Misplaced Pages

Talk:Mindfulness-based stress reduction: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:41, 20 April 2014 editBon courage (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users66,214 edits "Poorly-sourced additions"?: r← Previous edit Revision as of 08:13, 20 April 2014 edit undoLeoRomero (talk | contribs)1,050 edits "Poorly-sourced additions"?: thanks AlexbrnNext edit →
Line 8: Line 8:
Hi ] - Re your removal of my additions , please explain why you think they are "poorly-sourced", and how I might be able to improve the sourcing. - Thanks; ] (]) 07:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC) Hi ] - Re your removal of my additions , please explain why you think they are "poorly-sourced", and how I might be able to improve the sourcing. - Thanks; ] (]) 07:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
:We should use good secondary sources, especially for for health-related content. Please see ]. (And if a good source could be found, a lede should summarize the body, and not contain distinct content - please see ]). ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 07:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC) :We should use good secondary sources, especially for for health-related content. Please see ]. (And if a good source could be found, a lede should summarize the body, and not contain distinct content - please see ]). ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 07:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
::That makes sense, ], thanks (thanks too for the links). ] (]) 08:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


=="Questionable link"?== =="Questionable link"?==

Revision as of 08:13, 20 April 2014

WikiProject iconMedicine: Psychiatry C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconPsychology Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
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.

"Poorly-sourced additions"?

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 07:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
That makes sense, Alexbrn, thanks (thanks too for the links). LeoRomero (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

"Questionable link"?

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)

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 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". 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 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.
I'd also just add that I think Jytdog's mention of WP:NOTHOWTO is pertinent here. Alexbrn 06:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree: It's on the table, 5th row. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Section break

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Parking comment here that was in article and that notes an error

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 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)

Conclusion of 2013 review

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 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 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 11:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Categories: