Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Proposed new lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Result: No. It is clear that consensus is against the proposed text. It was felt to place too much emphasis on criticism of the subject, and some editors also felt that the proposal was made prematurely, at a time when other discussions regarding the lead were ongoing.

Our current lead would appear to be a whitewashing at best and a gross distortion of the reality at worst. May I suggest the following rearrangement?

Deepak Chopra (/ˈdiːpɑːk ˈtʃoʊprə/) (born October 22, 1947) is an Indian-American author, public speaker and licensed physician. Criticized for claiming that his practices can extend the human lifespan and treat chronic disease, he relies on the placebo effect, misuses terms and ideas from quantum physics (quantum mysticism), and provides people with false hope that may obscure the possibility of effective medical treatment.

A prominent alternative-medicine advocate and author of several dozen books and videos, he has been described as a New-Age guru and is one of the best-known and wealthiest figures in the holistic-health movement.

Chopra obtained his medical degree in India before emigrating in 1970 to the United States, where he specialized in endocrinology and became Chief of Staff at the New England Memorial Hospital (NEMH). In the 1980s he began practicing transcendental meditation (TM) and in 1985 resigned his position at NEMH to establish the Maharishi Ayurveda Health Center. Chopra left the TM movement in 1994 and founded the Chopra Center for Wellbeing, now located in Carlsbad, California.

Combining principles from Ayurveda (Hindu traditional medicine) and mainstream medicine, Chopra's approach to health incorporates ideas about the mind-body relationship, teleology in nature and the primacy of consciousness over matter – that "consciousness creates reality."

• Good start, I'd say. I think some parts of the second paragraph need tighter wording and stronger sourcing. jps (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@kww, the current lede has undergone many, many discussions and is the result of hard-won consensus. I understand your concerns with whitewashing, but please be sure to get consensus on the Talk before moving forward with these changes.

For myself, I have serious BLP reservations about portraying statements of criticism as statements of fact (that his work relies solely on the placebo effect, that his work intrinsically offers "false hope", etc), as well as the placement of critiques about a smattering of his positions above broad biographical details (something that's been discussed at length here). Rather than completely rewriting a carefully wrought and negotiated lede, please let us know which specific sections you feel distort reality and we can work from there. The Cap'n (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, Askahrc, the reason is that the critiques are statements of fact. No reliable source about quantum mechanics indicates that Chopra's statements are reasonable. No medical sources provide evidence of any curative effects of his treatments, that they are effective treatments of disease, or that they extend lifespans. No reliable source indicates that any hope that he provides people is anything but false. I did not "completely rewrite" the lead, I simply took out a few wishy-washy qualifiers and rearranged it in order of importance.—Kww(talk) 19:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

By what standards are you determining order of importance? 198.228.211.70 (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposals like this makes cartoons like this seem not so outlandish: Wikipedia these days... Why oh why do you want the second sentence of the first paragraph to be the debunker's POV? Yes, Chopra's critical reception is notable, but not opening-paragraph notable. If you don't consider yourself a militant skeptic - a cynic really - then don't give this ridiculous proposal any consideration. 198.228.216.21 (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The second sentence is out of place without context. --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The part "has been described" should be removed from the lede. We state statements of criticism as statements of fact unless there is a serious dispute. I support getting the lede back on track. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kww, how do you quantify as fact "giving false hope," or "relying on placebo effect?" These are statements of opinion, which may be well represented, but are not objective facts. The placebo effect has been claimed as a large part of Chopra's results, but there are also plenty of medical journals who have endorsed some benefits from meditation and yoga, the two main treatments Chopra offers (again, discussed extensively in the jungle of text above). That doesn't that we should claim his treatments are medically endorsed, but it also doesn't mean we can say there's it's a fact that he relies solely on placebo effect (and for what? at the Chopra Center, or in his proposed ideas, or in his private practice?). As for "false hope," I trust I don't have to get into how that's not a qualified fact. The portions that are supported by factual concerns (quantum terminology, etc) are certainly not more well-known issues than his ideology, spirituality, medical background and the other highly significant (and RS represented) aspects of his BLP. Finally, the criticisms about Chopra have always been present in the lede, and their position is representative of their relevancy to a BLP: Name, Significance, Background, Positions, Reception.

