Revision as of 19:45, 20 April 2014 editLeoRomero (talk | contribs)1,050 edits →merge: notes re notes← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:09, 20 April 2014 edit undoJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits →Notes re notes re merge LeoRomero (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC): rNext edit → | ||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
:*], it would be good if you could please explain yourself and discuss your edits per WP ] and ] guidelines, esp when you make such sweeping statements as "this article completely overlapped with ]", "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. | :*], it would be good if you could please explain yourself and discuss your edits per WP ] and ] guidelines, esp when you make such sweeping statements as "this article completely overlapped with ]", "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. | ||
:*], dismissive remarks, f.e "So blech", are ], ], and inconsistent with WP Code of Conduct requirements for ], esp in the context of a serious disagreement between you and ]. Your threat that if ] does not meet your requirements "soon" you will just nominate his article for deletion is ], ]. "Heavy-handed and bossy" characterizes your general approach and tenor, as evidenced by your notes. You "'''strongly object'''" to ]'s single comment that your edits are "improper". Maybe you know how ] 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. | :*], dismissive remarks, f.e "So blech", are ], ], and inconsistent with WP Code of Conduct requirements for ], esp in the context of a serious disagreement between you and ]. Your threat that if ] does not meet your requirements "soon" you will just nominate his article for deletion is ], ]. "Heavy-handed and bossy" characterizes your general approach and tenor, as evidenced by your notes. You "'''strongly object'''" to ]'s single comment that your edits are "improper". Maybe you know how ] 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. ] (]) 21:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:09, 20 April 2014
Summary of "Not appropriate EL"? Discussion
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 Misplaced Pages 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." Misplaced Pages itself regularly solicits donations. Following Alexbrn's logic, we wouldn't be able to link to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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"?
Hi Alex - Could you please give me a link to the Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages itself regularly solicits donations. Following your logic, we wouldn't be able to link to any Wikimedia project or to Misplaced Pages 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 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)
- 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)
- 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 09:36, 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages itself regularly solicits donations. Following your logic, we wouldn't be able to link to any Wikimedia project or to Misplaced Pages itself. LeoRomero (talk) 08:23, 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 07:29, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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 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 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)
- 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 12:16, 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages articles, not to links, right? Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 15:22, 19 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 Misplaced Pages is not - a howto guide. See WP:NOTHOWTO Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
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:
- This analysis seems to have raised some eyebrows at PMID 24564175 and PMID 24564176
- 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?
- 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 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 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 12:48, 20 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)
- 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)