This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Sources for Dr. Chopra in the field of endocrinology and integrative medicine
Extended content
Chopra’s medical training is in internal medicine and endocrinology. He is a Fellow of the American College of Physicians, a member of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, possessing a medical license in Massachusetts and California.
These are interesting database citations, but they only, to me, indicate that he is licensed, not that he is practicing. How do they indicate something differently to you? jps (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
In terms of Dr. Chopra's current practice in Endocrinology, well first and foremost he runs and owns the Chopra Center, specifically the Mind Body medical group at the Chopra center which employs other California licensed physicians who see patients and guests at the center. Dr. Chopra does see patients occasionally but he is more focused on research, lecturing and his courses, which are also AMA approved CME course under the aegis of UCSD medical school. Also to maintain a license there are obviously requirements, one cannot easily just continue to be a licensed physician if they are not maintaining the practice according to whatever medical boards are requiring. I can see what else I can get for you. The Chopra Center for Well Being is famous, I'm surprised it does not have a Wikipedia page. SAS81 (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
That's what I thought you might be referring to. The Chopra Center for Well Being, however, doesn't appear to be a medical practice in the normal sense. What are the ambulatory care regimens of the center? If someone comes in for a diabetes consultation, is their blood sugar taken? Are amputations done at the center or are they merely referred to other locations? How extensive is the medical treatment being offered? I note, for example, that the insurance scheme is left up to the patient rather than the center which is rather peculiar for most American medical institutions. Is there a provision for accepting medicare or medicaid?
Maintaining a license to practice medicine does not require having a practice. You simply have to renew your license which is something that can be done, for example, by someone who is hoping to practice medicine again but isn't doing so currently. [1].
@SAS81: As jps notes, maintaining one's medical license is actually extremely easy. It requires only a functioning bank account (to pay renewal fees) and a certain amount of CME credit (which can be obtained easily by, you know, going to hear a lecture from Deepak Chopra). I recall seeing a statement from Chopra that he no longer practices medicine (in the sense of seeing patients personally), but I can't find the source for some reason. Since your userpage states that you speak with Chopra daily, maybe you could ask him how many patients he sees annually (in the sense of having a documented physician-patient relationship, billing professional fees, etc). He doesn't appear to have any Medicare billing from 2012 (the most year for which data are publicly available), but some physicians don't accept Medicare because of the low reimbursement rate, so that's not definitive. MastCellTalk 22:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Dr. Chopra is listed as a doctor of internal medicine with an office practice in good standing with the American Medical Association, specifically stating that he actively practices internal medicine (with a specialization in diabetes) out of his Carlsbad office. “DoctorFinder: Chopra, Deepak, MD.” American Medical Association website, accessed April 23, 2014. https://apps.ama-assn.org/doctorfinder/member.do?id=1398279052768&index=0&page=1SAS81 (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Here's the thing about "integrative medicine". Medicine is the field of practice guided by medical science, alternatives to medicine are the fields of practice comprised of the things that have not made it into medicine because either there's no proof they work, or there's concrete proof they don't work; it's mainly guided by belief, opinion and pseudoscience.
