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

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 12:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 20:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will review IAWW (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chiswick Chap, comments are below. I'll wait for my points to be addressed before doing the spot check and the rest. IAWW (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chiswick Chap I have finished the review below. I just had a few queries. If I didn't reply, that just means I agree. Thanks for your patience with this review. IAWW (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've replied to everything now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, passing now. IAWW (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While the Himalayas is the birthplace of yoga and a major yoga tourism destination, yoga retreats and holidays are provided in many countries, varying from simple stays in guesthouses and ashrams to 5-star comfort in luxury resorts: Words like "luxury" and "major", and the juxtaposition of "simple stays" to "5-star comfort" makes this sound closer to a promotional tone than an encyclopaedic tone. IAWW (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The terms are really just descriptive of the multiple levels of the facilities provided. An ashram can offer something like a barracks, while resorts can offer everything they can think of in terms of modern comforts, so the short descriptive words are simply a compact way of describing what is available. The sentence definitely does not promote anything, not least as no instances (let alone contact details) are given. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is fine. To be clear I was not saying it was promoting anything, but rather I think the tone is promotional rather than encyclopaedic. On second evaluation, I don't think it is severe enough to be an issue for GA, and would prefer quibble as little as possible. IAWW (talk) 07:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted with thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

involving the embracing and commodification of that practice by the Western world: It's not always by the Western world though? IAWW (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• We can only go by the sources.

Fair

There is a tension between the purely spiritual and transformational goals of yoga, meaning union with an entity higher than the self, and the commercialisation inherent in mass tourism: Opinion, WP:NPOV: "avoid stating opinion as fact" IAWW (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The sentence just names the trade-off involved, and it is reliably cited, not an editorial opinion.

I think it is still an opinion, no matter how reliably it is sourced? Maybe this is a misconception of mine, but WP:NPOV uses the example of "genocide is an evil action" as an opinion, despite the fact that I'm sure that can be sourced. I think opinions become fact when the source empirically demonstrates it to be so? Is this a misconception I have?

Wikipedia is completely free to paraphrase scholars and other authors, and indeed to quote them briefly, to summarize their reliably-cited opinions. All "facts" are things made (from Latin: factum, from facio, I make) by humans reporting the results of their studies and analyses, it's the way we understand the world. Wikipedia's job is to report such things plainly and directly, without adding editorial opinion, but that's something entirely different.

Thanks for this. It certainly is a lot clearer than my previous understanding, and I hope it is the case. There is just one inconsistency that I don't understand. In the NPOV guideline, it uses the example that you should not write genocide is an evil action but rather genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil. Surely the first is a paraphrase of the latter, so with Wikipedia being "completely free to paraphrase scholars and other authors", the first would be fine to write? Sorry for so many questions, but I think it is essential I understand this better for not just the rest of this review, but so I can better edit in the future. IAWW (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, I wonder who wrote that example, as it isn't at all well-chosen. It is basically completely uncontroversial that genocide isn't good, and editors should feel entirely at liberty to say so, citing a suitable source, without naming John Doe along the way (as everybody else agrees anyhow). The point to note here is that NPOV applies to opinions of editors, not of cited authorities, who necessarily have opinions (or they wouldn't be worth citing). There is a spectrum from full attribution ("The research haematologist Joe Bloggs suggests that grockles made the blood thinner in hot climates.[34]") through to full Wikipedia voice ("Grockles made the blood thinner in hot climates.[34]"). The former adds what many ordinary readers will find a lot of clutter (they don't care who said it), while the latter could sound rather too definitive. In between, editors often write "It has been suggested that..." as a compromise. In this case, we're just describing a trade-off obvious to anyone in the business, and that is certainly uncontroversial: it's hard to be floatily spiritual and ruthlessly commercial at the same time, and yoga venues vary along the spectrum between these two extremes, as many readers will have witnessed for themselves. Accordingly I've stayed rather closer to Wikipedia's voice for this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been under the impression for my whole time editing Wikipedia that opinions cannot be stated as fact, no matter how uncontroversial, primarily based on that example. I hope you can understand that from my perspective, it is really hard for me to now judge what is correct: an editor I respect a lot with almost 700 GAs, or the first example on arguably the most important guideline on Wikipedia. I understand everything you wrote above, and see a lot of sense in it, but I don't see how it doesn't contradict the guideline. From my perspective, this is a major contradiction which needs to be resolved immediately – I'm just thinking of how many editors have been mislead by this. I would like a third opinion from another very experienced user to hopefully guide me on how to proceed. @AirshipJungleman29 would you be able to help here? IAWW (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial opinions, yours and mine, must not be stated. Scientific, literary and other scholarly opinions from known authorities can be stated freely. There is no contradiction here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an alternative viewpoint taken by RS? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On whether there is a trade-off here? I've seen no evidence anybody imagines there isn't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, more like are there any RS which argue that yoga is not the antithesis of mass tourism and the two can coexist, or similar viewpoints? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I've done some research and it appears not. If possible, you could cite another study or two for the same opinion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @AirshipJungleman29, I will continue this review asap. I will raise my questions about the example used in the NPOV guideline on the appropriate page. IAWW (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In this context, yoga is taken to deliver physical benefits such as strength, flexibility, and relief from back pain; and mental benefits such as reduction of stress: I believe the use of a semi-colon is incorrect here, as it does not IAWW (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you copy-edited this already, no worries.