Long story short, less than 10 days ago we had an RfC on this exact issue of emphasizing criticism at the top of the lede, and it was rejected. Please see the arguments there so we don't rehash the whole issue, then let us know if you have concerns that were not addressed there.

@QuackGuru, I agree with getting things on track, but the "has been described" was part of a consensus discussed above and accepted by both sides of the argument to keep the term present but qualified. That qualification was necessary due to Chopra's repeated denial of the term "guru," which according to BLP policy meant we could not apply the descriptor as a statement of fact. The Cap'n (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

According to what in BLP policy says we cannot not apply the descriptor as a statement of fact? Chopra's opinion of the term "guru" is irrelevant to this discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose proposal. The current lede is very neutrally phrased and fair. Placing criticism in the second sentence of a BLP is a violation of that policy and we all should know better than that. Cla68 (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think WP:BLP says anything of the kind... Zambelo; talk 01:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• premature - while the RfC above about what content to include and where in the lead is still open having a second discussion about what to include is just going to cause confusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This proposed wording would be an extraordinary violation of encyclopediality, and would ride roughshod on the letter and spirit of BLP. Rumiton (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Note: The third paragraph from the proposal above is the second from the article without changes ("Chopra obtained his..."). --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose With respect to Kww, the proposed lede is less encyclopedic, less neutral and dismisses many hours of work in coming to a consensus for the previous version. (@QuackGuru, the BLP section that says so is in WP:WELLKNOWN, which states that if a subject rejects a descriptor that is widely used, the descriptor can be used with the proviso that the subject's rejection of it is clear. Also, "New Age Guru" is not an objective, quantifiable fact, just one term among others that people have used. This was discussed in the Guru section above at length) The Cap'n (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• The "New Age Guru" language is unchanged from the current lead, where it is currently the second sentence. As for "consensus", that consensus would seem to include representatives of Deepak Chopra himself and editors that have long plagued the encyclopedia by attempting to include undue praise about transcendental meditation into articles. Discount them and the consensus would seem to go the other way.—Kww(talk) 21:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Please consider that your critical point of view on the subject and your belief that Wikipedia articles should primarily be written from the debunkers' POV may also be problematic here. 198.228.211.70 (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Premature and Oppose per WP:LEAD and specifically per MOS:BEGIN; whereas the first paragraph should be reserved for an NPOV description of the subject without being overly specific. SueDonem (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Please don't misuse WP:NPOV in that way. The second sentence is NPOV, in that it discards all points of view excluded by WP:FRINGE. Chopra's assertions are "proposals which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus" and, as such, "may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification."—Kww(talk) 23:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response, Kww. Per MOS:BEGIN: The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. It is my opinion that the proposed first paragraph doesn't adhere to this. It is specifically written from a critical (not neutral) POV; it exclusively presents criticism - in effect defining the topic (Chopra) by his criticism. Someone could just as well write the first paragraph solely focusing on Chopra's education because they feel that defines who Chopra is. Or just about his vast authorship. Or his business acumen. Rather than focusing on just criticism, or education, or authorship, or business acumen or anything else, I believe that the current lead paragraph give a neutral and non-specific "definition" of who Chopra is – which is more precisely what MOS:BEGIN warrants. SueDonem (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Again, you distort NPOV to mean things it does not. My proposed lead does not focus on "criticism", it focuses on a factual description of what he is notable for espousing.—Kww(talk) 01:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps getting rid of the "criticized" phrasing in favor of "Known for claiming that his practices can extend the human lifespan and treat chronic disease, he relies on the placebo effect, misuses terms and ideas from quantum physics (quantum mysticism), and provides people with false hope that may obscure the possibility of effective medical treatment." would eliminate any source of confusion. It is, after all, those false claims that are the foundation of his authorship, his business, and his fame.—Kww(talk) 01:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Your passion for this topic is infectious. With RFCs I am prone to give my two-cents and move along. But your points keep bringing me uncharacteristically back. And reading your last two posts truly demonstrates that you are a reasonable person. At first you wrote that your proposed lead does not focus on "criticism". And then - perhaps after re-reading your proposal and reflecting on MOS:BEGIN - you saw that the proposed opening paragraph very much does focus on criticism. I think your proposed lead still has a long way to go before I would give it my blessing, but it is nice to see that you're not inflexible. Your staunch defense followed by open-mindedness reminds me a lot of a personal hero - Ralph Waldo Emerson - who opined: Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. SueDonem (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - Coming in from seeing the RFC notice a bit back.. It seems that the current article (particularly the body) is too extremely whitewashed of issues regarding Chopra, but your proposed lead is a bit too extreme in the criticism of Chopra. For instance, outright saying he is someone who, in fact, he "relies on the placebo effect, misuses terms and ideas from quantum physics (quantum mysticism), and provides people with false hope that may obscure the possibility of effective medical treatment.[1]" as one of the first, most important facts about him is misleading and seems charged.. as if everyone agrees that is exactly who Deepak Chopra is and that is the consensus. Why not have a middle-way approach instead of going all out like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasangika37 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kww, the consensus on the lede was not made up of TM believers, it was made up of a smattering of different editors with different motives, including people who had WP:FRINGE concerns like you, respected and impartial editors like SlimVirgin, people who had BLP concerns like myself and many others. I don't know the full background of all the editors involved in the lede consensus, but it seems the majority had little or no connection to TM. It was not a slapdash or one-sided discussion. The Cap'n (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

