Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Fuzzy Numbers and Reliability

There are a couple of spots where very specific numbers are cited, and I haven't been able to trace them back through sources. Paul Offit states that Chopra grossed $20 million and charges $10,000 for anti-aging products. First, I can't find any mention of those numbers in the source listed (which is tricky as it includes 3 sources), and secondly, how he came up with those numbers (tax returns, Chopra's catalog, etc). I'd appreciate any help clearing this up.

Whatever questions I have about Offit's numbers, he's a reliable source otherwise on the medical perspectives on Chopra. On the other hand, philosopher Robert Todd Carroll is prominently cited as a source on Chopra, dismissing Chopra's position on aging as biomedically unscientific and also referencing his finances without sources. While I can see the importance of discussing these points, Carroll does not seem to be a reliable source. He's not a physician, has no medical background, no scientific training and is not relevant to the topic in any way other than having written about Chopra in the "Skeptic's Dictionary", a tertiary source that should not be cited so prominently in any case per WP:TERTIARY. His reliability is cast into further doubt due to factual errors about Chopra, such as the assertion that the Chopra Center is a "faith-healing center" that employs no medical professionals and that Deepak Chopra does not possess a medical license (p.47). All of these statements have been proven false (a few times on this page alone) and can be verified through simple fact-checking of government records. Whatever his contributions elsewhere, Carroll does not appear to be a reliable authority on Chopra (due to being a tertiary source, including factual errors and having no background in biomedicine) and I propose removing his statements. If someone can find a more reliable, secondary source that says the same thing, that'd be ideal. The Cap'n (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Carroll is a reliable source for fringe topics. --Ronz (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback, but that's just an assertion. My specific reasons for arguing his current referencing is not reliable are:

1. He is a tertiary source being cited by name as an authority for very specific aspects of Chopra's life, in direct contravention of WP:PSTS.
2. He has no scientific or medical training, yet is being used qualitatively to analyze Chopra's medical legitimacy (or lack thereof).
3. His work does not include citations for important data and is riddled with factual errors.

Carroll is an appropriate source for broad statements, such as the "controversial nature of Chopra's work" or something like that, per WP:TERTIARY, but he's not acceptable as an in-text qualitative authority on Chopra. We need reliable, professional, qualified secondary sources for specific analysis. The Cap'n (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not just an assertion, it's a statement from doing a bit of checking against our policies and their application. One simply has to look to see he's been repeatedly found to be a reliable source at RSN and is used in hundreds of other articles, including ones very similar to this.

I don't understand how the specific reasons given make a case for Carroll not being reliable, nor how they derive from any Wikipedia policies. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm just waiting to get sign off to post more on this, but Paul Offits numbers are being denied and refuted left and right by Dr Chopra's accountants. Certain things, such as Chopra center selling anti aging products for $10k a year are also being denied and it's making a few people upset on my end that this is being used to represent Chopra Center. I am waiting on what kind of sources I can provide but these statements on his financials I can confirm are all misleading information. Ronz I get that Carroll is used as a reliable source by suspicious and skeptic editors on subject matter covered in 'The Skeptics Dictionary' - but if you were a researcher investigating just one of the topics he purports to report on, his credibility would sink faster than an elephant in quicksand. He is a passionate critic and not to consider that he has a natural bias towards the subject matter would be irresponsible editing, research, or journalism. SAS81 (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

He's a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

He may be reliable to show the skeptic position, but he is (clearly) not reliable to report facts about Dr Chopra's ideas and especially Dr Chopra's financial status. SAS81 (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

He is not used to report facts about his financial status. His statements are specifically attributed to him. "Paul Offit stated, writing in 2013, that Chopra's business grossed around $20 million annually, built on the sale of courses, books, videos, herbal supplements and massage oils; a year's worth of anti-aging products can cost up to $10,000." If there are alternative or differing views, we can add them as well. Hipocrite (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Alternative or differing views that are worthy of mention per NPOV that is. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ronz, my apologies on the assertion comment, I didn't mean to imply you hadn't considered Carroll's qualifications. For clarity's sake I'll include explanations of my concerns in the same format as above:

1. WP:RELIABLE says that "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." Citing Carroll's views on specific parts of Chopra's work is certainly detailed discussion.

2. WP:RS/MC states that "Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies." Carroll is none of these things. As a philosopher Carroll is certainly qualified to discuss skepticism in general, but he is not a reliable source on the scientific validity of Chopra.

3. WP:RS also warns against including sources that have factual inaccuracies, which we've established Carroll has with Chopra (errors= Chopra's medical license, the Chopra Center's lack of medical credentials, unsourced financial reports, etc).

As I've said, Carroll is a fine source for many other fringe topics and is reliable for broad statements about skepticism, but he's not a secondary source, not a scientific expert and not appropriate to be cited as such. Analysis should be limited to reliable secondary sources. I'm not here to critique Carroll or his referencing elsewhere, just on the way he's being used here.