Oh yes, I forgot to remove this half finished point

India has become a major destination for yoga tourism, following on from Sri Swami Sivananda Saraswati Maharaj's arrival in Rishikesh in 1922 to promote his philosophy of yoga: I this sounds like an opinion, but I can't verify because [6] does not mention Rishikesh in the pages cited. Mentioned in spot check. IAWW (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed the second part. Sivananda certainly established his ashram in Rishikesh (it's still there) but the causal link to large-scale yoga tourism is more tenuous.

The comments on this article are killing me >_< IAWW (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• All necessary, unfortunately, given the commercial pressures involved; Rishikesh ashrams in particular had to be reverted and warned many times over. Longstanding editorial resistance to that pressure may help to show that the article is in fact strictly neutral.

It shows my most articles like this degrade so quickly

Maybe, but the pressure (including templated warnings) has in fact greatly reduced attempts at advertising on Yoga articles.

and has led many Westerners to travel to India hoping to find "authentic"[1] yoga in ashrams in places such as Mysore (for Ashtanga Yoga) and Rishikesh: I can't tell if these causal relationships have been empirically demonstrated by the sources, or whether they are opinions that should be attributed. One of the sources I can't access and the other doesn't seem to support the content. Mentioned in spot check. IAWW (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "authentic[1]" is directly cited, it is not editorial. The causality is similarly inferred by the sources, not by Wikipedia. See spot check.

"a 5-star resort with a celebrity Yoga Teacher": This strikes me as far too specific to be a "possible type". What's going on here? IAWW (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure why a directly quoted and cited description should be thought too specific; the detail provides a truthful and specific example of the "high end" of the comfort range, with basic barracks (even tents) at the other end. This is the nature of the yoga tourism domain; it isn't for us to like it, just to describe it.

I think if it is a direct quote, then it isn't a "possible" type, it exists! I suggest cutting "possible".

Edited. Guess I meant "available" but it's not needed either.

What's the difference between a "yoga holiday" and a "yoga retreat"? IAWW (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The terms are used as found; different venues describe themselves as such. A "retreat" is by intention quiet, serious, and energetic, while a "holiday" may be by intention comfortable and relaxed.

I didn't know a "retreat" is by intention quiet, serious, and energetic ­– the definition on Google is "a quiet or secluded place in which one can rest and relax". I think an explanation is needed to explain what these terms mean.

Now that would be editorial.

I'm not suggesting we don't source the definitions, but I think an explanation of the terms would improve the article per WP:MTAU.

'Retreat' is glossed with a brief explanation.

"pastoral yoga" can be found in countries including France: Needs a bit more context. I can't really infer from the name what this would entail. IAWW (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Added gloss.

Looks good

Youthful Westerners' sometimes make naive spiritual quests to India, and the many varieties of ashram and yoga on offer to them are gently satirised:

• The first part is an opinion
  • No, it's reliably cited, it is not editorial.

• "Many" and "gently" are opinions
  • Said "multiple", certainly true and supported by the source.
  • "gently[16]" is directly and immediately cited to Dowdle 2008, it is not an editorial opinion.

• Unencyclopaedic words like "Youthful" and "spiritual quests" further push this narrative in wikivoice IAWW (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Said "Young"; "naive spiritual quests" is simply descriptive, echoed in both the sources cited in that paragraph.

No issues. Everything seems to be from news, journals or books.

[6a]: Not in the pages cited IAWW (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sivananda part (with its honorifics... must have been an accretion!) has been removed.

[8]: Doesn't mention mysore I don't think. Page numbers would be useful. IAWW (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed Mysore (probably an accretion again), this isn't a list.

[6]: Y

[12]: Y

[13]: Y

[17a]: I don't see what "naive" is a paraphrase of? IAWW (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, removed it.

Earwig finds nothing, I found nothing on the spot check.

Appears to cite most the major sources and covers all the major aspects of the subject

Appropriately tagged

Yoga tourism does not necessarily mean travel to an ashram, nor necessarily to India, though as the birthplace of yoga it is the activity's locus classicus. Ashrams offering yoga exist, for example, in Canada: I think some of this phrasing is a bit un-encyclopaedic. Unlike in the lead, I don't think it's quite severe enough to be an issue for GA though:

• "does not necessarily mean" is quite conversational and not very formal/straight forward
  • We are required to be plain, but not to be stiff and formal. This is certainly plain.
• So does is the structure "Ashrams offering yoga exist, for example, in Canada"
  • The structure is again quite plain. "Ashrams offering yoga" is a pure descriptive phrase. "exist" is about as basic a verb as can be found in the English language. A single example can't be described as over-colourful.
• The rest of this section could be worded much more concisely IAWW (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section is brief and no part of it is redundant. The very short quotations (mostly just two words each time, hardly elaborate) give necessary detail concisely.