Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Journal of Cosmology

Vivekachudamani (talk · contribs) has twice added content stating that Chopra has co-authored some content which has appeared on the fringe website which calls itself the Journal of Cosmology. I don't think this negative/embarrassing information is really notable ... or are there are secondary sources (skeptical ones, probably) discussing this incident which I'm not finding? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet removed the JOC content saying "This journal is not in fact peer-reviewed despite their prominent claim." That is a false statement, it is peer-reviewed.So I put it back up pointing out his mistake. This is the "twice added content" incident Alexbrn refers to above. Then Binksternet again removed it,without acknowledging his error, this time with the excuse "not proved to be important to Chopra's career." Given that the wiki reader of this page has been treated to hundreds of words of criticism of Chopra's views of quantum theory without a citation where they can see for themselves what Chopra's ideas are, I'd say it's important for the balance of the article. As for the importance to his career, this one of the first articles Chopra co-wrote with prominent physicists and life scientists. It has been a new and important direction in his writing career. This puts the lie to the skeptics' narrative that scientists and academics categorically regard him as fringe. Bindsternet's two removals show poor judgment.

Alexbrn labels the Journal of Cosmology a "fringe website" with this paper having "negative/embarrassing information" Ostensibly, by removing this reference he wishes to shield the wiki readers from Chopra's actual views to save Chopra the embarrassment. How noble. But imposing one's views on readers of what he considers "negative/embarrassing" is not really an editor's job. For those wondering about the "fringe" board of editors at the Journal of Cosmology, here is the list. Rudolf Schild, Ph.D. Editor-in-Chief, Executive Editor Astronomy, Astrophysics Center for Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian Cambridge, MA Carl H. Gibson, Ph.D., Executive Editor, Cosmology Professor of Engineering Physics and Oceanography University of California at San Diego Depts. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences Sir Roger Penrose, FRS. Executive "Guest" Editor General Relativity, String Theory Consciousness Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK R. Norris Keeler, Ph.D. Executive "Guest" Editor, Engr. Phys. Former Director of Physics, LLNL, UC Berkeley Consultant to the US Government Rice University Engineer of the year 2011 Arlington, VA, USA N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Ph.D. Executive Editor, Astrobiology Cometary Panspermia Director, Buckingham Centre for Astrobiology, Buckingham University Cardiff University, United Kingdom Michael Russell, Ph.D., Executive "Guest" Editor Abiogenesis, Life's Origins NASA, Planetary Science & Life Detection Section, Jet Propulsion Laboratories, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA Joel S. Levine, Ph.D., Executive "Guest" Editor Human Mission to Mars NASA, Senior Research Scientist in the Science Directorate, NASA Langley Research Center, VA Subhash Kak, Ph.D., Executive Editor Computational Quantum Physics Head, Department of Computer Science, Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma John McKim Malville, Ph.D., Executive Editor Astrophysical Sciences Department of Astrophysical, Planetary, and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder, USA, Ronald Becker Managing Editor Journal of Cosmology Modern Cosmology Associates ModernCosmologyAssociates@aol.com Vladimir Evgen'evich Fortov, Academician Russian Acad. of Sci. Executive "Guest" Editor, Cosmology Vice Prime Minister Russian Federation Moscow, Russian Federation

I see no reason why this Journal of Cosmology article should not be included. It gives readers direct access to the subject's ideas that they otherwise would not have. Vivekachudamani (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Has any secondary source covered this publishing event to make it notable? Your statement, "I see no reason why this Journal of Cosmology article should not be included" is not really a good policy-based argument. As to the "journal", you have read our article on it (Journal of Cosmology) right? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Vivekachudamani, you missed the part where my first edit summary said we should provide a WP:SECONDARY source. That is the second of my two complaints about the use of this source. The complaints are:

• The journal is not peer-reviewed, and is otherwise criticized by scientists as being of lesser quality than what we normally know as scholarly journals.
• There should be a WP:SECONDARY source to establish the importance of the bit.

The list of people who are involved on the editorial board do not counteract the much larger group of critics. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes I read our article on JOC, and it clearly states it is a peer-reviewed journal. Just because it is not as old and establishment-bound as some other journals, that does not mean it is not peer-reviewed. This particular issue of JOC was edited by Sir Roger Penrose. You seem to be suggesting that your personal opinions and bias are a better judge of on the quality of scientific material than Penrose and the JOC editorial board. That's remarkable given your inability to even acknowledge the journal is peer-reviewed. Vivekachudamani (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

See Journal of Cosmology#Reliability. What does it state in that section? "The quality of peer review at the journal has been questioned.[2][3][4][5][6][7]." QuackGuru (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Again...it is a peer-reviewed journal irrespective of opinions about it. Binksternet claims it is not. Vivekachudamani (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

see WP:REDFLAG and Wikipedia:UNDUE#Good_research and Wikipedia:RS#Context_matters. claiming "the source says it is peer reviewed" does not mean that it is automatically an acceptable or appropriate source.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Birth date

Sources seem split between 1946 and 1947; The Gale Encyclopedia of World Biography says 1946, so I'm inclined to follow this, not least since it comes from 1998 and so is not that prone to web-content recycling. Perhaps Vivekachudamani (talk · contribs) knows? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

