Talk:Passage Meditation/Archive 1

Archive 1

July 2007

I have edited this page as a result of the Prod from YechielMan,questioning Notability and NPOV, to include more secondary references of why this is a notable entry. This is my first attempt at putting something onto Wikipedia so if I have done it wrong, please bear with me! I found out about Passage Meditation by attending a retreat about it and was surprised to see that there was no description of it on wikipedia since it seems to me to be a legitimate method of meditation that is different enough from other methods to warrant its own definition in wikipedia. __________________________________________________

the following sentence: As another example, Alcoholics Anonymous has produced a brochure [3] explaining how passage meditation is a practical method that can be used as part of a 12-step program." should be edited in the following manner: "As another example, a group of recovering alcoholics has produced a brochure [3] explaining how passage meditation is a practical method that can be used as part of a 12-step program."

reason: any involvement of the organized group, Alcoholics Anonymous, would violate the group's traditions, specifically tradition six, which states: "an A.A. group ought never endorse, finance, or lend the A.A. name to any related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of money, property or prestige divert us from oiur primary purpose."

it would also violate the principles stated in the A.A. Preamble: "AA is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy, neither endorses not opposes any problems."

to the best of my knowledge, the brochure was not and is not approved by the organization, Alcoholic Anonymous. it was produced by local individuals who have recovered from alcoholism using a 12-step program. thank you Thayerwalker 05:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion - I have edited the article accordingly

Generate External Link to Website that Supports this Method?

June 17 2008: The Passage Meditation page has apparently never linked to the website of the organization that the developer of the method founded for teaching passage meditation. This would seem to belong in an "External Links" section (which does not now exist). But would this violate the guideline at Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided (#5) to avoid "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services"? This is a nonprofit organization, so its primary mission is not really to sell something (although it sells books and offers retreats), but its mission is to make the passage meditation method available to those who want to learn about it. My inclination is to think that including the following draft link in an External Links section would be appropriate: Blue Mountain Center of Meditation (BMCM) and Nilgiri Press (founded for teaching passage meditation) But I would like to know what other editors think. Health Researcher (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Update January 2009: Since after >6 months no-one said such an external link was a bad idea, I am inserting one (we'll see what happens). Health Researcher (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Using journal citation tool: Pros and Cons

Can someone explain the journal citation tool that GregorB started using on Dec 30, 2008? What are its purported advantages or disadvantages? There are no doubt potential advantages, but what are they claimed to be? Potential disadvantages include the fact that it forces citations to be in a particular format that is not necessarily the best, nor is it standard in the journal world. For example, the bolding of the journal volume seems unnecessary and distracting from the other text which is actually more relevant to most readers. Also, some journal formats (e.g. APA) include issue number in parentheses only when the page numbering restarts at 1 for each issue (rather than for each volume). By using a nonstandard format (e.g. "v12 n3") this implication is avoided by the other citations in this page which do not use the journal citation tool. It appears (?) to force the visibility of the doi (rather than keeping it as an invisible link), which does not seem important.

Thus, my question is: Given these disadvantages and perhaps others, why might GregorB argue that overall it is better to use the journal citation tool than not to use it? Thank you. Health Researcher (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Section header issue: Describing research as "scientific" research

Dear Goethian, in the last day or two (approx Oct 18, 2009), you changed the header "Scientific research on passage meditation" to read "Research on passage meditation". I (Health Researcher) re-inserted "scientific", and you removed it again, with the comment that you were removing a "peackock term", presumably referring to the Wikipedia guideline "Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms". Here are some arguments for retaining "scientific" in the title of the section:

1. Not all research is scientific, in the sense of social scientific (as is the research listed in this section, published in social scientific or biomedical journals, most of them listed in social science citation index).
2. If scholarly work can be identified that has been done on passage meditation and published in professional journals for the humanities, then it might be appropriate to have a second section on "scholarly humanistic research" on passage meditation. However all of the research listed in the section is social scientific. Why shouldn't this be signaled to readers in the header? I see no reason to force readers to look through all the references to confirm that this research proceeds using what is conventionally called a scientific methodology.
3. It may be relevant that the word "scientific" is not listed in the page of guidelines about "peacock terms". Perhaps this is because the term scientific does indeed have conventional descriptive uses and is not merely a promotional term.
4. It may be true that science (even social science) carries an undeservedly high level of prestige in modern society. However, that does not mean that "scientific" fails to be a sensible descriptor. Indeed, I argue that "scientific" is a sensible descriptor that has straightforward conventional meanings, not obscure (not needing significant explanation), that fully apply in the current situation.

Thank you for your consideration of these arguments. -- Health Researcher (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to "research" per WP:MOS and needless puffery. Verbal chat 11:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Which are the relevant parts of WP:MOS? I'd like to better understand your approach. Thanks Health Researcher (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

Another editor, not me, has proposed merging this with the article about the mystic who invented it. I support that merge due to systemic issues with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE in this article. Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify how current version of research section may lack NPOV and/or DUE, and what can be done to fix it. These are all findings from peer-reviewed studies, which go through their own reviewing process to assure that data is gathered and interpreted with integrity (disclosure: I have been involved as a researcher on many of the studies). There are no other published studies on passage meditation program showing conflicting results to my knowledge. Thank you in advance for your clarification Health Researcher (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

the studies adduced here to support the method are sorely needed at the Easwaran article, which currently presents no evidence that anyone ever took note of his publications. However, the "research" section smells of WP:COI.

Please clarify how current version of research section may lack NPOV (see comment above in response to Simonm223). Thanks in advance Health Researcher (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I also had difficulties finding the first edition of the book. I think it was published in 1978. There was a second edition in 1991. Neither appears to have got much press. But now in 2008, a third edition was thrown on the market. --dab (𒁳) 16:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

First and second editions are out of print, though second edition is easily findable on Google books. Third edition was published 17 years after second edition. DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of the studies quoted do not examine "Passage Meditation" in particular, just meditation. This needs to be reviewed. It appears the only bona fide studies on Passage Meditation proper is Oman et al. (2006, 2009). --dab (𒁳) 16:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

support the merge. More content will improve the Easwaran article. If the Easwaran ever get too big, we can move the content back here. — goethean ॐ 19:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Studies not relating to this form of meditation directly should be removed, and unless a reason not to is presented (in which case ping me) I see no reason why the merge should not go ahead. Verbal chat 19:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of studies. All studies described in the research section relate directly to this method of meditation. As is already described in the research section, some of the studies examined both this form of meditation as well as another (MBSR). The relevance of the studies to the passage meditation method (sometimes described as Easwaran's eight point program) can be determined in almost all cases by following the link in the article to look at the abstract. In some cases (e.g., the article in Pastoral Psychology), the method is not mentioned in the abstract, but it can be seen that the Easwaran book on meditation is mentioned in the references; consulting the original article would reveal that the passage meditation message was a major focus of the article. So all of the studies described in the research section should be retained. When this is checked, I don't see why there should be any disagreement about the relevance of all these studies. Health Researcher (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

do not support the merge. If Easwaran were only known as a meditation teacher and developer of Passage Meditation then the merge might be justified. But he is actually much better known as an interpreter of Indian wisdom literature. His translations of the Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads and Dhammapada are well known (as verified among others by their search ranking on Amazon.com etc) and similarly his commentaries on these works have been around a long time and are still being referred to and bought. Therefore it makes sense to keep two separate pages. DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

oppose merge. I agree with DuncanCraig's points, and would offer additional points. On the one hand, as DuncanCraig said, Easwaran's contributions went beyond the full passage meditation system (not only translations but also others -- for example, Bormann at the Veterans Administration in San Diego, has been doing studies based on his method of repeating a mantram, described in his Mantram Handbook, but not involving passage meditation -- see her study of PTSD with abstract at http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0898010107311276). On the other hand, the passage meditation method/program is not focused on Easwaran (though historically derived from him), and should not be conflated with his biography or personality. For example, Roman Catholic theologian Henri Nouwen noted that "Easwaran showed me the great value of learning a sacred text by heart and repeating it slowly in the mind, word by word, sentence by sentence. In this way, listening to the voice of love becomes not just a passive waiting, but an active attentiveness to the voice that speaks to us through the words of the Scriptures." (Life of the Beloved, 1992, p. 64). Others have also noted that the passage meditation method is much more relevant to Western and Christian practices (e.g., to lectio divina and other forms of meditation on scripture) than are many other methods of meditation (e.g., see paper by Fayard et al, 2007, Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 26, 207-217, that cites research on passage meditation). Perhaps ideas along these lines should be added to the passage meditation page. Merging the passage meditation page with the Easwaran talk page seems unnecessary once additional material is added, and the conflation could be confusing from several points of view. Health Researcher (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you two seem to have a lot in common. — goethean ॐ 01:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

