Talk:Crystal healing

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 5 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Arosa045.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aweeder13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Pretty ironic that this article uses the vatican to debunk crystal healing. The sources were vatican published and not peer reviewed either so they're just as bad. I'm sure we can find better actual scientific sources instead of "Your magic is different from my magic and therefore invalid" Nefariousski (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Are you saying that the Vatican was citing theology as if it were proof against crystal healing? Or is the "Your magic is different from my magic" line primarily derived from antipathy towards the Vatican? (Because given its position that evolution, among other science, is both entirely accurate and perfectly reconcilable with Biblical tradition, it is neither a settled point of logic, nor is it ever likely to be, the notion that the Catholic Church is somehow automatically incapable of reasoning scientifically, simply by virtue of it being a church.) 2602:30A:C000:9590:A120:4BCB:96E4:E755 (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've removed reference to charmstones since these are real artifacts of uncertain purpose. Mangoe (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

The paragraph

"When the stones are placed in the area of the chakras, the colour of the stones may correspond to the colour which is said to be associated with the corresponding chakra"

Seems to imply that the stones change color. I suspect that different colors are chosen to place on different areas. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

A series of edits has been made (and reverted) that removed sourced content, changed content in a manner that did not reflect the sources cited and removed tags without discussion and resolution. This is against policy. Discussion can be carried on here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Nice work, MrBill3. bobrayner (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi MrBill3, I think the items I tagged as buzzwords should be replaced with phrasing more easily understood by the casual reader. AadaamS (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why are "chakra" and "energy grid" marked as buzzwords? Wouldn't it be better to note (like an encyclopedia would) that proponents of energy healing are unclear on what specifically they mean by terms like these? Labeling these terms as buzzwords and calling them 'designed to impress or confuse' is little more than intellectual name-calling, and is ultimately just a rhetorical tactic devoid of actual logical substance; if a crystal-healing practitioner labelled the "pseudoscience" moniker with the tag "buzzword," what would be your defense?

Instead of resorting to labels that just perpetuate terminology-wars, encyclopedias are supposed to describe relationships and illuminate concepts. Accordingly, I am going to illuminate the concepts "chakra" and "energy grid" and reveal their lack of proper scientific well-definition, after which I will eliminate the rhetorical-intellectual name-calling (to avoid giving crystal healers any ideas about how they should fight rhetorically as a way to compensate for their inferior evidence). 2602:30A:C000:9590:A120:4BCB:96E4:E755 (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think these changes have improved the article and the points made above are valid. I didn't object to the tags as I felt further illumination was required. To my view that has been provided adequately and with a NPOV. Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to improve the article. BTW I think your point on "pseudoscience" as a buzzword is worth serious consideration. Does it concisely convey a well understood meaning accurately applied or is it a condescending label applied with limited support or illumination? Obviously something to be considered on a case by case basis. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, my objection to using terms such as chakra is that first of all, it's not an English word to begin with. If I were to write an article about bœuf bourguignon I wouldn't try to use the phrase "bœuf bourguignon" throughout the article, I would refer to the dish because in Wikipedia we should use plain English, WP:UPE. IN this case, instead of writing "place crystals according to chakra" I would prefer "the practicioner places crystals on parts of the body". That's what factually happens. My defence for the word pseudoscience would involve using simpler English, like unscientific. My understanding is that we shold avoid jargon that only experts in the field understand, I think this is a good place to apply this. Thanks for raising the issue. So I don't think it helps much to give a more precise definition of what practicioners (or believers) mean by chakra and then using the word throughout the article. All instance of the word ought to be replaced by something in English, then of course a sentence or paragraph of the article can deal with a brief summary of what is meant by the term chakra. There's already a main article about chakra. AadaamS (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Some practicioners refer to the electromagnetic fields created by the heart and brain in the context of crystal healing. I don't want to do the work of making this info encyclopedic myself, but it should be a part of this article :)

And then we could link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetocardiography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.197.67 (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

You would need reliable sources first (and that might be rather a problem), but if you "don't want to do the work ..." - aw well. Vsmith (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

This repeatedly restored edit upends the mainstream opinion presented in this article on the fringe idea discussed. "Crystal healing" is a fringe theory which departs significantly from mainstream science and has little or no scientific support. As a result, "chakras" are "so-called", the "energy grid" is "purported" and "scientific investigations have not validated claims that chakras or energy grids actually exist".

