![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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:
{{
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:
I have removed the text from the article accordingly, for discussion here. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 15:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
This article completely overlapped with Mindfulness-based stress reduction so I merged it there. Jytdog ( talk) 16:30, 19 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)
:*
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.
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. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Same topic Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:50, 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 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)
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)
See Talk:Mindfulness (psychology)#Proposed merge with Mindfulness (positive psychology) and Mindfulness meditation. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
"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)
![]() | This article was nominated for merging with Mindfulness (psychology) on 9 July 2014. The result of the discussion was No concensus. |
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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:
{{
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:
I have removed the text from the article accordingly, for discussion here. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 15:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
This article completely overlapped with Mindfulness-based stress reduction so I merged it there. Jytdog ( talk) 16:30, 19 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)
:*
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.
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. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Same topic Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:50, 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 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)
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)
See Talk:Mindfulness (psychology)#Proposed merge with Mindfulness (positive psychology) and Mindfulness meditation. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
"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)
![]() | This article was nominated for merging with Mindfulness (psychology) on 9 July 2014. The result of the discussion was No concensus. |
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)