Trichome

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SAS81 (talk | contribs)
429 edits
Line 584: Line 584:
:::Red Pen, note that the [[WP:Talk|Talk]] page is for discussing changes to the article. [[User:TimidGuy|TimidGuy]] ([[User talk:TimidGuy|talk]]) 10:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
:::Red Pen, note that the [[WP:Talk|Talk]] page is for discussing changes to the article. [[User:TimidGuy|TimidGuy]] ([[User talk:TimidGuy|talk]]) 10:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}Is this a problem if editors have questions and Dr Chopra responds directly to those questions via video? TPROD, I think the phrase 'good faith' should apply here [[User:SAS81|SAS81]] ([[User talk:SAS81|talk]]) 15:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}Is this a problem if editors have questions and Dr Chopra responds directly to those questions via video? TPROD, I think the phrase 'good faith' should apply here [[User:SAS81|SAS81]] ([[User talk:SAS81|talk]]) 15:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|SAS81}} It's unconventional, but I don't see why that would be a big problem. It's actually helpful in some ways, because often times when someone edits Wikipedia claiming to be an article subject we need to go through some sort of identity verification first. With videos we wouldn't need to worry about that. The only problem I see is that it would be difficult (well, impossible really) to have an actual ''conversation''. But a Q&A sort of thing might still be helpful. -- '''[[User:Atama|<span style="color:#06F">At</span><span style="color:#03B">am</span><span style="color:#006">a</span>]]'''[[User talk:Atama|<span style="color:#000">頭</span>]] 15:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


==False hope==
==False hope==

Revision as of 15:44, 28 May 2014

Recent edits: GA?

I note CorporateM has recently performed a bold edit on this article, removing a large amount of its more weakly-sourced content, copy editing, and making various other changes. The (much discussed) lead has also been re-worked. Overall, I think this improves the article (I have just done some minor tidying-up edits afterwards). I wonder, is it time to think of taking this article towards being a GA? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it still has a ways to go to meet the GA standard, but it is close enough that it would be worthwhile to start aiming for it. The first thing that comes to mind is that all the sources need to be checked one-by-one. For example, citation 35 and 37 look like they may be bordering on advocacy sources. Number 60 needs an accessdate. Citation 64, yuck. And there are still quite a few default bio-type pages that are posted on third-party websites, but are the types of places that repost bios provided by the article-subject. Some of these I did not remove on my first read-through, because the article-text looked like something worth keeping if we can find better sources. CorporateM (Talk) 08:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it would be better to nix the "and alternative medicine" part in the first sentence to avoid the double "and"? I just started reading our page on New Age and I got the sense there was some redundancy between the two (alternative medicine being one outlet for a New Age philosophy?). I know very little about the topic... CorporateM (Talk) 08:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you guys consider putting "New Age Guru" back? If all this article consisted of the sentence ... "Deepak Chopra is a New Age Guru" it wouldn't have actually lost much. It frames him so well. Pretty please? ;) -Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suppose the word "guru" has been much discussed and there is consensus for it. I have been wondering about "celebrity" too, since that seems in the sources a fair amount. I agree we can ditch CAM from the first sentence to avoid the double "and" -- we mention CAM in the next sentence anyway. I've tried an edit - see what you think ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - and all joking aside, I do think the page has been improved noticeably today. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would think of "guru" as promotional, but in this case there are strong sources for it and being a "guru" seems to be his primary claim to notability. I might be of a different opinion after reading more. CorporateM (Talk) 13:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what is the reason for mentioning chopra's "wealth" in the first paragraph, and what is the basis of comparison on which someone says he is one of the "wealthiest" new age figures? do we have comparables? seems like an implied criticism somehow, like he is in it for the money, which if true should be shown by data, not innuendo. Zach bender (talk) 04:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: Concerns per extensive changes on a highly contentious article which falls under two arbitrations

I am concerned that a highly contentious BLP which falls under both the TM arbitration and possibly pseudoscience arbitration in which a preliminary DR strategy have been sought here and in which further DR strategies, such as the DR NoticeBoard, have been discussed here has undergone extensive changes with out prior discussion including extensive peremptory deletion of sourced content here. Primary sources are in some cases as here, RS for content and even definitive. Further the removal of accurate and obvious content from the lead that Chopra is an Indian- American and a physician is another red flag. I'd add that in my opinion the article is heavily weighted, especially now and especially given the lead, to discredit another human being and is unacceptable per our BLP policy. Further the article is not even remotely stable given the ongoing contentious discussions, so GA status is premature. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know how the changes violate BLP, much less "discredit" Chopra, but I share the concerns about rewriting the lede while the article is under such scrutiny. It seems overly bold and inappropriate given all the recent discussion on the very information that was changed. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think these concerns are ill thought out, premature and inaccurate. The article is improved from what it was, most of the edits have been copy/edit improvements, and despite Olive's claims, the lead retains Chopra's Indian American connections, and has considerable detail on his career as a physician. I'm not sure that Olive has read the same lead as me. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The changes in emphasis and style are rather startling: The first paragraph is very tight, summarizing his notability. The second paragraph loosely introduces him and his career. The third (last) paragraph of two sentences tells of his transition to his current business. I expect that the first paragraph is of most concern. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This attempt to filibuster improvements to the article by pointing to irrelevent discussions elsewhere that most parties were wholly unaware of is highly problematic. Hipocrite (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, while due care must be taken for any BLP, and Wikipedia's policies guidelines and policies should guide and police as always, the thought that somehow extra caution is warranted here could be seen as a victory for those that would bring external pressure to disrupt the normal course of Wikipedia editing. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Awards and memberships section it looks to be made up entirely of primary sources, but the nature of the information is such that its significance needs to be verified through secondary sources. You can see my views on these types of sections here. Regarding BLP, it does not prevent us from including well-sourced criticisms, but it does encourage us to "write conservatively" which is why I toned down a lot of editorialized quotes from the media and more work along those lines needs to be done in the body. Like any professional journalist, we should consider it our ethical obligation to give the article-subject a voice against their accusers. Therefore, there needs to be a sentence in the Lead that features his defense and/or the viewpoint of his followers. Chopra himself or his representative(s) are the best suited to provide this particular aspect of the article with the best available source. CorporateM (Talk) 17:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given how much concern there was over the COI's interest in the lead, I think it reasonable to expect the same level of caution be exercised by all parties regarding it. From what I can see there is a lot of contention over what the lead does/doesn't summarize, and a clearer body would help provide a better narrative for the lead to summarize. Despite the (rather absolutist) collapsing of the proposed changes section, I think we could do some significant work ironing out the body of the article, where changes do not risk misrepresenting the whole work. I agree that while folks can (and violently do) defend individual pieces of the BLP, the overall feel of it has often not been very objective. The Cap'n (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought you were going to be mediating. It's got to be a new mediation tactic where the mediator expresses their own personal viewpoints and takes sides. I guess you're not mediating? Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is established best practice to work on the body of the article first and do the Lead last, so you can make sure the Lead is representative of a quality article. Though it shouldn't prevent incremental improvement, it's good advice as far as saving any nit-picking for later. I don't really care what the COI does or doesn't want - my interest is in improving articles. I previously bumped into something TM-related and have been having an itch to work on a topic with a negative reception. Editors should chip in in article-space, not the drama boards. And keep in mind, this is suppose to be fun :-p CorporateM (Talk) 20:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CorporateM when an editor makes changes this fast with out input as to their suitability, its almost impossible to keep up, input, or even know where to start That you perceive this as an article you want to edit because it has a negative reception instead of what this is, a BLP, does not engender confidence in the neutrality of what you are doing. You are being supported by self declared skeptics which I expected given the way the lead first paragraph, especially now, reads. My point in posting was for the record, and to make clear this article is contentious. This resulting thread proves my point as I thought it would. Such highly contentious articles should remain stable for a fair period of time to be considered for GA status. Clearly this article is not stable. However, I do believe you are acting in good faith even though your edits seem to ignore the extensive preceding discussions on some of the content you added. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

aside
@Hipocrite, I came here because of a BLP notice for help with sourcing, which I'm in the process of doing, and since then I've been working toward a NPOV article. --- ...if you think my saying there have been issues with objectivity is "taking sides", I recommend reviewing WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. I'm assuming this is a simple misunderstanding and not a misrepresentation of my statements. Again, I urge folks to temper their passions; this is an encyclopedia, not war. The Cap'n (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bald faced lie. Retract it now. Hipocrite (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you consider a lie? --- You told Barney he should be "waiting for him (me) to make a mistake large enough (like sockpuppeting again) that you can civilly report his completely disruptive actions." and posted a fake AE to my Talk page as a "warning." Or are you saying that it's a lie that this is an encyclopedia, not a war? That would explain some of your hostility here, at least. The Cap'n (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Askahrc: You can report someone for disruptive actions, or warn a person about arbitration, without actively campaigning for a block. I would also like to see a concrete example of Hipocrite advocating that you be indefinitely blocked or site-banned, or retract your statement, as otherwise it appears to be a violation of WP:NPA. -- Atama頭 20:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Atama, I will grant that he has never said he wanted me indefinitely blocked, and I did not intend to imply he had said those words. I will retract that portion of text. I was basing my assumption that he did not welcome my presence on the statements he'd made in AE (that, aside from the quote above, reiterated the dismissed SPI/death threat issue) and the posting of a mock-up AE on my Talk page. No falsehood or personal attack was intended. The Cap'n (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thank you for clarifying. -- Atama頭 21:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Characterizing that SPI as "dismissed" is not quite accurate. There was ample evidence to warrant a checkuser, and a checkuser was performed. I am responding because you had previously tried to discredit other SPIs on this talk page, and I can't help but see the above comment as a continuation of that. It would be best to avoid the topic altogether, of course, but if I feel something is being misrepresented then I will step in. vzaak 06:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I was wondering if citation 14 was added by anyone that is still paying attention to the article that may be able to provide the text or vouch for its contents. A Google search shows that the article exists (second hit on the search), but the website is no longer hosting the content (broken link). My library doesn't appear to have a copy in their online archives, nor does Highbeam. It looks to be a reliable source for the information it is cited for, but I'd like to verify it. CorporateM (Talk) 21:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Hipocrite (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!!! I will take a look in a moment. CorporateM (Talk) 21:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added an attribution since the source is an interview. Also, this edit is a bit iffy (again coming from an interview) and anyone is welcome to change it back if they disagree. I also noticed that the source points out that TIME Magazine called him the "poet prophet of alternative medicine", which made me think it was a copy/paste of promotional materials at first, but I found other sources[2][3] that are secondary from TIME Magazine that discuss it. It seems this may actually warrant inclusion, though I'm not sure where to put it. Anyways, I have it on my watchlist and I might circle back later (maybe in a few months maybe) if the drama has died down by then. I wouldn't mind bringing it up to GA. CorporateM (Talk) 23:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexbrn I wanted to discuss this on Talk rather than revert, but I don't think the removal of that content was necessary. When my justification was that the previous version was not providing a contextual account of the original source, introducing a quote from the original source is not undue. Including the quote on the Ayurvedic stuff right next to an analysis of the dangers of denying medical knowledge gives the impression that was the context of the quote, when in fact he emphasized the medical facts behind AIDS in the same section. That's why the representation is an issue.
It's true that the source comes from a book Chopra wrote, but the section in question is summarizing that same book. The analysis of the content is from an appropriately secondary source, but it is acceptable (and standard) to use the original, primary document to establish its own quotes and content. The Cap'n (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your analysis of the primary texts or of what is important "context" is immaterial - we follow the analyses in secondary sources. This is in a section about "alternative medicine", and Schneiderman's point is about evidence and ethics wrt HIV/AIDS treatment, so your addition was also off-topic. Worse, it might have the POV implication there is some mitigating sanity in Chopra's view, whereas the real context here is that mixing real medicine with nonsense gives you: nonsense. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have any analysis of the primary texts, I included what was actually said in them and left the secondary sources to do the analysis. Everything in that paragraph was in reference to Chopra's comments on AIDS from his Quantum Healing book, so referencing what Chopra said about AIDS in Quantum Healing is not only on-topic and leaves the secondary analysis coherent, it's necessary for accuracy. Also, arguing that we need to exclude any source that doesn't make the subject look adequately insane is itself POV and very much against BLP. Many of Chopra's views may seem silly, but that doesn't mean we can exclude the ones that aren't just to emphasize illegitimacy. The Cap'n (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are generally allowed for explaining the point-of-view of the article-subject, so long as they are not used to substantially alter the weight of the arguments. That is a case where you would have to take a look at the article as a whole and see if primary sources are used excessively in a manner that turns the page into a kind of advocacy for the article-subject's point-of-view. CorporateM (Talk) 14:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, and they have no bearing on the efficacy or ethical status of Chopra's altmed views on HIV/AIDS, so are at best confusing. If Chopra had written something that bore directly on the Schneiderman point, that would be another matter. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they don't, and I didn't try to argue the efficacy or ethics of Chopra, but rather included a reference to the source that Schneiderman is talking about (that's about as directly bearing as you can get). There is no Schneiderman point without this source, I don't see how this is contentious. I'm not trying to say that Chopra's views were effective, ethical, magical, or anything, and that's the point. I'm not trying to say anything, I'm trying to accurately represent what the section relates to. Chopra said A, Schneiderman said B in response. We can't post B without a reference to A. I'm not looking to edit-war, Alexbrn, but I'm not seeing a lot of a solid justification behind these reverts. The source does bear directly on this specific topic, the Schneiderman quotes are rebutting a point that is not fully represented in the first place and the content makes no independent analysis nor justification for Chopra's views, it just states them. The Cap'n (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? In Quantum Healing Chopra gives a cursory description of orthodox theories & treatments (which you are quoting, though you might have quoted the most astonishing bit: "no drug is capable of treating it [i.e. AIDS]") and then Chopra segues into his own beliefs which he writes might offer "a move toward a deeper level of understanding, and therefore of treatment." Your edit is in a section on Chopra's own ideas on alternative medicine and it is those with which Schneiderman is taking issue. You edit introduces content which is (a) irrelevant to the section, (b) irrelevant to our secondary source and (c) a misrepresentation of what Chopra is writing in relation to Schneiderman's points. If we wanted to add relevant material from Quantum Healing, we could add more detail quoting for example that Chopra thinks "cancer and AIDS seem to be cases where the proper sequence of sutras must be unravelled at the deepest level". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for including more objective material rather than less, so feel free to include the sutra stuff. Also, yes, I'm including material in a section on Chopra's own ideas on alternative medicine, which, appropriately, are quotes of Chopra's own ideas. The section is on Chopra's ideas and their reception, my material is Chopra's ideas, Schneiderman is the reception. Just curious, what is your justification for stating that quoting Quantum Healing would be relevant if we were including material that depicted Chopra as "insane" but is irrelevant if it seems to say "there is some mitigating sanity in Chopra's view"? That's not the way BLP works.
By the way, the reason why I didn't feel it relevant to bring up Chopra's insane idea that there are no medications to treat HIV/AIDS is that the book was written in 1989, when there were no medications to treat HIV/AIDS. This is why context is important. The Cap'n (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not covered by the secondaries or directly related to a secondary, it's probably undue. From what you are saying, I do not think you understand the source. The only person who has used the word "insane" (repeatedly), or who has raised the topic of Chopra's sanity (as opposed to the sanity of his views) is - you. Another misunderstanding, I am sure. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You write "the book was written in 1989, when there were no medications to treat HIV/AIDS." This is blatently false. [4]. Hipocrite (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipocrite here's the timeline of AZT distribution, which was not broadly distributed until the same year the book was published, 1989. Also, can you define the difference between "false" and "blatently false"? @Alexbrn, again, how is the QH book not related to the secondary when the secondary is writing about the QH book? As far as sanity, you said "Worse, it might have the POV implication there is some mitigating sanity in Chopra's view..." Whether you're referencing the man or his views, excluding content because people might not think he or his views are appropriately decried is not ideal BLP work. Putting in what Chopra said, followed by Schneiderman's analysis of what Chopra said, is NPOV and accurate. What is the problem here? I'm not trying to write a puff piece or anything, just reference the content being discussed. I'd welcome some other opinions. What do you think, CorporateM? Is the inclusion of a reference from the Chopra book Schneiderman's discussing undue here? The Cap'n (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really doubling down on your misstatements? Now it's just willful. AZT was widely distributed well before 1989. Your source doesn't say that it wasn't. Please stop making things up. Still further - you said "there were no medications to treat HIV/AIDS," not "no widely distributed..." You said "no." Could you consider writing, perhaps, that you were wrong, just once, given that you were, and remain, wrong? Hipocrite (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. After reviewing the sources, I was wrong in my initial statement and AZT was available in limited distribution in 1987, not 1989. Also, I said that as an off-hand example of material I did not include in the article, so I'm not sure why you're so concerned with it, but there you are. The Cap'n (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how many ways I can say this. I'll try one more time: Schneiderman is addressing different content in Chopra's book than the content you included. Have you read Schneiderman? Chopra actually discusses AZT in Quantum Healing so I'm astonished you asserted it didn't exist when he was writing. Are you actually reading these sources? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the sources and still think the content makes sense there, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to slow everything down with another wall of text, especially since I can see your point. As for AZT, that was my mistake, as I noted above. I'm okay with leaving it and moving on. The Cap'n (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New references found