Efforts to promote and defend the practice have no place here. Wikipedia exists to present the proponents' fringe, pseudoscientific claims as fringe pseudoscience and the relevant scientific/academic consensus as science. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've asked for page protection. Alexbrn (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think the use of the word pseudoscience right off the bat here is highly emotive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Criticism_of_the_term

Your average person on the street does not know this word or its meaning, and it is a word used by those of a skeptical inclination primarily. I have found myself checking the definition of the word from different sources as it seems quite broad and I am not sure what this word is trying to communicate a lot of the time.

I cannot see how this "definitive" label is useful in the first sentence can be justified whatsoever. I believe it can be used later in the article, even in the homeopathy wikipedia entry it is the 2nd sentence AND also explains what "pseudoscience" is, as "a belief that is incorrectly presented as scientific." In the acupuncture entry pseudoscience is the last line of the 1st paragraph.

I think crystal healers (I saw one 15 years ago and believe the man was completely deluded btw), have no inclination to be scientific whatsoever. It is excruciatingly clear however that crystal healers present claims which cannot be scientifically validated.

Although "crystal healing" may be a convenient scapegoat for "alternative medicine" by skeptics, a search for "crystal healers in your local community on google will likely only come up with a handful of people and they will often be utilising other modalities as well.

Probrooks (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's "emotive"? Maybe, but so what? I'm sure there are tens of thousands of articles that right off the back arouse strong emotions in anywhere from a scant few to most readers.

The average person doesn't know what the word means? Doubtful. It's generally accepted that newspapers are written for the average reader. A quick search of nytimes.com finds thousands of articles with the term. The first page of that search has the term in the headline.Case in point:[1] (and yes, crystal healing is included).

Usage of the term varies? Sure, language is like that. I literally cannot think of an exception.

It's not "definitive". This takes us back to the last point: I'm not sure what you mean. If you are saying it's arguable, I refer you to WP:FRINGE. As the relevant academic sources make clear, this is nonsense on stilts and we call a spade a spade on fringe topics. If you are saying it isn't a defining aspect of crystal healing, I invite you to consider if "alternative medicine" is. There are certainly people trying to use the non-existent energy for other than medical purposes. Heck, we have reports of people using glass for this (which doesn't change the outcome), which is neither stone nor crystals. That said, "crystal healing", variations aside, uses imaginary energy "focused"/controlled/created/regulated by crystals to treat real or imagined medical complaints. Without casting aside variations, it is pseudoscience as various forms of energy are controlled/created/regulated in various ways in science. Crystal healing makes testable (scientific) claims. None of them hold up.

Other articles put it further down? Perhaps we should argue that they should move it further up based on this article? Maybe those articles are right. Maybe they are wrong. Maybe they are differing questions.

There is no need for searching to find "scapegoats" in alternative medicine. The field ranges from plausible but untested claims to outright nonsense. There is no shortage of ideas anywhere along that spectrum. Each claim should stand on its own. If it's utter bullshit, we should (bot often don't) bury it on its own lack of merits. If it is verified, it is no longer "alternative". That "practitioners" combine it with other pseudoscience (and, on occasion, mainstream science (often without a license)) is immaterial. (Serving a homeopathic "treatment" for drowsiness along with coffee in the morning and sleep hygiene at night doesn't change the simple fact that homeopathy is nonsense.)

If you disagree, I'd recommend the fringe theories noticeboard. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

(I have reformatted the following response to undo interspersing of comments within my own, per WP:TALK.)

I don't have a major problem with the word being used in the article, as I understand the official position on fringe topics. But I think labeling crystal healing in the first sentence with a slightly esoteric and controversial term I think is also going to confuse people and is not clear communication.

I always thought the world meant, "masquarading and pretending to be science", but there seems to be this wider definition, which means not verified by modern mainstream science. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-pseudoscience/

ok, if usage is not clear and this word is more than a bit fuzzy, why are you defending its use in the first sentence? Why should this change be such a big deal?

One academic source is cited here, please do share others if you know of others.

Perhaps you can improve this article by explaining some of the claims made by crystal healers? I am aware there are claims made for cystals you see in New Agey shops. But I haven't come across this elsewhere.

