Talk:Yoga/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Indus Valley Civilisation

The supposed link between yoga and the IVC, and the equation of Shiva to some sort of lord of the animals IVC figure, has been extensively refuted by scholars since its proposal. The idea has appealed strongly to a fringe element who would like to believe that yoga is over 5000 years old, etc, and who are willing to accept any scraps of "evidence" in their favour. Therefore, it is not acceptable for fragmentary "evidence" to be inserted into this, the top-level yoga article. The matter is already discussed in detail in IVC articles such as Pashupati seal (already linked in the article text here) and there it should stay unless and until there is solid, reliable, evidence that this definitely is yoga. Otherwise it's just speculation, and brief mentions of "Some terracotta figurines resembling asanas" in textbooks are not sufficient. Usable evidence would consist of citations to actual research journal articles which provide accurate details of such figures, with images, locations, and dates, and which assert reliably that these definitely correspond to named asanas. Vague assertions about work done earlier by other scholars (of different disciplines: yoga philologists and historians are very rarely archaeologists) who had mentioned a possible similarity but weren't prepared to assert a definite link ... does not constitute worthwhile evidence that asanas and yoga actually were involved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality related maintenance template removed

@ਰਵੀ ਸਹਿਗਲ I have no idea why you are resorting to edit warring to remove Special:Diff/1114464926 the Neutrality related maintenance template. there are issues that need to be fixed before removing this. Please stop edit warring to remove this template. Venkat TL (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

GA without mentioning any cons

Yoga is a big business in India with multiple industrialists aka Babas involved. There are so many Yoga related injuries and criticism of Yoga in Western mainstream media. Indian Government is openly engaged in promotion of Yoga. None of this is covered in the article. How it got GA status. I want to remove the GA tag. @Chiswick Chap @Joshua Jonathan How to remove the GA tag. These are glaring holes in the article affecting the neutrality of this page. Venkat TL (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL, let's take this one step at a time. Yoga has existed for getting on for 2,000 years, and for a very small part of that time has it included Yoga as exercise -- only around 100 years, in fact; for even less time has it been promoted by the Indian government (The International Day of Yoga has only existed since 2015) or involved business: and (as you can see from the links) we do have articles covering those aspects, even if many people would see them as very minor given Yoga's long history.

From the point of view of structuring an encyclopedia, Yoga is a very large subject, far too much for one article. This article is therefore just a summary of "the main points" as required for GA, with over 100 other articles in the tree (which includes major branches such as Hatha yoga, Asana, Pranayama, Yoga as therapy and so on) explaining many more details about the subject's complex ramifications. There is no reason why you should not write an article called Yoga as a business, or Politics of yoga, if you can find suitable reliable and scholarly sources that discuss those sub-topics; and if you do that, we can add a paragraph or sub-section to other articles in the tree, probably to Yoga as exercise, though in fact it already contains a section named "Business" -- summarizing your new "business" and "politics" articles.

I suggest, therefore, that the tree of articles is in fact in rather better shape than you seem to imagine; and that the balance of coverage between articles is already far from unreasonable. The top-level "Yoga" article can't and must not try to say everything -- it would not be appropriate, and it would only become unreadable. The topics you mention do already get mentioned; if you feel the balance needs to be adjusted, we can address those concerns. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I have tagged the article due to neutrality issues. Article of today, Only discusses promotional points and ignores all the cons of this Pseudoscienctific activity. See talk page for details. . @Chiswick Chap perhaps you are one of the reasons for the poor shape this article is in. Yoga as a business, or Politics of yoga can be a different article, but they need to have a section here first regardless of the fact that an article is WP:SPINOFF from here. Creating a separate article should not be used as an excuse to keep scientific and mainstream media criticism of this pseudoscientific practice out of this page. Venkat TL (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL, the tag is inappropriate, and your remark about me is much too close to a personal attack, you will kindly NEVER say anything of that kind about me or any other editor again. You have exactly zero evidence of non-neutrality in the article, or indeed in any of the other Yoga articles in the tree. I have actually had rather little input to the "Yoga" article itself; I have no "side" but have covered everything from saffronising to Christian points of view neutrally. There is no "excuse" or attempt to keep anything out of higher-level articles: just a general point that details at lower level get summarized and shortened as we go up each level, so that what may seem large and important in a low-level article may be a minor detail further up. As I say, we can certainly discuss balance at each level, and that would definitely be preferable to assuming bad faith and attacking other editors who are trying to help you. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Venkat LT, it is disruptive to start edits which you yourself think are one-sided, especially in the lead (summary) section, of what I have just explained at length is a top-level article in a large and complex tree. You have in fact actually copied material I wrote and cited, which is somewhat ironic: but the material applies to modern yoga as exercise, which is a branch of modern yoga, which often has rather little to do with the 2,000-year-old tradition. In short, the material is grossly misleading when taken completely out of context: a yogi meditating alone in the Patanjali tradition would find talk of pseudoscience entirely puzzling and irrelevant, for example. If we are to improve this or other articles, we need to work out what needs to be said and where, rather more carefully than that. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think are any issues glaring enough that we can't proceed calmly through the right procedure for changing this overview article. If Yoga as exercise#Health isn't properly affording due weight to reliable source coverage of pseudoscientific health claims, then more should be added there. If enough is added to demonstrate due weight for that article's lead, the lead should be expanded. If that is done, there's a good case for including a brief mention in this article's §Yoga as exercise summary. In the meantime, I do not support the POV tag, and I don't think this discussion has been running long enough to support it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Just catching up to the section below. We might want to include a short subsection summarizing the article Science of yoga, which would reasonable include a brief mention of pseudoscience. I doubt a lead mention as long as VenkatTL's would be due. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