@SAS81, if you actually do have concrete information or sources on this data, that would be helpful to examine as I haven't seen any reliable info from anyone on these numbers. The Cap'n (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence that Carroll is inaccurate about anything, merely outdated. You allege that it is inaccurate because we now know he is licensed. There is no evidence that he was licensed in 2003. There is strong evidence, in fact, he was not - see [1]. Hipocrite (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

We're going to continue this? Hundreds of Wikipedia articles use Carroll as a source, and he's been brought to RSN many times. That's pretty wide consensus. It's going to take a huge amount of work to overturn that consensus.

Carroll is a secondary source, and a well-known and respected academic source at that. He's exactly the type of source we should be using and using more. Pity he's not focused more of his writing on topics directly applicable to this article.

Carroll most certainly is a reliable source on the scientific validity of Chopra. Pseudoscience is one of Carroll's specialties.

Carroll provides sources, so I think it safe to assume that the material is sourced and accurate at least as far some information may have become outdated. It's not our place to do original research to try to discredit opinions that some don't like, rather it's a violation of OR and NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand The Skeptics Dictionary is a prominent piece of skeptic literature - it's just hasn't been shown to be reliable when it comes to biographical facts about Dr Chopra or facts about what Dr Chopra's ideas are. At best it signifies an orthodox point of view and if used as a source in a BLP it should be with caution and fact checked with other sources. And it's not just about what it prints, its also about what it omits. It omits facts that would contradict what's in it. It doesn't look to satisfy neutrality, it looks to satisfy what its audience wants to read, a SPOV about a subject matter. By definition it's contrarian and therefore not neutral, especially when Dr Chopra has had a dispute with skeptics for 15 years or more. SAS81 (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you personally don't like it as a reference.

"fact checked with other sources" No. That would be a SYN and NPOV violation, as pointed out. --Ronz (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

when are you going to get it???? " At best it signifies an orthodox point of view" - that is EXACTLY the types of sourcing and framing of topics that we are SUPPOSED to use. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You might as well have said "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" I'm never going to 'get it' the way you want me too when a source your suggesting is reputable is printing misleading or factually incorrect statements about Dr. Chopra that any sane and rational person can see and verify for themselves. The skeptical narrative of Dr. Chopra is NOT the mainstream narrative of Dr. Chopra. It's ludicrous to suggest it is and it's worrisome that suspicious editors can't tell the difference. SAS81 (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

A source is only reliable per the content it supports. Skeptics dictionary may be verifiable as a source but its reliability must be decided per Chopra. If we have information that indicates Carroll is not accurate then we are bound to either state Carroll has asserted something but his assertion has been refuted or we don't use Carroll at all. There's a point where common sense comes into writing as good article. We don't knowingly put inaccurate content into an article ,and most especially we don't in a BLP. So that all editors can see Carroll's allegations, I'd post them here along with the supposedly accurate content so the two can be compared? (Littleolive oil (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC))

And that is all dependent upon reliable sources presenting information counter to what Carroll has published. Until such is provided, this discussion is entirely moot-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't have to counter Carroll we have to show his reliability. That may include counter information or it may not. I'd add that each instance of content we want to use from Skeptic's dictionary must be verified as reliable for the specific content in our article. No source is carte blanche reliable.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC))

I think we're banging our heads against a wall a bit more than we need to. I provided 3 reasons above why Carroll is an inappropriate source (WP:TERTIARY, WP:RS/MC, and WP:RS errors); 1 was argued, 1 was briefly mentioned and 1 went completely unaddressed. I'm willing to accept that the RS inaccuracies in Carroll are a result of being out of date, but its tertiary nature was only asserted against and WP:RS/MC was never refuted at all. It seems to me that the Skeptic's Dictionary, as a compilation of topic articles based on other secondary sources, is a tertiary source (and mentions in its own foreword that it is not a balanced source). As for WP:RS/MC, there is a heated discussion on this page about whether a broad opinion by President Clinton on Chopra in Reception is acceptable given his lack of medical qualifications, yet we're okay with including blocks of text about a philosopher making claims about the medical validity of Chopra's work throughout the article? Other than being cited by many other skeptics and being interested in the topic, how is Carroll qualified to weigh medical claims? If his book is based on scientific writings that debunk Chopra, cite those instead. The Cap'n (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm making a simple point. I may not be making it simply though. :O) We can't say a source that is verifiable as a source which this source is, is carte blanche reliable or unreliable for anything unless we know specifically what we want to use it for. Sources are only reliable per the specific content we want to use in the article. What that means is, look at the content and then editors can decide if what they have is reliably sourced content; that is that the source they are using is reliable per that content More generalized discussion won't translate to anything concrete. Anyway, I'll leave you to it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC))

Agreed, Littleolive oil. Being cited for other content does not mean it is a RS for this content, especially given the WP:MEDRS nature of medical authority required for the claims he's making here. The Cap'n (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually our whole WP:V is based on the premise that mainstream, major publishing house works are presumptively reliable sources WP:RS - there would be no Wikipedia without that. If you wish to assert that any particular work from a major publishing house or part of a work from a major publishing house does NOT qualify as a reliable source for a particular claim in a particular article- the onus is on you to provide evidence that WP:RS is not met. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This thread is surreal. How can Carroll's work be possibly be a unreliable source for what (as we put) "Robert Carroll writes ... "? I think people are wanting to doubt The Truth™ of what he writes, but that is another matter. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:Verifiability "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Until and unless specific content is identified along with the source which "directly supports the contribution" whether the source is reliable or not for that content cannot be discerned. Onus is on the editor adding the content to show the content is verifiable; and he does this by showing the content can be sourced to a RS.