When we have multiple reliable sources that make different claims, we note the differences in claims. Chopra was born circa 1946 (citation: sources have published different dates X/X/XXXX in Y, W/W/WWWW in Z) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

COI

For anybody who may have missed it, there is a thread on the conflict of interest noticeboard which mentions a number of editors who have been editing this page. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Book review of Quantum Healing in NEJM

Someone added a book review stating it " praised" the book [1] I am not seeing " praise" for the book in the preview [2] . Does someone have access to the full review to verify that analysis? (or better yet, specify what the reviewer "praised".) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting. The story of this book review in NEJM was a minor scandal in and of itself at the time. The review did praise Chopra's book. However, the review turned out to have been authored by a physician with undisclosed conflicts of interest. (The episode came light in the setting of concern over Chopra's failure to disclose his own conflicts of interest related to the 1991 JAMA article; see Barnett & Sears, Science 1991 for details). They write:

... NEJM also requires financial disclosure from authors, but that system failed to prevent publication of a favorable (unsolicited) book review of Chopra's book Quantum Healing by physician John W. Zamarra of Brea, California. Zamarra failed to disclose to the journal his "long-time connection with the TM movement" and his association with the Maharishi Ayur-Veda Medical Center in Pacific Palisades...

So if we choose to mention this review, then presumably we should mention the well-sourced fact that it was authored by someone with an undisclosed conflict of interest, generating ethical concerns. MastCell ^Talk 23:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Placing the review into context would seem to be to end up giving UNDUE weight to the incident. I lean towards not including the review. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. The only thing I'd object to is mentioning the "favorable" review while concealing the conflict of interest behind it. MastCell ^Talk 05:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I added the book review link and have now worded it more neutrally even if the review was a praise. I find the mention to be due because it is based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available. The Wikipedia page of the NEJM affirms: "The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) is a peer-reviewed medical journal published by the Massachusetts Medical Society and it is among the most prestigious in the world." If that is not one of the most reputable sources, what is reputable? I don't see why not include this information, it is relevant to the subject. Nonnyme (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You've done the one thing that MastCell said he would object to (and I do too, as it happens) and put the "praise" text back without the caveats that on this occasion, the NEJM was found to be publishing unreliable content. I think this whole episode is undue (especially since we cover the JAMA controvery quite well) and probably shouldn't be here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Nonnyme, I removed your addition. The appearance of the review should not be mentioned at all unless the reviewer's conflict of interest is also mentioned. I favor the deletion of both the review and the conflict revelation, but I might be persuaded to include both, depending on whether the bit can be presented without too much weight. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see MastCell's comment here until after I reposted the review link, I only saw the motivation for the removal by Alexbrn. I guess I need to check talk pages before doing edits? I understand your reasoning though and am fine with having both mentions or none. Nonnyme (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Choppy spouting?

Does spouting mean anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.165.248 (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"express (one's views or ideas) in a lengthy, declamatory, and unreflecting way" says Google, which is a good definition. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscientist as a label versus BLP

I have been reverting a persistent IP editor who wants to label Chopra a pseudoscientist (in Wikipedia's voice) in the first sentence. I think is quite possible to attribute such a label as opinion lower down in the article body per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, but not in the first line and not in Wikipedia's voice. I can even imagine how such a label can be added to the lead section as a summary of several article statements, such as "this, that and the other say that Chopra is a pseudoscientist". The BLP problem I am seeing is that Chopra cannot be defined neutrally as a pseudoscientist since there is a range of opinions about his work. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Why is then not a problem that he is called a physician and New Age guru in Wikipedia's voice?

2. Consider this Wikipedia page: list of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Why is it acceptable to call alternative medicine, New Age and Ayurveda-based medicine pseudoscience, but it is not ok to call someone who is a New Age guru/ Ayurveda-based alternative medicine practitioner and author a pseudoscientist? It is like saying we can call the game football, but not the players footballers.

There is a consensus on the scientific community on this topic, and references that can be added of scholars in magazines and newspapers stating the claim that Mr. Chopra is a pseudoscientist, so I really don't see any real impediment in adding that statement. 189.121.57.151 (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine though with adding pseudoscientist as an attribution by authors and scientists, and not Wikipedia. Would that comply better with the guidelines? 04:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.121.57.151 (talk)

The last paragraph of the lede is where some of the negative commentary is summarized, and we already mention his quantum "nonsense"; I suppose we could add here that he's been called a pseudoscientist too, although I think it's probably superfluous and there is a danger of loading to many pejorative terms in - that can make it looks like the article is "trying too hard" to criticize Chopra, which weakens it. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I think a link from this article to pseudoscience which is a WP:High Value Target, (along with others such as alternative medicine, United States, etc.) as it gives a general overview of the topic in wich Chopra is deeply involved. Better to include that as a link rather than a vague statement that "he gives false hope to those who are sick". He does more than this, he is indirectly responsible for many early deaths. Let's not beat about the bush. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Could we change the entire page to read:

Mostly harmless 27.33.76.140 (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice, but alas, no. I don't believe that advocating pseudoscience is mostly harmless anyway, unlike the planet. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

question on 'east coast years'

the first paragraph reads a little strange to me: "After immigrating to the US in 1970, Chopra began his clinical internship and residency training at Muhlenberg Hospital in Plainfield, New Jersey.[12] He served an internship at a hospital in New Jersey and did a residency at the Lahey Clinic and the University of Virginia Hospital. He later became Chief of Staff at the New England Memorial Hospital in Stoneham, Massachusetts, later known as Boston Regional Medical Center.[1]" the second sentence just says he served an internship "...at a hospital in New Jersey" but does not mention the name of the hospital. Is that the Muhlenberg hospital or another one we could not find a source for? Let me know if anyone has that clarity or source and I will clean it up if no one minds. Too soon for love (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems a bit confused. According to the EWB source: "Chopra served as an intern for $200 a month at a 400-bed hospital in Plainfield, New Jersey. ... Three years later, Chopra was board-certified in internal medicine and endocrinology, serving as a teaching and research fellow in endocrinology at a hospital affiliated with Tufts University."

(Add) and according to the Baer source: "After completing an internship at a New Jersey hospital, he did a residency at the Lahey Clinic and the University of Virginia Hospital and obtained board certification in internal medicine and endocrinology." So looks like some material here is not supported by the sources used. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

ok. I'll see if I can get through those, but I'm very unfamiliar with this topic so I don't want to disrupt anyone's editing for something I'm unclear on. Too soon for love (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've had a go at straightening this out. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

American Association of Ayurvedic Medicine

Changes my reference to http://www.positivehealth.com/article/arthritis/an-interview-with-deepak-chopra, is this alright? Charhenderton (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a poor source. Why use it (in the lede, at that) when what we have is sourced? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks for the edit Alexbrn, will look for a better one and will let you know here first before applying it in the page. Charhenderton (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

No need to ask - I don't WP:OWN the article. But why do we need an alternative source here? (Granted - Nova Magazine isn't the greatest, but it's not being used to support anything controversial) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Way Forward

Chopra Media (CM) has concerns about the article. They have been encouraged to list those concerns one point at a time. I suggest CM as suggested take from the article each piece of content they have concerns with, place it here with its sources, and open discussion on that content. Like Atama I feel JzG outlined Wikipedia's position quite well and added a way to discuss concerns. Perhaps that will be the best way forward. To explain further: MC themselves must lay out the specific concerns they have with the article. I'm not sure that editors here dissecting their more general opening statements deals with the article. However, I don't have the inclination get involved beyond these simple comments about procedure. This approach seems disingenuous to me so I'll pass on further involvement. Best wishes(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC))

That's valid. When I've done mediation, typically what I'll do is ask people what is specifically in dispute. I then try to break it down into a list of bullet points, and ask them if that list has anything missing or improperly stated. Once we come to an agreement on what is in dispute, we'll take on each topic individually and come to some sort of consensus regarding each point. But you can't proceed with that until the people involved in the dispute agree what the points actually are; if you cherry-pick from what they've said without first clarifying the exact issues, and having a mutual agreement about the exact issues, you can't come to any sort of resolution.

This sort of process will necessitate some ongoing participation from ChopraMedia, are they willing to devote that much time to it? If not, the attempts above may be the best we can do; trying to divine the actual issues from the initial statement and then addressing them ourselves. We should have some patience and see if they are willing to do this before we steamroll ahead. -- Atama頭 23:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that extraordinarily, reasonable response.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC))

Absolutely. If CM engages and doesn't like our attempt to consider their initial statement, then by all means they should start a new discussion and we can abandon the old one. I am sorry if the "dissecting" approach seems disingenuous, but I actually am of the mind that it is important to see if they are identifying problems with the article that we should try to address -- even with their initial statement and especially if they don't later engage. I do not object to others offering their attempts at analysis. jps (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Littleolive oil You have been very helpful here and I will be able to respond in a timely manner moving forward. Please accept my formatting below for my responses to your requests. ChopraMedia (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Alternative diagnoses

Resolved

 – Category removed. jps (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I find it a bit odd that Deepak Chopra would be listed as an alternative diagnosis. Sure he is involved in alternative medicine but he isn't a diagnosis in of himself. I could be wrong about that though Clr324 (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section