Integrative baking: you integrate cow pie with apple pie. The apple pie is not improved as a result. Integrative medicine is just the latest rebranding of failed ideas, in an attempt to weasel them into mainstream practice, and obscuring the essential separation between treatments that provably work and those which don't, is what Chopra is best known for. Integrative medicine is a bad thing, not a good thing. Be very careful how firmly you nail Chopra's colours to that particular mast. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
@guy - I'm going with mainstream consensus as reflected in Wikipedia regarding integrative medicine. I can't really respond to the rest of your comment because it sounds like OR outside of the mainstream and not what I am here to do. SAS81 (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
@Mastcell - I'm having a hard time obliging your request to peep into Dr Chopra's medical records with Wikipedia's guidelines against Original Research. AMA lists him as operating and maintaining an office practice. That's good enough for this discussion. SAS81 (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
As regards Integrative medicine, Wikipedia is not a reliable source - in fact I noticed our article had some neutrality (and other) problems. (I have started addressing them). Alexbrntalk|contribs|COI 15:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
That's not my problem. Wikipedia's current article on Integrative Medicine is consistent with the mainstream medical perspective.SAS81 (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, we're at risk of drifting off-topic, but your source and (now) our article rather make the point that while within the world of Integrative medicine, there is respect for it. Outside that world (i.e. in the mainstream) ... not so much. Wikipedia shall neutrally reflect that. Alexbrntalk|contribs|COI 19:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Integrative Medicine is mainstream I'm a little surprised that what little sources you're using they are also misinformed. I will be compiling medium to high impact journals and sources shortly. I do not believe your understanding of integrative medicine reflects mainstream consensus and all sources and knowledge on my end here contradict directly what you are implying. Secondly, if integrative medicine is not 'respected' as you state it, then that should be in the reception section on the article on Integrative Medicine and it should not somehow be summarized to frame the medical career of Dr. Chopra in a way that discredits him. SAS81 (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I think what you need to do is find some properly WP:FRIND sources. Look for sources authored by doctors who are not involved with alternative medicine especially. jps (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Dr Chopra notability for integrative medicine without rejecting medical or scientific facts
0. Dr. Chopra is a Senior Scientist @Gallup listing Deepak Chopra as one of a body of “leading experts who advise and consult with Gallup researchers and select clients. “Gallup Senior Scientists/Senior Advisors”, Gallup Inc., last updated April 20, 2014, 2:00AM, http://www.gallup.com/corporate/19318/gallup-senior-scientists.aspx
1. “A renowned physician and author, Deepak Chopra is undoubtedly one of the most lucid and inspired philosophers of our time.” – Mikhail Gorbachev, Citation of the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic awarded by the Pio Manzu International Scientific Committee
WP ref: Deepak Chopra, M.D. - 15th Annual Scientific Meeting Featured Speaker, accessed April 18, 2014, http://hfsa.org/deepak_chopra.asp.
WP ref: Books LLC, ed. ‘’Recipients of the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic: Richard Dawkins, Deepak Chopra, Michael Albert.’’ (Books LLC, 2010) ISBN1155583027, 9781155583020
2. “Chopra admits that it would be misleading to suggest that all drugs provide only symptomatic relief. Although he uses ayurvedic techniques in his practice he is still a practicing endocrinologist.”
3. WP ref: Chopra, Deepak. Reality and consciousness: A view from the East: Comment on “Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory” by Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose. ‘’Physics of Life Reviews’’, Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2014, Pages 81–82. Accessed April 20, 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.001
Hi SAS81.... The Brian Goldman citation from 1991 edition of CMAJ is the best you've got here, but it is pretty out-of-date. Do you have anything of that caliber that is more recent?
The Gallup listing only says that they hired him as a consultant so we could label him as a "consultant" on the basis of that source. The Gorbachev quote is only good for the opinions of Gorbachev. And the "Physics of Life Reviews" is a WP:FRINGE source that cannot be used to validate mainstream credentials.
This just looks like resume padding. It's superfluous. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
mainstream medical research sources for integrative medicine practices
I'm not sure how to make this list collapse, and I would prefer to put this in the sources but I am not sure if I am allowed to do that with my COI.
Extended content
Integrating clinical medical practices with holistic medicine from the the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) at the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM).
1. Jain S, Pavlik D, Distefan J, Bruyere RL, Acer J, Garcia R, Coulter I, Ives J, Roesch SC, Jonas W, Mills PJ. “Complementary medicine for fatigue and cortisol variability in breast cancer survivors: a randomized controlled trial.” ‘’Cancer.’’ 2012 Feb 1;118(3):777-87. doi: 10.1002/cncr.26345. Epub 2011 Aug 5. Accessed April 20, 2014, PMID21823103http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21823103
2. Mills PJ, Jain S. Biofield therapies and psychoneuroimmunology. ‘’Brain Behav Immun.’’ 2010 Nov;24(8):1229-30. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2010.07.246. Epub 2010 Jul 23. Last accessed April 20, 2014, PMID20656011http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20656011
3. Jain S, Mills PJ. Biofield therapies: helpful or full of hype? A best evidence synthesis. ‘’Int J Behav Med’’. 2010 Mar;17(1):1-16. doi: 10.1007/s12529-009-9062-4. Review. Erratum in: Int J Behav Med. 2011 Mar;18(1):79-82. Last accessed April 20, 2014 PMID19856109http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19856109
4. Jain S, Mills PJ. Integrating integrative medicine research: what can we learn from each other? J Soc Integr Oncol. 2008 Spring;6(2):45-6. Last accessed April 20, 2014, PMID18544283 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
5. Jain S, Mills PJ. Integrating integrative medicine research: what can we learn from each other? ‘’J Soc Integr Oncol’’. 2008 Spring;6(2):45-6. Last accessed April 20, 2014, PMID18544283 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18544283
6. Bower JE, Greendale G, Crosswell AD, Garet D, Sternlieb B, Ganz PA, Irwin MR, Olmstead R, Arevalo J, Cole SW. Yoga reduces inflammatory signaling in fatigued breast cancer survivors: A randomized controlled trial. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2014 May;43:20-9. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2014.01.019. Epub 2014 Jan 30. Last accessed April 20, 2014, PMID24703167 [PubMed - in process]
7. Bower JE, Greendale G, Crosswell AD, Garet D, Sternlieb B, Ganz PA, Irwin MR, Olmstead R, Arevalo J, Cole SW. Yoga reduces inflammatory signaling in fatigued breast cancer survivors: A randomized controlled trial. ‘’Psychoneuroendocrinology’’. 2014 May;43:20-9. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2014.01.019. Epub 2014 Jan 30. Last accessed April 20, 2014, PMID24703167 [PubMed - in process] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24703167
8. Kiecolt-Glaser JK, Bennett JM, Andridge R, Peng J, Shapiro CL, Malarkey WB, Emery CF, Layman R, Mrozek EE, Glaser R. Yoga's Impact on Inflammation, Mood, and Fatigue in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Randomized Controlled Trial. ‘’J Clin Oncol’’. 2014 Apr 1;32(10):1040-9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.51.8860. Epub 2014 Jan 27. PMID24470004 [PubMed - in process] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24470004Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).
9. Yadav RK, Magan D, Mehta N, Sharma R, Mahapatra SC. Efficacy of a short-term yoga-based lifestyle intervention in reducing stress and inflammation: preliminary results. ‘’J Altern Complement Med.’’ 2012 Jul;18(7):662-7. doi: 10.1089/acm.2011.0265. Last accessed April 20, 2014, PMID22830969 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22830969
10. Yogic meditation reverses NF-κB and IRF-related transcriptome dynamics in leukocytes of family dementia caregivers in a randomized controlled trial. ‘’Psychoneuroendocrinology’’. 2013 Mar;38(3):348-55. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2012.06.011. Epub 2012 Jul 15. Accessed April 20, 2014, PMID22795617 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22795617
11. Effects of yoga on inflammation and exercise capacity in patients with chronic heart failure. ‘’J Card Fail’’. 2008 Jun;14(5):407-13. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2007.12.007. Epub 2008 May 27. Accessed April 20, 2014, PMID18514933 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18514933
12. Seo DY, Lee S, Figueroa A, Kim HK, Baek YH, Kwak YS, Kim N, Choi TH, Rhee BD, Ko KS, Park BJ, Park SY, Han J. Yoga training improves metabolic parameters in obese boys. Korean J Physiol Pharmacol. 2012 Jun;16(3):175-80. doi: 10.4196/kjpp.2012.16.3.175. Epub 2012 Jun 26. Accessed April 20, 2014, PMID22802698 [PubMed] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22802698
13. Nidhi R, Padmalatha V, Nagarathna R, Ram A. Effect of a yoga program on glucose metabolism and blood lipid levels in adolescent girls with polycystic ovary syndrome. ‘’Int J Gynaecol Obstet’’. 2012 Jul;118(1):37-41. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2012.01.027. Epub 2012 Apr 14. Accessed April 20, 2014, PMID22507264 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22507264
14. Effects of yoga exercise on serum adiponectin and metabolic syndrome factors in obese postmenopausal women. Menopause. 2012 Mar;19(3):296-301. doi: 10.1097/gme.0b013e31822d59a2. ‘’Erratum in: Menopause’’. 2012 Apr;19(4):486. Accessed April 20, 2014, PMID22089179 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22089179
15. Nidhi R, Padmalatha V, Nagarathna R, Ram A. Effect of a yoga program on glucose metabolism and blood lipid levels in adolescent girls with polycystic ovary syndrome. ‘’Int J Gynaecol Obstet.’’ 2012 Jul;118(1):37-41. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2012.01.027. Epub 2012 Apr 14. Accessed April 20, 2014, PMID22507264 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22507264
16. Paul-Labrador M, Polk D, Dwyer JH, Velasquez I, Nidich S, Rainforth M, Schneider R, Merz CN. Effects of a randomized controlled trial of transcendental meditation on components of the metabolic syndrome in subjects with coronary heart disease. ‘’Arch Intern Med’’. 2006 Jun 12;166(11):1218-24. Accessed April 20, 2014, PMID16772250 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16772250
I'm not sure what is to be done with any of these dubious sources. Many of them don't rise to our WP:MEDRS level, but I also don't see any of them addressing Chopra in particular. What do you want to do with them? We typically include sources for actual text rather than laundry lists. So let us know what content you want to see associated with these sources (if any). jps (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Can you be specific re: dubious? My understanding is they are all mainstream medical sources. I've read WP:MEDRS. These were just meant to be general sources showing mainstream medical research in integrative medicine not necessarily Deepak just establishing integrative medicine as mainstream. SAS81 (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Many of these are not "mainstream medical sources". For example, the "J Altern Complement Med." is a journal devoted to alternative medicine. Many of the rest of them are in low-impact, poor quality journals and the studies are suffering from small-number statistics, irregularities in study design, and lack of proper peer-review. Alternative medicine has been studied seriously by a few high-impact, high-quality sources, and, where it has, the results have been rather uninspiring. That there is a lot of money flowing into alternative medicine in the US, for example, is because of congressional mandate, actually, and the rather corrupt NCCAM system (recently exposed to be a juggernaut by a number of journalists following the money flow of millions of dollars from NCCAM to institutes that do little more than line the pockets of consultants at teaching hospitals). In any case, this is a discussion for another page. Alternative medicine and the complementary/integrative/holistic synonyms are firmly considered WP:FRINGE by Wikipedia standards. jps (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
requesting process for collaboration and editing
Extended content
@Everyone above - a few things. One I would prefer if you are going to make a disruption to the first sentence, removing a term such as 'holistic health' which is a term all of you have been fine with on this page for who knows how long - to find a consensus with me first before you do so. I requested above all of you edit or tweak the first sentence I offered in this thread. This means you could take out a word or augment a word or add a word. If each of you do this individually here in talk, it would be more collaborative and then I could see each of your individual point of view. I am willing to make compromises with all of you. I am aware I have a number of restrictions as an editor here - but I am still an editor here who is seeking to make a contribution to the betterment of the encyclopedia. If I did not have my COI, I could have reverted that edit and requested we finish talking about it first. So I am requesting the courtesy of collaboration here. My agenda here is to make this article uncompromisingly neutral, specifically to the guidelines and founding principles of Wikipedia as well as to the very real facts of the subject. Also, many of you raised a number of really good points - please stand by I am getting all of my sources properly citationed as we speak. SAS81 (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
your special connection to Chopra does not give you special weight in this discussion. consensus does not mean "everyone absolutely agrees". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why you think that "holistic health" is a term I or anyone else has been "fine" with on this page. I haven't liked it at all, but in the interest of keeping the peace and compromise, I often tolerate wording I might not otherwise like. I explained above the problem with the term and haven't seen any rejoinders to this. We might assume, actually, that people either didn't notice the problem or didn't realize it was a problem. Either way, being bold and changing a sentence in the article is par for the Wikipedia course, and I applaud Ronz's initiative. If you have a convincing argument for why "holistic health" should stay in the lede and in what fashion, please make it. I thank you for your last suggestion because it crystalized for me (and perhaps others) the problematic way the term was being used. "Alternative health" is a much better description of his advocacy. Note that Chopra rarely discusses mainstream health topics in his work in spite of his insistence that he supports an "integrative" or "holistic" approach. He is more concerned about the alternative rather than the mainstream aspects. We have lots of evidence to that effect. jps (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
It is pretty clear that if Sassy had made that revert regarding "holistic health" it would have been difficult to justify for an ordinary editor, and impossible for an ed with the COI of being the chopra media representative. This prompts me to believe that Sassy still hasn't fully understood how collaborative editing and consensus works. Consensus is not a vote of any kind imho, nor does any individual have any veto on what does or doesn't go into the article page.