• Discussion of the specific content and the source in relation to that content might bring some closure here on contentious issues. (Littleolive oil (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC))

We say Carroll wrote something, and source it. Are you arguing he didn't write these things? Surreal. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not discussing the source here. I'm pointing out policy because policy interpretation is not accurate. Carrol is not an automatic RS for everything as has been suggested here and onus is on the editor adding content to show its verifiable and a RS not the other way around. I'm suggesting that if the specific content could be identified and the source identified for that content how that content is placed in the article will be easier to discuss. Misunderstanding of policy and guideline cannot be used as a means to support the source and content. Until that is clarified and the content and source identified clearly how can decisions be made. Apparently an editor is contesting the source for whatever the content is.

I am not posting an opinion on Carroll at this time . But I'd suggest that if Carroll is shown to be wrong or outdated the procedure is to either not use the source as non - reliable or to use the source and use other RSs that add the suggested accurate information, in-line citing the sources so the content is not in Wikipedia's voice. That's as much as I can say. The rest is up to those adding or discounting the content.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC))

I can't follow this mess so someone explain to me what is being proposed please. Carrol's book is a WP:RS and the statement is attributed to him in the section Teaching and other roles, there is no issue here. Is this whole discussion about the sentence attributed to him in the section Ageing? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I certainly agree he wrote those things, Alexbrn, I'm not arguing that (and yes, Gaba_p, this massive wall is about one source in one section. Welcome to the madness that is this page). The RS issue is that Robert Todd Carroll is being used to refute Chopra's alt/int-med aging positions as scientifically unsound, yet Carroll does not meet WP:MEDRS. We can't get around that by tacking on a "Carroll says..." The fact that it's in an encyclopedic section on a medical issue indicates it's a professional medical opinion. There have been lengthy discussions about whether Bill Clinton could be cited for his opinion on Chopra given his lack of a medical background, and Carroll is in an even more demanding position. Clinton was speaking to Chopra's popular perception, Carroll is speaking to Chopra's medical claims. Carroll has no scientific training, no medical background and no qualifications to determine medical validity. Being a frequently cited author does not change these lack of qualifications. Regarding statements about current medical positions, WP:MEDRS says:

Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.

Carroll clearly does not meet any of these MEDRS standards, so we can include his non-scientific opinions of Chopra in Reception, but cannot use his refutations of Chopra's medical validity. If someone discovers a medical degree or peer-reviewed journal he wrote, or has an actual medical source, feel free to put that in. To sum up, Carroll does not meet WP:MEDRS. Please do not revert unless you can show that he does. Let's just find an actual medical source that says the same thing. The Cap'n (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A medical source isn't required for commenting on fringe beliefs and their implications. --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn, this is a topic currently under discussion and I've respectfully asked that reversions be explained by how Carroll meets MEDRS. I don't want to edit war, but you've reverted a policy-driven deletion without addressing the policy. Please explain how Carroll meets MEDRS or I feel I need to remove the citation.

@Ronz, where is it written that MEDRS doesn't apply to Fringe matters? The topic of treating aging is clearly medically-related, that's the issue people have with Chopra's take on it. Everything in WP:FRINGE states that there is a higher standard for sources relating to anything fringe, not a lower standard for representing scientific viewpoints. If there was a source by some doctor of theology saying that Chopra's views on aging were scientifically sound and medically evidenced, would that be exempt from MEDRS too? Anything referencing the medical validity of a topic must meet MEDRS, that just policy. The fact that Carroll is criticizing Chopra on a controversial topic doesn't mean that he can be portrayed as an expert on that topic (aging/medicine) he's commenting on. His opinion is a personal one with no academic or professional weight, and is not acceptable for this use. We need to find a better, scientifically based source. The Cap'n (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Carroll is a reliable source for Carroll's view, n'est-ce pas? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not arguing that Carroll's argument is not being portrayed accurately, but rather that by including his refutation of Chopra's medical positions in the Aging section, we are portraying Carroll as a medical expert. WP:MEDRS describes this exact scenario and states that when referencing (either to support or debunk) medical or scientific validity, a medical expert source is needed. Carroll is not. Thus we either need to remove the refutation or include one that meets the requirement of MEDRS. We can include Carroll's views on Chopra's finances in that section, and reference his general distrust of Chopra in the Reception section, but he is not a medical expert and it's not appropriate to cite him when refuting medical positions. The Cap'n (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:MEDRS applies to that sourced statement. I support the re-addition of content done by Alexbrn, you shouldn't remove content while it's being discussed and even worst if there's no consensus to do so. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 20:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I have not removed Alexbrn's content. See above for why MEDRS applies to claims of medical/scientific validity. The Cap'n (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say you removed "Alexbrn's content, I said you removed the content that is being discussed as you did here.

