 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was the subject of an educational assignment. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Shenandoah University/History and Systems of Psychology (Spring 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
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):
ChinnaA.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sricha19.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
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):
AcevedoBarga.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Alexbrn - Re your removal of my additions (diff), please explain why you think they are "poorly-sourced", and how I might be able to improve the sourcing. - Thanks; LeoRomero ( talk) 07:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- We should use good secondary sources, especially for for health-related content. Please see WP:MEDRS. (And if a good source could be found, a lede should summarize the body, and not contain distinct content - please see WP:LEDE). Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 07:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Alexbrn, with regard to your removal (diff) of the External Link " UCLA Mindful Awareness Research Center (provides free downloadable guided meditations)", I request that you please undo your edit, or explain your "questionable link" comment here. Jytdog yesterday removed (diff) a similar link previously inserted by another Contributor. You may both recall that this same link was the subject of recent discussions among you, Roxy the dog, Jytdog, and me. Here's my attempt to summarize (organize, really, since I'm mainly copying & pasting) that discussion, to make it easier to analyze. Please edit the table as you see fit, or just add your comments below the table and I'll organize them for you. - Thanks; LeoRomero ( talk) 06:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi
Alexbrn,
Roxy the dog,
Jytdog - Yawl hadn't added any comments since 4/18. I'm posting this note as one more attempt to reach consensus with you before I make a
Request for Comment. - Thanks;
LeoRomero (
talk) 06:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- the link is a bad idea for the reasons stated; it is just not the kind of EL we generally use. you have not provided much in the way of reason why you want this in so badly that you are fighting three editors who are giving reasons why it should not come in. but the issue is so trivial that it is not worth trying to take up the community's time with; i doubt we would get any response. i will not oppose if you put it back in, but this is the kind of thing that leaves a bad taste.
Jytdog (
talk) 10:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
-
Jytdog. (1) I disagree that this is a trivial matter. The link per se means nothing to me, it's your interpretation of
WP:EL that concerns me. (2) I don't think it matters that it's three v me. (3) I disagree with your characterization of this disagreement as a "fight"; my son and I have fought in actual wars - this doesn't even rise to the level of a tiff. (4) I disagree that I haven't done much to provide reasons for my positions - I've done my best to review, quote, and link to WP policies in support of my positions, and think that while you have clearly stated your opinions, you have not backed them up with citations of policy, except in your reference to
WP:NOTHOWTO which, as I noted in row 5 below, is I think a misinterpretation. (5) I'd like for us to reach consensus on the principles involved. I don't want to impose my will or cause resentment. So if we cannot reach consensus, I will resort to RfC etc, and hope that you are wrong about the WP community's interest in WP:EL policy. Thanks;
LeoRomero (
talk) 11:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- As I said, add it if you want. If you file an RfC leave me out of it. Jytdog ( talk) 12:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Just to answer your question (not to argue whether the link should come in or not, which i have given up on). WP:NOTHOWTO applies to all of WP, and EL are very much part of WP; the distinction you are trying to draw between "articles" and "EL" is not relevant. Jytdog ( talk) 14:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
-
Jytdog. (1) I disagree that this is a trivial matter. The link per se means nothing to me, it's your interpretation of
WP:EL that concerns me. (2) I don't think it matters that it's three v me. (3) I disagree with your characterization of this disagreement as a "fight"; my son and I have fought in actual wars - this doesn't even rise to the level of a tiff. (4) I disagree that I haven't done much to provide reasons for my positions - I've done my best to review, quote, and link to WP policies in support of my positions, and think that while you have clearly stated your opinions, you have not backed them up with citations of policy, except in your reference to
WP:NOTHOWTO which, as I noted in row 5 below, is I think a misinterpretation. (5) I'd like for us to reach consensus on the principles involved. I don't want to impose my will or cause resentment. So if we cannot reach consensus, I will resort to RfC etc, and hope that you are wrong about the WP community's interest in WP:EL policy. Thanks;
LeoRomero (
talk) 11:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- the link is a bad idea for the reasons stated; it is just not the kind of EL we generally use. you have not provided much in the way of reason why you want this in so badly that you are fighting three editors who are giving reasons why it should not come in. but the issue is so trivial that it is not worth trying to take up the community's time with; i doubt we would get any response. i will not oppose if you put it back in, but this is the kind of thing that leaves a bad taste.
