Talk:Pranayama

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pranayama article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Yoga Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga, Hatha yoga, Yoga as exercise and related articles 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.YogaWikipedia:WikiProject YogaTemplate:WikiProject YogaYoga articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles 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.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

Hinduism: Philosophy High‑importance

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism 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.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Philosophy task force (assessed as High-importance).

Altered States of Consciousness Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Altered States of Consciousness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of altered states of consciousness 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.Altered States of ConsciousnessWikipedia:WikiProject Altered States of ConsciousnessTemplate:WikiProject Altered States of ConsciousnessAltered States of Consciousness articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

Whitesplaining?

I do not get, why this article is not based on actual sanskrit texts. This is simple embarassing. It is a completly separate matter, wether Macdonell and Monier Monier-Williams spread the knowledge of Pranayama throughout the european world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4540:720E:900:A558:5187:183A:8B50 (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia's articles have to be based on secondary sources. Alexbrn (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Mallinson and others cited in the article, including Bhattacharyya and Taimni, are experts in Sanskrit; Mallinson and his colleagues have translated many Hatha Yoga texts from Sanskrit, and their knowledge of the subject stems from that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph about Hatha Yoga risks is not up to MEDRS standards

This paragraph cites just one study, which is a review of CASE STUDIES. However, MEDRS requires a review of RANDOMIZED CONTROLED TRIALS. Therefore this study is not up to MEDRS standards and should be removed, as well as the paragraph that is based on it. To quote Chiswick Chap, "WP:MEDRS requires not just a single RCT but a systematic review of multiple RCTs" Robinesque (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what it says. Reviews can be narrative, and they can be of RCTs. What we have here now is compliant; that doesn't mean the evidence is especially strong, or that the practices could not be better tested and analysed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. Where is that in wp:medrs, that a review of 76 case studies is compliant? Robinesque (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The policy calls for review articles. Its intent is to ensure that only reliable evidence is used. Actually, so far all the evidence given in the section is at best weak; I think we'll do better without any of it, as the slight impression of science is mainly spurious. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing. Robinesque (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the article "Effect of breathwork on stress and mental health: A meta-analysis of randomised-controlled trials" not wp:meds?

The source "Effect of breathwork on stress and mental health: A meta-analysis of randomised-controlled trials" was removed from this Wikipedia page. Why is this source not wp:medrs? Robinesque (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um, now we have two threads on the same topic with the same discussants; and I have no idea why you would thank me for removing one source, and chide me for removing another very similar source: with the one small difference that you added the second one. But to answer your question directly: you're asking the wrong question. ALL the med. review articles met the bare minimum of MEDRS; the only trouble was, they all also barely said anything that could be considered medically useful. I may add that describing Pranayama as a medical intervention is rather strange historically and culturally, as its purpose is entirely spiritual; its goals in modern yoga may have changed to being personal (emotional well-being, etc) but it was never designed for medical effects. Be that as it may, we had several review studies all of which concluded that the results were not terribly convincing. Combined with the fact that a medical treatment is an A+B==>C, A a disease/condition, B a treatment designed and intended for A, and C better health, and pranayama not being designed or intended for anything, I think we'd be much better off not including such things in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining about the studies barely saying anything medically useful. I'll find one with a higher level of evidence. Robinesque (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]