Talk:Asana/Archive 1

Hi, I've just edited the page in response to the alert, and it's slightly better, but it still needs a lot of work. Really, it could do with some examples of the better known asanas, and some photographs.

I hope someone other than me is up to the task.

Wikipedia as an advertising medium?

I question if the article should be linking to a commercial site's store section (twice, under Yoga Asana (Poses or Postures)) --68.107.236.198

The intention of the links was not to advertise, but to provide persons reading the article a referral to a point of purchase from which they might be able to aquire material in which they might be interested. Believe me, I thought about it before doing it. As it wasn't Amazon, or something, but rather a legitmate non-profit Yoga-affiliated organization, I went ahead with the links. Mjformica 12:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Clean-up

I've basically deleted a whole volume of text within 'selected asanas', seeing as their now seems to be a list of asanas section, and people are at work filling in all of the asanas, which is a monumental, but truly worthy task. I will try and help with it. --Krsnajinana 20:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

move

Asana means "posture", but the word posture meaning is not limited to yoga. So "yoga posture" is yogasana, as a standalone article would be more precise. So i moved "asana" to "yogasana". Still while referring it inside yoga articles can be just "asanas", since withing yoga articles asana is unique. But in general yogasana would be more precise, especially while referring from articles that are not related to yoga. Lara_bran 04:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Yoga postures" is better than just "postures" in {{worldwideview}} Lara_bran 04:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In the English language an yogaposture is called an asana; yogasana is not common. Asana may have more significations in Sanskrit, but not in English. Than you revered to the use of asana 'worldwide'. Please look at all the other languages/interwiki's too: all of them call it asana. The name change was an error and should be reverted. Davin7 07:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Works related to Yoga Sutras at Wikisource

To understate that the rename of the article should be reverted, please read the yoga sutra's, where there is nog mention of yogasanas. Davin7 07:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yogasana is more common, you can see google search. Asana is fine when referring from yoga article such as "yoga sutras", but when referring this from outside yoga boundary it must be "Yoga asanas", certainly not asanas. Give some link(referred from outside the yoga articles) where yogasanas are mentioned as asanas. Lara_bran 06:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Beg your pardon??? Look at the real figures:

• Google "yogasana" = 44.100 hits [1]
• Google "asana" = 785.000 hits[2]

If you ask me, in English there is rarely use of another signification of the word "asana". One should even promote - in case one would write an article on anther signification - to put the notification "disambiguation" above the yoga article so that the "asana" shows 'yoga pose' in the first place.

Than I doubt if "asana" = "yogasana".[3] Since: I 'perform an asana', but I don't 'perform a yogasana' (instead I 'perform yogansana')

1. "asana" = "yoga pose" / "yoga posture"
2. "yogasana" = "doing yoga poses" / "performing (hatha) yoga" Davin7 07:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Asana and yogasana both are nouns, yogasana does not mean "performing yoga", its just yoga+asana. If we think of world wide view we should locate everything by absolute origin. As for an Indian, who will know asana, since it is not just sanskrit its used in many other languages also word "asana" is used. To avoid bias we should think of a user who does not belong to India. Since title should belong to whole of wikipedia articles, not just indian/yoga related articles, it should be clearly specified in title itself. This is all i can say, maybe we should go for a third opinion. Thanks. Lara_bran 09:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the figures. And look at the fact that not even a re-direct existed at the moment you changed the name of the article. And look at the fact that among 1.5 milion articles there's no article on another signification for asana. This article should be called "Asana". Things can be simple sometimes. Davin7 07:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess a third opnion might not be a bad idea. I'll set up an opninion poll and invite people that have contributed to yoga articles. Please fill in your opinion as well. Davin7 08:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

see also

see also's are important for navigation purpose, someone who comes here should find some ways to go. i dont understand removal. That yoga template is nothing but useless for someone who doesnt know sanskrit or indian languages. Please keep it. thanks. Lara_bran 06:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Opinion Poll on this article's name

There is some discussion on the name of this article. This poll suggest three options, originating from the discussion: "Asana", "Yogasana" or "Yoga asana". If you are acquainted with the subject, you are invited to drop your opinion below. Please don't add more than 8 words as a maximum to understate your opinion, to not loose overview. If you think that more comments are necessary, you can remark at a section above or start a new one below. Davin7 09:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So the question is: what should be the name of this article: "Asana", "Yogasana" or "Yoga asana"?

Please vote by just marking a asterisk plus four swung dashes: * ~~~~

"Asana"

• Davin7 09:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Vritti 16:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• VanTucky ^(talk) 18:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Asana is most common colloquial and literary usage for English readers.
• B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Jo55R 08:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC). Often I read english articles about yoga and they are always on a very hight level. All the others Wk articles use the name "asana", and also in the litterature on yoga. "yogasana" same to be a "personnal" and not an "Universal" choice. Amicalement. Joseph.R.
• ॐ Priyanath talk 14:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC) This page should never have been moved here without any discussion. It should be moved back to asana, and then discussed.
• --Redtigerxyz 12:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Second thoughts
• The article should not have been renamed without any prior discussion. The renaming should be undone immediately, as it was done without any consensus. Personally I would favor using the correct IAST for this term, which is āsana. For Devanagari see: Macdonell, A. A., A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary, p. 43. This issue of using IAST in article titles comes up now and then, and this may be an opportunity to discuss the merits of that approach once more. See my comments below for citations that show that yogāsana is the name of a specific yoga posture, not the correct name for the postures in general. Buddhipriya 08:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Opt to stay with source term. Murgh^disc. 00:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• per VanTucky. --Fire Star 火星 05:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• asana, for common usage - clarify it's yoga in article Aphilo 14:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"Yogasana"

• Lara_bran 09:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC) I have substantiated my move in above sections.
• --Redtigerxyz 13:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Please see the explanation below.
• Gnanapiti 16:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Asana refers to many things. Simhasana (simha+Asana) as in royal throne for example is totally different than what is meant here. Yogasana specifically refers to Yoga postures and the correct title in this context. Gnanapiti 16:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Yoga asana"

• I am voting for this. The proper name is yoga asana, I believe. Cheers, Laleena 00:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Closure over two weeks 09:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for voting. Davin7 09:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Today's rename to asana: today this article has been renamed back to it's orginal name 'asana'. For the good order, the poll stays open until the 13th of September as stated above. 17:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Further talk

You should mention reason while voting. Just headcount wont do. Thanks. Lara_bran 09:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't argue for two weeks.Davin7 09:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC) - Sorry Lara that I reacted so boldly here Davin7 14:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I was invited by Davin7 to give my opinion. I have a book called "Patanjali Yoga Sutras" by Swami Prabhavananda , published by the Sri Ramakrishna Math ISBN 81-7120-221-7 with the slokas (verses)in Sanskrit with Translations. In Chap II, sloka 46; Patanjali defines an "Asana". Note the use of word "Asana" in the sloka and not "Yogasana". But even "Yogasana" is valid as it is a Sanskrit compound word meaning "Asana of Yoga". Definitely "Yoga asana" is ruled out as it is never said as two words, rather the compound word "Yogasana" is used in India or Yoga. Though "Asana" is technical term in Yoga, it has other meanings in Sanskrit like the place where a yogi sits, maybe a deerskin or cloth and generally in spoken Indian languages like Hindi and Marathi, this meaning of "Asana" is popular. The second meaning , ie, the manner in which yogi sits(the posture) is the essence of this article. But in spoken languages, this is generally called "Yogasana" to avoid confusion and while exclusively talking about Yoga, the term "Asana" is used alongwith "Yogasana" word. So I laid my arguments for and against both the words; my vote goes for "yogasana" due to the dual meaning of "asana". This is an Indian's opinion, I suggest that an opinion of a non-Indian be taken into consideration as i am not aware what term is generally used in other countries by Yoga instructors. I am fine with Asana also --Redtigerxyz 12:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your view. I'm eager to hear other's views, but I'd like to add other leading sources too, of modern times (I've got the first two at home):

-Swami Vishnu-devananda published in 1959 The Complete Illustrated Book of Yoga (ISBN 0-517-88431-3). Here he writes on asanas many times. I.e. One index (page 346) is called "List of Asanas (Postures)". In the Glosary Index (page 351) no mention is made of yogasana, nor of yoga asana, though of asana, with the description "Meditative postures and cultural postures for body control".

-Dharma Mittra published in 2003 "Asanas: 608 Yoga Poses" (ISBN 1-57731-402-6). In this book he only writes on postures or asanas. And the only text on his "Master Yoga Chart of 908 Postures" (of 1984) is in the middle of it states: "Yoga Asanas"

-Swami Sivananda writes on asana's[4][5], not of yogasanas [6]

-B.K.S. Iyengar writes on 44 times of asana(s) on his website[7] and 5 times of yogasana(s)[8]Davin7 14:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yogasana is a modern coinage, best used in my opinion as a redirect to an article entitled Asana. see also Works related to Hatha Yoga Pradipika at Wikisource -Vritti 17:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just expanding on my reasoning above, asana is quite obviously the most common colloquial and published usage in the English language, and since Yogasana (even if it's the more correct Hindustani or Sanskrit usage) is a neologism in English, it is best left as a secondary definition in the intro as a term still evolving in usage. A good analogy is the difference between Tai chi chuan and Taijiquan. Most Chinese speaking and Western practitioners from traditionalist backgrounds prefer the romanization not used in the title. But since the current version is more common in colloquial and news usage, the article uses tai chi. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Given NPOV, how may a summary of the salient points of this metadiscussion be represented and positioned *chuckle* within the prospective article's sections that delineate: 'etymology', 'working definitions' and 'English rendering of the Sanskrit'?

Shri Shri Shir Serendipity

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it like hatha yoga supporters like asana and raja yoga people like yogasana? Lara_bran 03:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If you say asana to a world citizen, he wont understand. If you say yogasana, he will surely have better idea. Asana is wider term and only hence more used(more google hits), but this article is specific. Lara_bran 03:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that if a person is consulting an encyclopedia, they may be looking for information. In this light the revelation that yogasana is a neologism of the original word asana, could be very informative. -Vritti 05:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yogasana is certainly not new word, you are deviating focus. Thanks. Lara_bran 07:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Kindly cite the work and its dating by a reliable source which supports your assertion that Yogasana is not a new word. Thanks -Vritti 15:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Second Thoughts: I thought for 2 days and then came to a conclusion of change of mind. "Asana", the technical term must be used as it is more widely used with 12,30,000 search results [9] against 46,500 of yogasana. [10] Also those interested in yoga are mostly going to look for this article seeking the technical term and not the other meaning of asana in Indian spoken languages. My argument against asana was the dual meaning, i have added a note to explain it and thus that argument now does not hold good. So I think that the page be renamed "Asana" and Yogasana be redirected to it.--Redtigerxyz 12:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on Lara to show that the term Yogasana is in widespread use, not the other way around. Lara's unilateral move of the article to Yogasana is the problem. She should have justified the term prior to the move, but instead she is demanding that the victims of this move show why the status quo should not be restored. Regarding the term itself, the correct IAST for this compound would be yogāsana. One way to determine if the term is used in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras is to look it up in the complete word index which appears in Georg Feuerstein's The Yoga-Sūtras of Patañjali (1979) ISBN 0-89281-262-1. The term yogāsana does not appear in Feuerstein's word index, but the term āsana is listed as used in sutras II.29 and II.46. I checked the Sanskrit source both in Feuerstein, where it is romanized, and also in the Mishra (1963) edition to check the Devanagari, and Feuerstein's index is correct. Buddhipriya 04:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Google search try with asana(space)yoga. Asana has some other unrelated meaning also. Here are few refs [11], [12], it is certainly not difficult to provide or search refs. Not just which has more widespread usage, which gives better worldwideview should also be considered. There is a wikipedia policy for worldwide view here:WP:BIAS(from there you can follow to wikipedia geographical bias) Thanks. Lara_bran 05:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Also i strongly oppose ISAT, that is used just to produce Sanskrit font, and nowhere cited in any wikipedia policy. That can be mentioned in lead section, but not in definition. Lara_bran 05:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a bigger problem with Lara's move, however, which is that the term yogāsana does exist in Sanskrit, but not meaning what she thinks it means. That term is defined in Margaret Stutley's (2003, first Indian edition) The Illustrated Dictionary of Hindu Iconography ISBN 81-215-1087-2. On p. 169 she defines it as a specific yoga posture, giving a picture of it. It is a cross-legged posture. The entire definition for yogāsana is: "A seat or throne; and a yogic position (āsana) equivalent to padmāsana, assumed when meditation is practised and signifying 'transcendence'. The yogin sits cross-legged with his hands laid on his lap, or on his knees." Note that in this definition Stutley uses the correct general term āsana to mean "yogic position", and there is a separate article on āsana on p. 12 that gives the general definition of the term, including the comment that "In yoga the term 'signifies a variety of modes of sitting partly with the help of which abstract meditation is performed by a devotee.'" Thus we not only are using the wrong term for the general idea, we are using a term that has a specific meaning as a particular posture. This is the sort of material that should have come out prior to the move, not after it. Buddhipriya 05:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking to Apte's The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary, we find āsana on p. 238, with a wide range of meanings. This is typical of Sanskrit words, by the way. To determine if a compound term has specific meanings that differ from the obvious deconstruction, normally they are listed in Sanskrit dictionaries under the first term of the compound. So looking up compounds for yoga, on p. 788, (right column) we find yogāsana listed as a neuter noun (योगासनं) with the definition "a posture suited to profound and abstract meditation." This confirms the Stutley citation that it is a specific posture. Buddhipriya 05:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This term is interesting as an example of how Sanskrit compounds must be examined with regard to their actual composition in order to look them up in WP:RS for Sanskrit terms. In this case, the use of IAST is essential to get the correct term, as the Sanskrit compound word yogāsana is not the same thing as the English phrase "yoga asana", which simply means "yoga posture". That phrase has nothing to do with the specific meaning of the compound word, which is used as the name of a posture. Attempts to find authentic discussion of this term will be limited by search methods that rely only on the inaccurate romanization methods. It is a clear example of why the use of IAST is so important to Indic-related articles. Buddhipriya 05:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree to using āsana in stead of asana, since IAST is romanized Sanskrit (in this ocasion) and is not English. Instead, asana is. Next to that, when one searches an article, one should be able to type the word. Therefore: "asana". Davin7 17:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Your view is quite understandable, and probably would be fine too. Currently there are no really clear standards in place, and there is much variation among articles. Good arguments can be made on both sides of the question. This comes up often, and I have refactored a number of previous discussions related to IAST at: User:Buddhipriya/IASTUsage. For this article, I would say that so long as the correct IAST is included in the article somewhere, such as in an etymology section, that is good enough for Wikipedia. However on other articles where the use of technical terms is critical, I feel that IAST must be used throughout simply because the terms cannot be correctly shown using only simple English romanization methods. The Devanagari writing system uses about twice as many characters as the English alphabet, so diacritical marks are essential for romanization. In this case I think "Asana" is an article mainly appealing to Western readers and thus simple English romanization is not a problem so long as the correct term is added to the article text in the lead so that those who know the correct term will not feel that the article reflects poor scholarship. Buddhipriya 07:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This ISAT has another problem, Cntr+f does not give outputs. These ISAT's are highly misleading even in case of "sh", and should be barred, me will be reverting it in some pages, where they are least called for. Lara_bran 06:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Scholars comment on asana versus yogasana

I spoke with both Pandit Rajmani Tuganatem, PhD, and Pandit Rolf Sovick, PsyD at the Himalayan Institute. Both are Sanskrit scholars (hence, the honorific Pandit) and Shankya lineage holders, as I am myself, through H.H. Sri Swami Rama.

They confirmed independently of one another that 'asana' is correct. While asana does refer to posture, both its common and scholarly use connotes an association with Yoga, specifically. --Empacher 10:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe you, but since Wikipedia uses nicknames, this must be seen as an unreferenced statement. Davin7 17:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that has anything to do with anything, except supporting your need to impose an erroneous change. --Empacher 19:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a policy thing. Davin7 isn't being difficult, IMO. While I also believe personally that the info you have from your sources is accurate, it unfortunately doesn't meet the burden of proof necessary for relevant argument concerning an article. While it is a good starting point for an argument, we need more, we will need verifiable sourcing from the Himalayan Institute. --Fire Star 火星 05:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The word yogasana is specific to the vinyasa yoga system, which is a derivative form of classical Mysore Ashtanga per Pattabhi Jois, via Krishnamerti, via Krishnamakerti. Vinyasa takes the fluid movement associated with the Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary series' of Mysore Ashtanga and puts together a nonspecific series of postures to create a consistently unique practice. It is a technique I even use in my own classes.

The word was first coined by Tracy Rich and Ganga White at the White Lotus Institute in California, and has worked its way into the Western vernacular. I spoke with Ganga, and he acknowledges this, and the use of the word in their teaching, and teacher training. I also spoke with Shiva Rea, who said that although her own Shakti Yoga is a vinyasa form, she eschews the use of the reference to maintain her personal sense of legitimacy. She noted that, while Rodney Yee does not use the word, Sean Corn does. I also spoke with Amrit Desai, another of my teachers, along with Dharma Mitra (whom I couldn't get on the phone), and he concurred on all of this. Yes, I'm name dropping, but you don't know who I am, and the lack of accuracy and scholarship here is really quite appalling.

Further, the following books, all written by noted authors and authorities, never refer to postures as yogasana, but asana.

• Yoga: Mastering the Basics...Pandit Rolf Sovick, PsyD
• Philosophy of Hatha Yoga...Pandit Usharbuhd Arya, PhD
• The Bahgavad Gita...every translation I own...Isherwood, Rama, Yoganada, etc.
• Autobiography of a Yogi...Paramahansa Yogananda
• Path of Fire and Light...Swami Rama
• Light on Yoga...BKS Iyengar
• The Shambala Guide to Yoga...Georg Feuerstein, PhD
• The Deeper Dimensions of Yoga...Georg Feurstein, PhD
• Yoga and Ayerveda...David Frawley, MD, PhD
• Tantra...Geord Feuerstein, PhD
• Tantra Revealed...Pandit Rajmani Tuganiate, PhD
• Asanas...Sri Dharma Mitra
• Bikram Yoga...Bikram Chodry

I know this because they, and several dozen more on the subject, all sit on my shelves, and I went through each carefully this morning.

My sense is that the POV of Davin7 being presented here is driven more by a case of a little knowledge being dangerous, as well as a particular perspective associated with a specific type of practice, rather than genuine scholarship. If I am wrong in this, I will apologize for the affront in advance.

Either way, every reasonable authority, past and present, teacher and scholar, denotes the difference and does not acknowledge yogasana as generally accepted terminology, except in the specific instance of the vinyasa system. I would be interested to discoveer how much more demonstrable evidence is needed to make the point. --Empacher 15:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this article might best be served by simply explaining the subject along the lines of the sources already revealed. So far, the story appears that asana is a sanskrit word at least 1000 years old. Asana has recently entered the english language, though the dating of this remains unclear. In english usage, asanas as a plural is common usage. Since this is an english encyclopedia I think the distinction between the words sanskrit origin and the recent english appropriation is important. Yogasana is a modern coinage of the vinyasa yoga system and also the name of a specific asana. These are the cited concepts which have been brought to light so far. In my opinion, I think the article would be best served to reflect this information. I object to the section header, though cited, "Yoga asanas" merely because it gives undue weight to a consideration which could be better explained in the body of the article. -Vritti 16:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Empacher, if you cannot read minds (of which I believe that it has never been scientifically proven that a human being is capable of doing so), please don't fill in who I am and what I must have thought. Speak for your self, not for me! Davin7 11:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not reading minds, I am responding to the evidence as it stands. That evidence suggests that the edits you and the editor who made the original move are defending have, themselves, been made without scholarly evidence. If you can substantiate your position with the evidence that you, yourself, call for, then we can open a dialogue. --Empacher 12:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Plural form of asana

There has been an edit by User:Empacher that suggests that 'asana' is singular as well as plural. Again an edit of which I think that it would have been wiser to start a dialogue first, which is funded with checkable references, like books and internet (not telephone calls). My opinion is that the usual plural form of 'asana' is 'asanas', in English of course. Davin7 11:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I will not bore the larger audience with restating the list above. All the titles noted refer to asana as both singular and plural. You are incorrect, and again, apparently attempting to re-write 1000 years of history based on your (might I add, unsubstantiated) perspective. --Empacher 12:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

HOAX!!! THE TITLES NOTED ABOVE ARE LISTED WITHOUT DUE RESEARCH.

FACTS THAT CAN BE VERIFIED:

• B.K.S. Iyengar refers to "asanas"[13]
• Dharma Mittra refers to "asanas" in his book "Asanas: 608 Yoga Poses" (ISBN 1-57731-402-6) and at his "Master Yoga Chart of 908 Postures" (of 1984), where he states in the middle of it: "Yoga Asanas".

Secondly: will you please not argue on my person, but on the subject instead! That's so dirty! Davin7 14:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

More verifiable sources:'

• Swami Vishnu-devananda refers to "asanas" in The Complete Illustrated Book of Yoga (ISBN 0-517-88431-3). I.e. One index (page 346) is called "List of Asanas (Postures)".
• Swami Sivananda refers to "asanas"[14][15] Davin7 14:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Why do all these sources refer as many times to asanas as to asana when they apparently have read Sovik's book?
• Another one falling off the noted list: Usharbudh Arya, aka "Swami Veda Bharati" refers to "asanas"[16]Davin7 14:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

• The only dictionary c.q. encyclopedia entry that provides the plural form of asana I could find, was Encarta:

a•sa•na [ ssənə ] (plural a•sa•nas) Davin7 08:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• In the article "Asana or did you say Aasana?", Paul JJ Alix[17] enters interestingly into the grammar of asana, aasanam, aasanaani, aasanaih, and so forth. Here he compares Sanskrit, Hindi and English. One citation is: "The word 'aasanas' is not found in Sanskrit at all. We always ad an 's' to Sanskrit words because - well the truth is that - once we start using it, it is no longer Sanskrit, it becomes an English word. That is unless you are proficient in using all the forms above with their verbs, usage etc. So as we use them more and more they will get introduced into our language because face it we are not going to learn to speak Sanskrit anyway." Davin7 08:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Another approach can be made, by entering into the etymology of the word asana, when accepting 'asana' being English and 'āsanam' being Sanskrit[18][19], and how irregular plurals from Latin and Greek are being formed in English (section "Final on becomes -a", like phenomenon becomes phenomena). Applied to the word 'asana', the following singulars and plurals would be valid:

language	singluar	plural
English	asana	asanas
Sanskrit	āsanam	āsana

Here asana is whether singular English or plural Sanskrit. There's a conflict though with Washington.edu (Search string: ≫ āsana 1) where I found āsana and not āsanam. Davin7 08:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please feel free to develop further on these reflections. Davin7 08:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong!. I know sanskrith. two types, a ending(akaaraantha) male(pullinga) and a ending asexual(napunsaka linga).

basic form	prathama-vibhakthi	prathama-vibhakthi-plural
rama(pullinga)	ramaha	ramaaha
dhana(napunsaka)	dhanam	dhanaani
asana	asanam or asanaha	asanaani or asanaaha

im not sure if asana is male or asexual, but asana is plural is wrong in all cases. Lara_bran 03:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is in line whith my experience. So, the conclusion would be that asana is not plural in Englisch, nor in Sanskrit.

Are there any other insights? Davin7 14:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Im not sure if asana is pullinga or napunsaka, i can tell if its asanani or asanaha, could anybody help me here? But we use basic form in titles, which is akaaraantha. Lara_bran 15:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Given the ongoing edit war, I've protected the page for 1 week. Please use the time to resolve the dispute via dialogue on the talk page. If you reach a consensus before the week's protection is over, you can request that the article be un-protected at WP:RFPP. MastCell ^Talk 19:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Davin7 19:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A request for unprotect has been made, as the pre-empitive reversion by Davin7 forced the deletion of 2000+ words of referenced material, as well supporting evidence given in the talk pages.

As for the above, bullsh*t. The hoax is on you, son. --Empacher 15:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Cursing does not help. It pure intimidation and too basal.

I have been bringing quite a range of reliable contributions to Wikipedia and in the dialogue here above, you can see that I found my statements with citations from leading works and I involved others to make together a balanced article of it. Please be a reliable person with a big heart for Wikipedia too and don't feel the need to win your side, though to let win the truth. Don't cut parts of an article, just because you feel angry inside. If you think you're right, prove it with verifiable citations of leading yogi's. Your references above proved to be wrong, what makes coming references of yours only reliable to me, if you include the exact page numbers of writings or sections of website addresses. I've lost faith in your words only. Davin7 17:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Gee, you're oh so politic. The fact is that you didn't use original source material to check the references noted previously. You looked on the web...it's on the internet, it must be true.

See, the problem with Wikipedia in general is exactly this...a bunch of amateurs who pretend to know what they are talking about so they can feel self-important. And you, my friend, are both an amateur and don't know what you're talking about.

Finally, don't presume to know what I am thinking or feeling. You're antics blew away about 2000 words of referenced material re-writing what I had deleted. But, as you are an aggressive, uninfored, POV editor with an axe to grind on a subject about which you are sorely misinformed, you couldn't wait to jump in and edit war.

Do what you want with the article. You win. I'll go to sleep at night knowing that it's bullsh*t and that you have succeeded in supporting the critics of Wikipedia and venues like it because you are playing at being the scholar you are not. --Empacher 18:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You have got a lot of anger in your heart. Guess what... there's something called yoga. Practice it and maybe you will find a way to loose your anger and to find peace inside. I'm not a scholar indeed, though a sincere student. You're not a practitioner: that's for sure. Davin7 19:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly advise all of you to quit with the ad hominem attacks and stay civil. Stick to content, not contributors. VanTucky ^Talk 19:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, what I can say is that it's not easy when you try to develop the article and someone is meanwhile editing the article yet, using rough language, applying false references and erasing 2kB of material from the article. Need to say nothing more in this respect. Davin7 08:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet another call for protection

I have issued a request for protection of this page until the edit war between Davin7 and several other editors can be resolved.

It is my humble and considered opinion that the constant reversion and re-reversion of this article is disruptive, and many of the edits by all parties present misinformation and may mislead the reader.

I would also humbly request that, until the protection request is reviewed people check their egos, and refrain from editing the artcle in any way. I have reverted the last two changes. --Sadhaka 11:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I take that back. I wrote this before I made the changes and it would appear someone beat me to it. --Sadhaka 11:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet

Well finally things get clear about the aggressive approaches lately: User:69.120.118.244 = User:Sadhaka = User:Empacher = User:EmpacherPuppet = User:DashaKat. This user comes from Richardson, TX, as are the series of anonymous edits done in the article at that moment.[20]

• 15:28 User:Empacher, page deleted on request
• 15:32 User:Empacher, talk page deleted on request
• 15:29 User:EmpacherPuppet, page deleted on request
• 15:33 User:EmpacherPuppet talk page deleted on request
• 15:28 User:DashaKat, page deleted on request
• 15:30 User:Sadhaka, page deleted on request
• 15:33 User:Sadhaka, talk page deleted on request

