Talk:Mindfulness

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Psychology Spring 2026

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2026 and 5 May 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Richard.Jin.1016 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by PeterHonigNYU (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Non-MEDRS section on supposed pain management

Special:Diff/1346570241 was justified to remove a section concerning pain relief because using mindfulness to treat pain - a medical intervention condition - has not been proved as effective. This would require several large Phase III clinical trials and/or international medical guidelines by clinical pain management organizations recommending mindfulness to reduce and control pain. Such documents, practices, or evidence do not exist; see WP:MEDASSESS, top of left pyramid, for the quality of evidence needed.

Sources used in that section were also promoting the Breathworks business, a violation of WP:PROMO. Zefr (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I think I support this cut... as I like to say, when your doctor suggests mindfulness it's her way of telling you she can't help you.

But it could be worth mentioning that it's recommended for pain without evidence. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Lead sentence accessibility and recent definitional reviews

A recent edit I made to the lead was reverted as redundant, so I wanted to raise the underlying wording question here for discussion.

My edit proposed beginning the lead with a brief direct definition of mindfulness before the current technical characterization describing it as a cognitive skill associated with metacognitive awareness.

My reasoning is that a general reader may benefit from first encountering an accessible description of mindfulness itself before the more specialized psychological framing. Also, while mindfulness is related to metacognitive awareness in some academic accounts, it is often defined more broadly, so opening with a direct definition can improve clarity.

This edit was also informed by recent secondary scholarship, including a 2025 review of existing definitions that synthesizes core components across the literature. This review suggests that mindfulness is commonly characterized through present-moment awareness and attentive, non-reactive engagement with experience, which may provide a clearer opening definition for readers unfamiliar with technical terminology such as metacognitive awareness.

The intent was not to remove the cognitive-skill framing, but to place it after a direct introductory definition so that the lead remains accessible while preserving the existing academic characterization.

Would others support restructuring the opening in this way?

Sandyshore (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

It depends. Your addition was actually quite good, but repetitive, as you retained the original lines. As the WP:LEAD summarizes the article, you'd better first edit the section on definitions, and then alter the lead. The " 2025 review of existing definitions" could be explicitly mentioned, with author-names instead of just a year of publication. See meditation for a comparison. By the way, you skipped this essential part from Chems-Maarif et al. (2025): "with an allowing and equanimous attitude" - an aspect others disagree with: "Sharf further notes that this has little to do with "bare attention", the popular contemporary interpretation of sati, "since it entails, among other things, the proper discrimination of the moral valence of phenomena as they arise."[90]" Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:00, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I see your point that the lead should reflect the definitions section, so I plan to work on improving that section first, and then revisit lead revisions. The definitions section also seems to be very long – so, I will also focus on summarizing that section. Regards, Sandyshore (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: This sub-discussion section has been moved to the bottom of the page under its own heading for better visibility.

Applications and effects of mindfulness - cleanup required

Mindfulness seems to be an attractive field of academic research - probbaly due to the corrupting effects of 'scholarly methods'? One-way, single causal relations are probably very attractive, as they fit into easy to comprehend schemes, and contain the promise of easy-to-improve well-being. Anyway, a phrase like "meta-analyses have shown that mindfulness practice does increase mindfulness when compared to active control groups" is garbage, akin to 'meta-analyses have shown that brething does increase the oxygen-level when compared to active control groups'- though in that case the "active control groups" may be presumed to be close to dying... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:19, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I think there are a couple of different issues being mixed together here: the wording of the article, and how mindfulness research is interpreted.

On the first point, if the phrase “meta-analyses have shown…” reads as overstated or unclear, we can certainly improve the wording for clarity and precision. Could you please point me to the specific sentence so that I can refine it? Also, note that in psychological research, this wording is about differentiating between the intervention (the practice of mindfulness) and the measurable trait or state (dispositional mindfulness, often measured by scales like the FFMQ).

On the second point, meta-analyses in this area are not simply asserting trivial findings. In psychological research, “active control groups” typically refer to comparison conditions designed to control for non-specific effects (e.g., attention, group participation, expectation), not “no intervention” groups. This is standard methodology used to isolate whether an intervention has effects beyond placebo-like factors.

