Talk:Mindfulness meditation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Creating a separate article on this topic

Mindfulness meditation has been getting a lot of attention in recent years. There was a cover story on it in Time magazine several months ago. And there's currently a large amount of research going on, with a number of meta-analyses to draw upon. I'm intending to develop this article, and will also bring in some of the material that's scattered among a number of the other mindfulness articles. TimidGuy (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Note that this topic differs from Mindfulness (psychology). The latter is the name for an alert nonjudgmental state. One can experience this state without practicing meditation. The goal of the meditation technique is to cultivate this state. TimidGuy (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sedlmeier 2012

We source this text:

A 2012 meta-analysis found that compared to other meditation techniques mindfulness was effective in reducing negative personality traits and stress and improving attention and mindfulness.

to:

• Sedlmeier P, Eberth J, Schwarz M; et al. (2012). "The psychological effects of meditation: a meta-analysis". Psychol Bull. 138 (6): 1139–71. doi:10.1037/a0028168. PMID 22582738. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

However, I have some concerns:

1. This analysis seems to have raised some eyebrows at PMID 24564175 and PMID 24564176
2. It is not as new as the 2013 review we quote next (and whose similar conclusions were found questionable by DARE), so is this even needed?
3. Mindfulness is not even mentioned in the article's conclusion which says, in part "The present article is only a first step in exploring the effects of meditation. Indeed, its specific effects are not fully clear, and even less so are the mechanisms that yield the effects."

I have removed the text from the article accordingly, for discussion here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

makes sense to me. Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I note TimidGuy has replaced this, saying "removal is a violation of policy". Not sure how. I'd have though asserting a health claim by torturing an unreliable source was problematic ... ? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

what is "mindfulness meditation" exactly?

this article could use some work better defining its subject - i intend to work on this, this weekend. but it would seem to me that pretty much all meditation is meant to make one more mindful... seems to be kind of slogan-y rather than something that constitutes an actual school or set of practices. to be explored! Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Needs a lot of work. Looking at the whole thing, I don't think the topic has enough for an article of its own, it ought to be included as a tiny note in a bigger meditation article. (I wonder if that'll be a red link) Think carefully before you spend too much time on it. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

merge

This article completely overlapped with Mindfulness-based stress reduction so I merged it there. Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Much better. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The two techniques are different. Mindfulness meditation is only a sitting meditation. It can be learned for free. Instructions how to do it are widely available. Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction is an 8-week program that costs $350 and involves additional techniques such as yoga and body scanning, and entails weekly group meetings. There should have been discussion of this. TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Best if there's one article; these minor variations can be explained there if necessary. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

TimidGuy I strongly object to the "improper" charge in the edit note. There was no reason to think the merge would be contested, and there is nothing wrong on WIkipedia with being bold. So blech. Second, this article is empty of content. The only description of actual meditation was falsely attributed to the Time magazine article, which has no description of meditation in it. I see zero difference between this article and the one I merged it into. Maybe it could be differentiated but there is nothing now. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Mindfulness meditation is part of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR). Since the mindfulness meditation article doesn't have much in the way of content it makes sense for it to be merged into the MBSR article. I don't see how the fact that one can be learned for is free and the other (usually) costs money or that one is taught in a group setting and involves techniques in addition to the the other has any bearing on the discussion. Ca2james (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I just went through and removed everything not specific to MM. If more reliable sources are brought that are specific to MM and that content can be generated from, this article might be worth keeping. If they are not brought soon i will just nominate for deletion. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Notes re notes re merge LeoRomero (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• I am not involved in these disagreements, and don't feel strongly one way or another. I offer these notes as a disinterested third-party.
• I agree with TimidGuy that there should have been a discussion before Jytdog merged Mindfulness meditation with Mindfulness-based stress reduction. It is clear from this Talk page, and on his work on the Article, that TimidGuy feels very strongly about creating a separate page, and he does make valid points. We ought to respect that, and try to reach consensus.
• Since both articles are very short, I tend to agree with Alexbrn that one article would be best.
• MBSR, although well-known, is just one of many "mindfulness meditation" approaches/programs. Jon Kabat-Zinn himself said he called it MBSR only because the term "mindfulness meditation" did not sound clinical enough, and turned people off. If merging should occur, I think Mindfulness-based stress reduction should be merged into Mindfulness meditation, not the other way around.