This "ageing is simply learned behaviour" and this "aging can be accelerated, for example by a person engaging in "cynical mistrust"" are not a "medical position" so there's no requirement that a it be refuted by a "medical expert". It's simply nonsense and the refutation is well sourced and clearly attributed. There's no violation of WP:MEDRS at all. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Before you solidify that position, please consider that if we state that Chopra's positions on things like aging are subject to nothing but the standards of an opinion, then any basic RS would be able to be cited in support of that position too, of which even WP:FRINGE would allow. I'm trying to set the highest standard of sourcing possible, and am wary of lowering it. The Cap'n (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a shift of burden followed by an attempt to ignoring the burden altogether. It's the type of thing that those who promote fringe viewpoints do. Let's not waste time with such nonsense. --Ronz (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS: "This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article, including alternative medicine." Content related to health or medical issues requires MEDRS compliant sources.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC))

What medical claim is being made? there is a claim about a cost of treatments being peddled, but that is not a medical claim - its an economics claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I see the point. Like I said, it's a reversal of burden. I think the guideline needs clarification. If we tried to hold to this, then we couldn't mention any of Chopra's health beliefs at all since none are backed by MEDRS sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The Cap'n & Littleolive oil we've come to a full stop here since you claim WP:MEDRS applies in a way other editors do not agree it applies. Any of you is welcome to take the issue over to WP:RSN or open an WP:RfC. Otherwise this is the end of this discussion for me. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Actually I haven't claimed anything. I quoted MEDRS, and summarized it. I think how it applies here has to be discussed. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC))

It seems to me that WP:FRINGE is about coverage of any idea "not broadly supported by scholarship in its field". It gives guidelines about how to present these fringe ideas alongside the equivalent mainstream ideas. Therefore the mainstream must be represented by sourced material that clearly represents "scholarship in its field", i.e. in the case of medical claims about ageing and life expectancy, by WP:MEDRS sources on those topics. If these are the mainstream ideas, it shouldn't be hard to find mainstream sources. --Nigelj (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nigelj, we're using sources in the Ideas sections to debunk Chopra's positions under FRINGE, but those sources (Carroll especially) aren't qualified to establish the scholarly medical mainstream in the first place. My argument all along has been that if these are really such thoroughly debunked positions, there must be sources out there that meet MEDRS. Just because a skeptical author is popular doesn't mean he's qualified to be presented as a medical authority. I find it hard to believe that anyone here thinks that directly quoting someone speaking to the "unscientific" nature of a physician's position on aging in an encyclopedia is not presenting that source as a medical/scientific authority. The Cap'n (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you agree that the burden should be reversed. Take it up at the proper forum or an RfC here if you need clarification on how the policies and guidelines apply. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

People here seem to be having trouble understanding what I said. I never said that I think that the article should say that Chopra can make you live forever. I said that Chopra's statements regarding ageing and life expectancy are clearly fringe statements, and so need to be contrasted properly against mainstream scholarship in the relevant field. What I'm complaining about is that Carroll's polemical remarks are an extremely poor representation of mainstream medical scholarship in the field of mind-body interaction and the placebo effect. A scholarly encyclopedia article would reference mainstream MEDRS sources at that point, not a dictionary of "definitions, arguments, and essays on subjects supernatural, occult, paranormal, and pseudoscientific."[2] I'm saying it's a prime opportunity for some scholarship, and it's being wasted. Let's find the MEDRS sources that prove that there are no medical benefits whatsoever to meditation, positive attitudes, and so on. --Nigelj (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

In my understanding, no research has been conducted into Chopra's particular brand of therapy - and we could not generalize from other types of therapy as they may not be strictly equivalent. His statements about ageing are, yes, clearly fringe and Carroll directly addresses them. Carroll is a reliable source for Carroll's view, and we do not need a WP:MEDRS source to present Carroll's view as such; if anything, WP:PARITY would give us flexibility in sourcing to contextualize fringe statements even if we had a less good source than Carroll here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but given the recent revert of Nigelj's edit I think we need to revisit Carroll's position as a medical authority. Alexbrn's position that MEDRS doesn't apply according to WP:PARITY does not hold with how the consensus has come down; if MEDRS is required for Bill Clinton to be cited vaguely praising Chopra as a "pioneer", it's certainly necessary when Carroll is quoted making a highly specific claim to the medical validity of Chopra's views on senescence. Further, WP:PARITY states that those refuting fringe claims need only match the claimant's qualifications (ie. be on par => parity), so that if some guy with no credentials claims the Moon is made of cheese, we don't need peer-reviewed journals to say it isn't. Carroll, however, does NOT match Chopra's qualifications in terms of medicine. Chopra is a licensed physician, Carroll is a philosopher, those are not equal qualifications in medicine or science. Any given medical doctor could claim WP:PARITY with Chopra, but Carroll is unqualified by both MEDRS and WP:PARITY to be a RS on Chopra's position on the biological effects of aging. I suggest reinstating Nigelj's version. The Cap'n (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Huffington Post