so far, the Easwaran page is very stubby, and this page doesn't have more material than what would make for a brief "Passage Meditation" section at the Easwaran page. Once more valid material is added, it can always be {{split}} again under WP:SS. Our approach should be to clean up what we have first, and leave possible future article extensions to the future. --dab (𒁳) 12:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Intent to Contribute (re merger/separation). I hope that the discussion/consideration of the proposed merger is not brought to a premature or rushed conclusion. I intend to put additional work into expanding each of the two pages, which might help clarify advantages/disadvantages (I have argued for advantages) of retaining separate pages. However, there are only so many hours in the day, and I do have other responsibilities. I expect to start tomorrow, though I can't imagine finishing tomorrow or even within a week. Personally, until this week, I was unaware that the Easwaran article was "stub-class" and therefore viewed as seriously deficient. Now that this has been made clear, I will direct significant time/energy in that direction (and will be guided by several helpful suggestions recently inserted on talk pages by a variety of editors). It's possible that other contributors may also be in this category. Thank you. Health Researcher (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Update on the 'intent' described in the previous paragraph: The talk pages for both 'Passage Meditation' and 'Eknath Easwaran' each describe fairly extensive proposed additions. These may take time to migrate to main (public) page, as PM suggestions are awaiting feedback/talk (re WP:BRD). I am also holding off on EE page changes to give time for pre-implementation feedback. After those changes migrate, I have also envisioned further possible changes (other editors agreeable). Neither page is inherently a stub. There is much material for each page, it will just take time. Health Researcher (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

well, we could make this article about the 1978 book (and its later revisions) explicitly, as it turns out the book may well meet WP:BK. In this case, I suppose the article can stay separate. It least I have no objections. It is problematic to discuss "meditiation on a passage" in isolation, as it is ostensibly just one out of eight points of EE's "program".--dab (𒁳) 15:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Book focus for page is an interesting possibility although I see various potential drawbacks vs keeping focus on the method. For one thing, the 8pt program was disseminated worldwide in many books written by Easwaran -- so many people likely learn via these other books. Also, published passage meditation/8pt program instructions predate the 1978 (see the 1977 Mantram Handbook, and I believe 1960s journals). More importantly, I suspect many people are actually more interested in the method (doing the practice, not reading the book, is claimed in the book as beneficial). My preference order is 1. Keep PM page focused on the method (as at present) (best); 2. Convert to book-focused page; 3. Merge with EE page (worst). Health Researcher (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

International dissemination. I added new matl on international dissemination of books that contain 8 pt program instructions (full or abbreviated). This partly overlaps with EE page matl, which is not ideal (though note differences re Japanese and Portuguese). So most likely reworking will be needed. Perhaps the main point in adding this material is that there are lots of instructions in the 8 points floating around the world in lots of different languages, often outside of the 1978/1991/2008 Passage Meditation text. Health Researcher (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Considerations re 'Passage Meditation' (i.e., method-focus) as page title

User dab has suggested (above) that this page can likely be retained as a distinct page in some form, due to the notability of the 1978/1991/2008 book (re guidelines WP:BK). I earlier (above) supported retaining the method-focus of the page (on Passage Meditation as a method that people use) rather than converting the page to a book-focus. This comment nonexhaustively lists some considerations (mostly new) relevant to retaining the method-focus. (Disclosure, partly repeated from elsewhere: I have contributed to published research on passage meditation, sometimes by that name. I also practice the method myself (perhaps parly an advantage for understanding it?), though I have never regularly taught it; I know well individuals in the Easwaran-founded organization that publishes his books, but have never been employed by it -- except for 2 summers in the 1980s as a carpenter. Due to the practice/friendships/research, my comments must be viewed in light of Wikipedia concerns about conflict of interest WP:COI). With regard to method-focus versus book-focus:

1. There are other methods/systems of meditative practices that have method-focus pages: See Centering Prayer, Transcendental Meditation, Kriya Yoga. These all focus on a method rather than a book (and are independent of bio-page(s) for their modern systematizer(s)).

2. Internet hits are not directly relevant to Wikipedia notability criteria, but give an interesting reference point suggesting that "passage meditation" has somewhat less, but similar order of magnitude of internet presence as TM and CP: Just now, googling "Transcendental Meditation" gave 438,000 internet pages; "Centering Prayer" gave 116,000 pages; and "Passage Meditation" gave 58,100 pages, almost all of the top 50 clearly applying to the method discussed on the present page.

3. Wikipedia general notability guidelines (WP:Notability#General_notability_guideline) say that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.... Sources for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." My sense is that it should not be difficult to satisfy this criterion from among the approximately 58,000 webpages, plus varieties of print publications that cite passage meditation as discussed on this page. For example, the book by Plante (2009), quoted elsewhere on this page (proposed text now in WP:BRD cycle), would seem to count -- it is published by the American Psychological Association, and featured in their book catalogue (3.64Mb [1]). If that is discounted because Plante participated on 3 of the research studies (shouldn't they count too???), then there would seem to be plenty of other secondary discussions from diverse sources. For example, the 1996 citation unearthed by dab and goethian (see Easwaran page discussion) spends a couple of paragraphs describing the method, and then cites the Easwaran book in the footnotes (dab and goethian may not have noticed footnote 12 to Easwaran, 1991) [2]. Several more examples are already included or have been suggested for inclusion in the page, and I strongly suspect that many more could be found (e.g., among 58,000 page hits; scholarly citations; other printed; etc.).

4. The fact that the 1978/1991/2008 book has been published in translation in 15-20 languages (see [3]), and that passage meditation is also described in many other of Easwaran's books that together have been translated into approximately 20 languages, suggests that there is likely citation in a variety of languages. This in itself does not prove existence of additional non-English secondary sources, but suggests their likelihood (e.g., book reviews).

Together, do these considerations suggest satisfaction of notability criteria for a method-focused page? To me, it seems they would, but I am new to Wikipedia in comparison with the seasoned Wikipedian editors who are helping with this page, so perhaps I have missed something (what?). Personally, I'd prefer to be free to concentrate my Wiki-available time/energy on contributing to separate method-focused and EE-biographical pages (all contributory processes subject to WP:COI). At the end, I hope we can emerge with maximally-informative, smartly structured, and appropriately neutral (WP:NPOV) pages. Health Researcher (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

While discussion continues on whether to add material to this article, I've added a pointer for the reader to say that instructions on Passage Meditation can be found on the Blue Mountain Center of Meditation's website. If other editors think it would be better to copy some of that material onto this article page I would be happy to do that (& get permission from the Center to copy that material) - I didn't want to annoy anyone by copying material already available on the web into wikipedia.DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge Proposal - Remove Tag now?

This article was tagged last October as a potential merge, with the instruction not to remove the tag without discussion. Since the initial discussion, this article has been extended and the Eknath Easwaran article has been significantly extended. I believe the 2 articles now serve different purposes and justify their independent existences - this one as a description of a meditation practice and of a notable book about that practice, and the other about a leading Indian figure who is the author of many books including but not limited to that on passage meditation. Consequently I propose that we could now remove the merge tag. I hope that any people who want further discussion will contribute to this talk page. Thanks DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

At this time there is no clear consensus about whether to proceed with the merge. I would prefer not to remove the merge tag until such time as there is clear consensus one way or the other. Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

—

I disagree with merge proposal. Eknath Easwaran is a person, no longer with us. His accomplishments are wide-ranging in spirituality. While Passage Meditation is perhaps his most significant legacy, it lives on and grows from the foundation he built. HCIProfessor (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)— HCIProfessor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

[4] Participants should keep in mind that HCIProfessor appears to be an account created specifically for this discussion.Simonm223 (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason why new people who are interested in this topic can't join this discussion?DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. However if an account is a sock puppet created specifically for the purpose of suggesting that consensus is other than it is that should be noted. Now I don't know which is the case with HCIProfessor (talk · contribs) but that's why the appropriate course of action was just to flag the account. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This article does seem to have quite a few SPAs around. Verbal chat 17:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the merge should go ahead and the page should remain tagged until the merge is completed. Verbal chat

I have just looked up what a sock puppet is, and it seems to be a term for someone who creates several internet identities in order to give the impression of being several different people. I can confirm here that my only identity on wikipedia is the one I am signing this post with, and I am not the same person as HealthResearcher or HCIProfessor. I can understand why simon223 thought this entry might be a sock puppet, but it isn't - although I'm not sure how I can prove that to you, perhaps you have to accept my word for it. I also don't know why Verbal says "there are quite a few SPAs" on this article - I don't know of any - and certainly the contributions from me are from a different human being than those from Health Researcher and HCIProfessor. I hope editors particpating in this discussion will also understand that some of us (and I'm speaking here for myself) are contributing only to a small number of articles because these are the ones whose content we care about and know something about - there is a lot on wikipedia which I will happily reference without feeling the need to suggest changes. But that limited scope of contibution doesn't mean that our views "count" less - at least as far as I understand how wikipedia is meant to work. DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Rickenbacker al (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC) (see below for his statement opposing merger)