:*Jytdog, it would be good if you could please explain yourself and discuss your edits per WP Civility and Talk Page guidelines, esp when you make such sweeping statements as "this article completely overlapped with Mindfulness-based stress reduction", "there was no reason to think the merge would be contested", "this article is empty of content", "I see zero difference between this article and the one I merged it into", etc.

• Jytdog, dismissive remarks, f.e "So blech", are snide, rude, impolite, and inconsistent with WP Code of Conduct requirements for cooperation and civility, esp in the context of a serious disagreement between you and TimidGuy. Your threat that if TimidGuy does not meet your requirements "soon" you will just nominate his article for deletion is aggressive, heavy-handed, and bossy. "Heavy-handed and bossy" characterizes your general approach and tenor, as evidenced by your notes. You "strongly object" to TimidGuy's single comment that your edits are "improper". Maybe you know how TimidGuy feels then when you assail his work. The "do unto others" Golden Rule is highlighted somewhere in WP codes/polices - can't find a link to it right now, but it's a a good policy nonetheless.

please comment on content, not contributors, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Jytdog, I don't normally get involved in discussions, so am not clear on proper procedure. I was taking your advice above to "talk things out", but upon closer reading of WP:NICE I see that comments pertaining to Users should be made on the User's Page. I struck out my the non-content comments, and will post them on your talk page instead. Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

s'ok, thanks for striking! Key guideline is Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and please see especially the section on good practices. Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience Jytdog, and for the links. Life intrudes, but will read them later. Cool headings & tools, btw. You sure know your stuff. Re content, mind my giving Mindfulness meditation a shot? Would be cool if you revert to a longer version though, so I have something to work with. LeoRomero (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

everyone is welcome to be bold. but everyone is also bound to follow our policies and guidelines. and therefore I don't know what you mean about revert - the material I deleted was improperly sourced or unsourced and thus had no place in Wikipedia. I think it is going to be difficult to build a good article on "mindfulness meditation" that complies with the policy, WP:VERIFY and with the guideline for sourcing health related information. The article (if it remains) needs to be about "mindfulness meditation", not the related topics meditation, Mindfulness-based stress reduction, Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, Mindfulness (psychology), and Mindfulness. I don't see a lot of space there. But maybe you can find it. It all starts with finding reliable sources on the topic. Jytdog (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

All right Jytdog, I love a challenge and will do my (almost) best. Started collecting my notes here. LeoRomero (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of "Not appropriate EL"? Discussion