Jytdog (
talk) 10:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
| Policy/Issue | LeoRomero | Alexbrn | Roxy the dog/ Jytdog |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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". Roxy the dog, 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. Update: WP:NOTHOWTO applies to all of WP, and EL are very much part of WP; the distinction you are trying to draw between "articles" and "EL" is not relevant. | |
| 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. |
- I'd also just add that I think Jytdog's mention of WP:NOTHOWTO is pertinent here. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 06:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
As of 2010-08-06 the 2nd paragraph of this "MBSR" wikipedia page contains a mistake that misrepresents the subject, as the text reads "(MBSR) programs last eight to ten weeks and consist of one 2.5 hour weekly class along with an all-day weekly class on topics in the context of mindfulness."
The following quotes indicate the correct information:
"Single weekly sessions are typically 2.5 h, and there is an additional single all-day session per course on a weekend day." from Grossman, Paul et al 2004 "Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health benefits: A meta-analysis" Journal of Psychosomatic Research, volume 57, pages 35-43.
Also "The Stress Reduction Program consists of eight weekly classes and one all-day class." from http://www.umassmed.edu/Content.aspx?id=41304
I shall edit the page accordingly.
---
This page has a lot of fancy, marginally clinical, words for describing what is simply put; meditation. So, my question is... Why is it cast as a "program" of 8-10 weeks? Sounds more like an advertisement...
208.84.140.10 (
talk) 18:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Are there any crititiques of MBSR as pseudoscience that could be included. Alnpete ( talk) 12:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Destiny and I am a student at Shenandoah University. I am editing this article as part of my History & Systems of Psychology course, in conjunction with the APS Wikipedia Initiative. Unfortunately, I am dreadful at editing but hopefully I will learn a lot about it by the end of this assignment.
Djenkins10 (
talk) 04:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Destiny. Welcome. Frankly, this article needs a lot of work. It doesn't sound at all like an encyclopedia article, but rather reads like a promotional brochure or an essay. The tone and approach needs to be adjusted. Would be great if you could work on that. TimidGuy ( talk) 16:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
An IP put this comment at the end of the article:
Quoted from a section above, suggests MBSR facilitates "a shift from a disposition towards right prefrontal cortex, associated with anxiety, depression and aversion to the left prefrontal cortex, associated with happiness, flow, and enjoyment." This is incorrect. The right prefrontal cortex is associated with happiness, flow, and enjoyments, and connectedness etc, and vice versa. MBSR connects us more with the right hemisphere.
Moving it here in case someone can address this. Lots of problems in this article, including reliance on primary sources. TimidGuy ( talk) 07:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've had a go at addressing these problems. The primary sources were being used to support beneficial claims against the grain of secondary research and I have entirely removed them for this reason. A 2003 meta-analysis was being badly misrepesented to puff MBSR, and I have fixed this. Also a more recent 2010 meta-analysis is available, and I have added its conclusions.
Alexbrn
talk|
contribs|
COI 05:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- It certainly does read more like an encyclopedia article. Thanks. Note that Sedlmeier 2012 does do meta-analyses specifically on mindfulness meditation. However, he lumps together mindfulness and MBSR, so I think I can support you're removing it. Ideally the sources would be specifically about MBSR, since it's somewhat different from mindfulness. TimidGuy ( talk) 10:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's what the conclusion says: "This systematic review found that MBSR might be a useful approach for FMS patients. According to the quality of evidence only a weak recommendation for MBSR can be made at this point. Further high quality RCTs are required for a conclusive judgment of its effects." TimidGuy ( talk) 11:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's from the abstract. The article's actual conclusion has: "This systematic review found low quality evidence for a small short-term improvement of pain and quality of life after MBSR for fibromyalgia, when compared to usual care or active control interventions. No evidence was found for long-term effects." Under a Quality of evidence heading it also has "The overall quality of evidence for the primary outcomes quality of life and pain was low and the effects were not robust against bias."
Alexbrn
talk|
contribs|
COI 11:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Is there a policy that says that the abstract can't be quoted? Why isn't it neutral to quote what the authors themselves say? Are you somehow suggesting that the language of the abstract doesn't accurately represent the review?
