Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

popular forms of spirituality?

I could not verify the claim in the first sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. However, I think everything else in that sentence is verified. No doubt that Chopra advocates for some form of spirituality. What exactly that form of spirituality is (beyond New Age), we need sources to identify. jps (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

and leading[not in citation given] advocate for alternative medicine and New Age popular forms of spirituality.[4][5][6]

The part "leading" also FV. See Deepak_Chopra#Spirituality_and_religion for what form of spirituality. QuackGuru (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

According to our discussion above, "guru" means leader. jps (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

"Deepak Chopra, the controversial New Age guru and booster of alternative medicine,"[1]

The part "New Age guru" does not verify "leading[not in citation given] advocate for alternative medicine". QuackGuru (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

"Deepak Chopra (/ˈdiːpɑːk ˈtʃoʊprə/ Hindustani: [d̪iːpək tʃoːpraː]; born October 22, 1947) is an Indian American author, public speaker, alternative medicine advocate, and New Age leader.[4][5][6]" Current wording. QuackGuru (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hamsterlopithecus, I'm replying to your comment above here b/c it was relevant to the discussion in this thread and the one you had replied to is pretty dead. To make it easier for other people, I'll copy Hamsterlopithecus's comment that I'm referring to:

The first paragraph is, for the most part, good. Calling Chopra a "leader" is pretty inaccurate though, even if the sources call him that. It is obviously just a descriptor, it doesn't mean that it's a defining profession of his. The second paragraph (his bio) is not appropriate for the lede; it belongs in the Biography section (but it is pretty good). The third paragraph has no place in the lede; it is simply a summary of the kinds of things he says. Maybe a paragraph describing why others (possibly professionals in the field or philosophers or critics) understand of what Chopra says would be more relevant. Otherwise it's just WP:OR. The last paragraph is definitely necessary as he is almost as famous for being criticized as for everything else he does. My 2 cents.

I'm pretty sure that the word "leader" is being used in the sense of "guide" or "teacher," not that he's necessarily a leading expert. I do think it's accurate and defining that he acts as a New Age guide/leader. My understanding of MOS:LEAD is that the lead is supposed to be a summary of the main points from the body. IMHO, the current version of the lead does that quite well. On my list of things to do is to tighten up/simplify the wording in the Approach to health care section and afterwards to tweak the wording in that portion of the lead a little bit. (Specifically, I want to eliminate the word teleology from the lead once I understand what it means and and have a better sense of whether that concept is a vital part of Chopra's beliefs.) Other than that, IMHO, the lead is looking good. I'm a little sad to have out the "controversial New Age guru" NYT quote, mainly because I liked the way it flowed, and also because I thought it was a neutral way to acknowledge the controversy surrounding a BLP, but others didn't feel it was neutral, so c'est la vie. Do other people still have major complaints? PermStrump(talk) 16:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

One major compaint: I agree with Hamsterlopithecus that the second paragraph doesn't belong. However, some of the points in it belong in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

See "Deepak Chopra (/ˈdiːpɑːk ˈtʃoʊprə/ Hindustani: [d̪iːpək tʃoːpraː]; born October 22, 1947) is an Indian American author, public speaker, alternative medicine advocate, and New Age guru.[4][5][6]" It was changed to simply "New Age guru". The word leader was used to replace guru. If the "controversial New Age guru" is restored it should have another quote for balance otherwise I prefer to keep it the way it is now. See "He has been described by the New York Times as a "controversial New Age guru"[6] and by the Time magazine as "the poet-prophet of alternative medicine."[7]" What is the major problem with the second paragraph? QuackGuru (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ronz: Is it that you think the 2nd paragraph sounds too much like a resume and/or gives too much detail? I was happy with it earlier, but I just re-read it from that lens and now it does seem kind of wordy. At least one of the extraneous details was my fault, because I added a sentence about when he met Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. I did that because I felt like some context was needed in order for his major career change to make sense, but in retrospect..... In retrospect, I just don't even know anymore. I think I've bottomed out with semantic satiation. PermStrump(talk) 17:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Some context is needed about his early background in medicine and his being a licensed physician still. That's about it. Editors have repeatedly asserted about how important these points are to his marketing and success, and I agree despite the lack of sources so far identified supporting this. --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Well… I actually starting making a list of sources a few days ago, but then it seemed like the conversation moved on, so I didn't share it. It's still a work in progress, but see Talk:Deepak Chopra/Source dump#Physician. It looks to me like Chopra some-what flaunted his credentials as a doctor when he was involved with TM in the 80s/early 90s. Some sources say that was specifically the angle that the Maharishi was aiming for when he partnered up with Chopra. A couple of the sources mention that Chopra was already a millionaire with best-selling books and a substantial following just from his involvement with TM, before he was even on Oprah for the first time. One of the sources is the promo that aired before his first Oprah appearance. It's a shot of Chopra with a voiceover that says, “A doctor who says there's actually a way we can live past 100. Find out how.” After that appearance on Oprah in 1993, Chopra moved to California. It was at that point that he temporarily renounced his title as doctor (late-1993 to Jan 2004). Despite Chopra’s attempts to distance himself from his MD for ~9 years, you’ll see from the quotes that there were still plenty of sources regularly defining him as a doctor and lauding his medical credentials. Labash (1996) said, “…in recent years, he's pressed his publishers to remove the "Dr." from his book covers -- the very title from which he derives much of his authority.” In a source from 1997, a journalist interviewing him commented, "I heard Chopra speak in person once, for free, nearly four years ago. He was promoting "Ageless Body, Timeless Mind." Back then, he emphasized his medical credentials; the letters "M.D." were prominent on the book cover beside a photo of him holding a stethoscope… It turns out that "Ageless Body, Timeless Mind" rocketed him into a higher commercial orbit. It was his first New York Times bestseller. He no longer needs to speak for free to sell books and he no longer has a medical practice." After he obtained his license in California (Jan 2004), he started to publicly refer to himself as a physician again as well.

TL;DR: Chopra developed a significant fan-base during his TM days when he was playing the doctor-card heavy, which culminated with his appearance on Oprah where he was introduced to an enormous audience as a doctor first and an alternative medicine practitioner second. Others continued to define him as a doctor during his brief hiatus with the profession from 1993 to 2004, and he re-joined them in doing so from 2004 to present. PermStrump(talk) 19:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated. A lot of that seems like OR (identifying ourselves when and how he promoted his credentials).

As an aside, I've also been looking through and for references. What surprises me is that we've no solid, academic reference. I'd expect, and have been looking for, histories of alt-med and alt-med marketing, but have yet to find any. There are books and articles on these subjects, but online access is so limited that I cannot verify if any mention Chopra. --Ronz (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ronz, yes, that was definitely my OR. I didn't mean any of that should be in the article. I was just explaining my thought process as to how I came to the conclusion that the physician title is WP:DEFINING for Chopra. Re: your aside, I can access almost any journal through my work database, so if you want to let me know which citations you're referring to and what information you're looking for, I can paste some of the relevant bits here or on the subpage. What do you mean about academic references? I'm having a hard time imagining any rock-solid online sources that most people would have to verify their academic history. I don't think I could even get confirmation from my own alma mater without submitting written proof that I am who I say I am. PermStrump(talk) 05:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm discussing sources in general - the lack of high-quality sources written from a historical context.

I was hoping Nature Cures: The History of Alternative Medicine in America might mention him. The Politics of Healing: Histories of Alternative Medicine in Twentieth-Century North America may have something.

Others: [2], Ref 58 [3]

We should use ref 43 [4] more.

[5] isn't of the same quality, but looks useful. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Paywall sources

This conversation started in the thread directly above, but I'm starting a new section b/c we changed topics and I thought other people might be interested in this discussion too. See discussion between me and Ronz from 3/31 in the above thread for context.

Ronz, I found both articles and haven't looked for the books yet, but tbh, it'll be lucky if even one has an ebook available from the library. The google books preview might be the best we can do. Sometimes the Amazon preview has slightly different pages available FWIW. For now, I pasted some quotes from the Baer 2003 article on Talk:Deepak Chopra/Source dump#Relevant quotes from paywall articles. I want to trim it down a bit after you've had a chance to read it though b/c it's probably too much, so ping me when you're done (or let me know if you don't think it's too much and I'll leave it).

I'll post some stuff from the other article when I get a chance. In the meantime, the same author (Kaptchuk) also wrote this other piece that mentions Chopra and I think the full text is free to anyone (sometimes it's hard to tell b/c my work computer automatically logs me in to publishing company websites that we have a subscriptions to). It doesn't talk about Chopra a whole lot, but I liked the way he worded his explanation for why some treatments associated with CAM can be considered valid components of otherwise evidenced-based interventions without necessarily validating CAM's use of the same technique. ...The same holds true for various cognitive—behavioral therapies that use "passive nonvolitional intention," such as biofeedback, stress management, relaxation response, meditation, guided imagery, and hypnosis. When practitioners of these techniques make modest claims limited to small physiologic changes, the techniques are acceptable as subordinate components of conventional medicine. For example, biofeedback for fecal incontinence (78) or, more debatably, relaxation response for mild hypertension (79, 80) can seem legitimate or can at least achieve borderline acceptability, but both would be considered distinctly alternative if used to treat diabetes. That part might have actually been directly related to Chopra. I don't remember b/c I copied down the quote when I first read it. PermStrump(talk) 18:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

prominent figure in the New Age movement or leader in the New Age movement?

The source said "New Age guru".[6] QuackGuru (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Lots of sources say guru. But does it really matter? 'Leader', however, is odd. Makes him sound like a dictator, cult head, or something. Alexbrn (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

While he's most definitely a very prominent figure, I don't see how he "leads" in an manner other than through his writing, so calling him a "leader" seems misleading without very clear context. --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

A "guru" is a leader by definition. Exactly how that leadership happens can vary, I imagine. That said, I think Alebrn's rewriting is good. jps (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Guru is technically correct, the New Age movement doesn't have leaders as such, that would imply clear vision and a sense of purpose, whereas New Agers are mainly characterised by woolly thinking and rejection of rational argument. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • and that's an opinion pure.. and simplistic.... Sheesh. See the sources; some say leader some say guru, but let's leave opinion out of it. And what is a New Ager anyway. Its a journalistic vehicle/term for identifying people. Based on reality and the diverse aspect of people? No! Its a tag used by the press and some writers as a way of describing people, to label a perceived group. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC))
    • Guru would be fine if Chopra didn't explicitly reject the term, probably owing to his split with the Maharishi. There isn't enough space in the lede to get into all that, so it's best to just avoid the term which is clearly being used by the NYTimes to mean "prominent figure" anyway. jps (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
      • The current version of this ever-changing sentence reads, "Deepak Chopra is an Indian American author, public speaker, alternative medicine advocate, and a prominent figure in the New Age movement. I'm fine with that. I thought we were still having the guru/leader argument when I started this comment. FWIW, I was going to suggest a compromise based on Baer (2003)[7], something like "Deepak Chopra is an Indian American author, public speaker, and one of the leading disseminators of alternative medicine and New Age concepts." I like the current version better though, but I already had this typed out before I went back to copy the current version. PermStrump(talk) 19:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Baer (2003) said, "Most of Weil's and Chopra's views of health, disease, and healing are unique to them but are part and parcel of concepts widely promulgated within the context of the larger holistic health/New Age movements. These two health gurus have been the leading disseminators of these concepts in the United States." PermStrump(talk) 19:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't care one way or the other. This has been under discussion for a very long time and I don't see any advantage of adding my position here, now. Whatever is in the article though, must be sourced to a mainstream view, and discussion is easier it seems to me with out the added disadvantage of opinion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC))

@Littleolive oil: Yes, it's an opinion, but one founded on long study. Once you've looked into things like "What The Bleep", the crunchies and their anti-vaccination agenda, Mike Adams and his relentless torrent of bullshit and so on, you have to conclude that the thought leaders of the New Age movement are all either hopelessly confused or manipulative charlatans, with some being both and none, that I can find, fulfilling neither criterion. Please do restore my faith in human nature by showing me a leading New Age figure who applies rigorous thought processes and exclusively rational ideas.

To be clear, I am content with prominent figure, but guru is technically correct as he sets himself up as a quasi-mystic. Leader seems to me to be technically wrong for the reasons I stated: the New Age doesn't really do leaders, that is part of their schtick. Guy (Help!) 19:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. I don't care what your opinion is or how you arrived at it. It could as easily be a support of "New Agers" ... whatever that is, and I would feel concern about the comment just as much. I have no opinion of so called leaders within the artificial boundaries of some group. I do care that you use those opinions as basis for editing in changes in an article. Your opinion may be well founded in your own research; it still is not a basis for an article's content. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC))

All I am saying is that I reject the term "leader", for which we appear to have have no RS, on the basis that from my understanding of the term, the word leader would be inappropriate as it is not amenable to leadership in the patriarchal sense. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

If anyone wants to keep "a prominent figure in the New Age movement." then you will have to find a source to verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a fair paraphrase of guru, leader, and lots of other descriptive terms. We don't need a source to use the exact same wording (in fact we should avoid culling stuff from sources verbatim). Alexbrn (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

This is QuackGuru. Any edit not personally approved by him is original research, by definition. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Of the options being bandied here, the current "prominent figure" wording seems most faithful to the picture painted by our numerous sources; I don't think an OR or SYNTH argument against that usage holds water, and I agree that "leader" would constitute a WP:WEIGHT issue and a general mis-characterization of the man's notability. Chopra undoubtedly commands the attention of huge numbers of adherents to his brand of mystic practices, but the New Age movement is place-holder term/catch-all for a broad range of historical and evolving social movements, most of which have very little to do with one-another aside from some currents of rejection of conventional authorities and consensus science; more or less by definition, it has no overarching structure or leadership. I understand that, semantically, some of our sources may have used "leader" as a synonym for "person of considerable influence", but while that may become obvious in the context of that source's content, it would be highly problematic to try to shoe-horn that term into the entirely different context of an objective encyclopedic summary of the man's notability. And, in any event, that usage appears in only a small portion of the biographical pieces we are utilizing here. The current usage is neutral and reflective of the general impression to be gathered from our sources--or at least it is as close to ideal with regard to these considerations as any usage we are likely to have for this controversial individual. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Is the lead, among other parts of the article, reflective of the sources and a NPOV?

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.

---

There have been several suggestions made towards rewriting the lead (among other parts of the article) to more accurately portray the individual and to reflect a more NPOV as per WP:BLP. Among others, at issue is "An article in Time described the medical and scientific communities' opinion of him as ranging from dismissive to damning; criticism includes statements that his approach could lure sick people away from effective treatments." One argument is this does not accurately reflect the source and that any positive portions of the article have been rejected. The other is that the positive proposed edits are not supported, that the Time source is essential and the article is fine as it is. Do the sources support the changes? Is the lead balanced/representative of a NPOV? Relevant sections : Talk:Deepak_Chopra#Lead_Section and Talk:Deepak_Chopra#Lead_issues.2Frevisions. BlueStove (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment- As the OP, my concern is the stonewalling of changes/clarifications within the lead (and the rest of the article) of any non-critical changes. Even when the title of a source used within the article explicitly explores Chopra as a one of "Two Holistic Health/New Age Gurus" as it's topic, somehow Chopra cannot be linked to holistic health. Chopra is a controversial figure, a fact that is duly noted throughout this article. However, many of the sources used in this article mention other non-critical qualities/ventures/approaches of Chopra that are actively ignored. BlueStove (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

POV

• yes lede is reflective of the sources and a NPOV...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• no lede is not NPOV and sources should be changed. A) RS policy states popular press is NOT an RS for positions of the medical establishment. B) Tompkins citation misrepresents the source by a blatant logical fallacy. The ref states that Chopra has critics, most of whom are members of the medical or scientific fields v. the WP statement that most members of the medical/scientific fields are critics of Chopra. That's obviously a big difference. C) The POV issue results from reverts of nearly any source that isn't negative (history); i.e. the insistence that Tompkins critiques be included, but none of his positive analysis about Chopra. the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 01:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Response: A) I second QuackGuru that WP:MEDRS does not apply to the overall subject or to the statement in question. WP:MEDRS is specifically for biomedical information, not a blanket rule for “positions of the medical establishment.” B) & C) See my own response below. Permstrump (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, lede accurately reflects the sources. Chopra spins his advice as profound philosophy, medical advice and such. It's pretty clear that much of it is wacky and indistinguishable from new age word salad. That's not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, lede accurately reflects the sources, except there is no need to attribute "New Age Guru" as currently, it only needs to be stated in wiki voice. Other than that, and the constant pov pushing from true believers and employees, as a BLP it is OK. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, the lead section represents accurately the lack of respect that Chopra receives from the scientific community. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• May be undue As I mentioned [8], "Given the lede should summarize, I think it would be best to do so rather than provide info from the Time article that is so contentious that we feel it cannot be presented in Wikipedia's voice". We'd have a better article is we could agree upon wording for the lede that could be presented in Wikipedia's voice. --Ronz (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes and No. I think the weight given to controversies is fair and proportional, but the Times reference (“medical and scientific communities' opinion of him as rang[es] from dismissive to damning”) should be replaced with a better-worded quote that expresses a similar sentiment. This has been brought on the talkpage before as some editors felt it was cherrypicking. IMHO that's not the issue, but I agree with Ronz that it's not in Wikipedia's voice. There numerous sources that comment on how Chopra is perceived by the larger medical and scientific community, so I think it's possible for us to reach consensus about a different quote. I'll make a list of sources in the comment section.

I think Chopra’s medical credentials should be clarified, because the wording is awkward and some important information is omitted. He’s currently a licensed physician in the State of California (breeze.ca.gov) and board certified in internal medicine and endocrinology (ABIM). He's also still licensed in MA, but I don't know if that's essential for the lead. We don't necessarily need to specify a state, but we should include his current status as a licensed physician. Also, he’s affiliated with a lot medical schools in the US for his residencies, etc. I don’t think we should name all of them, but it seems like we should name more than just one foreign medical school. Permstrump (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

^{P.S. I realize my response here might make it seem like I was being disingenuous the other day when I said I didn't know anything about Chopra, so I want to clarify that since then, I've read a lot about him as I've been checking the sources in this article and looking for more. Permstrump (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)}

• No The actual statement for citation #11 in the lead is not in the document cited. In fact, this should be edited out as Chopra does not actually say this in the cited document. Hardly NPOV. Agree with Permastrump about cherrypicking and Wikipedia voice. Para 4 in the lead needs a bit of a rewrite to more NPOV. Whiteguru (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I said I didn't think cherrypicking was the issue. Permstrump (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• No the sentence in the lead does not accurately reflect the source and that any positive portions of the article have been rejected. Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC) — Orthopedicfootwear (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• No -- I do not see the current text as a neutral representation of the source or the BLP subject.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Weak no My main issue is with putting these statement in Wikipedia's voice: His treatments rely on the placebo effect. He misuses terms and ideas from quantum physics (quantum mysticism) and provides people with false hope which obscures the possibility of effective medical treatment. While likely all factual, the sources of these declarative statements should be attributed in the text so we know the "according to whom" of it all. Incidentally, this is done in the following sentence: A Time articled stated...). SueDonem (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

  Are you saying the material just needs to be clearly sourced, or that it shouldn't be in Wikipedia's voice? If the latter, I don't see how it would meet FRINGE and POV. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

  Both. I read the TIME article, for instance and see that the "false hope" citation reads: Chopra's extravagant claims for Ayurveda and other traditional healing techniques can, some have argued, create false hope in genuinely ill people and dissuade them from seeking medical care and guidance. I have bolded to point out that this statement is not declarative of fact but of an opinion of "some". In general, the references for the sentences in question are all commentary which don't appear to be representational enough to declaratively write a fact (in Wikipedia's voice). Therefore, we either need attribution for these sentences or better sources. SueDonem (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

  Looking much better now with the appropriate attributions and better sources. If it holds and stays in this direction, I would change my vote here to a Yes. SueDonem (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

  The text was a bit vague. I fixed it. QuackGuru (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

  User:SueDonem, User:Ronz has a concern with the lede. I can move the attribution to the body. The attribution will still remain in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

  Then my vote would remain No here. If attribution is needed (which it is) in the body, then it doesn't belong in the lede without attribution. I am beginning to question whether this bit doesn't belong in the lede at all if is verifiably just the opinion of one critic. SueDonem (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

  The RfC is not going to change anything because the RfC is asking a vague question and the text has changed since the RfC started. There could be a specific RfC to determine if the text in the lede requires attribution for that specific sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

  User:SueDonem, I thought about how to reword the text for a long time. See "His treatments benefit from the placebo response.[8]" The new wording is more neutral and does not need attribution. QuackGuru (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

  User:QuackGuru, I am not sure, but I do really appreciate your hard word on this. You've softened the statement for sure, but I don't know if that's what needs to be done here. Maybe, but I'm really not sure. What about adding something the effect of this to the sentence? "...a claim which Chopra does not necessarily deny."ref SueDonem (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

  That's a primary source. QuackGuru (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

  How about this one? SueDonem (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

  I added it to the body. QuackGuru (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

  Lovely, thank you, dear! SueDonem (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Absurd. BlueStove is replacing sourced text with OR. The entire 4th paragraph FV. I will fix the problems in the lede, but if I am reverted then there will be a serious problem. It should be noted that BlueStove started the RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL. I did start the RFC. I did make a revision and left a note on the talk page. You have since reverted my revision. I don't see what is absurd here.BlueStove (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You added the OR and I removed the OR. Now you restored the tag. Do you promise you will not restore the OR you added? QuackGuru (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes I have just read the lede, and it certainly does need editing, but not on the basis of NPOV or BLP. Cherry-picking? Dunno. I don't have time to dig out dirty details, so I am limiting these remarks to what I see in the text. Most of the most obviously questionable items are weaseling or pussyfooting. Consider eg: "...some physicists object to his use of quantum..." No halfway competent physicist would support the validity or defensibility of any of DC's quantum pronouncements, either factual or logical; to argue that quantum entanglement links everything in the Universe, and therefore it must create consciousness is factually completely wrong and would have been logically nonsensical even if the author had understood the nature of entanglement. Or: "...claims for the effectiveness of alternative medicine can, some have argued, lure sick people away from medical treatments." The lede is supposed to be a simple, clear, concise, factual introduction to the article, not indulgence of socially parasitic mumbo-jumbo. (And here I refer purely to what appears in the text, not to my personal, vague impression of DC's work.) Anyway, I reckon that much of the evaluative content of the lede belongs in the article body. JonRichfield (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• impossible to respond - the RfC is vaguely worded and there is no way to respond to this. Any sane closer is going to simply close this "no consensus" and it will have been a waste of time for the community and the closer. The RfC should be withdrawn and some specific, addressable question put forth. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Treatment of controversy in lead

There are parallel conversations in the main section and the comments about the specific sources cited and the quotes chosen to reflect the controversy. I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes by creating a new section for this. QuackGuru and SueDonem, I almost moved the conversation you guys were having in the comment section up here, but didn't want to edit your stuff. Do whatever works best for you though. I have more to say on this topic, but I'm about to go into a few meetings at work. I'll write more later though. Permstrump (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. The TL;DR of it is that the Gamel source used to verify the Placebo Effect statement in the last paragraph of the current lead is of questionable reliability because 1) It is from a self-published source 2) It is re-publication of an article published in The Antioch Review a literary magazine. SueDonem (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@SueDonem and QuackGuru: The full text of the Gamel essay in The Antioch Review is free on JSTOR. So it's verifiable in a non-selfpub, but like QuackGuru questioned, is it a reliable source for this claim: "[Chopra's] treatments rely on the placebo effect…” SueDonem said, “My gut says that as a literary review publication, it is not a reliable source for non-literary medical topics.” This topic is neither literary nor medical, so we just need to make sure it follows WP:BLPSOURCES, not WP:MEDRS standards. The author, John Gamel, has an MD (although his specialty is ophthalmology) and he’s a professor at University of Louisville Medical School, all of which can be verified on louisville.edu. On his personal website, Gamel describes himself as a writer, which I think explains why his writing style in that essay is somewhat unorthodox compared to a research journal. I don't see anything on BLPSOURCES about verifying the author's credentials anyway unless it's a questionable selfpub source, because otherwise we can defer to judgment of the presumably reputable publisher. This essay is basically equivalent to the opinion of journalist writing for a non-academic magazine.

I think the last checkboxes to verify that it's RS for this context is checking the reputation of the publication and the publishing company. The Antioch Review isn't peer-reviewed, but peer-review is only required for WP:biomedical information, which CAM is not, so that doesn't apply. They do have published editorial standards. I never heard of them, but according to google, they've published a substantial amount of material since the 50s or so and they're affiliated with Antioch College (which I'm not familiar with either). Apparently the college is a candidate for accreditation from the Higher Learning Commission. Nothing jumped out at me as a red flag in cursory google searches. TL;DR: Gamel's essay in The Antioch Review isn't the gold standard of RS, but it meets the minimum criteria for BLPSOURCES. We can always replace it with something better later, but I think we should leave it in for now since it’s referenced in 3 different places. Permstrump (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The claim that Chopra's "treatments rely on the placebo effect" is a medical claim and not biographical claim. After all, the claim is about Chopra's medical treatments not about who Chopra is. While I personally don't disagree with the claim, I do feel strongly that we need a more medically relevant source than the opinion of an ophthalmologist published in a literary magazine with text sourced from a personal website. SueDonem (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

SueDonem, is there a blanket rule that using the word placebo always constitutes WP:biomedical information? I can see both sides of a debate on that, but if there's an official guideline that I'm not familiar with that explicitly addresses the placebo effect, then obviously I'll drop it right away. It's not even that I think it's absolutely essential to use "placebo" in the lead (or anywhere in the article), but I just don't want to assume too quickly that MEDRS applies because I could see it coming up over and over again. Permstrump (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Also tagging Ronz because I just saw your comment about this below and I want to steer future debates about it to one place. Permstrump (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue is what quality and type of sources can we use to claim that the alt med treatments promoted by Chopra are placebo's at best. Given that all alt med treatments are placebo's at best, we don't need much here, just enough to avoid SYN. --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

That was the assumption I had been operating under, but I just posted a question about it at WP:MED#MEDRS required to support claim that something is placebo? to see if anyone can link me to some kind of precedent or something since there's some doubt. FYI to anyone interest. Permstrump (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

No, per FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a medical claim, it falls under MEDRS. This is a biographical article that falls under BLP. The Antioch Review isn't peer-reviewed and is a literary journal, hardly a quality source to such a claim. Also, its usage as a source throughout the article doesn't improve or qualify its validity.BlueStove (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

We disagree. The argument as I interpret it is that MEDRS sources are required when someone claims there are no medical effects (placebo) from treatments for which no evidence exists that they have any medical effects (alt med treatments).

If you are aware of any general consensus that support MEDRS applying to such situations, please note them. As I pointed out, this appears to be a simple FRINGE case. MEDRS sources, and extremely high-quality ones given the FRINGE nature of the subject matter, are required to make any claims of effectiveness. To say that they are not effective is just summarizing the nature of the FRINGE claims and does not require such sources and requires prominent treatment given WP:ARBPS: "Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work." --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Ronz, the following hard to understand sentence is not a summary of the body. "He misuses terms and ideas from quantum physics (quantum mysticism) and provides people with false hope which obscures the possibility of effective medical treatment.[14]" QuackGuru (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe. Have I ever commented on it? --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The source is only used in the lede. See Deepak_Chopra#cite_ref-14. You asked "Have I ever commented on it?" Not before. QuackGuru (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Rather than go back-and-forth about Wikipedia policy (an endless debate if history is our guide), why not spend the same amount of time searching for a better source - of which one certainly must exist to back such an obvious (my opinion) claim. I spent a few minutes on Google this morning and found a video of Chopra himself discussing the placebo effect's importance to mind-body... integrative... err... whatever it is he does. From his perspective, the placebo effect is valuable and he believes can be harnessed to self-heal. Does this video verify the claim we are discussing? No fully. But it shows that Chopra doesn't view the placebo effect as a pejorative. SueDonem (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I can understand the necessity of parsing any of Chopra's medical claims through MEDRS, that's an appropriate application of policy, but claiming WP:FRINGE allows double standards for critical content is inaccurate. WP:MEDRS takes precedence over WP:FRINGE here, since the former is purely science driven and the latter has an element of opinion (what counts as FRINGE?), and WP:BLP mandates the top priority of a BLP is to be objective and avoid contentiousness. That can only be accomplished through holding to the most objective and incontrovertible standards. If we apply MEDRS to Chopra's medical positions, we have to apply them to his medical critiques. the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 19:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as WP:FRINGE goes, it is an oversimplification to claim all of Chopra's positions are so obviously WP:FRINGE that they can be dismissed by the layperson. Ayurveda alone has dozens of MEDRS-compliant medical reviews showing degrees of efficacy and warrants for further research (I don't expect to be taken at my word, here are a few reviews, with many more available): 1, 2, 3, 4). No one is arguing the page should be a promo for ayurveda or other CAM approaches, but it's also inappropriate to use WP:FRINGE to categorically dismiss them & Chopra. This is not a clear-cut issue; there's huge amounts of evidence supporting meditation & yoga, widely varying evidence for ayurveda, and so on down the line. When there's significant biomedical evidence on both sides of an issue, WP:MEDRS is the gold standard, not WP:FRINGE, especially when discussing the legitimacy of a WP:BLP of a practicing physician. Any discussion of the efficacy or lack thereof of should meet MEDRS, or we have an inherent WP:BIAS in available sources. Most of the unorthodox medical approaches Chopra endorses (ayurveda, meditation, yoga, energy healing, etc) have been widely examined in medical journals, so there's no reason not to use the highest standards. the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 21:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Such statements appear to be opposite of FRINGE and related general consensus. --Ronz (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

How so?

WP:FRINGE: The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence.

• No one is proposing a novel synthesis, these are well established concepts that have been widely examined.
• The material is likely to be challenged, and so I'm definitely agreeing we should use MEDRS wherever applicable.
• The views being represented are a significant minority, given that they are being covered by notable figures and in many peer-reviewed journals.
• Fair and proportional coverage of these topics is the goal.
• As I've been saying (and FRINGE acknowledges), the issues of the WP:BLP policies always supersede WP:FRINGE.