I had forgotten “advice,” a category created in the 1990s when New Age books by Deepak Chopra with wacky titles like The Quantum Alternative to Growing Old began dominating the nonfiction list. I’m pretty sure there is only one alternative to growing old, and I don’t recommend it. Nonetheless, Chopra once had four books in the nonfiction top-10 at the same time. The fact that Chopra’s pseudoscientific New Age blather sells at all is a sad commentary on reading tastes, but we don’t burn books anymore, even terrible books. However, we do segregate them. It’s not a perfect solution.

Source: Robert L. Park. (2009). Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science. Princeton University Press. pp. 124-125

By broadcasting his series of lectures, it gave him an unchallenged forum to preach his brand of magical metaphysics supported by deceptive pseudoscience. His philosophy is fundamentally and deeply religious, but Chopra gets great mileage with the media and public by disguising the religion as science. Even mainstream religions don't clamor for equal time because they too are blindsided by the clever approach. When KCET in Los Angeles used Chopra as a fundraiser, he spewed his usual gibberish, the moderator heaped on the usual praise, and the pledges poured in. It was like a New Age televangelical fundraiser.

Source: Kurt Butler. (1999). Lying for Fun and Profit: The Truth about the Media: Exposes the Corrupt Symbiosis Between Media Giants and the Health Fraud Industries. Health Wise Productions. p. 164

Chopra has forsaken rationalism and become a godman with a difference. Instead of fooling people with sleight of hand, he fools them with sleight of tongue. And instead of scamming superstitious Indian peasants, he scams the superstitious American middle class. This recipe has brought him great wealth. After his conversion to the TM cult Chopra was appointed Lord of Immortality by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and became Ayurvedic medicine's messiah in America.

Source: Kurt Butler. (1999). Lying for Fun and Profit: The Truth about the Media: Exposes the Corrupt Symbiosis Between Media Giants and the Health Fraud Industries. Health Wise Productions. p. 237 Goblin Face (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chopra is also mentioned in Kurt Butler and Stephen Barrett's book A Consumer's Guide to "Alternative Medicine": A Close Look at Homeopathy, Acupuncture, Faith-healing, and Other Unconventional Treatments. (1992). Prometheus Books. pp. 110-116. Goblin Face (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chopra is also mentioned in the book Sleeping with Extra-Terrestrials: The Rise of Irrationalism and Perils of Piety by Wendy Kaminer on pages 165-167. Does anyone have access to these sources? Goblin Face (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the book by Butler and Barrett to the further reading section. Some information about the book can be found here [5], [6]. Butler is a nutritionist and health writer who founded the Quackery Action Council. In his book Lying for Fun and Profit, Butler has an entire chapter on Chopra. I have added some brief quotes above. I suggest that some of Butler's commentary be added to the article. Goblin Face (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref and date format

I'd like to tidy the refs if that's okay. A couple of things:

Most are last name, first name; some are the other way round. Does anyone mind if I make them first name, last name? There's no reason to put the last name first if the list isn't alphabetical, and they're easier to write if we don't have to change the order.

Also, a couple of refs have a dash after the page, "e.g. pp. 46–". Is that p. 46, p. 46ff? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I usually go with whatever the citation templates do. The extra dash is often put in there by the automatic citation wizards and has to be taken out manually. I'm glad to see there is more discussion about actual sources (above). As a side-note, it looks like there is a weird run-on sentence in the second paragraph of the Lead. CorporateM (Talk) 20:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take the absence of objection as an okay to go ahead, so I'll do that during my next edits. I may also try (over time) to flesh it out with some biographical details and info about his work. Some of the sources could be replaced too; it's better to choose a small number of high-quality sources and stick with them. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The date formats are also inconsistent. My own preference is day-month-year, but I don't mind either way. If people have a preference, please say. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as dates go, I'm fine with any layout as long as the month is spelled out to prevent confusion by those who aren't used to that system. I also prefer last name, first, but it's nothing I'm passionate about. I just think it makes it easier for those searching for specific authors. The Cap'n (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the reply. I had already changed to first name/last name when you posted, but we can easily change back if people want to. I'd quite like to line up the dates as day first, but given it's about someone in the US (where they prefer month first), I'll wait to see if there are objections. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Park's commentary deleted

"Physics professor Robert L. Park has written that physicists wince at the "New Age quackery" in Chopra's cancer theories." - Is there any reason this was deleted, can we add this back in. Goblin Face (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's repetitive of material that's already in that section. I think it would make sense to remove/paraphrase some more quotes, because there's a quite a bit of "me too" in the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quote Confusion

@Ronz I was not putting my opinion in the quote, but placing the actual quote from the source. Someone had added "where he spouts a few platitudes and gives", but that's not what's in the quoted book. I simply removed the vandalized content and restored the quote. Please check the book and find the reference, then I respectfully request you undo your revert. The Cap'n (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best keep edit summaries specific to explanations of the edit. I saw all the commentary and assumed that it was part of your explanation. --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the undo and feedback, I appreciate it. The Cap'n (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism. The quote is simply from the Skeptic's Dictionary website[7] which differs slightly from the book form. The quote presumably appears in the article because Baer uses it in his paper. It seems further from original research if we use an expert like Baer to identify a relevant passage, but either version of the quote seems fine.

Though unnamed, User:Alexbrn was implicitly accused of vandalizing the article. That's not helpful. vzaak 05:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't research who had made the edit to the version that was different from the original text, and if that was a good faith error I of course do not wish to use the word "vandalized". I naturally assumed based on the departure from the text that someone had added their own input. In the future, if people are citing quotes they should clearly cite them from the source they find them in, to prevent this kind of telephone-game error. The Cap'n (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody made an edit that changed the original text. The "platitudes" quote comes from the Baer paper, which (by looking at its initial insertion) is almost certainly where Alexbrn got it. Following your directive to cite quotes "from the source they find them in" would mean restoring the "platitudes" quote while sourcing it to skepdic.com or the Baer paper. Is that what you want to do? vzaak 23:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Age guru

I'd like to remove this from the lead, but I see there has been discussion before, so I'm checking here first. Whenever I read it, it jars slightly because it jumps out as either a compliment or insult, depending on your perspective, but not a factual description. That is, it has more connotation than denotation (in this context). SlimVirgin (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He has a large following outside the New Age community too. I was thinking of simply: "is an Indian-American alternative-medicine practitioner." The next sentence makes clear that he's a prolific author too, and that he has a large following. So:

Deepak Chopra (/ˈdiːpɑːk ˈtʃoʊprə/) (born October 22, 1947) is an Indian-American alternative-medicine practitioner. He is the author of several dozen books and over 100 audio or video products on complementary medicine, and has become one of the best-known and wealthiest figures in the holistic health movement.

SlimVirgin (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about "guru", awkward as it is, is that it captures a lot of meaning compactly. "Practitioner" is not quite right. Perhaps sometime like "celebrity advocate of New Age ideas" would work, so long as the next sentence mentioned "alternative medicine". (We shouldn't use "holistic health" as we are now, it's a loaded term here). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 03:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Alex about "holistic health" and I have stated my preference for "new age guru" when it was previously removed. Also I'm not convinced that he is a practitioner of Alt-Med as much as an advocate, as I doubt he spends much time over a mortar and pestle grinding ayurvedic remedies, more likely hunched over a Mac keyboard in a plush office, grinding out his next HuffPo article. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 06:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a loaded term and I'd say it should be avoided. "celebrity advocate of New Age ideas" is even worse in my opinion. We should use the language or terms most often found in secondary sources like these:

  • Author and "pioneer in mind-body medicine" Deepak Chopra—LA Times, March 26, 2014
  • Chopra is considered one of the pre-eminent leaders of the mind-body-spirit movement.-- Journal of India February 16, 2010
  • Deepak Chopra, the best-selling author and speaker on wellness and spirituality—Rocky Mountain News, Oct 11, 2005
  • Deepak Chopra, holistic health guru, best-selling author and founder of the Chopra Center in Carlsbad, Calif. –LA Times, Dec 11, 2013
  • Physician, educator and best-selling author Dr. Deepak Chopra—CNBC, Sharon Epperson, 1 Apr 2014
  • spiritual leader, licensed physician and best-selling author Deepak Chopra.—Reuters, May 9, 2014
  • -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there sources other than critics who call him a New Age guru, or it is a term that's confined to criticism of him? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Keithbob: I think your presentation of the sources is misleading in the extreme. To take only the final source ("Reuters"), I assume you're citing this press release (you haven't provided actual hyperlinks, so please correct me if I'm wrong). That source is a press release promoting a meeting featuring Chopra. It is not a news article from Reuters. That should be immediately clear, since the source says at the very top: Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release.