Davin7 (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Article needs cleanup, newcomers dont confuse it with clean it up. Rearrange contents and make it less "how to". The article should be encyclopedic, avoid/change tone of "how to" contents, avoid deleting contents. You can refer to WP:MOS Lara_bran 05:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles can always be improved, that's for sure. Most important for me is that articles are informing, interesting, true and linguistically correct. In this regard, I regard this article to be moderate, but not bad. If someone likes to improve some articles that are really at a bad state, please look at the individual asana articles. In some cases the quality is shocking. See at list of hatha yoga postures‎. - Davin7 10:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope to have cleaned up the main article in such a way now, that it will lose my former estimation of it being a moderate one. I added some more pictures too. - Davin7 13:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like some other place now :) Lara_bran 04:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have moved images to List of yoga postures, here not so many images necessary in the gallary. It is an article, not a list. Thanks. Lara_bran 08:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The images are functional here. Davin7 11:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Asthetics

I noticed the edit comment about the asthetics of the Half Lotus picture. Wikipedia is not about how it looks, it's about the information. Asana are seated postures, as described in the Yoga Sutra, therefore, as seated posture should be represented as the lead graphic. In fact, neither one of those pictures is correct...it should be Sukkhasana/Siddhasana, not Padmasana or Ardha Padmasana. --69.177.114.230 11:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Project Yoga

Editors with an interest in working collaboratively to improve the encyclopedic quality of Yoga-related articles are encouraged to visit a new project to achieve this at WP:WikiProject_Yoga. Please let us know you're interested, and in what way: we look forward to discussing thing with you there, Trev M ~  01:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Mithun Dutta says kama sutras is also a form of yoga when it comes to procreation and expressing love. Hence yoga is the only way one can attain the wisdom by practicing yoga. --Yoga Mat (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

External Review Comments

Hello, Asana article writers and editors. This article currently a priority article for the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project. The goal of this project to is provide a useful list of suggested revisions to help promote the expansion and improvement of this article.

BSW-RMH (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

The first paragraph of the introduction is a good overview of the article. I recommend moving the second and third paragraphs to the section entitled “Third of the eight limbs”, and renaming this section “Terminology”.

BSW-RMH (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Y Suggestions implemented BSW-RMH (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Third of the eight limbs

Renaming this section “Terminology” would allow discussion of the definition and origin of the word “asana”, and its position of third of the eight limbs. This title also is more inclusive of the definitions of the other limbs that are included in this section.

BSW-RMH (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Y Suggestion implemented BSW-RMH (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Common practices

A reference is needed for the list of common practices. The last three points do not seem to fit in the list. If authors feel there is a debate in the field about practicing yoga during menstruation, this should be discussed separately and be well-referenced. Otherwise this should be removed. Also, yoga practice on mats may be common in yoga classes, especially in the USA, but is this common practice in the rest of the world, particularly India? I personally do not know and it would be good for other editors to weigh in a reach a consensus on whether this is a ‘common practice’. Finally, the admonition to not ‘go for a sleep’ seems humorous, but out of place in a Wikipedia article.

Suggested references for the rest of the common practices:

• B.K.S. Iyengar. Light on Yoga: The Bible of Modern Yoga. Schocken; Revised edition (January 3, 1995) ISBN 0805210318
• T. K. V. Desikachar. The Heart of Yoga: Developing a Personal Practice. Inner Traditions; Revised edition (March 1, 1999) ISBN 089281764X

The discussion of pranayama is a bit technical for a lay reader. A more practical description of breathing practices would be beneficial here.

BSW-RMH (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Y Suggestions implemented. Breathing practices section still needs a rewrite. BSW-RMH (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Benefits of practice

This sections required citations throughout. When claiming health benefits, they must be verifiable with medical evidence. Anecdotal evidence and unverified claims of health benefits should not be included. I recommend removing unverifiable claims and modifying the claims of health benefits as follows:

Original benefits list (with comments):

• muscle flexibility (flexibility involves more than just muscles, ref added below)
• tendon strength (overall body strength, ref added below)
• stamina (did not find support for this)
• better functioning of respiratory system (Asthma and COPD, see below)
• empirical evidence suggests it helps control blood pressure and other issues related to the functioning of the circulatory system (hypertension, see below)
• improvement in health problems related to stress (refs added, see below)
• It can aid in the improvement of concentration with school, in the workforce, and everyday activities.(did not find evidence for this)
• Can help with dieting and losing weight (refs below)

New benefits list (with references):

• improved flexibility (Ross 2010, Hayes 2010)
• improved strength (Ross 2010, Hayes 2010)
• improved balance (Ross 2010, Hayes 2010)
• reduced stress and anxiety (Ross 2010, Hayes 2010)
• reduced symptoms of lower back pain (Ross 2010, Hayes 2010)
• beneficial for asthma and Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (Hayes 2010, Ross 2010)
• increased energy/decreased fatigue (Ross 2010, Hayes 2010)
• shortens labor and improves birth outcomes (Hayes 2010)
• improved physical and quality of life measure sin the elderly (Hayes 2010)
• improved diabetes management (Alexander 2008)
• reduced sleep disturbances (Ross 2010, Gooneratne 2008)
• reduced hypertension (Silverberg 1990, Labarthe 2002)

References:

• Hayes M, Chase S. Prescribing yoga. Prim Care. 2010 Mar;37(1):31-47. PMID 20188996
• Ross A, Thomas S. The health benefits of yoga and exercise: a review of comparison studies. J Altern Complement Med. 2010 Jan;16(1):3-12. PMID 20105062
• Alexander GK, Taylor AG, Innes KE, Kulbok P, Selfe TK. Contextualizing the effects of yoga therapy on diabetes management: a review of the social determinants of physical activity. Fam Community Health. 2008 Jul-Sep;31(3):228-39. PMID 18552604
• Gooneratne NS. Complementary and alternative medicine for sleep disturbances in older adults. Clin Geriatr Med. 2008 Feb;24(1):121-38, viii. PMID 18035236
• Silverberg DS. Non-pharmacological treatment of hypertension. J Hypertens Suppl. 1990 Sep;8(4):S21-6. PMID 2258779
• Labarthe D, Ayala C. Nondrug interventions in hypertension prevention and control. Cardiol Clin. 2002 May;20(2):249-63. PMID 12119799

BSW-RMH (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Y Suggestions implemented BSW-RMH (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Variety of positions & Asana Database

These two sections could be combined an retitled “Numbers of positions”. Thus the discussion on the possible numbers of positions, in the historical and legal contexts, fit into this section. This section also needs copyediting.