BLP policy dictates fair, unbiased coverage with an eye to avoiding contentiousness. It seems to me the best way to do that is to only use reliable medical sources when discussing contentious medical issues. What do you disagree with about that? the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 01:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be ignoring Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Identifying_fringe_theories to start. I again recommend you follow WP:COI more closely. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I found some alternate sources that say something similar, even if they don't all use the word "placebo" that I'll post here later today when I have a chance. Just wanted to mention it, so people can move on from this debate if they'd rather work on something else. PermStrump(talk) 17:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

"His treatments rely on the placebo effect.[8]" I think the source is reliable after reading the comments on this page. The only question left for me is should we add attribution. See here. "The Antioch Review states his treatments rely on the placebo effect." Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any other critical sources which clearly state that Chopra's treatments rely on the Placebo Effect. Again, the video of Chopra shows that he embraces the Placebo Effect, so it's not exactly viewed by the subject as a criticism, I would think. However, given that we are using this as a criticism and the only source we can find is a republication from a literary magazine, QuackGuru's suggested attribution text is essential. SueDonem (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a problem with your edit. A better source was used. QuackGuru (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The attribution of Chopra's reliance on the placebo effect to a small blurb in a non peer-reviewed literary journal isn't necessarily appropriate per BLP. If additional sources can't be found, the claim should be rephrased or removed. Additionally, I'm not sure whether a disclaimer that "practice that critics have argued may lure sick people away from medical treatments" is necessary in the lead.BlueStove (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You added OR to the lede. Text that was sourced to another source but you moved the text. QuackGuru (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

What OR was added to the lead?BlueStove (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The entire 4th paragraph FV. QuackGuru (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

How so? The revision is a condensed version with the same sources.BlueStove (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Beliefs and practices

Whiteguru, can you clarify this comment that you made above, “The actual statement for citation #11 in the lead is not in the document cited. In fact, this should be edited out as Chopra does not actually say this in the cited document. Hardly NPOV.” Which ones of the claims in this sentence were you taking issue with?: ““Chopra says, in combining principles from Ayurveda (Hindu traditional medicine) and mainstream medicine, his approach to health incorporates ideas about the mind-body relationship, a belief in teleology in nature and a belief in the primacy of consciousness over matter, and that "consciousness creates reality.”” From your wording, I wonder if you overlooked that citation #11 lists 2 sources, Chopra’s Quantum Healing and also: Brian Goldman, "Ayurvedism: Eastern Medicine Moves West", Canadian Medical Association Journal, 144(2), January 15, 1991, pp. 218–221. I think it’s behind a paywall, so if you can't view the full text, let me know and I'll paste relevant quotations here, because I can access it through work.

Side note: There are a few other places in the reference list where one number refers to multiple sources. I’ve never seen anyone do it that way before... I don’t like it. Is this a matter of preference or does it need to be fixed? If it’s not in the guidelines, I’ll split them up as I come across them. Permstrump (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the ref list numbers are that way due to the haphazard application of various refs to different (and sometimes duplicate) statements over time. IMO there's no reason not to clean them up. the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 19:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments on RfC

The argument that the "A) RS policy states popular press is NOT an RS for positions of the medical establishment." is not applicable to this page. This is not a medical-related topic. The threshold for inclusion is not a MEDRS compliant review. QuackGuru (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this RFC only for weighing in on whether we think the lead is NPOV or is it for discussing all issues people have with the lead? Permstrump (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump, given the open nature of the initial question (NPOV to sourcing) I'd say other issues are fair game.

@QuackGuru, Deepak Chopra is not a medical topic, but making a claim about the position of the whole medical establishment (they all dismiss or damn Chopra) is. Not to mention that's not what the source says (it references the demographics of all Chopra critics, not the demographics of all scientists). the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 09:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of the source and you did not provide a quote from the source in this thread or explained what exactly is the problem. No uninvolved editor can agree or disagree whether the text is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Good point, thank you. Here is the original source (1), which says:

"Ever since his early days as an advocate of alternative healing and nutrition, Chopra has been a magnet for criticism — most of it from the medical and scientific communities. Accusations have ranged from the dismissive — Chopra is just another huckster purveying watered-down Eastern wisdom mixed with pseudo science and pop psychology — to the outright damning."

Here's what the article says (2):

"An article in Time described the medical and scientific communities' opinion of him as ranging from dismissive to damning..."

The big problem with this is that the source is describing the makeup of Chopra critics, while the way it's written in the article is describing the makeup of the entire scientific/medical establishment. It's like a ref saying "all oranges are fruit", then the article saying "all fruit are oranges." It's a logical fallacy and a pretty serious citation error. That's my biggest concern. the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 22:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Ignore the part of my response above below where I said I thought you might be conflating 2 sources, because I just realized that was looking at the Times reference in the preceding sentence. Permstrump (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I deleted this from the main conversation, so it wouldn't take up space, but this is what I had said for transparency (still ignore it b/c I realized my mistake): From the lead: “The ideas he promotes have been criticized by scientists and medical professionals Tompkins...” From Tomkins: “Chopra has been a magnet for criticism — most of it from the medical and scientific communities.” I don’t think the current paraphrasing misrepresents the source and it’s not a logical fallacy. I think you’re conflating 2 different references. The WP source that's cited earlier in the lead does have a comment that's worded very similarly to Tompkins, but WP was only used to support Chopra’s rejection* of the label “controversial new age guru.” *Note: That’s not the label Chopra was rejecting, but I’ll go into that more in the comment section. Permstrump (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

3RR is not subject to clear BLP violations. QuackGuru (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I think there was a miscommunication and possibly the wrong reference to Tompkins was removed. The Tompkins piece in Time was cited twice in the lead and some people are calling it the Tompkins source, others are calling it the Time source and I accidentally referred to in separate comments by different names as if they were 2 entirely different sources (my bad)... Before QuackGuru's recent edit, the first Time/Tompkins reference said, "The ideas he promotes have been criticized by scientists and medical professionals" and the second one said, "An article in Time described the medical and scientific communities' opinion of him as ranging from dismissive to damning..." I'm pretty sure it's the 2nd time (bolded) that The Cap'n took issue with and Ronz called "contentious" and not in Wikipedia's voice. At least that's what I was thinking... IMHO the "dismissive to damning" bit sounds snarky and not the right tone. Permstrump (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

User:SueDonem, there could be a much bigger problem. "His treatments rely on the placebo effect. He misuses terms and ideas from quantum physics (quantum mysticism) and provides people with false hope which obscures the possibility of effective medical treatment." I am having a very difficult time trying to verify these statements. It may be WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The sources verify these statements inasmuch as commentary or opinion. I am fairly certain of that. Please have another look at the references. My issue (as I responded above) is that the statements all need attribution rather than being written in Wikipedia's voice. Other than that, I believe the lead to be rather solidly written. SueDonem (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

User:SueDonem, the text in the lede does say "some".[9] I did fix it. Let's start with "His treatments rely on the placebo effect." I could not verify the claim after reading the source. QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Very good edit. Thank you! As for the Placebo Effect, here's how the source reads:

Only in the past few decades have medical curricula expanded to include the rigorous standards of controlled clinical trials. Furthermore, many practicing physicians ignore or reject the subtleties of scientific reason, leaving themselves vulnerable to the placebo’s seductive lure. Deepak Chopra, arguably the most successful of America’s CAM practitioners, began his career well within the bounds of traditional medicine by serving as Chief of Staff at Boston Regional Medical Center and by teaching at Tufts University and Boston University Schools of Medicine. Now a multi-millionaire thoroughly seduced by the placebo effect, he is the author of 35 books plus 100 audio, video and CD-ROM titles that advocate virtually every form of alternative therapy.

Despite these non-standard credentials, Chopra remains an instructor at the University of California School of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. It seems appropriate that Chopra and legions of his ilk should now populate the halls of academic medicine, since they carry on the placebo-dominated traditions long ago established in those very halls by their progenitors – respected professors whose measure of success differed not one jot from the measure used nowadays by CAM practitioners of every stripe.

It is evident that this commentary states that Chopra relies on the placebo effect; however, it is also evident that this is a commentary and should be attributed as such. SueDonem (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I could not verify the claim using a reliable source. The source you used is a personal website. QuackGuru (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I suppose that's my point. It's personal commentary and thus should not be in Wikipedia's voice. But I understand your point about WP:RS as well. That can and should be addressed. SueDonem (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It says it was from The Antioch Review. Not sure what The Antioch Review is or if it is reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The Antioch Review is a literary review publication associated with Antioch College. SueDonem (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Is The Antioch Review a reliable source for the claim? I have no idea. QuackGuru (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

My gut says that as a literary review publication, it is not a reliable source for non-literary medical topics. SueDonem (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC) Per our discussion, I marked the source as questionable for this particular invocation. SueDonem (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems fine given that this we're dealing with fringe medical claims here, not actual medicine. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't sit well with me. I'm sure there is a more medically relevant / scientifically skeptical source out there to source the claim that Chopra's treatments rely on placebo effect. If there isn't another one out there, than I'd strongly suggest removing the claim because then all it is is a one-off commentary by an ophthalmologist published in a literary magazine with text sourced from a personal website. I doubt that this is the most relevant and reliable source out there for this claim. I am happy to do some research when I have free time, but at the moment I do not. SueDonem (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Responding in "Treatment of controversy in lead" to keep the discussion in one location. --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments on updated lede

January 2016: The ideas he promotes have been criticized by scientists and medical professionals[14] who say that his treatments rely on the placebo effect,[8] that he misuses terms and ideas from quantum physics (quantum mysticism), and that he provides people with false hope which obscures the possibility of effective medical treatment.[15] The medical and scientific communities' opinion of him ranges from dismissive to damning; criticism includes statements that his approach could lure sick people away from effective treatments.[14]

