body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents


Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 28 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hollyb98 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Kennedif00.

— Assignment last updated by Rahneli (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues and classification[edit]

I reassessed the article as being in the categories "Articles lacking reliable references from August 2020" and "Articles with unsourced statements from January 2023", as maintenance. This was reverted with the edit summary, "such as?". The evidence was already in the article (and easy to see) but I added some "Citation needed" tags on unsourced content.
The B-class criteria (#1) states: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The last sentence in the second paragraph of the "Taoism" section uses the word xian then "immortality" and needs a source for clarification. The last sentence of the last paragraph states, "Also the unification or middle road forms such as Wuxingheqidao that seeks the unification of internal alchemical forms with more external forms." is unsourced.
The article is also tagged as "needing clarification since June 2019. I did not look but the article may have been bot assessed to show the same classification across all included WikiProjects.
The last paragraph of the "Modern dissemination in the West" subsection goes into detail but is unsourced. The bottom line is the article fails the "B-class criteria without considering how "well-written" it may be. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Inquiry[edit]

A section talking about the technique by Sri Ramana Maharshi should be added to the Meditation article. 186.22.18.101 (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Applause![edit]

I am impressed with this articles scope, detail, sourcing, structure and quality of style! It is a pleasure to read. After having read on the subject for years, I have sill come away with new information. Nothing is ever perfect and apparently there are still quality criteria to be met. However, as an author currently working on the meditation article in the German wikipedia, I have to accept that the present article is leagues above where we currently stand in the German edition.

So I'd like to express my respect and thanks to all the authors who have contributed in however small ways to this very informative article! I will use it as an inspiration - or outright steal from it ;) Thank you for your work! -- Happycow (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Mindfulness from the definition & moving the definition difficulties up to the lead[edit]

Arbitrary header #1

Meditation is not the same as mindfulness. Mindfulness is a subset of Meditation, and it is circular to define each in terms of the other.

The article is about many contemplative traditions. However, even were this page solely about the Buddhist practices, the lead is still too dismissive of the vast majority of Buddhist meditators throughout history and the world, even today. Before my edit, the lead was in disagreement with the body of the article. WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.

Health claims are primarily associated with mindfulness, so to emphasize health claims in the lead, especially at the cost of the spiritual aspects is Euro-centric and WP:NOPROMO.

Maybe if you have only meditated in Brooklyn or work retreats or therapy you might think meditation is merely tangentially related to religious practices, but if you've ever lived in Asia or your grandparents were Buddhists you might find this page to be a type of erasure.

The fact that the term is hard to define should remain in the lead, as that is critical to the definition, not just a curious sub topic. MOS:LEAD.

However, I may have overcorrected by not having mindfulness mentioned it the lead at all. Let's find a way to put it back in per WP:DUE. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit screwed-up th definition in the lead; thanks for noticing. It was carefully crafted, in a neutral way, to avoid phrases like "to achieve a higher state of consciousness or spiritual enlightenment," which you added, but is not how these authors define meditation, nor how it is described in the definitions-section.
The fact that '"meditation" is difficult to define' is not in the lead is because Wikipedia-articles start with a definition, and this definition is broadly acceptable. But, I'll have a second look. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead starts with the definition, but it doesn't stop there. The lead is a summary of the body. Please read MOS:LEAD and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. But let's go with your notion of a lead as only including the definition. The fact that it is hard to define belongs in the lead, beecauset he difficulty in achieving the definition is itself integral to the definition. Are you really arguing that it isn't germane to the definition?
Mindfulness is defined as meditation and meditation is defined as mindfulness. This is a circular definition. Do you not see the issue?
Yes, the lead was carefully crafted to avoid mention of enlightenment, etc. That is a grave error that is unwarranted. It is ahistorical and insulting. All those meditators who are seeking enlightenment are doing it wrong? All those sources that talk about meditation and enlightenment or not relevant how?
This has been discussed before and I do not see a consensus supporting the removal of this historically critical religious aspect of meditation. Do you see such a consensus here in talk?
It is only through a careful pruning of the literature that you can leave a enlightenment shaped hole in the definition.
The lead needs to change. I'm happy to work with you to find a better version, but what is there now won't work. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead sumarizes the artice; you'll first have to offer concrete proposals, based on WP:RS, to change the body. And if you want to reach WP:CONSENSUS, you better change your tone. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my proposed change to the lead.

Meditation is a wide ranging practice of focusing on a particular thought, object, activity, or sensation to train awareness and achieve a mentally stable, clear and calm state. It is practiced in many religious traditions, usually to achieve a higher state of consciousness or spiritual enlightenment.[1][2][3][4][web 1][web 2] It has proven difficult to define because its techniques and goals vary widely, even within a single tradition.

