User talk:Chiswick Chap: Difference between revisions

Archives

2006 –11 –
2012 –
2013 –
2014 –
2015 –
2016 –
2017 –
2018 –
2019 –
2020 –
2021 –
2022 –
2023 –
2024 –
2025 –

Facts derived from primary sources serve a purpose; promotion (“Kripalu hosted over 700 programs a year”, etc.). You’re barking up the wrong tree: if you had looked more carefully you would have seen that I left a lot of the self-sourced information in there. The material you restored is questionable from a neutrality standpoint. Drmies (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies: Thanks for discussing. However, you removed the entire ‘Kripalu yoga’ section, despite the fact that this is one of the things Kripalu is best known for; you cut most of the ‘Facility’ chapter, including the title and the perfectly sensible and neutral image; and you removed two citations which were in use even in your truncated version. In short, it wasn’t ideal really. Your if you had looked more carefully you would have seen that… is condescending, and implies that your edit was full of care and precision, which clearly it wasn’t. And chucking a “neutrality disputed” notice onto the article isn’t terribly helpful either (bordering on plain insulting, really): I have precisely no connection to Kripalu but am aware that it is significant in American yoga and so to WikiProject Yoga. It may help to know that back in 2019, I removed thousands of bytes of uncited materials from the article. Whatever we do to the article now, we can’t leave it in the sort of state that your edit put it in. Obviously we can add more secondary materials, which would put the primary materials into some sort of perspective, but using Kripalu’s own knowledge of the facts and figures about its history just seems sensible to me. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added a ‘Reception’ section with (so far) three independent reviews; this certainly shifts the balance of the article to a more secondary-sourced state. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. “Condescending”–your edit summary clearly suggested I didn’t know that we can use primary sources, when I left material that had only primary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies: Thanks, indeed. Edit summaries are always a terrible place to discuss anything. What isn’t clear to me is why you find some of the facts and figures acceptable but not others: they’re cited equally reliably, and to my eye all seem quite plain descriptions of the place, not at all promotional in style, and purely factual (either true or false, and it’s hard to believe the center would publish falsified data). They seem to go well with the outside views of Kripalu – facts on one side, experiences on the other. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an outfit says they taught this many classes, which IMO is clearly meant for the reader to think “oh they have a lot of classes! good!”, then I actually see no reason to believe this. Enrollment is less dicey, perhaps, as is basic financial information–but not all information on all institutional websites, including that of my own institution, is equally reliable. Think about all those university websites that hawk a certain student to professor ratio–I don’t believe any of that for a moment, and it means nothing for an individual student in an individual school or college. So no, I do not believe that all of them are “purely factual”. I don’t doubt their revenue, for instance, because that’s also a financial/accounting/tax matter which can easily be checked by someone who knows how to do that, and that would be a public embarrassment, but if you think institutions have no reason to lie (or bend the truth, or present a half-truth, etc.) I’m afraid you’re mistaken–but you yourself have removed a ton of promotional material from the article. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies We agree that promotion is wrong; but the material I removed was basically uncited. We have no evidence at all that Kripalu attempted any promotion; I see a lot of users but not SPAs; so I don’t see who was promoting Kripalu. Anyway, that’s history. On truthfulness, it would frankly be extraordinary for a place whose job is personal development to falsify its data, specially given that facts like number of staff and number of courses can be inspected directly.

On the size of Kripalu, I’d say it’s plainly relevant: the center is quite a different kind of thing from, say, London’s Iyengar Yoga Institute which can accommodate a yoga class or two at a time, because of its scale. The “a lot of classes” is not inherently a wow! good! factor, because a) scale puts a lot of quiet meditative types off; b) the experience of a mass of different courses is itself confusing and takes effort to navigate: as the Boston Globe said, “— pre-2020, some guests complained there were so many activities they found it hard to relax”. So for me, scale is just a datum: aha, this place is at the large end, that place is medium, this one is small. It is, therefore, an encyclopedic fact, something that can be verified, and something that readers will want to know.

There is a nuance to this, which is that Kripalu’s scale grew until COVID, shrank, and has partially rebounded. We could use a table with 2008, 2020, 2021/COVID, 2024 as rows to give an insight into how the scale has changed. I think that would be quite neutral and would present the facts helpfully. Also, I’ve marked the refs as primary or secondary: there are only 4 such sources, alongside 29 secondary ones. To save going round and round, I’ve removed the primary-sourced materials on Kripalu’s scale: the remaining mentions have secondary sources. This should now be purely neutral even by your criteria. I’ll be out of office for a couple of days and will attend to this when I’m back. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies Since the article has been trimmed as you suggest (several days ago), there is no reason for the disputed tag to remain. We can continue to improve the article better without it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Pine is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bgsu98 — Bgsu98 (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Spruce is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bgsu98 — Bgsu98 (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eukaryotes didn’t emerge within the order “Wenzhongarchaeales“. I reverted your WP:OR edit. Jako96 (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jako96: Yes they did. Zhang, Jiawei; Feng, Xiaoyuan; Li, Meng; Liu, Yang; Liu, Min; Hou, Li-Jun; Dong, Hong-Po (2025-05-07). “Deep origin of eukaryotes outside Heimdallarchaeia within Asgardarchaeota”. Nature. 642 (8069): 990–998. doi:10.1038/s41586-025-08955-7. ISSN 1476-4687. PMC 12222021. PMID 40335687. — please put my edit back, and save the accusations of WP:OR, specially as we can’t cite templates, it’s pointlessly rude. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]