TimidGuy (
talk) 11:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Abstracts aren't necessarily written by the authors. WP:MEDRS guides us: "it is misleading to give a full citation for a source after reading only its abstract". Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 11:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- (Add) I see you've put in your preferred text a third time. Have you read the paper? Evidence quality seems to be a major strand of it. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 11:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Is there a policy that says that the abstract can't be quoted? Why isn't it neutral to quote what the authors themselves say? Are you somehow suggesting that the language of the abstract doesn't accurately represent the review?
TimidGuy (
talk) 11:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
A note of caution on the studies on mindfulness and meditation: www.tricycle.com/blog/meditation-nation Chris Fynn ( talk) 12:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Dead link. Full citation and current URL:
- Heuman, Linda (25 April 2014). "Meditation nation". Tricycle: The Buddhist Review. New York, USA. Retrieved 6 September 2023.
- Daask ( talk) 18:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 | This article was nominated for merging with Mindfulness (psychology) on june 2014. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
The article is intriguing as written, because it doesn't describe any of the specific techniques used to produce or increase "mindfulness". Someone knowledgeable is invited to add a new section on this topic. David Spector ( talk) 14:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
«MBSR is based on the following tenets: non-judging, non-striving, acceptance, letting go, beginner’s mind, patience, trust, acceptance, and non-centering.»
The text I pasted above seems to contain a repetition ("acceptance" appears twice) and an inexact quoting, for "non-centering" is always indicated as "de-centering" in the provided paper.
As I am neither a native English speaker nor - in any extent - an expert of the article's subject, I'd like someone else better check & fix the points I tried to expose.
-- Filippof ( talk) 11:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Even though some of the meditation techniques in MSBR were derived from eastern religious practices, the current MSBR meditation practices are very much separate from any religion. Having a picture of a Buddhist priest at the top of this article gives the mistaken impression that MSBR involves eastern religion, which may have the unintended consequence of steering people away from this article who may have differing religious opinions (Christian, Muslim, etc.). I suggest replacing the photo of the Buddhist monk with a photo of a person meditating, with no religious implications. (No religious symbolism in they way the person is holding their hands or with their clothing, etc.) Anything to do with eastern religion in this article would more appropriately be placed in the history section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.61.80 ( talk) 18:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Unreliable Cochrane citation. Doesn't pass verification. Self-referencing by Jon Kabat-Zinn who undersigns commentary asserting NO PROOF OF EFFECTIVENESS of mindfulness.
Citation to a Cochrane review used in at least 6 places in the article is unreliable, doesn't pass verification and contains self-published information.
I am referring to the "Mindfulness-based stress reduction for women diagnosed with breast cancer". doi:10.1002/14651858.cd011518.
That citation is used to back-up various claims in the article, some of which are tautological.
Like "Mindfulness meditation is the method by which mindfulness skills are cultivated." - i.e. "Mindfulness meditation is method for cultivation of skills of mindfulness meditation." - or put simpler "Mindfulness meditation is that thing you use to improve mindfulness meditation."
Which is like defining a hammer as a tool for improving hammers.
I.e. Hammers all the way down. In a bag.
Other claims such as "MBSR is practiced as a complementary medicine, commonly in the field of oncology" ARE NOT FOUND in the Cochrane review above.
Instead, said Cochrane review cites commentary "Mindfulness in medicine. JAMA 2008;300(11):1350‐2.", written by "Ludwig DS, Kabat‐Zinn J."
I.e. The very same Jon Kabat-Zinn, founder of the Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction Clinic, shown in the photo in the article.
Which is essentially, Jon Kabat-Zinn used as a source about Jon Kabat-Zinn and his invention.
FURTHER, cited commentary, which is barely two pages long, with citations, makes no claims of mindfulness being "complementary medicine, commonly in the field of oncology".
But it does use a lot of weasel words like "may" (9 instances), "might" (1), variations on "suggest" (5)...
Also, nonsensical associations based on etymological fallacy. Like claiming that "connection between medicine and meditation is underscored by their shared etymological origins in the Latin word mederi, which means “to heal.”
Which is both factually false, and makes as much sense as trying to connect meditation (or medicine) with commodes, modesty and modernity - as all those words share a common PIE root "med-".
But quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur, I guess?