March 17, 2016: The ideas he promotes have been criticized, mostly by medical and scientific professionals, with opinions that range from dismissive to damning.[16] For example, Robert Carroll writing for the The Skeptic's Dictionary states Chopra has attempted to integrate Ayurveda, a traditional Indian system of medicine, with quantum mechanics, in order to justify his teachings.[17] He uses the term quantum in a non-metaphorical sense, for instance promoting "quantum healing" to treat any manner of ailment including cancer, which has led physicists to object to his use of ideas from quantum physics.[15] His treatments benefit from the placebo response.[8] His claims for the effectiveness of alternative medicine can, some have argued, lure sick people away from medical treatments.[16]

The wording for the 4th paragraph has greatly improved and is a better summary of the body. We have turned a corner. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Note. The part "metaphorical" was changed to non-metaphorical. QuackGuru (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Great work thus far! SueDonem (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Note that Carroll clearly shows that Chopra doesn't use "quantum" in a metaphorical sense at all, offering a history and further elaboration. Further, the source used (Park 2005) says Chopra is not using it in a metaphorical sense. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It definitely looks much better. More neutral, clear and more of a summary as opposed to random sentences. I agree with Ronz though. Chopra means it literally. He doesn't mean it the same way as physicists do, but metaphorical isn't quite the right word. Maybe instead of replacing it with a different word, it sounds fine without the first part to that sentence, as in, Chopra has attempted to integrate Ayurveda, a traditional Indian system of medicine, with quantum mechanics, in order to justify his teachings.[17] For instance he promotes "quantum healing" to treat any manner of ailment including cancer, which has led physicists to object to his use of ideas from quantum physics. PermStrump(talk) 18:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand the work that goes into this kind of revision and thanks for doing this QG, and I have no attachment to my own changes so applaud the work involved. However, I have concerns which in a BLP can become major issues.

Per Ronz: Content added on the use of quantum and its metaphorical use is opposite to what the source says.

The Skeptic Dictionary and Carroll are unabashedly skeptical views often inaccurate per my research in the last years. It is being used in a lead with attribution. This source (SD) has been highly contested for years on Wikipedia. While it might be allowable in the body of the article, it, with its attribution per MOS is out of place in a lead.

I am also discouraged with the way in which collaboration was ignored on this, arguments twisted and new content added to the lead with out agreement while that lead was contested and under discussion.

When I made changes to the lead I stayed with the sources and content that was specific to the sources which gave a summary style tone to the paragraph. I assumed I shouldn't make changes to the content. I also was not looking to sharpen criticism or support for Chopra. This change sharpens criticism using sources (Carroll) that are way beyond asserting simple opinion, but whose purpose it to discredit and trash, and I'm not convinced that's neutral. I may be out of step with what's going on here, but at the least content must faithfully reference sources so the quantum mysticism content should be adjusted.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC))

It is a summary of the body with attribution using the The Skeptic's Dictionary source. The lead does not use the specific term "quantum mysticism". QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You are changing your comment after I responded. You stated there was a problem with "quantum mysticism" when it is not being used in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course I changed my mistake after you pointed it out. Read the edit summary. The issue I had is with text which doesn't reflect the source. I mistakenly used quantum mysticism instead of quantum and when you pointed this out I acknowledged the error and made a change.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC))

Usually an editor strikes out the mistake otherwise my response looks silly. QuackGuru (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Ronz, please read the 2005 book. See "Let you imagine that he was using "quantum" in some metaphorical sense, he informs.."[10] Robert Carroll is not used to verify the text for the metaphorical content. Carroll stated, among other things, "Deepak Chopra Mangles Quantum Mechanics – Again "Deepak Chopra has made a career out of misunderstanding quantum mechanics (QM) ... And now he has done it again, in that anti-science rag the Huffington Post."[11] QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

What this means and is my concern also is that this, "Let you imagine that he was using "quantum" in some metaphorical sense, he informs.." which paraphrased is: If you think he is using quantum in a metaphorical sense well he's not, and is opposite to what is in the article. We have had concerns using attribution in the lead, and you also do not address the source which is problematic. These are my concerns. I'll let other voice their opinions. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC))

I changed it to non-metaphorical. If the source was unreliable it would of been deleted from the article. I did, however, add lots of attribution: For example, Robert Carroll writing for the The Skeptic's Dictionary states... QuackGuru (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Littleolive oil's paraphrase is how I read it too. The change is good. QuackGuru: Do you care if I move "for instance" to the beginning of the sentence? I don't know if it's in my head, but in the middle seems to shift the emphasis of the sentence in a way that makes it a little harder to follow. I've read it so many times that I don't know what's what anymore though. I think this is an appropriate use of the Skeptic Dictionary quote, despite, or even because, it's a controversial source. It's a very accurate reflection of who his main critics are. He's spoken out a number of times about the "skeptics" who attack him. It makes sense to leave it IMHO. PermStrump(talk) 21:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Permstrump, I will defer to User:Sj. Sj, what do you think about the recent changes? Is it better to move "for instance" to the beginning of the sentence? QuackGuru (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's time for a new section; it's hard to keep track of all of the similar ones on this page! I reread that para: there were two uses of "for example" / "for instance", so I removed the second one. And cleaned up the rest of the paragraph a bit. Agreed that the S.D. is a good example of a critical source (finding another one from a well known doctor or medical professional would round out the cites). – SJ + 22:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The first paragraph is, for the most part, good. Calling Chopra a "leader" is pretty inaccurate though, even if the sources call him that. It is obviously just a descriptor, it doesn't mean that it's a defining profession of his. The second paragraph (his bio) is not appropriate for the lede; it belongs in the Biography section (but it is pretty good). The third paragraph has no place in the lede; it is simply a summary of the kinds of things he says. Maybe a paragraph describing why others (possibly professionals in the field or philosophers or critics) understand of what Chopra says would be more relevant. Otherwise it's just WP:OR. The last paragraph is definitely necessary as he is almost as famous for being criticized as for everything else he does. My 2 cents. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2016 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Deepak Chopra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150208000631/http://www.forbes.com/profile/deepak-chopra-1/ to http://www.forbes.com/profile/deepak-chopra-1
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081220044307/http://services.bidmc.org:80/Find_a_doc/doc_detail.asp?sid=41414643494642 to http://services.bidmc.org/Find_a_doc/doc_detail.asp?sid=41414643494642
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131213180934/http://www.abim.org/services/verify-a-physician.aspx to http://www.abim.org/services/verify-a-physician.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131105164338/http://www.novamagazine.com.au/article_archive/2006/06_04_Peace%20seeker.htm to http://www.novamagazine.com.au/article_archive/2006/06_04_Peace%20seeker.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140529085401/http://www.chopra.com/our-services/medical-consultations/overview to http://www.chopra.com/our-services/medical-consultations/overview
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110216111128/http://www.gallup.com/corporate/19318/Gallup-Senior-Scientists.aspx to http://www.gallup.com/corporate/19318/Gallup-Senior-Scientists.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121105184137/http://alford.fastmail.us:80/Chopra_Mlodinow_SI.html to http://alford.fastmail.us/Chopra_Mlodinow_SI.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Salary

Unless I'm missing something the source for salary in the info box does not actually give the salary. Further, the Forbes source seems to be to another Deepak Chopra. Until the salary is accurately sourced it must be removed per BLP.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC))

Good catch! It looks like a different person entirely. I had checked the numbers, but didn't look closer. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I know. I must have checked the source three or four times convinced I was missing something and wondering how did we miss that this was another Chopra.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC))

Best Place to Reference Meditation Study?

Thank you for your valuable feedback. In my suggested version below, I have removed the "however" and changed the wording to maintain WP standards. The sources specifically describe the program as Chopra's own approach. The results of the study describe lasting biomedical improvements and potentially slowed aging.

We have numerous sources elsewhere on this page that reference Chopra claiming his approach results in biomedical improvements and slowed aging. This does not seem any more WP:SYN than statements elsewhere that extrapolate criticism from sources, but I'm open to suggestions on how to rephrase if you still think it's too close to OR. Even if we do not like the source's conclusions, I believe it is important we maintain NPOV with treatment to RS.

Concerning my placement of this information, this study relates to meditation which is an alternative medicine. I find that the "Alternative Medicine" section is the best place for mention of this study. Does anyone have another suggestion?

SUGGESTED VERSION A recent study published by Nature's Translational Psychiatry supports Chopra's argument for the biological benefits of meditation and relaxation. Nobel Laureate Elizabeth Blackburn and a team of Harvard Medical and ICAHN scientists compared Chopra's meditation program to vacationing. While both were beneficial, meditation provided greater benefits including an increase in telomerase activity.

User Talk:PollyStyrene 15:38, 7 September 2016 (PST)

Nowhere. You have registered an account, made the exact number of edits required for autoconfirmed status so you can edit the article, and then immediately promoted a study funded by Chopra that you state (amazingly!) vindicates his beliefs, but which actually doesn't, because there's nothing remotely alternative about this stuff.

WP:DUCK. Go back to your boss and tell him we weren't born yesterday. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:AGF is a serious part of WP. I am not working for Deepak. I have been editing for weeks before this study even came out in the news. This study has been covered in multiple venues, with scholarly resources. I cited the study, and I asked for help in making it fit the page. I provided RS. Making these types of assumptions are WP:OWN.

User Talk:PollyStyrene 17:08, 7 September 2016 (PST)

I don't see any RS on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

PolyStyrene. The study can't be used becasue it is a primary source. Research as sources for health related topics must be secondary sources per WP:MEDRS:

Ideal sources for biomedical material include literature reviews or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), recognized standard textbooks by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies.

and

...primary biomedical literature is exploratory and often not reliable, and any given primary source may be contradicted by another. The Wikipedia community relies on guidance of expert reviews, and statements by major medical and scientific bodies.

