Talk:Bikram Yoga/Archive 1

Archive 1

Vandalism

Please note that this article has been vandalized and needs correcting.--Cminard (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This was one of those weird clean-ups - POV all over the place. Some of the article read like an ad, including unnecessary positive information about Bikram (he already has his own article) - and some of it read like a personally-invested criticism. I've rewritten most of the controversy section - it was essentially a summation of a single court case, and doesn't really get into the controversy at all - but I've kept the reference to the court case in case. Added a bunch of references too, there was a lot that needed citations. Should be cleaner now. Feedback and editing welcome, as always... --99.231.118.172 (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The Controversy section looks much better. Thank you for taking the time to provide a far more balanced and referenced view. There is another side - the positive side and the incredible health benefits that one gets when one practices the postures exactly under the guidance of a trained Bikram teacher, and hopefully as time allows, I (or someone else) will be able to add that perspective to the article as well. As a yoga teacher in another tradition, I have taken classes with Bikram himself, and believe this is the most brilliant sequence of postures that has ever been put together. Additionally, these are very complicated postures, and the risk of injury is very great if not taught precisely. Despite the controversy, I must agree with what I believe the ultimate underlying reason for Bikram's decision to pursue legal action, which is to prevent people from being hurt.--Cminard (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Cminard. I think I'll work on adding a section with Bikram's rationale/response in the Controversy section. If you have any sources with the "untrained people teaching it could cause injuries" response, let me know. I agree that we need more about the purpose of Bikram yoga - what it's supposed to do, benefit-wise - so I'm adding a new section to this talk page with work that needs to be done...--99.231.130.185 (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! The fine point regarding injuries, as I see it, is that if a yoga teacher is going to advertise that they are doing the 'Bikram' series without the proper training, and someone gets hurt, then this gives the Bikram series and legitimate teachers a bad name without cause. If, however, a teacher not trained in Bikram's studio is simply teaching the postures in that order in a hot room without saying 'Bikram' at all, then they are assuming full risk if someone gets injured.--Cminard (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Work that needs to be done!

We really need a well-referenced section on Bikram yoga itself, namely:

1. how/why the heat is supposed to be beneficial, according to Bikram/instructors
2. how/why the poses are supposed to be beneficial, according to Bikram/instructors
3. the actual effect that Bikram yoga has on people's bodies, according to a medical/academic source (this may or may not differ from Bikram's opinion).

The first two in that list should be interspersed with referenced commentary - for example, if Bikram says the heat makes muscles more pliant, we should say whether doctors/physiologists support that notion or not. The third in that list is going to be hard to find, I'm guessing...Bikram yoga hasn't been well-known that long. I'm sure that Bikram yoga probably has great effects, but I'm not willing to speculate without a source. At most we could say that "Bikram enthusiasts claim that..." or "Many of those practice Bikram claim that" but again, we'd need a source. --99.231.130.185 (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

When I attended a week-long seminar with Bikram many years ago, he mentioned that he has put a lot of research into the posture series from a medical perspective, and cited many benefits that have been proven by medical doctors. Bikram always cited actual research and never provided his personal opinion on the benefits. He is the first to say that one should simply attend a class, and then there will be no need to explain anything further. Unfortunately a quick look at his website does not provide this medical research. My time is quite limited for the next few months, though I will try to find a source for this information that can be used in this article as time allows. In any case though, once it is found, the existing medical research that Bikram has done will speak for itself, and there would be no need to obtain opinions from Bikram or his instructors.--Cminard (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional - while it has been quite a while since I attended the seminar with Bikram, the actual science behind the sequence includes elements such as the body undergoing a gradual building of heat in very specific areas just the right times so that subsequent postures become much easier, and the most incredible benefit that Bikram cited that was measured was that doing the Standing Stick pose for the prescribed time in a heated room of the temperature that they use actually exercises the heart as if you had been on a treadmill for 45 minutes (or something like this), and that one specific chamber of the heart is exercised in a way that traditional exercise is not able to do. These are the kinds of facts that need to be looked for in a search. He may have done the research in Japan, which may make it more difficult to locate. If all else fails, I may send a letter to him to request the details, or ask one of his senior teachers.--Cminard (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"makes muscles more pliant and encourages sweating which acts as a purifier."