    To reiterate what should be obvious: news articles from Reuters are reliable sources. Promotional press releases reposted on the Reuters website with a disclaimer are not reliable sources. Can you (Keithbob) please clarify whether the other cited sources are in fact objective news pieces, as opposed to promotional material reposted on various news websites? MastCell Talk 22:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I checked the second-to-last and found this article on CNBC's web site, where it looks like that language came from Sharon Epperson who is a financial correspondent for the news channel.
  • The next one up looks to be from this article at the LA Times, and was written by Betty Hallock (who is a "deputy food editor" for the paper), but it's just a notification of a book signing so it is probably just repeating info provided by Chopra's people.
  • The next one up I found at this page (you need to log in to HighBeam to see the whole thing) and it doesn't have any indication of being a press release, it looks like an article written by John Rebchook, who is the Real Estate Editor for Rocky Mountain News. I don't find it repeated anywhere else, so it's probably not from a press release.
  • It looks like the next one up is from a press release. I can't find the Journal of India article, but I found that exact same language here and repeated at other pages online, which clearly stem from a press release.
  • The next one up also seems to be a press release. The LA Times article itself doesn't say that it is, but I found this press release which is the same language, so clearly it came from a press release generated by OWN.
  • Bottom line, most of those above are from press releases, but a couple of them aren't. -- Atama頭 18:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Atama, thanks for doing that legwork - it's very helpful. I guess the bottom line from my perspective is that it would be helpful for experienced editors to set a good example in terms of approaching sources scrupulously (as Atama has). It's pretty disappointing to see obviously promotional press releases presented as if they were "secondary sources" suitable to base an encyclopedic biography upon. Thanks again to Atama for helping to clarify. MastCell Talk 22:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

some sources and clarifications re: New Age Guru

This article has really come along way and the work speaks to Wikipedia's process. I want to add some clarifications regarding the above discussion with facts, acting as Dr Chopra's archivist. Some of the confusion here is around common misperceptions (some of them so common even Dr Chopra accepts them quite often)


Fact 1: Dr Chopra is not an alternative medicine practitioner. A alternative medicine practitioner implies a license or a practice that Dr Chopra does not have. What is factually correct is that Dr Chopra has been a 'champion' (for lack of a better word) of integrating western medicine with yoga and meditation. Dr. Chopra runs a medically licensed clinic (1A), the Mind Body medical group/Chopra Center is all comprised of licensed medical doctors but there is a very strong emphasis on yoga, meditation and various ‘wellness’ practices. Additionally Dr. Chopra’s clinic teaches AMA certified CME courses on Integrative (not alternative) Medicine under the aegis of UCSD medical school (1B). Integrative (or "complementary" in NIH documents) is the recognized approach for Dr. Chopra (1D).

1A: "Although he uses ayurvedic techniques in his practice he is still a practicing endocrinologist and if a patient presents with hypothyroidism he still prescribes thyroid replacement therapy. He acknowledges that antibiotics and cancer chemotherapeutic agents interfere with the mechanism of disease. However, ayurvedism says that the mechanism and origin of disease are not the same." Source: Goldman, Brian, PhD. .National Institute of Health, 1/15/1991. "Ayurvedism, Eastern medicine moves west", CMAJ. p. 218-221.

→→→→→→→ Two things: first of all, your citation is wrong on several points. The author, Brian Goldman, is an M.D., not a Ph.D. He is not affiliated with the "National Institute of Health" [sic], but rather is a practicing ER doc in Toronto. (Both facts should be obvious to anyone perusing the first page of the article, let alone an archivist). Secondly, and more importantly, your selected excerpt doesn't really convey the tone of the source. Goldman writes: "In building his case against western medicine, Chopra cloaks himself carefully in the mantle of 'rational Western physician'." Thus, the author expresses significant skepticism about Chopra's commitment to Western medicine, instead framing it as a pose adopted by Chopra to advocate more successfully for alternative approaches. I realize that you are trying very hard to avoid conveying anything of the sort here on Wikipedia, but since you cited this source, the least you can do is accurately represent its content. MastCell Talk 22:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

my response is at the bottom where it is appropriate, please avoid splitting other editor's comments. SAS81 (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you keep posting massive text dumps full of inaccuracies. I haven't even gotten past "1A" yet and I already see significant errors of both fact and interpretation. It would be helpful if you could be a bit more patient - recognizing that while you are paid to edit this article as your job, the rest of us are volunteers. Try breaking your posts into smaller, more easily discussed segments, and focus on one issue until it's resolved before moving on. These text dumps are not really conducive to any kind of collaborative editing, and instead leave the sense that you're trying to beat down any concerns or dissenting voices with the sheer volume of your posts. MastCell Talk 03:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to ask you to retract this statement "' but you keep posting massive text dumps full of inaccuracies." that is an aspersion and if you find an inaccuracy, I will retract it. please stop trying to discredit me. I can't please everyone here. I am posting less than once a week, am compiling sources which take up space, and my own comments are hardly that long. I'm just not popular here because of my position. I request you afford me the same respect you would anyone else. SAS81 (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your massive text dump - just the first one - was filled with inaccuracies. You wrote "Goldman, Brian, PhD" - inaccurate. You wrote "National Institute of Health" - inaccurate. Then, you use a bunch of blurbs. Are you sure you're a trained archivist? Hipocrite (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not going to list this great waterfall of inaccuracies please retract your statement. If my inaccuracies are inputting PhD for MD are all you have, kindly be patient with me, I have fat fingers and drink too much coffee. 'NIH' is where the source was retrieved, thus why it's listed that way. Send over your best practices for citations, I'll give it a review. SAS81 (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

1B: "Journey into Healing is an accredited course in integrative medicine presented in partnership by the internationally renowned Chopra Center for Wellbeing and U.C.S.D.’s School of Medicine. This experiential workshop is for health care professionals who want to expand their knowledge of mind-body medicine and its practical applications for patient care.

CME credits are available for health care practitioners. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity."

Source: Chopra Center website, Continuing Medical Education Units (CMEs), http://www.chopra.com/programs/journey-into-healing/continuing-medical-education-units-cmes last accessed 5/19/2014.

1C: "A contemporary physician and meta-physician originally from India, he presents and integrates the ageless wisdom of spirituality , quantum physics and medicine." Sources: Friis, Robert H (Emeritus Professor and Chair Department of Health Science - CSU Long Beach), Seaward, Brian Luke (Drexel University - College of Nursing and Health Professions), Dayer-Berenson, Linda. Managing Stress. (Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2013) ISBN:1284036642, p. 185.

1D: "…the second work (of Dr Chopra) places considerably less emphasis on Ayurveda and ‘is grounded in references to Western mind-body medicine, pscyhoneuroimmunology, and physics.’ (Goldstein 1999:112)" Source: Baer, Hans A. Toward an Integrative Medicine: Merging Alternative Therapies with Biomedicine. (AltaMira Press, 2004) ISBN:075910302X, p. 128.

1E: "For more than a decade, he has participated as a lecturer at the Update in Internal Medicine event sponsored by Harvard Medical School’s Department of Continuing Education and the Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Dr. Chopra is a fellow of the American College of Physicians, a member of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, an adjunct professor at Kellogg School of Management, and a senior scientist with the Gallup Organization. Before establishing the Chopra Center, he served as chief of staff at Boston Regional Medical Center." Source: Delos Living website, Advisory Board members. http://delosliving.com/people/dr-deepak-chopra/ last accessed May 19, 2014

Fact 2: Dr Chopra is not a New Age Guru. His own statements contradict this directly and Dr Chopra has always rejected the ‘guru’ title (2A), while many sources avoid the term, even when referring to others who do identify as gurus (2H, 2J). It’s also primarily used as a pejorative against him by his many critics. Case in point one editor in this discussion who has been vocal of their low opinion about Dr Chopra specifically said ‘If all this article consisted of the sentence ... "Deepak Chopra is a New Age Guru" it wouldn't have actually lost much’. While concise descriptions are difficult to articulate, it is factual to say that Dr Chopra is a known advocate, champion, thought leader or some kind of spokesperson promoting the integration of practices such as yoga and meditation with western medicine along with his views on consciousness. The problem is what term do we use? This is challenging - but here are some sources that reference his ‘position’ using other language that is more mainstream and neutral than 'New Age Guru'. It's likely some editors will attempt to dismiss several of these sources, but I hope you will give these fair weight against the sources being used for 'New Age Guru'.

2A: "(Interviewer) Motivational guru, poet, prophet, pioneer of alternative medicine, inspired philosopher — which epithet would Deepak Chopra use to define himself?

(Chopra) I am neither motivational, nor am I a guru, the rest are labels. I am an explorer of a domain of awareness people call consciousness. Just like people climb mountains, I explore the mind. Then I report my findings. My background is in neuro-endocrinology — the study of brain chemicals. I am a physician by training. So I have a great interest in how consciousness differentiates cognition, moods and emotions, perceptions and behaviour, biological functions, social interaction, personal relations, environmental situations and even our interaction with nature."

Source: Bhaduri Jha, Nilanjana. India Economic Times, 6/22/2004. Employee loyalty comes first, the rest will follow'

2B: "Deepak Chopra, M.D., a global leader in the field of mind-body medicine" Source: Gallup Inc. “Gallup Senior Scientists/Senior Advisors”

2C: A renowned physician and author, Deepak Chopra is undoubtedly one of the most lucid and inspired philosophers of our time. Source: Gorbachev, Mikhail. Recipients of the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic: Richard Dawkins, Deepak Chopra, Michael Albert. (Books LLC, 2010)

2D: “Deepak Chopra, endocrinologist, lecturer, celebrity and author of many books…” Source: Yachter, Daniel. Doctor of the Future. (Advantage Media Group, 2010) ISBN:1599321564. p. 162.

2E: "...global thought leaders such as Deepak Chopra, Google’s Chief Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf, star chef Rick Moonen and violinist Charles Yang..." Source: Atkinson, Kim. Chopra Meets Cosmology at Colorado's Curiosity Retreats. Forbes website, http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestravelguide/2014/04/02/chopra-meets-cosmology-at-colorados-curiosity-retreats/. Last accessed 4/2/2014.

2F: "The Soul of Leadership’s Academic Directors (author, physician and thought leader Deepak Chopra..." Source: Kellogg School of Management. Soul of Leadership: Become and Engaged Leader. http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/execed/programs/soul.aspx last accessed May 15, 2014.

2G: "Deepak Chopra, physician, educator and best-selling author..." Source: Epperson, Sharon. Deepak Chopra's guide to thinking rich, CNBC. http://www.cnbc.com/id/101607619, last accessed May 18, 2014.

2H: "Notable conference guests have included President Bill Clinton, who attended the National Governor’s Conference in 2000, Deepak Chopra and alternative health guru Andrew Weil." Source: Appelman, Hilary. Penn Stater Conference Center celebrates 20 years of bridging academia, world. Penn State News. May 5, 2014. http://news.psu.edu/story/314070/2014/05/05/academics/penn-stater-conference-center-celebrates-20-years-bridging last accessed May 18, 2014.

2I: "Dr Deepak Chopra, global thought leader and best-selling author..." Source: Media Update. New global communications platform, State, is making a push into SA. May 6, 2014, www.mediaupdate.co.za/?idstory65004*

*Corrected Link: www.mediaupdate.co.za/?idstory=65004

2J: "Conversely, the publication of Health and Healing (1995a; originally published in 1983) marks the beginning of the “late Weil” – namely the “good hippie doc” and a prominent holistic health guru…

In contrast to Weil, Chopra has become the preeminent figure in a long tradition of positive thinkers in American society over the course of the past decade or so (Meyer 1965)."

Source: Baer, Hans A. Toward an Integrative Medicine: Merging Alternative Therapies with Biomedicine. (AltaMira Press, 2004) ISBN:075910302X, p. 121-129.

2K: "Other people look favorably on me and smilingly tell me that I am a guru (a label I would never apply to myself, not because of its odor of charlatanism in the West, but because the title is revered in India)." Source: Chopra, Deepak. Brotherhood: Dharma, Destiny, and the American Dream. (New Harvest, 2013) p. 15

2L: "Deepak Chopra: Founder, The Chopra Center for Wellbeing; Founder, The Chopra Foundation" Source: Clinton Global Initiative, 2012 Featured Attendees List. http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/ourmeetings/2012/attendees/

2M: "Founder of the Chopra Foundation. Deepak Chopra is a world-renowned authority in the field of mind-body healing, a best-selling author, and the founder of the Chopra Center for Wellbeing. Heralded by Time Magazine as the “poet-prophet of alternative medicine,” he is also the host of the popular weekly Wellness Radio program on Sirius/XM Stars." Source: Delos Living website, Advisory Board members. http://delosliving.com/people/dr-deepak-chopra/ last accessed May 19, 2014

One possible consideration maybe to just refer to Dr Chopra the way the Clinton Global Initiative refers to him - as an Indian American author, speaker, and founder of the Chopra Center for Wellness.

I hope this has been somewhat helpful, thank you everyone for improving this article, I'm hoping we can make it a great one. SAS81 (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell- yes sorry about the MD, PhD, thanks for pointing out that citation error. That he lives in Toronto has no relevance to the citation.His article is preserved at NIH and that is where it was retrieved from, nothing out of form there, retrieval from databases need to be cited. In terms of the ‘tone’ of the article, the author comments on many sides of an argument around Dr Chopra - and one of the things he comments on is one of the facts that I am using him as a source for, primarily a fact that Dr Chopra integrates western medicine with meditation and yoga. His tone is irrelevant when we are discussing facts. SAS81 (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the article is not "preserved at NIH". That's akin to saying that bigfootexists.com is "preserved at Google". The article is indexed on MEDLINE, a service of the National Library of Medicine, which is in turn part of NIH. It's a searchable database of the medical literature, but the article is not hosted or otherwise endorsed by NIH, any more than the millions or billions of other articles indexed by MEDLINE. I'm not telling you how to do your job as an archivist, but this is a really, really basic aspect of the medical literature and if it's unclear then I would strongly suggest seeking assistance from a reputable medical librarian.