References

  1. ^ Walsh & Shapiro 2006, pp. 228–229.
  2. ^ Cahn & Polich 2006, p. 180.
  3. ^ Jevning, Wallace & Beidebach 1992, p. 415.
  4. ^ Goleman 1988, p. 107.

This already greatly downplays the enlightenment aspect of meditation without totally erasing it. Let me know what parts you would like RS for. DolyaIskrina (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why omit "is a practice in which an individual uses a technique"? Technique is a core aspect of the definitions given in the body of the article. Why not mention the open techniques? The body explains that there are two main classification of meditation techniques, namely focused and open methods; mindfulness is an example of an open method. And where do those sources, or the body of the article, speak of "usually to achieve a higher state of consciousness or spiritual enlightenment"? Only the the Merriam-Webster does say, stating "for the purpose of reaching a heightened level of spiritual awareness," without defining what "a heightened level of spiritual awareness" is; and dictionaries do not trump scholalry sources. Did you actually read the body of the article? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with putting "is a practice in which an individual uses a technique".
Yes, I've read the body. Here are some quotes from the body:
"Meditation is practiced in numerous religious traditions." Interesting half thought. I wonder WHY it's practiced in a religious context. Let's just finish this thought (which occurs in the lead) and then I'll be happy.
Oh you want more?
"The history of meditation is intimately bound up with the religious context within which it was practiced."
"Jain meditation and spiritual practices system were referred to as salvation-path." I like the word salvation. Should we add that to the definition? People meditate to achieve all those secular things you like AND to obtain "enlightenment, a view of reality beyond illusion, salvation and other spiritual boons."
"Buddhists pursue meditation as part of the path toward awakening and nirvana."
I'm sure you know that the Buddha attained enlightenment while meditating. Do you need RS for that? Check out any biographical account of the Buddha and it will be there. It's kinda a pivotal moment in the story. Are you saying that all those who follow the Buddha and emulate him don't see this as an example?
The Jewish prophets meditated. WHY? To lower their blood pressure?
"In Catholic Christianity, the Rosary is a devotion for the meditation of the mysteries of Jesus and Mary." Why are they meditating on the mysteries of Jesus and Mary?
I'm afraid you are trying to shift the burden of proof, when in fact, it's you that need to come up with an RS that says "secular meditation is the real and important form of meditation."
Please just drop the stick and relax your sense of ownership. The lead needs to reflect the body. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've answered only one out of three questions. Regarding your other suggestions:
  • Salvation: no, that's an Eurocentric term.
  • 'Obtaining' a "mentally clear and emotionally calm and stable state" is not just a secular goal; see Nirvana and Dhyana in Buddhism.
  • Enlightenment: is it just a 'view of reality'? What is nirvana, then? You enter a swamp when you want to define what "enlightenment" is, let alone define it as the "goal" of meditation.
  • "the Buddha attained enlightenment while meditating. Do you need RS for that?" - yes. It's a completely legendary story, and it's not even clear what he "attained" in these stories. And those stories contain a fundamental error: they state that the Buddha relaized that the eightfold path was the path to release, but he was thoruoughly liberated by the insight that this path is the way to liberation: where does the eightfold path say that one is liberated by recognizing the path to liberation? It's like finding a recept for baking a cake, and the cake is there by simply discovering the recept.
  • The Jewish prophets meditated to obtain Nirvana? Or realize Brahman?
  • Are Buddhists 'meditating' on "the mysteries of Jesus and Mary"? Would they even define this as "meditation"?
No, I'm not shifting the burden of proof; the WP:BURDEN lies with you. The lead gives a workable definition of meditation, based on multilple WP:RS; you want to add unclear statements which are not in the body of the article, and which are without references. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Buddhists believe the Buddha meditated and became enlightened. It's in every story about the Buddha from the Pali Canon to Nagarjana. There's your RS, Pali Canon. We aren't here to argue the historicity of the Buddha's life. It's kinda disturbing that you think so. You seem to be WP:POVPUSHING on this page. DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hear hear. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we need to put mention of religion and enlightenment in the lead. I've proposed text above. Do you have a modification you would like to make to that text. You suggested adding "a practice in which an individual uses a technique." Anything else? DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, we do not need to put mention of [...] enlightenment in the lead. And religion is already mentioned. See WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DONTGETIT. The lead is fine as it is. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary header #2