It would help if specific concerns about sources or phrasing were pointed to directly, so they can be addressed or reworded in line with WP:RS and WP:NPOV, rather than broadly characterizing the research field. Sandyshore (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

My second point was about "mindfulness practice does increase mindfulness"; my first point is about the large amount of primary sources and the flood of details, such as the second point, taken from these sources - e.g., too many trivialities and details. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:47, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Let's look at both of those points:

1. On the phrasing "mindfulness practice does increase mindfulness":

I agree this phrasing sounds odd and circular out of context. In research, this simply means that a specific intervention (like breath meditation) successfully increases a person's measurable day-to-day attentional control and focus (as measured by traits on psychological scales like the FFMQ). Since the phrasing is clumsy for a general reader, I’d like to edit it to be more precise. I actually tried to locate this exact phrase in the article but couldn't find it – could you point me to the specific section so I can update it?

2. On the 'flood of details' and source removal:

Thanks for clarifying your view on this. I’m happy to delete primary sources. However, looking at the article's edit history, I noticed that you recently removed several recent meta-analyses from the text.

Per Wikipedia's guidelines for health and psychological topics WP:MEDRS, high-quality meta-analyses and systematic reviews are considered the gold standard for establishing scientific consensus. While we should certainly avoid a 'flood' of minor primary studies, removing major secondary literature like meta-analyses risks violating WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View) by obscuring the current academic consensus.

Could you explain your reasoning for removing those specific meta-analyses? If the issue was that the sentences were not appropriate for a specific section of the article, then it should be cited elsewhere in the article rather than deleting the reliable secondary sources entirely. I'd be happy to help look at how we can reintegrate those sources in a more concise, high-level way. Sandyshore (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Be specific please, and provide diffs. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:51, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Sure, here are the diffs for the recent removals of meta-analyses and secondary sources I was referring to:

[1] - Removal of major recent studies: a 2026 comprehensive review of 44 meta-analyses involving more than 30,000 participants; a large-scale meta-analysis of 142 studies with over 12,000 participants; and a 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis of second-generation mindfulness-based interventions covering 43 depression studies (3,756 participants) and 37 anxiety studies (3,199 participants).

[2] - Deletion of 37 recent meta-analyses, comprising 10 directly cited references and 27 additional meta-analyses cited within notes.

As mentioned, per WP:MEDRS, these types of high-level secondary sources are preferred for establishing scientific consensus on health and psychological topics.

Regarding my other question: Could you also provide the diff or the specific section for the phrase "mindfulness practice does increase mindfulness" that you wanted to change? I’d still like to help copyedit that for clarity. Sandyshore (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you read edit-summaries? The WP:LEAD summarizes the article; it's not the place fo develop an argument or to go into a forest of details:

• [3] - "However" - that's not a summary, it's a response to the previous line, based on three publications by the same (co-)author. That's WP:UNDUE. It also doesn't really respond to the topic of the previous line, about methodological shortcomings; it says that mindfulness is effective. But effectiveness is not the topic here. It almost looks like someone's been droping Goldberg here to promote them.
• [4] - this the 'flood of details' which doesn't belong in the lead. To illustrate: Goldberg et al. (2017) was only used in the lead; that's not a summary, that's undue.

Regarding "mindfulness practice does increase mindfulness", there's a search-function in your browser. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:11, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the breakdown. I see your point regarding WP:LEAD – the lead should remain a concise summary and avoid a dense forest of individual citation details. However, completely deleting top-tier secondary literature leaves a couple of policy issues we need to address:

1. Unreferenced Claims WP:VERIFY: In edit [2], the sentence “Clinical studies have documented mental health benefits of mindfulness as well as physical health benefits.,..” was left completely bare without a single supporting reference. We cannot leave broad claims unreferenced in the article.

2. Context and NPOV WP:NPOV: In edit [1], the text regarding historical methodological limitations was left standing, but the recent, large-scale meta-analyses balancing that perspective were removed. Simon B. Goldberg is a highly cited clinical psychologist in this field; citing a massive comprehensive review of 44 meta-analyses (over 30,000 participants) published by a major researcher isn't personal promotion – it represents high-level scientific consensus, which is the exact standard required by WP:MEDRS.