(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC))

NOTE - I have edited stray markup out of PollyStyrenes signature, and tidied Littleolive oils post above. I have not changed any content. -Roxy the dog™ bark 09:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I should never edit at night. ZZZZ.(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC))

For the record, your post was fine, my fixing made yours appear careless, and I couldn't have that;) -Roxy the dog™ bark 17:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Littleolive oil! I appreciate your advice, and assumption of good faith. The study itself is not included as a source, because I agree, this would indeed be a primary source. I included news coverage about the study, which are secondary sources. Thank you for reviewing the revision and sources below. What are your thoughts including terms like, "suggests that Chopra's meditation...?":

SUGGESTED REVISION:

A recent study published by Nature's Translational Psychiatry suggests that Chopra's meditation program has biological benefits. Nobel Laureate Elizabeth Blackburn and a team of Harvard Medical and ICAHN scientists compared Chopra's meditation program to vacationing. While both were beneficial, meditation provided greater benefits including an increase in telomerase activity.:

SOURCES:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160830091815.htm:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2016/09/06/new-clues-into-how-meditation-can-boost-the-immune-system/:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/ucsf-harvard-study-examines-meditation-and-9198243.php:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/de-stress/Meditation-or-vacation-Heres-what-is-better/articleshow/53945594.cms:

User Talk:PollyStyrene 12:17, 12 September 2016 (PST):

No thanks. You don't understand science well enough to realise that something published in a journal is not by that journal, Nature has in the past published some egregious nonsense and this is not Nature, it's one of its less notable satellite journals. Getting $MARKETNGCLAIM published sometimes rises to the level of importance, but not when the rest of the sources in the article are usually much stornger and certianly not when the finding is merely trying to claim credit for something that everybody already knew long before Chopra jumped on the bandwaggon. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@PollyStyrene: I apologize for my lack of care in replying to you before. You're right, there are secondary sources. I've been distracted and didn't register seeing them. I think the issue is whether those sources are reliable per Wikipedia and WP:MEDRS.

The fact that study conclusions are consistent with previous research in meditation is not a reason to exclude it. We would want the know that what WP uses in terms of references has been replicated or at least supported by other studies, The study authors are reliable. I too, have found egregious errors in Nature, in my case the mother journal, but my concerns in the past have been overridden. The Mount Sinai Health Care System source seems more of a news source rather than having the reliability of a review. I also saw the conflict of interest noted in the study itself, but that too seems fine given what is described as a rigorous study, and given the multiple universities involved, although any research can be biased. The wording you used initially was slanted towards OR, but has been rewritten. Guy is right, Nature didn't publish the study but includes it so a simple change from by to in would correct the issue. What remains is that this is a single study and there may be a legitimate argument for excluding it because it has not been replicated and so cannot been vetted as it would be if in a review for example. I think inclusion is on the edge of maybe OK maybe not. Consensus would be the deciding factor, I guess. To be honest, although I believe the study supports Chopra's position, I am not sure the secondary sources come up to WP standards and so I would probably exclude it. Just needs more research.

I'm supposed to be taking a Wikibreak to work in my studio so will push off; I just saw my error here though, and felt because I had made a mistake in my analysis of the source I owed you a reply. Again I apologize.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC))

It is very typical of a SCAM study in that it sets out to prmote a commercial agenda and actually reveals nothing new about the world, since the practices are entirely mainstream (at least when stripped of the veneer of woo). Guy (Help!) 21:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• yes we don't cite results of this paper per MEDRS.

the marketing here is hilarious - like this Huffpo piece - the big picture of Blackburn wearing her Nobel medal, the other two big pictures, the content about "Not long ago the very idea that behavior could have lasting effects on genetic expressions was nearly heretical in scientific circles....Today science agrees that genes can be influenced, while meditation could potentially be one of the most powerful methods of doing so." oh yes, influence those genes so we can see their expressions. word salad for pete's sake. What else.. The paper is PMID 27576169 and is open access, so it's here, with supplementary information here. Ok, so Blackburn and Tanzi are middle authors. Blood draws were day 1 and day 5 so any claims about long term changes in gene expression based on this paper are baloney. Jytdog (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Moving forward after past disruptions

In the past few years this article has accumulated a rather sordid history that includes an off-wiki component, as outlined recently. At one time there were no less than three COI editors pushing on the article.

Comparing the current version to earlier versions predating the commotion, say this one, a number of issues pop out. The current version's lead goes through Chopra's history and views before mentioning the controversial nature of his claims. However the lead paragraph should summarize why the subject is notable, and Chopra is notable for controversy. That's what independent sources point to. The detour into history seems like a distraction; I'm not saying it should be removed, just given less prominence.

The lead in the current version also summarizes Chopra's views by citing a primary reference (his own book). While an individual editor might be confident about what Chopra's views entail and might appropriately summarize them using a primary reference, on Wikipedia we look to secondary, independent sources for such information (WP:SOURCES, WP:FRIND).

There are other issues I could mention, but my main point here that, due to the aforementioned sordid history, the current state of the article is the outcome of a false consensus. Practically speaking, this just means that when arguing for or against a given change, reasons should be given that don't involve citing previous consensus, because that's been invalidated. I'm not looking to introduce any monumental changes to the article; I'd just like to ensure that everyone is on the same page with respect to the history here. Manul ~ talk 17:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Correction: two sources were melded into the single citation [11] in that version, one of which was not primary. However it wasn't clear how to correlate the sources and article text, especially the mention of teleology which probably requires a direct reference, yet that word wasn't present in either source. In any case Baer is certainly higher quality, so I've used that. Manul ~ talk 17:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The text in the lede should follow the same order in the body. This edit does not follow the body. QuackGuru (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I took this version which existed before the COI shenanigans as a guide. That version places controversies earlier in the lead, but you say it violates some rule about matching the order of body sections. I have three points in response: (a) you haven't responded to the above reason I gave for this ordering; (b) I haven't found a reference to such a rule in WP:LEAD or anywhere else; (c) no editor objected to the ordering before, including but not limited to you and the last person to edit that version, Alexbrn. Manul ~ talk 22:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• In general, per Quack Guru, its a good idea to sync the lead with the article and we do that by ordering the lead and the article in the same way. This makes for ease and a logical read.
• Chopra is not notable for controversy; he is notable for having written a multitude of best sellers and for leading the so-called, alternative medicine movement. He is also notable as a chief of staff at a major American hospital. Whether any of us likes what he represents and has written, denying his notability is both illogical and non - neutral. Controversy follows notability, arises because there is notability in the first place. no one cares if someone with no notability is controversial; we'd never even hear about it.
• The definitive information on what Chopra's positions are, what he believes in and puts forward and describes, is Chopra. In this case the primary source is not only acceptable but desired if we want an accurate view of Chopra. Secondary sources do not automatically trump primary sources. Sources are reliable per the content they support. There is no better way to understand Chopra than to read Chopra. Then, we can look at the analysis and criticisms of his work . This is common sense and does not in any way violate our policies and guidelines but reflects them.
• I have zero connection to Chopra and once again your eagerness in identifying what you think is a COI had led you astray.
• I don't have the time or inclination to argue this further, but please think about what I've written here. You are I think, misinterpreting policy and guideline which I believe leads to a rather biased lead. (Littleolive oil (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC))

WP:SECONDARY sources are always preferred to primary sources. We report what independent third party observers have said about Chopra's writings, not what we think is interesting about Chopra's writings.

I can't believe that anyone would argue that Chopra is not famous for controversy. In any case, argument of this sort is overwhelmed by actual secondary sources:

• "the controversial New Age guru" New York Times 2013
• a vocal advocate for alternative medicine and a sometimes controversial New Age guru". Houston Chronicle 2015
• "Controversial Author Deepak Chopra Waxes Spiritual, Answers Critics". San Antonio Current 2015
• "Controversial but captivating". India New England 2013
• "Chopra is a best-selling author, and a controversial figure". San Diego Union Tribune 2016

Even the acknowledged Chopra employee Ryan Castle admits that Chopra is controversial, complaining "how do people find information about controversial or cutting edge ideas and figures?" We must continue to describe Chopra as controversial. Binksternet (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's clarify what I said:

No one suggested Chopra is not controversial and no one suggested the lead should not describe the controversy which it certainly does. I did say his notability is not the controversy but that the controversy followed his notability. Notability should not be confused with fame.

Sources are appropriate per the content they support and not independently of that content. No one suggested we choose something we think is interesting. I did suggest that Chopra is the expert on Chopra and we can appropriately describe his positions from his own writings- the definitive source for that information. We can also go on to use secondary sources to describe the response to those positions.

I don't agree with Manul's analysis and I think its necessary to register that disagreement even if I don't have the time or inclination to deal with this further. For the record,(Littleolive oil (talk) 06:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC))

"Chopra is the expert on Chopra" is a profoundly unWikipedian statement and has nothing to do with how we operate here. The best sources are WP:INDY of their subject. Jytdog (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

No. If we want to include content that describes Chopra's position accurately per Chopra we can and probably should use Chopra. If we want to use content that describes how Chopra is viewed by others we use sources which give us that information. The mistaken idea that we cannot use primary sources in narrow but appropriate circumstances is just that, a mistaken view of how we write articles and apply policy.(Littleolive oil (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)(

Chopra can never be the expert on Chopra. Our WP:SECONDARY guideline ensures that. Other people get to be the experts on Chopra. Binksternet (talk) 07:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Chopra's own words may be usefully reflected if also quoted by secondary sources, but otherwise we should use those secondary sources' commentary as a basis for ours, since we are writing an encyclopedia - a tertiary work. "For the record" is, incidentally, also an unwikipedian statement: this is not a legal battle. Alexbrn (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Also agree. Chopra maks his living by blurring the distinction between fantasy and reality, and his belief in his own insights into areas such as quantum physics is, to put it charitably, not shared by most who understand the actual science. We should not rely on Chopra even when describing Chopra - and there is no need to do so as we have independent sources. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

But this is just the point. However Chopra makes his living and however he sees his work is important to the biography of the man, to understanding who he is. We should have content that notes how Chopra writes about his own ideas. His work is published in reputable source ; this is good primary sourcing. The idea that we think the guy is living in fantasy is fine but using that judgement to ignore how the man has written about his own work is a POV selection of content. Ideally we should have content in which Chopra describes his work and then content which describes how that work is viewed by others. We do not censor because we don't like what the guy writes. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC))

I do not think this is right. Chopra clearly believes his own PR, and to cover that uncritically is a failure of WP:NPOV. We should describe his beliefs as described by reliable independent sources, which will establish for us which are significant and what (if any) empirical validity they may have. Guy (Help!) 06:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Olive, nobody suggested that you were connected to Chopra himself. However this article does fall under Transcendental Meditation.