Discussion has been moved to Talk:Mindfulness-based stress reduction#"Questionable link"? LeoRomero (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn & Roxy the dog, here's my attempt to summarize (organize, really, since I'm mainly copying & pasting) our discussion, to make it easier to analyze. Please edit as you see fit. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Policy/Issue	LeoRomero	Alexbrn	Roxy the dog
Encyclopedic Understanding - Relevant	WP policy does not require that a link provide encyclopedic understanding. It requires only that it "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". The MARC@UCLA resources are relevant.	The undigested nature of the material means that while it may be "relevant" to the subject, it is not relevant to an "encyclopedic understanding" of it.	It seems to me that these links are not appropriately encyclopaedic.
Encyclopedic Understanding - Neutral & Accurate	The MARC@UCLA resources are neutral and accurate.	Who knows if it's neutral & accurate?
Amount of detail	WP policy does not prohibit links simply because the material is "undigested". On the contrary, the link is appropriate precisely because the site's information "cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail".	It's undigested material; just providing raw information.
Advertising and conflicts of interest	WP policy states: "Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit organizations) donations." Wikipedia itself regularly solicits donations. Following Alexbrn's logic, we wouldn't be able to link to Wikipedia itself. Alexbrn, please cite WP policy that states that links may not be included if they pose a a "risk of spam", or a risk that they "could incorporate any site claiming to have a valuable downloadable offerings". Jytdog, please explain why it "seems ... that these links are overly promotional" for WP.	It's from an organization selling courses and soliciting for donations to help it "promote its programs". While links to revenue-generating sites are indeed not "prohibited" there is a risk of spam; by the logic of such links being unproblematic, EL sections could incorporate any site claiming to have a valuable downloadable offerings - and that would not end well.	It seems to me that these links are overly promotional for our use.
WP:NOTHOWTO	Refers to Wikipedia articles, not to links.		The link http://marc.ucla.edu/body.cfm?id=22 is a page of guided meditations that visitors can download. Something Wikipedia is not - a howto guide.
Value-added	In addition to educational information from MARC@UCLA, the link provides free resources to readers who cannot otherwise afford them. Jytdog, please explain how the link "adds nothing to the article".		The link to http://marc.ucla.edu/ adds nothing to the article.
Clutter	Jytdog, please cite WP policy that states that a link may not be included if there is a risk that it will invite a clutter of other links.		The link to http://marc.ucla.edu/ is one of a zillion that could be provided to specific institutions offering meditation/mindfulness classes and services. It invites the clutter of a zillion others.

"Not appropriate EL"?

Discussion has been moved to Talk:Mindfulness-based stress reduction#"Questionable link"? LeoRomero (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alex - Could you please give me a link to the Wikipedia policy which supports your comment that the external link "Free resources for Mindfulness Meditation from the UCLA Mindful Awareness Research Center, including guided meditations" is not appropriate to the article Mindfulness meditation? Thanks; Leo LeoRomero (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The guidance is WP:EL. I think providing a link to an organization's audio "meditations" isn't quite encyclopedic - and even if it were, I'm not sure any one organization's collection of material should be privileged by having an external link to it. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Alex. Four points: (1) The links I provided are not just to the audio page, but primarily to the home page of an organization of high repute. (2) I reread all of WP:EL and find that my links meet all the guidelines on what to link - specifically #3, since the site I linked to does "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" and "cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, and amount of detail". (3) My links violate none of the prohibitions. (4) I find no policy basis to support your opinion "I'm not sure any one organization's collection of material should be privileged by having an external link to it." Could you cite the policy basis for your opinion please? LeoRomero (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is, it's not providing "encyclopedic understanding", it's undigested material from an organization selling courses and soliciting for donations to help it "promote its programs". Adding a link to a such an organization risks being promotional in nature. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your opinions, Alex. In response: (1) WP:EL does not require that a link provide encyclopedic understanding. It requires only that it "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". The MARC@UCLA resources are neutral, accurate, and relevant. (2) WP:EL does not prohibit links simply because the material is "undigested". On the contrary, as I quoted above, the link is appropriate precisely because the site's information "cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail". (3) The very valuable guided meditations I linked to are provided by MARC@UCLA for free, zero strings attached. (4) Even if MARC@UCLA were a money-grubbing bloodsucker (which it most definitely is not), a link to it would still be acceptable. As the link you yourself provided says: "Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit organizations) donations." (5) The Wikimedia Foundation sells products (e.g. ads through Wikia), and Wikipedia itself regularly solicits donations. Following your logic, we wouldn't be able to link to any Wikimedia project or to Wikipedia itself. LeoRomero (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alex - Having received no further comment from you, I am undoing your edit. I hope you don't mind. Cheers! LeoRomero (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