BSW-RMH (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Y Suggestions implemented. Citations added. Figures updated to 2010. BSW-RMH (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Asana (yoga) → Asana — Restore this article to Asana as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. JaGa^talk 11:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree that Yoga Asana is clearly the primary topic, and that other uses should be qualified rather than this one. Trev M  ~  23:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree it should be restored. It is the primary (and only current Asana article on Wikipedia, unless I am missing something). A disambiguation page is not needed and confusing to readers trying to find this article. BSW-RMH (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

the 900 asanas

I searched the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library and there are no matches for asanas, or postures, or yoga. Where can I find the 900 asanas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.194.103 (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been suggested that this article be merged with the 84 Classic Yoga Asanas article. Follow the link to discuss the topic. Morganfitzp (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that the 84 Classic Yoga Asanas article [[21]] be merged into this article. I think that the content in the 84 Asanas article can easily be explained in the context of of this Asana article, which is of a reasonable size, so that the merger will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. I propose that the whole of the 84 Classic Yoga Asanas article be placed at the top of the section, "Number of positions" in this article, and that the current text in this section would simply follow the 84 Asanas text. I think it would read well. We would possibly give a heading to the last paragraph on patenting asanas, to break up this longish run of text. The subject of patenting is a somewhat different topic and probably deserves its own section. EMP (talk 22:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Asana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903221119/http://omnamo.narod.ru:80/gorakshapaddhati.html to http://omnamo.narod.ru/gorakshapaddhati.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903221119/http://omnamo.narod.ru:80/gorakshapaddhati.html to http://omnamo.narod.ru/gorakshapaddhati.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.yoga.com/ydc/enlighten/enlighten_document.asp?ID=354&section=9&cat=144
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903221119/http://omnamo.narod.ru/gorakshapaddhati.html to http://omnamo.narod.ru/gorakshapaddhati.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning up this article

My, what a mess this article currently is. Let's clean it up, shall we? Perhaps a list of tasks toward achieving that clean-up would be helpful. Who would like to start that list? I've left space for you below. Morganfitzp (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

As you've probably seen, I've started already. It's hard to identify tasks as it needs a near-total rewrite. However, it requires:

• a History section, probably divided into
  • Ancient (Yoga Sutras of Patanjali)  Done
  • 10th-17th centuries (Goraksha Samhita, Hatha Yoga Pradipika, Hatha Ratnavali)  Done
  • the relatively Recent, including the role of B. K. S. Iyengar in reviving Asana practice in the 20th century. Done
• an account of the Types of Asana, starting with the ancient meditation seats and covering standing, sitting, reclining and inverted poses. Done
• a balanced discussion of the Claimed benefits and whether there is any reliable evidence for the claims.
• a discussion of Contra-indications for different Asanas, again evaluating the evidence for the recommendations.
• a sensible choice of illustrations, with any claims in the captions suitably cited. Done
• perhaps a (circular) diagram of a typical cycle of Surya Namaskar.

Something of that sort, at least. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Nice list. Should you find any of these tasks to be daunting, feel free to ask your fellow editors to chip in. A couple things I’d add to the 20th century section:

• The 12 classical asanas (as expounded by Sivananda, er al) Done
• The influence of the Primary Gymnastics incorporates by Krishamurchaya and passed onto the Iyengar and Ashtaga schools and their descendants (I have this book, which has an expired copyright and can contribute its photos) Done
• Further discussion on how “yoga” has become shorthand with “asana” in much of modern western practice. That's described in Yoga and Hatha yoga.

I do think a strong image—or montage of images—is needed for the lede, perhaps expressing some of the depth and breadth of asana. Done Morganfitzp (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I've left a note on the Yoga WP, in case anybody actually goes there nowadays. Morganfitzp, why don't you upload some of those photos (I think you mean Krishnamacharya) to Commons, then, that would be a valuable contribution, alongside anything else you feel like contributing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is looking much improved! Very glad that you ditched the bullet-pointed list of benefits and created a montage of asana images for the lede. I am skeptical of the Nina Mel photos, which I’ve flagged as being self-promoting. Yet it is handy to have so many CC asana images on a white background, isn’t it? Thoughts? Morganfitzp (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I've selected a wide variety of contexts for the lead image, and yes it's useful to have images on a white background, which indeed means we have at the moment rather few choices of demonstrator. I find the Nina Mel poses accurate and not excessively showy, which makes them much better than most of the others on Commons. If you look through the choices on Commons, I think you'll be aghast at how poorly many of the poses are executed, and that's not to mention the wearing of shoes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