Nobody suggested that we cannot use primary sources. In fact my change does use primary sources: the quotes you see are from primary sources, which is just what you want: Chopra telling us what he believes. However I did not just sit down and decide, based on my own knowledge, the quotes from Chopra that I think are important. I used a high quality secondary source for that task (Baer), and to that end the article cites both the secondary and primary sources. Without a secondary source to pull from, we would indeed be choosing something we think is interesting. Manul ~ talk 12:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I will disagree and prefer to and will align myself both with Slim Virgin's input and versions, for example, [12] given she is not someone who is a regular at so called alternative medicine articles, who for that reason I believe to be completely neutral, and who is a highly experienced writer with excellent knowledge of policy and who wrote several. I believe her input to have been neutral and her versions to be better than what we have now both per neutrality and in just making sense. Just my opinion. As for the legal term, of course we have adopted and adapted many legal terms from law and this is one of them. If you all don't like the term I can use instead something like, I wanted to make my opinion known based on both my own experience and knowledge, Slim Virgin's excellent input into this article which I considered to be neutral, and which was for the most part reverted. That's my opinion. The accurate use of primary and secondary sources is not cut and dried as the multiple and seemingly ongoing discussions on Notice Boards indicates. What we have here are just opinions as to how policy can be implemented so lets keep that in mind when commenting. Nothing here is the "correct" understanding, just opinion.

Manul, I'll repeat I have no more personal opinion or connection to Chopra than any other editor here maybe less so have not even a remote possibility of COI.(Littleolive oil (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC))

You are misrepesenting RS, one of the fundamental guidelines here, the first line of the body of which is "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." dif and dif and dif. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

In fact Jytdog you have neglected to include the second part of that sentence which reads, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.. If you read my comments above you'll see that I suggested primary sources can be used "in narrow but appropriate circumstances."(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC))

you are now misrepresenting what you yourself wrote above: "No. If we want to include content that describes Chopra's position accurately per Chopra we can and probably should use Chopra." now there is yet another dif of a misrepresentation from you. Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Olive, you say you disagree, but what are you disagreeing with? My comment to which you replied consists of pretty mundane, uncontroversial statements. I guess you are disagreeing with the last sentence, "Without a secondary source to pull from, we would indeed be choosing something we think is interesting", because it rebuts your earlier comment, "No one suggested we choose something we think is interesting." On the one hand you want to summarize primary sources without a secondary source, but on the other hand you claim that doing so does not entail choosing material you think is interesting from the primary sources. How is that even possible? How do you summarize primary sources without picking and choosing what you think is important from those sources? Whatever argument is being presented here, we're not going to abandon WP:SOURCES and WP:SECONDARY. You say that you're with SlimVirgin, but she's not with you; she did include a secondary source, as I mentioned in the follow-up. Manul ~ talk 22:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

You must not mischaracterize what I've said above and if you want to understand what I've said please read carefully. If I'm not clear enough for you, I'm sorry. I am suggesting primary sources are acceptable as the policy states, in some circumstances. That's very simple.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC))

as above, you are now misrepresenting what you yourself wrote above: "No. If we want to include content that describes Chopra's position accurately per Chopra we can and probably should use Chopra." now there is yet another dif of a misrepresentation from you. Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Olive, you said that you disagreed.[13] I asked what you disagreed with. You have now clarified, "I am suggesting primary sources are acceptable as the policy states, in some circumstances." But your disagreement was in response to a comment in which I said, "Nobody suggested that we cannot use primary sources. In fact my change does use primary sources..."[14] I don't know what's going on here, but it's time-wasting and disruptive. I tried my best to understand your perspective. Manul ~ talk 04:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Manuel if you ask me what I am suggesting you force me to reiterate what I've said. I made many comments here in attempts to indicate a good faith editor perspective. Please be careful about calling another good-faith editor disruptive after citing that editor falsely for COI and when an article is under discretionary sanctions. Jytdog might want to be careful too. As I've said below, whether I agree or not with the way the article is written I leave it to consensus. (Littleolive oil (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC))

Olive, earlier you said you disagreed with a comment I made, and when asked to explain why, you offered a reason that directly agreed with the comment that you said you disagreed with. So 'round and 'round we go -- that's disruption, even though that is not what you intended, presumably. It doesn't appear as though you are fulling reading and understanding the comments to which you respond, here and throughout the thread. Re COI, again, this article falls under TM; nobody is saying that you are connected to Chopra himself. Manul ~ talk 16:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I suspect you are confusing DS with COI. You must show the editor has a connection to the COI topic. DS "umbrellas" connected topic areas. As I've said before you are pushing your view of COI on me and I don't really appreciate the mistake. I have no connection with Chopra, none, nada so you can stop with the COI accusation. Further, I am not paid to edit TM when I do and I seldom do these days and have never despite the efforts of some editors been shown to have edited in a way that indicates COI despite arbitrations and judgements by editors on the COI noticeboard who are neutral with no connection either to TM or the alternative medicine articles. You have as well failed to tell me why you are using a link and can see a link that is hidden from all eyes except admins, and you are a non admin, and a link that had to have been created by an admin. So please stop with the COI stuff. I was willing to walk away from your allegations but I am starting to feel a little annoyed.Drop the stick, please. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC))

• The lede has been restored to follow the same order as the body. It was confusing to read the lede the way it was before. The lede order for this article should be the same as other BLPs. QuackGuru (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Move controversy higher in the lead?

• Support. Chopra is notable for his controversial views, as Binksternet has well explained (with sources) above.[15] As such, they deserve more prominence in the lead. Note this is not some new idea, since earlier versions did this, e.g.. Current arguments against and my answers to them:

• WP:Consensus. No, the article has undergone a WP:false consensus in recent years as a result sockpuppetry / meatpuppetry / COI / off-wiki recruiting -- see here for more information.
• WP:LEDE says that the order of the lead must match the order of the body. No, it says no such thing.
• Other BLPs match lead/body order. Such ordering would be appropriate for BLPs where the subject is most notable for his or her early history, but BLPs don't follow this as a rule. Just randomly looking at John F. Kennedy, the first two paragraphs cover his presidency. Not coincidentally, he is most notable for his presidency. Only in the third paragraph does the earlier history begin. He's less notable for being a member of the United States Naval Reserve in 1941, and it would be odd to give that higher prominence.

Manul ~ talk 17:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Consensus has in fact been controlled by the very editors who are weighing in here and not by the socks so there was no false consensus unless Alexbrn, Guy and other skeptic editors are to be discounted.

The lead is more logical when it synchronizes order with the body content but I at least did not cite this as a policy. I and Quack Guru seem to agree this logical format is superior, and believe me Quack and I do not often agree.:O).The issues for me is not what is where but that there is synchrony which produces a nicely, flowing article. Either the body or the lead or both can be moved around until that flow is achieved.

....and nah, write about notability and explain the man completely before you start to attack, How can you add criticism of the guy until we tell the reader who he is. This is just logical, (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC))

It's not skeptics, it's the reality-based community. Chopra makes his living by obscuring the distinction between nonsense and truth. He's a thought leader among those who promote the false idea of "other ways of knowing". Guy (Help!) 06:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That is of course one definition of what a skeptic is and seems to me strong thinkers can be skeptical and rightly so. We all have our own realities so I'd be cautious about defining a whole community as a single, reality-based community. (Littleolive oil (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC))

• Cautious support as it's a major part of why he's notable. He is a byword for confabulation and a benchmark of pseudo-profound bullshit, hence the Wisdom of Chopra experiment, so we really can't look the other way on that. Guy (Help!) 06:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I have little more to say and will bow out of this discussion leaving the article to consensus. Neutrality is of course paramount. I think the sources on him show two strong mainstream views and the article must indicate that.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC))

• Oppose. It is completely irrelevant whether Chopra is notable for his controversial views. Full stop. Things like early life and education are higher in the WP:LEDE. This article should be reality-based. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

You've cited WP:LEDE and WP:BLPSTYLE, neither of which support your argument. You haven't addressed the rebuttals I made above. As I said, there is simply no rule that early life and education are higher in the lead, and this isn't done in practice. See the above point about John F. Kennedy. Manul ~ talk 17:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It is most logical for early life and education to be higher in the lede. See Jimmy Wales. QuackGuru (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Well Wales isn't a very interesting figure; there's little that needs to be explained to the reader. If I wanted to make your case I would cite Barack Obama. The point is that there isn't a rule about it. I actually prefer the lead of Gerald Ford, which contains just one sentence about his time in congress and no earlier history. Manul ~ talk 18:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Your citing articles on people who are politicians. Deepak Chopra is not a politician. Most biographies with an early life and education in the body have early life and education higher up in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Most biographies with an early life and education in the body.... How'd you figure that out? If most GA biographies do so, then you have a point. --Ronz (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Most BLPs I have read early life and education are higher up in the lede. There are problems with some articles that do not have enough early life and education in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 05:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with the premise that he's highly notable for his controversial views. However, I think the solution is to reduce the lede substantially. The mini-biography (second paragraph), especially, has far too much detail. --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That could be a decent alternative. Shrinking the mass of detail in the second paragraph would be another way of moving more quickly to the business of informing the reader about why the subject is notable. Manul ~ talk 19:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If this is going to work we first drastically trim the controversy and then keep most of the early life and education. QuackGuru (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

To downplay his more notable aspects, and keep non-notable information, would be a blatant NPOV violation. --Ronz (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not a "Controversy of Deepak Chopra" article. BLPs must be neutral. We should not try to overemphasize the controversy in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 05:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I agree that Chopra's main notability extends from his "alternative healing"/quasi-spiritualistic practices, as regards both his commercial success peddling those notions and the criticism they have raised from mainstream scientists and healthcare experts (amongst other sources). However, those aspects are well-covered in the article already, and I tend to agree that standard practice for biographies, all things being equal, is to place emphasis on early life and the rest of the chronological biography. In this instance, I feel it also helps to have the story of how Chopra got to where he is as a framing device for the rest of the content concerning his often controversial practices. I'm for the status quo here. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding his pic

As the infobox pic got deleted yesterday, I replaced it with one of the article's pics. BTW, some pics from here might be used in the article. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

That's the best portrait of him alone we have, so it's definitely what we should use. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deepak Chopra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140529090535/http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/area/ca/scripps-la-jolla-hospitals-and-clinics-6931130/doctors/endocrinologists to http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/area/ca/scripps-la-jolla-hospitals-and-clinics-6931130/doctors/endocrinologists

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

‘Luring the sick’ statement needs work

This page always seems like a quagmire, but I decided to make a change anyway and hope for the best. I

adjusted the language and added a ref to focus on the controversy about efficacy rather than a

hypothetical about him possibly ‘luring’ the sick into avoiding medicine. It’s one thing to say Deepak

Chopra’s treatments may be ineffective, but claiming he may be discouraging people from necessary

medical treatments seems irresponsible. That’s actually a crime in California, where Chopra operates, so

it feels like a pretty big deal to imply he’s doing so without any evidence. Also, the Tompkins source only

vaguely mentions it as a secondhand complaint by unnamed people at some point in time, while Chopra

has directly clarified he endorses mainstream treatments when medically indicated. It seems an

uncontroversial decision to adjust a poorly supported hypothetical implying a BLP subject is committing a

crime.