These things are bound-up together: the undigested nature of the material means that while it may be "relevant" to the subject, it is not relevant to an "encyclopedic understanding" of it: it's just providing raw information (and who knows if it's neutral & accurate?). If the EL was to, say, a collection of independent scholarly material hosted by the MARC@UCLA site, that would be a different matter. While links to revenue-generating sites are indeed not "prohibited" there is (as I said) a risk of spam; by the logic of such links being unproblematic, EL sections could incorporate any site claiming to have a valuable downloadable offerings - and that would not end well. (Add: oh, I see you've just reverted your preferred content back in - which is rather extraordinary behaviour. Editors don't sit in front of their keyboards 24/7!) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I have requested Admin assistance to resolve our disagreement over WP:EL, and to address your insulting behavior. Here's a link to the incident report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoRomero (talk • contribs) 10:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that these links are not appropriately encyclopaedic and overly promotional for our use. I support their removal. It is also premature for appealing to AN/I as the discussion has only just begun, rather than come to an end unresolved. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI is not for content disputes. As for "insulting behavior"—it is extraordinary for you to assume that my not responding for 2 hours is a reason to go ahead and revert your preferred text. Real life called me away from the keyboard for a while ... Generally, for a global encyclopedia, it's conventional to leave at least 24 hrs before assuming that "silence means assent" in an ongoing discussion. I'm sorry you seem to think I made a complaint-worthy observation: certainly no "insult" was intended. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It isn't your nonresponse that I found insulting and unWikipedian, Alexbrn. It was this statement: "(Add: oh, I see you've just reverted your preferred content back in - which is rather extraordinary behaviour. Editors don't sit in front of their keyboards 24/7!)" For our content dispute, I filed a resolution request here. FYI Jytdog so may state your bases if you wish. LeoRomero (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't sit in front of the keyboard 24/7, so it's extraordinary to assume that my 2 hour non-response meant I wasn't "responding" to you and/or assenting to your view. How that's an insult is anybody's guess! Anyhow - best to WP:FOC. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I agree it's best to focus on content. Please cite WP policy that states that links may not be included if they pose a a "risk of spam", or a risk that they "could incorporate any site claiming to have a valuable downloadable offerings". Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

User:LeoRomero, slow down and breathe. Your addition to the article is incorrect as is your going to ANI before discussion is allowed to unfold - as per WP:BRD talk things out, man. Jytdog (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The link to http://marc.ucla.edu/ is one of a zillion that could be provided to specific institutions offering meditation/mindfulness classes and services. Adds nothing to the article and invites the clutter of a zillion others. The other link, http://marc.ucla.edu/body.cfm?id=22 is a page of guided meditations that visitors can download. Something Wikipedia is not - a howto guide. See WP:NOTHOWTO Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, (1) Please explain why it "seems that these links are not appropriately encyclopaedic and overly promotional for our use". (2) Please cite WP policy that states that a link may not be included if there is a risk that it will invite other links, or invite clutter. (3) Please explain how the link "adds nothing to the article". In addition to educational information from MARC@UCLA, the link provides free resources to readers who cannot otherwise afford them. (4) WP:NOTHOWTO refers to Wikipedia articles, not to links, right? Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirect

The remainder of this article is less than substantial; a redirect to Mindfulness (psychology) seems to be appropriate here. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joshua Jonathan - It's a work in progress. TimidGuy did a lot of of work, but Jytdog deleted most of it for various reasons noted above and in History. TimidGuy explained his reasons here for wanting to create a separate article, and seems to feel very strongly about it. What do you think of what he thinks? Full disclosure: I don't know TimidGuy and had never worked with him on WP before this, but I do have a bias for timid people who act boldly, so I'm trying to help him out. My own suggestion at this point is that we all work together to merge the short articles Mindfulness meditation, Mindfulness-based stress reduction, AND Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy into apt sections in Mindfulness (psychology), then redirect all three there. Thoughts on that Alexbrn, Joshua Jonathan, Jytdog, Roxy the dog, TimidGuy? Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that kind of merge could make a weightier & more informative article, to the benefit of our readers. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

fine. Jytdog (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I responded to a thread at Talk:Buddhism, but if the emphasis is on the meditation, then it should be part of Mindfulness, I think. ~But I'm not going to put effort in this topic, so count my opinions only lightly in this discussion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