Secondly, we do actually have a responsibility to preserve an author's tone and not merely quote-mine his work for the most sympathetic passages. The tone of Goldman's article is quite skeptical of Chopra in places, but you've ignored these aspects of the source and instead used it to promote the official party line. This is the kind of thing that gives paid editing a justifiably bad name. MastCell Talk 02:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SAS is using a quote from the source to underpin the term and idea integrative medicine. He is not selecting content to paint a picture either positive or negative about Chopra.
I disagree with your analysis of the source and its tone. Certainly there is some skepticism but the tone overall is quite neutral and mild, and in some places even interested. You are accusing SAS of ignoring the skeptical aspects of the article even though those aspects have nothing to do with what he's discussing. And you are implying your reading of the article's tone is the accurate one. I think you have a valid opinion, but nor more valid than anyone else's.
I think its fair to ask an editor to slow down because one's editing time is limited. However, many editors on Wikipedia are highly productive for reasons other than that they paid. Selecting paid editing as reason to attach blame seems a little selective, and a red herring.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Details about citation style aside, I just finished reading the source in question. I know I've caught more than a few sources that were quoted as being highly critical of Chopra, then have actually read the source to discover it was actually a defense of Chopra, with all the accusations but the defense left out. That's misrepresentation. This isn't. The author is, in my opinion, admirably well balanced. He examined Chopra's history, qualifications and criticisms neutrally and without rancor. There were critiques of Chopra in there, but there was also praise, and the author's intent was clearly to be objective. I think we venture into dangerous waters when we ask editors to judge what the opinion of the author was and only include material that reflects that opinion. In a good, objective source there should be numerous points, any of which should be able to be quoted on their own. One would be able to find material in this source to argue that Chopra is an intelligent man, a highly controversial figure, a licensed physician, a practitioner of ayurveda, a successful businessman or a lightning rod for the medical community. And, lo and behold, all of those might be correct. Just sayin'. The Cap'n (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ mastcell - This is being discussed ad nauseum, so a couple clarifications. Yes, I am aware of PubMed, and no I never stated the NIH endorsed that article. The article was archived with PubMed under the NIH where it was retrieved. We cited the NIH as the broader entity, with the PubMed Central designation in the link itself. If anyone has issues with our citation style, feel free to alter it when added to Wikipedia. First there were issues with the author's degree, which we acknowledged. Then there complaints that the reference is cited improperly because the doctor is from Toronto, which made no sense and were dropped, and now there are complaints that we cited the NIH rather than its hosting subsidiaries. This obsession over the minutia of a single reference's formatting seems bizarre and unproductive. Secondly I am asking you to retract your statement that I post a bunch of inaccuracies. if you find an inaccuracy, I will retract it. So far my only inaccuracy is listing him as a PhD and not an MD. Doesn't change the context or validity of the source and what it's being used to support. SAS81 (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were a trained archivist. Wouldn't basic citation styles be part of that? What kind of citation style is it that goes "Author, search engine owner, article, date, article, journal, page?" Isn't it typically "Author, institution, article, journal, date, page?" Perhaps you thought the author worked for the NIH? Hipocrite (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tell you what Hipocrite, if you provide me the exact citation and source types you would prefer to see me post I'll reformat them for you. Until then, try to focus on the actual content in the sources as provided. SAS81 (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here should be obvious. When you cite a source as Goldman, Brian, PhD. National Institute of Health, 1/15/1991, you are obviously implying that its author works for the NIH and that the source is produced by and endorsed by NIH. None of these things are true. Presumably none of us want to imply things that aren't true. The issue has very little to do with formatting per se, or with Toronto, although you keep miscasting it in those terms. It's a simple matter of being sure we honestly convey source content. I don't want Hipocrite to spoon-feed you a proper citation; I want you to understand why proper citations are important, before you continue posting massive tracts here. MastCell Talk 00:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm confused. When you wrote "hold our positions as researchers and historians due to accredited skill sets," you imply that you were trained as either a researcher or historian, and that that training is relevant to your current profession. Admittedly, my training as a researcher ended when I left the academic world some 15 years ago, and my training in citation styles is even LESS relent to what I do than the partial differential equations that led me to give up on the whole "researcher" bit, but I do recollect there being a number of different citation styles. In fact, I remember there being exactly 5 - APA, Turabin, Chicago, APA and MLA. I went to look each of them up, to find out which one includes "owner of the search engine used to find the document," as the second item to list. Shockingly, it wasn't in any of the 4! Perhaps there's a 5th citation style out there. Could you please show me what citation style has "search engine owner" as the second, or even any, of the things you're supposed to include as a citation? I guess I'm being a bit over the top now, but you are having a really hard time with the honesty here - you didn't have the first clue what PUBMED was, did you? Hipocrite (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to lead

I've used an inclusive approach to include both the edits of an experienced uninvolved editor and the edits which were made recently to the lead. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I have boldly replaced the word "state" with "claim" in the lead, deliberately to indicate that there is no evidence for Deepak's assertions, per wp:claim. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
which claims specifically? the effects on physical health from yoga and meditation are well documented. Integrative Medicine is mainstream.The lead still does not capture Dr Chopra's actual ideas, but at least they are closer than before. Dr Chopra does not claim that's a mental process over the physical, but rather an holistic process, meaning 'physical emotional mental spiritual & environmental' all contribute to the well being of the individual. That's not an unsupported claim, that is integrative medicine. SAS81 (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As had been discussed, practically no source concentrates on the "physician" aspect of Chopra, no having it as the first thing we mention about him is completely undue, and out of alignment with the sources. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple sources on Chopra's life begin by saying he is a physician. That he was a physician is critical to an understanding of why he veered off into integrative medicine so I would disagree that mentioning this as a base line point for his life's work is undue.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

AIDS, CANCER views

Chopra has described the AIDS virus as emitting "a sound that lures the DNA to its destruction". The condition can be treated, according to Chopra, with "Ayurveda's primordial sound".[34] Taking issue with this view, medical professor Lawrence Schneiderman has said that ethical issues are raised when alternative medicine is not based on empirical evidence and that, "to put it mildly, Dr. Chopra proposes a treatment and prevention program for AIDS that has no supporting empirical data".[34]

AIDS and Cancer are not topics central to Dr Chopra's main thesis, that integrating western medicine with meditation is beneficial towards health so focusing on them in the lead section puts to much weight on ideas that are not core to his thesis. There are some highly selective quotes in the section on Quantum Healing regarding Dr Chopra's description of AIDS and cancer that heavily imply he rejects basic medical understanding of how these diseases operate. This is factually incorrect. Dr Chopra writes about integrating Western medicine, not rejecting it, with meditation practices.

In order to help foster some more accurate representation, below are additional quotes from the book that reflect a more balanced position. I hope any discussion of the book in the article will reflect the actual contents of the book.

Source: Chopra, Deepak. Quantum Healing: Exploring the Frontiers of Mind/Body Medicine. (Bantam, 1990) ISBN: 0553348698

p. 237: “One AIDS patient in Germany has been treated with Ayurveda for two years as part of a pilot program conducted in Europe. Diagnosed in 1984, he is still alive at the time of this writing in August 1988 (80 percent of AIDS patients die within two years of diagnosis); he leads a normal life and is without overt symptoms. …the subjects know that Ayurveda is not promising a cure, but the supervising physicians feel that they are seeing improvements, particularly in the patients’ ability to withstand the debilitating fatigue that saps the strength and will of AIDS patients.”

p. 238: “The diagnosis had been made four years earlier after he came down with pneumonia. Rather than the typical pneumonia caused by pneumococcus bacteria, his came from a protozoa known as Pneumocystis carinii; this disease is one of the most common that strike AIDS patients when their immune systems collapse. He recovered from the attack and decided to change his life. He learned to meditate, and for the first time in his adult life he gave up the habitual routine of long nights, heavy drinking, pills, smoking, and promiscuity that had been attached to his career. (Interestingly, a survey of long-term AIDS survivors shows that all of them have made this kind of “take charge” decision over their disease. Standard medicine cannot explain why this should be such a lifesaver, but it is.)”

Dr Chopra specifically states what causes AIDS and nowhere does he say he it caused by sound mutations. That Dr Chopra may describe ‘how’ Ayurveda would view an illness is not the same thing as Dr Chopra viewing that illness in the same way.

p. 237: I kept one foot firmly planted in my private endocrinology practice - although I felt in tune with Ayurveda theory, I was nervous about the results."

p. 237: This is not yet a cure, but a huge step towards recovering one."

p. 239: "AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, plus its related mutations, which are a researcher's nightmare." “A cold or flu virus is content to let DNA build proteins for it, but a retrovirus like HIV goes one better by blending into the DNA’s own chemical strands, masking itself as the host’s genetic material.”

p. 243: “The pneumonia that an AIDS patient typically catches is caused by a variety of Penumocystis that is present in everybody’s lungs all the time. The AIDS virus activates such diseases from the inside by demolishing one part of the immune system (the helper T-cells), thus breaking apart the network of information that holds us together.”

p. 251: “…Ayurveda therefore pays much less attention to surface emotions than does current mind-body medicine. The whole rationale for treating cancer (or AIDS) with primordial sound and bliss techniques is that they reach the deep levels of consciousness common to everyone, the weak as much as the strong.”

“…Eleanor was diagnosed with advanced breast cancer that had metastasized to the lymph nodes under her arm. She underwent one radical mastectomy, followed by a second; her reaction to chemotherapy afterward was extremely poor. Finding the side effects intolerable, she abandoned conventional treatment altogether, even though her doctors made her well aware that the cancer had now spread to her bones. Patients in this category of metastasis have about a 1 percent chance of survival. As it happens, Eleanor was advised by her family doctor to start meditating in 1986, in the middle of her disease. Through her meditation practice, she heard about Ayurveda. She came to Lancaster for inpatient treatment, where I met her and instructed her in the primordial sound for treating cancer. The results were remarkable. Her severe bone pain disappeared (this incident was mentioned earlier, in chapter 9), and whenever she returned home to be X-rayed, her radiologist found fewer and fewer pockets of bone cancer.

It was far too late for these regressions to have been caused by her earlier treatment. Generally, if a tumor is being treated with radiation or chemotherapy, it shrinks very quickly. If Eleanor survives for two more years, she will enter the privileged ranks of patients who beat all the odds.”

SAS81 (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if there is one thing you do not lack, it is verboseness. are you by chance getting paid by the word? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AIDS and cancer may not be central to Chopra's "thesis", but certain of his pronouncements on these topics are extraordinary enough to have attracted analysis from serious people published in high-quality sources—the kind of analysis, in other words, that Wikipedia uses as a basis for its articles. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TPROD, I get paid to do this because no volunteer would put up with this much abuse as a hobby and volunteers tend to get harassed away from the article. My own text is hardly that long I don't appreciate how you engage with me. @Alex - you can use that analysis and sources, but the weight should be in accordance to the facts. I hardly doubt that Dr Chopra has all the critics he does because of 7 comments he made in a book written in 1989. Please do not use 'AIDS and CANCER' and all the suffering caused therein as a way to weasel in a perception about Dr Chopra does not represent his actual viewpoint. SAS81 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were being paid as an archivist. How would you know how much abuse you'd have to put up with, exactly? Are you sure you're an actual archivist? I mean, you didn't know what Pubmed was, right? Hipocrite (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"but the weight should be in accordance to the facts" No, and that's the long-running problem with your contributions to Wikipedia. You feel you know the facts, and you are working to have the article rewritten accordingly.
What you feel are the "facts" should be irrelevant, if you understood our policies.
Your insistence that these "facts" should drive the article is simply wrong.
You've been told these things long ago. What's the problem? --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, this is something I had an issue with myself awhile back. The issue seems to be the attention that Chopra's comments on AIDS and cancer caused, and here's a bigger list of times he's commented on them. Why is this a bad thing?
I do think it's unreasonable to have a section about Quantum Healing but then only include the criticisms of it while dismissing all but the most parsed of quotes. While primary sources should not drive the article's narrative, the very book that is the subject of a section can and should be referenced. We can leave in the stuff that's critical but also give an accurate accounting of Chopra actually said. I thought my version did that, but anyone's welcome to do one better. The Cap'n (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are writing an encyclopedia. We are meant to be a tertiary source, digesting what secondary sources say. We are not meant to become a weird secondary source by relaying primary details from Chopra's books that no quality secondary source on the planet has found worthy of mention. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we are describing Quantum Healing or any of Chopra's theories /Philosophies the first place to go is the primary source. It is acceptable and even necessary to set as a base for whatever else we include from tertiary sources on Chopra's words on the subject. Primary sources must only be used with care, but this is one of the places a primary source is useful, necessary and definitive.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