Extended content

I think "Criticism" is more appropriate than "Writing and ideas", as the section is mostly about others' responses. I've seen better wording, but can't recall nor find the alternatives atm - maybe "Reception"? --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC) I'm trying not to take any sides on this article, I don't want to get directly involved. But I'd like to point out that our neutral POV policy states: "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." So a section devoted specifically to criticisms of Deepak Chopra is discouraged by policy, as would a section devoted to praise, or even a section devoted to both (as it would be prone to "back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents". A section called "criticism" implies that it should contain negative POV information so it should probably be avoided. -- Atama頭 22:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC) I've gone ahead and changed it to "Reception". Maybe "Ideas and reception" would be better? --Ronz (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC) I think "Ideas and reception" would be perfect. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 02:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Atama, an uninvolved editor, pointed out per Wikipedia's neutraL POV policy, as it pertains to structure, that a more neutral structure folds "debates into the narrative" of the article. I don't belive changing the name of the section makes the section a less critical section. Further, The critical section is roughly at least half the article length which I suggest violates undue weight. We should fix this, and faster is better as this is a BLP and a non-neutral structure is unfair to the subject of the article and violates multiple policies.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)) Actually, there's quite a bit in the section outlining Chopra's notions. The theories about cancer remission, AIDS, quantum healing, etc. These are properly contextualized by the mainstream take on them pointing out they're all (let us say) questionable. We'd only be undue if our balance of material was out of kilter with how quality mainstream sources treat these notions. I don't believe we are. But if you know of quality sources which seriously entertain Chopra's ideas, and which we can usefully take into account, then please produce them! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC) I don't know what there is to "fix". Criticism is fine when properly supported by sources and our policies. Given the fringe beliefs, they are going to be addressed per FRINGE, leading to more article content on those beliefs. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Ronze. While this article has elements of fringe content/sources /material this is a BLP not a so-called fringe article. Further, all criticism of Chopra does not all fall under our fringe guidelines, is not fringe content. Some of it is just, well, criticism. While criticism is fine, undue weight is not which is the issue I raised. Our first issue would seem to be with how criticism is dealt with in the article, its placement per NPOV, criticism is best incorporated into the content of the article and not isolated in a single section. Do others see a reason to ignore that guide in this article. Could we deal with that issue, first(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)) To clarify, I'm not saying that BLP doesn't apply. I'm saying that there is a great deal of FRINGE-related material here. --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Thanks for mentioning this. You’re correct, the entire section looks like a ‘criticism’ section but its called ‘writings and ideas’. Such undue. very weight. wow.  :) I think reception is a good way to frame the section, but we need to add a section so readers can learn about his major contributions. It’s entirely appropriate for a section of a biography to have a list of the subjects contributions, right? People want to learn who Dr.Chopra is, what his ideas are and the article should present those ideas and contributions as they are. Dr. Chopra is prolific, and we don’t expect the encyclopedia to cover all of them. I would expect at least major contributions or ideas to be listed in an encyclopedia. I propose some sort of framework for presenting his major notable contributions (including books, major ideas or themes, and businesses) and then a section for ‘reception’ which should merge with the section called ‘skepticism’. thoughts? ChopraMedia (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC) It's fine as is. The proposed arguments against it show no understanding of our neutrality policy (or as they are expanded upon in WP:FRINGE). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Could you explain further for the sake of a newer user? (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)) Best to read the linked policy and guidance (you really should!); they express it better than I can in a comment here. Jimbo's recent views on WP:Lunatic charlatans also offer a handy informal gloss. The upshot is: Chopra's notions will receive a treatment here that mirrors their treatment in high-quality sources: which is generally unfavourable. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Alexbrn. I am not a new user. ChopraMedia seems to be. Comments like, "its silly" or "its fine the way it is" is not particularly helpful to them nor does it explain what you are talking about. I suggest you explain yourself in terms that can be understood by other editors here. I am familiar with Jimbo's comments and am sorry that Wikipedia's leadership could not express an opinion whatever that opinion is, with out name calling. I wonder what kind of example that sets, and how that behaviour underpins our own civility policy. An appeal to authority has very little impact here. We have policies and we have guidelines which stand alone, with out an appeal to authority or suggesting name calling is acceptable. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)) Everybody needs to understand and abide by the neutrality policy; new and old editors alike. It is really no good me trying to give an "explanation" of that policy here when it is set out perfectly well and at length in the policy itself. Editors who insist on starting off by attempting to effect major changes in controversial articles need to do other editors the courtesy of at least attempting to get some basic understanding of how it applies. The essay on Jimbo's comments is a useful informal add-on as I say: any cranks and charlatans who want to push a fringe POV are wasting their time here (and the time of other editors). This article can be improved: let's do it properly ... a discussion of new high-quality sources (for example) might be a good start. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC) You are invoking policy. Please explain how it applies here. Chopra Media immediately outlined how they understood NPOV and have been doing so all the way along. If their take on that differs from other editors here that should be explained for all involved. No editor has definitive position in these discussions, and all editors should be ready to explain howe they are using policy if challenged. Whether I agree with ChopraMedia or not; this statement "Editors who insist on starting off by attempting to effect major changes in controversial articles need to do other editors the courtesy of at least attempting to get some basic understanding of how it applies." is not accurate of their opening statement or fair to them. I won't let it stand with out noting it. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)) I already wrote "The upshot is: Chopra's notions will receive a treatment here that mirrors their treatment in high-quality sources: which is generally unfavourable". The article is doing that, which is fine. At this point, editors seeking a change would probably do better to propose a precise textual change, with rationale, rather than vaguely indicate a section needs "fixing". Let's WP:FOC. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC) If your solely viewing mainstreams sources that are criticisms of Dr. Chopra, chances are your going to come to an unfavorable conclusion. I'm not sure we are going to make it through this successfully if the only argument or explanation I am given is that I'm not familiar with some broad policy. I am extremely familiar by this point with neutrality and fringe. It's why I'm here. We just disagree about how those WP guidelines are being applied. SAS81 (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC) again, per our policy,WP:UNDUE, relying upon mainstream academic criticism/analysis/commentary is EXACTLY what we are supposed to do. If you continue to want to rely on non-mainstream and nonacademic critiques, we are going to continue to get nowhere until such point as you are topic banned under WP:AE for disruptive editing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC) I'm fine with let's relying on mainstream sources, some of which may be academic (where necessary), some analysis, and some commentary. And then let's use common sense. That is how I understand what we are supposed to do. If you believe I do not understand BLP and Fringe and I am exceeding the boundaries, please point out the non mainstream fringe source I am referencing with a diff. No WP:ASPERSIONS please. I am having a nuanced discussion and I've asked a few very specific critical questions. I think if you took a little time to work to see the point of view I am coming from, many of your aspersions will vanish. SAS81 (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC) where are there any aspersions? you repeatedly appealed to the President's authority as a basis for identifying Chopra as a "pioneer" and i keep pointing out that under our policies the President's opinion in areas where he has no expertise such as medical science or even alternative medicine is of little to no value. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC) "If your solely viewing mainstreams sources that are criticisms ..." ← I think this shows a misconception about the sourcing here. Editors are using mainstream/quality sources and those sources happen to be critical of Chopra: it's precisely his "mountebank" nature (to use Miller's term) which makes him of interest to scholars & scientists. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC) @TRPOD - perhaps my argument was not as clear to you as I assumed - establishing Dr. Chopra as a pioneer (or champion even) of alternative medicine does not require Bill Clinton's quote and that was never what I was arguing, there are plenty of sources we can use to establish that. bill clinton's quote only shows that's what Dr. Chopra is notable for regarding AM and more importantly the clarification that he is NOT an alternative medicine practitioner. There's a distinction there. I'm suggesting the latter - you're assuming the former. plus, it's resolved now and it looks like we have a consensus forming anyway. Let's move on? SAS81 (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC) @Alexbrn - well we will have a review of many more proper sources to add to your list so that confusion never happens again. SAS81 (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Categorizing Chopra? / New source?

