Talk:Yin Yoga
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yin Yoga article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | Yin Yoga has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | ||||||||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Medical-sounding claims not from a Systematic review; Original research
[edit]An editor has now repeatedly attempted to get some material on the medical-sounding topic "Connective tissue physiology" into the article as a top-level chapter, supported initially by WP:PRIMARY sources which are plainly not sufficient to meet WP:MEDRS. The material was then reworked with medical language and reinserted cited to an article in Physical therapy. I would not like to say whether that journal is appropriate for any sort of medical-sounding claim.
In addition, half of the material was uncited, reading like Original Research, the editor's personal interpretation. The source cited is paywalled, but a search does not support the presence of "Yin Yoga" in that source: if indeed it is not mentioned there (and there is no hint of it in the abstract) then this is pure editorial, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. To be clear, policy specifically forbids the making of any inference, however simple it may appear, from what a source says (about a piece of research, say) to what it might possibly mean in the world (such as when yoga is practised).
A further serious issue is that claims are being made for the effectiveness of a practice without Systematic review which is not just any kind of review: it is a systematic analysis of the quality of the evidence (such as it may be) presented by researchers in the field, with conclusions about whether the claims can be sustained strongly, weakly, or not at all. Such a systematic review rejects evidence that is from informal trials or experiments that lack a proper control group in their experimental design; and it is likely that it would challenge any evidence that is not secured with a double-blind controlled trial, something that is difficult to achieve with a physical practice.
For these reasons (either of which would be sufficient), I've deleted the material from the article.
An additional point is that it is quite unacceptable for an editor to make repeated attempts to insert challenged material into an article. Once they are aware, because of a deletion and an edit comment, that material is challenged, the only options are discussion on the talk page or to drop the attempt: anything else is disruptive editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)