A Constructive Solution: Since your primary concern is clutter in the lead, the standard Wikipedia approach is to move these meta-analyses into the body of the article (such as the 'Research' section) where the details fit perfectly. We can then leave a simplified, high-level summary sentence in the lead that accurately reflects their findings.

I will work on moving those references down into the body's research section and adding back the necessary citations to support the bare text.

On the 'mindfulness increases mindfulness' phrasing: I apologize, I missed that specific sentence during my initial search. Now that I’ve located it, I completely agree that the wording sounds redundant. In line with the distinction between the practice itself and measurable psychological traits (like attentional focus), I will reword this sentence to be more precise and clear for the general reader when I reintegrate the references. Sandyshore (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

In addition to moving down references, please change them to sfn-style; that makes a huge difference in the number of characters needed. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 01:22, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good, I can certainly format any future citations using the sfn-style to keep the text code clean and concise. Thanks for the suggestion. Regards, Sandyshore (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

A Subsection on "Present-moment awareness"

Part 1

I think we basically need two points in the 'psychological definitions'-section: a definition by Kabat-Zin, and a few definitions from meta-analyses, such as the paper you provided. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:49, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I have now summarized the 'psychological definitions' section. I am still planning to update some of the citations (to ensure that citations align well with the text). I also added a brief section on "Present-centered awareness" to clarify this concept, because both the traditional Buddhist and modern psychological definitions rely heavily on this term. Sandyshore (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I've undone your 'summary'. Which source says Most psychological definitions of mindfulness draw on the definition proposed by Jon Kabat-Zinn? As it is now, it's WP:OR. And it's too much in one edit; I can't track the specifics. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 23:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Despite intended to be a summary, it is repetitive: "In psychological science [...] attitude" is a repetition; "Mindfulness is often described [..] experience" is a second repetition, in another subsection. And the list of mindfulness-scales referred to mindfulness as a state; that qualification was removed by you, but ghe list was retained in the trait-state subsection; that's unclear and misleading. And I found your "claryfying" subsection on "Present-centered awareness" incomprehensible. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 23:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Let's address these points objectively to ensure the article aligns with core policies.

1. The Jon Kabat-Zinn Definition & Source Typology: The statement regarding psychological definitions drawing on Kabat-Zinn is directly supported by Chems-Maarif et al. (2025). To focus our discussion on the larger content updates, I will set this specific sentence aside for now. However, for factual accuracy in the article, it is important to note that Chems-Maarif et al. (2025) is a narrative review, not a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis strictly refers to the statistical synthesis of quantitative data across multiple studies, whereas a narrative review synthesizes qualitative concepts. The article text should eventually be updated to accurately reflect the source typology.

2. State vs. Trait Mindfulness: My edits in this section aimed to update the sourcing strategy. Several of the existing citations relied on books about 15 years old. Replacing these with contemporary, peer-reviewed journal articles provides readers with much more accessible and clear explanations. To avoid overcomplicating this thread, I am willing to pause on this section for the moment so we can focus on resolving the main structural addition.

3. "Present-Centered Awareness" Subsection: Regarding "Present-moment awareness" and "attention," Chems-Maarif et al. (2025) explicitly note that clarifying present-moment awareness is critical to a deeper scientific understanding of mindfulness.

Rather than a blank deletion, a more constructive approach per WP:COLLABORATE would be to optimize the clarity. I propose restoring this subsection under the title "Present-Moment Awareness" and expanding it slightly with further explanatory context. This will ensure it is fully accessible to a general audience while retaining the research resource for readers seeking deeper analysis.

I look forward to your input on these adjustments so we can build a consensus version. Sandyshore (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Ad 1: I've changed "meta-analysis" into "narrative analysis. Chems-Maarif et al. (2025) say "align", not "draw on".

Ad 2: I don't see new sources here.

Ad 3: Chems-Maarif et al. (2025) do not elaborate on 'the "present moment"'; they question the notion that "present-moment awareness" is the defining characteristic quality of mindfulness. Instead, they point to the necessity of vipassana, as in the classic tandem samatha-vipassana, and the meaning of sati as retainment, memory. This analysis is lacking from your text. Theirs is an interesting analysis, by the way, in line with other critics which are already represented in our article.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Let's look at these points to see how we can synthesize the text accurately.