I oppose the merger proposal, and think it should be permanently dropped. The Easwaran page is now substantially built up (rated C-Class). I see no present rationale from the point of view of Wikipedia for merging the articles, and several contributors have advanced coherent reasons in opposition. Please do a checkuser if you wish, but I'm inclined to take these other contributors at 100% face value. I can assure you that I am a different human being than DuncanCraig1949, HCIProfessor, and Rickenbacker al (whose "oppose" message appears a bit lower down on the page, DIFF is HERE). I am also a conscientious contributor to Wikipedia who does not want to make edits that violate Wikipedia principles or undermine its quality as an encyclopedia. With my limited time, I would prefer to build it up (confession: early-on, when less aware of Wikipedia WP:MOS, I created disproportionate detail in the research section of this page). I hope that all the other editors involved in this discussion are also conscientious about the Wikipedia mission. However, I can imagine unencyclopedic and un-Wikipedian motives for pushing for a merger. Since this discussion resumed this month, merger proponents have not advanced any substantive arguments for merger, and have instead questioned the veracity of other discussants. Disproportionate zeal for questioning the integrity of other editors versus making substantive arguments seems like a red flag that merits further scrutiny. It raises questions about whether some merger proponents - hopefully not all - may have unstated motives that draw them into conflict with Wikipedia's mission. Health Researcher (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Retain 'Further Reading'

To dab (and others): It would seem that the "Further readings" section should be retained, rather than removed as in someone's recent (accidental?) and unexplained edit. These offer additional secondary references to passage meditation, beyond the research studies. Should quotations from them be more fully integrated into the text to further establish notability, or is their inclusion as 'Further Reading' sufficient? Thanks Health Researcher (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

They should be integrated as much as possible. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"further reading" sections tend to attract random lists of titles without apparent relevance to the topic. Until it is very clear why a title is listed (e.g. a monograph on the article topic by an academic publisher), it should be removed. --dab (𒁳) 12:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifications, they are helpful for me. Health Researcher (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merger. Saw the proposal re the Passage Meditation article, but a bit puzzled as to why Eknath Easwaran's status as a proponent of this technique should prompt merging the article on it with the biographical one on him? Wouldn't that be like merging the Wikipedia article on the jet engine with the one on Frank Whittle? Or the one on cubism with the one on Pablo Picasso? Also, passage meditation might be considered by some to be identical in everything other than name to techniques used in other meditative disciplines (e.g. some types of Christian contemplation) and therefore more appropriately kept separate from an article on any one individual. Rickenbacker al (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Rickenbacker al (talk · contribs) is also a brand-new account with no other edits. I am beginning to suspect sock puppetry is happening here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If this continues we should probably ask for a checkuser on HR and all the other red linked accounts here, as they fail the duck test. Verbal chat 19:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have never requested a checkuser on HR so perhaps, if it comes to that, you could show me how. Simonm223 (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, mine is 'a brand new account with no previous edits'. But does that invalidate the objective argument which I inserted (and which I notice none of the pro-merger contributors seem very keen to address), or my right to put it? I would venture the opinion that these pages contain an unhealthy amount of personal mud-slinging and technical jargon (sock-puppetry? failing the duck test? red linked accounts? checkuser on HR?). Come on Guys - is this really what Wikipedia is about? For my part, I'm happy to provide whatever verification is required of me so that we can concentrate on the issues and rational arguments. Please.

Rickenbacker al (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources

We need more secondary and tertiary sources, since nearly all of the ones that are used are from the same small group of people, and they're often cited in relatively unknown journals. I wonder who stands behind those journals? Anybody know? -- Brangifer (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Scientific journals. Diversifying scientific references is different than diversifying other kinds of references. My paragraph here responds to the question with regard to the scientific journals that contain the research reports. With notable exceptions (e.g., JAMA), scientific journals tend to be obscure to those outside the field. The scientific journals cited in the research section are all peer-reviewed professional scientific journals, as can be verified by tracking down their internet journal home pages (which typically link to instructions for authors, aims/scope, etc). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology is one of the highest-circulation journals published by the American Psychological Association (the main organization for US psychologists). Journal of American College Health is published by the main organization for college health professionals (e.g., those who work in student health centers). Some of the others are not organization-based, but are professional journals with histories spanning several or many years (i.e., much beyond the studies published on this page). In most cases, I believe that contents pages and abstracts should be viewable online without special subscriptions. Reading actual articles in most cases will require an individual or institutional subscription. Many universities would also have hardcopy versions of these journals in their libraries. When there is moderate amount of research on any scientific topic (e.g., more than one or two studies, but not dozens), it is not too uncommon for most of the studies to be authored, as here, by a small collection of individuals who often collaborate. That's typical, though not ubiquitious, for scientific topics, at least in biomedical/social-scientific fields, when there is a moderate amount of research. Health Researcher (talk) 05:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

1999 study. Added a 1999 study by Winzelberg and Luskin. To confirm that this is based on the Easwaran method (without purchasing article or visiting a library): follow the link to the journal page abstract, then click on "References". The Easwaran meditation book is listed as reference # 20.Health Researcher (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Being one citation out of twenty or more does not make the study about that topic. Sorry, WP:DUE applies. Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Let me rephrase and expand. I have read the original article and can vouch that it pertains to an adaptation of the passage meditation program. There is circumstantial confirmation, though not proof, available online for free by the fact that the ref#20 is to the Easwaran book. Full confirmation could be obtained by purchasing the article online, or by visiting an appropriate library, or probably in various other ways. Unfortunately, not all documents relevant to substantiating statements in a Wikipedia page are yet available online and for free (I wish they were). I was trying to be helpful since for many, visiting a library can be a hassle. My apologies for my mis-phrasings. Health Researcher (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no requirement that your sources be online or free. They need to be available at a library, that's all. — goethean ॐ 18:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Indeed, there's so much available online that it's easy to forget that there's still a great deal that's not online (and I think Wikipedia would be a different place if it tried to rely wholly on cyberspace). I will restore the reference to the 1999 study, which seems to have been deleted in the meanwhile. Health Researcher (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The abstract says that the meditative techniques used were "the RISE response and 3 adjunct methods" that does not indicate that Passage Meditation was actually the topic of the study, rather the opposite in fact. Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at the bio for Rick Flinders. As Flinders is not Eswaran and, in fact, notes zazen as the basis for his interest in meditative practice I am concerned you may be misrepresenting this reference. Simonm223 (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why the cite to the 1999 study was deleted for a second time, after I stated that I vouched for its relevance, without either someone querying me first (and asking for details), or someone indicating that they have looked at the article itself, and still have doubt. Here is a quote from the 1999 paper: "The RISE program was developed to put in book form the meditation practices taught by Eknath Easwaran" (p. 71). I have read the "RISE book" (reference #21 in the study), which was the basis for the 1999 study, and it is indeed about an adaptation of the passage meditation program (some of the 8 points were not emphasized, which is why it is an 'adaptation'). But passage meditation itself (the Easwaran point #1, meditating on a passage) is foundational to the RISE method. I think I could track down my copy in the next couple of days and post a direct quote if that would be of interest. On the other hand, perhaps, based on the Wikipedia guideline to assume good faith, my fellow editors of this page will prefer to invest their time (and my time) in other ways. But if anyone would like me to post a relevant quote from the RISE book about meditating on a memorized passage, I would be happy to do so. Health Researcher (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The abstract makes reference to the work of Rick Flinders explicitly. It does not mention Easwaran. Seek consensus before reinserting. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment. Could a seasoned third-party WP editor please comment about the recent contributions from Simonm223 and myself (Health_researcher) with regard to inclusion of the study by Winzelberg and Luskin (1999) in the research section? According to the revision history, I first added this section on 2009-10-20T09:51:49. Simonm223 deleted it (reverted it) at 10-20T10:15:33. I reinserted at 2009-10-20T11:29:15. Simonm223 again reverted it (deleted it) at 10-20T11:32:48. I again inserted it at 10-20T15:54:52. Simonm223 again reverted it, for the 3rd time, at 10-21T07:06:25, slightly less than 21 hours after the first reversion (how is this not in violation of WP:3RR?). Simonm223 now thinks that the onus should be on me to gain consensus before re-inserting, although my reading indicates he is the only editor to date who has inserted questions in the talk page about the 1999 study. He has been framing his arguments from the basis of his reading of the abstract and reference list, whereas I have been offering quotations directly from the full study and the primary material. Simonm33, I can appreciate your skeptical mind and desire to understand and get to the bottom of things that you look at. As a health researcher, such skepticism is important for considering alternative explanations. But the way you are seeking to pursue such skepticism in our interaction is frustrating to me, and strikes me as unfair. If consensus had to be required every time a new fact was added to Wikipedia, Wikipedia would go nowhere. I have attempted to address doubts as they have arisen, and will continue to do so (for awhile at least). But I do not believe there is any justification for regarding my contributions as "guilty until proven innocent". Please see immediatly below for some quotations about the relevance of RISE to passage meditation. Health Researcher (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