What would make you think that SlimVirgin isn't known for editing articles in a fashion that made them more favorable to New Age, TM, and similar positions?—Kww(talk) 19:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

In short, this. My own experiences with her reinforce that summary. The Cap'n (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Kww, I find it reprehensible your assumption a people's editorial motivations and therefore willingness to discount their opinions. 198.228.211.70 (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll agree to the extent that she tends to edit against people with COI problems. For TM, New Age, and miscellaneous woowoo topics, I'll disagree. I didn't state that there was nobody involved in the discussion that thought the article was too harsh for reasons divorced from a generalized support of these things, simply that when one discounted the editors that do edit in favor of TM and New Age topics, the balance is not in favor of the current lead.—Kww(talk) 20:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

And if we applied the same standards to discount the editors who edit in disfavor of TM and New Age topics, the balance would likely shift back the other way. Or hey, I got an idea, let's instead respect everyone's opinions ... especially when their worldview doesn't align with our own. How's that for a plan, Kww? 198.228.211.70 (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Contributions/198.228.211.70's last statement wholeheartedly, let's assume good faith and respect each other's opinions. We can't try to determine what consensus would be based on the hypothetical that we can discount everyone whose opinions are based on reasons we don't like. Therefore we weigh arguments and sources equally, fairly and civilly, particularly when leading to a consensus. That's been going on here for some time, and I for one am very pleased with how open (if not efficient) the discussion on the Talk Page has been. The Cap'n (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The reason we have WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE is precisely so that we can discount the opinions of editors that attempt to promote them. It's a part of weighing arguments. Reliable sources clearly state that Chopra's writings and statements are false. Any effort to portray that as simply being criticism of a legitimate point of view is not called for by WP:NPOV, and, despite the protestations of our anonymous friend, promotion of false views has no place whatsoever in an encyclopedia.—Kww(talk) 02:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation of WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE is perversely incorrect. Neither of those policies have anything to do with discounting opinions of our fellow editors. No one here in this RFC is attempting to balance the opinions of the scientific community with pseudoscientific or fringe theories. We are simply discussing the proper order to display content in the lead. The is not about the balance of scientific opinion vs. pseudoscientific opinion. This is about balancing scientific opinion with non-scientific biographic information such as Chopra's fame, his life story, his schooling and career, his books, etc. You, Kww, are POV-pushing for scientific criticism to take precedence over everything else. The majority of editors disagree with you. Accept it and move on. Your argumentation is getting tendentious and your language is getting personally inflammatory. Need I remind you that this article is covered by ANI sanctions? 198.228.208.204 (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank goodness that as a matter of principle we have to present wiki articles from a mainstream point of view then, otherwise the fringe pushers here would have a field day. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course I 100% agree with that statement, Roxy; except applied right here right now it is an obvious Strawman argument. 198.228.208.204 (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. The lead, as formulated, emphasises Chopra's accomplishments and would make it appear that there is some kind of disagreement as to whether his views have merit. There are places where we need to be careful about neutrality: we don't have any reliable sources as to whether Chopra genuinely believes his own statements, which means that any characterization of him as either a fraud or delusional is matter of opinion and needs to be couched as such. This article attempts to obfuscate the fact that there is no third choice.—Kww(talk) 15:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