Obviously, they are all alternative medicine. However, I would say, in the real world, as I already stated, I don't think many people actually go see a crystal healer to treat medical conditions. They might go see a crystal healer to open some chakras... but even then, where are secondary sources for scientific claims made by crystal healers? The only claims I can find are made by Marcel Vogel who was a bone fide scientist with real contributions made to his field with 27 years working for IBM and many significant patents. http://www.vogelcrystals.net/legacy_of_marcel_vogel.htm

Well, many people disagree with your personal point of views, but you already know that I am sure ;-)

Disagreeing is pointless on wikipedia, what is more relevant is secondary sources and clear editing. I think wording is important, how something is communicated, it has already been talked about here that the word pseudoscience is something of a buzzword and one user here has also stated that even the word pseudoscience in regards to crystal healing is generous here, which also tells us of the confusing nature of this word. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Words_that_may_introduce_bias

Ok, so the word pseudoscience can be used as an exception to words that create bias, but it is also clearly a biased one, and so should be used judiciously, one that is unnecesary to use in the first sentence. It is enough to say "there is no scientific basis for this claim." which is said in the 2nd sentence, which clearly communicates all that the reader needs to know.

Probrooks (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

A "slightly esoteric and controversial term"? The term is widely used, as evidenced by its appearance in mainstream newspapers' headlines. There is no controversy in labeling fringe claims as what they are, other than to the degree that fringe sources disagree with the mainstream.

The usage/meaning is no less clear than that of the majority of terms in every article. Yes, "new agey shops" are one of several places this woo is to be found. The practice there is no less valid that that of "practitioners" with independent businesses. The problem with clarifying the variations of the nonsense is that reliable sources don't really delve into it, saying little more than that this is nonsense. While numerous self-published books by self-declared experts prattle on about imaginary meridians, imaginary energies, imaginary "chakras", etc., Wikipedia specifically and deliberately limits its coverage of fringe claims based on what mainstream sources have to say.

Yes, various words create bias: "pseudoscience", "murder", "theft", "genocide", etc. Nevertheless,

With regard to the term "pseudoscience": per the policy Neutral point of view, pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such". Per the content guideline, fringe theories, the term "pseudoscience" may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science, supported by reliable sources. WP:LABEL

A quick check of scholar.google.com shows no shortage of academic sources that have no problem calling crystal healing pseudoscience. This is not limited based on whether it is being hawked in new age-y shops or by "practitioners". This is not limited based on the use of actual crystals or polished rocks. This is not limited based no whether claims are for actual illnesses (cancer, arthritis, HIV/AIDS, etc.) or nonsensical babble (blocked "chakras"). At the moment, the article has one peer-reviewed journal that labels it and several mainstream publications. Yes, we need more academic sources. Are you disputing that such sources use the label? If so, that can be step #1.

(Incidentally, that Vogel made valuable contributions to science with patents and other work in the field of luminescence obviously has no bearing whatsoever in unrelated fields. Julia Childs was, by all accounts, one hell of a cook, but I wouldn't trust her opinions on luminescence or medicine any more than I'd trust Vogel on medicine or French cooking.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I disagree that using a label in the first sentence is effective communicating. It is more useful to communicate what something IS first of all, rather than a certain ideologies say it is. I would say "pseudoscientific" is a skeptic buzzword, used in THAT context. Newspaper headlines and newspapers will tend to use the word to truly denote that which is attempting to be scientific (but deceptively is not, for example women's cosmetics)

Basically, this word doesn't really say anything too much but present a dismissive point of view. The point is made clearly, again and again in the article that there is no scientific evidence that crystals don't do anything according to modern day science. The use of "pseudoscience" as a fourth word in this article with a citation to a skeptical web site just makes discriminating, thinking people, think that wikipedia is trying to tell them exactly what to think about something and so is likely to work against wikipedia in the long term.

Probrooks (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

In the lead, we are saying it is pseudoscience because the lead summarizes the article which, as you said, explains again and again that this is pseudoscience. That is what the lead does: it summarizes the article.

Yes, a "certain ideology" says it is pseudoscience. That ideology is mainstream science. Wikipedia discusses fringe ideas in the context of mainstream science, so Wikipedia should state clearly and without reservation that this pseudoscience is pseudoscience. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the Bible mentions people using crystals as amulets. We do not have reliable sources that discuss this as "crystal healing", the topic of this article.

Yes, there is a source that says people believe that jade has healing properties. Yes we can say that jade is a crystal. For this article, however, we cannot include either as we do not have a reliable source which states that this belief is part of "crystal healing".