RISE book. Here are some quotations from the RISE book (Tim Flinders, Madeline Gershwin, and Rick Flinders, 1994): Chapter 2 begins on page 27 and is entitled "Passage Meditation". Later on page 27 it is stated "Passage meditation aims at slowing down and focusing the thinking process at the same time that it transforms your thinking. The method comes from the classical Indian tradition described in the book Meditation by Sri Eknath Easwaran; from his eight-point spiritual program we adapted the RISE tools". Doesn't this clearly indicate that studies of the RISE method are relevant to a Wikipedia page on "passage meditation"? Health Researcher (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I note that all of the half dozen or so studies on PM are authored by one Doug Oman. Doug Oman appears to be[5] an "Assistant Adjunct Professor" at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health who is also into esotericism. His papers are certainly quotable, but they should be quoted as the work of Doug Oman, not as so many works of unnamed "scholars". --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Counts of authors. Here are counts of authors/coauthors on the 9 journal article studies presently footnoted from the research section: Oman (8), Thoresen (7), Hedberg (5), Shapiro (3), Plante (3), T.Flinders (3), Richards (2), Driskill (1), Bowden (1), C.Flinders (1), Downs (1), Parsons (1), Winzelberg (1), Luskin (1). (have I counted correctly?) Health Researcher (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are trying to do here. Oman is the main author in most of them. I count ten papers cited, all dating to 2006-2009 with one exception (2003), and Oman is listed as author in ten out of ten papers, with varying co-authors. This means that there is one group of authors churning out papers on PM, "publish or perish" style. Any evidence that these papers had any kind of impact, or is this the academic equivalent of writing to /dev/null? Now would be a good time, Health Researcher, to state whether you are in any way associated with any of these authors. --dab (𒁳) 15:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note that in an post above, from 2 days ago, I (Health_researcher) stated: "disclosure: I have been involved as a researcher on many of the studies." (which was dated "23:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)"). This was embedded in a request for clarification about what was perceived as lacking in NPOV. With regard to what I was trying to do in the previous comment about authors, I was pointing out that there have been several authors/researchers involved in many of the studies (leaving aside the review chapter by Flinders, Oman and Flinders). Oman was involved in the largest number (all but one, when we include the 1999 paper that Simonm223 is so insistent on deleting, despite the fact that he appears only to have read the abstract and reference list, whereas I have read the whole paper and much of its background). And Oman was the lead author most often. Thoresen was involved in all but 2. Hedberg was involved in more than half of them. This type of situation is not uncommon in this type of scientific research. Although the lead (first) author typically does the most work (or is supposed to have done the most work), each other author has made (or is supposed to have made) contributions to the work. You have suggested that the papers be characterized as something other than the work of "groups of scholars". I do not regard it as appropriate to imply that it is entirely the work of Oman. But I have no specific phrasing to suggest with regard to characterizing the authors. So I was just putting those counts out there as background for anyone who wanted to think about or address that issue. Health Researcher (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

ok, I hadn't seen that, I apologize for not paying better attention. This still means that you are here to push your own research, which is problematic under WP:COI. Yes, the article can cite these papers. But does it need a full section detailing the full publication history of Oman et al. on the subject? I doubt it. A brief statement that there have been some studies on the matter will be sufficient within WP:DUE. --dab (𒁳) 08:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for dialoguing like this, I really appreciate the way you take the time for clarifications, explaining implications, etc. Yes, WP:DUE is necessary, and I presume you are referring to the section that states "strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject". That is, this is not a question of disagreements in POV (I'm not aware of conflicting research), but of overall proportionality. Even if the research were to take up about 1/3 of the article (as it does for Transcendental Meditation, excluding references+TOC), the Research section would still need to be shortened to be proportional for the present article. Links from citations to published abstracts will offer almost as much info as present summaries (perhaps harder to read). Yes, maintaining proportionality, while offering links, seems right on. I wasn't aware of these nuances as I gradually built up the research section over the past couple of years, but I'm not sure what precisely I'd do different. Often one drafts things, and then cuts back to a condensed version. Health Researcher (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Function of phrase 'Passage Meditation'

Long passage vs short mantram. An accurate understanding of the function of the phrase 'passage meditation' may be relevant to decisions about future disposition of the page (e.g., as-is vs book-focused vs merger). The current characterized isn't yet accurate, though I'm not sure of the best citation if documentation is needed. The phrase 'Passage Meditation' functions to do more than distinguish a Hindu mantram versus everything else (current para 2). The Easwaran method involves meditating on a memorized text that in some cases is even many pages long. See his collections of passages in his books God Makes the Rivers to Flow. For example, the Shema occupies much of p. 103; a Thomas aKempis passage occupies pp. 196-198; and the Invocations of Ansari of Herat, a single passage, occupies pp. 131-137.[6] Mantras and focus objects used in most or all other well-known methods of meditation are much, much shorter.

Thus, the term 'passage meditation', once it is understood, functions to clarify a core feature that (for better or worse) distinguishes this method from mantram-focused meditation in Hinduism or Buddhism, and also from Eastern Orthodox Christian Hesychasm (e.g., meditating on the Jesus Prayer). And of course it distinguishes it from "Breath meditation", and from methods such as Herbert Benson's (1975) Relaxation Response, which involve focusing on the word "one". I suspect "passage meditation" has caught on because it is less cumbersome than something like "meditating on a passage", allowing it to function better as a name.

So I think the second paragraph, which is looking very nice in other regards (thank for the good work!), should at some point be edited to better reflect these nuances. And inasmuch as it shows the distinctiveness of Point 1 as a spiritual practice and phenomenon of interest, the name's function may be relevant to the page naming.Health Researcher (talk) 07:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right that further debate should be invested in the term 'passage meditation'. Especially seeing as it is not Easwaran's term, but, as you have pointed out at Talk:Eknath Easwaran a 1994 coinage by "Flinders, Gershwin and Flinders".

It is doubtful in the light of this whether this article shoud reside at Passage Meditation at all. It's not a big deal though. As you say, even if it is grammatically dubious, if you write pages and pages about "meditating on certain passages of text", you will sooner or later crave a shorthand to refer to the concept. But then of course EE wrote an entire book about it and still never used the phrase. Probably because for him, it was just "Meditation", and "passage meditation" was picked by other authors to distinguish EE's approach to meditation to that of others. The article still needs to make clear that "Passage Meditation" is a term used by people writing about EE, not by EE himself.

I believe you are right, that EE himself mainly used the term "meditation" on its own, since, when he started teaching his program in 1968, there were not many other meditation teachers in the US drawing the kind of college audiences that he drew. He also used the term "meditation on a passage" and I believe he also used "passage meditation", though - as you say - for him it was not a necessary distinction. The Center that he founded to continue his work seems to have picked up on his phrase "passage meditation" as a more informative way to explain the whole program than the phrase "eight point program", which then became the title of the 3rd edition. I have edited the article text to try to make this all clearer to the reader, and hope you think this is indeed a useful clarification. DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that it is not unusual for the most common parlance for the set of teachings/techniques emphasized by a spiritual teacher, to crystallize primarily after his/her passing away. The Buddha said he was "awake", but didn't he refer to his teachings mostly as "dharma" (or maybe "the path") -- certainly not as "Buddhism". Similarly, Jesus didn't speak of his teachings as "Christianity"; nor was Hinduism referred to as Hinduism, I believe, until it became a useful term by which Europeans sought to describe what they encountered past the Indus river. Easwaran referred to himself as only a "mini mystic" [7], but it seems like his influence may conform to the pattern of this posthumous crystallization. If the term "passage meditation" indeed originated in the RISE program written about by Flinders/Gershwin/Flinders (1994), which they say was an adaptation for self-care at Easwaran's request (p 3), and taught in many different cities, perhaps this was one of the first times that passage meditation as distilled by Easwaran was systematically taught in settings without the force of his personal presence. If so, that might have intensified the labelling challenges, giving rise to the new term. This is my original speculation, galvanized by issues raised by dab and others -- I've never thought about it before, but it seems plausible, and perhaps relevant in some way to the construction of the page (though not as original research (WP:NOR)). Health Researcher (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the term is that the main meaning of passage is "transition, transit, moving onward", which in the context of meditation evokes the transition from one state to another (OED: "A transition from one state or condition to another, spec. through death; a transition or progress through a period, stage, etc.") The intended meaning figures only under entry 13(!) in OED, "a section of a speech, text, play, etc., considered by itself". If I was to pick a term, I think I would call it "shabda meditation" or something similar, to point out that the core idea is that the meditation is linguistic, focussed on language. I might even call it "sphota meditation", but that would entail a lot of implication (linguistic mysticism) that may not be in EE's conception, and of course I am not going to pick a term, I am just trying to illustrate what I consider problematic.

Your distinction between 'passage' and 'mantra' based on length is dubious. The mantra portion of the Rigveda would take more than 24h to recite without pause, while few of EE's "passages" take more than half a minute to recite. But I am just expressing doubt here, I do not presume to be informed on this, and obviously you have studied this a lot, so I do invite you to further improve this, ideally presenting references, and ideally not references published by your own research group. --dab (𒁳) 08:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that distinction between 'passage' and 'mantra' based on length is a little unclear. The Wikipedia article on mantras does cover the whole Rigveda, but almost all the examples given of mantras are of mantras that are one or a few words, or a few short lines - and this I believe is the more common usage of the term. However one feels about this, the way the original article has been changed does not quite capture the distinction that Easwaran made either, so I'm changing the text 'The term passage is chosen to express the Hindu term of mantra in order to avoid the misunderstanding that the words meditated upon must be a traditional Hindu mantra.' into "The term passage is chosen to describe a spiritually-inspired text that one meditates on, during an extended period of time set aside for meditation, as compared to a mantram which Easwaran describes as a short, powerful spiritual formula which can be repeated, at any time during the day or night, to call up the best and deepest in ourselves <reference to his book The Mantram Handbook>". I hope you can all agree that this is closer to easwaran's own definition than the text I've replaced. DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I find myself interested in the topic of "passage" meditation, as distinct from other forms. It is my impression that various great religious leaders in history have used a techniques which seem (to me at least) hardly distinguishable from what Easwaran defines as his form of meditation, and Flinders et al. have named 'passage meditation.'