strongly disagree - Mindfulness, as it says at the top of that article, is about the particularly Buddhist notion. Mindfulness (psychology) is about the secularization of that idea, like all the articles we are discussing here. Jytdog (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog (what?!:) If Mindfulness meditation as written is to be redirected, it should be to Mindfulness (psychology). But I also welcome contributions from the folks over at Buddhism (they invented the thing, after all, and many of the scientists who've done solid research on mm are Buddhists) and have supported Nigelj's suggestion that they help. Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The Zgierska-article says: "The goal of this article was to systematically review and assess the existing evidence on the effects of mindfulness or mindfulness meditation based therapies for addictive disorders." So, merge with Mindfulness (psychology). Sorry. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

great. :) Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

PS: the other meaning still is Vipassana. Fabrizio Didonna (2008), Clinical Handbook of Mindfulness, p.27. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

In a systematic review...

What is the meaning of this revert? Did Jytdog (talk · contribs) even glance at the cited source? It is called "Mindfulness Meditation for Substance Use Disorders: A Systematic Review." Every word in the text reverted was based on text from the published article's abstract. My two sentences were structured "Zgierska et al in 2009 found..." and "They said that..." I don't think anything there is in Wikipedia's own voice except that the paper exists. --Nigelj (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I read the entire article, yes. You apparently did not read it, as your edit note says that you couldn't access it. So I kind of struggle to see how you can even try to make an argument about what it says! (btw if you email me, I can email the article to you). In your discussion above, you don't deal with what i said in my edit note, which is was: "when we have a review we can state the results in Wikipedia's voice. See "Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Respect_secondary_sources" Please respond to that, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

In my edit I made several changes. The article I could not access was the Time piece. I don't understand your edit comment at all as,

1. "when we have a review:" we do have a "review" - the cited article, "Mindfulness Meditation for Substance Use Disorders: A Systematic Review," cited by 22[1] and published in a peer reviewed journal[2]
2. "in Wikipedia's voice:" Nothing I wrote is in Wikipedia's voice apart from that the paper exists
3. "Respect_secondary_sources:" The paper begins "The comprehensive search for and review of literature found over 2,000 abstracts and resulted in 25 eligible manuscripts (22 published, 3 unpublished: 8 RCTs, 7 controlled non-randomized, 6 non-controlled prospective, 2 qualitative studies, 1 case report)." Therefore it is a secondary source by my reckoning - a review of literature.

I'm afraid you're going to have to be more explicit as to what the exact problem is. --Nigelj (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

pardon for asking, but did you read the link to the section of MEDRS I provided? it is not long, and it explains what i mean very clearly, with examples even. my edit note stated that we do have a review and so the content can be in wikipedia's voice; we don't need all the framing you added. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

also please keep in mind the inclusion criteria: "Inclusion criteria: 1) study intervention was mindfulness or mindfulness meditation-based (MM), 2) used as a therapy for substance use, misuse or related disorders;" This review is not a review only of "mindfulness meditation", and all the papers are in the context of therapy (not solo MM). Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You are arguing that the coverage must be in Wikipedia's own voice. I don't know where the policy is for that, and, yes, I have been editing Wikipedia since 2004 and am familiar with the policy structure. Please post the link in your reply to save me searching. In that case, my question to you is where in the cited paper do you get your preferred text, "Mindfulness meditation, delivered as part of a treatment, does not help treat substance abuse disorders" (my italics)? Please bear in mind that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. --Nigelj (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

that is a patience-trying request. the link was in my edit note and my first comment above.here it is again Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Respect_secondary_sources. actually i am out of patience now. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The content guideline you cite says, "a secondary source often allows the fact to be stated with greater reliability". It does not say that anything attributed to a secondary source must be stated in Wikipedia's own voice. You have not dealt with my request as to where in the cited paper you could possibly have got the text that the article now sports ("does not help"), or my point above about argument from ignorance. Since you say you do not want to discuss this further, I will take it that you have run out of arguments. The review paper only found 22 relevant published papers, and it says "Conclusive data for MM as a treatment for addictive disorders are lacking. However, the preliminary evidence indicate MM efficacy." Therefore the bald statement you restored in Wikipedia's voice is inappropriate, and as the authors say, there is plenty to be learned from future clinical trials. I shall therefore restore my more nuanced summary of the published review's own abstract, with its WP:ITA. Please do not revert again without more evidence, and better responses to points made that we have just seen here. Thank you for your time over this. --Nigelj (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