Extended content

I notice the the eminent professor Chris Miller[3] has recently spoken on the topic of the "epistemology of scientific crackpottery" and offered a view on Chopra. Miller breaks down the "different outlier scientific phenotypes" into four: "the mountebank, the con man, and two types of heretics". Miller categorizes Chopra specifically in the "mountebank" category and is quoted as saying: There are many such charlatans [mountebanks]. My favorite is Deepak Chopra. He is a medic who fancies himself a quantum physicist, and who attracts huge gullible, fee-paying audiences — the modern version of traveling to the Lourdes grotto – to be made well through his idiotic program of “quantum healing.”[4] I am wondering how/if this might be usefully included in our article. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Alexbrn. Like I said I'm not a new editor. This next step is pretty typical, very transparent, and funny. Who are you kidding? I with draw, assuming my comments where ever of any use, with apologies to all editors here, who wanted logical, reasonable discussion. Best wishes to all.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)) Let me just say that I think "Chopra is a medical quisling" would be totally inappropriate per WP:BLP and WP:HATCHETJOB. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Alex gotta encourage you straight up here - let's work towards compromise, not battleground. SAS81 (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Wait a minute. I see Alex presenting a source for discussion—which is what article talkpages are intended for, after all—and Littleolive oil responding combatively and then flouncing off. Alex is using this talkpage properly. Insofar as there is a "battleground" issue here, your concerns would be best directed toward Littleolive oil. MastCell Talk 21:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Considering that I have raised a significant BLP issue regarding UNDUE weight on criticisms of Dr Chopra and have expressed an extreme willingness to work to find compromises, it appears to me that introducing a new source suggesting Dr. Chopra is charlatan is a passive way of informing me of his uncompromising position. That's not going to get us anywhere. SAS81 (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC) It looks like a number of editors are making good-faith efforts to address your concerns about undue weight. But other editors are certainly allowed to continue discussing potential sources while your concerns are being addressed. I'm not sure what you expect—that editors will post only positive or promotional sources from now on? Instances where prominent academics and scientists are critical—or supportive—of Chopra are useful as a means of addressing your concern over the proper weight to give such material. It's reasonable for Alex to post such a source for discussion (in fact, he's following best practices by posting the source here for discussion before attempting to incorporate it into the article). Ideally, editors would respond by explaining why they do (or don't) consider this source useful for the article, rather than accusing the person posting the source of bad faith and leaving in a huff. These sorts of behavioral expectations are laid out in the talk page guidelines if you're interested in further reading. MastCell Talk 23:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC) I'm requesting that Alex specifically to work with me - that is all. SAS81 (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC) I thought he was working with you. If you want to start using out-of-the-mainstream-academic positive assessments of Chopra, we will need to balance by offering out-of-the-mainstream-academic negative assessments as well. (although I am pretty sure that Miller is not all that far out of the mainstream academic view).-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC) So far the only source I have been arguing for is President BIll Clinton. If you want to include that as some fringe position I have taken turning me into a maniac who is reaching out of the mainstream I would just say WP:FOC. SAS81 (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC) Mentioning Clinton's words is okay (and, we do); I believe you were arguing for using his words unattributed as a description of Chopra in the article lede - which is not okay. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC) The problem with that is that Clinton is a politician and not a scientist. His statements about Chopra will not have any connection to the (lack of) scientific validity of Chopra's assertions. I don't think Miller is a great source to use here, but the question is a good one: is Chopra promoting, as his believers claim, a new and groundbreaking view of science, or is he promoting a mix of mysticism and nonsense to a gullible public. I'm pretty clear on how real doctors and real physicists view his claims of "quantum healing" and "mind body healing", and so are the sources. Chopra's supporters portray him as a "Galileo", but he isn't, because in order to don the mantle of Galileo it is not sufficient to be persecuted, you must also be right. To be right in quantum physics, requires rigorous mathematical proofs, otherwise you are engaging in what Murray Gell-Mann called "quantum flapdoodle". Chopra's claims about quantum healing, lack the necessary mathematics and are clearly rejected by people who are specialists in the field of quantum mechanics. Which is a long-winded way of saying: we should explain his beliefs, but we should be very careful to avoid giving the false impression that they are scientifically or empirically valid, still less correct. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC) This source is a good one for criticizing Chopra's quantum physics claims. Other than that, it's basically polemical. Useful for notable criticism, but we have other sources that do this job well too. Add it to the pile, I guess. jps (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC) Yeah, I think Miller's wording is quite "spicey". Maybe see if he turns the lecture into something in print and then we can revisit it to see what he says in full about Chopra. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC) @JPS pretty much agree with that assessment. Thanks for helping to build consensus. SAS81 (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Chopra Media Representative

