# Talk:Yoga as exercise

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2021 and 11 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page.  Peer reviewers: Negron.grace.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I developed this text over the course of the past 7 months or so, more or less unaided, using a wide range of textbooks. The article was initially named Yoga (postural) - yes, a clunker, based on the academic 'Modern postural yoga' (trips off the tongue, that one, too), and wanting to put the name 'Yoga' first as that's what everybody in the West calls it. As that seemed too awkward it was renamed to Modern yoga on the feeling that a) that was a good general descriptive title, b) people would easily understand it, c) Mark Singleton (yoga scholar) uses that description, and d) Elizabeth de Michelis's specialised use of that term, criticised by Singleton, was used by hardly anyone. I reckoned, of course, not exactly correctly on (d), though the other arguments are on the whole good; but the desire to put 'Yoga' as the first word remained, too. So here we are, with quite a good descriptive title not in use for anything else, the rehabilitative side having been taken care of in Yoga for therapeutic purposes. If it's of any interest to anyone, I read widely, making use of the many excellent sites on the web (including Yoga Journal), at least 5 reference books on the yoga as exercise taught by different schools, and a dozen academic history books, not to mention numerous papers; I began with no opinion at all on where yoga-as-exercise came from, and was mightily surprised by what I read: I have striven with every sinew to make the text reflect accurately what I read and to indicate where each fact came from without sprinkling scholars' names around any more than necessary. After Modern yoga was repurposed to cover the De Michelis typology (in which yoga-as-exercise roughly corresponds to 'Modern postural yoga', with the provisos given by Singleton that "typology is not a good starting point for history insofar as it subsumes detail, variation, and exception" (Yoga Body, p. 18), I reassembled as much of the former text there as seemed to fit here, adapting it wherever necessary. Almost all the text remains attributable to my work as anyone may verify for themselves from the article history there. I hope that readers will find it helpful - tens of thousands have read it in various forms - and that editors will find it well-constructed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap. Thanks for all the constructive research and editing. Focusing on the Health section and "health benefits" implications, I doubt the value of publications in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine (refs 137, 140, 141 - outdated), Journal of Religion and Health (ref 138 - outdated) and Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (ref 149 - outdated), all of which are low impact factor (less than 2, i.e., unreliable), alternative medicine journals with low regard in the WP:MED community. To this group, I would add the lowly-rated Journal of Aging and Physical Activity (ref 145). Justifiably doubting such poor sources questions the reliability of article health content about "health benefits", positive effects on the "hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis and the sympathetic nervous system", "biological mechanisms (posterior hypothalamus, interleukin-6, C-reactive protein and cortisol)", and "asthma" (ref 149). Most references in this section are outdated by WP:MEDDATE (within 5 years), indicating absence in this decade of rigorous scientists to perform high-quality clinical research. Starting the discussion here for your and other feedback, but leaning toward an aggressive haircut of this section. Cheers. --Zefr (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Zefr: Ah yes, I suspected something of the sort, and asked DocJames to take a look but he was, ah, busy on other matters on- and off-wiki. I've chopped the items you mention; most of what's left is either distant history (we don't endorse any claims) or systematic reviews; I've added another of those. A major health benefit is simply exercise, whether vigorous Vinyasa-style or gentle 'hatha'; perhaps we need to find a way to say that as uncontroversially as possible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

A couple of years ago, the Goat Yoga page was removed, and the title was redirected here, specifically to the Hybrids section. The reason for the deletion was that the content was overly promotional, although the page did contain some slightly useful material -  see Goat Yoga History. However, now the word 'goat' doesn't appear here at all, and yet the practice certainly exists in numerous locations. With agreement, I'd suggest adding a brief Goat Yoga discussion here, perhaps in the Hybrids section. Any thoughts? jxm (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Well it's a minor aspect of a minor aspect, one of a long list of hybrids, a list probably impossible to complete (and not worth trying, we are not obliged to say everything). However I see it can be reliably sourced (The Guardian, 2018) so since you feel the matter worth raising I will include a brief mention now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: please explain the removal of the K. Pattabhi Jois and Larry Schultz photo as well as the move up to primary photo of the Bikram Choudhury photo done in this [1] edit. Why are we using a non-notable photo as primary photo? What is the an objection to notable figure's photos on this article? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing, and no need to ping. Firstly, this article is at the head of a tree of some 100 articles on yoga as exercise, so the top photo of the top article is a somewhat remarkable place to begin editing. Secondly, the concept of notability does not really apply to images, on Commons or otherwise. Thirdly, I've already stated that the article is already richly illustrated and does not need additional images, and that the images you mention are already in use in the tree of articles where they are most relevant. As for the use of images of Jois and Choudhury, you may be aware that both men (and several other yoga "gurus") are now effectively disgraced by a combination of legal proof, well-attested allegations, and admissions of responsibility for long-term, widespread, and serious sexual abuse and misuse of their positions of power for their own sexual pleasure at the expense of their pupils and devotees. So (fourthly) there would have to be a very clear consensus to include their images at the head of Wikipedia's tree of articles on yoga (i.e. in this article, anywhere, let alone at its top) when many women and indeed abused men might well find this upsetting, offensive, and inappropriate. Fifthly, and this goes back to the first point, there is no need for the top-level article on yoga as exercise to use images of these particular figures; they were not the founders of modern yoga - of such men, Krishnamacharya is illustrated here, while Yogendra and Kuvalayananda can be found in other articles. In other words, not even all the key figures in creating yoga in the early 20th century are illustrated at this level, to avoid cluttering the article and readers' minds with a mass of detail; second- or third-generation "gurus", far less (even if not in disgrace). Sixthly, many millions of people around the world practice yoga of other brands, or no brand at all ("hatha yoga"), often in small, unglitzy groups in village halls and the like; they would not be represented by images of the leaders of specific brands of yoga, and indeed (is that seventhly) they might feel excluded by the presence, especially so prominently, of such images. The top image was selected to give an impression of yoga as asana practice, in a group, for personal exercise and perhaps other aspects of personal development. I believe it represents as well as any image could the overall impression of the article, and indeed of the subject. In short, there are numerous good reasons for the status quo choice of images in the article, which have been considered carefully, and I think powerful reasons for not inserting the images you propose. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