yes, A section summarizing Science of yoga or any such WP:CFORK definitely needs to be included here. Also a summary in the lead of Yoga. Spreading uncriticial promotion of yoga that sometimes causes biological harm for Yoga users, is unethical for Wikipedia. Venkat TL (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with something, doesn't mean it automatically becomes "promotional". You need to refrain from this POV pushing.

You can't remove the "GA" tag unless you have got nominated the article for reassessment. However, if this is all you have got for disputing the GA tag then you are only going to waste community's time. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

did I remove the tag? If you actually check before making silly claims about what I have done, you will find that I did not actually remove GA tag. I am asking what is the process. Venkat TL (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

You haven't. I was responding to "I want to remove the GA tag.... How to remove the GA tag." Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok. got it. Venkat TL (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Mention of pseudoscience removed by Chiswick Chap

Yoga has sometimes been marketed with pseudoscientific claims for specific benefits, when it may be no better than other forms of exercise in those cases; and some claims for its effects on particular organs, such as that forward bends eject toxins from the liver, are entirely unfounded. Reviewers have noted the need for more high-quality studies of yoga's effects.

References

In this edit Special:Diff/1114463124 the above relevant line added from Science of yoga have been inappropriately removed by Chiswick Chap with frivolous edit summary. Yoga article is the primary article. It should contain a summary of all the WP:SPINOFF articles such as Science of yoga. It seems, SPINOFF articles have been created to keep this page as a blatant promotion of Yoga. I am raising this for other editors to review. Venkat TL (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL, please take the time to read carefully what I have written above in response to your comments and actions. We are hardly going to write one gigantic article covering all that Wikipedia says about yoga: it would be hundreds of thousands of words long. There are numerous major topics, like Hatha yoga, that each get very detailed coverage in many thousands of words, cited to many reliable and scholarly sources. Such articles were certainly not created in some kind of conspiracy of silence or desire to promote any one point of view; indeed, the articles cover many different kinds of yoga, many viewpoints, and many businesses, each of them described neutrally. As for the "frivolous" edit summary, here it is: "Venkat TL, thank you for the indirect compliment of copying my material from "Science of yoga", but that material is about Yoga as exercise, a branch of Modern yoga: It has no place as "new" material in the lead section of the top-level article, which covers a far wider territory, and editing up there when we have just started a discussion on the talk page is disruptive". You should not have added the material there in the lead, but the fact that I actually wrote the material against pseudoscience in yoga should demonstrate that I am certainly not on the "side" of pseudoscience, whatever that might be in different parts of this large domain. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

To the extent that pseudoscientific is regularly as a smear word, we should ignore it and write what sources mean (consider, e.g., politicians saying that someone is "patriotic" when they mean "supports my party" or "supports the war effort". It's far more educational to avoid the euphemisms and puffery, and add objective facts to the article).

What you've written does not indicate any concern about actual pseudoscience. Something can be fully scientific and also be equally effective as other options, or even less effective. You can also make an effective practice be pseudoscientific by making up a silly story about how it works. Consider, e.g., chiropractic treatment for back pain, which is approximately as effective as other treatments, not objectively different from non-chiropractic spinal manipulation, and "explained" by a pseudoscientific story that leans heavily on vitalism.

If you want to say that yoga is properly pseudoscientific, then you need to be able to demonstrate that yoga proponents claim that it is not a religious practice, not a historical practice, and not any ordinary sort of physical exercise, and is instead based on the scientific method and has other common features of scientific subjects, such as Scientific progress (e.g., people know more about yoga than people did in previous centuries, just like we know more about chemistry now than we did in previous centuries, and unlike, e.g., all dead languages, historical events, and religions, where we either know less than the people who lived with those things or different things than the people who experienced it directly).