Three examples (and I will have to work for it if someone wants me to find the exact citations): 1. First, Allah, as reported by the Prophet Muhammad, in the Qur'an itself, admonished members of the new religious sect to 'pray for 1/4 of the night (and I believe that las later rendered more lenient in terms of length of time), by reciting the verses of the Qur'an, silently I believe it was. Then, Teresa of Avila (St. Teresa) describes using the Lord's Prayer as her mode for beginning the practice of prayer -- and in her case, transports and ecstasies would then typically commence; but the point is that focusing on a memorized passage was how she began. I believe this may be found in her autobiography. Finally, 3. the far more modern-day French author/mystic, Simone Weil, describes almost the same technique as her meditation method, using the same text as Teresa of Avila. None of these three -- Easwaran, Muhammad and followers, or Weil -- used the phrase 'passage meditation.' But this phrase now seems current since it is the title of one of Easwaran's books, identifying this distinct meditation method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savitr108 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

To Savitr108: Citable references to eminent spiritual figures who engaged in a practice somewhat similar to Easwaran's "meditating on a passage" (point 1) might indeed be of interest for expanding the page. Can you find such references? I don't think (re WP guidelines) that we could call them a form of "passage meditation" unless there is secondary source that calls them by that name. But such citations and descriptions might be of brief interest as backgroud info to contextualize Passage Meditation program, and its point 1. It would help put the PM method in context (i.e., context of the varieties of spiritual practices that have been used and perhaps discovered/rediscovered through history). Health Researcher (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Easwaran ever claimed that he invented 'passage meditation'. What the book Passage Meditation describes is an eight-point program which Easwaran himself often describes as 'meditation and the allied disciplines'. And of course an eight point program is also not unique to Easwaran: but what Easwaran brings (if you read his books) is a very clear explanation of how to apply these ancient disciplines to everyday life - and particularly to the hurried and consumer-driven life in the west. His other books - like Conquest of Mind and Take Your Time - explore these issues in particular, while his commentaries on the Indian texts look at the issues from a more explicitly spiritual angle (though all his books are pretty spiritually-based). 'Passage Meditation' is then a kind of shorthand for all this, as I see it. DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

One problem may be the use of the word "technique" in the first sentence of the article. Easwaran actually describes it (in his book) as a "program that I developed for myself" - and taught from 1968 at the University of California, Berkeley. I have changed the word "technique" to "program" in the article, in the hope that you all agree that this is an improvementDuncanCraig1949 (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

This secion describes changes that I believe would benefit this article. I implemented them all yesterday, but the user Verbal reverted them all, with a request for discussion in the context of WP:BRD and WP:COI. This is my affirmative response (so please discuss below!). The proposed changes are two groups. For each group, I a) describe the proposed location, b) show the proposed text (with references that appear in a reference section at the bottom, and c) comment and explain the purpose of the changes. I then sign each comment. Health Researcher (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Proposed additions to "Method" section are as follows (to appear directly after listing of the 8 points):

According to Easwaran, the eight points, "though they may at first seem unrelated, they are closely linked. Quieting your mind in morning meditation, for instance, will help your efforts to slow down at work, and slowing down at work will, in turn, improve your meditation…. Unless you practice all of them, you cannot progress safely and far" (p. 24, Passage Meditation, 2008). Easwaran also believed that point 1 (passage meditation) was commonly experienced as challenging. His book The Mantram Handbook focuses on how to use point 2 (frequent repetition throughout the day of a holy name or mantram). "If you are not prepared to meditate," he wrote, "you can still benefit greatly from the practice of the other disciplines.... No matter what your background, you will benefit if you repeat the mantram at odd moments during the day or when you are walking or falling asleep, and you will benefit even more if the mantram enables you to slow down, to become more one-pointed, and to put others first." (p. 205, Easwaran, The Mantram Handbook, 1998 edition).

Comments on proposed change #1: This explains the interrelationship between the various points. These are direct quotes from the developer of the program (Easwaran), and address questions that arise in practice. I believe that people who are familiar with these books and their use by people in practice will recognize that these are questions that arise. They are also relevant to understanding the place of passage meditation and the full program within Easwaran's corpus of work. That is, whereas he often stresses the interdependence of the points, there are some pubs (e.g., Mantram Handbook) where the full program is backgrounded and relegated to a late chapter. I don't see these points as intersecting significantly with my (previously disclosed) research work on the program (am I missing something?). Rather, all of this seems intrinsically relevant to understanding context of this page's topic. Health Researcher (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

2. Proposed new section on "Dissemination" (to appear after Method section and before Research section):

Dissemination (new section header)

Over several decades, instructions for the passage meditation program have been made available in many languages and countries worldwide. The most complete account is in book noted above, that focuses fully on the passage meditation program. But the developer of the passage meditation program also incorporated abbreviated instructions in a substantial subset of his published books. He omitted instructions from his biographies of Mahatma Gandhi and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, and from his translations of Hindu and Buddhist scriptures. But instructions on all 8 points were included in several of his other publications, including a set of daily readings, a commentary on the dying process, a guide that placed primary emphasis on how to use point 2 (the mantram repetition through the day), commentaries on particular scriptures, and others. Together with the book focusing entirely on the passage meditation program, these books have been translated and published by indigenous publishing houses in languages that include Bahasa Indonesian, Bulgarian, Czech, Dutch, English, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Korean, Lithuanian, Romanian, Russian, Slovenian, Spanish, and Telugu.

The passage meditation program has been briefly described in by Thomas G. Plante in his book Spiritual Practices in Psychotherapy: Thirteen Tools for Enhancing Psychological Health, published by the American Psychological Association, and featured in their book catalogues for psychology professionals. Plante referred to the "Eight Point Program" (EPP) and "Passage Meditation". "Like mindfulness-based meditation," he wrote, "EPP (Easwaran, 1978/1991...) is another excellent example of how to use the tools offered by religion-spirituality.... to help clients in psychotherapy practice..... Each of these principles or points can be applied to clients from any religious tradition or no tradition. Definitions and case examples follow" (p. 154). Passage meditation (point 1) and major portions of the eight point program have also been extensively described in a 1994 book intended to assist those suffering from chronic diseases.

Other influences. The concept of passage meditation - meditating on a lengthier memorized text rather than a single short prayer or mantram - influenced Roman Catholic theologian Henri Nouwen. Nouwen wrote that "Easwaran showed me the great value of learning a sacred text by heart and repeating it slowly in the mind, word by word, sentence by sentence. In this way, listening to the voice of love becomes not just a passive waiting, but an active attentiveness to the voice that speaks to us through the words of the Scriptures" (p. 64). Referring to the full program as the "EPP" ("Eight Point Program"), Tim and Carol Flinders stated that they have "presented the EPP at workshops over several decades to thousands of individuals, and are personally acquainted with regular EPP practitioners who are observant" in the faiths of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. They also speculated that "perhaps because the appeal of the EPP cuts across and transcends the most common categories of religious and sectarian identity, it rarely appears on lists of popular meditation practices such as TM, Vipassana, and Zen" (p. 77).

(another 2ndary source that could go in middle of above para:) Passage meditation (point 1) and the mantram (point 2) were described by Dreher (2008, pp. 151-153), as "adapted from the work of Eknath Easwaran" (p. 151). She mentions the full passage meditation program, but does not describe it. Health Researcher (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments on proposed changes #2: The title of this section "Dissemination" might not be the best, but I wasn't sure what else to call it (any suggestions?). The main impetus was to expand the collection of additional sources, to more fully represent the interest that is being taken (worldwide) in passage meditation and the 8 pts. All of these are reasonably positive references but Easwaran never to my knowledge courted controversy, so it may be that there aren't significant critiques. At any rate, if some nonpositive citations turn up, they can be incorporated subject to WP:DUE. Regarding the three paragraphs, moving from top to bottom:

para 1 - This attempts to characterize the international dissemination of PM & the PM program, as part of delineating it as a phenomenon of interest. It has been disseminated in many books, not just the 1978/1991/2008 book. Yesterday when I added it, I noted (above) that "This partly overlaps with EE page matl, which is not ideal (though note differences re Japanese and Portuguese). So most likely reworking will be needed. Perhaps the main point in adding this material is that there are lots of instructions in the 8 points floating around the world in lots of different languages, often outside of the 1978/1991/2008 Passage Meditation text." Health Researcher (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

para 2 - This describes two health-oriented publications in which the PMP has been disseminated. These would seem to be relevant to charting the contours of interest. The Plante book is issued by a very prominent professional publisher American Psychological Association, which I perceived as noteworthy. The second book was a popular book. There is partial overlap with the list of authors from the research section (though not the most highly involved researchers). Since I am one of those researchers, there are COI issues here, and my judgment about the desirability of these inserts must carry less weight than that of others. Health Researcher (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

para 3 - This describes a few other more miscellaneous types of influence that the PM/PMP has had. Some involve overlap with the researchers (and hence COI issues), and others don't. Henri Nouwen is a very prominent theologian (can that be mentioned without "weasel words"?). One of the cites from the researchers involves a speculation about the frequency of listings of the Easwaran method in lists of meditation methods (perhaps incongruously low given the diverse international dissemination and high sales of the 1978/1991/2008 book). It raises COI issues that this piece is authored by some of the same researchers, but the quote seemed worthwhile to bring into the picture, since it addresses a question that may be puzzling (I am not aware of other speculations that address this question) Health Researcher (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Update / Intent to continue. No one has expressed concerns about the above suggestions in more than 6 days. So in 3 or 4 days, when I have time, if I don't hear significant criticisms or concerns, I will start to migrate the text (with copy-edits in some cases) into the public page. Thanks. Health Researcher (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Photo