Points 1 & 2: Thank you for updating the source typology to a narrative analysis.

As agreed, I am setting these and the state-trait sourcing edits aside for now so we can focus entirely on the structural addition.

Point 3 (Present-Moment Awareness): Chems-Maarif et al. (2025) do indeed explore the historical complexities of sati as memory/retainment and raise questions about the modern psychological positioning of mindfulness as exclusively "bare, present-centered awareness."

However, to clarify the source text, the authors do not explicitly invoke vipassana or the samatha-vipassana tandem in their analysis. Rather, they note that "a clarification of the objects of present-centered awareness and attention can help refine the definition of mindfulness," while mapping out how various scholars struggle to settle on a singular definition of the "present moment."

To ensure the article meets the requirements of WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View) and represents the scientific consensus comprehensively, a balanced subsection is highly warranted. I propose a synthesized subsection titled "Present-Moment Awareness" that incorporates both perspectives:

1. The conceptual questions raised by Chems-Maarif et al. (2025) regarding how the "present moment" is debated across psychological contexts.

2. The precise, first-person cognitive understandings already established in the article via Karunamuni, Wood & Galante (2025) – specifically regarding how sensory experiences define the subjective present, whereas the past and future manifest strictly as thoughts arising within that present moment.

This approach captures the exact "interesting analysis" you noted, while providing the reader with a concrete explanation of how it is possible to differentiate the “present moment” from the past and future. I am finalizing the draft text for this paragraph now and will post it here shortly for your review so we can agree on the final wording before adding it to the Wikipedia page. Sandyshore (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Chems-Maarif et al. (2025) do not use the terms samatha-vipassana, but do state:

... mindfulness cannot be reached through simple present-moment awareness. Rather, mindfulness necessitates an enriched awareness that incorporates clear comprehension and insight into the nature of phenomena.

Present-moment awareness = samatha, clear comprehension and insight = vipassana.

I think that 'the present moment' doesn't need any elaboration; rather, the point of interest of the authors are (emphasis mine) "the objects of attention involved in the development of mindfulness". It seems to me that the authors resort here to a limited understanding of mindfulness, namely 'just taking notice' ('volitional attention', in their terms), despite the fact that they have explained themselves that this is a limited understanding of mindfulness - as already explained extensively in our article. Their aim seems to be to encourage the development of self-awareness:

Hence, delineating the scopes of mindfulness would allow for a more substantial conception of what such present-centeredness involves and what it is directed at. As a direct application, this would also enable distinguishing the scopes of mindfulness where present-moment awareness may be more challenging to develop. For example, a practitioner may be highly aware of body sensations and afective valence, but less so of cognitions and emotions. The scopes of mindfulness would therefore help identify specifc areas of cultivation for the full development of mindfulness.

This approach is questionable, as it is not what mindfulness is in Buddhism, nor does it cover the full scope of mindfulness in psychology, namely being aware of phemomena without reacting (equanimity, not engaging in rumination; see prapanca).

In essence, the point of Chems-Maarif et al. (2025) section on "Clarifying Present-Centered Awareness" is explication of four scoped of mindfulness, namely "body sensations, affective valence, cognitive and emotional phenomena, and the external environment" (p.15), stating that "The four scopes clarify present-centered awareness and address ambiguities about the here-and-now." Note, by the way, how these four scopes still closely mimick the five skandhas: form (external world), feeling (affective valence), perception (cognitive and emotional phenomena), mental formations (cognitive and emotional phenomena).

Regarding WP:NPOV, I don't think this is an argument for including a subsection on "Present-Moment Awareness", rather the opposite; NPOV would require balancing such a section with opposing views. The relevant policy is WP:DUE; a short explanation of what "present-centered" means might be warranted, bur does not necessarily have to be very long. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:56, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I see that you have made a significant number of edits to the article recently; I plan to go over them carefully sometime soon. In the meantime, I have noticed that Chems-Maarif et al. (2025) is being cited frequently across multiple sections; per WP:DUE, we should ensure the article reflects a broader consensus rather than relying on a single narrative analysis. Since that paper represents one specific narrative analysis, citing it extensively throughout the article can create an imbalance. We should ensure other established viewpoints are represented with equal weight.