This should be removed or explained. At first glance it's nonsense.

Why is this nonsense? 35–40 °C temperatures do make muscles relax and do encourage sweating, and sweating is excretory, so I think it qualifies as purifying, in some sense.

-to whoever wrote "this should be removed or explained" you are taking this way too seriously

I agree with the critique. i'm not even sure what is being purified -- the blood? the muscle? or are we talking about "purity of essence"? Aside from having more salt, is the water in sweat less pure than regular water? I also don't understand the "you are taking this way too seriously" comment -- isn't the point of wikipedia to have accurate descriptions of things?

Indeed. I practice Bikram myself, but the above statement caught my attention. I have added citation requests, if they cannot be provided in one week, the offending statement will go. To whomever wrote "You are taking this way too seriously", you don't understand the Wikipedia.--Cylon 14:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Take Wikipedia too seriously?!? Not possible. I agree with the critique. --DJSbass 03:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not change it to something like "which performs a similar function as the traditional sauna" and then link to the sauna article? Seragenn 02:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "makes muscles more pliant and encourages sweating which acts as a purifier" is probably unsupportable nonsense, but it would be great if this article discussed the actual positive or negative affects of exercising in an uncomfortably hot environment.

I have been practising Bikram Yoga for 3 or 4 months and I would never call the "environment of 35-40°C (actually the correct temperature should be 42°C) as uncomfortable. I was very surprised the heat of 42°C was actually quite pleasant when I went for the 1st lesson. Of course after the first 10 mins you are totally sweaty, but it feels good. And believe me when the temperature goes down to 40°C, you actually start feeling cold :-) And why the heat?

   * your body heat is not lost in a cold room
   * makes muscles more elastic
   * raises the heart beat to provide cardiovascular workout
   * strengthens the immune system
   * opens pores, cleansing skin
   * encourages detoxification through sweat
   * burns fat, strengthens willpower

And the negatives of it? Well, I don`t know about any so far... and honestly I don`t think there are any. To those who mention this as almost a nonsense or say "why not to link it to sauna article" - have you actually tried practising Bikram yoga? Or are you just trying to be "smart"? M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.83.1 (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not the above users are trying to be "smart" (I wish I could put those quotation marks in quotation marks), they are right to ask for clarity--that's the point here. If you are going to say that the heat acts as a purifier, you need to say what is being purified and how. If it's due to encouraging pores to open and sweat to flush out their contents, that's excellent, but it needs to be stated explicitly. There's little in Wikipedia more off-putting than patronizing comments. -Blackbird

links at bottom of page

the links to Standing Bow pose and Head-to-Knee pose are worded in a way that makes it sound like they are exclusive to bikram, that they were developed for bikram yoga and not found in other types of yoga.

i don't believe that's true. both poses are used in styles of yoga other than bikram. one shouldn't get the impression that they were invented for bikram.

209.82.111.194 19:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)jpx

There are negatives to practicing this type of yoga. One should not have high blood pressure, nor low blood pressure. This yoga causes high intensity sweating and dehydration is a serious problem especially those who have suffered heat prostration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cartoonmayhem (talk • contribs) 15:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, I'm wondering about the link that goes to the California Secretary of State. It shows that BIKRAM CHOUDHURY YOGA, INC. has a status of "suspended" -- does anyone know what this means? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PappyBlueRibs (talk • contribs) 04:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

stub?