Let me try this another way. I have a friend with dangerously low blood pressure. His doctor wants him you eat more salt. We cannot add this to the article because we do not have a reliable source calling this "crystal healing" -- even though salt is a crystal and it is being used for "healing". Heck, jade is a chemical and we wouldn't add that bit to Chemotherapy, though I'm sure people have tried to "treat" their cancer with jade. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I thought this was a good addition to the topic of "crystal healing". (if this topic was to be taken in anyway seriously) However, as the guy who started wikipedia said that all alternative healing is BS, and that this topic is an obvious patsy for skeptico views pertaining to flaky woo woo, you can't really go outside the realm of that patsydom. Therefore any claim of any hint of legitimacy to the "power of crystals" is clearly unacceptable on wikipedia, even though pretty much all cultures may have used crystals, and attributed power to them, they obviously didn't have science to tell them crystals are just pretty rocks. Even if you were to find some decent references, making changes to this article which in anyway communicates there is any validity or effectiveness to crystals is going to be an uphill battle at best!

Hope this helps!

Probrooks (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

The addition being discussed here was adding off-topic material. That a culture believes a particular crystal is important for health is not the topic here. This article is about the practice of using stones and crystals of various sorts to in some way change some kind of "energy" in the body. We do not have sources connecting that belief system with ancient beliefs that crystals were effective talismans, jade as a cultural charm or salt as a treatment for low blood pressure because these are all unrelated.

Yes, WP:FRINGE claims will be treated as fringe. Otherwise, we are forced to deal with a landslide of conflicting beliefs. Crystals for healing? No, all illness is caused by "subluxations" in the spine? No, all illness is caused by the person's failure to believe in the healing power of a particular god or gods? No, all illness is caused by failure to eat a specified diet?

Instead, we report what reliable sources say. Reliable sources say some people/practitioners believe X, Y and Z about crystal healing. Reliable sources say this is pseudoscience. Reliable sources also say that humans have walked on the Moon, the Earth goes around the Sun, smoking is bad for your health, humans need food to survive, the queen of England is not a human/alien hybrid, the Holocaust happened, etc. We report that some small groups disbelieve all of these things. We also report that reliable sources say they are likely mistaken. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

i use wikipedia as an encyclopedia, to learn about things. i wanted to learn about crystal healing, but this article basically keeps saying "no proof - doesnt work - no proof - doesnt work" over and over, totally biased thinking. what about types of crystals used, different methods, places that offer healing? 79.76.101.224 (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources have to say about a subject. As this is a WP:FRINGE topic, we present in-universe information only to the extent that independent sources report it.

Yes, there are various groups and individuals claiming to be the authority on "legitimate" crystal healing, but there really isn't a central regulatory agency.

The importance of this is that we can say what, for example, dentists do. In most jurisdictions, to call yourself a "dentist", you have to go to a recognized dental school, pass a licensing exam and (I'm guessing) meet on-going continuing educational requirements. Otherwise, you aren't a dentist. The recognized professional bodies for dentists are pretty well established.

If, OTOH, you want to be a "crystal healer", you pretty much need only hang up a sign and avoid running afoul of laws about making medical claims. If you want to join an organization, go for it. If not, don't. If you want to go completely off the rails and replace anything that could conceivably be called a "crystal" with "prayer-infused holy water" or trade in the "healing" thing for making tasty soups, no one can stop you from calling yourself a "crystal healer" anyway.

As a result, independent reliable sources frequently say (with reasonable basis) what dentists do. The American Dental Association certainly has a statement on the efficacy of water fluoridation. Similar bodies in other countries, relevant journals, dental schools, the university press, mass media, etc. may or may not agree with that position, but again, they can state with reasonable authority what most dentists believe.

There is no reasonable way to say what crystal healers think of a particular mineral. I'm sure there are some with widely supported beliefs. I'd be shocked if there aren't significant contradictions and disputes.

If you run across any coverage in independent reliable sources, please bring them here. (Keep in mind, however, that Wikipedia generally won't use much from publishers whose main focus is fringe topics.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I find many articles on Wikipedia regarding subjects such as alternative medicine and the supernatural to be annoyingly insistent on the use of the term, "pseudoscience." This article is a particularly troubling example.

The use of the term here seems meant to dismiss the entire subject--as if there is nothing to learn or know about it. In fact, crystal healing is a practice long engaged in by human beings, and therefore has, to start with, value as an anthropological subject.

The statement, "Energy as a scientific term is a very well-defined concept that is readily measurable and bears little resemblance to the esoteric concept of energy used by proponents of crystal healing" is nothing short of preposterous in this context. First, most people would agree that phenomena exist that are non-measurable. Love would be an example.