We should be including material from secondary, not "tertiary" sources (unless unavoidable). We have no need to try and interpret what "Quantum Healing" is more widely than has drawn attention from quality commentators. If we were to include our own summary Chopra's fringe notions, we would be obliged to label them as pseudoscientific/fringe/nonsense/whatever, which would be difficult without secondary sources in any case. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipocrite - FOC, please. Not only is it wise policy, but it will save you lots of your time volunteering on this article towards something productive. SAS81 (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel like being lectured on policy by you, paid editor. Where's my check? Hipocrite (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
well I'm going to focus on content and just leave it at that. SAS81 (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
i would recommend focusing on policies first (like WP:NOTADVERT and WP:NPOV) and how they apply to content and presenting content, since its been obvious from the start that you are not really focusing on content so much as focusing on getting promotional content into the article - which is not really helpful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely justified and normal WP policy to rely on primaries for quotes and factual statements about a work being discussed. We are merely discouraged from using primaries as the sole sourcing for an article, but there's not some sort of ban on referencing material directly for quotes to illustrate content (ie. primaries are not good for discussing Chopra's perception, but are appropriate for explaining the content of a book). Using primary sources does not make us a secondary source unless we write in our own analysis. Read the WP procedures:
Primary sources are appropriate when the purpose of using them is purely illustrative, such as providing a photograph of a historic event in an article about that event or providing a quote of an author's prose in an article about the author. When using primary sources it is necessary to avoid attempts at interpreting the sources: the purpose is to give readers representative and neutral examples.
Therefore it is not OR to write Deepak Chopra said "Blah blah blah..." which is contradicted by Dr. Whatsit, who says "blah blah blah...", while it would be OR to write Deepak Chopra believes in the completely discredited blah blah blah, and all doctors, including Dr. Whatsit, think he's a lunatic. We are intended to cite primary sources when we discussing that source's factual content, then we use secondaries to present analysis and interpretation of that content. This is not controversial stuff. The Cap'n (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. It's not as much a OR problem as WP:NPOV and WP:BLPPRIMARY. That's been the problem the whole time, trying to counter well-sourced information with primary sources and personal opinions. --Ronz (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not violating NPOV nor BLPPRIMARY to include representative quotes from a book in a section about that same book, and there's nothing in those policies that says so, merely that primaries should be used with caution. I have tried to be very cautious with my use of them. I wasn't trying to counter anything with my edit, I included a quote from the source being discussed that dealt with the topic the secondary referenced. It was a straightforward, descriptive statement.
A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
I think there's been some misconceptions on all sides about the role of primaries v. secondaries. I'm certainly not arguing that this article should be based off of primaries, but when we read Primary 1 and see A, then Secondary 1 is referenced saying that Primary 1 says B, we can include a quote of A from Primary 1 without inserting our own POV or refuting Secondary 1 ourselves. That's reporting descriptive, factual quotes, not opinions. There's nothing making this an insurmountable issue. The Cap'n (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources, even when self-published, are allowed where the BLP subject is the author. They shouldn't be over-used, but it's fine to use them to describe the subject's views instead of "X wrote that Y said." SlimVirgin (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion here on this topic. (Littleolive oil (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, yes, I would agree with that. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Using primary sources to counter better ones is a POV (and in this case a BLPPRIMARY) violation. The problem is that it is used to "balance" information from far better sources. Primary sources should be used to complement and provide pertinent details, not to provide "balance". --Ronz (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't see anyone adding primary sources to counter better sources. Did I miss something.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not arguing that point, Ronz, but in the specific instance being discussed there's no countering going on. Schniederman wrote that Chopra described AIDS as some sort of sound like siren or something (not looking at the source right now), then went on to say that rejecting scientific understandings of AIDS was unethical. I read the Quantum Healing source this was based off of and saw that prior to the discussed section on ayurvedic perspectives, Chopra had clearly described the scientific understanding of AIDS and directly endorsed it, so I included a reference to this context without refuting Schniederman. I've never argued Schniederman should be dismissed or tried to counter his source with a primary, but it's unreasonable to say that if a secondary source critiques a book, no quotes can be provided from that book that do not support the critique. The Cap'n (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SAS81 seems to think otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but we're different people and I'm not here to represent SAS81. You're free to think what you will about what they're arguing for, but I'm interested in getting feedback on the edits I've proposed. Leaving SAS81 aside, does the scenario I described above seem reasonable and within WP policy? I certainly think so, but if you don't I'd be interested to hear why not. The Cap'n (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether we use a primary or secondary source to describe Chopra's views, I hope we all agree that we have to get those views right. So we have to use high-quality secondary sources who are familiar with Chopra's work and describe it properly. It's completely appropriate at that point to use Chopra himself, even if only as an adjunct. There is no point in saying "Smith wrote that Chopra wrote ..." (description), though of course we can say "Smith wrote that, in adopting position X, Chopra implied that ..." (analysis). SlimVirgin (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin Agreed. I also agree with Ronz and Alexbrn that the Schneiderman analysis is appropriate and should be the only nonquoted analysis in the section (given that I haven't seen any other secondaries on the matter). No countering, just context. So we have a section on a book with the book's quoted context and then secondary analysis. That seems like a good, NPOV breakdown. The Cap'n (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've inserted irrelevant content into the article again (I reverted it). Schneiderman is competent enough to include the material from Chopra which is related to his argument. We don't want Wikipedia adding extraneous stuff which has no bearing. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not irrelevant or extraneous, that's what we've all been discussing, and therefore I think your revert was unwarranted. Schneiderman included the material that was relevant to his argument, but WP isn't just about presenting arguments, but facts. If we have material from a secondary source critiquing Chopra's book's mention of AIDS, how is it irrelevant to include quotes from the section of that book where Chopra mentions AIDS? Only including Schneiderman's critique without the contextual material that is directly related gives a false impression of the material cited. Schneiderman's analysis, out of context, gives the impression that Quantum Healing denies the medical definition of AIDS, when in fact the source says the exact opposite. That's inserting POV by omission. The Cap'n (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"That's inserting POV by omission" What part of NPOV supports that interpretation? --Ronz (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Balance states that when there are two perspectives from equally reputable sources, both should be represented. I don't think it can be argued that Quantum Healing is not a reputable source for the section on Quantum Healing. Impartiality discourages the arrangement of sources or facts that do not accurately represent the relevant positions.
You're arguing that the only quotes from the book that can be cited are those from a critic of the book, and have repeatedly reverted any quotes from the book that contain material that does not support the implication in the Schneiderman quote that Chopra rejects the scientific conception of AIDS (something Chopra directly addresses). That's both misrepresenting the author's position and arranging the facts to only support Schneiderman's position. That's how it violates NPOV.
Given the fact that two other editors have supported the use of QH in the section about QH, and that your only objection at this point is that it's "irrelevant or extraneous" (both of which have been addressed at length), I respectfully ask you to undo your revert or justify why it is necessary. The Cap'n (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few more primary sources from QH that can help determine secondary sources clarifications around Chopra's views. These clarify Dr Chopra's message on integrating, not rejecting western medicine, what his approach is, and how he treats cancer by adding meditation practice and not discontinuing productive treatments in western medicine. Hope these help

p. 2 “The physical basis of science is very solid, and in the eyes of every medical doctor, extremely convincing. On the other hand, the healing power of the mind is considered dubious. Yet I was determined to show that this healing power was a science in it’s own right.”

p. 11 “The word holistic, which tends to offend orthodox doctors, simply means an approach that includes the mind and body together.”

p. 12-13 “She also continued the course of chemotherapy set up by her doctor at home in New York. When we talked about that I said, “If I could confidently put you on nothing but Ayurveda, I would- the deterioration in your physical state would then be much less. But you came to me a very sick woman, and we know that chemotherapy works as an outside approach. Let’s combine the outer and the inner and hope that they add up to a real cure.”

p. 14 “The chemotherapy had caused almost constant nausea, and her hair fallen out in frightening amounts, adding to the shame she felt following her breast surgery. All this compromised the Ayurvedic treatments we were trying. If even higher doses of chemotherapy were given, she would become more depressed, more prone to infections, and weaker in every way.

Yet, at the same time, I did not have a strong enough reason to tell her not to proceed. What if she suffered a relapse in six months and died?

“Go ahead with your chemotherapy,” I advised, “but stick with our program, too, okay?”

SAS81 (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"equally reputable sources" How exactly are they equal? --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Whatever we may think of Chopra's scientific standing, he's a reliable, reputable source for reporting what he himself said. Accurately representing what's in a book is not endorsing it, for crying out loud, it's being an encyclopedia. The Cap'n (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously. They are not equal. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion. We simply don't treat primary sources equally with independent, secondary sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion." This is a bizarre statement that typifies the circles we've been talking in. If you're writing a section about a book, citing that book's content is not promoting it, it's referencing it. There's no analysis, promotion or apologetics in the proposed change, just contextual quotes relevant to the topic being discussed.
Mein kampf is directly cited in its own article, are we really arguing that Deepak Chopra is less reliable or reputable than a genocidal despot, or alternatively that WP is promoting Hitler by citing his book? Our job is to present information, not censor it, and the primacy of secondary analysis (which is not being challenged) does not mean and has never meant that primary sources (especially the primary source being discussed) cannot be cited. The Cap'n (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mein kampf is a published work which does not change over time, and does not engage in self-promotion. Chopra cannot be compared to a book. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The comparisons to Hitler and Mein Kampf have confirmed my initial instinct that it was a mistake to take this discussion, or these editors, seriously in the first place. MastCell Talk 04:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell, It's an example, not a comparison. I'm not comparing Chopra or his works to Mein Kampf or Hitler in terms of any resemblance, obviously. I've tried just about every other form of explanation that a source is relevant to its own section, and they keep going unheeded, so I presented the most extreme, obviously vile and heavily discussed text I could think of, and pointed out that even that source is directly cited in its own section/article. My point is that the argument that Quantum Healing is not a reputable or relevant source for the article on Quantum Healing is completely illogical and out of line with WP policy.

@Binksternet Precisely, I'm not comparing Chopra to a book, I'm talking about a book. The edit in question is the addition of a quote from the published book "Quantum Healing" in the section of Chopra's page discussing the book "Quantum Healing." It's referencing what Chopra wrote in the book, not Chopra here and now. As an irrelevant side note, I think it could be argued pretty solidly that Mein Kampf was a promotional work. The Cap'n (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source request

I'm looking for a source for the final part of the last sentence in the lead: "His views have led to criticism from medical professionals, who say … that he provides patients with false hope that may prevent them from seeking medical assistance." An earlier version sourced it to Time magazine, but I can't see that article. Could someone post here what it says, or do we have an alternative source? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This?

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. 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.

Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I wonder if that's a strong-enough source for this claim in a BLP. We say that medical professionals say he may be preventing patients from seeking medical assistance, a serious claim for physicians to make of another physician. But it's unattributed – "some have argued" – so perhaps we ought to make it invisible until we find a better source (and preferably more than one). SlimVirgin (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine for reporting on the views of "the medical and scientific communities" I think. This was raised before at WP:BLP/N. For a reinforcing source, we had Park on the "cruel" nature of giving false promise, but - I think you removed this? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should use Time magazine for this, unless perhaps it were reporting what a named physician said. It doesn't even say that physicians are saying it. "Some have argued" could refer to other scientists, or even someone else entirely. Park is a physicist, so it would be odd to use him as a source for this. The point is: if this really is a criticism that physicians make, we should be able to find them making it in high-quality sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the view of "a physician" commenting on "a physician", but what the "medical and scientific communities" think of Chopra's views at large as expressed in his wide-ranging writings. Perhaps the problem was the way this community was not best summarized as "medical professionals", which I've changed to the more generic "scientists" (which Park is, if we want to use him). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time magazine is a reliable source for unnamed criticism. WP:BLP does not require that critics be name, rather that the statements be verifiable. The statement is verifiable. Hipocrite (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So we're good with TIME? Great to know, there had been some talk awhile back that TIME wasn't hard enough journalism to be cited prominently. The Cap'n (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll assume good faith that you're not preparing some "AHA, GOTYA" moment or something, but Time is generally reliable unless other more reliable sources disagree with it. Hipocrite (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And of course it would not be reliable for some things. It is not WP:MEDRS for example. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexbrn, I agree, it's reasonable and in line with MEDRS policy to preclude TIME from being a reliable source for establishing the professional validity of Chopra or other medical/scientific figures or positions.
@Hipocrite it somewhat diminishes the assumption of good faith when you promptly imply that you suspect me of plotting some "AHA, GOTYA" moment, but thanks nonetheless. The Cap'n (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that Chopra has been widely criticized is not a biomedical one. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, not in general, and there should definitely be material about him being criticized/controversial, etc. That said, TIME probably shouldn't be used a source to determine the position of the scientific community as a whole, especially when that wasn't the focus of the article and they cited no large studies. The Cap'n (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Time is fine for how its used. Large studies of quantum healing?! Are you kidding! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum healing is just a label Dr. Chopra put on it - but the thesis itself is just integrative medicine, combining western medicine with things like meditation and yoga. Plenty of studies on that, and many medical universities now teach and train in complimentary and integrative medicine - so Capn's comment isnt far off and there are plenty others that talk about integrative medicine, Dr Chopra is not the only voice by any means. Integrative medicine is mainstream or at worst a minority voice in the medical community. It's not fringe and it's misinformed to refer to it as such. I do think it's important for the lead to show that Dr Chopra has his critiques, don't get me wrong, but there are better and more accurate sources that communicate a clearer context. By resting on Time magazine to create a broad rejection of Dr Chopra's ideas on medicine, there is a miscommunication then to the reader since there actually is a much wider acceptance than most are commonly aware of. SAS81 (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Alexbrn, of course not large studies of Quantum Healing. Large studies of what the scientific or medical community feels about Chopra. They made sweeping, common-sense statements about the views of the community, but there were no statistics, surveys or research in the piece to reliably report on what the scientific community thinks, not even a "51% of scientists disagree with Chopra." That's fine for a news piece, but not for determining the position of the medical or scientific community.
I'll simplify this. If the TIME piece had said that many scientists felt Chopra was on the right track, would you think that was suitable under MEDRS? No, of course not. And it's not suitable under the reverse condition. That's why popular press is specifically mentioned in MEDRS for being a bad source for referencing what scientists/doctors think professionally. The Cap'n (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TM connectedness

