User talk:Whitestar12

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
1,131		John Birch Society (talk)	Add sources
296		New Mexico chile (talk)	Add sources
837		Mustard (condiment) (talk)	Add sources
69		Kriyananda (talk)	Add sources
579		Kundalini yoga (talk)	Add sources
286		Fatty acid ratio in food (talk)	Add sources
106		Hinduism and other religions (talk)	Cleanup
99		Nimbarka Sampradaya (talk)	Cleanup
107		Kaula (Hinduism) (talk)	Cleanup
84		Luminous mind (talk)	Expand
219		Chili powder (talk)	Expand
101		Dream yoga (talk)	Expand
246		Bhagavan (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
64		Surat Shabd Yoga (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
370		Sattvic diet (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
100		Six Dharmas of Naropa (talk)	Merge
171		South Asian pickle (talk)	Merge
28		Conscious breathing (talk)	Merge
72		Phowa (talk)	Wikify
153		Hemachandra (talk)	Wikify
481		The Family (Australian New Age group) (talk)	Wikify
8		Nishprapanchaya (talk)	Orphan
2		Alampattu (talk)	Orphan
2		Aberbowlan (talk)	Orphan
2		Oakland Ashram (talk)	Stub
27		Alláh-u-Abhá (talk)	Stub
199		Semantic Scholar (talk)	Stub
40		Guru Gita (talk)	Stub
239		Italian seasoning (talk)	Stub
30		Nyasa (ritual) (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Effects of yoga poses (asanas)

Hi, and thanks for the good intention of improving an asana article.

However, I'm not at all sure we can improve things piecemeal. If we are to add "Effects" of one kind to one asana article, we'd want to do so for all of them; and we'd want to cover effects of all kinds, neutrally.

That would mean covering

1) simple physical effects, e.g. stretching muscles and ligaments a, b, and c. Actually that's pretty complex as many asanas (and their associated vinyasas) affect many muscles at once. It's pretty technical, as most muscle names and anatomical terms are unknown to most readers. And it's quite unclear how this would help the average reader anyway.

2) other physiological effects, e.g. on breathing, heart rate, and blood sugar. This is quite a tall order, as few individual asanas have been separately investigated, so we'd run the risk of making generic statements (about yoga or exercise in general) look as if they were specific when they weren't.

3) health benefits, where WP:MEDRS (a strict policy!) applies. Very few asanas have been researched to anything like the requisite level of detail, basically with papers that *review* primary research papers.

4) health dysbenefits (and warnings of dangers), again under the cosh of WP:MEDRS. If we mention some risks but not others, we open ourselves up to a lot of trouble, e.g. if someone says they would have expected us to mention this risk for this asana, etc etc. We would also be getting close to WP:NOTHOWTO - we aren't a manual of health or anything else, and we aren't telling people what to do or how to do it.

5) new age-y talk about pseudo-medical benefits like squeezing toxins out of the system (etc etc). This falls foul of both WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE.

6) magical claims in the medieval hatha yoga texts, which we can reliably document as historically-stated claims without endorsing the supposed magic. Of course this only applies to asanas which existed at that time.

Perhaps you can see a pattern here - the situation is an order of magnitude more complicated, and more fraught with dangers, than might meet the eye. My view is that we should not attempt to document effects for individual asanas, for many reasons. Hope this is clear, happy to discuss. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap, thanks for sharing this & I appreciate the guidance. I'm currently reading through the policy & content guideline pages you linked here. So, the impression I'm getting is to steer clear of making edits related to any sort of "effects" or "benefits" of yoga since there's much more that would need to be considered (referring to the 6 points listed above). Whitestar12 (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Hello, I'm Sea Cow. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Clove, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Sea Cow (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi - I was just about to add the citation Whitestar12 (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Turmeric edit

Hello - on my talk page, you said: I noticed that you reverted an edit I had made in good faith on the turmeric page. It looks like the work of the author (Aggrawal) in the article I referenced is declared as fraudulent. I had used the article since it was published on NIH. Is there a way to confirm whether a particular author's work is trusted & reliable? Also what are your thoughts of Healthline as a source? I am really passionate about herbs and spices and would love to continue editing in this space. Are there sources you would recommend as reliable?

Thanks for your friendly message. First, there is an article for Bharat Aggarwal outlining his fraud. There seems to be general consensus not to cite his work on Wikipedia or in mainstream science. There isn't an effective way to judge author quality, but quantity can be checked by searching PubMed or Google Scholar by author name. Second, check out the turmeric article history and talk page history for what has been a contentious article over past years. There has been considerable lab research and limited, poor-quality clinical research on whether turmeric (or any spice, for that matter) has health effects, and the current Medical research section is clearly stated and accurate. It's best to stick to the sensory properties of spices and herbs rather than suggesting any health effects, which have never been adequately studied or proven. Third, Healthline is mainly a blog of non-expert opinions without much good background research. It is discouraged as a source for articles on health, diseases, and nutrition, for which WP:MEDRS reviews or medical position statements are needed. There are other MEDRS-related links provided on my talk page for reading about reliable medical sources for spices and herbs. Good luck! Zefr (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Zefr Thank you - this is really helpful. Just read about B. Aggarwal via the link you provided. It's a bit frustrating trying to find the most reliable sources, feels like they are limited in the herb/ spice space. However, I look forward to contributing and appreciate your guidance. And I'll check out the pages on your talk page. Whitestar12 (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Art of Living Foundation

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Hipal (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Hipal! My intent was not to promote or advertise but rather to include information I had found on the web. Just wanted to better understand why the content is considered promotional or perhaps if it could have been worded different?