User:SlimVirgin in "Deepak Chopra and the Future of Wikipedia", Huffington Post, 06/12/2014 4:52 pm EDT

A look behind the curtain at Wikipedia talk pages reveals that a highly decorated and respected Wikipedia editor, 'SlimVirgin,' recently became one of a number of admins who stepped up to defend Chopra. SV writes, "It's hard to disagree that there's a problem when you look through the [Chopra's] article and talk page." SlimVirgin described the problem as a clear 'BLP violation' and said, "several of the accounts on the skepticism side are misrepresenting the content policies." BLP means 'Biography of a Living Person' and used an example of how Deepak's views on AIDS were intentionally misframed to discredit him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-slovick/deepak-chopra-and-the-fut_b_5489072.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaenoptera musculus (talk • contribs)

"Deepak's views on AIDS were intentionally misframed to discredit him" ← as the editor who first introduced this material, I can be certain that this is an outright lie. The question is, who is telling the lie? - and, what mechanisms are there to counter it? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I had nothing to do with that article. Where it uses quotes, they are from the AE request. I haven't canvassed on- or off-wiki, so Alex I'd appreciate it if you would change the header. I also didn't say on the AE request (or anywhere else) that Chopra's views had been "intentionally misframed."

Rather, what is happening here boils down to Chinese whispers. Editors rely on secondary sources that are hostile to Chopra. The editors themselves are hostile to Chopra. So the source summarizes Chopra in a way that makes him look bad, then the editor summarizes the source in a way that makes him look even worse. That is why it's important to check the primary sources. If you want to know what Chopra said, read Chopra.

The article is now under discretionary sanctions, which means we should stick to the policies more strictly than usual. One of the things that would help is if this page could be used only to discuss article content and sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin Sorry, what you mean by asking me to change "the header" ? Also, what do you mean by referring to editors who are themselves "hostile to Chopra"? I appreciate your exhortation to WP:FOC but your comment is hardly doing that, now is it?

It seems from what you are saying that the lie has been told at the Huffington Post level. So who is the liar who introduced the "intentionally misframing" concept? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(Add) And for the avoidance of doubt, when Huffington Post says that you (SlimVirgin) "used an example of how Deepak's views on AIDS were intentionally misframed to discredit him", you would say this was a misrepresentation (by HuffPo) of your position? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I have responded to the RFC yesterday and I believe that has been my only interaction with this article or anything remotely related. I just spent some time reading though several of the threads on this talk page. I think there is a lot of heat right now which needs to be extinguished before anything productive is going to happen. @Alexbrn, I think the article edits you just made are really good. If someone wants to discuss them, then by all means please do. However, by "changing the header", I take SlimVirgin's request to mean that he/she would like you to change the header of this thread from "Off-wiki canvassing" to something less inflammatory. I think that is a reasonable request. I believe all editors involved in this debate should take some time to cool off (the weekend maybe?) and when you come back, please refrain from using words such as "intentionally" and "liar" and others which strike at perceived editor motivations. None of that is helpful. WP:FOC... Yes! You both know this. Great! Everyone commenting of this page knows this. Now we all just need to abide by it. Thank you and have a relaxing weekend. SueDonem (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes but it's not my "header" (=section title?). Why do I need to change it? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn. Since you posted an accusation and personal attack, the editor attacked has a right to refute that attack. Further, if you have a concern that deals with a specific editor which you honestly want dealt with, voice it in a straight forward way and take it to SV's talk page.

You accuse SV of off Wiki canvassing. She denies that . The heading on this thread should be changed as an act of good faith WP:AGF

I'd add that there is nothing in the Huff Post article that suggests SV spoke off Wikipedia.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC))

Lies now from Olive. What "personal attack" did I post? diff? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• I see that the post on canvassing was unsigned when I posted, and I thought it was part of your comment. Apologies, Alex.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC))
  • Thanks, NP Olive ( ... this is all getting a bit uncharacteristically conciliatory for this Talk page ;-) ) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I understand now that Balaenoptera musculus wrote the section title. That wasn't clear since that editor didn't sign the post. Thank you, Alexrn for adding the signature. Still, I agree with Littleolive oil that you or Balaenoptera musculus could change the header. I, Olive, and even SlimVirgin can change the header too. But it would be more meaningful to the process of collaboration if either you or Balaenoptera musculus made the change. As a reasonable person and intelligent citizen of our planet, when you take a moment to center your thoughts and put your emotions aside, you would agree that this is the best course of action to take right now before we all take the weekend off to enjoy life outside of Wikipedia ... there's a whole wonderful world out there waiting to be explored! :-). SueDonem (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

