Talk:Mindfulness

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mindfulness article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Buddhism High‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Altered States of Consciousness High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Altered States of Consciousness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of altered states of consciousness on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The content of Mindfulness (psychology) was merged into Mindfulness on 11:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Adverese effects

The last week or so I have added new material to this article. This is so because this article lacks a section on adverse effects. This is unacceptable. We nowdays have peer-rewied studies that convincingly show that meditation/mindfullness is not an innocuous practice. This information must be offered to the readers of wikipedia up-front (as is done in other articles, e.g., on SSRI-drugs or psychotherapy), and not embedded or hidden under other sections, or underepresented, so that they can make informed choices as to whether they want to use these techniques or not. The section on "risks" is so small as to be patronizing and threfore I deleted it and fused its content with the new section/heading. Didaktron (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading up on mindfulness for my own benefit as part of dbt, a wildly common therapeutic technique, given to me by my therapist to try to help me with my myriad mental health problems. I got spooked a little when I saw such extensive criticism of mindfulness, but the unwikipedialike decisions to reference individual studies and at one point quote an individual author from that study made me think twice, and my suspicions felt validated that nobody had taken a second look at this section when I noticed that the entire section was sprinkled with missing commas. it looks to me like a fringe pov of an inexperienced editor is being given far more than its due time, and I think a reader less wary than myself could end up getting spooked away from a very useful tool because a self-proclaimed expert made their pov into a sixth of a fairly big article, and then nobody did anything about the many clear issues therein. I've decided to remove the section due to these myriad issues. if this should be handled more elegantly somehow, I ask that someone lets me know what I ought to have done! Squingly (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mindfulness Apps

I suggest adding a section on mindfulness app or technology aided technology. This might include reference to Calm, Headspace, Insight Timer, Buddhify, and Yours App, or a link to the Software and Mediation section of the Mindfulness and Technology article. Thanks! Lbeaumont (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While writing about apps in general based on academic sources and the like would be just fine, I would oppose making any list of vendors or mentioning particular apps. MrOllie (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mindfulness based interventions in the treatment of Addicitive disorders

Hi,

I would like to include a specific section covering mindfulness-based interventions, MBIs, within an addiction treatment context.

Rationale for such a section:

1. It is a considerable topic in its own right
2. There has been an exponential growth in publication in this area since about 2000
3. Reviews of the literature seem to indicate that MBIs are as effective as other treatments

Allowing for the positive nature of these investigations, recent publications have suggested a sense of empirical caution.

My aim is to cover and elaborate on the topic faithfully in as neutral a way as possible. Any data or themes are going to be referenced by appropriate contemporary sources. Thanks DharmSophia (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any WP:MEDRS available? Bon courage (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the use, and further investigation, of MBIs (Mindfulness Based Interventions) for a range of medical and psychological conditions.

Both reviews have specific sections outlining the case for MBIs within addiction:

Goldberg, S. B., Tucker, R. P., Greene, P. A., Davidson, R. J., Wampold, B. E., Kearney, D. J., & Simpson, T. L. (2018). Mindfulness-based interventions for psychiatric disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical psychology review, 59, 52-60.

DOI: j.cpr.2017.10.011

Zhang, D., Lee, E. K., Mak, E. C., Ho, C. Y., & Wong, S. Y. (2021). Mindfulness-based interventions: an overall review. British medical bulletin, 138(1), 41-57.

DOI: 10.1093/bmb/ldab005

Support for the use of MBIs with addiction:

Sancho, M., De Gracia, M., Rodriguez, R. C., Mallorquí-Bagué, N., Sánchez-González, J., Trujols, J., ... & Menchón, J. M. (2018). Mindfulness-based interventions for the treatment of substance and behavioral addictions: a systematic review. Frontiers in psychiatry, 9, 95.

DOI: fpsyt.2018.00095

Cavicchioli, M., Movalli, M., & Maffei, C. (2018). The clinical efficacy of mindfulness-based treatments for alcohol and drugs use disorders: a meta-analytic review of randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials. European addiction research, 24(3), 137-162.

DOI: 10.1159/000490762

Let me know if you would like anything more specific. Thanks DharmSophia (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a viable subject then. I think Frontiers journals should be avoided when there are better ones, and 2018 is a little old. I note PMID:39231467 discusses mindfulness and tobacco addiction, and is more recent. Bon courage (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the feedback and I am going to take it on board. Thanks DharmSophia (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

It looks like there are more references on the health-benefits of mindfullness in the lead than there are in the body of the article. What happened here? Promo? Convincing oneself how great mindfullness is? If so, maybe that's because the bottomline won't change: life hurts. You can approach life and it's pain in a mindfull way, but life itself will hurt and disappoint. Wisdom comes with a price... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If your intent is to suggest an improvement to the article, it's unclear what improvement you're suggesting. If your intent is to discuss the subject matter of the article, there are guidelines suggesting we avoid that here (WP:TALK#TOPIC, WP:NOTFORUM). -- HLachman (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t agree that these references are “promo.” Their purpose is to inform readers and allow them to consult the sources themselves and form their own conclusions about the scope and nature of investigations conducted in mindfulness research. Given this, I believe the references in this section should remain, as they are all legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific articles. I also noticed that approximately half of the references in the lead section were recently removed; in my view, those sources should ideally be restored as well. I also agree with HLachman’s interpretation of Wikipedia’s guidelines regarding appropriate discussion and sourcing of subject matter. Nandinik (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: The Impact of Cancer

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2025 and 12 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GeraldMorris2112 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by GeraldMorris2112 (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]