make it appear that there is some kind of disagreement as to whether his views have merit. That is pure militant skeptic paranoia. The current lead is quite clear about the scientific reception of Chopra's ideas. The issue is that you want to make this the primary focus of the lead and the biography in general. That is pure militant skepticism. Once again, the is not RationalWiki. This is a biography which must be written from a neutral POV representing verifiable information in proportion to how they appear in the sum total of reliable sources. 198.228.208.204 (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Where pray tell are these reliable sources that say that his ideas have any merit? There are certainly none that show there is any actual evidence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

where pray tell am I asserting there are reliable sources which say his ideas have scientific validity? Please read what this discussion is about and stop arguing with a Strawman. 198.228.208.168 (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that you are attempting to talk around the "scientific validity" . The NPOV presentation of " representing verifiable information in proportion to how they appear in the sum total of reliable sources" is that the reliable sources frame Chopra as making wild unsupported claims about which he has zero scientifically valid evidence. To present him in any other way is to completely fail NPOV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

You still are arguing with a Strawman. I am not suggesting that we present Chopra's ideas as scientifically valid. Please re-read, comprehend, and then see if you disagree still. 166.137.216.178 (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Reordering aside, the current lead contains the text "He claims that his practices can extend the human lifespan and treat chronic disease, a position criticized by scientists, who say his treatments rely on the placebo effect", which is the core of my objection. It paints the issue as a "he says, others say" situation as opposed to "his claims are false". I could come to live with the order of the lead if it didn't misdescribe the situation that way.—Kww(talk) 23:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Propose a revision to just that then. 198.228.209.181 (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The suggested wording is not appropriate because it portrays as facts the various criticisms that have been leveled against Chopra. These criticisms are valid but they do not rise to the level of established fact. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• They most certainly do. Chopra's statements come under the umbrella of WP:FRINGE:"Proposals which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification." The notion that the criticisms do not rise to the level of established fact is exactly the false impression that this article creates in its current form.—Kww(talk) 23:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

So then, you are arguing that the mind-body connection is fringe? According to the FDA:

NCCAM describes mind-body medicine as focusing on "the interactions among the brain, mind, body, and behavior, and the powerful ways in which emotional, mental, social, spiritual, and behavioral factors can directly affect health."13 It states that mind-body medicine "typically focuses on intervention strategies that are thought to promote health, such as relaxation, hypnosis, visual imagery, meditation, yoga, biofeedback, tai chi, qi gong, cognitive-behavioral therapies, group support, autogenic training, and spirituality."' Gandydancer (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Not everything on that list is fringe, no. You aren't seriously trying to say that because relaxing can be therapeutic, quantum healing must have some merit, are you?—Kww(talk) 00:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) you have not provided a source that says you can hum away your AIDS virus or yoga yourself to 130 years old or rid yourself of cancer by thinking that you dont have cancer. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Kww, if I agreed with your version here then I would have said so. I think the suggested text is a blunt instrument for bludgeoning the reader against any sympathy with Chopra. I believe that we can put together a more nuanced lead section than that! Regarding supposed facts, the bit about Chopra giving people "false hope" has never been a proven fact, with studies made to prove or disprove the accusation. Rather, it is a personal observation of Robert Todd Carroll. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• I could live without that bit. Perhaps simply "he misuses terms and ideas from quantum physics (quantum mysticism) to support claims that his practices can extend the human lifespan and treat chronic disease, while the treatments themselves yield results indistinguishable from the placebo effect" would hew more closely to known facts? As for generating sympathy for Chopra, why would that be one of the criteria you use to judge a lead?—Kww(talk) 02:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• The amount of sympathy generated should never be a criterion, but there is something unedifying about the situation when editors are seen as going hard to ignore positives and focus on scorn and derision. Rumiton (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. The wording of the article should be made more neutral according to WP:BLP policy, not less. As SlimVirgin said, there is an attempt in this article to put wikipedia guidelines and essays above the BLP policy. --Calypsomusic (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