Another thing to note is that wiki pages evolve over time, and it appears that Sassy's involvement has prompted some serious reassessment of the page. This is A Good Thing. "Alternative health" does appear to be an improvement from "holistic health," bearing in mind Chopra's obvious interest in promoting it over real medicine/health.
Perhaps the message should be sent back up the command structure of Chopracorp that while we welcome the involvement of the chopra media team in this page, there will be no honey coated whitewash of the page outside of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Minor rant over. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
@JPS As an aside, of all the bullshit weasel terms used by the SCAM community, "holistic health" pisses me off the most. I have coeliac disease, diagnosed last year. This diagnosis involved symptoms of anaemia and other unpleasantries. My doctor referred me to a GI surgeon for suspect cancer, took blood tests, identified an anomalous liver enzyme reading, did more blood tests for tTGA, referred me for a jejunal biopsy and diagnosis was confirmed, at which point he referred me to a (registered, licensed, not-a-bullshit-"nutritionist") dietician for advice on gluten free diet, and also got me a DEXA scan to quantify the effect on my bones, so I have a diagnosis of osteoporosis and am on two years of calcium and vitamin D, which, with the diet change, should fix the problem. THAT is holistic health. Selling supplements, complementary and alternative medicine is not "holistic" because it encompasses everything EXCEPT the actual evidence-based medicine that is necessarily the core of any effective treatment programme. Minchin's Law applies: these things are only alternative because they either have not been proven to work, or have been proven not to work. The holistic bollocks is an extremely profitable marketing strategy for exploiting the worried well, and when it persuades them to eschew real medicine when they are actually ill, it becomes dangerously fraudulent.
So it is vitally important that we do not support the notion that the sort of tosh peddled by the "holistic" industry is somehow more than medicine, because in every conceivable and meaningful way, it is, beyond doubt, very much less. "Holistic health" means absolutely nothing other than medicalising everyday life in order to sell fake treatments for often fake diseases. I have yet to see a "holistic health" programme that would not be better replaced by advising the patient to buy themselves a bicycle and ride it.