Secondly, words have more than one meaning, and "energy" as used by New Age practitioners has a very different meaning from that of a physicist.

Dismissing as pseudoscience such concepts as the chakra and healing modalities that are widely practiced in Asia and by indigenous peoples displays a truly aggravating level of closed-mindedness and a most unscientific, unscholarly prejudice. Vapor1111 (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yeah pseudoscience is too kind for the bullwhoppers such folk promote. Vsmith (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Vapor1111: Crystal healing makes testable claims, rests on a claimed "energy" that shows no sign of existing and produces results that do not stand up to scrutiny. As a result, independent reliable sources say crystal healing is a pseudo-science. As a result of that, Wikipedia says that independent reliable sources say it is a pseudo-science.

Anthropologists examine belief systems on a fairly regular basis. Some of the beliefs are clearly contrary to reality. It's not a problem.

We've had this discussion repeatedly in other places. User:SummerPhDv2.0/Fringe reviews common outcomes.

At present, Wikipedia is based on independent reliable sources. That is unlikely to change. If you'd like to create your own encyclopedia (starting with all or some of Wikipedia's content and software), you can easily do so. I would suggest you are in for a hell of a ride when the claims of various articles create fundamental conflicts. (Is all illness the result of spirits trapped humans by a nuclear explosion, small bends in your spine, eating dead food or not flushing out your colon regularly? Maybe the spirits live in the dead food trapped in your colon by small bends in your spine?) Good luck. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

The article does not do its job--to fully and objectively describe the activity known as crystal healing. Instead, with only the barest of descriptions, it has been dismissed as "pseudo-science," and left in its current incomplete state.

There are numerous articles on Wikipedia that deal with non-scientific, spiritual matters and the works of spiritual leaders. The subjects are not dismissed as pseudo-science, probably because your troupe has not bothered to trash them yet. As to the charge that I should start my own encyclopedia, that is childish. You have not addressed any of the objections I raised above, and I am not going to trouble myself to repeat them.

It's likely that no one, myself included, would bother to improve this article, for fear that the work would be undone by pseudo-intellectuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapor1111 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Vapor1111: If you find a scholarly source, which imparts historical information on crystal healing which is not:

1. from a book/blog/journal/website promoting this article's subject and is:
2. veriafiable by way of some other historical scholarly source

and having found such a source, use it to enter information into a "history" section in this article - it WILL NOT be automatically reverted and if it is I will personally support its reinclusion.

note: At the risk of repeating my self A genuine scholarly source will be from an impartial historian who is ENTIRELY unconnected with the promotion of the article's subject.

Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes--> ~~~~ Edaham (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Is crystal healing really a pseudoscience? I was under the impression that (at least some) proponents do not necessarily claim it to be scientific. Benjamin (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

What is it then? Magicke? -Roxy the dog. bark 09:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Magic, or placebo, I would think. Benjamin (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Or nonsense perhaps. Whatever it is, it is pseudoscientific Magicke, placebo or nonsense. -Roxy the dog. bark 09:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Crystal healing makes scientific claims with failing evidence ("crystals" that are not crystals, "energy" that doesn't exist and the healing doesn't occur). The various terms are not mutually exclusive: no reason you can't mix magic, psuedoscience, scam, placebo, religion, flour, eggs and oil and bake a nice cake. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

What portion of proponents claim it's scientific, and what portion claim it's just a placebo? It could be a placebo without being scientific, right? Benjamin (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

https://www.self.com/story/i-love-healing-crystals-they-dont-do-anything Benjamin (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I -- we -- don't have any indication what proportion think what they are doing does nothing. What we do have is independent reliable sources saying that the "crystals" (which aren't always crystals) channel/draw/redirect/focus/control/whatever some kind of healing "energy" (which doesn't seem to exist). If a significant proportion of practitioners openly admit that it's all bunk, they seem to be doing a very poor job of communicating that it's all nonsense. The sources indicate that practitioners are claiming it's doing all of this very real stuff, so that's what we report. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Christie j, please stop edit warring your opinions into the article. You could be blocked. Please read WP:NPOV to understand what you are doing wrong. I suggest you revert, or I will have to report you at the edit warring noticeboard, where you could be blocked. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 08:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

