Talk:Vipassana movement

Source citations
Generally, it is considered good form to list fully the name of a source - whether author, editor or first-person speaking - before referring to them by their last name only. Not every reader will be familiar with a single name reference. For instance, the first body paragraph under 'History' refers to both Buswell and Braun without further clarification. Using their full name as opposed to just one name is also an opportunity to employ a hyperlink to the relevant wiki page. I realize this is not always easy to track with multiple individuals editing and updating a page. However, it would make the article less confusing if each editor proofread their edit for such things before hitting post. Just a friendly reminder 97.105.199.198 (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Vipassana Movement - last edit
The last edit on vipassana movement done by Rogerbischoff is misleading as (1) the ressource is wrong (nothing written about Mother Sayamagyi at | Fronsdal, 1998) 2. and misleading as not only Mother Sayamagyi contiued the tradition of U Ba Khin. Beside this question should be raised, if the content of the edit is relevant, as the impact done by the teaching of Mother Sayamagyi to the worldwide vipassana movement is not so big. Just a question. At least I think if Mother Sayamagyi is listed, it should be more integrated in the context of the article --Guenesch802 (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of various names
I took down the names of several teachers listed in the article, such as Ajahn Chah, Bhikkhu Bodhi, and the Ven. Dr Henepola Gunaratana, as it really isn't fair to call them a part of the Vipassana movement as there are some significant diferences in meditation style. One of the distinct features of the Vipassana movement is the emphasis on 'straight-vipassana' style meditation that seeks to develop only insight without developing tranquility to the point of jhana.

The place of jhana is actually a major point of contention between the vipassana movement and some of the other Theravada traditions to which some of these teachers belong, so I took their names down for the sake of clarity. Rabuve (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding Ajahn Tong?
Ajahn Tong Sirimangalo (90 years old now) is aboot of Wat Chom Tong, near Chiang Mai. He is highly reputed in Thailand and several of his disciples are active both in Thailand and in the West (Germany, Austria, France, Mexico, Israel, ... - teachers such as Hildegard Huber, Phra Ofer, Thanat Chindaporn) with permamently open meditation centers. They are definitely part of the Vipassana movement ('straight-vipassana'), doing walking + sitting meditation with very little rituals around (short opening and closing ceremony, that is) + practising mindfulness in everyday life. They direct their activity to having students in courses/retreats rather than writing books or giving talks, therefore are less present in the web-sphere.

I can mention this group on the page, though I would like to have opinion on notability from other editors -- I did about 6 retreats with various teachers from that group, so I am not sure about judging the notability impartially. 212.79.106.28 (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vipassana movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100110134536/http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/pandita9.htm to http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/pandita9.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

"Potential for harm"
I added this section today but it was removed by User: Joshua Jonathan citing WP:UNDUE. That doesn't make sense to me because what the cited policy says is: "'Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources' (emphasis added)" The source I was citing is a recently published podcast that was prepared by the Financial Times investigative journalism team, and which features interviews with 20+ people negatively affected by their experience with the Goenka organisation. This could be backed up with further articles and sources, but the FT podcast seems interesting and notable enough to stand on its own two feet. User: Joshua Jonathan, could you please share your rationale for removing the section here (rather than simply removing it again)? Arided (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I already did diff: "An unnamed reporter, with YouTube as source, is per definition not a RS. And the info is so vague and uninformative, that it is indeed undue." You'll have to provide indeed those "further articles and sources." Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  17:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Right. Well, naming the reporter is a minor stylistic change, the podcast is written up here: https://www.ft.com/madison-marriage I'll make those changes and add a few more references later today. Arided (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * No, that's just a blurb, and a link to the podcast. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  17:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MEDRS in wikipedia "Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge." This applies for both positive and negative health effects of meditation. Anecdotal evidence is insufficient.  JimRenge (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have reworked the contribution with citations to the FT pages, some further citations that round out the picture, and a new section heading that makes it clear that this paragraph is based on investigative reporting rather than making any medical claims. The report does indeed accurately reflect current knowledge: it is journalistic knowledge not medical knowledge, simply because (as far as I'm aware) there hasn't been any medical investigation into the specific risks of Goenka meditation.   That said, the "see also" link does point readers to places where more general risks of meditation are discussed with appropriate scholarly citations.  I believe the text added to this page, with the adjustments outlined here, now clearly meets the criteria of Neutrality, as quoted above.  A simple internet search for "risks of Goenka meditation" will surface lots of links which do not meet that criterion, but which do help show that there's a "there there".  Arided (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