In the interests of readability, the requests have been split into separate sections below.

Deepak Chopra editors: Binksternet Mishash Bgwhite TheRedPenOfDoom Alexbrn, Lacolorstudio, Xanthis, Rjwilmsi, De-charlatan, Vzaak, Barney the barney barney, KiethBob, John of Reading, Roxy the dog, Afterwriting, Fcp, WikiDan61, Charhenderton, Anomalocaris, HMSSolent, QuackGuru, Philip Cross, Ajo102688, Feross, QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV, Nonnyme, Mastcell Hello. I am a representative from Chopra Media. We have genuine concerns about this article. This has been an issue for sometime and we were not sure of the best way to approach this problem as Wikipedia is very complex to new comers. We want to do this the right way. We apologize for any previous fumbles that may have occurred or will occur. please don’t bite the newbies :) I am here to address inaccuracies and the inappropriate misframing of Deepak Chopra’s biography on Wikipedia and seek the assistance of neutral and experienced Wikipedians to help. The article itself mentions that Dr. Chopra is a magnet for criticism but fails to mention that the entire article on Wikipedia is serving only this purpose. Most paragraphs support the framing of Dr Chopra from the point of view of skepticism and criticisms frame every section - and this is before we even get to the section called Skepticism. I want to make clear we do not find issue with the publications criticisms of Deepak Chopra as a matter of biographical record on Wikipedia. We also understand the balance between WP: BLP and WP:FRINGE. Our concern is the weight of these criticisms in relationship with other points of view and reputable sources. Dr Chopra is a world leader in mind body healing and represents view points of millions of people and many distinct cultures. We find the viewpoints expressed here and framed as factually neutral to be disrespectful to many other worldviews and cultures. For the purposes of human dignity and respect we request this article be reviewed and framed neutrally. We believe Wikipedia’s five pillars and general guidelines for a BLP already protect and cover what we request. We are not interested in nor are we requesting white-washing his biography for promotional or PR related purposes. We get it. We understand the issue of neutrality on Wikipedia and value many of the principles. For example, the lead sentence frames Dr. Chopra as a new age guru on one hand and simply a ‘practitioner’ of alternative medicine. Not only is this disrespectful (in some contexts this is a pejorative, and sometimes even a racist pejorative) - it also fails to inform the reader the full picture of who Dr Chopra is, what his ideas are and what his contributions are. Yet President Bill Clinton reference to Dr Chopra as a ‘pioneer of alternative medicine’ is a notable source. And it is indeed accurate to the role Dr. Chopra has played as a world leader in mind body healing. Why is that quote buried at the bottom of the article while the caricature using pejoratives is floating at the top? First and foremost, Dr. Chopra is a physician - licensed in both western medicine. and alternative medicine. We believe the nature of this article is to serve to the discredit not only of Dr. Chopra - but to discredit the philosophy and practices of world religions, worldviews, and millions of people of all different cultures. How would the community advise us proceeding to make the article better? ChopraMedia (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC) The framing of the content of the article from from the skepticism / mainstream academic views is what the article must do to comply with our policy WP:NPOV particularly subsections WP:UNDUE / WP:VALID etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC) I've asked for input from uninvolved editors (fresh eyes) on our Biography of Living persons Notice Board here and on the Conflict of Interest Notice Board here. This is first and foremost a BLP which requires we treat the article and its subject with respect as to their real life activities aware that what we say here can damage a reputation. Thank you for approaching this concern as you have. (Littleolive oil (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)) Thanks for your comments and for outlining your concerns. While articles must include content per weight in the mainstream sources and that often includes pejorative content; this article is also a BLP which means care must be taken in how content is presented so that neutrality is being maintained in terms of content and tone. Since you seem to understand these points but still have concerns about the article, I'd suggest outlining each concern one at a time and asking for comments and discussion. There may be other ways to approach your concerns and perhaps other editors have suggestions, but this is a standard way of dealing with contentious content. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)) ChopraMedia, Could I ask for a clear explanation of what exactly "Chopra Media" is, and your function there? Is it for example the case that you are being employed or contracted to edit this article on Chopra's behalf? I take it you are aware of the guidance at WP:COI? (and WP:ADVOCACY is a useful supplement). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 03:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC) The fact that Chopra is a physician is not significant, since his field of interest—mind-body healing—is beyond that comparatively restricted field. He is certainly a prominent advocate of mind-body healing, perhaps even a pioneer, with attribution to Clinton. In the manner of Littleolive oil, I think it would be best to address single specific issues rather than trying to attain a global shift in the biography. Binksternet (talk) 05:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC) For contacting Wikipedia confidentially via email you need to use OTRS, see Wikipedia:Contact us. Philip Cross (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC) ChopraMedia The answer to your problem is threefold. Sources, sources and sources. Every editor here would be happy to help you, based on any reliable sources you may have. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC) comment and @Alexbrn (talk · contribs) - I feel that if ChopraMedia (talk · contribs) is polite and civil, then we should be too. Raising concerns on a talk page is the right way to go about things; edit warring and generally being a nuisance isn't. I see no reason so far why ChopraMedia (talk · contribs) should be included in the latter category, and I hope that it stays that way. WP:ORTS would be a good option I think because it attracts the attention of WP:ORTS volunteers who haven't been involved in this article but who should be familiar with relevant WP:POLICY. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC) Agreed, but it is good for there to be full transparency about the nature of any WP:COI that may be in effect. We have already been through the OTRS mill (after I was accused of a COI) and it would be good not to have a repeat of anything at all like that. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC) Comment Chopra Media Representative expresses concerns that there are some sources being excluded from the article. I am happy to take those concerns seriously. What sources are currently being excluded? jps (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC) @ChopraMedia: In the lede fo an article, we describe what the subject is known for. Chopra is known primarily as a new-age guru, as far as I can tell. He's a practitioner of alternative medicine, according to sources. Do you have a source for him being an active practitioner of real medicine as well? We mention the fact he is qualified in real medicine within the article already. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