User:Roxy the dog, please stop inserting your personal biases in this article as 'pseudo-science' or I will report you; you show bias in your language that you are skewing the intent of Wikipedia with your own personal agenda on what is perceived as science or pseudo-science, the article is intended to be information about Crystal healing it is NOT an article about pseudo-science or why crystal healing is not scientific. Crystal healing does not make claims about being scientific, it is an article about crystal healing. Please stick to the subject. Creating correlations between crystal healing vs science is a NON-sequitur; why do you keep insisting on using the terms 'pseudo-science', it's a false claim and shows your own bias that you represent and it does a dis-service to people who come to the page to learn about crystal healing NOT about your own biases on why you source quotes and links that it is not a science (Crystal healing does not claim to be a science in the first place). CristieJ (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Last chance. I'm giving you good advice. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

CristieJ please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have reported you for clear biases, and reverting contributions based on that, vs neutral view in your approach and editorial view. I will dispute this. And report you as well. CristieJ (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Where? you are obliged to tell me. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

First Line of the entire article shows bias by the contributor. The article should stick to what is crystal healing and not compare it to pseudo-science which is not a true comparison.

Crystal healing is a pseudoscientific alternative medicine technique that employs stones and crystals. Adherents of the technique claim that these have healing powers, although there is no scientific basis for this claim.[1][2]

Second paragraph goes into comparison of tone between Crystal healing and scientific methods, quite frankly what is this about? Why is the author comparing the two? He might as well compare then to a dog called Roxy because this has no relationship to the title Crystal Healing the title doesn't say why I think Crystal Healing is a pseudo-science...why is it underscored that scientific investigations needs to validate crystal healing? On whose basis, the authors?? That is not a neutral view that is conjecture:

In one method, the practitioner places crystals on different parts of the body, often corresponding to chakras; or else the practitioner places crystals around the body in an attempt to construct an energy grid, which is purported to surround the client with healing energy.[3] Despite this, scientific investigations have not validated claims that chakras or energy grids actually exist, nor is there any evidence that crystal healing has any greater effect upon the body than any other placebo ; for these reasons it is considered a pseudoscience.

The clear bias of the article alone needs to be evaluated based on NPOV and POV Check. See for reference:

[[2]]

CristieJ (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, the article starts with a reality based assessment of the topic, and goes on from there. we are obliged to do this by policy WP:NPOV which you clearly dont understand, or have not read. Basically, it means that we report what reliable sources have written about things, and dont hesitate to show nonsense as it really is, hence the mainstream tone of the article. also please note that I didn't write the article, at least 20 different editors made the last fifty edits here. you really should take some time to get familiar with the place before causing all this disruption. as I said elsewhere, you dont know what you are doing. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Stop removing content... I have reported you, NPOV and POV Check clearly is requested and you, yes you are removing that request is in violation of guidelines. You are not above the law, I don't care how long you've been here on Wikipedia, you are not an Admin, you are a troll that wants to assert his content and biases and you have been reported. CristieJ (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is biased towards science and there is no scientific evidence that crystal healing has any effect. It has been called a pseudoscience by reliable sources so that is how we describe it here. Theroadislong (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Crystal healing is a fringe claim: an "idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". (The fields include -- but are not limited to -- biology, physics, chemistry and various combinations of the three (medicine, biochemisty, etc.).) Per WP:FRINGE, we call pseudoscience "pseudoscience".

Crystal healing makes medical claims; "all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge." Please review WP:MEDRS for more on this.

Crystal healing is a Wikipedia article. It is subject to Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. While that is a lot to figure out and understand, two basics provide a good start. First, be civil. As a collaborative project, Wikipedia does not allow and will not tolerate personal attacks on other editors.

Second, consider that you might not represent the mainstream: Massive changes without discussion are rarely a good idea. As articles are the works of numerous editors, based on policies and guidelines by larger numbers of editors, massive changes to stable articles (especially by newer editors, making unsourced additions and removing sourced information without meaningful explanation) tend to come across as saying, "I'm right, all of you are wrong." Consider partializing your changes (taking one piece at a time) and, as needed, discussing the issue. The "bold, revert, discuss cycle is a good model to consider; making changes boldly, waiting to see if they are reverted (and any explanations for the reverts) and discussing the issue before restoring them (edit-warring is a bad way to support your change and will get you blocked from editing).