We should simply assert what's uncontested from RS. The whole context of evidence-based medicine is that interventions are regarded as ineffective until there is good evidence to the contrary. Taking that context into account, the source's conclusions must be accurately translated/conveyed for the lay reader. I think the current wording (I have reverted) is good; I'd not argue though with writing "there is no good evidence that ... " Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Nigelj because i run out of patience with your behavior, does not mean i am done with the issue you are raising. alexbrn's proferred langauge is fine with me as a compromise.Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of review

Right now, our article is claiming the exact opposite of what the review found. The authors concluded at the end of the review that ...preliminary evidence suggests MM efficacy..., which seems to fully contradict what this article says. Or have I missed out something? -A1candidate (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

its being discussed above. there is a strange inability to read going around...Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, could you please focus on content WP:FOC as Alexbrn suggested above? Insulting the reading ability and other personal traits of Wikipedians inc Nigelj and A1candidate does not help improve the quality of this article. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Harvard Health Publications is not a newspaper

Alexbrn (talk · contribs) seems to have got confused when making this quick revert. Harvard Health Publications is the media and publishing division of the Harvard Medical School of Harvard University, under the direction of Dr. Anthony Komaroff, Editor in Chief. The goal of its publications is to bring people around the world the most current health information that is authoritative, trustworthy, and accessible, drawing on the expertise of the 10,000+ faculty physicians at Harvard Medical School. Further details are provided at the link I gave in the edit summary.[3] I would say that a public outreach medium from an august body such as Harvard Medical School counts as a medically reliable source. --Nigelj (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The linked resource was the "Ask Doctor K" syndicated content. Let's see: "Ask Doctor K is a health-oriented newspaper column"[4], straplined as being "in association with" Harvard Health Publications. The column seems to be written by one guy. Any peer-review even? Not strong enough for asserting a raft of big medical claims I'd say. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have that a little muddled. Ask Doctor K is a health-oriented newspaper column syndicated to hundreds of newspapers from Harvard Health Publications, the publishing division of Harvard Medical School. It is created by Harvard Health Publications, not any newspaper. This is knowledge outreach by a University faculty. I don't think it's ever been categorised as an example of popular press junk science. Perhaps you have evidence that it has? In the absence of any, and given the reputation of Harvard, I would draw your attention to WP:MEDRS: "As the quality of press coverage of medicine ranges from excellent to irresponsible, use common sense." Did you notice the wording that I adopted from the Harvard content? "may help", "may alleviate", "may help" and "more [research] to be done"? --Nigelj (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

nigelj i don't see how this is a reliable secondary source or a statement by a major medical or scientific body, which are the preferred sources for health related content. in addition, the actual column says "Researchers recently reviewed 47 meditation trials that met their criteria for well-designed studies. Their findings suggest that mindfulness meditation can help ease anxiety, depression and pain." this WP article is not about meditation; it is about ~something~ called "mindful meditation". that something is very badly defined in these articles and sources that have been brought. Dr K and the Zeidan source each flip back and forth between discussing M and MM. Not good... Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Who said it was "junk science"? I'm sure Dr K is generally a sensible fellow, but this content is not WP:MEDRS for asserting big medical claims. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Effects of mindfulness meditation on the brain

Nature Reviews Neurology has a comprehensive table summary of the physiological effects of mindfulness meditation in the brains of patients with chronic pain. (P.S. The authors say they refer to "mindfulness meditation" simply as "meditation")