I have added a photo of Easwaran teaching a meditation class at UC Berkeley in 1968, taken from the Blue Mountain Center of Meditation website www.easwaran.org; I have emailed the Center asking for permission to copy this photo onto wikipedia and I have an email from them giving me permission to do that. I thought the photo would add some visual confirmation of the historic importance of Easwaran's work in the US, teaching meditation to college students on a course that was sufficiently "serious" that it earned them course credits - this at a time when meditation was still rather esoteric and/or interpereted by the hippy movement as an opportunity to drop out.DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

New NPOV Posting

Appeal to all participants in this discussion: an editor (Verbal) has just put an NPOV tag on this article, asserting (on his/her Talk page) that "te tag is justified by the misleading wording and incorrect use of research studies, as discussed on the article talk. Verbal chat 10:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)". Since there have been quite a few postings on this discussion page since Verbal's last posting on 19 October, as we've all tried to improve the article and get it into line with wikipedia guidelines, I wonder whether any other editors (or Verbal him/herself) would be willing to look at the article now and give an opinion wrt NPOV and if necessary provide specific justifcations for NPOV and help us rookie wikipedia contributors with advice on how to get the article into an acceptable shape? With thanks in advance for your help, DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, in case any of you missed it, Verbal also tagged (and deleted from the article page) the photo that I had inserted on this page, which showed Easwaran teaching a meditation class at UC Berkeley in the 60's. I hope the photo can be reinserted soon when Verbal's tag on it is cleared, but the photo does (in my opinion) strengthen the article by showing the historic significance of Easwaran's work in establishing Passage Meditation as a meditation practice in the US. Anyone interested in the adoption of meditation practices in the US would I think be interested to learn more, from this article, of Easwaran's role in that - and the picture expresses that well, visually. Thanks DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If Verbal does not justify his/her placement of the tag with a complaint on this talk page, you may remove the tag. — goethean ॐ 17:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I still believe their is a problem with the way research is used and presented in this article, with the lead not summarising the article, and with the wording of significant parts of the article. The research section should be summarized in the lead, but should also be fixed first itself. Verbal chat 17:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There have now been a lot of improvements to the article since Verbal's last comment, and no-one else has entered the discussion. I therefore assume that the article is now OK. If no-one else comments by November 28th I propose to remove the NPOV tagDuncanCraig1949 (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The essential POV nature of the article hasn't been addressed. Could you also link to where the copyright issue on the image was addressed, thanks. Verbal chat 21:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

In case there are other editors watching this: I have asked Verbal on his talk page to give specific justifications for the NPOV tag - I do hope he can provide more info, since "The essential POV nature of the article hasn't been addressed" doesn't say what is wrong, it's an opinion but not a justification DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

DuncanCraig1949, I agree that changes have addressed previously identified problems. Unjustified neutrality tags are contrary to good Wikipedia procedure. Without a nontrivial verifiable unresolved disagreement about concrete POV issues (no concretely expressed concerns appear to be outstanding), there seems little warrant for a tag (time for us all to move on). Health Researcher (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Re-edit Nov 2nd 2009

The first half of this article (up to "Research") has become a little incoherent, as a result of various edits to fix various different things. I've therefore tried to bring back some unity to the article by moving sections around, and some minor edits. I've also added some content to the listing of the 8 points of the program, to explain what they are. I hope these additions are not considered contentious - I've tried to keep them neutral.

I have not touched the Research section, since I assume that Health Researcher is working on that. When he/she has finished that, maybe all editors can review the article again to see if their issues have been addressed satisfactorily, so that hopefully we can then (with any additional required edits) remove the tags on this article.

Thank you all for your patience - I do think the article is now looking much better as a result of your work, and I hope we're now close to the final thing. DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, there is a historic photo of Easwaran teaching a meditation class at UC Berkeley in 1968, that one of the editors questioned so that it has got blocked off the site (see "Photo" above). I believe that there is no reason for this photo not to appear on wikipedia, and so hopefully it will eventually re-appear in the article, adding interest and historical record to the article. Perhaps you can try to imagine it there, as you review the text. Thanks DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

EE_Berkeley_1968 photo

I reverted this edit which added the following to the article (with the actual photo):

File:EE_Berkeley_1968.JPG [caption] Eknath Easwaran teaching what is thought to be the first credit course on meditation offered at a major university in the U.S. at U.C. Berkeley in 1968. ©Blue Mountain Center of Meditation

I am copying a message received on my talk page below, and am responding below that. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

---

EE-Berkeley_1968 (Easwaran) photograph on Passage Meditation page

Hello, Johnuniq. I saw that you just deleted the photograph file [[File:EE_Berkeley_1968.JPG]] from the article on Passage Meditation. I want to understand your position and see if some fixes might be possible. First, I couldn't quite understand the question you put in the change log, which read "(rv: we don't insert images with copyright notices; is their any verification of the subject of the photo?)". What is your question about verification? If you go to the page for the file, you will see that it has a template for unfree content, which gives background about the photograph. Basically, the person in the photograph died 10 years ago, and the photograph is drawn from the website of an organization that he founded (follow the link on the file's info page to: [8], and scroll down a tiny bit). Perhaps redundantly (?), the creator of the photo file (not me) says he has an email from the organization that gives permission. Does this address your question about verification? Thanks -- Health Researcher (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Second, regarding your statement that "we don't insert images with copyright notices", I was not the person who originally inserted the photo into the article. Perhaps he will continue this discussion with you, since he may have studied any relevant Wikipedia guidelines more than I have (which guidelines cover copyright notices for valid unfree content?). BUT... is it your view that if it's OK for the picture to be used (as valid unfree content, with an acceptable rationale), then it should simply be used without copyright notice? Thanks -- Health Researcher (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Re the first part of my edit summary: "we don't insert images with copyright notices". Copyright and Wikipedia's handling of same is very complex and I am not familiar with all the details, however observation of other articles shows that images do not have copyright notices displayed. I won't say any more on this at the moment, but if required I will look for some guidelines on the issue. WP:DCM and WP:PERMISSION indicate how an image can be released for use on Wikipedia.

Re the second part of my edit summary: "is their there any verification of the subject of the photo". From the easwaran link, we see that a website promoting Eknath Easwaran states that the photo shows "what is thought to be the first credit course on meditation offered at a major university in the U.S. at U.C. Berkeley in 1968." While the term "credit course" is vague, it is quite a big claim, so following WP:REDFLAG I would want a more reliable source than a self-published website to verify that the photo shows what the caption claims. I have seen the reference, but that site appears to just briefly repeat the claim. While it seems entirely possible that such a course did run, at least the course name, number and duration should be specified in the article. The statement cannot be verified if this basic information is not available. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Johnuniq, thank you for your thoughts on both these issues, your explanations are helpful. Regarding the second issue, I see that in another Yoga Journal article, the course is described on page 87 as "Religious Studies 138X, 'Theory and Practice of Meditation' (four credits)." Actually, it doesn't seem to me to be such an extraordinary claim. There was considerable interest in the topic emerging at that time, and the person in the photo had the requisite knowledge to teach the course, and also had the sort of academic experience that would have allowed him to navigate the university system so as to be able to present a meditation course in a manner acceptable to the university. Somebody must have taught the first such course, and it seems quite plausible that it was this person; and the claim seems presented with an appropriate tentativeness ("believed to have been..."). Including such info might be helpful for someone doing systematic research to identify the history of for-credit meditation courses in the west. Anyway, FWIW, I'm logging this info here so that it could be moved to the article and/or photo as needed. Health Researcher (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC) _____ Addendum: A fuller description of the course is given by Flinders & Flinders (1989), page 148: "On the evening of Monday, January 3, 1968, 2000 LSB had standing room only for the several hundred Berkeley students who had registered for The Theory and Practice of Meditation (Religious Studies 138X, four units' credit; instructor, Eknath Easwraan). To anyone's knowledge, it was the first accredited course on meditation offered by any university in the United States - or, for that matter, in the world..... Required texts included Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, and Sidney Spencer's Mysticism in World Religion." -- Health Researcher (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments on recent changes (Nov 23-24, 2009)

As a comment and explanation of recent changes by User:Verbal and myself, I am copying here 3 paragraphs of text that I recently added, HERE(WP) or HERE(diff), to Verbal's talk page. Health Researcher (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Verbal, Thanks for several of your recent round of explained changes to the Passage Meditation article, though there were some I disagreed with. For three of your five changes, I found the information in the change log adequate for understanding your concern (on advertisements, puffery, and trivia). On two of them I saw valid concerns in the text, but I also thought there was info in the text that needed to be included, so I restored it restored it in modified form. I had no disagreement with the 'advertising' deletion. The photo removal did not articulate the alleged lack of "souce." But inspecting the talk page suggested that perhaps your concern pertained to the "thought to be the first course" statement in the caption. If so, you could have made this clearer. Also, by Wikipedia Editing Policies (WP:EP#Try_to_fix_problems:_preserve_information), if that was your concern, I think you should have tried to fix the caption, rather than deleting the picture whole. Finally, by that same policy, I think you should have tried to fix the research summary in the lead, or else flagged specific concerns, rather than just deleting it.