That said, I also see you have now included a "Present-moment awareness" section – thank you for doing that! To ensure the section represents the broader scientific literature comprehensively per WP:NPOV, I plan to edit it sometime soon.

Regards, Sandyshore (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Funny thing is, that that subsection provides a logical development of the text, with several subsections further explaining the elements of 'the' definition of mindfulness. And I agree with you on Chems-Maarif, but it happens to be the text we started with, so there's an obvious reason it's become so prominent (for now). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:38, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Part 2

I have finalized a comprehensive rewrite for the "Present-moment awareness" section to align it with standard encyclopedic quality and WP:NPOV.
The current text relies on an over-citation of Chems-Maarif et al. (2025) (cited six times in one paragraph), while misattributing findings that Chems-Maarif merely cited from primary researchers rather than generating themselves (see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOAT). Furthermore, the insertion of specific Pali terms unbalances the article's focus on psychological frameworking (considering this article is focused on secular mindfulness).
To resolve this, I have drafted a fully synthesized paragraph that brings in six distinct peer-reviewed sources, to provide proper academic weight. I am going to be updating the section with this balanced text sometime soon. If there are granular phrasing concerns, please let's discuss them here on the Talk page.
New Section Content:

Present-moment awareness is a central component in both Buddhist and contemporary psychological definitions of mindfulness. A recent narrative review that examined existing definitions of mindfulness concluded that the concept of the "present moment" is conceptually underdeveloped. Many researchers, however, describe the present moment not as a static or fixed point but as a constantly changing flux of arising and passing experiences consisting of sensory perceptions and mental events. A recent article explored what constitutes the "present moment" by examining the nature of first-person experiences that involve the present, past, and future. The article proposed that first-person experiences (i.e., the "mind") constitute a continuously changing stream of sensory encounters and mental events, and that the mind can be considered a distinct factor or variable. In Buddhist traditions, the practice of mindfulness involves directing awareness toward this constantly changing stream of experience and aims to cultivate self-knowledge and wisdom regarding the nature of human experience.

References

Sandyshore (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Please avoid phrases like "A recent narrative review", and give the name of the first author and the date instead. I'll take a look. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

So, 'the "mind constitutes a continuously changing stream of sensory encounters and mental events' and "the mind can be considered a distinct factor or variable" - the mind is x, but it is distinct from x? That's nonsensical.

Regarding the insertion of specific Pali terms unbalances the article's focus on psychological frameworking (considering this article is focused on secular mindfulness), the article spends a significant amount of text on the Buddhist background, and rightly so; removing Pali terms from a section describing Buddhist practices is an attempt to obfuscate these origins. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:05, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the phrasing (“mind constitutes a continuously changing stream of….”), the text accurately represents the precise wording of that peer-reviewed journal article; it is a direct reflection of the academic literature, not a personal interpretation.

While the current synthesized text is a step forward, there are still significant formatting issues that need to be resolved for the entire article to meet encyclopedic standards. Specifically, throughout the article, Chems-Maarif et al. (2025) is currently being generated as multiple separate reference numbers (e.g., [2], [36], [39], [63], [71], [75], [76], [77], [80], [81], etc.) instead of a single, unified footnote name. This heavily clutters the bibliography. There are also several typographical errors throughout the article.

Regarding the newly added section, since the core peer-reviewed data is now present, I will leave the text as it stands for now. I will return at a later date to clean up the duplicate citations and format the article to align with standard Wikipedia layout guidelines.

Regards, Sandyshore (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The "clutter" of Chems-Maarif is due to the different pagenumbers. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the Teamwork Barnstar—I appreciate the acknowledgment of our work to bring these important edits into the section.

I've reviewed the latest layout, and while the general rearrangement works, I am going to make a few minor edits right now to clean up typos and fix some academic phrasing from the sources.

Once these quick refinements are in place, let's let the paragraph settle so we aren't creating a chaotic page history with constant rewrites. If any further structural adjustments come up down the road, we can discuss them here first.

Regards, Sandyshore (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2026 (UTC)