NPOV says that we follow the reliable sources. do you have a stack of reliable sources sitting there that have not been presented that show mainstream academics praising Chopras claims? Otherwise making the article more compliant with BLP means following NPOV more closely and bringing the mainstream academic critique to the fore and not whitewashing it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that reasoning is that it assumes BLPs are primarily for discussing what other people's opinions about a person are. BLPs are for objectively and neutrally describing a person's life, and while Reception is an important part of that, it is not the overriding concern. The BLP should reflect what the subject is most notable and known for. The real question is whether we have a stack of reliable sources that show Chopra's notability is primarily the result of the scientific controversy of his medical positions? My experience has been that he's primarily notable for being a spiritual speaker, self-help author and celebrity holistic figure. The conflict with scientists over his medical/spiritual/quantum claims are certainly notable and deserve to be mentioned prominently on the article, but they are not what the mainstream public finds notable about Chopra. If someone's got sources showing otherwise, I'm open to changing my mind, but the vast majority of the sources I see about Chopra are about his holistic message, celebrity or some book he's written. The Cap'n (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Werent you one of the people who was vociferously arguing against "guru"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• And the problem with that reasoning is that it counts sources instead of weighting them. Sources that accept his "holistic message" are negligible in weight compared to reasoned demonstrations that his message is false.—Kww(talk) 23:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Move criticism up lede?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Result: No consensus.

10 editors supported the proposal and 11 opposed it. In addition, 1 voted "mostly oppose" (although I read their comment as effectively an oppose vote) and 1 voted "oppose at this point", which they described as not being a vote "on the actual RfC" (it was a vote on the basis that there should not be an RfC on something that had not previously been discussed).

WP:BLP is relevant to the discussion, but I don't think it slants the playing-field either way - under the policy, the article should be neither unduly favourable toward nor unduly critical of the subject.

The main argument in support of the proposal was that the lead should properly reflect that the subject is a controversial figure. Moreover, it was argued that this is reflected in the body of the article, which the lead should summarize (conversely, is was argued that there is plenty of criticism in the body, so it would be redundant for this also to be reflected in the lead). This is a sound argument, because it reflects what we might do if we were following WP:MOS. However, we are not obliged to do that, and it seems that some editors do not wish to in this instance. It was also claimed that there has been WP:COI editing of the article by the subjects followers and one of his employees. No comment on whether this is accurate, but it is not clear to me that the proposal made in this RfC automatically suggests itself as the appropriate remedy. It is also not clear what level of support this view has among the editors who participated in the RfC.

In opposition to the proposal, it was suggested that the current lead strikes the right balance. This is a matter for subjective judgement, so it is not possible to dismiss the argument. Several editors were of the view that the lead should have both more criticism and more praise of the subject, but were opposed to just giving more prominence to criticism. This seems valid to me, but it doesn't represent the majority view of participating editors.

An argument was made that the RfC was premature because there had been no prior discussion of the question (although, in fact, there had been a brief prior discussion in the section preceding the RfC). This is a valid point to make in an RfC, but I do not think it has overriding weight. It was also argued that it was WP:UNDUE to mention the subject's status as a doctor before his status as an alt-med advocate, since he is better known as the latter. This is arguably true, but not what this RfC was about.

Overall, I felt that the supports had the edge, but not by a decisive margin. Given that the vote was numerically close, I think a "no consensus" close is appropriate. Note that this does not constitute an endorsement of the current version of the article or the version in place at the outset of the RfC, but it does mean that the proposal made in the RfC should not be realised at this time.

Should we move criticism of Dr Chopra up the lede? Right now it's in the second half of the final para. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as proposer, per argument above. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reopening "Lead again"

Most of the !votes were Oppose as premature. There are no other discussions in place, now.

Proposal 1. Swap paragraphs 2 and 3 of the lead. He's known for alternative medicine and the controversy around it. Even if his background should be in the lead, it is the least important.