I disagree with your statement in the change log that this article describes "fringe research". The American Psychological Association, in whose peer-reviewed journals some of this research has appeared, would not take kindly to being called "fringe". Nor would the Association of American College Health, whose peer-reviewed journal has also published some of the research. The other cited studies also appeared in journals that are respectable and peer reviewed. And FWIW, Albert Bandura - the most highly cited living psychologist in the world - has been a collaborator and friend of some of the researchers involved on most of the studies, with one of them for almost half a century; he recently commented favorably, HERE, about their skilled use of his theories in a chapter that cited some of the same research that apppears in the Passage Meditation article. Most people wouldn't exactly call Bandura "fringe", either. Would you?

Friend, if you are on a crusade to oppose pseudo-science -- which you may be, judging by some of articles you often edit (e.g., Astrology, Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy) -- and which, I agree, is an area that is filled with many spurious claims -- please recognize that you are doing an injustice if you blindly assume that the research described in the Passage Meditation article is aiming to support wild and outlandish claims. Help improve the article by all means, but please remember to do so within the bounds of Wikipedia policies with regard to explaining your edits, preserving information, and other facets of helpfulness, collaboration and civility. Finally, thank you again for those 3 edits that were adequately explained, and I believe have stimulated improvements in the article (I hope you agree). Health Researcher (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:TALK and WP:COI. I am on no crusade, I am attempting to improve the encyclopaedia. PM falls well within the scope of WP:FRINGE. Verbal chat 15:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Responding to your (Verbal's) renewed "fringe" claim: Your claim that Passage Meditation (PM) is "fringe" according to WP:FRINGE is confused in various ways, I believe. First, PM is a method of practice -- akin to a method of prayer, such as lectio divina, and is at most secondarily a system of beliefs (e.g., some claims about how the various practices interact to promote spiritual growth -- just as the Christian practice of lectio divina may be related to certain beliefs that lectio divina promotes spiritual growth). Furthermore, the research section is not claiming to validate any theological or cosmological beliefs related to PM; in this way, the research on PM is consistent with the mainstream of a large research field examining measurable psychological, biological, or other effects from spiritual practices (including effects from many different kinds of prayer, meditation, church attendance, devotional attitudes, and such things) (see Koenig, Larson and McCullough's 2001 Handbook of Religion and Health, published by Oxford). But beliefs attached to PM are beside the point. It is well-accepted in many kinds of research that even erroneous beliefs -- such as belief in a placebo -- may lead to various types of measurable effects. None of the research hypotheses used in the PM research would be regarded as "fringe" in the social scientific fields in which they were framed. Therefore, your claim that "PM is fringe" is either a physicist's attempt to denigrate reasonably well-established social scientific approaches (which might be good faculty-room banter, but you will agree is not appropriate for work on an encyclopedia), an attempt to denigrate a method of spiritual practice that you don't yourself use (do you have any WP:COI to disclose?), or else your claim reflects confusion about what is under investigation in the research section.

I can tell by your interactions, friend, that you must be a skilled debater and a skillful practitioner of academic politics. I would find your methods of editing the PM page more fascinating for their politically nimble artfulness (some of dubious civility) if I wasn't dismayed that you were here picking incorrect causes in which to deploy those skills. I really hope that you will recognize that this page and the research on it does not merit the allegations you have been making against it. If you want to make the "fringe" charge, you must specify which fringe opinions are being asserted. Part of your political artfulness that I have observed seems to involve lodging vague but serious-sounding allegations, and then being very slow to come forward with specific details that could be rationally discussed and evaluated for their truth value, and perhaps even refuted (!). Meanwhile, you have obstructed work on the page. I acknowledge that such obstruction might either benefit or damage the development of the encyclopedia, depending on whether the work to be done was helpful or damaging. But I suggest to you that such an editing style is not fully consistent with WP:civility, and that an editor who relies heavily upon that style has not yet fully mastered the art of being a Wikipedian. At any rate, I ask that you explain exactly which findings in the PM research section (all drawn from peer-reviewed journals) you regard as "fringe." Thank you. --Health Researcher (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please don't make assumptions about others. Belief in the placebo effect is supported by evidence. PM clearly falls within the wikipedia scope of WP:FRINGE, and you have acknowledged a WP:COI. Please address edits and no editors. I have no interest in PM. I acknowledge nor recognise any of your claims. We follow WP:RS here. Verbal chat 00:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The above paragraph makes assertions but offers no arguments. Without clear and subtantiated (and true) arguments, there is no need to believe assertions that research on PM (or any particular assertions that may be intrinsic to PM itself) are WP:Fringe. Our best progress in building up this page will be made when we follow Wikipedia guidelines for explaining our assertions and especially offering appropriate explanations of our edits when needed -- these are required by WP:CIVILITY as well as by good editing procedures. Thank you to all contributors to this page. Health Researcher (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Request for Justification of Changes

On 2009-11-25, User:Verbal reverted (HERE) several contributions to the Passage Meditation page, with a request in the change log to "please justify this content with reliable sources and discussion". Below are some responses (no time today to give all explanations -- some later).

1. Inclusion of photo. This photo HERE is drawn from the website (and media kit) of the organization founded by the individual it depicts. The reverted text stated that it depicted "Eknath Easwaran teaching 'Theory and Practice of Meditation,' a credit course at U.C. Berkeley in 1968 (Religious Studies 138X, 4 credits)," and footnoted it HERE to a biographical book published about the individual (Easwaran). The book is a reliable source for this uncontroversial statement, by WP:RS, whether or not the organization he founded is viewed as mainstream (e.g., like an established church or educational institution - for which I suspect a case could be made). To my knowledge, no-one with knowledge of Easwaran's life has ever contested the claim that he taught that course. In fact, I am personally acquainted with many individuals who state that they attended that course. I confess that I find it hard to see the purpose of further debating the reliability of this source for this particular information, other than as camouflaged disruption and obstruction. So I intend to restore the link to the photo in a couple of days, or maybe sooner, unless a specific and well-reasoned concern (not vagueries) is expressed. Thank you. -- Health Researcher (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be a WP:RS. Verbal chat 00:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The above statement, "Doesn't seem to be a WP:RS", makes an assertion but does not supply any evidence, argument or substantiation for lack or RS. Since no-one has advanced a cogent and evidence-based argument against restoring the photo, it seems to be very appropriate to restore the photo to the article. Health Researcher (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I was asked (on my talk) for my opinion whether the picture showing a lecture should be included in the article. I still have not investigated policies regarding crediting photos, but the proposed caption which includes a "courtesy of" credit strikes me as being extremely unusual on Wikipedia (I do not recall seeing such a credit, except in a case where someone was trying to promote their business, and in that case the "courtesy of" photos were removed).

Well, other photos with similar captions can be found by doing a Google search on site:wikipedia.org "courtesy of". Here are some other photos with such captions: Hippocrates, Graniteville,_South_Carolina_train_disaster, Witold_Lutosławski, Artur_Barrio. I suspect these examples could be multiplied greatly by scrolling further down the search results. I'm not sure what's wrong, if anything, with such a caption -- but if there is something wrong it may need to be fixed many places in Wikipedia. Such usage does not appear to be extremely unusual in stable Wikipedia articles. Health Researcher (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The article has a number of issues regarding notability and style. The wording reads like a promotion that one might find on the subject's website ("spiritual growth of the practitioner" and more). Another point is that the detailed "Method" section seems to conflict with WP:NOTMANUAL. The "Research" section is overly detailed, and indeed the whole article could be boiled down to a statement that passage meditation is a meditation technique [insert one sentence of history] which has been tested [insert brief version of "Research" section].