Should members of the TM collective participating here be declared on this talk page? vzaak 05:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is a TM collective exactly?(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]
I was referring to the people listed here. Call it what you wish. vzaak 05:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you have something to say about an old CU and arbitration case you should say it. If you have concerns about editors here, please be straightforward with out dragging up past case which obscures the issues at hand.(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Vzaak - you obviously don't know the rule. You do not discuss the failure of editors in or around Fairfield, Iowa to desire to maintain NPOV on any articles. You do not accuse them of having any conflict of interest at all. This is verboten - everyone knows about the conduct and the COI, but it's an open secret - we don't talk about it in public. Hipocrite (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom at WP:ARBTM. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This does bring up a good point. This article should fall under the purview of TM (it is associated with the TM WikiProject after all) so discretionary sanctions are applicable. Fortunately, things seem to be surprisingly constructive here so I don't see that enforcement (or even formal notification) is needed at this point. -- Atama頭 15:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Placebo effect

I've restored "consciousness creates reality" to the lead, because that's a central concept of his. In that regard, the next sentence isn't correct as written: "has led to criticism from scientists, who say his treatments rely on the placebo effect ..." Chopra embraces the placebo effect, calling it "real medicine." To call it criticism that his treatments rely on the placeco effect somewhat misses the point. So we should find a way to reword that or remove it (move it to a later section where we can explain it). SlimVirgin (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"To call it criticism that his treatments rely on the placeco effect somewhat misses the point." Howso? --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "has led to criticism from scientists, who say his treatments misrepresent the placebo effect ..."? That addresses Chopra's embrace of the effect AND the scientific community's problem with that position. Not sure if he actually does embrace it, I'm just taking SlimVirgin at their word. The Cap'n (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He writes about the effect of consciousness (thoughts, subjectivity, inner experience, expectations, desires) on the healing process. Beliefs can heal, in his view. Article of his here: "The placebo effect is real medicine, because it triggers the body's healing system." SlimVirgin (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's trying to redefine placebo to his gain. That's not what the criticism is about. --Ronz (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict:

Chopra sees the so called placebo affect as an legitimate result of mind body integration, and so potential healing. So while scientists might criticize that kind of medicine or deny that it is medicine Chopra believes placebo is actually effective medicine because it can heal. This deserves explanation seems to me both from the side of the critical and from Chopra's view which would give the reader a more complete understanding of where Chopra tends to veer off from more conventional medicine at least in terms of how he views healing. I guess I 'd move and expand. And, I think the term that describes Chopra's approach might be integrative medicine rather than alternative medicine. Chopra's approach does include allopathic medicine/western medicine as well as other methods for healing.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]
per Ronz. He's redefining how placebo is viewed; he's saying mind can heal body, ie placebo, and that is a legitimate aspect of healing and medicine. Within western medicine placebo is seen as a kind of accidental healing. Its the view of what placebo is and its value that Chopra's views challenge. This dichotomy is worth expanding and exploring. (Littleolive oil (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]
That's still not what the criticism is about. --Ronz (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the problem is that there are different definitions of the term placebo effect, but the lead obviously isn't the place to discuss that. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I get the point here, but is it being claimed that Park is misrepresenting Chopra? Park discusses the placebo effect in the source cited, After the Science Wars. That text borrows from Voodoo Science, which has an entire chapter dedicated to the placebo effect. It seems pretty certain that Park understands Chopra and the placebo effect. vzaak 04:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gamel is the source for this in the lead, rather than Park. Vzaak, I'm not sure which point you're referring to, but if it's mine, it's that the term placebo effect is used in different ways. This is a good account if anyone is interested: Fabrizio Benedetti, Placebo effects, Oxford University Press, 2009; summary here. To say that Chopra's treatments have been criticized for relying on the placebo effect, without saying what we mean and without pointing out his own view, is misleading – but we can't explain it all in the lead. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, [this piece] on Chopra and placebo effects, by David Gorski is pertinent to these discussions. This is a source we should probably be using. The thing is, I'm not sure Chopra is that "focussed" on power-of-the-mind stuff. A large part of his altmed business today derives from the sale of very physical products (creams, supplements, etc.) So, I'm just not sure this lede is accurate in playing this mental aspect up as so central. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources clearly indicate Chopra's mind-body approach and integrative medicine approach is what has made him notable. He is not notable for selling supplements or twigs and berries:O) Rather those supplements have grown out of his mind body approach to medicine. Why is Gorski an authority on Chopra?(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Well actually, these days, his altmed business has made him notable (according to our Offit source). I don't know what the "mind" aspect of diet pills is! Gorski is an oncologist, a professor, and an authority on alternative medicine - pretty much on-song for many topics around Chopra's "medicine" views. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that Gorski is an authority on real medicine too. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The criticisms of Chopra's treatments being ineffective and relying upon the placebo effect mean that the treatments don't work. That belongs in the lede. Sorry there's confusion about what that means. Perhaps we should explain it further in the body of the article.

Chopra spins the criticism by redefining placebo effect. If there are independent sources that talk about this spin, then that could be included in the body as well. Let's just not conflate his spin from the criticisms. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a personal interpretation of the sources. I don't see any evidence of Dr Chopra 'spinning' the placebo effect as a criticism, he mentions placebo effect extensively in QH as an example of the mind healing the body and is hardly the first or only person to do that. As to 'criticisms' that Dr Chopra's treatments are ineffective - this is old hat. There are plenty of studies on integrative medicine and the benefits of adding things like yoga or meditation to medical treatment. Additionally, the placebo effect has been shown to have a measurable effect on the[8] brain. Should I post sources of studies in peer reviewed journals for editors to consider?
If the article is informing the reader that Dr Chopra's treatments don't work that would be factually incorrect. If the article is informing the reader that orthodox doctors are suspicious of adding meditation to things like chemotherapy treatments to help improve a patient's sense of well being is dangerous - that would be factual too. But let's be clear about what Dr Chopra is talking about. Adding, not subtracting western medicine. And yes some western doctors dont think anyone should bother 'adding' things to their treatments. But there is a minority voice in medicine called integrative medicine and that is now established. SAS81 (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about primary source use, misrepresentation

Using Chopra as a primary source, the article now says:

He has used the metaphor "quantum healing" to describe his approach, using the word quantum to refer to a discrete jump from one level of functioning to another (a quantum leap) and to the idea of thought as an irreducible building block. He defines quantum healing as "the ability of one mode of consciousness (the mind) to spontaneously correct the mistakes in another mode of consciousness (the body)."[44]

I am concerned that this is a rather over-neat, and somewhat apologetic, account of Chopra's views, and this is an example of the danger of editorializing from primary sources. If we look at Chad Orzel's account of Chopra's views in

Then Orzel quotes this passage from Chopra as pertinent:

Our bodies are fields of information, intelligence and energy. Quantum healing involves a shift in the fields of energy information, so as to bring about a correction in an idea that has not gone wrong

Later, Orzell tells us, Chopra invokes "physicists" in writing of "quantum soup".

So what Wikipedia is saying is out-of-alignment with how a secondary source sees it (Orzel's views were in the article before, but have been deleted) and more importantly, it is just wrong. Chopra is dabbling in non-metaphoric usages and using terminology from physics to create a "word salad". We are making him out to be more coherent than he is by saying he is just metaphorical.

We need to stop using primary sources and providing original summaries of them, as WP:FRIND has it: "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the criticism about the misuse of physics terminology needs to be restored in the lead. That is perhaps the "most prominently wrong" thing that scientists see about Chopra. The lead currently introduces the idea that quantum mechanics is somehow involved but without a mainstream rebuttal, amounting to a violation of WP:NPOV, in particular WP:PSCI. vzaak 07:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chopra is a salesperson. Trying to find consistency and logic across sales pitches are usually a waste of time. We simply shouldn't expect any, hence the need to follow the independent and secondary sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The criticisms about usage of quantum physics should be referenced in the article, as that's a concern that's been raised in a few places. As far as using Orzel, it's ideal to cite secondary sources for interpretation or analysis, but they are not necessary to cite what the subject of a BLP has directly said about their own beliefs. A primary source can be as or more appropriate to determine the factual details about the subject's stated positions. The Cap'n (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that primary sources are allowed, per WP:NOR (section WP:PSTS), which is policy, though of course they have to be used carefully. Self-published sources are not allowed in BLPs unless written by the subject, per WP:BLPSPS, which is why I removed Orzel's blog post. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orzel is not a reliable source for details about Chopra as a subject in terms of the biography, but in terms of the incidental material, this is one of the better sources. A physicist is an expert in physics and those are the sources that should be used when describing claims about physics. Whether the source was used in this fashion or not is another discussion, but WP:BLPSPS should only be invoked when removing material about the person as a subject, not the ideas they are advocating. jps (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some edits to the lede

Hi all.

This shows some of the changes I made to the lede.

The first change was to reorder the descriptors of Chopra. I think he is most famous for being an advocate of alternative medicine. This is enhanced by the fact that he is ha licensed physician. His guru status is one that he himself contests and is perhaps dominating but not as self-identified and so we should be WP:BLP sensitive to that.

The second change I made was to the lede claiming that he uses ideas from quantum physics. I see him using ideas from quantum mysticism, but that's a very different thing. Chopra does not, to my knowledge, use solutions to the Schrodinger equation when he offers solace to the suffering. He doesn't seem to know how to do basic physics calculations and he certainly isn't an experimental quantum physicist. His ideas are all properly "quantum mysticism". We could take reference to "quantum" stuff out of the lede completely, but if we are going to reference it properly we have to send the readers to the correct article.

jps (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JPS, it was better before. He is primarily a physician, and that doesn't have to be what he's most notable for (see e.g. "Rudolf "Rudi" Vrba ... was a professor of pharmacology at the University of British Columbia. Originally from Slovakia, he is known for his escape, at the age of 19, from the Auschwitz concentration camp ..."), though as a matter of fact it is what he's known for. I've also added to the lead that scientists have criticized his use of quantum-physics terms. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"He is primarily a physician" ← don't think so, after his early career this has been but a minor aspect, and is not what he's known for. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We've been over this, and the sources say he is not "primarily a physician". Ironically, some of the sources we've considered have Chopra himself has repeatedly backed away from presenting himself as a physician, and sometimes he's done so out of legal issues. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's standard to begin biographies with a person's professional status, and there's no consensus to begin this one any differently. It's already odd-looking that we call him a New Age guru. To remove (or move) physician would be to carry on further down that odd path. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then we've a conflict between what the sources say and MOS for biographies. Given this is a BLP, we should be extremely wary of not following the sources, but I suspect that there are FA and GA biographies we can follow for a solution. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the problem is that a "professional status" usually indicates the primary means by which paid occupational time is spent. Chopra does not spend most of his time practicing medicine in the normal fashion whereas "Rudolf "Rudi" Vrba did spend most of his professional life as a pharmacologist. No one disputes that Chopra is licensed as a physician, but, professionally, he is an advocate, speaker, and author mostly. jps (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Slim Virgin. far from a 'minor aspect'. a physician is a fundamental fact to who Dr Chopra is, both 30 years ago and today. He still runs a clinic and medical group to this day, partners with UCSD Medical and his clinic even teaches courses for CME credits for the AMA. The majority of all of his best selling books speak of his medical experience extensively, and he still publishes with other medical doctors in the field. What makes physician peculiar to many is because most confuse his celebrity or his books on consciousness or spirituality with his medical experience and they are different things. SAS81 (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and still unclear on why 'new age guru' is still there. it's used as a pejorative by critics, is a subjective label, and primary sources deny it. I dont mind if the article says "Deepak Chopra is to some a new age guru" but putting that in Wikipedia's voice is really jarring and does not even match many of the sources in the article. SAS81 (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You agree with whatever puts Chopra in the best possible light - that's your job and reason for being here. However, Wikipedia is not a forum for promotion. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So should we look at other articles, or have the round of changes resolved the problems? --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear he is most notable for being an alternative medicine proponent. It's also clear he is a licensed (if not necessarily practicing) physician. I don't think the lede as I constructed it makes his licensure a "minor aspect". I think that we should be able to describe this in the lede. jps (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that he's notable for being a proponent for integrative/alternative/complementary/whatever medicine, but the phrase "New Age Guru" is pretty specific. How many prominent sources do we have that call him that? Also, using objective language is not being promotional. The Cap'n (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple editors *(four I think) have mentioned concerns with New Age guru. Licensed physician rather than physician seems somewhat redundant, but wouldn't argue its inclusion at this point. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]
"How many prominent sources do we have that call him that?" ← quite a few. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the attempt JPS, but we can clean this up better. Slim Virgin also has an admirable flair for writing a good sentence and article that reads well in addition to be neutral, so I will trust Slim VIrgin's judgement here too. I would like to recommend something a bit closer to this:

Deepak Chopra (/ˈdiːpɑːk ˈtʃoʊprə/) (born October 22, 1947) is an Indian-American physician, author and lecturer known for his view that healing is primarily an integration of physical and mental processes. The author of several dozen books and videos, he has become one of the best-known and wealthiest figures in the holistic-health movement,[2] making him a promoter of alternative medicine to some and a new age guru to others.