Also, there is a claim that mindfulness somehow improves effectiveness of an influenza vaccine.
Which is a reference to "Alterations in Brain and Immune Function Produced by Mindfulness Meditation DOI: 10.1097/01.psy.0000077505.67574.e3", published in Psychosomatic Medicine volume 65, issue 4 (2003).
Said claim (among many others) was called into question in the very next issue of Psychosomatic Medicine, resulting in a lot of weaseling about outliers by the lead author of the paper, ultimately conceding that "Clearly, these findings require replication and extension in a larger sample."
Kabat-Zinn J is coauthor of that paper too.
And to top it all off, cited commentary concludes that "The available research on mindfulness has major limita-tions, precluding any definitive assessment of effectiveness at this time.15 Published clinical studies frequently have small numbers of participants, lack an active control group, and include only subjective end points. Most of these studies do not adequately consider participant characteristics (mak-ing it difficult to generalize the effects to other groups), treat-ment methods (relating to reproducibility), study staff pro-tocol adherence and participant skill acquisition (treatment fidelity), and relevant covariates (confounders and media-tors). Moreover, the lack of consensus about working defi-nitions of mindfulness and other meditative practices im-pedes comparative studies. These limitations, although not unusual in a nascent field, need to be addressed in future research."
In short: There's no proof of effectiveness of mindfulness.
In fact, commentary coauthored by the creator of mindfulness, Jon Kabat-Zinn, says that there's no proof of effectiveness of mindfulness, and that few studies done on the subject are rubbish.
92.36.202.188 (
talk) 22:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- 92.36.202.188 bombarding an article with tags is not constructive. comrade waddie96 ( talk) 14:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Pinkmaster03 (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
WhiteRabbitLAS.
— Assignment last updated by WhiteRabbitLAS ( talk) 03:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The effectiveness section seems to mostly cite and discuss sources on the effectiveness of mindfulness interventions generally, rather than being specific to Mindfulness-based stress reduction. This content seems like it should be moved to Mindfulness § Therapy programs. I propose that most of it be removed from this article in any case. Daask ( talk) 18:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2024 and 4 May 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sj4452 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Sj4452 ( talk) 01:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| This article was the subject of an educational assignment. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Shenandoah University/History and Systems of Psychology (Spring 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
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):
ChinnaA.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sricha19.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
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):
AcevedoBarga.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Alexbrn - Re your removal of my additions (diff), please explain why you think they are "poorly-sourced", and how I might be able to improve the sourcing. - Thanks; LeoRomero ( talk) 07:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- We should use good secondary sources, especially for for health-related content. Please see WP:MEDRS. (And if a good source could be found, a lede should summarize the body, and not contain distinct content - please see WP:LEDE). Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 07:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Alexbrn, with regard to your removal (diff) of the External Link " UCLA Mindful Awareness Research Center (provides free downloadable guided meditations)", I request that you please undo your edit, or explain your "questionable link" comment here. Jytdog yesterday removed (diff) a similar link previously inserted by another Contributor. You may both recall that this same link was the subject of recent discussions among you, Roxy the dog, Jytdog, and me. Here's my attempt to summarize (organize, really, since I'm mainly copying & pasting) that discussion, to make it easier to analyze. Please edit the table as you see fit, or just add your comments below the table and I'll organize them for you. - Thanks; LeoRomero ( talk) 06:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi
Alexbrn,
Roxy the dog,
Jytdog - Yawl hadn't added any comments since 4/18. I'm posting this note as one more attempt to reach consensus with you before I make a
Request for Comment. - Thanks;
LeoRomero (
talk) 06:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- the link is a bad idea for the reasons stated; it is just not the kind of EL we generally use. you have not provided much in the way of reason why you want this in so badly that you are fighting three editors who are giving reasons why it should not come in. but the issue is so trivial that it is not worth trying to take up the community's time with; i doubt we would get any response. i will not oppose if you put it back in, but this is the kind of thing that leaves a bad taste.
