Talk:Yin yoga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Yin yoga was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 17, 2014 Good article nominee Listed
October 3, 2015 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
WikiProject Yoga (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Rework of article[edit]

The current article has multiple flags, arising from the fact that it has not received proper editorial attention. There is much good information in the article as it is, but I believe it is obvious that it is currently in an incoherent, in-between state.

I have recently read up on Yin Yoga, searching out all the articles I could find on various electonic databases, and also perusing the three main books published on the subject (espcially the Complete Guide to Yin Yoga by Bernie Clark). Over the next days and weeks, I will respectfully re-work the article into one based on reliable, secondary sources. I hope the other editors will have patience with me during this process. EMP (talk 20:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverts[edit]

I welcome the input of editors PDananada and Walterplankinton. You obviously have good knowledge of Yin Yoga. The reason that I have reverted your recent additions to the article, is that these additions, while thoughtful and well-written, are not referenced to reliable secondary sources. It is a fundamental rule at Wikipedia that all additions to articles must be referenced to material that has been published in reliable sources such as good quality magazines, radio broadcasts, books, or scientific journals. This enables readers of Wikipedia articles to see that the article is based in knowledge that has been vetted by independent, professional editors. Referencing material to a self-published website, such as the website of Paulie Zink, may only be done to a very limited extent. I'd suggest taking a look at the Wikipedia write-up on reliable sources, and related articles here [1] I look forward to working with you. Good luck! EMP (talk 19:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of tags at beginning of article[edit]

Fellow editors, Over the past month, I have done an extensive re-write of this article, which I believe has successfully addressed all the issues mentioned in various tags place at the beginning. They are as follows:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (April 2011) This article may contain improper references to self-published sources. (April 2011) This article may contain original research. (April 2011) This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. (April 2011)

If anyone feels that more work should be done before the tags are removed, please let me know here. I would be happy to address any concerns thro further work on the article. EMP (talk 19:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yin yoga/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Miniapolis (talk · contribs) 14:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this. Miniapolis 14:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

In beginning to read the article, I sense a slight POV (see good article criterion #4). Peacock words such as "widespread" in "widespread teaching activities" (end of the first paragraph) should be removed.

There's some inconsistency throughout the article on the capitalization of "yin" (I don't think it should be capitalized, except when opening a sentence). I've finished reading the article; it's almost there, and complies with WP:NPOV except for the instance mentioned above. After running Checklinks, I tagged the one dead link: that to "The Delight of Insight" in Yoga Journal.

Thanks so much for the go-over. I appreciate your comments. Will implement them ASAP. RL is pressing at the moment. EMP (talk)
Take your time; I'll put the review on hold if needed. All the best, Miniapolis 23:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I've incorporated your comments. Thanks for catching those dead links. In one case, I found another ref for the same content which also has a live link. In the other, I simply removed the no-longer-good link, and left it as a book-style ref. As suggested, I changed Yin to lower case, and for added consistency did the same for Hatha yoga and Daoist and Taoist yoga. I have changed daoist to taoist for consistency.
In addition, I proofed the article and made a few copyedits for improved clarity. Thanks again for your kind help with this. EMP (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a GA now—congratulations! However, I'm going to list it at Philosophy and religion because it seems more appropriate there than at Language and literature. All the best, Miniapolis 18:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Qi moved from lede[edit]

For all practical purposes (WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE), qi doesn't exist except as a concept. (More to follow) --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

They are also designed to improve the flow of qi, the subtle energy said in Chinese medicine to run through the meridian pathways of the body. Improved qi flow is hypothesized to improve organ health, immunity, and emotional well-being.[1][unreliable source?][2][unreliable source?]

It's been restored. Why's it in the lede? Why are we putting "designed to improve the flow of qi" in Wikipedia's voice? --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking over the article closer, it's a huge WP:SOAP violation. There is far too much reliance on the Grilley, Powers, and Zink as sources. Where are the expert sources to put this in a proper historic context? Am I overlooking them? --Ronz (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Qi moved from lede (cont.)[edit]

I see the point re: MEDRS and have removed some text to address that. Re: sources, I have read everything I could find on this subject and as far as I know the article fairly reflects the reliable sources. As another ed has noted, the article has passed a thorough review. Zink, Powers, Grilley are widely recognized as the main figures in this type of yoga. Yes, I have referenced the books by Grilley and Powers, but I have relied much more on the book by Clark. EMP (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Good start, but I don't think the problem is solved. In particular, the article goes on at some length about the perceived benefits associated with this particular form of yoga far beyond what the evidence actually says. There are some uncontrolled studies which indicate that meditation and yoga as one such form can have positive health benefits, but those have not been disentangled from the generally acknowledged benefits of relaxation, concentration, etc. The argument that yoga practitioners and believers give for why their techniques and methods lead to better health are on the whole pseudoscientific and this has the unfortunate effect of preventing us from evaluating seriously the possible outcomes that may be independent of the unconfirmed and even unconfirmable outcomes. Critiques of yoga from a broader perspective are forth-coming, but I understand that this page is dedicated to a particular subset of practices. It just seems as though the article was written without taking into consideration these larger critiques in much the same way a poor article on a particular UFO incident might be written without taking into consideration the larger critiques that alien visitation is in-and-of-itself implausible. Do you see the problem?
I wish I could help with a better solution, but this requires a level of source analysis and discernment that would be better for someone who dealt extensively with the topic. I would encourage you to deal substantively with the points in the article that are marked with "unreliable source?" queries.
Thanks!
jps (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I'll look at this as soon as I can. Quite busy in RL. EMP (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    • ^ Lisa Maria (Sep 2008). "Soothe Yourself". Yoga Journal. p. 82. Retrieved January 6, 2013. 
    • ^ Andrea Ferretti (June 2007). "Sweet Surrender". Yoga Journal. Retrieved January 6, 2013.