Finally, yes, Wikipedia is biased. The project demands verifiable information from reliable sources. If reliable sources do not say something, Wikipedia does not say it. Fringe topics, therefore, tend to end up with what reliable sources say about them, which is that they are fringe ideas based on false and/or unfalsifiable theories with results that either do not exist or are better explained by simpler, more robust theories: wishful thinking, the file-drawer effect, the placebo effect, bias, fraud, etc. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Ethnography sections states: "Precious stones have been thought of as healing objects by a variety of cultures worldwide." This is sourced to a book on modern crystal healing in the UK but I do not have access to check if the book in turn has a source for this statement. Are there any examples someone could add with historical uses of crystals in healing? I've spent a good deal of time searching through primary literature and I can find zero examples of crystals being used for healing in the New Age sense prior to the 1980s. Some sources mention Hopi and native Hawaiian cultures using crystals for healing but, again, I have not been able to track down any actual evidence to back up these assertions, just references to post-1970s practices. Some obviously New Age web sites claim that crystals were being used for healing by Sumerians, Egyptians, Greeks, etc. but this is patent nonsense and even in context, they use examples like Egyptian use of crystals in jewelry(!). This seems to have created a meme in which everyone assumes this practice to be somehow ancient, but nobody can give any specifics. As far as I can tell, the idea that crystals contain energy and can be used to heal (especially to heal chakras) is not more than 40 years old. If crystal healing has some pre-modern antecedents, those should be discussed in detail with examples. If this is a phenomenon invented in the 1980s, that is something incredibly important that needs to be included. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'd stop wasting your time on trying to find reliable sources for an article about health fraud. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Don't you think it would be useful information for people trying to expose/debunk health fraud if a supposedly ancient and universal practice was invented by some dude in California in the '60s? Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

A common problem in our WP:FRINGE articles is reliance on unreliable, in-universe sources, often in support of the woo being sold by the author. So, a Reiki "practitioner" self-publishes a book which presents their school (one they attended or one they've created) as The legitimate heir of The original Reiki. Another self-published book by a different author presents their school as the only true Reiki, etc. As such, we can't really use them as sources for anything.

In this case, the bit you are asking about is fairly benign. Yes, a crystal healing believer will want to present their belief as well-supported throughout history and across cultures, but the idea that lots of people would have an unscientific gut reaction that pretty stones must be magical passes the basic sniff test.

Looking a bit closer, the source is published by "Berghahn Books", a small independent publisher I can't say I'm familiar with. The first handful of their titles though is reassuring. Rather than various pro-fringe titles ("Finding Your Dog's Healing Chakra" or "Feng Shui for Professional Crafters"), I find a series of fairly narrow academic titles with seemingly innocuous theories ("Mayan Maternal Mortality and Subjectivity in Post-War Guatemala", "Youth Voyages to Poland and the Performance of Israeli National Identity" and such). My guess is they mostly specialize in topics too dry and narrow for most publishers. I wouldn't use them to support any kind of controversial claims as their fact-checking is likely thin, but I'm no particularly bothered by this one, other than the fact that such a basic claim for a topic like this should have better support.

I don't know if the source backs up its claim. That's not Wikipedia's job to figure out. Instead, we're supposed to be reporting what independent reliable sources have to say about a topic. This topic is WP:FRINGE: "Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." This hits it right on the head. We need a better source for this.

There are probably several questionable sources in this article. Career Press jumps out at me as I think they are now owned by a fringe publisher. I'll give the whole thing a once-over when I feel like it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Chase, Pamela; Pawlik, Jonathan (2001). Healing with Crystals. Career Press. ISBN 9781564145352.

This is an in-universe source. Career Press is an imprint of occult/new age publisher Red Wheel/Weiser/Conari. Currently, we use this source to support "one method" some crystal healing practitioners use.

The publisher is not a reliable source and the book in question is one of thousands we could cite, none of which have any particular authority to speak to what crystal healing practitioners do. This source indicates only what "some" do. Whether these methods are universal, common, unusual, rare or unique is really anyone's guess.

Comments? - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Removed it. Vsmith (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, an in-universe book quotes some guy as saying his grandmother taught him traditional Hawaiian "healing" using crystals. For the statement, we are looking for an independent reliable source stating that current new age belief in "crystal healing" is rooted in traditional Hawaiian beliefs.