To "Chopra Media Representative"

Advice presumably read and understood

You need to be aware that Wikipedia's rules require that we follow the neutral point of view. There are special rules which apply to biographies of living people, but they do not override the foundational policy on neutrality. No article subject has a right of veto over content in their article. The large number of Wikipedia editors you have named, is evidence that the article's content has been reviewed by numerous experienced editors, so broad statements of wholesale violation of policy are not going to be persuasive (see below). Wikipedia is not here to play any part in promoting Deepak Chopra. We are not part of your communications or social media strategy. Bluntly, if the article presents accurate material that, incidentally, cause people to question him or not to buy his products, we sympathise but it's not our problem. In respect of subjects which are within the purview of scientific inquiry, including all medical subjects, the neutral point of view is interpreted as following the scientific consensus. Neutrality is not some place between the scientific consensus and the advocates of fringe beliefs, because the scientific consensus inherently incorporates all significant viewpoints weighted according to their validity and evidential support. So, for example, where we discuss Chopra's ideas on quantum physics, we will necessarily do so on a way that makes it clear that his views are considered incorrect and even nonsensical by legitimate scientists. That will not change. Nor will Chopra's belief in bridging the gap between science and religion, in any way sway us, because in matters of science any compromise between a correct statement and an incorrect statement, is an incorrect statement, and religious views are inherently unscientific. If you want to make changes to the article, this is what you need to do: Identify short sections of text with which you take issue Propose a modified or improved replacement Provide reliable independent secondary sources to back the change Achieve consensus for the change Request someone else to make the consensus change for you This is to protect Chopra's own reputation. If it were perceived that he was, through his media office, trying to control the content of the Wikipedia article, there is likely to be a backlash and significant adverse commentary. For urgent issues of defamation, please post a short, specific request on WP:BLPN. By specific, I mean detailing exactly what text is a problem, and why. Keep all requests to the point and make them easy for independent reviewers to action. We absolutely will not promise to have an article that Chopra will like. That is implicit in the fact that he advocates alternative medicine and other pseudoscientific concepts rejected by proper scientific inquiry. What we can and will strive for, is fairness and accuracy. Poorly sourced material (positive or negative) can and will be removed. Well sourced material that Chopra does not like, will not. Nor will we undertake to balance every adverse fact with a "rebutal" or commentary from Chopra: it is very obvious that he rejects the scientific interpretation of his beliefs, that does not need to be stated at every line. Finally, under no circumstances should you use any language that gives the appearance of a legal threat. Wikipedia reserves the right to ban or otherwise exclude any editor who does this, or who violates our other policies. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Certain specific issues

Here is where we can deal with specific issues brought up by Chopra Media. I'm having something of a hard time identifying actionable points. jps (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Inaccuracies/misframing

No response from requester for any specifics. Requests cannot be actioned without specifics.