I'm not sure the utility of adding 'licensed' to physician. it seems redundant if he was not licensed he would not be a physician and makes for an awkward sentence as a read. If there is a point there that you would like to see the article reflect, it's lost and perhaps could be made at another location in the article. SAS81 (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronz - I'm working my hardest to stay neutral as possible given the circumstance - and it's possible to achieve in a collaborative environment its not rocket science. I agree wikipedia is not a place for promotion, but it's also not an OP/ED either designed to criticize subjects or individuals, it's meant to be an encylopedia, right? a place to discover who Dr Chopra is, what his ideas and contributions have been, and what reception he has received. Some of the problem seems to be that when Dr Chopra's factuals are translated into objective 'just the facts ma'am' phrases, critics and skeptics are so used to consuming Dr Chopra in pejoratives that even neutrality appears promotional to that perspective. Wikipedia should not be responsible for satisifying the skeptic point of view, just the neutral point of view. They should not be confused as the same thing. SAS81 (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but at this point it seems unlikely that you can see beyond your conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn: Exactly - "call him that:. New Age Guru is a label, not what he is. Its cleaner and clearer (and frankly more sophisticated IMO in terms of writing style) to delineate what he is from what the labels are. We can say something like,

Deepak Chopra (/ˈdiːpɑːk ˈtʃoʊprə/) (born October 22, 1947) is an Indian-American, licensed physician, who practices and advocates integrative-medicine. He is best known for his view that healing is primarily a mental rather than physical process.[1], and as a speaker, and author of several dozen books and videos. Chopra has been labelled a New Age guru...( include other labels here), and has become one of the best-known and wealthiest figures in the holistic-health movement.[2]

(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Labels that describe of how Chopra is viewed can be added.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Maybe Alexbrn could detail his objections? (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]
I must have missed some breakthrough in philosophy if we can now distinguish cleanly between things as described, and things in themselves. Meanwhile your proposed edit just ignores the many discussions above about using loaded language, about DC not being a practitioner, about undue weight to his physician activities and his mind/body stuff ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, try to keep up! :O) You are fast on the revert key.

Let's look at the changes I made.

  • added "practices" So Chopra does not practice integrative medicine, or if we say that we are giving him some kind of credit that weights his position? Is that right? Why is that?
  • added Integrative medicine instead of alternative medicine. See our own articles on Integrative medicine and alternative medicine.
  • Loaded language. Jps added famous ... I added "best known". How does that support a loaded- language claim. Where else does my edit show loaded language?
  • I added speaker? Is he a notable speaker? True or not? In most sources? True or not? Loaded language?
  • I did add label... that is a noteworthy change. I opened the door for an examination of how Chopra is viewed both negative and positive in a neutral way. You closed that door.

Sorry Alexbrn, but I suspect that nothing I added would have satisfied. And your edit summary doesn't paint a picture of the changes I made. No worries. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

"I suspect that nothing I added would have satisfied" ← pardon, what does that mean? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not balanced, in that it excludes all negative information and whitewashes what he does as "Integrative medicine." Hipocrite (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He practices integrative medicine. How is it that integrative medicine is a whitewash, but alternative medicine isn't. Per the sources Chopra, a physician, combines allopathic and alternative medicine described in our articles as integrative medicine. If you leave out the information supported by the sources, and someone adds it, that is not a whitewash. What Alex has made and you are supporting is an edit towards a POV position, which deliberately obscures the accurate information on the subject of this article.
  • Chopra is a physician
  • Chopra supports, I guess, but per sources practices a form of "medicine" that includes allopathic medicine and alternative medicine.
I 've discussed delineating labels from other information multiple times. Information is not removed or whitewashed when I do that. It provides context. Is Chopra a New Age guru. We don't even define what that is, and we most certainly don't note who describes him this way. Context is, is that this is a label. No one responded when I brought this up several times. I made a change. With out removing the content I added context. Alexbrn reverted. That's the story.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]
I see no evidence that Chopra currently practices medicine, rather just alternative medicine. Do you have any reliable third party sources that detail his practice of traditional medicine? Are you saying he practices "integrative" medicine, which means both medicine that doctors practice and medicine that is unregulated out of the Chopra center in California? Hipocrite (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hipocrite: "The medicine that doctor's practice..:" :O)....

You might want to look at the sources. Here are a couple to get you started: biomedical, [9]

Are you alleging he practices medicine, in the traditional sense, at the Chopra Clinic? Yes or no would do fine. Hipocrite (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We know that when he was sued for malpractice, and the issue that he may have been practicing medicine without a license came up, he claimed he was not practicing medicine at all. Do we have sources showing this changed at some point? --Ronz (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I got curious about this too. I did some poking around and US News and World Report claims that Deepak Chopra is "affiliated with" Scripps Memorial Hospital in La Jolla as an endocrinologist, who currently receives patients. However, it says that his actual office is in Carlsbad, CA which is where the Chopra Center For Well Being is located. And according to that clinic's web site, Deepak Chopra does not actually receive patients and has a medical staff to handle personal consultations. Unless someone can find something that I can't, it looks like he employs medical practitioners, but doesn't actually practice himself. I don't see anything stating that he has actually seen patients as an endocrinologist since the 80s when he ran a private clinic in Boston. -- Atama頭 20:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice footwork. That was my assumption based upon all his statements about preferring not being considered a physician. --Ronz (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I have seen, and the two I'm presenting are of different time periods, both indicate he is considered to be someone who practice both biomedical or allopathic and alternative medicine. I haven't seen sources on the Chopra clinic specifically so I can't say what he does there. I will look further. I have seen the source which discusses the lawsuit. Chopra was not sued for practicing with out a license, as far as the sources I have seen. This allegation should not be on the article talk page. I've already discussed this with Ronz as has Montanabw and Rexx. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Source says: [10], "holistic biomedical physician" dated 2003
I'm done here for now, but there may be and quite likely are other sources that describe Chopra's "medicine style".(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]
We've discussed and we disagree. It's sourced. Sorry you don't like it. About those sources:
We've sources that says that when he came to California and for at least the next few years he wasn't licensed to practice medicine there and said he wasn't doing so. Deepak_Chopra#cite_ref-17. --Ronz (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This question should be easy to answer, since User:SAS81 states that he talks with Chopra daily. Perhaps SAS81 could ask Chopra what percentage of his time is spent in direct patient care? How many days per week (or per month) does he see patients in clinic? How many patients, on average, does he see per week? What are the most common diagnoses that he treats? These are very basic questions which any practicing physician can answer to provide a snapshot of the scope of his or her clinical practice. (When I talk about "seeing patients", I'm referring to the standard definition, where a documented physician-patient relationship exists and professional fees are billed, etc). Can you help with this, SAS81? MastCell Talk 04:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In all the back and forth, did we ever have a proper source for "Chopra is famous for his view that healing is primarily a mental rather than physical process"? Now that I look further, where in the article this discussed further, showing that it deserves such prominence? Did we loose sources and content along the way? --Ronz (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell - Yes I thought I answered this weeks back. Both Dr. Chopra and Dr. Sheila Patel have both told me directly that Dr. Chopra does see special patients in his office when he is in town - in addition Dr Chopra actually runs the medical team and the office as an administrator, while his main focus is research and education. I'm confused why some are having a very narrow definition of what it means to be a 'practicing' physician, many doctors are solely focused on research or education, and some are just administrators. SAS81 (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of research, what were his last few peer-reviewed research articles? I see "research" mentioned here and there, but was wondering what research is actually being done. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This all strikes me with a vague sense of deja vu... Hasn't this already been covered? I just spent 5 minutes and saw that his license is in good standing with AMA, and the California state registry not only confirms his license as current but also lists 40+ hours of research and education. And before I see the slew of "yeah, but AMA and government websites are tertiary and could be self-reported, etc..." the real question to ask is who has the burden of proof? The burden rests with those challenging the commonly held facts about a BLP entity. Virtually every source I've seen refers to Chopra as a physician, federal and state licensing records say he's a current and practicing physician, and that's how Chopra apparently defines himself. So rather than asking people to do original research on when his last research paper was published to decide on our own whether we think it counts as "practicing", offer strong, reliable sources that he doesn't have a current license or is not conducting either patient care, research or running a medical facility. The scattered secondary references I've seen questioning his status do not fulfill that standard, but I'll keep my eyes open if any come along. The Cap'n (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly a deja vu. Chopra's self identification clearly falls under the "unduly self serving" content that must not be given excessive prominence or value. and WP:BURDEN the burden is on the people who want to enter the content to provide reliable sources for content they wish to enter. if there is a desire to enter content about "research" it is up to the editor wanting to include to, at a minimum, provide reliably published sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SAS81: I'm sorry, but saying that Chopra "sees special patients in his office when he is in town" is so vague as to be entirely meaningless in terms of defining his practice. I asked a few specific questions above, which are pretty typical. In particular, how many patients does Chopra see in an average week (or month)? What diagnoses does he treat? (And I guess I'm curious why these patients qualify as "special", but that's just me). Finally, research, educational, and administrative activities do not constitute practicing medicine, at least not by any definition I've ever heard of. Practicing medicine is defined by diagnosing and treating patients. Let's not invent new meanings for commonly understood concepts in our rush to "fix" this article. MastCell Talk 00:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chopra is under no obligation answer questions as to his practice and SAS is under no obligation to ask. Further, is there some standard on Wikipedia that defines just what constitutes a practicing physician. How many hours, patients? I'd add that once that information is posted here, its on the internet for a very long time. Given the tendency to trash integrative/alternative medicine by some skeptics, no one here of course, I'd be careful, about posting anything on a talk page which is public.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Chopra is not under any burden to disclose anything. but SAS most certainly is under burden to disclose/provide reliable sources if they want something covered in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Littleolive oil, no one is under any obligation to answer anything I ask. It's bizarre to imply otherwise. SAS81 volunteered an answer, and I found it vague and meaningless so asked for clarification, which he (and Chopra) are free to provide or not provide as they see fit. It is a bit odd to insist, on the one hand, that Chopra be described as a "practicing" physician and then to bristle at the very notion of being asked to provide any actual details of his practice. MastCell Talk 05:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mastcell. I deliberately did not include any editor's name, yours or RPOD in my comment. This was simple comment directed to SAS who at different points has been unclear about Wikipedia and its processes. (Littleolive oil (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Your comment was obviously a response to mine, and it's tiresome to pretend otherwise. Your concern about publicly posted material is probably misdirected. Chopra himself is sometimes viewed as highly litigious, to the point that "some journalists are afraid to write about (him), for fear of being sued". So insofar as anyone has anything to worry about here, it's not the Chopra employees. MastCell Talk 23:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Mastcell. I was not addressing you. I was making a comment in general to all who posted on this including you, SAS, and TRPOD, and my comments stand. SAS was the editor I was concerned with and making suggestions to per not revealing personal information. Take that as you will.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Established fact he is medical doctor, Dr Chopra responds directly to Mastcell + invitation

We've already established as a matter of fact that he is a medical doctor. It's not a controversial statement. Its a fundamental fact of his biography. Look how a credible tertiary source such as Wolfram Alpha lists Deepak when asked 'Who is Deepak Chopra?"http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=who+is+deepak+chopra

MastCell I sent Dr Chopra your questions directly, and he wanted to address directly to you, in addition to offering you an personal invitation (link to YT video). He specifically addresses his current medical practice. He also said that he is willing to address any other questions anyone has. He is really fascinated by this process and would probably participate directly here if he had time. SAS81 (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SAS81: Thanks! That's a pretty detailed answer. I guess I'm still curious how many patients he sees—in the video he implies that the number is very small but doesn't specify. Regardless, I do sincerely appreciate the time taken to answer my questions. I haven't decided if I'm going to cash in his offer of a free personal consultation, though it's quite generous given what I understand of the cost structure at the Chopra Center. :) MastCell Talk 03:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
i wonder what the media will make of the fact that chopra is so desperate to influence his wikipedia page that he is giving out free treatments?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Chopra's desperate attempts to influence the page through both his directly hired media "archivist" and now though bribes of free gift offers to editors should make everyone especially careful about POV issues and COI. (revised per TimidGuy advice below)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red Pen, note that the Talk page is for discussing changes to the article. TimidGuy (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a problem if editors have questions and Dr Chopra responds directly to those questions via video? TPROD, I think the phrase 'good faith' should apply here SAS81 (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SAS81: It's unconventional, but I don't see why that would be a big problem. It's actually helpful in some ways, because often times when someone edits Wikipedia claiming to be an article subject we need to go through some sort of identity verification first. With videos we wouldn't need to worry about that. The only problem I see is that it would be difficult (well, impossible really) to have an actual conversation. But a Q&A sort of thing might still be helpful. -- Atama頭 15:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