Jytdog (
talk) 10:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
-
Jytdog. (1) I disagree that this is a trivial matter. The link per se means nothing to me, it's your interpretation of
WP:EL that concerns me. (2) I don't think it matters that it's three v me. (3) I disagree with your characterization of this disagreement as a "fight"; my son and I have fought in actual wars - this doesn't even rise to the level of a tiff. (4) I disagree that I haven't done much to provide reasons for my positions - I've done my best to review, quote, and link to WP policies in support of my positions, and think that while you have clearly stated your opinions, you have not backed them up with citations of policy, except in your reference to
WP:NOTHOWTO which, as I noted in row 5 below, is I think a misinterpretation. (5) I'd like for us to reach consensus on the principles involved. I don't want to impose my will or cause resentment. So if we cannot reach consensus, I will resort to RfC etc, and hope that you are wrong about the WP community's interest in WP:EL policy. Thanks;
LeoRomero (
talk) 11:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- As I said, add it if you want. If you file an RfC leave me out of it. Jytdog ( talk) 12:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Just to answer your question (not to argue whether the link should come in or not, which i have given up on). WP:NOTHOWTO applies to all of WP, and EL are very much part of WP; the distinction you are trying to draw between "articles" and "EL" is not relevant. Jytdog ( talk) 14:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
-
Jytdog. (1) I disagree that this is a trivial matter. The link per se means nothing to me, it's your interpretation of
WP:EL that concerns me. (2) I don't think it matters that it's three v me. (3) I disagree with your characterization of this disagreement as a "fight"; my son and I have fought in actual wars - this doesn't even rise to the level of a tiff. (4) I disagree that I haven't done much to provide reasons for my positions - I've done my best to review, quote, and link to WP policies in support of my positions, and think that while you have clearly stated your opinions, you have not backed them up with citations of policy, except in your reference to
WP:NOTHOWTO which, as I noted in row 5 below, is I think a misinterpretation. (5) I'd like for us to reach consensus on the principles involved. I don't want to impose my will or cause resentment. So if we cannot reach consensus, I will resort to RfC etc, and hope that you are wrong about the WP community's interest in WP:EL policy. Thanks;
LeoRomero (
talk) 11:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- the link is a bad idea for the reasons stated; it is just not the kind of EL we generally use. you have not provided much in the way of reason why you want this in so badly that you are fighting three editors who are giving reasons why it should not come in. but the issue is so trivial that it is not worth trying to take up the community's time with; i doubt we would get any response. i will not oppose if you put it back in, but this is the kind of thing that leaves a bad taste.
Jytdog (
talk) 10:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
| Policy/Issue | LeoRomero | Alexbrn | Roxy the dog/ Jytdog |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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". Roxy the dog, 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. Update: WP:NOTHOWTO applies to all of WP, and EL are very much part of WP; the distinction you are trying to draw between "articles" and "EL" is not relevant. | |
| 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. |
- I'd also just add that I think Jytdog's mention of WP:NOTHOWTO is pertinent here. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 06:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
As of 2010-08-06 the 2nd paragraph of this "MBSR" wikipedia page contains a mistake that misrepresents the subject, as the text reads "(MBSR) programs last eight to ten weeks and consist of one 2.5 hour weekly class along with an all-day weekly class on topics in the context of mindfulness."
The following quotes indicate the correct information:
"Single weekly sessions are typically 2.5 h, and there is an additional single all-day session per course on a weekend day." from Grossman, Paul et al 2004 "Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health benefits: A meta-analysis" Journal of Psychosomatic Research, volume 57, pages 35-43.
Also "The Stress Reduction Program consists of eight weekly classes and one all-day class." from http://www.umassmed.edu/Content.aspx?id=41304
I shall edit the page accordingly.
---
This page has a lot of fancy, marginally clinical, words for describing what is simply put; meditation. So, my question is... Why is it cast as a "program" of 8-10 weeks? Sounds more like an advertisement...
208.84.140.10 (
talk) 18:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Are there any crititiques of MBSR as pseudoscience that could be included. Alnpete ( talk) 12:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Destiny and I am a student at Shenandoah University. I am editing this article as part of my History & Systems of Psychology course, in conjunction with the APS Wikipedia Initiative. Unfortunately, I am dreadful at editing but hopefully I will learn a lot about it by the end of this assignment.