An investigation of risks associated with attending Vipassana meditation retreats offered at Goenka centres
User:JimRenge, the suggestion to include medical sources in this section doesn't make sense to me. I'm intending to document a significant piece of investigative journalism, which is something quite different. Various pages and seections on the effects of meditation do exist on Wikipedia and risks are given a balanced assessment there, but often drawing inferences from different populations of meditators. Why wait to talk about an FT investigation until new medical research specific to Goenka retreats is carried out? Arided (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Harpers Magazine and Financial Times are not acceptable sources of mental health problems precipitated by meditation. WP:MEDRS, a content guideline that reflects a community consensus, applies to information about human health, including the cause of human health problems. We need independent, secondary academic sources, such as review articles in reputable medical journals, textbooks or reference works, to support this kind of content. JimRenge (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi JimRenge: Harpers and FT are reliable & reputable sources of WP:NOTBMI, various dimensions of which (the page lists: Commercial or business information; Economics; Beliefs; History; Society and culture; Legal issues; Notable cases; Popular culture; Etymology and definitions; Training; Regulatory status; Medical ethics) are covered in the podcast. It was my intention to talk about these, not my intention (nor that of the original reporting) to dress them up as medical research.  I do need to rework the contribution to make it clearer that this is what's under discussion. Arided (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

"Further Reading"
I've added the FT and Harper's material back in, rounded out with references & citations to relevant scientific review articles which are mentioned in that reporting. I've also included a blockquote from the FT journalist which highlights that the concerns of the recent podcast are not medical, but organisational. I believe this material would be of interest to readers. Arided (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, there's no independent academic secondary sources for claims of vipassana induced psychological or psychiatric effects. Also, there's undue weight. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The review article that I cited mentions six articles which identify difficulties in Vipassana practitioners:


 * Schlosser M, Sparby T, Vörös S, Jones R, Marchant NL. Unpleasant meditation-related experiences in regular meditators: Prevalence, predictors, and conceptual considerations. PLoS One 2019; 14:e0216643. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216643
 * Lindahl JR, Fisher NE, Cooper DJ, Rosen RK, Britton WB. The varieties of contemplative experience: A mixed-methods study of meditation-related challenges in Western Buddhists. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0176239.
 * Rodríguez FM. Estudio sobre “Efectos Adversos” Relacionados con la Meditación: Study about Meditation Related “Side Effects” J Transpers Res 2015; 7: 188–198.
 * Shapiro DH. Adverse effects of meditation: a preliminary investigation of long-term meditators. Int J Psychosom Off Publ Int Psychosom Inst 1992; 39: 62–67.
 * Kornfield J. Intensive insight meditation: A phenomenological study. [Internet], 1979. Available from: http://paper/Intensive-insight-meditation%3A-A-phenomenological-Kornfield/7e162f9966ad70a5c3cb9c446c041e43f14e6eb5 [2020 Mar 2].
 * Walsh R. Initial meditative experiences: Part I. J Transpers Psychol. 1977; 9: 151–192.
 * In any case, Wikipedia does not just report on scientific articles. Reporting by Madison Marriage of the FT is also mentioned on the pages about the Presidents Club, MeToo movement, and Offshore magic circle among others.  A serious piece of investigative journalism is of interest, independent of academic sources. Arided (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * By the way I noticed there are no medical or scientific articles cited in the article as it presently stands! The scholarly articles are historical, religious, and so on.  Another aspect that is missing is an account of the perspectives of people who have done this form of meditation, whether it has benefitted them or not.  As it happens the podcast I mentioned focuses on people who feel they have been harmed by the practice, but there are surely plenty of experience reports out there by people who have found it beneficial as well.  A variety of different kinds of sources of information would contribute to WP:NPOV, as long as they are all high-quality in their genres. Arided (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
There is an ongoing discussion about the sources at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). JimRenge (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)