False hope

Re: the claim in the lead "that he provides patients with false hope that may lead them away from effective medical treatment." I've been unable to find anything in Chopra's work that might do either of these things, though admittedly I haven't looked at everything. Does anyone know what it refers to? It's sourced to Time magazine (which apparently just says "some have argued that ...") [11] SlimVirgin (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine. It seems a good summary when offering treatments that don't work. I believe we've similar language in related articles. It shouldn't be hard to find. --Ronz (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
take your pick -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I too have been unable to find anything that shows Dr Chopra's work leads people away from medical treatment, since his entire message is adding to western medical treatment with things like Yoga or meditation. SAS81 (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced HIV content, edit warring

SlimVirgin has restored some disputed content saying "this is important". However, the restored content is not supported by the cited secondary source, and the primary source is cherry-picked (Chopra says there that no drug is effective - surely more 'important'). What gives? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It should be in the source, Chopra 2009, pp. 237, 239–241. If you're not seeing it there, please let me know in case I need to change the page numbers. The problem is that the text you've been restoring [12][13][14][15] isn't correct as written. In fact what's there needs to be fleshed out a little more to make his position clear, if we're going to mention it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The key question here is#; what is "his position" and according to what authority (if not using secondary sources)? Why have you not mentioned the extraordinary thing that Chopra says no drugs can treat HIV/AIDS (when AZT existed)? or his heavy use of anecdote? Use of primary sources here requires substantial editorial analysis/discretion which neither you, nor I, are qualified to undertake. The text as inserted by you is very partial. To avoid POV/OR problems here we need to stick to the secondary. The text I have been restoring is in accord with the strong secondary source cited. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The secondary source mentions this only in passing. That's a problem with quite a few of the secondary sources in the article; they're just brief mentions of Chopra. We have to get these things right, particularly per BLP. The way the version you restored was written made it sound as though he doesn't accept conventional views on AIDS, but he does. I'll read the primary sources again and make sure what we say there is accurate. I was intending to add a bit more anyway, as I said above, to flesh it out. (But I may not get to it today.) SlimVirgin (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"but he does" ← really???? According to whom? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Re: AZT, he wrote in 1989: "No drug is capable of treating it [HIV/AIDS]: AZT, which helps postpone the active phase, is riddled with major side effects, making it impossible for some patients to take the drug." SlimVirgin (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexbrn, With all due respect, SlimVirgin is not edit-warring, they're citing relevant content, and it's not cherry-picking, it's the very book the section is named after, with content directly relevant to the discussion. It's been introduced in various forms by various editors with pages of justification, and you're the only one disputing it. I've explained the numerous ways in which WP policy permits the use of primary sources to cite that same primary source, pointed out there's no independent analysis attributed to the primary, and noted that quoting a book (in the section about that book's content) is not restricted to whatever argument is made by a secondary critic. It's also been pointed out that the material being referenced is explaining what's in the book (through important contextual statements not covered in the secondary), not making an analysis of its legitimacy (that is what secondaries are necessary for), so the role of AZT and anecdotes has no relevance as to whether the primary can be cited.
All that, plus the fact that the secondary source is not being countered or questioned, makes your repeated disputes/reverts very hard to address, despite repeated attempts to negotiate or explain the validity of the edits. Mind you, while this has been somewhat contentious, it's just a content dispute and can be ironed out if we're all reasonable. The Cap'n (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so Chopra asserted "No drug is capable of treating it". When in fact even then, drugs were capable of treating it. As I say, this whole area requires analysis/interpretation. It is wrong for SlimVirgin to be sloppily summarizing from primaries and reverting edits based on a personal assessment of what is "important". Serious matters are at hand here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that WP:BLP says: "We must get the article right." All this talk of primary, secondary, tertiary misses the point that the article has to be accurate and fair. If someone removes material citing BLP, it really ought to stay out until it's fixed. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no dispute on that point. I see though - disappointingly - you have been adding material which is simply not right. And not properly sourced. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This reliance on primary sources, backed by editors' personal opinions on what is and is not right, is going to lead to Arbcom enforcement otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, you haven't said which parts are wrong or unsourced. The quotes attributed to Chopra in that section are in the secondary source too. Please say which part is unsourced/not properly sourced. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you Alex. Slim Virgin is a highly experienced editor and writer who is uninvolved in this topic, or in Fringe. Her edits have been neutral and accurate those that are pejorative to Chopra and those that aren't. This is first a BLP and I'd agree that if content is challenged it must be fixed.
All editors make decisions as to what content to include and how to summarize it. That is what editors do. The policies and guidelines in the encyclopedia are not ends in themselves they are means to help protect the integrity of the articles.
The way to fix any concerns is too explain exactly what they are with sources.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]
I've seen SlimVirgin in action many, many times over the years, at articles, noticeboards, in mediation, etc. If anything, I'd expect her to be firmly on the other side of this issue, as she usually takes a strong stance against COI editors and fringe ideas, and so on (to the extent that she has been criticized for it in the past). So I think that in this situation she is very much not editing based on her personal opinions or beliefs, rather the opposite. I can only speak from personal opinion and my own anecdotal recollections, but I really did have to double-check that this was really SlimVirgin. This should give anyone pause who is familiar with her. -- Atama頭 22:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, have you tried to find an independent source for what you want to add? I understand what you are trying to do, but I think you are going about it the wrong way. At least one reason for WP:FRIND to avoid the shell game I described. Another reason is that a primary source from a fringe proponent may be strawmanning the mainstream view. By consensus WP:FRIND has been there a while, and I don't think it will soon change. Just find an independent source for these additions, and it will be fine. vzaak 21:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of these arguments would be suitable if the content in question was furthering a controversial statement, or if it was bringing in some irrelevant primary to discuss the issue, but the fact is that this is reporting (in the Quantum Healing section) a statement (from Quantum Healing) that was not fringe, and in fact endorsed Chopra's acceptance of the medical definition of AIDS. I did this through a quote, Slim did it through paraphrase, but in both cases we established this content was necessary to provide context, since the sole Schneiderman citation implied Chopra did not endorse the medical definition.
No one has argued the quote is not from QH, nor that it's an incorrect interpretation of that part of the text. The idea that a quote from a book in its own section needs to be backed up by independent sourcing is not standard WP practice (WP:FRIND says Independents are important for arguing notability and prominence of Fringe theories, neither of which is being attempted here). There seems to a conflation between arguing for accurate representation of Chopra's book and arguing for Chopra's legitimacy. An encyclopedia can do one without the other. The Cap'n (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Er, what? WP:FRIND begins, "The best sources to use when describing fringe theories..." You latched onto the second part of the sentence ("prominence", "notability") while seemingly missing the first part. vzaak 23:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have not reviewed the specific edits in question, but in principle user:SlimVirgin seems to be in the right here. Primary sources are often the best possible source to accurately describe the article-subject's point-of-view, as long as they are not used excessively to the point of advocating for it. Especially in this case where reliable sources will have a scoffing attitude towards his view and are therefore likely to mis-represent it. Though I would be very careful in this case not to describe them in a way that offers legitimacy. CorporateM (Talk) 00:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
uhhh, if sources misrepresent, they are not reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gave two reasons for WP:FRIND, and those were just off the top of my head. Looking at the history of WP:FRINGE will surely give more insight. One would need very good reasons to toss aside the consensus for the principles embodied by the WP:FRIND section.
In one respect it doesn't make logical sense to grab material from a primary fringe-proponent source and then use an independent source as the rebuttal. The independent source is there to explain the relationship between the mainstream view and the fringe view. There is nothing explicitly connecting the independent source to whatever editors take from the primary source. We are talking about the essential WP:NPOV policy here (specifically WP:PSCI), not some guideline.
With respect to the Chopra article, I gather there is concern that Chopra is being misrepresented, and we are being offered a seemingly false choice between going against WP:FRIND or fairly representing Chopra. Bypassing WP:FRIND is the nuclear option, and I don't believe we're there yet. Is it really true that independent sources cannot provide what we need? That was my question to SlimVirgin.
For instance Baer says that Chopra has "attempted to integrate biomedicine and various alternative healing and metaphysical systems". That should put to rest the potential implication that Chopra is rejecting biomedicine, right? If that was even a concern in the first place. I would like to know very specifically the sought-after material which has not been found in independent sources. vzaak 01:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about to go offline, so I'll post a reply tomorrow. Just wanted to say that I'm puzzled by this attempted ban on primary source-material written by the subject, which I don't think I've ever encountered before, especially not in a BLP. Chopra is the best source for something that Chopra said, and if we need analysis then we have to find a good secondary source, not someone who mentioned the issue in passing. Anyway, more tomorrow. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Baer's paper is titled "The Work of Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra". It's not "in passing". vzaak 03:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a different paper. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 03:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing. Schneiderman's piece is concerned with how unevidenced things are promoted as "medicine". All he has to say about Chopra is neatly contained in one passage:

I paid a visit to the alternative health section of the University of California San Diego bookstore to see what a few of the most celebrated gurus have to say about AIDS, for example. First I looked in the book Quantum Healing by Deepak Chopra, M.D. (6) According to Dr. Chopra, AIDS involves a "distortion in the proper sequence of intelligence" in a person's DNA. Siren-like, the AIDS virus emits a sound that lures the DNA to its destruction. (7) "'Hearing' the virus in its vicinity, the DNA mistakes it for a friendly or compatible sound. (8) This is a believable explanation, says Dr. Chopra, "once one realizes that DNA, which the virus is exploiting, is itself a bundle of vibrations." (9) The treatment? Reshape "the proper sequence of sounds using Ayurveda's primordial sound," which "guides the disrupted DNA back into line." (10) "Once the sequence of sound is restored," Dr. Chopra assures us, "the tremendous structural rigidity of the DNA should again protect it from future disruptions. (11) To put it mildly, Dr. Chopra proposes a treatment and prevention program for AIDS that has no supporting empirical data.

Now look at this, and look at our text:

Chopra acknowledges that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, but writes that, from the point of view of Ayurvedic medicine, disease is a failure of intelligence: "'Hearing' the virus in its vicinity, the DNA mistakes it for a friendly or compatible sound ... This is a believable explanation once one realizes that DNA, which the virus is exploiting, is itself a bundle of vibrations." The Ayurvedic remedy is to use "primordial sound," known as Shruti, to correct the distortion. Medical professor Lawrence Schneiderman writes that, "to put it mildly, Dr. Chopra proposes a treatment and prevention program for AIDS that has no supporting empirical data".[53]

What Wikipedia says is simply not supported by the single source cited. There is no mention of "shruti" in Schneiderman for example (isn't it Om anyway?) - but more importantly Wikipedia is making it sound like Chopra has a science-based view of AIDS and is disinterestedly setting out an what the "ayurvedic point of view" is in relation to it. There is simply nothing in Schneiderman that allows Wikipedia to assert what Chopra does or does not "acknowledge", or to assert that Chopra is just setting out the "an ayurvedic point of view" as if that were not his own point of view (the source is explicit here: "According to Chopra ..."). If one were to go off-piste and draw on primary sources I think a more accurate summary would be to say that while Chopra pays lip-service to some commonplaces about HIV/AIDS, he incorectly downplays the effectiveness of drug treatment ("no drug can treat") leaving, in his description, the only option as being to buy his services. But the point is we should not go off piste but should stick to the high-quality source. It tells us the notable thing about Chopra's views on HIV/AIDS, and how that has led to an unevidenced proposed practices. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 03:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note there are actually two sources in the one citation (currently [53]): Chopra 2009 and then Schneiderman. (Incidentally, "Chopra 2009" is ambiguous here, though it obviously refers to a re-issue of Quantum Healing.)
The new text does have a WP:PROFRINGE spin, which can result from the use of primary sources without editors realizing it. vzaak 18:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any convincing arguments that WP:FRIND or FRINGE overwrites BLP policy to get it right. This article isn't a fringe article, it is a biography. The reader is not here to learn about fringe topics, but to learn about Deepak Chopra, what his ideas and contributions have been, and what the reception is to those ideas. Integrative medicine is also NOT fringe, it's mainstream. It's important we 'get it right' first and foremost. I see nothing in FRINGE that says we have to omit facts from a person's biography, or contradict facts about a person's biography just so FRIND is satisfied. If we apply what vzaak is suggesting - it means we get the article wrong but FRINGE right. That does not seem like a reasonable position. SAS81 (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of fact-checking

When writing a BLP, unless the issue is very complex, "Smith wrote" is always better sourced to Smith. If the argument is that Smith's view of X isn't a notable feature of Smith's work, leave it out. But if you include it, and if it's fairly easy to find and summarize, source it to Smith. Only using and reading secondary sources is risky.

Chopra practices integrative medicine, mixing conventional approaches with mantra meditation, yoga, advice about nutrition, etc. See here where he discusses HIV/AIDS: "Our patients are taking the cocktails and doing the Ayurvedic treatment, which includes nutrition, exercise, supplements, meditation, herbs, yoga, etc." If we focus only on one aspect, the article will be misleading. The previous text almost gave the impression that he was some kind of HIV/AIDS denialist.

One thing that would help is to collect up all the higher quality secondary sources. The article currently relies too much on people discussing him in passing or journalists doing book reviews. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK:
Just a start. MastCell Talk 23:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deepak_Chopra&diff=prev&oldid=610506989

Leave a Reply