I think a recategorize is worth undertaking. This doesn't look like a stub to me? Still I believe this applies:

I think more could be added in the opening section on how Bikram Yoga actually works, but I second the stub removal. --DJSbass 05:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This article appears to focus more on the intellectual property disputes surrounding Bikram's copyright claims and almost not at all upon the actual Bikram yoga practice. Therefore I suggest the article either be retitled something like 'Bikram Yoga Controversy' or taken down. MatthewStevenCarlos 21:30 GMT 25 September 2006

This article needs information about Bikram Yoga itself rather than Bikram's legal struggles. Sinakor 22:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Bikram Yoga also generally Hatha Yoga with the addition of the heated environment? Perhaps that has something to do with the legal issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.169.28 (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Founding Gurus, and unsubstantiated claims of potential injury

Firstly, while Bishnu Ghosh certainly endorsed Bikram's Beginning Yoga series, he did NOT create it. Therefore, the small introductory panel on the top left should be edited to say that the founding Guru is Bikram Choudhury and not Bishnu Ghosh. From what I can tell, the curriculum at Ghosh's college of physical education is quite different.

Secondly, the section discussing metal poisoning is unnecessary. The following statement: "A person seeking to eliminate toxins from the body, due to health complications such as metal poisoning, is at risk of developing further complications if they choose to practice Bikram Yoga rather than seeking professional medical advice," needs to be removed. Bikram Yoga has never and will never endorse itself as a system that can adequately deal with acute metal toxicity. It simply goes without saying that someone with metal poisoning will put their health at risk if they choose not to contact a trained health professional, e.g. a physician.

99.239.217.145 (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[Untitled2]

"Sweating for the sake of sweating" has no benefits. I don't care if you've studied sweating your whole life; this is a claim comparable to the previous claim that tonsils had no benefit to the body, not a provable fact. I deleted it. If it had been "no known benefits," that would have been different. Even there, we would need a review of 24 articles in the medical literature to substantiate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.167.215 (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright registration as acknowledgement of copyright protection

I deleted the following sentence:

"Through registration of this work, the United States Copyright Office acknowledges Bikram's exclusive right to the distinct series of postures and breathing exercises comprising the sequence."

This is a statement of Bikram's controversial legal position. Whether the copyright is valid and what it covers is unresolved and at the heart of the legal dispute with USYO and the general discussion within the yoga community. Registration by the Copyright Office is not an "acknowlegment" of any rights. Unlike the investigation the Patent Office conducts, the CO does not generally investigate registrations and Bikram's registration has little, if any, legal or other significance in this debate. --DJSbass 19:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above, except that it is too softly stated. I added a paragraph about how the idea-expression in copyright law does not afford a "system" or "method" of yoga, or anything else, protection from others using the system. Copyright affords protection from their reproducing the book. That's all. This principle is at least 130 years old in US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.167.215 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed "Benefits" Section

Hello, I cut the "Benefits" Section from this article. The "weight loss" benefits were cited to a website which sold "weight loss" books -- hardly an unbiased, scholarly, or secondary source. The rest of the "benefits" were uncited. Therefore, they have been removed from the article. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 16:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Template Removal

Undid template 30 May 2014 as there is no justification given for the template inserted in the talk section. Having read the article I felt it is like many others which also have businesses running from the subject. It does not sell Bikram Yoga but gives a reasonably unbiased information on the subject and what it does and hopes to achieve. If these banners are to placed at the head of an article there should be some explanatory words in talk, not just hit and run. I have checked a number of links from article and references they seem to be working. I would suggest another independent admin checks out the article before the banner is being reinstated Britishleo (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If it is "many others which also have businesses running from the subject" then that is a great reason to clean them up as well. It's written like a mix of advertorial and fan page. Example: the list of "practitioners"? They aren't practitioners. A practitioner is one who teaches the thing, not one who turns up for a session of a fad exercise class. I understand that this will not be obvious to you, as a brand new user of Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 06:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It is true that “practitioner” can be used to refer to “a person engaged in the practice of a profession or occupation.” However, in terms of eastern disciplines, a practitioner is anyone who is committed to regularly practicing the form, be it yoga, qi gong or tai chi. In other words, you do not have to hang up a shingle or teach to consider oneself or another a practitioner of a form. So notable practitioners of a particular style is a valid heading. It should be reinstated. Andre.alyeska (talk) 06:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Tags

The article shows significant from May 2014 when the eight tags on the page were added. I am going to remove all but the most relevant ones. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge Bikram Choudhury into this article?