This is not just relevant to our article, it's also highly relevant to the field of neuroscience itself. Should we include this somewhere? -A1candidate (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

as per the above section, the table is actually called "effects of meditation in patients with chronic pain" Jytdog (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the article? The authors said "meditation" in their article refers to "mindfulness meditation". -A1candidate (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

as above... they make no distinction between meditation and "mindful meditation", that I can see. Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

frontiers article

content introduced was: "Other neural changes resulting from MM may increase the efficiency of attentional control." this says nothing. I read the article, and it reviews studies on just plain mediation and makes some claims about what "mindful meditation" might do. this does not provide any information on what MM does or does not do. we shouldn't use it. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

When "meditation" is used in this article, it clearly refers to the mindfulness-based approach. You may wish to re-read the section titled "Converging Evidence: The Role of Attention". -A1candidate (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

i read the article carefully, as i have the other sources, and what i continually find is that none of them draws any meaningful distinction between "meditation" and "mindful meditation." Can you please show me, in any one of these sources, a form of meditation that they exclude from being "mindful"? (real question, not rhetorical - I really don't see it) I have looked very carefully and not found one. Have you? (again, real question). i am asking because we already have an article on "meditation" and this one is meant to be about something distinguishable from that. i would also appreciate it, if you would help me understand how you define "mindful meditation" that is distinct from "meditation". thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

From what I understand, one cannot separate "mindfulness" from "meditation" because, as the author argues, the former is dependent on the latter. If you look at Figure 2 of the article, the "meditation process" itself leads to mindfulness ("sustained attention"). -A1candidate (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

right. which is why we need to do the merge. there is nothing distinct here. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

From a neuroscience perspective, you may be correct.

For practical and historical purposes, however, there is a difference between mindfulness meditation and other forms of meditation -A1candidate (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

i have asked you to define that difference, and to show where any reliable source defines that difference - particularly where a source points out a form of meditation that isn't "mindful". Would you please? thx Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

From a neuroscience perspective, there is no inherent difference between the various forms of meditations. As quoted here: "...Many forms of meditation exist. The various forms of meditation can, however, be viewed as falling on a continuum between two primary types: mindfulness meditation and concentrative practice.." (Nature Reviews Neuroscience) From a scientific perspective, then, the only form of meditation that is clearly not mindful is pure concentrative practice. -A1candidate (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

To put it simply, there seems to be a pure form of mindfulness meditation at the one end of the continuum and varying degrees of "mindfulness" and "concentration" in all other types of meditation, except pure concentrative practice. -A1candidate (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

which is not at all simple (!) and leaves us with "only a tiny sliver of meditative practices are be considered 'mindful' by some experts". The frontiers article, where we started, says in the "Mindfulness, Meditation, and Attention" section, that "Meditations that calm and stabilize the mind are of central importance in this (mindfulness) process and are prerequisite for a second, more advanced class of meditations (Wallace, 1999; Lutz et al., 2008; Malinowski, 2008, 2013). These two forms of training have been explained as Focused Attention (FA) and Open Monitoring (OM) meditation practices (Lutz et al., 2008), respectively. Although conceptually FA and OM can be separated, even simple forms of mindfulness training will entail both components. Initially a practitioner will engage more with the FA component to develop attentional stability, clarity, and awareness of the current mental state. Only then will it be possible to engage in a meaningful way in OM practice, which entails a moment by moment attentiveness to anything that occurs in experience." RIght? for these focused, the FA-type is foundational, and not a separate sliver. a mush. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The different categories of meditation have been found to have different EEG signatures. See Travis and Shear 2010. [5] TimidGuy (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Mindfulness (psychology)

Same topic Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess to some extremists of the Christian Right, the thought of people closing their eyes quietly, without praying, is highly disturbing. Therefore maybe nothing should be said here, without the strongest WP:MEDRS sourcing. --Nigelj (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I edited the Merge tag to point discussions to the discussion section that Joshua Jonathan created on Mindfulness (positive psychology). - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The two topics are different. Mindfulness describes a state, whereas mindfulness meditation is a technique for cultivating that state. There are various approaches to cultivating mindfulness, both religious and secular. Mindfulness as a state has been scientifically described, and the various techniques for culturing the state have been scientifically studied. See my proposed reorganization of mindfulness articles on the Mindfulness (psychology) talk page. TimidGuy (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Research section a bit of a mess