Thank you, Johnuniq, for your input. Regarding the problematic wording, perhaps you could give more instances, as well as offering suggestions for improvements? Would it be helpful to say a "program intended for the spiritual growth of the practitioner" (adding the word intended)? Since that is how the program presents its purpose, it seems that something along those lines should be in the lead (doesn't it?). Regarding the research section, a useful point of reference may be with the Transcendental Meditation article. As noted earlier on this talk page, that article's research section is about 1/3 of the length. More generally, it seems that many people (and media) are interested in scientific perspectives on methods of meditation such as (TM, Mindfulness, and many others), suggesting the relevance of such sections to the topic. This PM article is still in the process of expansion. When it has stabilized, the Research may indeed need to be trimmed down to be proportional (WP:DUE). Regarding the 'method' section, it is far too condensed to be regarded as a manual that someone could use -- it is a very bare description of the program so that a reader will have some sense of what is being talked about (for similarly spare summary sections, see, for example, ones on Raja Yoga Centering Prayer). Finally, regarding "boiling down" the article, virtually every article could be boiled down to 2 sentences in one way or another, but that would undermine Wikipedia's intended purpose as a source of information (notability for this topic is established in a variety of ways, including that hundreds of thousands of people in dozens of languages have bought whole books about this method of meditation -- this info about non-English dissemination should be added to the article, I hope to do so before long). Thanks again for your input. Health Researcher (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that adding a picture of a lecture does not assist explain what passage meditation is, and merely serves to further promote the subject by providing an association with a university. For example, an article on a book is unlikely to benefit from a picture showing someone delivering a lecture about the book. Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts on this issue. The photo would not help explain what passage meditation is in a static (essentialist/definitional) sense, but it would help convey some of the history of passage meditation, which is another purpose of an encyclopedia article. But your analogy with a book is interesting. I can think of instances where a photo of someone giving a talk about a book would indeed convey something informative about the book (for example, a photo of a minister giving a sermon about the bible might add to one's understanding of the social and cultural place of the bible - or see a similar example here). But you've raised an interesting issue, and I'd like to think about it more. Health Researcher (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Reminder: Explanations are part of civility

I believe that our collective process of constructing this page can be conducted with better attention to Wikipedia civility guidelines, from which the blockquotes below are copied. In particular, it is my experience that some of us editors contributing to this page have at times offered little or no explanation when making large changes that impugn, remove, or threaten to remove substantial work contributed by other editors. When those making the changes have been queried, I have sometimes found the explanations to be either not forthcoming, or extremely vague. Whether or not these past actions have crossed the line into incivility is not a productive discussion. But with regard to future actions, I would encourage all editors who contribute to this page to remember that explanations are part of civility. More specifically, I hope we can all especially note (and follow) these portions of the Wikipedia civility guidelines (from WP:CIV):

Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative... and to be responsive to good-faith questions. Try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project.

and also, under "avoiding incivility," we are told to

Explain yourself. Not sufficiently explaining edits can be perceived as uncivil, whether that's the editor's intention or not. Use good edit summaries, and use the talk page if the edit summary doesn't provide enough space or if a more substantive debate is likely to be needed.

Thank you. I hope that all those who celebrate it will have a joyful (US) Thanksgiving this week. -- Health Researcher (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Discuss changes proposed Dec 9 2009 (re WP:BRD)

Well, User:Goethean implemented some substantial changes in the article, and I will (shortly) revert them as per the WP:BRD process. In this new section, let's discuss the pros and cons of his proposed changes. I will stipulate (I have said this before) that when the remainder of the article has stabilized (which it hasn't yet -- I have more material I want to add), the Research section can/should be reworked to be proportional (re WP:DUE). Waiting until the article has stabilized would be more efficient in terms of workload - but if Goethean feels it is urgent to get the Research section proportional with the rest of the article now, I can bear with that (even though adjusting it 2 or 3 times would be extra work). But even if such balancing is part of our current purpose, I believe there's good reason to believe that Goethean has overdone the cuts. There are also questions about changes to other sections. So let's discuss and seek consensus. Health Researcher (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I have restored the picture, it is right on topic, and fair use applies. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The image is poorly sourced and has other issues above. User:Goethean's changes greatly improve the article and I have restored them. As Health Researcher has a clear COI he should refrain from undoing these improving edits, and from editing the page directly. Verbal chat 10:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Reading Wikipedia guidelines, I do not believe that I have a COI, and I believe I should continue to edit the page. I have acknowledged being an author on some of the research studies, but please note the following guidelines about researchers citing themselves: "If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy" (WP:NOR); "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies" (WP:COI). All of the research studies are from well-respected peer-reviewed scientific journals, as has been explained on this talk page in the past. Thus, my continuing to edit the page does not seem to constitute a conflict of interest (though discerning self-restraint is needed, as elsewhere in Wikipedia). Plus, there appear to be few others who are contributing to the page who have substantive knowledge of this area. In this context, I believe the best way to improve Wikipedia is that I (and others with relevant knowledge/skills) continue to edit the page, with changes being discussed and reviewed and criticized as appropriate, and consensus being sought. User:Verbal's short-circuiting of the WP:BRD cycle, an edit that I only discovered today (it's a busy time of year!), violates the spirit of WP:Civility, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, which includes "Find consensus." Let's keep the focus on improving the page through consensus-based processes. Health Researcher (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You have demonstrated an inability to edit the page in a neutral manner (cf research section edits, puffery in lead, etc). Please propose edits here first, and await consensus for addition - as you say. I have not breeched any policies or guidelines, and unsupported accusations violate the letter as well as the spirit of our policies and guidelines. I suggest you get a feel for editing wikipedia and how policies work by editing outside of this area for a month or two. Verbal chat 07:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly no consensus for you to continue your expansion of the article. — goethean ॐ 12:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The extensive cuts seem to me to have gone further than perhaps was intended when trying to address the NPOV criticism: there is peer-reviewed and professionally published research which shows that meditation (and - for the research quoted - this meditation method) has benefits for the meditating person. The article as cut now does not give the Wikipedia reader access to this knowledge. I therefore propose adding the following back into the article, and would ask the editors previously contributing to this article to support the addition or suggest ways to improve it so that it is acceptable. The proposed addition (together of course with the relevant references) is:

Research has shown that following the passage meditation program reduces stress and increases confidence in tasks such as caregiving.

DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, don't add that line in. It is too broad and general. I realize that I removed a lot of material, but it is quite clear that you and your friend (assuming that you are two different people) are using Wikipedia to promote your work, and that has to be deterred. Your friend went completely overboard, expanding the article WAAAY beyond what the subject's very slight notability merits. I will remove the NPOV tag. Let me suggest that in return, you and your friend collaborate on a weblog rather than continue to advocate for changes to this article. — goethean ॐ 23:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the NPOV tag. I am indeed a different person from HealthResearcher: by the way, I really don't think he was trying to promote his work, I think that (like me) he was trying to address an earlier complaint that there was not sufficient material in the article, and he was doing that by adding material about research into the effects of meditation. I imagine that he (like me) was trying to steer a course between being criticized for being too non-specific, and being criticized for providing too much info.

Within that context, can I ask you to please look again at the current "research" section, which no longer says ANYTHING about the effects that result from meditation. There are a lot of people in the world who meditate, and presumably most of them expect to derive some benefit from it - but expectation is not the same as evidence, and so there is a lot of interest in whether meditation has any scientifically measurable beneficial effects. I had believed that the sentence I came up with was quite specific: benefits in stress reduction have been measured using this meditation program, as were increases in caregivers' confidence in dealing with difficult situations. My reading of HealthResearcher's evidence was that there ARE scientifically measurable benefits. I wonder whether you feel the following sentence is sufficiently less broad and general: "Peer-reviewed research, published in professional psychologogy and health journals, has shown that following the passage meditation program reduces stress (ref to research published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology that, among 58 healthcare professionals, the PM program reduced stress and enhanced mental health) and increases confidence in tasks such as caregiving (ref to the Journal of Health Psychology-published study that the PM program led to increases in health professionals' confidence in their abilities to do their jobs)". Or if you could suggest a different sentence I would be very appreciative. I do feel that the article misses that information about evidence-based research into beneficial effects that - in its previously expanded form - it did have. - DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If that sentence goes in, what is your next plan of attack? You and your ostensible friend's efforts to expand this and related articles have been unrelenting. Countering your efforts — which, I think it is safe to say, conflict with your personal interests — and engaging your prolific and verbose comments takes time. The subject's notability does not merit a continual, unending expansion of coverage, nor does it merit unending talk-page debate. Since you two appear to be incapable of keeping your own edits to a reasonable volume, I have been forced to do so. Unless there is some change to this situation, I must lean towards leaving additional content out of the article. — goethean ॐ 18:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with goethean. How much more would HealthResearcher and DuncanCraig1949 like to expand the article? The subject does not warrant the continual expansion of an article on Wikipedia. This is not the Passage Meditation website. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a "next plan of attack" nor do I want to expand the article any further than my suggested one-sentence addition that the Research section actually says something about what the research found.DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You may make the change to the article. — goethean ॐ 13:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - have done so. DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

restored merge tag

following the expansion of Eknath Easwaran, I am now of the opinion that this article can well remain separate, as an article on a notable book. Since the book was re-titled in the course of its editions, it is immaterial whether this article resides at Meditation (book) or at Passage Meditation, both are titles given to the book in question. --dab (𒁳) 08:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1