Talk:Science of yoga

Sourcing issues

This article has a load of bold/questionable medical claims made to a DK book written by a yoga instructor, which is unreliable for WP:BMI, especially when there are tonnes of high-quality WP:MEDRS sources. It should really not be a WP:GA. Bon courage (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Swanson's is a serious book that addresses anatomy and physiology quietly and soberly. It doesn't make wild claims for the benefits of carrot juice and headstands for long life and fertility or anything of that sort. The article is reliably cited throughout to multiple equally sober sources. I'll check the article again for WP:MEDRS claims, just in case, but basically everything is plain, sober, and policy-compliant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

It is just not a reliable source for WP:BMI, so biomedical claims made to it are not verified (core policy problem) and risk FRINGE/POV issues, especially when the actual reputably published science is much more circumspect about (e.g.) bone health. Bon courage (talk) 07:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

See my reply below. Swanson certainly isn't a fringe source, and the book has no characteristics of that genre. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

The issue is not the source itself, which is typical DK popular press, but the fringe claims its use can give rise to - basically turning this article into a yoga advertisement with unverified promotional claims. Bon courage (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I've spent several years ruthlessly removing anything that looked remotely like an advertisement from the whole of WikiProject Yoga, and in fact I warned an IP who was trying to promote himself this morning. The project is strictly neutral and constantly improving. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Good to hear, but this article had serious problems. Hope you can help address them. For an article on the science of yoga, it's kind of ironic how it was/is leaning on very unscientific sources! Bon courage (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

To a very limited extent, as we've just seen; and as folks say, "horses for courses", we need to have historians on history, practitioners on practice, scientists on science, to state the "b******g" obvious. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

At a quick look, nearly everything cited to Swanson was already also cited to other sources, i.e. the article was not relying on her particularly, nor was she in any way an outlier. For harmony, I've removed those instances of citations to her; I've also removed the discussion of her book which isn't really needed. That leaves just 3 citations to her book; I'll find additional sources for those now, just in case. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

In general the content should be fitted to the WP:BESTSOURCES, rather than sources being found to fit to what was unreliably-sourced content. What is this 'Powers' book, also used for medical claims? and the NYT is being cited! I have tagged the article as this all seems pretty major. Probably a GAR is needed. Bon courage (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I've added new sources to replace Swanson throughout already. If there are any other issues, let me know and I'll chase them down now: I'll do the same. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Systematic review removed

The new claim: Systematic review shows that yoga, like Pilates, helps to maintain bone strength in women (where it more of an issue than in men); has just been removed. I'm unclear why that might be, as systematic review and meta-analysis are the "gold standard" for WP:MEDRS evidence. The paper explicitly states that yoga assists with bone strength. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

It's been updated not removed. There are newer reviews (science moves on) and PLOS ONE is not a great source, more a general article dumping ground. Bon courage (talk) 08:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Updated, ok. I note however that PLOS is a WP:RS with peer-review, so it's a perfectly usable source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

There are lots of weak peer-reviewed journals. PLOS ONE would only be WP:RS for mundane claims given its poor reputation. Bon courage (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, but you can't compare PLOS with the mass of flaky third-world journals with semi-faked peer-review. There is such a thing as going too far. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

One can compare it, but it's true that in comparison there are many far worse journals. Fortunately there are far better ones too. If (say) an exceptional claim appears only in PLOS ONE, that's a red flag. Bon courage (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

We'll try to find 2 sources for any "exceptional" claims then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Depends how exceptional. Generally for statements about causative effects on human health one strong source is enough, unless it's running afoul other good sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

You're beginning to sound almost reasonable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

'Almost reasonable' - perhaps that could be on my headstone. Bon courage (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome, it's CC-by-SA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

References

Existence of pseudoscientific claims

A zealous editor is removing reliably cited evidence. Here, there is no doubt whatever that a mass of pseudoscientific claims is being made, both on the web and in published textbooks. We need to make it clear that such material exists, and that claims of differing degrees of validity are being made, all the way from science through modern woo to medieval magic. Hope this is clear to everyone, as it's fundamental to the article, and indeed to the understanding of "yoga", which is a word with several radically different meanings to different people. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Some transference there methinks. You've edit-warred this weird stuff about "pseudoscientifically asserted" into the article now, sourced to an entire book. Could you please provide the text in the source that verifies this? Bon courage (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I could say many things about your approach to editing, including needlessly abusive remarks in edit comments. The reference cites a single chapter not a whole book, but the topic of the nature of claims for yoga, from medieval magic to 20th-century marketing to pure woo, as opposed to such science as has been done, needs much better coverage here. I'll see to it when I have time, with other sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

So it's not "reliably cited evidence" then? True: it's important to put fringe stuff in context but WP:V is a core policy and I think neutral editors need to set an example. Putting unverified material into articles, revert-warring to retain it and then "I'll see to it when I have time" smacks of an ownership issue. What makes it fishier is that it was you who added this "pseudoscience" about energising the body, as an assertion in Wikivoice, in the first place. Bon courage (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

You need to cut people and WikiProjects some slack. I've just got back from one travel, and have another coming up shortly. There are however many reliable sources on medieval yoga and modern yoga's 20th century history, with solid historical sources on the types of claim made. I don't like editing when dog-tired, either. I have a shelf of books to hand and will edit something when I'm ready to do so. I have added literally hundreds of WP:RS to yoga articles. Your remarks in both edit comments and talk pages are extremely close to falling foul of WP:NPA and I'd be grateful if you'd stop that sort of thing immediately; it'd be even better if you said sorry and started behaving civilly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not about you. Other editors are allowed to edit articles, and even improve them, without getting reverted and called "a zealous editor". I am critical of content yes, but the personalisation stems from you. Bon courage (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Clearly we are going to agree to differ. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)