Djenkins10 (
talk) 04:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Destiny. Welcome. Frankly, this article needs a lot of work. It doesn't sound at all like an encyclopedia article, but rather reads like a promotional brochure or an essay. The tone and approach needs to be adjusted. Would be great if you could work on that. TimidGuy ( talk) 16:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
An IP put this comment at the end of the article:
Quoted from a section above, suggests MBSR facilitates "a shift from a disposition towards right prefrontal cortex, associated with anxiety, depression and aversion to the left prefrontal cortex, associated with happiness, flow, and enjoyment." This is incorrect. The right prefrontal cortex is associated with happiness, flow, and enjoyments, and connectedness etc, and vice versa. MBSR connects us more with the right hemisphere.
Moving it here in case someone can address this. Lots of problems in this article, including reliance on primary sources. TimidGuy ( talk) 07:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've had a go at addressing these problems. The primary sources were being used to support beneficial claims against the grain of secondary research and I have entirely removed them for this reason. A 2003 meta-analysis was being badly misrepesented to puff MBSR, and I have fixed this. Also a more recent 2010 meta-analysis is available, and I have added its conclusions.
Alexbrn
talk|
contribs|
COI 05:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- It certainly does read more like an encyclopedia article. Thanks. Note that Sedlmeier 2012 does do meta-analyses specifically on mindfulness meditation. However, he lumps together mindfulness and MBSR, so I think I can support you're removing it. Ideally the sources would be specifically about MBSR, since it's somewhat different from mindfulness. TimidGuy ( talk) 10:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's what the conclusion says: "This systematic review found that MBSR might be a useful approach for FMS patients. According to the quality of evidence only a weak recommendation for MBSR can be made at this point. Further high quality RCTs are required for a conclusive judgment of its effects." TimidGuy ( talk) 11:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's from the abstract. The article's actual conclusion has: "This systematic review found low quality evidence for a small short-term improvement of pain and quality of life after MBSR for fibromyalgia, when compared to usual care or active control interventions. No evidence was found for long-term effects." Under a Quality of evidence heading it also has "The overall quality of evidence for the primary outcomes quality of life and pain was low and the effects were not robust against bias."
Alexbrn
talk|
contribs|
COI 11:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Is there a policy that says that the abstract can't be quoted? Why isn't it neutral to quote what the authors themselves say? Are you somehow suggesting that the language of the abstract doesn't accurately represent the review?
TimidGuy (
talk) 11:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Abstracts aren't necessarily written by the authors. WP:MEDRS guides us: "it is misleading to give a full citation for a source after reading only its abstract". Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 11:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- (Add) I see you've put in your preferred text a third time. Have you read the paper? Evidence quality seems to be a major strand of it. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 11:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Is there a policy that says that the abstract can't be quoted? Why isn't it neutral to quote what the authors themselves say? Are you somehow suggesting that the language of the abstract doesn't accurately represent the review?
TimidGuy (
talk) 11:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
A note of caution on the studies on mindfulness and meditation: www.tricycle.com/blog/meditation-nation Chris Fynn ( talk) 12:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Dead link. Full citation and current URL:
- Heuman, Linda (25 April 2014). "Meditation nation". Tricycle: The Buddhist Review. New York, USA. Retrieved 6 September 2023.
- Daask ( talk) 18:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
| This article was nominated for merging with Mindfulness (psychology) on june 2014. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
The article is intriguing as written, because it doesn't describe any of the specific techniques used to produce or increase "mindfulness". Someone knowledgeable is invited to add a new section on this topic. David Spector ( talk) 14:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
«MBSR is based on the following tenets: non-judging, non-striving, acceptance, letting go, beginner’s mind, patience, trust, acceptance, and non-centering.»
The text I pasted above seems to contain a repetition ("acceptance" appears twice) and an inexact quoting, for "non-centering" is always indicated as "de-centering" in the provided paper.
As I am neither a native English speaker nor - in any extent - an expert of the article's subject, I'd like someone else better check & fix the points I tried to expose.
-- Filippof ( talk) 11:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Even though some of the meditation techniques in MSBR were derived from eastern religious practices, the current MSBR meditation practices are very much separate from any religion. Having a picture of a Buddhist priest at the top of this article gives the mistaken impression that MSBR involves eastern religion, which may have the unintended consequence of steering people away from this article who may have differing religious opinions (Christian, Muslim, etc.). I suggest replacing the photo of the Buddhist monk with a photo of a person meditating, with no religious implications. (No religious symbolism in they way the person is holding their hands or with their clothing, etc.) Anything to do with eastern religion in this article would more appropriately be placed in the history section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.61.80 ( talk) 18:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Unreliable Cochrane citation. Doesn't pass verification. Self-referencing by Jon Kabat-Zinn who undersigns commentary asserting NO PROOF OF EFFECTIVENESS of mindfulness.