What is this ... "life outside of Wikipedia" of which you speak? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, totally. Check it out. I just read the Wikipedia article about the whole thing. ;-) So what do you say? Step up to the plate to change the section heading in a gesture of goodwill. Pretty please with sugar on top. SueDonem (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

How can I refuse: done! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought Slim was being mis-characterized by Sam's blog.Unfortunate. Also unfortunate what Deepak said. The way he said it. Not helping. Though it might get some more ISHAR warrior/researcher recruits to SAS81's talk page.Ptarmigander (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Chopra on Wikipedia -- NPOV issues via UNDUE weight

There is no evidence that Chopra's momentary dithering over Wikipedia's coverage of fringe claims is in any way a significant portion of his contributions or what he is known for. Covering it at all, let alone is a special call out section of its own is WP:UNDUE coverage and Wikipedia navel gazing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

IMO it's trivia, it does look like WP-navel-gazing, and we should drop the section. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the Chopra on Wikipedia section is tweeky. It hangs there imbalanced and incomplete. But the topic is very active right now and there will likely be more coming soon. The current paid COI activity is part of a larger anti-wiki aspiration. Take ISHARonline.org for example. <It is starting up after a prolonged struggle with Wikipedia, so that the information posted will no longer be attacked and removed>

I grok "good faith" but I also understand "quacks like a duck". We have been assured many times by SAS81 about the non bias of the ISHAR repository with which he is involved. The head researcher for ISHARonline.org is listed as Paul Mills. Isn't that the same researcher that graduated from Maharishi University of Management and has done studies that show the benefits of Transcendental Meditation and Maharishi Ayurveda products? Isn't he also a member of Institute of Noetic Sciences and has done studies (like the one on communicating with the deceased using Windbridge Certified Research Mediums)with Dean Radin? Ptarmigander (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There are many things people have said about Dr.Chopra, but do we need to put all the negative statements/criticism here? Like The Cap'n says above, we should stick to the BLP policy to stay out of trouble!—Khabboos (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I also suggest we merge this section with the 'threaded discussion' above.—Khabboos (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ptarmigander, this (wikipedia) is not the place to discuss ISHAR and if you are planning to add it to this article, I will oppose it as per WP:UNDUE—Khabboos (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

In fact, looking at how all the alt.med. articles on wikipedia are attack pieces, I support Dr.Chopra's statement, "In 2013 he argued that militant skeptics were editing Wikipedia to prevent what he believes would be a fair representation......" - I've copied this from 'our' article on him [3].—Khabboos (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a simple lack of understanding of what NPOV means. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Individual editors' labeling of those viewpoints in order to remove them is original research and violates NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand what NPOV means, but the question is, how much of all the criticism should we incorporate in this article. Wouldn't this sentence in brackets from the article: "(Robert Sapolsky sued because the book used a chart of his without proper attribution; the issue was settled out of court.)" be trivia we can do without?—Khabboos (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If I might make a general observation - in my view a problem with the editing of this article is that some editors are over-focussed on the content that is here rather than the content that is missing. I think the altmed side of Chopra is over-represented here because a lot of other things about him (his ideas on religion, human relationships, business, etc.) are absent. The solution therefore is not to try and delete the altmed stuff, but to expand the article with other material. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I hope you can add that 'material' Alexbrn. I don't have the time, although I like the idea and the others here (at least, most of them) seem to be interested only in criticizing his (Dr.Chopra's) views. Worse, because I seem to be a supporter of alt.med., someone has complained that I've violated my 'topic ban' (which is false), because I added a sentence about ethnic violence in Bangladesh - he probably wants me to get banned from wikipedia [4]—Khabboos (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Khabboos This was a discussion on Chopra's "Position on Wikipedia" stand alone (navel gazing) section. If you want to try and scroll the discussion away from that to involvement with your personal situation/beliefs and continue (with what appears to me) repetitious fear mongering and alarmist declarations: 1. About Chopra suing Wikipedia. 2. "militant skeptics" 3. "all the alt.med. articles on wikipedia are attack pieces" 4. "the others here (at least, most of them) seem to be interested only in criticizing his (Dr.Chopra's) views." - Maybe at least you could show the exact specifics of these assertions in more on-topic labeled discussion sections. Ptarmigander (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm just jumping in to clear some things up real quick, I'm sorry if my presence caused an unnecessary drama. Dr Chopra has no intentions to sue Wikipedia, that has never been a discussion I've been apart of here or elsewhere. What is available about ISHAR now is minimal - we're not going live until September and anything on our site right now is just a placeholder and is very incomplete. We're also not a secondary source for anything, we're just a collection of sources. We don't argue for the sources being true or not, we just store them and present them and make sure they are being presented without bias. We do not advocate, endorse, refute, or promote. We're more like a library. I would ask that editors discuss this on my talk page and not here. Thank you! SAS81 (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Chop on Wik - Deepak Chopra vows to continue the battle. published 6-12-14: "I am definitely going to pursue this correction of behavior of some very bigoted, prejudiced people on Wikipedia who seem to have an agenda, who are skeptics, but they're not even skeptics." - "They're cynical angry people who have an agenda and I don't think they should be getting away with it." "If this is not resolvable Wikipedia should not exist." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxhQxh5ad4E