Proposal 2. Do something with the first sentence of what he says he does. (It's not mentioned in the body, and it is sourced to his book.) I added the caveat "according to Chopra", per WP:BLP (controversial positive statements about a living person need a reliable source, also.) Perhaps 3 sentences: His own view, criticism, and a neutral view (if there are any), in that order.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Since you have two proposals here, would you mind breaking this up into two sections so we can comment and !vote on each? Also please write out the specific changes you are proposing - rather than describing them - to help us with our consideration? Thank you! SueDonem (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, I echo the request for a clarification, in particular your statement “do ‘’something’’ with the first sentence of ‘’what he says’’ he does.” As one of the editors who !voted ‘’’Oppose’’ for reasons other than just premature, I’m curious to see exactly what you’re proposing and how you’re justifying it. I still have concerns about WP:LEAD, WP:BLP and NPOV (especially with the commonly-stated-but-unsupported-by-references assumption that Chopra is only or overwhelmingly known for controversy) but I’m open to negotiation. I have no problem acknowledging the fact that many find Chopra controversial, though I don’t see evidence that controversy is such a defining characteristic that it should dominate a BLP lede.

Consider other prominent people like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama or Karl Rove, there are probably at least as many criticisms and controversies about them as praise, but their BLP ledes are not dominated by that focus. The lede section should not give preference to criticisms, a BLP lede needs to establish who the subject is, then explore their contributions, ideas and criticisms. As long as we can establish this with Chopra in a respectable encyclopedic manner, I'm fine, but I'd like to see exactly what your suggesting first. As far as reopening a closed RfC, I tend to think if it's not broken don't fix it. The lede is respectable and acceptable now, and I am not sure the changes you're proposing will actually make it a better article. The Cap'n (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 1 is different than the previous proposals to emphasize the negative. It is emphasizing what he is known for (his alt-med views, and support (if we had some; we probably should) and criticism, not his background.

Proposal 2 is not ready for a vote. Something needs to be done, as we have no source for his views other than his own statements. (I forgot what I was going to say....) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

!Voting on proposal 1

• Support, for the reasons mentioned above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support, I think Arthur Rubin makes a solid case that noted attributes deserve precedence over biographical info, and I appreciate both his acknowledgement of the inclusion of those BLP facts and a balanced approach to reception, as opposed to a focus on "criticism." Good form, sir. The Cap'n (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. As I've pointed out before, the current second paragraph ("Chopra obtained his medical degree ...") is unlike the others in that it does not summarize the article. It might be better just to remove it completely. --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I lean toward keeping it as is as it follows the order of the article: Biography, then Ideas and Reception. That the order of the lead and the body matches is satisfying to me. And the shortened biography which we have included in the lead is very much focused on the career in medicine for which he is famous. I feel that he is best known for this career in medicine (wellness, spirituality, meditation, consciousness mumbo-jumbo, et cetera) and for his career in the business of these subjects. The criticism which surround the beliefs he espouses and sells are surely part of his fame, but that is not what he is best known for. I acknowledge that for those of us who spend our days in the annals of skepticism that it may appear that Chopra is best known for controversy, but that's not how it is in the world outside. I understand the desire to call a duck a duck and to get to that name-calling as soon as possible, but we must remember that this is not an article about science/medicine... this is BLP. SueDonem (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  "His career in medicine" from what I see of the sources isn't notable until he he started his own center, or perhaps while at Ayurveda Health Center. Either way, I see no justification for the rest of the paragraph. --Ronz (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  I disagree with your assessment, but are we going to have this discussion here in !voting? SueDonem (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  Can you provide any sources to back your viewpoint or not? --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  I am not sure which part you mean. Can you please provide sources to back your viewpoint first so I can see what you are asking for from me? Thank you. SueDonem (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  If you're not interested in backing your perspective, then why bother giving it. This isn't a vote, nor is it just a compilation of personal opinions. We're trying to improve this article, which means we follow relevant policies and write from sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  I am puzzled by your response here as I remain puzzled by your prior request. Please provide sources to back your viewpoint first so I can better understand what you are asking for from me. Thank you. SueDonem (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  The current article and its sources support this viewpoint. Simply look at any reference. If it has any mention of his early medical background at all, it will be brief. In contrast, his involvement in alternative medicine is overwhelming. --Ronz (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  The biographical information amounts to over half of this article, and the vast majority of that is dedicated to his education and career. As such, the second paragraph of the lead as is stands well in proportion with the amount of biographical information contained within the article as a whole (if anything, the second paragraph is a bit short). That the second paragraph only focuses on his medical career and education is because - like you wrote - his involvement in medicine <-> alt med <-> spirituality is for what he is best known. This information is the second paragraph and not the third because of exactly that - it is what he is best known ... a prominent medical doctor who mixed his knowledge of Western medicine with TM and Ayurveda, and created a international movement, a worldwide brand and a business empire. The reception of his ideas - both positive and negative - are without a doubt part of his story, but certainly not bigger than his actual career. If you think the article features too much of his biography, then propose edits to the article first. The article dictates the lead, not the other way around. It is also the second paragraph and not the third because that is the order in which it appears in the article. If you think that should be flopped, then propose edits to the article first. Again, the article dictates the lead, not the other way around. That is my position. I am not asking you to agree with me, but please honor that the grounds on which I am basing my position exist and are solid. Just as I you. Thank you. SueDonem (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  I'd hoped you had some sources in mind, or knew of some.