PollyStyrene (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)(PollyStyrene(talk) 02:21, 09 December 2016 (UTC))

It's what the source says though so we reflect that. Alexbrn (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Parked content

• per my edit summary please wait for other editors to weigh in on this contentious article. I'd like to see the editors experienced on this article weight in on this. Thanks. I prefer not to add more and hope this content can be dealt with, whether added or not, with agreement from multiple editors. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC))

"He is placed by David Gorski among the "quacks", "cranks" and "purveyors of woo", and described as "arrogantly obstinate". Richard Dawkins publicly exposed Chopra, accusing him to use "quantum jargon as plausible-sounding hocus pocus"."

These are my concerns. Given this is a blog and given these points have already been made in the article; this seems to be an undue weight violation. As well, as a blog this is not what I would consider a RS for a BLP. The article already clearly positions itself in terms of Chopra's detractors; this addition is less encylcopedic and adds weight to an already well weighted aspect of the article. I'm not going to revert but please discuss this and reach agreement one way or the other. (Add. I did revert once to give others a chance to cmt here.)(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC))

Yeah, it's probably a bit much. Alexbrn (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Meh, seems legit to me, as a critique of his quantum flapdoodle. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh it's fair enough, but I wonder if we're not in danger of piling Pelion on Ossa? Still, no biggie. Alexbrn (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC about “Luring the sick”

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.

---

Should this BLP exclude the statement that this practicing physician "can lure sick people away from medical treatments?" At issue is that an M.D. discouraging necessary medical treatment constitutes malpractice and criminal negligence in his home of California, it clearly seems an exceptional claim to imply he may be doing so. WP:EXCEPTIONAL requires any exceptional claim to have multiple high-quality sources, especially when relating to a BLP. There is only one source for "lure sick people away" and it's neither from a medical professional nor provides any evidence for the statement. Here, here, and here are sources that reference Deepak Chopra endorsing mainstream medical treatment in addition to his approaches, so "luring" is both an exceptional and contested statement. Potential replacement: "-his claims for the effectiveness of alternative medicine are widely debated," which addresses the controversy but avoids possibly libelous implications. PollyStyrene (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• yes of course it should. This is a commonly cited danger of altmed woo and applies to Chopra as it does to any purveyor of such woo; the specific application for him is well sourced in the article already. Even the US chief purveyor of woo, the NCCIH, warns people not to forgo medical care in favor of altmed (ref). They provide that warning, because people actually do that. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• this practicing physician "can lure sick people away from medical treatments - no opinion only and attacking a living person. This whole BLP is an attack location, I am sure Chopra cares less and it matters to the real world even less, woo, lol, seems like there is a lot of anti woo here. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2016 (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 2

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.

---

Should this article include or exclude the statement that "some argue that his claims for the effectiveness of alternative medicine can lure sick people away from medical treatments?". If it should be included, should it be in the lede? Guy (Help!) 23:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• include of course it should. This is a commonly cited danger of altmed woo and applies to Chopra as it does to any purveyor of such woo; the specific application for him is well sourced in the article already. Even the US chief purveyor of woo, the NCCIH, warns people not to forgo medical care in favor of altmed (ref). They provide that warning, because people actually do that. Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Yes include - obvious, well-sourced, and necessary to say per WP:PSCI policy. Alexbrn (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Include - this is an important aspect of all non-evidence-based approaches to medicine ("alternative medicine"), and it should be included whenever there are reliable sources for it. It could be in the lede but does not necessarily need to be. Please do not forget to comment on the last part of the RfC, even if you do not have an opinion on it (like me). --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment. I do think does need to be in the lead. He's a very controversial figure and that needs to be reflected in the lead for NPOV. If anything, I'd say the lead leans more towards puffery, but for a BLP on a controversial figure, it's pretty close to balanced. —PermStrump(talk) 11:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Include in lede. See "Comments on RfC2" to verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Include. Compared to what a number of reliable sources have said over the years (I'll link to some additional sources below), this is a euphemism in the spirit of Biographies of living persons § Tone, i.e., "written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement". —PermStrump(talk) 11:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
• Include - The sentence is cited and supported by information in the article body. ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments on RfC2

The current text in the lede is "and some argue that his claims for the effectiveness of alternative medicine can lure sick people away from medical treatments.[16]" The web archived source says "Chopra is just another huckster purveying watered-down Eastern wisdom mixed with pseudo science and pop psychology — to the outright damning. Chopra's extravagant claims for Ayurveda and other traditional healing techniques can, some have argued, create false hope in genuinely ill people and dissuade them from seeking medical care and guidance."[16] There was a previous RfC. See Talk:Deepak_Chopra/Archive_25#RfC:_Is_the_lead.2C_among_other_parts_of_the_article.2C_reflective_of_the_sources_and_a_NPOV.3F. I and others did improve the wording in the lede during the previous RfC. See Talk:Deepak_Chopra/Archive_25#Comments_on_updated_lede. QuackGuru (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Last time we had this discussion (see QuackGuru's link), I pulled quotes of common ways Chopra has been described in the media over the years and dumped a bunch of sources on a subpage: Talk:Deepak Chopra/Source dump. Some are cited in other parts of article, but others weren't used, because all of the critical statements about him are well sourced so it would be redundant. Here's some quotes from additional sources that support keeping the full sentence and in the lead.

Extended content

Leland (1997), "Deepak's Instant Karma", Newsweek William Jarvis of the National Council Against Health Fraud, whose profile has risen along with the doctor's, accuses Chopra of substituting superstition for medicine, and depriving patients of several centuries of scientific advances. Labash, Matt (July 1, 1996), "The End of History and the Last Guru; Correction Appended", The Weekly Standard, vol. 1, no. 41, p. 18{{citation}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) Dr. John Renner reported in the Kansas City Star in 1991 that Chopra had encouraged conference attendees to "wash the eyes out with saliva" as "an effective treatment for even well-established cataracts." Dr. Renner talked to numerous ophthalmologists who concurred this was a dangerous procedure with no proven benefits, especially since mouth bacteria could cause corneal ulcerations. Molé, Phil (1998), "Deepak's dangerous dogmas", Skeptic, 6 (2) Yet, arguments based on superficial logic are not only persuasive, but also dangerous, since they may lead us into errant patterns of thinking. [Chopra] wholeheartedly endorses the unification of medicine and spirituality. His solution is to develop a new model of medicine relying heavily on meditation--a practice he believes will enable us to alter the quantum-mechanical structure of our bodies… In order to truly influence our bodies, therefore, we would have to observe all of the atoms in the body parts we wanted to heal. But how can someone with lung cancer, for instance, "observe" the atoms deep inside his chest cavity? How can a potential heart attack victim "see" the atoms of calcium forming plaques in his arteries? Park (2000), Voodoo medicine in a scientific world, in After the Science Wars Treatment such as magnet therapy, homeopathy or reflexology, which have only a placebo effect… But if something like Chopra's spiritual healing is substituted for genuine medical intervention in the treatment of cancer, it may deny patients any prospect of a cure, while adding a sense of guilt to their suffering. Renner (1991), "Guru offers KC unsound advice", Kansas City Star Chopra's message not only indicates extreme hostility to medicine, it also contains numerous examples of unsound health advice. A typical example, and one of the most disturbing is Chopra's recommendation for improving vision: "And then take a little swish of water, and swish it around in your mouth, a little a half cup or so. Mix it copiously with your saliva, take it out into an eye cup and wash the eyes with it." Almost everyone knows that the mouth contains bacteria of many kinds. I have consulted numerous ophthalmologists; all concurred this is a dangerous procedure with no proven benefit, and much possible harm. [...] This is not sound, proven medical advice designed to improve vision. This is a ritual typical of the rituals involved in such prescientific health folklore systems as ayurvedic. Hassani (2016), "Deepak Chopra's 'Physics': it starts with a swindle", Skeptical Inquirer One of the early trivializers of fundamental physics is Deepak Chopra, whose indiscriminate use of words such as quantum, energy, field, and non-locality renders them as frivolous as a burp after a course of tandoori chicken. Accordingly, it is worthwhile to examine his "physics" and unravel the egregious conceptual blunders he incessantly concocts, especially when these blunders serve as the foundation for the conclusions that he touts as scientific facts to his readers and followers. [...] This is so not only because [Chopra] is writing about (his distorted version of) science, but also because he commands millions of followers who literally regard him as a prophet. His words, fogged by a plume of terminology stolen from science--a discipline revered and trusted, albeit misunderstood, by the public--are powerful maxims and mottos for his disciples.

Even in Chopra's own words in 2014, he said this is a common criticism he gets: "Most of the skeptic editors on my article believe me to be a very dangerous man..." And how apropos is the rest of that quote... "[they] believe that it is Wikipedia's responsibility to warn the world of how dangerous my ideas are. –Deepak Chopra[17]

—PermStrump(talk) 13:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Question: What justifies the word "some"? I read only 1 source in the 1st paragraph in this section arguing people may be lured away. The other sources in this section do not explain luring people away.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Answer: The source used to verify the claim uses the supported weasel word "some". The other sources in this section are not being used to verify the claim. The other sources in this section are being used to show this type of claim is common. QuackGuru (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2016 (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.