This is the result of a lazy google search. Do you still need more RS? DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:LEAD summarizes the article. You'll first have to convince the editors here to amend the definitions from the broad overview articles we're using now with the random sources you've found. The logical place to do this is the second paragraph, not the first.
But then, you'l have to define more exactly what the "aim" or "goal" of those various religious traditions is, and how it is related to meditation. And you'll also have to find very solid sources which define what exactly "enlightenment" is. Ergo, you'll first have to improve the body of the article. Lazy Google-searches, and throwing in some random quotes, doesn't suffice; you'll have to do real research, and think about what exactly those traditions are, and about the complexities of their terminology - and our translations of that terminology.
Regarding your sources:
  • "Private devotion" - Zen Buddhists typically engage in group practice. The Brittanica-article is a potpourry of snaps of info;
  • Legendary account, as noted before;
  • "mindfulness in Buddhist teaching is viewed as a fundamental pathway" - your objection against the term "mindfullness" has vanished?
  • "helps us encounter Jesus and find ourselves" - how does that translate to enlightenment and higher consciousness?
  • The Kaplan-quote links enlightenment to Divine illumination, yet another meaning; how does this relate to enlightenment in Buddhism?
  • And how "contemplation of wisdom" relate to "enlightenment"?
You see, many terms, many meaning, and a lot of work if you want to explain all of them, and relate them to each other. That's why we use broad overview-articles to define what meditation is. As it is now, the lead is fine; the definition is solid, while it also mentions that "meditation plays a salient role in the contemplative repertoire of Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Pope is a random source? He is THE source, for crying out loud.
We can't use the biography of the Buddha because it's, checks notes, "legendary". Yeah, that's the nature of any story of the Buddha. How could it be otherwise? It's like arguing we can't say "Jesus was crucified" because historicity. We are not here to determine what the Buddha actually did. We are here to tell the general reader what most Buddhists think he did. Period.
I'm sorry but you are essentially demanding original research (WP:OR) and have a deep sense of OWNERSHIP based on your own particular sense of the topic. You might be 100% correct, but that doesn't erase all the people who have used meditation for non secular purposes. Wikipedia is for the general reader and not a place to exclude all but your favorite definition of meditation. You may prefer the modern secularized sense of the the word, but that's just not the whole story. I'm not asking for much, but you are fixated. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Fixated"? Again: hear, hear (or should I say hear, hear? Let me repeat myself: if you want to add "elightenment" (for Buddhism, the preferred term is "awakening") and "higher consciousness" to the lead, you'll first have to adapt the body of the article, with good secondary and tertiary sources.
And no, we don't count the Pope among those sources, nor do we regard legendary tales as a good summary of what "most Buddhists think he did" - even less as a summary of what Buddhists actually practice. Not meditation, what you probably won't believe.
To give you another hint: in Soto-Zen, meditation is explained not as a means to gain awakening, but to express awakening, that is Buddha-nature. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SUMMARY for Third Party Opinion

Editor A proposed the above revision to the lead, arguing that the current version of the lead uses "mindfulness" in the definition, but mindfulness is itself defined as meditation, which is circular. But the bulk of the dispute seems to be about the inclusion of the phrase "It is practiced in many religious traditions, usually to achieve a higher state of consciousness or spiritual enlightenment." Editor B argues that the new version of the lead does not match with what is in the body, and B finds the proposed RS from A to be unsatisfactory. DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any reason to change the existing wording in the lead. However, the lead should be a good four paragraph summary of the article, so there is no reason that additional summarizing material could not be added to the lead. Skyerise (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is mindfulness defined as meditation? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From "Mindfulness" where the SHORTDESCRIPTION is "a meditative practice":
"According to Steven F. Hick, mindfulness practice involves both formal and informal meditation practices, and nonmeditation-based exercises."
I agree, Skyerise, that the lead should be expanded. The sentence that I'm most keen on adding is "It is practiced in many religious traditions, usually to achieve a higher state of consciousness or spiritual enlightenment." I believe there is a lot of RS to support that sentence. DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of meditation improvement[edit]

Comparing the main article "effects of meditation" to the subsection in this article with the same name, I would suggest that it needs some improvement. While the main article is rich in proof of positive effects, this section seems to imply differently.

I have just added another source with proof and would like to continue to do so if there is no objection from your side.

Best regards Sahel108 (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:MEDRS? The claims you added are overly broad for a single study to bear out. Here is the important part of MEDRS. "Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge. This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article, including those on alternative medicine" Be careful with the idea of "proof" when it comes to medical claims. Single PRIMARY studies don't usually cut it. It sounds like I need to go over to "effects of meditation" and explain this there too. DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=web> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a ((reflist|group=web)) template (see the help page).

Categories