So what do you call it when someone worth over 80 million says you are a bigot and are prejudiced and you are cynical and angry and you are not going to get away with it? This is one of many reasons why I think allowing paid advocacy on Wikipedia by big money interests is a bad idea. Where are those angry bigots on this article anyway? Is Chopra's claim about them defamation of Wikipedia and it's editors? What I have seen lately is a paid resident public relations advocate sitting on the article, backed by an unknown "ISHARteam" and a shadowy constantly morphing Chopra funded "repository" which claims total non-bias and objectivity, but it showcases anything Deepak wants to say and unlike any respectable academic endeavor refuses to reveal any details about itself. I see editors like Khabboos picking up on Deepak's tone and accusing others of being militant skeptics, declaring all alternative med. articles on Wikipedia as being hit pieces. No specifics. To tell you the truth as I see it currently, it looks like this topic is way over weighted with Deepak's extreme name calling views and people, whether by way of Chopra's celebrity influence or his money, supporting those exaggerated- less than spiritual positions. Ptarmigander (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This was interesting. Regrettable.

"A look behind the curtain at Wikipedia talk pages reveals that a highly decorated and respected Wikipedia editor, 'SlimVirgin,' recently became one of a number of admins who stepped up to defend Chopra. SV writes, "It's hard to disagree that there's a problem when you look through the [Chopra's] article and talk page." SlimVirgin described the problem as a clear 'BLP violation' and said, "several of the accounts on the skepticism side are misrepresenting the content policies." BLP means 'Biography of a Living Person' and used an example of how Deepak's views on AIDS were intentionally misframed to discredit him." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-slovick/deepak-chopra-and-the-fut_b_5489072.html So SlimV feels there is a skeptism side here that is intentionally misframing in order to discredit Deepak? And she is working against it? Sounds like it according to Sam Slovick's HuffPost blog. Didn't Dr. Chopra actually say that the AIDS virus emits a sound that lures the DNA to its destruction? And that it could be treated with mantra meditation? I think if that is so it is worth noting. Pretty amazing when you think about it.(for the 50th time) And it was largely Slimvirgin's endorsement that kept SAS81 from being topic banned? right? Which was real nice of SV. But it is the bigots and militant skeptics and angry cynics that are disproportionately overrunning the article.Ptarmigander (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

"Didn't Dr. Chopra actually say that the AIDS virus emits a sound that lures the DNA to its destruction?" ← he did, and was picked up for it by an expert in medical ethics who published his dim view of it in a reputable journal - the very type of source Wikipedia prefers. How relaying this amounts to a "BLP violation" beats me - sounds a bit (dare I say it?) like a misrepresentation of policy. I suppose one might object that it is not the whole truth since in recent years Chopra appears to have done a volte-face on the worth of using drugs to treat HIV/AIDS, and now sells those in combination with his ineffective offerings - but how relevant that is, is arguable. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@SAS81 regarding ISHAR. You did not answer about professor Mills being a graduate of MUM. What duties does ISHAR's director of research perform? Are there any other members of ISHAR or the ISHARteam that have been involved with MUM or TM? or the Institute of Noetic Sciences? Or the Chopra Center? Just curious. You say ISHAR is entirely neutral and without bias. It is "like a library". But you also say it will have "research and discussion around integrative medicine and consciousness" including "notable subjects, events"

So it is not like a library? You say: "ISHAR is a pro active repository" "ISHAR’s researchers are all Wikipedians and are responsible for improving the encyclopedia" "Our responsibilities will be representing this archived knowledge on Wikipedia" So ISHAR is like a Trojan Horse? You're going to set up an online pseudoscience compendium that you hope to actively use as a source for co-ordinating proactive ISHAR "researchers" slash "Wikipedians" to "correct" Wikipedia? Sounds like a plan.Ptarmigander (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ptarmigander Like I said, if you have any questions about ISHAR, please ask on my talk page - this isn't the place for discussing it. SAS81 (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ptarmigander, the AIDS thing was an issue that was covered extensively in the past, and regarded the fact that a section of Quantum Healing was quoted by an author that made it seem that Chopra did not accept the medical definition of HIV/AIDS, and when I tried to include a proviso (backed by a quote from QH) that Chopra had actually mentioned specifically that he endorsed the medical definition of AIDS, it was rejected due to claims that Quantum Healing was not a RS for what's in Quantum Healing, despite WP:PSTS and WP:BLP indicating the material was acceptable, even ideal. It was a detailed and lengthy debate that was certainly not so clear cut as it appears above, and I really hope it doesn't make a comeback here. I don't need that headache all over again... The Cap'n (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ptarmigander: User:SAS81 is simply a Chopra employee. He said "I am an employee of Dr. Deepak Chopra and represent his direct interests". All this stuff about being an independent librarian/researcher/whatever is just so much smoke screen. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@SAS81, I am not coming to your page. This conversation is not just between you and me. You have not minded repeatedly telling everyone about ISHAR on your terms, about how objective unbiased and "at the service of Wikipedia" ISHAR is. And, if we are to believe your employer, Dr. Chopra, this whole situation is about "The Future of Wikipedia" So why de-link the conversation? Why don't you- SAS81, simply admit you are avoiding the questions and are trying to end run an open, publicly aired discussion when it does not suit your goals? If we want to "get it right", for everyone's sake, honesty and openness and not hiding things, are surely going to be the way.Ptarmigander (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