A main purpose of yoga as "exercise" pertains to gaining conscious control over the muscle system. This precedes or works well with the practice of conscious control over chemical changes connected to emotions (both subtle and intense) and the minds creation of thoughts and images. The goal or by-product of yoga as exercise of conscious control over the muscle system should gain mention in the lead paragraph. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:OR? People are well-documented as doing "yoga" for a variety of purposes. B. C. Ghosh's "Muscle control" was an element among its precursors but there's little evidence that carried forward. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Really? So maybe original, but didn't come from me, I haven't researched the language or concept in the literature. Seemingly as common sense as common sense gets though. Haven't heard of Ghosh (edit: oh, Yogananda's brother. have never read his material so maybe I should take a look), will check the link out, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you think it would be appropriate to add the clarifying word "Yoga holidays (vacations)" are offered..." in the holidays sections?
As an American English speaker, this section caused a lot of confusion for me, since I initially assumed it was referring to some kind of religious holiday or a "day off" from yoga (like a bank holiday).  I'm not arguing to change the article to American English, but would the word "vacation" in parentheses be appropriate as clarification?
Of course, you should be able to figure this out from context clues, but I still found it confusing, and other American English speakers not familiar with the British/Commonwealth terminology might also be confused.
-KaJunl (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Edit to add on to the above.  I think I understand what it's talking about now.  I'd typically refer to this as a "yoga retreat."  Retreat may have other connotations though, beyond just a trip.
-KaJunl (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, all words are ambiguous (I thought vacation was a medical procedure... only kidding), and this has given no trouble to anybody for many months; and we certainly can't gloss every usage for every language variant; but this one may perhaps be both helpful and minimally disturbing (if not, we can take it out again).  Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Bikram teaching.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 November 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jackiemcdonnell (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Kaner04, Khernandezumanzor, 0JOTARO, Qfranklin1, Gfuerch17.
— Assignment last updated by Khernandezumanzor (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding another section for hybrids: Acroyoga - Wikipedia BKTravelingnotes (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, We have a) an article on yoga hybrids, and b) as you say, an article on that particular hybrid, amongst several others. I think that's more than sufficient; the current article is at the top of a (large) tree of articles, and doesn't need to try to say everything that's in the tree, indeed it should not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It is certainly relevant to the subtopic of "secular religion" that modern study demystifies but does not take away the feeling that author-practitioners get from the practice. We have noted elsewhere that science sources are right for scientific points, and that practitioner sources are right for experience. It clearly could have been the case that demystification would ruin something that had religious overtones, as yoga undeniably does; it is certainly therefore of encyclopedic interest that this is not the case in yoga. The assertion that this brief mention is WP:UNDUE is basically ridiculous: it is a notable aspect of yoga, and it is covered extremely briefly here. As for the assertion of WP:PRIMARY, an scholar-practitioner-style author who both practices and who has studied and reflected on the practice is, on the contrary, ideal for reporting on an experienced effect. It may help to reflect on the Arabic proverb "If you want to know how it feels, ask a patient, not a doctor".  Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

the feeling that author-practitioners get ← any sources on this? Extrapolating one person's primary-source description of how they feel "magical" to a general thought about all practitioners seems like dodgy OR. Bon courage (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
It's a talk page comment in the context of distinguishing scientific or historical knowledge from practitioner experience. Can we source reports of practitioner experience? Certainly, by the thousand, but it's not needed here.Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
To be clear, I have not extrapolated anything, and I have not asserted in the article that everyone else agrees: this is the reason for both quoting and attributing the remarks to a given author-practitioner. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
The question would be, do sources comment on this. It's not our job to adduce something from primary sources. Bon courage (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
If that were true we would never quote anyone on anything. I find the "dodgy OR" comment rude in the extreme, as well as inapposite: philosophers call that a "category error", fundamentally mistaking the nature of a discourse, the most serious kind of error imaginable. A report on experience is unavoidably subjective, at least in part; the value of such a report is in illuminating a situation as experienced, which in this case is the tension between the demystification by the realms of objective study (science, history) and actual practice. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
It's dodgy OR same as if somebody said "I liked yoga but when I looked at the science I reckoned it was just dressed up exercise and gave it up" and that was stretched into a general comment. Wikipedia is meant to reflect accepted knowledge and be based on secondary sources. Reflecting the vague views of a yoga instructor (who appears to have no scientific credentials) ain't that. Bon courage (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
No, the context doesn't fit (as I've explained in detail already, I shan't repeat myself). The article does not make that claim, and since the section is about practice not science,  scientific credentials aren't relevant there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)