Here is the content I had added: "In 2022, Retro Fitness, a fitness and health club franchise, partnered with Art of Living to offer members mental health wellness programs. The programs focus on topics such as meditation, breathing techniques, and more." Whitestar12 (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The references are not independent, and are press releases promoting the partnership. --Hipal (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Understood, so press releases are not allowed to be used as citation, correct?

"Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not" mentions the following: "Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article."

I wasn't sure if this meant - anything appearing as a "press release" cannot be used as a source. But sounds like the answer is yes.

What about this source: https://www.clubindustry.com/industry-news/retro-fitness-offers-free-mental-wellness-programming-members? This would fall under industry news but is providing the same information. Would this be unacceptable as well?

Would like to just better understand what is or is not acceptable under WP:NOTADVERT and WP:NOTPROMO.

Thanks in advance!

Whitestar12 (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Press releases can be used, if all content policies are followed. My rule of thumb is not to use them unless they are paired with reliable, independent sources that clearly meet all content policies, and they are only used to provide important details of encyclopedic value not provided in better references.

Clubindustry.com appears to be a promotions firm, and the article is just a warmed-over version of the press release. As such, it's just as bad of a reference. --Hipal (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

That sounds fair, thank you. I was curious to hear your train of thought & the supporting policies. I also think Clubindustry.com would not classify as a "reliable source," so would avoid using it.

I noticed the tag at the top of the Art of Living Foundation page - "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view."

I would love to collaborate to help improve the article. I wanted your perspective on what part(s) of the article may not be considered neutral. One observation I had was regarding some of the sources. I see "Daily Star" and "Outlook" - not sure if these can be considered "reliable."

Whitestar12 (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Hipal Let me know how we can collaborate on this one & any thoughts you may have Whitestar12 (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'm not sure how much time I can put into this in near future.

If you look at the article talk page, you will get a sample of the ongoing problems with this article. --Hipal (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Nobility in the USA?!

Um, something has got garbled between Jain and Modern yoga ... I get the folks in India, though it was all the better-off bourgeoisie rather than noblemen, but in UK it must mean government, and in the USA it's absurd. Please check your source and try again. Cheers, Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Chiswick Chap, thanks for reaching out. Below is the content pulled verbatim from the source:

"Following the onset of British colonialism in India, elites from the United States, Europe, and India dismissed Indian systems of hatha yoga for what were considered extreme, barbaric, and anti-social practices. British colonialists and Christian missionaries along with those Indian elites who sympathized with either or both causes thought of Indians engaged in hatha yoga as backward and savage."

From my understanding, the source is referring to those who were of a "higher social standing" or to your point, "better off bourgeoisie." For this reason, "noblemen" seemed appropriate, The UK and India had such individuals, and the source refers to the same for the US. Perhaps for the UK, the source is specifically referencing the colonialists. Let me know your thoughts on how you would interpret the source. Happy to work together to improve this.

Whitestar12 (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. "Elites" is clear; the US does not have a system of noble lords, dukes, counts, earls, knights, or princes, so "noblemen" or any similar term doesn't work. In the UK we do have such a system but it is not what the source is talking about, so we can't say nobility here either. Some mention of social elites is all that's needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense! I had understood the meaning of noblemen as people of high social standing. However, it seems like noblemen refers more to those of aristocracy. I'm happy to reword the sentence I added on the page. Thanks for your partnership on this!

Whitestar12 (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Um, now you are removing links such as to David Gordon White. There can be no justification for that: he is a famous Indologist, and he is named and cited here for the first time in this article, so the link is obviously appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Chiswick Chap I had actually added that wiki link when I had edited the page. But, I removed it since I was unsure whether it was appropriate of me to add that wiki link & if it was significant enough. So I essentially reverted my own edit. Appreciate the reassurance that it was in fact valid and justified. Thanks for relinking it! Whitestar12 (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yoga redirects

Hi, I've now read through the article history at Janusirsasana as well as the kerfuffle you had with Scope Creep. Basically, the existing yoga redirects are deliberate, i.e. we have relatively few asana articles, and those usually cover not a single pose but a family of closely-related poses. This makes for better sourcing and more interesting and varied articles which give a better overview of how poses relate to each other, and their history, than could be given by splitting the whole lot up into tiny article-fragments: or we would find ourselves repeating descriptions across many articles ("XYZ-asana is closely related to DEF-asana which however does not involve a forward bend, and to GHI-asana which involves ..."): not a good idea. If you again feel the urge to repurpose a yoga redirect, it would be much appreciated if you'd first read through the redirect's target article, to see what the coverage is like; then consider (if you still think that more is needed) whether the additional coverage can be provided by adding cited text in situ in the existing target article; and then (if you still feel like going ahead) discussing it on WikiProject Yoga so that other editors can contribute their views. My view, for what it's worth, is that the current structure has been rather carefully thought out: I think I spent two years working on it: and while nothing in this world is perfect, it's a robust, serviceable, and effective structure that covers a large and complex field in a reliable and compact manner. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This makes sense! While researching the reliability of YJ, I came across what you mentioned on WikiProject Yoga - that variations should not need their own page & should be a part of the main asana page. Apologies for the swirl, this was definitely a good learning experience for me. I agree that it makes more sense not to have many many smaller pages for minor variations. Will certainly post on WikiProject Yoga in the future.

& thanks for jumping in & validating YJ's reliability! truly appreciate it!

I've reinstated the redirect but can't figure out how to delete the "submit for review" & "draft" that were added. Any thoughts?

Thanks! Whitestar12 (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. Just ask for it to be speedy deleted (CSD). I have buttons installed for this, I think I used Twinkle, others may use Huggle. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for removing a duplicate section

Whitestar12, just wanted to thank you for spotting and removing the clone of "Early years". I'm not sure how and when it's crept in. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome!

Whitestar12 (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)