  Yes, the article over-emphasizes his medical degree. It's been discussed at great length, and the article needs further work on the matter. No reason we can't start with the lede when we know there's a problem. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  I'd estimate that well over half of the sources presented in the article are dedicated to his biography. The book which we are using to verify his medical education and career - "Toward an Integrative Medicine: Merging Alternative Therapies with Biomedicine" - has a chapter concentrated on Chopra and Weil which affords 2 - 3 pages to Chopra's background and training. I also see this information highlighted, though not cited specifically to support his medical training, in sources used elsewhere throughout this article, including (but not limited to) an L.A. Times article, Boston Globe article, Map Magazine interview, NOVA article, Gallup bio, Times of India article, and the Goldman paper in CMAJ. So there is no problem in terms of us focusing too much on Chopra's life and training. It's possible to argue that we are focusing too little. I think the article currently dedicates approximately the correct balance to his life and medical training as is, and thus I am not advocating for any large changes to the article nor the lead (which is dictated by the rest of the article and not the other way around). I understand your position and I have now cited more than enough sources to support mine. If you wish to carry on this conversation, please feel free to do so outside of !voting; perhaps in the space which Arthur Rubin has provided. Thank you. SueDonem (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks for identifying sources. Unfortunately, they don't appear to give the greater weight to the information than what I described in my earlier description. --Ronz (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. , per SueDonem and Askahrc. BLP policy should be paramount here, but some users are trying to put wikipedia guidelines and essays above wikipedia policies. It is also pretty standard that criticism comes after the introduction and description. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Being critical of Chopra is not a BLP violation, and providing him with undeserved praise and lavish attention to the credentials that he uses to promote falsehoods is. Undue positive attention is as problematic as undue negative attention, and there is insufficient weight given to the negative material throughout the article.—Kww(talk) 00:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Where's the "undeserved praise and lavish attention"? We are simply and accurately summing up Chopra's career path. SueDonem (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support This is at least a move in the right direction. Insufficient, but better than giving the impression that he is still a medical professional before describing the reason he is actually notable.—Kww(talk) 00:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Chopra is still a medical professional. He is an endocrinologist affiliated with Scripps Memorial Hospital-La Jolla. SueDonem (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support as a minimum step in the right direction, so that Chopra is first placed in context of his fame and infamy, then described in the context of his (less important) background. Binksternet (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• support as a first step. there is ZERO BLP issues in highlighting what he is noted for rather than what he wants to be noted for ; and highlighting what he is noted for is what WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV tell us to do. and what he is noted for is not his early mainstream medical work its his wackado new age non medically based "health" claims -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Public speaking

From what I can tell, outside of the lead sentence, the only mention of public speaking is a brief mention of how much he makes per lecture. Should we have more on this, or should we remove it from the lead? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It would seem that the public speaking is a major portion of his notability and so if we have sources it should be expanded. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Indian sources

From what I understand, Chopra has a substantial following in India. Therefore, I would presume that there are more sources about his work published in India. If I understand correctly, many major Indian publishing companies do not distribute a great portion of their materials outside of India or South Asia. Could any of the editors here who reside, or have resided, in India confirm if this is true? Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Table Of Contents?

Every time I try to skip the cruft at the top of this page via the handy skip link up there, nothing happens, probably because Deepychops sabotaged the page to annoy me (For clarity, that was an innocent joke, not a personal attack on Dr. C.) I have no idea of how to fix this depressing issue. Could a maven help? Pretty please? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

try it again. i think you fixed it by adding a 4th section which forced the actual creation of a table of contents so the "jump to TOC " has a place to jump to. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hooray. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've added in code to force a TOC. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)

Again, hooray. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)