Rant over... Guy (Help!) 18:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
He does better rants than me, don't you think? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
@SAS81 do not make the mistake of believing that collaboration means agreement with or acceptance of your proposals. In explaining why a proposed edit is unacceptable, we are still collaborating. Please also make the effort to be more concise and focused in your requests. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
While I can accept that consensus does not mean perfect agreement, I assume consensus at least means being responsive towards requests for collaboration and a willingness to consider other points of view. If an editor here is accusing me of 'white washing' Dr. Chopra's biography, please include a diff and please watch WP:ASPERSIONS. I have to hold a very high standard of neutrality and work towards that as well as you all. SAS81 (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
At some point, all these comments start to be more than a little disruptive. As you have a coi, you need to get comfortable offering your opinions and leaving it at that. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, SAS81! I think that it is best to simply state what you think needs to be changed in the article and provide some arguments for why those changes should be made. We can best move forward in that fashion. For example, a lot of discussion was had about why "holistic health" may not be the best term to use. If you think there are arguments that haven't been given enough consideration, I would like to see them. Further, it would be nice to start moving forward and seeing if there are other aspects of this biography that are in need of editorial work. You note that we have made progress. The lede is different than when you started discussing matters with us. I would even say that the lede is substantially better than it was before you began sharing your concerns. If you are pleased with what has happened, then we should just carry on. If there is some other outcome that you were hoping for, then I'm not sure what to say. This is actually an example of Wikipedia functioning just about as fluidly as it possibly can (I would be hard-pressed to think of an instance where a comparable editing situation on Wikipedia did not turn out better than it did here). In short: keep calm and carry on. If you would like, start a new section detailing a specific thing you are concerned about and we can take it from there. jps (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Well said. I'd only add that it's always best for everyone to offer new sources (or point out existing ones) that support the changes being discussed. --Ronz (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
donzo. I am not sure if I am allowed to place sources in the source list so my apologies if I am crowding too much space here. I have lots more coming as that is my responsibility to archive all of his material. SAS81 (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
If you have lots more coming, and it's in a similar vein, you're going to get yourself escorted firmly to the door. This is a mature article which clearly complies with policy - it is not and never will be a promotional tool for Chopra. I don't know if you saw Jimmy Wales' recent response to a bunch of alt med proponents - we're certainly going to stop short of adding Chopra into the category of "lunatic charlatans" but it is equally clear that we're not going to go anywhere near implying that his views on alternatives to medicine, quantum woo and the like are correct. Like it or not, in medicine and physics alike Chopra's name is a byword for bullshit. You seem to be in pretty deep denial about that. We will not, for sure, echo RationalWiki in our presentation of Chopra and his ideas but we're going to be a lot closer to the Center For Inquiry than the Center for Holistic Wellness in our overall balance here, and that is very much by design. If you want the article to say that his ideas are widely accepted as sound medical theories, you'll first need to get them widely accepted as sound medical theories, then get mainstream sources to say that. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
SAS81. It might be better to archive all of the sources you have in a user sandbox. Talk pages traditionally have been kept for actual discussion, Then when and if you are suggesting content you could both suggest the content and point to the specific sources for that content. (I'm trying to stay our of this discussion but see a few points of order so adding cmts. which might be useful.)(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC))
Thanks Olive and that's coming! SAS81 (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Guy
1.) Why bother to stop short calling him a 'lunatic charlatan'? From what I can tell - it's what you believe to be true, it's what you believe proper mainstream sources support, and its what you believe Wikipedia's responsibility is as an encyclopedia to therefore properly note. What's stoping you from doing this?
2.)Acting more as an archivist - I'm not here to argue if Dr. Chopra's ideas and thoughts are true or false and nothing I have published here would even come close to suggesting otherwise. I am here to present sources and correct what I believe to be very clear and strong biases that have framed the entire BLP of Dr Chopra simply by applying Wikipedia's own neutrality and BLP policies.
3.)Wikipedia's neutrality policy would suggest that the article should be neither like Center of Inquiry nor Wellness Center, but rather a voice of neutrality that shows the relevancy of both of those points of view directly in relationship to the subject of the article properly sourced and weighted.
4.)I'm wondering if you can confirm consensus on your end regarding this particular viewpoint of neutrality that many here appear to operate from. This I believe is where our real disagreement is. You and I ping ponging back and forth like this on sources is just functioning as a cold war comprised of nothing but straw men.
We DO have a consensus of what "'neutrality' actually means" at Wikipedia and it has been pointed out to you ad nauseum. We present the subject as they are seen and represented by mainstream academia. Your complete refusal to accept that fact is really crossing into the WP:TE realm which combined with your WP:COI and the fact that this article falls under the arbcom pseudoscience actions indicates that a trip to WP:AE will shortly be in the offing if you do not drop the stick. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