I wanted to float the idea here of merging Bikram Choudhury into this article. It seems to me that the elements of notability in that article relate directly to this one and there isn't a need for a separate biography. That's not to say that Choudhury doesn't meet WP:N and couldn't justify a standalone article, just that it would be tidier for the encyclopaedic content from that article to be in the section about him in this one rather than separate. Any thoughts? Whouk (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. Bikram is a personality, but the topic of the Yoga class/series he developed can and should stand alone. Andre.alyeska (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no interests or axe to grind (I just watched a doco on Yoga Inc.) but I think most of the details of the rape and abuse allegations against Bikram Choudhury should be moved to that article as I am a big believer in separating the art from the artist even if that artist should turn out to be an arsehole. 123.2.45.31 (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Health Benefits should only have "Positive" points. Negative points should be in the "Controversy" section

Just at the title says. Health Benefits section should only have positive things. If one wants to put something negative about health benefits, then it needs to be in the "controversy" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.182.196 (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Criticism#.22Criticism.22_section it is often best to not have a criticism section. I replaced the "health benefits" section with a "health effects" section, because I think when readers want to learn about health effects they would want to see the good and bad together in the same place. Previously, there were four sections covering health effects in different places in the article. If you have other opinions about how this should be then please say something more. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Age

There has been no factual basis for the age made here of his being born in 1946. The recent court proceedings list Bikram as age 71 in January 2016, thus being born in 1944. A record in court is more trustworthy than websites such as "I love India" https://www.scribd.com/doc/290425855/Bikram-Petra-Starke-Complaint Lothtorn1212 (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 812confirm (talk • contribs)

Synthesized Hatha Yoga?

("Bikram Yoga is a system of yoga that Bikram Choudhury synthesized from traditional hatha yoga techniques.") This statement by definition is untrue, and the citation, being from Choudhury's own website, is highly questionable. If it were stated that it combined various postures... or some equivalent to that, maybe it would hold some merit. Simpy put, it is not at all a synthesis of Hatha Yoga techniques. There were only a handful of asanas, so called postures, that were even considered important by the Hatha Yoga scriptures, all of which culminated in some sort of seated asana in which the practitioner conducted the most important portions of the practice. Ultimately the entire gamut of Hatha Yoga techniques were aimed at the awakening of the Kundalini. So, it is a vast overstatement, even a blatant false-hood, to say that Bikram "synthesized" Hatha Yoga techniques. There should be some mention of this in the entry. Aghoradas (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bikram Yoga. 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/20160229194201/http://abc7chicago.com:80/news/hot-yoga-founder-ordered-to-pay-nearly-$65m-in-harassment-lawsuit/1175650/ to http://abc7chicago.com/news/hot-yoga-founder-ordered-to-pay-nearly-$65m-in-harassment-lawsuit/1175650/

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) 05:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bikram Yoga. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://abc7chicago.com/news/hot-yoga-founder-ordered-to-pay-nearly-%2465m-in-harassment-lawsuit/1175650/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323082927/http://www.bikramyoga.com/Bikram/bikram.php to http://www.bikramyoga.com/Bikram/bikram.php

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) 03:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Training Program HBO Film Citation Needed

Hi! I'm new to Wikipedia and we need to find articles to comment on for an assignment. I noticed in the section that quotes the HBO film about the training program, there are no links or citations. Please add a citation in. --Casssieandra (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Pose diagram correction

Hi! There is an error in the diagram for Trikonasana (Triangle) pose. The image appears to be showing Utthita Parsvakonasana (Side Angle) pose. In Utthita Parsvakonasana the front knee is bent as the diagram shows but in Trikonasana, the front knee is bent. Please correct. Thank you! --Casssieandra (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes by Anthroyoga

Anthroyoga, please discuss your proposed edits here per WP:BRD. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I made 6 edits to the page yesterday.