The problems are numerous. First, the book is an in-universe source, produced by those who hold the fringe belief. That the authors would wish to see their beliefs as being rooted in some grand system of traditions is not a reliable source for believing that their beliefs are rooted in such a system or that such a unified system actually exists. Yes, their quote of some guy saying his grandmother taught him that there is a tradition in Hawaiian belief of using crystals for "healing" exists and that, as of that conversation, he was using it is likely correct. That his grandmother taught it to him does not make it true. That he used it as of 1997 is hardly a source to show that "some" Hawaiians use it as of 1997.[3] 40-something years ago, my grandmother taught me an Appalachian tradition of using your left toe as an alarm clock. If I still used it today and someone quoted me in a book on "body clocks" it would not be a reliable source that "body clock" beliefs are rooted in a grand, unified system of "body clocking" around the world or that "Americans also use body clocks in their traditional lives, and some continued to use it as of 2019."

Somewhat different is the Mackenzie source. Yes, Mackenzie's finding of the Chinese attribution of "healing powers" in Jade is likely a reliable source. However, he does not tie this traditional belief in China involving a particular microcrystalline substance to the new age practice of healing called "crystal healing" today. The connection of the two here is WP:SYN: A) tradition in China attaches healing powers to Jade B) Jade qualifies as a crystal C) "crystal healing" uses crystals for healing so the Chinese tradition is part of "crystal healing". Similarly, part of modern medical practice treats dehydration with a solution using salt, which is a crystal. That is "healing" with "crystals", but we cannot claim mainstream medicine is "crystal healing" (though I wouldn't be surprised to see that claim in a blog somewhere). - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I want to see if those articles demand to only be about the false claims of those theories I just wanted to see what powers are claimed for bismuth, not to see if those are accepted by scientists! --who would make an account when this encyclopedia is full of stories like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.211.39 (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

It should be obvious that if Wikipedia contained only the bits that interest you, it would have to be specifically tailored to you. But then, every other reader would complain that they cannot find the stuff that interests them.

Wikipedia is not supposed to be a detailed collection of superstitions. To find that "information", you'll need a book written by superstitious people for superstitious people. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is an undergraduate thesis (more like a literature review really--not a primary source). The section on "Native American" healing practices seems to draw almost exclusively from one source: Luc Bourgault's The American Indian: Secrets of Crystal Healing. The fact that there is little attempt in Carlos's (or apparently Bourgault's) work to distinguish between any Native nations at all indicate the level of academic rigor we're dealing with here. In addition these sources seem focused on modern crystal healing practices in Native nations, not historical practices. No matter what one's opinion is on crystal healing, it serves no one to create a false sense of historicity with shoddy scholarship. 2601:147:280:850:7D9F:8377:AB08:9E34 (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Deleted. For all the reasons. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

"While the practice has become more popular in recent years, that popularity has increased commercial demand for crystals"

The lede is supposed to summarize the article. This statement is nowhere in the article, so it does not belong in the lede. Adding it further below will not work either since there is no reliable source for it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

You do realize that this is merely a miscommunication of different dialects due primarily to the double empathy problem? I don't think the individuals who believe this are trying to imply that the crystal itself has innate healing powers, rather, they are asserting that the natural splendor that is contained within these specimens of nature invokes a positive emotional psychological response within them that promotes emotional well-being. i.g. Spinozism. The miscommunication here is that one group is talking about this subject through the len of psychology while the other group is only talking about this subject through the len of the hard sciences. NJB (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Publish this in a scientific journal and get other reliable sources to comment on it. Then we can use it in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

quantum physics proves everything is energy also everything has vibrations also there is no proof of the experiment plus the fact that you are very misguided on the concept of crystals 2601:486:280:5300:ADE4:C37C:B91E:257 (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Jolly good stuff. Give us some crystal evidence then. -Roxy the dog. wooF 11:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

The references given for proof of crystal healing in Mesopotamia do not prove it at all. The first link: "Many sites promoting crystal healing allege that the history of this practice is ancient, dating back at least 6,000 years to the time of the ancient Sumerians of Mesopotamia. " Yes, yes they do. They do allege it. Many sites about crystal healing mention various historical sources, but they themselves are not trustworthy historical sources. The other source doesn't mention crystal healing at all. It discusses a witchcraft more akin to stereotypical depictions of voodoo: man gets an illness curse from a female stranger using illegal magic, and so he makes a voodoo doll to reverse it back to her. No mention of crystals at all, though clay happens to be in the earth-based-substance-zone, if you will. Is there any other proof? If not, this should be deleted. Wacape (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sushi9 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Xinyue Hu (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Ian (Wiki Ed) every edit they have made was reverted because of WP:NPOV issues. Might need to have a discussion with the instructor about WP:FRINGE and the like. In my opinion, this is a bad assignment. S0091 (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @S0091. I will do that now. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply