dues" by working on an article before they can add a tag, so long as they explain the rationale for the tag on the talk page, as per WP:DRIVEBY), I nonetheless do not think the current discussion, which involves quite a few editors, and is lacking a clear consensus (though it does indicate enough difference of opinion to warrant a prolonged discussion) justifies the removal of the POV tag. -Konanen (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If neither you nor anyone else is able to start "a current discussion about whether the article complies with the neutral point of view policy", then yes, it should be removed. You've not been so busy as to avoid replying a dozen times on ANI in the past 2 days. So you shouldn't be too busy to actually address your tag here. As you quote: so long as they explain the rationale for the tag on the talk page. There's a clear consensus you're wrong - so the WP:ONUS is now on you to clarify why you think this tag is necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I do not agree that there needs to be any qualified raison d’être of the POV tag that delivers any further justification ..." You are incorrect. The tag is a "cleanup tag", meant to draw other editors to participate in resolving the POV issue that you have identified when you add the tag. If you don't leave an explanation identifying the issue then whatever the issue is cannot be resolved. The tag cannot be left to say "this article isn't neutral!" with no follow-up, that is not its purpose, and it is also improper to add the tag with a promise to explain later. With the discussion at NPOVN being substantially resolved (in spite of your objection to the resolution; see WP:CONSENSUS) I will now remove the tag. If you have a different POV issue to discuss then you may wish to re-add the tag when you start a new discussion. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead again
I see it's been rewritten since I looked yesterday. Now, in general my view is that having the names of modern scholars/whatevers in the lead of an article like this should mostly be avoided, though a summary of their views is often WP:LEAD-appropriate. Also, none of the names included have very much coverage in this article, so repeating them in the lead is not "appropriate weight". That's my 2 qi. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the situation seems to going from bad to worse. I do not see how any of these names are important to the topic of Reiki. This seems like POV pushing, something which I have been accused of to no end concerning this article (and I have edited the article all but twice to add a POV tag).
I have at least tallied the current consensus on the very bottom of the appropriate section of WP:NPOV/N, but I think it is discourteous to be significantly editing the article while it is being debated without notifying the appropriate discussion venues. -Konanen (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