At least 2 of them had journal-published citations that were included appropriately. All 6 of my edits were deleted/removed by EvergreenFir. If you could please, restore my edits.

signed by 

Anthroyoga (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)AnthroYoga

Medical claims

Medical claims have special sourcing requirements, see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine). The Hunter et al. citation is a single primary study - the study authors had people do yoga and observed the results. To make a medical claim in this article based on that we'd need a secondary source - a literature review that looked at several studies on the topic and came to a conclusion. - MrOllie (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

My edit did not make a large medical claim; it very modestly summarized the Hunter et al. results only. It might be appropriate to make a comment on the page that this is a primary study, but I do not believe that deleting it entirely is appropriate. My edit is in line with the following, directly from Wikipedia: "Per the policies of neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, independent, published secondary or tertiary sources. For biomedical content, primary sources should generally not be used. This is because primary biomedical literature is exploratory and often not reliable, and any given primary source may be contradicted by another. The Wikipedia community relies on guidance of expert reviews, and statements by major medical and scientific bodies. Text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal undue weight, only be used to describe conclusions made by the source, and must describe these findings clearly so that all editors even those without specialist knowledge can check sources. Primary sources should never be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors (see WP:Synthesis)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthroyoga (talk • contribs) 18:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Research on Bikram Yoga

In order to discuss the research that has been done on Bikram Yoga in the past 10 or so years, with out making "Medical Claims", I propose that a section entitled "Research on Bikram Yoga" be added.

This would contextualize the early/primary nature of the studies but would also allow readers to find the research studies and results that are available on Bikram Yoga.

The point here is not to make sweeping medical claims, but to make readers aware of the research that has been done and is underway.

(I tried to include the results of 3 published studies, but all were reverted by editors who claimed that I either did not cite appropriately or that a primary study could not be used for a medical claim.)

Anthroyoga (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Anthroyoga

Sexual assault lawsuits - move them to Bikram Choudhury's page?

The "Bikram Yoga" page is for the system of yoga that Bikram Choudhury synthesized from traditional hatha yoga techniques. While related to Choudhury, Brikram Yoga is nevertheless not him. I think that the section on the sexual assaults should be merged with the currently-existing section on Choudhury's page. CallMeSalticidae (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this, and this was one of the edits I made on June 17, 2019 (which EvergreenFir then reverted). Bikram Yoga should be about the system of yoga, its history, its benefits. Bikram Choudhury's personal life should be on his personal page.

Anthroyoga (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Anthroyoga

Further more, here are two older/archived comments that lead toward consensus of this topic being reserved for the Bikram Choudhury page. The proposal was to add the sexual assualt information to the Bikram Yoga page.

I don't agree. Bikram is a personality, but the topic of the Yoga class/series he developed can and should stand alone. Andre.alyeska (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no interests or axe to grind (I just watched a doco on Yoga Inc.) but I think most of the details of the rape and abuse allegations against Bikram Choudhury should be moved to that article as I am a big believer in separating the art from the artist even if that artist should turn out to be an arsehole. 123.2.45.31 (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Anthroyoga (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Anthroyoga

Suggest moving both Health and Copyright sections into History as subsections

Both those sections concern specific time periods and are limited in scope.

I think both are not due as significant weight and might easily nest into the History section which undoubtedly needs to expand. For instance, there is likely a story behind expanding from a handful of outlets to over a thousand worldwide, and then a drop off of at least a third from there.

Then at least a sentence or two should cover the Netflix documentary as he is the namesake of the business. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree on para 1. I'm not sure about the documentary; basically it is about BC not the yoga brand, and it does logically belong in the BC article, so it's correct that it's just over there not here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

[Plagiarism]

This page needs to be updated in light of the information in the Bikram documentary regarding the 26 + 2 yoga sequence known as Bikram Yoga is essentially plagiarized from his yoga college instructor.72.217.43.83 (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Although it advertises something pretty much known in many circles, more reliable sources are needed in this article.