I'm doubtful that this is true. In fact, any claim that a religious practice that's thousands of years old came out of a modern understanding of science would be an extraordinary claim and would require extraordinary sources. I suggest, therefore, that you consider what needs to be said beyond the smear word. For example, do you think that the article needs a few more sentences about injuries? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it looks like mere smear and POV pushing. Yoga#Yoga as exercise already has enough details. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing yes, I believe some discussion on injuries and debunking of false claims is needed here. I disgree this is a smear word, but thats another debate. Please check this article for some opinion. https://www.vice.com/en/article/534b4a/yoga-needs-to-cut-the-bullshit Venkat TL (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Written by a "a journalist in South Florida," who "is working on a book about pleasure and yoga". Fails WP:RS. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel No, I am not saying a Yoga instructor's opinion is an RS. It has some pointers that she has explained better than I could. I hope you read the article to understand the concerns. Venkat TL (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't object to adding a couple of sentences about injuries. The end of Yoga#Yoga as exercise feels like a natural place for that content. It might be easiest to create a new ==Section== at Yoga as exercise and then summarize that here. The most common injuries, rather than the most sensational, are probably the ones to mention. I assume that overstretching will be the common theme. You could start with https://orthoinfo.aaos.org/en/staying-healthy/yoga-injury-prevention from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, which says "Common yoga injuries include repetitive strain to and overstretching of the neck, shoulders, spine, legs, and knees."

If you want to write about yoga for specific medical conditions, then https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6571780/ on people with back pain might be useful. It reports that increased pain is a possibility (some people improve; some get worse; some stay the same), and mentions one randomized controlled trial in which yoga produced pain, but conventional physical therapy was worse. This last one particularly interests me because most studies about yoga don't report adverse effects at all (Wikipedia articles don't need Further research is needed statements), and they often compare yoga against doing nothing, rather than comparing it against reasonable alternatives (e.g., yoga vs walking, or yoga vs physical therapy). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34326296/ suggests that yoga's about the same as any other active treatment for back pain. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

That sounds fine; you should probably see Science of yoga and Yoga as therapy first, and note that for most of its history, and still today in many places, "yoga" has nothing to do with "yoga as exercise" but is a spiritual discipline, so accurate statements about "yoga as exercise" may appear as untrue or simply irrelevant when applied to yoga as a spiritual pursuit. It may help to consider the two things as homonyms (as scholars have remarked) or separate subjects; they do have a connection, but it is a complex and often indirect one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The "Pseudoscience" section of Science of yoga appears to be significantly out of date wrt to (at least) back pain. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL, the purpose of Wikipedia is not debunking, but the accurate and neutral description from the best sources of each and every topic. The WikiProject has scrupulously done that, with the help of many editors, over the years. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2022

Both Yoga and Buddhism contain some similar philosophies, mindsets, and goals, which make these systems complimentary in many ways. More than anything, their similarities show how intertwined they really are.

It’s easy to see why Yoga and Buddhism get mistaken for each other. But there are still some pretty important differences between the two. Shetty Ankit (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, yes. But there is already a well-written article on Yoga and Buddhism which covers exactly that topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2022

Yoga helps in constipation? many time I heard about and i found out yes yoga can maintain you health according your wishes if you follow what the experts teaches us silversparkless.blogspot.com/2022/12/Yoga-for-constipation.html You need to see more?]] Sheraz khan894 (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You're going to want to read WP:MEDRS before trying to make any sort of medical claim Cannolis (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

fundamental types of Yoga? june 2021

Perhaps this argument has already been made, but if Kriya, Karma, Bhakti and Jnana are listed as fundamental types of Yoga practice, traditionally Hatha, occasionally Prana and sometimes Raja (as the method of integrating the others) are normally added to the list. To edit the list to exclude these constitutes original research. Kundalini may- rarely- also be added. . . At the least the article should read that "according to some the fundamental types of practice are. . ." rather than "there are four paths or types of yoga".

References

Baum on Yoga

Why do we care?RegentsPark (comment) 00:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Every article needs to be balanced. This page has barely any criticism. In fact, what I added is one of the few critical sentences. WP cares about balance. So should you, RegentsPark. I know you don’t even bother to address me by name.

Instead of an arrogant why do we care? I ask you to engage on a factual editorial level. Reverting is easy- you have reverted my addition of sourced material and language improvements three times without any engagement on the facts.

This is edit warring. In fact, you like the other editor have reverted objective linguistic improvements. The present tense is inappropriate for dated statements, as you should know.--Wuerzele (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: Balance is fine but why do we care about a psychiatrist's comments on Yoga? I don't see any point in including this in the article. Please note that it is incumbent on you to seek consensus if your edits are reverted. Also, apologies for not addressing you by name. I didn't think it necessary because I assumed you would be watching this article. RegentsPark (comment) 01:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

"Antonia Baum" is not notable enough to have her own Wikipedia page, so her opinion is WP:UNDUE and irrelevant to the article. WP:BALANCE does not bind here. And calling others arrogant wouldn't help your cause either. --WikiLinuz {talk} 01:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, [...] cursed yoga [...] in your revision is just unencyclopedic and bad English. --WikiLinuz {talk} 01:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

As for the 'past tense', it suggests different states of affair in comparison to the specific years added, where this is not the intention of the text. And regarding edit-warring: that's precisely what Wuerzele is doing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)