The section on research is a bit of a mess. All it does is (sort of) present findings on two specific, rather arbitrarily-selected topics without presenting any overview or context for the information. For example, the second paragraph states that "The analgesic effect of MM involves multiple brain mechanisms..." What analgesic effect? And why substance abuse and pain instead of, say, eating disorders and depression? I realize that the article can't cover everything, but the lack of context information means that the article also fundamentally fails to motivate these particular topics. It's lacking the "so what?" factor and it doesn't cohere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.194.66 (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"Popular acceptance" section

I don't think the time article is correctly represented; having a politician's work in there also seems spammy. It's being reverted without discussion, though. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's not correctly represented, it seems like one would simply correct it rather than delete. Time is a leading magazine in the US and is an excellent source for WP. This was the cover story of the February issue. The headline on the cover is "The Mindful Revolution." The article says mindfulness is "gaining acceptance acceptance among those who might otherwise dismiss mental training techniques closely tied to meditation—Silicon Vally entrepreneurs, Fortune 500 titans, Pentagon chiefs, and more." It says meditation is considered an essential means to achieving mindfulness. Later the article says mindfulness "has a practical veneer that is helping to propel it into the mainstream." The article says mindfulness is strengthened through the practice of meditation. It says there are a number of bestselling books on mindfulness. I think it's accurate to say that mindfulness is gaining popular acceptance in the US. TimidGuy (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Right, so it wasn't properly represented. And having a POV-inflected section title like "Popular acceptance" is a big no-no. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Change into disambiguation page

See Talk:Mindfulness (psychology)#Proposed merge with Mindfulness (positive psychology) and Mindfulness meditation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"Concensus"

"Mindfulness meditation" is the same topic as "Mindfulness (psychology)"; it does not deserve a separate article. See Talk:Mindfulness (psychology)#Merged; please address the concerns I've raised. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Joshua Jonathan. There is no need for a separate "mindfulness meditation" article.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

NB: A1 twisted the following sentence from the lead: "Mindfulness meditation, also known as mindfulness and Vipassana" into "Mindfulness meditation is based on the concept of mindfulness or Vipassana". That's something quite different, and a distortion of sources. See also Fabrizio Didonna, Clinical Handbook of Mindfulness, p.27: "The Pali words for mindfulness meditation are Vipassana bhavana, which translates well as the cultivation of insight or "insight meditation". Western researchers and clinicians usually use the expression "mindfulness meditation" to refer to this practice". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 01:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I've explained in the thread on the other page why we need this article. TimidGuy (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Merger

Merged with Mindfulness (psychology). See Talk:Mindfulness (psychology)#Proposed merge with Mindfulness (positive psychology) and Mindfulness meditation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if that is a good idea. Because these are two entirely separate concepts -A1candidate (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Arguments and WP:RS please. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This has already been discused (with RS) in the "frontiers article" section -A1candidate (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

One (1) article is being discussed there. Where in this article is it stated that mindfulness as a state and mindfulness meditation "are two entirely separate concepts"? I don't see it.

What I do see is this quote:

"The majority of psychological and neuroscientific studies into mindfulness adopt a definition put forward by Jon Kabat-Zinn, who was pivotal in translating Buddhist approaches of mind training into the secular context of health care programs and psychological interventions (e.g., Kabat-Zinn et al., 1985, 1992; Kabat-Zinn, 2011). He describes mindfulness as “the awareness that emerges through paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally to the unfolding of experience moment by moment”(Kabat-Zinn, 2003)."

"Paying attention on purpose", which means, mindfulness is the result of training, which means that there is mindfulness and mindfulness meditation are not "entirely separate concepts", on the contrary. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge anything beginning with mindfulness. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)