Citation to a Cochrane review used in at least 6 places in the article is unreliable, doesn't pass verification and contains self-published information.
I am referring to the "Mindfulness-based stress reduction for women diagnosed with breast cancer". doi:10.1002/14651858.cd011518.
That citation is used to back-up various claims in the article, some of which are tautological.
Like "Mindfulness meditation is the method by which mindfulness skills are cultivated." - i.e. "Mindfulness meditation is method for cultivation of skills of mindfulness meditation." - or put simpler "Mindfulness meditation is that thing you use to improve mindfulness meditation."
Which is like defining a hammer as a tool for improving hammers.
I.e. Hammers all the way down. In a bag.
Other claims such as "MBSR is practiced as a complementary medicine, commonly in the field of oncology" ARE NOT FOUND in the Cochrane review above.
Instead, said Cochrane review cites commentary "Mindfulness in medicine. JAMA 2008;300(11):1350‐2.", written by "Ludwig DS, Kabat‐Zinn J."
I.e. The very same Jon Kabat-Zinn, founder of the Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction Clinic, shown in the photo in the article.
Which is essentially, Jon Kabat-Zinn used as a source about Jon Kabat-Zinn and his invention.
FURTHER, cited commentary, which is barely two pages long, with citations, makes no claims of mindfulness being "complementary medicine, commonly in the field of oncology".
But it does use a lot of weasel words like "may" (9 instances), "might" (1), variations on "suggest" (5)...
Also, nonsensical associations based on etymological fallacy. Like claiming that "connection between medicine and meditation is underscored by their shared etymological origins in the Latin word mederi, which means “to heal.”
Which is both factually false, and makes as much sense as trying to connect meditation (or medicine) with commodes, modesty and modernity - as all those words share a common PIE root "med-".
But quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur, I guess?
Also, there is a claim that mindfulness somehow improves effectiveness of an influenza vaccine.
Which is a reference to "Alterations in Brain and Immune Function Produced by Mindfulness Meditation DOI: 10.1097/01.psy.0000077505.67574.e3", published in Psychosomatic Medicine volume 65, issue 4 (2003).
Said claim (among many others) was called into question in the very next issue of Psychosomatic Medicine, resulting in a lot of weaseling about outliers by the lead author of the paper, ultimately conceding that "Clearly, these findings require replication and extension in a larger sample."
Kabat-Zinn J is coauthor of that paper too.
And to top it all off, cited commentary concludes that "The available research on mindfulness has major limita-tions, precluding any definitive assessment of effectiveness at this time.15 Published clinical studies frequently have small numbers of participants, lack an active control group, and include only subjective end points. Most of these studies do not adequately consider participant characteristics (mak-ing it difficult to generalize the effects to other groups), treat-ment methods (relating to reproducibility), study staff pro-tocol adherence and participant skill acquisition (treatment fidelity), and relevant covariates (confounders and media-tors). Moreover, the lack of consensus about working defi-nitions of mindfulness and other meditative practices im-pedes comparative studies. These limitations, although not unusual in a nascent field, need to be addressed in future research."
In short: There's no proof of effectiveness of mindfulness.
In fact, commentary coauthored by the creator of mindfulness, Jon Kabat-Zinn, says that there's no proof of effectiveness of mindfulness, and that few studies done on the subject are rubbish.
92.36.202.188 (
talk) 22:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- 92.36.202.188 bombarding an article with tags is not constructive. comrade waddie96 ( talk) 14:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Pinkmaster03 (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
WhiteRabbitLAS.
— Assignment last updated by WhiteRabbitLAS ( talk) 03:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The effectiveness section seems to mostly cite and discuss sources on the effectiveness of mindfulness interventions generally, rather than being specific to Mindfulness-based stress reduction. This content seems like it should be moved to Mindfulness § Therapy programs. I propose that most of it be removed from this article in any case. Daask ( talk) 18:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2024 and 4 May 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sj4452 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Sj4452 ( talk) 01:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)