"The article itself mentions that Dr. Chopra is a magnet for criticism but fails to mention that the entire article on Wikipedia is serving only this purpose." -- I don't think it appropriate for the article to reference itself. jps (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC) It would be a bit silly to mention that Dr Chropa is a "magnet for criticism" and then not to explain who's said what about him. The claim that "the entire article on Wikipedia is serving only this purpose" is I believe a suggestion that the editors here have personal views against Dr Chopra and are therefore WP:POVPUSHING, perhaps subconsciously. The way to prevent the latter from occurring is to be very careful when discussing issues, examine them in detail. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

World leader in mind body healing

No response from requester for any specifics. Requests cannot be actioned without specifics.
"Dr Chopra is a world leader in mind body healing and represents view points of millions of people and many distinct cultures." -- Can you point to some sources for this claim? Or even a rational definition of "mind body healing" that does not fail the Humpty-Dumpty test - when I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Disrespect

"We find the viewpoints expressed here and framed as factually neutral to be disrespectful to many other worldviews and cultures." -- Highlighting specific instances of this would be helpful.

• I think this means that the article is disposed towards a specific form of Western philosophy, and that is scientific philosophy. In doing so, it apparently excludes various forms of Eastern philosophy, and Indian philosophy. While acknowledging my biases as a westerner, and without wandering too much off topic, one only has to point out the success of Western scientific philosophy in understanding the universe - especially evidence-based medicine - has far exceeded all other efforts by other cultures combined. WP:MAINSTREAM and WP:NPOV states that we do not take all viewpoints as equal. WP:MEDRS states we follow evidence-based medicine. I do not see these as negatives. There is clear WP:CONSENSUS on these issues. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• I think WP:UNDUE in particular is relevant here. -- Atama頭 22:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think it is true that Eastern philosophy precludes a disposition towards scientific philosophy. jps (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. This is the same as the conflict between creationism and evolution. Evolution is science, creationism is religion. Much Eastern "healing" is effectively a religious belief system with no empirical validity. Qi does not exist, meridians do not exist, to state this is not "disrespectful to other worldviews and cultures", Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of cherished but incorrect beliefs. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"Practitioner"

No response from requester for any specifics. Requests cannot be actioned without specifics.

"For example, the lead sentence frames Dr. Chopra as a new age guru on one hand and simply a ‘practitioner’ of alternative medicine. Not only is this disrespectful (in some contexts this is a pejorative, and sometimes even a racist pejorative) - it also fails to inform the reader the full picture of who Dr Chopra is, what his ideas are and what his contributions are." -- Hard for me to understand this. The scare quotes seem to indicate that the major concern is over the word "practitioner" of alternative medicine. I don't understand why that is. Does Chopra media group dispute that he is a practitioner of alternative medicine? Does he prefer other terminology? If so, why? Does Dr Chopra see individual patients and prescribe them "treatments"? Or does he just lecture on "alternative treatments" and do book signings and media work? If it's the latter I'm not sure he can claim to be "practising alternative medicine". Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"Pioneer"

No response from requester for any specifics. Requests cannot be actioned without specifics.

"Yet President Bill Clinton reference to Dr Chopra as a ‘pioneer of alternative medicine’ is a notable source." I'm not sure the word "pioneer" is neutral. Can an argument be made that it is? Certainly Chopra is on the vanguard of the movement. That might be a more neutral way to put it. What do you think? Mr Clinton isn't an expert on medicine, so his opinion doesn't really count for that much. Also, he is a politician, so apt to say things that'll please his audience regardless of whether he believes them or not (sorry Bill). As for the word pioneer, "A person who is among the first to research and develop a new area of knowledge or activity" [5], possibly might be of use. However, I'm concerned that this definition implies that Dr Chopra is conducting research and that this is a new area of knowledge. Has he published any studies in peer-reviewed journals? Can something be "knowledge" if it's demonstrably false? Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"Physician"

"First and foremost, Dr. Chopra is a physician - licensed in both western medicine and alternative medicine." -- Physician is a technical term and a protected term. I think it is somewhat controversial to call a person who practices alternative medicine a "physician" of such. Do you disagree? Why?

• If Dr Chopra is a physician then we should mention this. However, we also need to be careful when explaining why he's notable, particularly in the WP:LEAD. If he's not made any major contributions to conventional evidence-based medicine, then he isn't notable as a physician and we shouldn't pretend that he is. It is quite clear that other people involved in advocating WP:FRINGE views often try to trade on credentials. We're however generally unimpressed by such efforts. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• • I think credentialism may be what is going on, but that may be enough to ensure notability. A more fuller discussion of this could be had in the body. That he is a licensed physician is probably what gives him cache. We have sources to that effect. jps (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Discrediting

"We believe the nature of this article is to serve to the discredit not only of Dr. Chopra - but to discredit the philosophy and practices of world religions, worldviews, and millions of people of all different cultures." -- How so? Can you give specific examples?

WTF does "Micros" mean?

If somebody could please explain the three section headings beginning with the word "Micros" it would make my day. As it is, I have no understanding of those three sections. Help please. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure, but I don't think it is a problem. You could remove the words from the section titles and they would work just as well. Sometimes Wikipedians use "arbitrary break". I'm not much a fan of that, though. jps (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sorry if that is a little sloppy - on my end it just means a 'micro' discussion happening on a specific point (say 'guru') under the bigger 'macro' discussion (like the whole first sentence). I can swap it for whatever you want - I'm just trying to keep track of the full discussion since I have to do diligence on each comment. SAS81 (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)