A couple more notes: The pose captioned as Vrischikasana in lede is Pincha Mayurasana, not to be confused with Mayurasana, which is a completely different pose. I can also name more that 20 standing poses etc. for the types of poses listed in that chart. If there are truly 1,300 (or 84,000,000) asanas, the efficacy of listing such qualities may prove difficult to maintain. Morganfitzp (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I've provided 4 columns now, from 4 different authors. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a lot of work. In the interest in saving you and fellow editors more work on this table, let's look at a couple more: In Dharma Mittra's book, 608 Yoga Poses, there are more than 90 standing poses, over 100 inversions, over 250 floor and supine poses, nearly 70 arm balances, fewer tan 50 twists and seated poses, and only a handful of resting poses. Meanwhile Darren Rhodes' Yoga Resource Practice Manual—which has the e-book advantage of being able to categorizes single poses into multiple categories—gives 90 standing poses, 151 forward folds, 150 backbends, 81 twists, 71 arm balances, 47 inversions, 104 seated poses, 33 prone poses, 38 supines poses, and 76 poses related to "the core." I point this out not to ask that these data be included, but to illustrate that there are so many asanas and so many systems of describing and prescribing them, that to include this info in a table will always exclude the scope of asana. Perhaps this could be a few paragraphs that list how certain yoga schools categorize poses and how that relates to the pedagogy of yoga. Morganfitzp (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll include Mittra and Rhodes columns with pleasure. The article already makes the point that systems of classification vary and authors count differently, and indeed the columns say this more eloquently than any amount of wordsmithing. The table already shows how the different authors construct their classifications differently. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Very cool. I can see your dedication to fixing up this article and look forward to diving in once you find it at a place of stasis. At some point let’s discuss standards for the individual asana articles, which we also share an interest in improving. Morganfitzp (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Morganfitzp: OK, I'm about done here unless you can think of an aspect I've missed? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Without delving into a full GA review, I'll highlight three structural queries that come up for me in glancing at this article today:

• Under history, we have "ancient" and "10th through 17th centuries", and then we skip to the 20th century. What happened with asana in the 18th and 19th centuries? I know that the modern "classical" sun salute was codified during that period, and that Swami Vivekananda made his famous trip to Chicago that "brought yoga to the West." Can we have something here?

Added a section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Under schools of yoga, I have a concern about these being full subsections because of the many other schools omitted from the list. Looking at the five currently, I do think that they are fine examples of asana systems: Sivananda being among the first to open yoga ashrams in North America; Jois and Iyengar both bringing strains of Krishnamurchaya's asana to the wider world; and Bikram's patent on a 26-asana system. And all of these schools are quite prescriptive in their different approaches to asana as a super specific practice. All but Iyengar follow a "do-each-pose-in-this-order" approach, whereas Iyengar (and Forrest and Anusara after him) have a "do-this-order-in-each-pose" approach. Kripalu feels like the outlier here, as it's gradually taken on a quasi-Unitarian Universalist role in the yoga world in the decades since Amrit Desai's departure. I'd remedy the partisanship of this section by changing the "=== Subsections ===" to simple ;Bold headings format-fronted by a semicolon.

Well, that's non-standard. I'll consider what to do as the intention is entirely non-partisan.

I've removed the subheadings, renamed the section to 'Styles' as that's it's intent, and arranged each style as a single paragraph so the list-of-examples nature is clear enough. I've extended the lead-in paragraph to explain the methodology, as we depend on styles documented in reliable secondary sources for the example asana given. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that "Philosophy and Religion" is a perplexing category choice for this article. Not because it doesn't fit—yoga is a philosophical practice historically aligned to number of religious traditions—but when asana is separated from that as it so often is in a modern/western context, asana does fall more into the category of "Health and Medicine." At its best, asana is both Philosophy and Medicine. What the categorization really affects is from what perspective this article's GA reviewer approaches the topic. Hopefully that editor will be a scholar of yoga, including asana. Morganfitzp (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The article fits into a variety of categories, or none, as the history makes clear. Our chances of a scholar's arriving ex machina to do the review are slim. But a plain unbiased editor of experience would do just fine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Sufficient reliable sources for GA status?

This article has been submitted for GA review, but I was wondering whether too much content in this article is based on less reliable sources, making it difficult to reach GA status. I have noticed that many of the sources used in the article are yoga school websites and journals, not secondary sources by (what Wikipedia regards as) reliable publishers.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 06:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

For example, there are 18 instances where the Yoga Journal is used as a source.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 06:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. The matter is one for the GA reviewer, who is of course able to request changes to sourcing, but I'll note here that "secondary" is always relative; YJ would be a primary source on matters concerning that journal, but it is secondary on matters concerning, say, different schools of yoga, and it is reliable in that it checks its facts and maintains a stable public record of its published articles. The use of material from schools is possible in some situations, such as statements of a school's own practice or philosophy, acknowledged to be their point of view, or plain matters of fact such as their location and the name of their founder, on which they are unlikely to be mistaken. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: But in the case that secondary sources by independent publishers are available, they should be used, instead of primary sources that are not independent of the subject. This subject is very broad, so many sources by scholars or journalists should be available.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was reflecting today that I should review the use of sources in the hope of finding unchallengeable alternatives in the few cases where at the moment some explanation may be needed. The sources used are already numerous, varied, and in the main rock-solid. I believe all of them are already defensible, but a review may well be productive in putting the matter beyond any possible dispute. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I've had a look right through, added several more RS, and cut down the YJ from 18 instances to 7, namely the ones where either it was just giving a platform to an independent authority, or it was using its undoubted knowledge of modern yoga to make comparisons, as of different schools. Hope this sets your mind at rest. ओम शांति Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Great! If you can bear with my nitpicking reviewing style, I can do the GA review. I have done 30 reviews of mostly religious topics. I can continue with this review after I have finished the others I am doing now, if you like me to.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, good. But not too nitpicking, I hope! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps not. On my user page there is a list of GA reviews I did.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 03:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

If you are ready and okay with my reviewing style, I am willing to start the review now, Chiswick Chap.--14:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Ping failed, trying again.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's go for it, then! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)