An honest response allows things to quickly get to the next step. Informing growing knowing.

That being said I am happy that the issue of Deepak Chopra vs. Wikipedia is merged for now. It looked terrible before imo. I am not too enamored by the Jerry Coyne quote with it's button words like "lucrative brand of woo" and "Psychobable". I just think that paints a not very flattering picture of Jerry Coyne and the stereotyped skeptical position. It's tone actually semi-validates Chopra's stated opinion about Wikipedia. That editors here are "bigots" and "cynical angry people who have an agenda" From a mainstream science position I do not think there is an equivalency between Chopra's view and Coyne's. I don't think they should be set so they appear to be equal sides of a valid debate. <The result, he wrote, was that the encyclopedia's readers were denied the opportunity to read of attempts to "expand science beyond its conventional boundaries". Biologist Jerry Coyne responded claiming that at Wikipedia, Chopra's "own lucrative brand of woo is finally exposed as a lot of scientifically-sounding psychobabble"> I think Jerry Coyne's juxtaposed comment is dragged lower than Chopra's by it's tone. And I am wondering since Wikipedia is often the best source for up to date more recent information about it's topics, shouldn't there be some mention of 2014 events regarding Dr. Chopra vs. Wikipedia? There is the hiring of the paid COI. More article(s) concerning it. More video. The founding and funding of ISHARonline - looking forward to the Wikipedia page for ISHAR -then we will know what it is.. or will we? Ptarmigander (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Worried well

What does the sentence "Instead he offers an alternative form of medical hegemony, focusing on the individual, often wealthy, worried well" at the end of "Reception" mean..? I suppose "worried well" is a garbled version of something in the source, but I can't view Jstor. Bishonen | talk 12:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC).

I believe "well" there is used as a synonym for "healthy" - "focuses on wealthy, paranoid, healthy people," would be how I read it. Hipocrite (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You think so, Hipocrite lecteur, mon semblable, mon frère? You don't often see "the well" as a generic plural, and it's a very poor sentence even so. It starts from "the individual" (which is bound to be read as a singular noun at first) and then goes to the generic plural "the well" — or alternatively, the reader should at that moment backtrack and read "individual" as another adjective to go with "the well", in tandem with "worried". I have difficulty accepting the notion of "the individual, worried well". I can't believe it was like that in the source. Could somebody with access check, please, and improve the sentence? Bishonen | talk 13:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC).

I agree it's a shitty sentence. I don't have Jstor here. Hipocrite (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a phrase which has a certain currency, but if it's too obscure we should reword: "affluent people who aren't ill but consume healthcare as a lifestyle choice" ... something like that? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Baer's original has this (As I see it, Baer is actually quite "alternative" - he sees "holistic health" as offering a hope for a reform of over-medicalized society, but is disappointed that Weil and Chopra - in his view - are merely mirroring the faults of mainstream medicine but with altmed products).

As we see in my critique of the two leading proponents of the holistic health/ New Age movements, for the most part these movements in their present form have not lived up to such hopes. Instead [...] their focus is largely on the individual rather than on society and its institutions. In emphasizing individual responsibility for health, wellness, and spirituality, Weil and Chopra provide an alternative form of medical hegemony by reinforcing individualizing patterns in U.S. society [...]. Whereas the "worried well" found in the upper and upper-middle classes indeed often can offer afford to partake in the various commodities and services that Weil and Chopra promote, it is doubtful whether their advice on health and well-being has much meaning for many working-class people ...

Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Though the term is one coined by Baer, it is indicative of a well-known phenomenon in the study of contemporary medical anthropology and medical sociology. The point is that otherwise ostensibly healthy individuals seek to treat chronic or subtle maladies (some very real, some contested) by purchasing products and services that, while not sanctioned by mainstream medicine, use the same somewhat problematic marketing, advertising, and consumerist techniques of mainstream medicine. Such holistic health is a business and a successful one at that -- catering to a set of beliefs and concerns held mostly by those who can afford to have them -- and not always without negative results such as anti-vaccination crazes or the alternative cancer therapies taken by the Steves McQueen and Jobs. jps (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

In any case the article shouldn't use a phrase in a deadpan way in a confusing sentence, when even the source has it in scare quotes. Good fix, Alex. Bishonen | talk 15:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC).