Talk:Deepak Chopra

Arbitration Enforcement

Notification:[1]

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive151#SAS81

Lead Section

Hi all- I just noticed an issue re: validity with the last sentence in the lead-- I think it's slightly misleading by saying "The medical and scientific communities' opinion of him ranges from dismissive to damning." This implies that the the medical and scientific community has wholeheartedly dismissed/damned him, whereas the evidence suggests that this range is a bit broader (I'm just thinking of his book with the Harvard neuro professor, a couple peer-reviewed journal articles, the US Navy inviting him to talk about mind-body medicine, co-headlining a scientific conference with Sir Roger Penrose— yes, the one who works with Stephen Hawking, etc). In any case, this is a very strong claim with a very weak source-- the cited article is not impartial and so I don’t think it’s appropriate for Wikipedia.

I propose the the language change to, “The medical and scientific communities' opinion of him ranges from damning to accepting." Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be WP:OR. --Ronz (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It's always seemed to me that the citing of "The medical and scientific communities' opinion of him ranges from dismissive to damning." is itself textbook WP:CHERRYPICKING, especially considering the fact it includes the negative half of the statement while excluding the qualifications the author was explaining, or the fact that he never said he was citing these communities as a whole.

_{Ever since his early days as an advocate of alternative healing and nutrition, Chopra has been a magnet for criticism — most of it from the medical and scientific communities. Accusations have ranged from the dismissive — Chopra is just another huckster purveying watered-down Eastern wisdom mixed with pseudo science and pop psychology — to the outright damning.} Tompkins. Mentioning a wide range of perceptions, an unspecified (and unqualified) number of which may come from various groups, is not a reliable sourcing for citing anything, let alone pretending it qualifies as an authoritative source on the majority of scientists everywhere.

The ref comes from a mention in a Lifestyle piece that goes on to praise Chopra as much as it critiques him, and definitely has absolutely no authority to be used as a reliable source for something as huge and nuanced as the position of the medical and scientific community. Can anyone here tell me with a straight face that if someone tried to cite a piece like this that happened to say Chopra was positively viewed by those communities, they wouldn't protest? If not, this ref is long past due for removal. The Cap'n (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

In order to keep this productive as opposed to my just complaining, I propose removing the statement altogether. The points about Chopra's detractors are amply represented (overly so, many would argue), we don't need a cherry picked ref to over-generalize millions of people's opinions on top of that. The Cap'n (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I've added a {{dubious}} tag to the statement. The "opinion of ranges from dismissive to damning" isn't much of a range (and he has gotten positive feedback), and it isn't balancing the lead. It would be better to say something along the lines that Chopra is a controversial figure within the medical community.BlueStove (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed it just as you contributed here. (and I disagree with you re your suggestion) Current version introduces and summarises well. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, most of the medical community neither condemns nor damns him - self-evident nonsense is normally just ignored. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

-I've restored the tag. I'm not a driveby editor, I left a note on the talk page. The current line does not summarize, but rather presents a poorly sourced, biased view. The ignoring of that "self-evident nonsense" requires a source (WP:TRUTH). BlueStove (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok so it looks like we all agree that both the claim and its sources are not appropriate. How do you all feel about removing the sentence, as The Cap'n suggested? At least until something better is decided? Especially given Wikipedia policy about the pages of living people and being accurate/not defamatory. Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

There is certainly not agreement, not that is would matter if there was - especially among some fresh accounts who have just beamed into the page - since this is not a vote. We are governed by our need for neutrality-based consensus based on the WP:PAGs. If Chopra's views are held in poor regard as reported in RS, then we shall relay that knowledge. Alexbrn (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that we are governed by our need for neutrality-based consensus. Which is why it is not appropriate to assert that the range of opinions about him is no narrow and negative using a single article by an author who is not neutral. Ptolemy Tompkins, who wrote the Times article, has conflicts of interest with this topic. Check out his website. He admits that he has " pronounced interest in current ideas about the evolution of consciousness." which is a field that Chopra is very involved in. Tompkins has authored multiple books on the topic of new age spirituality, souls and metaphysics. He also explains that he is an avid reader of books on spirituality, new age spirituality, and the afterlife, and he shares his view of many of these online. His opinions are based on his personal experience of spirituality, however. Additionally, he admits that his books didn't get very good critical reception. So I think it's dangerous to use an article from someone who has such publicly stated strong feelings about the many of the same things Chopra is involved in. Especially given that he has financial interests in it, given that writing about consciousness and the soul etc. has been his job for decades. You see what I mean? I am all for neutral, but I just don't think that this is neutral. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

And adding "an article in Times magazine" doesn't solve the problem of the source. I could easily go find an article from a reputable source saying that members of the medical community respect admire him, but just because the article exists doesn't mean it should be in the lead on WP. Also-- the claim in the article re: he dissuades people from seeking proper medical care is not property sourced either; it just says " some have argued." If we are talking about something as ambigious as "hope," and attributing to it dramatic implications, and doing it on the page of a living individual, then there should be better sourcing. One Time article by a new age ideologue without any citations or sources does not seem sufficient to make these claims. Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Which basically amounts to you not liking the source for personal reasons you've conjured up. It's an article in Time which gives us a decent insight into how Chopra's views are viewed and is fine in our lede as a summary of points we deal with in greater depth later. As for your easily-findable source which says "members of the medical community respect admire him" [sic] ... where? Alexbrn (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I just outlined, with evidence, exactly why I think the source is not sufficient due to the author's personal history. As I said, what I care about is neutrality. That is why I explained in detail where I see a conflict of interest. I don't know why you said I am "conjuring up" "personal reasons." Instead of attacking my character, I think it would be more productive if you responded to the points that I brought up. Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you think you personally are better placed to judge Tomkins' suitability to write on this topic than Time magazine, because of far-fetched suppositions & accusations based on a web page. In any case, that was what Timepublished and that's what we report, to be neutral. No answer to my request for your source, I notice. Alexbrn (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I've attributed the line to Ptolemy Tompkins in the lead and changed it to described as opposed to summarized as the article is not a representative view. His views may be controversial, but to summarily suggest a range of "dismissive to damning" is misleading. The lead still needs work to actually represent a NPOV.BlueStove (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea why the attribution helps in any way. Seems rather inappropriate actually.

Given the lede should summarize, I think it would be best to do so rather than provide info from the Time article that is so contentious that we feel it cannot be presented in Wikipedia's voice. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we're all making this far more complicated than it needs to be. There are 3 simple reasons, completely divorced from anyone's subjective opinion of Chopra or Tomkins, that this ref does not belong with the statement "the medical and scientific communities' opinion of him as ranging from dismissive to damning; criticism includes statements that his approach could lure sick people away from effective treatments."

• 1) The Tomkins piece is NOT a WP:RS for stating as fact the opinions of the medical/scientific community. RS policy states that commentary, opinion, and analysis articles can only be used to describe the opinion of the writer, and cannot be used to make a statement of fact. In addition, WP standards on representing the positions of the medical establishment specifically state popular press is NOT a reliable source.
• 2)The statement falsifies the citation through a blatant logical fallacy. The ref states that Chopra has critics, most of whom are members of the medical or scientific fields V. the WP statement that most members of the medical/scientific fields are critics of Chopra. That is a massive distortion of the source and appropriate citing policy.
• 3)The ref never says anything like "his approach could lure sick people away from effective treatments". This statement cannot be attributed to Tomkins, and is of such a contentious and extraordinary nature (effectively accusing him of homicidal malpractice) that it would require an extraordinarily reliable and objective source.

To sum up, Tomkins is not a reliable source for this "fact", the statement on WP has been fallaciously modified, and it cannot be used to support the extraordinary claim that Chopra is endangering lives. These are 3 evidenced reasons why this statement violates numerous WP policies and standards. I have not yet seen any argument for keeping it that trumps these. The Cap'n (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not an extraordinary claim that Chopra is endangering lives. Quite the opposite.

Tomkins viewpoints are noteworthy and most definitely should be included, probably expanded upon, not in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

With respect, it IS an extraordinary claim to state that a medical doctor in good standing might be causing the deaths of his patients. To make that claim with no better evidence than a commentary article or the opinion of a non-physician skeptic author violates WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:EXTRAORDINARY, and basic ethics.

I would point out that points 1) and 2) stand uncontested, and either by itself is reason to remove the line.

As far as expanding on Tomkins due to his noteworthiness, does that mean you have no objections to adding:

• "The book became a best seller, got Chopra wide coverage in the media and established his image as a man of science with the soul of a mystic. In the years since, Chopra has steadily enlarged his reputation from that of healer to philosopher-at-large."
• "Anyone with a glancing knowledge of the writings of the human-potential movement of the past 40 years will have no trouble finding in Chopra's work influences, both hidden and acknowledged, from beyond India's borders. Abraham Maslow, Teilhard de Chardin, Joseph Campbell, Carlos Castaneda and other counterculture standards blend into the mix with a healthy helping of contemporary psychologists, biologists and physicists."
• "Chopra is as rich as he is today not because he has been dishonest with anyone, but because his basic message — that love, health and happiness are possible, that mystery is real and that the universe is ultimately a friendly and benevolent place where orthodoxies old and new can meet and make peace with one another — is one that he wants to believe in just as sincerely as his readers do."

If you'd consider those sections of Tomkins to be as noteworthy as the parts that can be used to cite negative statements, then we have the beginning of consensus. The Cap'n (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Cap'n makes very valid points, especially concerning the creative leap between what is actually said in the source, and what it written on WP. And once again, Alexbrn, I request that you adopt a less antagonistic tone with me. We don't want your personal hostility or emotional attachment to this issue to effect your ability to be a neutral contributor. Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"it IS an extraordinary claim " Why should anyone agree, let alone agree that we should use such assertions to determine article content? --Ronz (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Cap'n is part of Chopra's PR, of course he says that. The source is fine and the text seems to me to reflect what the source says. Not liking it doesn't make it "dubious" - though the irony of arguing over a dubious tag on an article discussing Chopra's dubious claims is not lost on me. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Generally, a biography lead does not specifically mention a publication, unless the publication has had an over-arching effect on the individual (which it does not in this case). The manner in which Time is name-dropped without attributing the author who has a wiki article is very peculiar. It would be better to present the figure as controversial from Wikipedia's voice and have several references. The range of "dismissive to damning" is redundant and fails to recognize that he does have supporters within the medical community.BlueStove (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Tomkins views are already expounded upon in the Deepak Chopra#Alternative medicine. Anything further, if not already, would be WP:UNDUE.BlueStove (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, though I'm not clear if it would be due or undue to expound further elsewhere. I'm just focused on the lede, where I think we agree. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No. We don't agree. The lead needs work, and it's current state isn't reflective of a NPOV. The line should be written in Wikipedia's voice, and to reflect a neutral tone.BlueStove (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Ronz & Guy, what is ironic is dismissing my position as an assertion with nothing but your own assertions. I did not assert, I argued with evidence, citing numerous WP policies that disqualify the Tomkins ref. No one has rebutted with any evidence so far, aside from vague aspersions and protestations of "But I KNOW Chopra is wrong!" My arguments stand, friends. The Cap'n (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's put together a rational decision rather than building walls of text (for the record, Guy, I am not in PR and have been clear about my relationship with the subject). As I see it, the arguments AGAINST including the ref are:

• It is clearly not a Reliable Source per WP policy on both news sources and reporting on the medical establishment.
• The text in the article does not match the ref cited, and trying to do so is a false consequent logical fallacy. Honestly, this should be enough on its own to remove the text. If any editor thinks "most of Chopra's critics are scientists" = "most scientists are critics of Chopra", they should reconsider their qualifications to edit this page.
• The critiques made in the text are repeated in that very paragraph, and Tomkins's critiques are repeated further on in the article, with no evidence or reasoning that these are overwhelmingly important aspects of Chopra other than editors' opinions. This is an WP:UNDUE problem.
• The critical sections of Tomkins are justified by claiming Tomkins is highly reputable and noteworthy, yet none of the noncritical statements by Tomkins have historically been allowed on the page. This violates WP:NPOV.
• Claiming an MD in good standing is contributing to the deaths of his patients is a major claim that needs WP:EXTRAORDINARY evidence, not a blurb in a commentary piece.

The arguments FOR including the ref are:

• Tomkins is important and his article represents what Chopra is reputable for (though only the critical parts).
• Deepak Chopra is obviously a danger to his patients and saying so does not require qualified, objective coverage.
• Tomkins' article is a reliable source and he is qualified to speak for the medical and scientific communities.

Please add points I may have missed, but it seems evident to me that the first 2 arguments FOR are pure assertions, while the third is thoroughly debunked by the various policies cited above. If you have rebuttals, please cite evidence and logical arguments. If you don't, let's move forward and edit the text. There are solid reasons to remove the ref that cite the source material and WP policies, and they cannot be rejected by simply reverting over & over. The Cap'n (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I notice you didn't address my concerns, but rather tried to make this about individuals rather than policy and sources. That's not the way to gain any consensus, especially given the COI. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused... My last post listed 8 detailed points on policy and sourcing, and never named any individual other than a brief note to Guy. If you're referring to my earlier post where I mentioned you, it was not my intention to focus things on you, I agree wholeheartedly that policy and sound refs should win the day. I was trying to address the implication that I had made no arguments but assertions, and if my frustration at that impression came across as hostile, I apologize. That was not my intent.

Going back to policy and sourcing, I thought you concerns were addressed in my last post, where I discussed WP:EXTRAORDINARY and WP:UNDUE as they pertain here. If you have a line of reasoning I did not address, please let me know so we can all build a rational consensus. The Cap'n (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I see no EXTRAORDINARY, UNDUE, nor RS problems, just the assertions that there are some. --Ronz (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

ASSERTION: [uh-sur-shuh n] noun 1. a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason.

I have cited 5 supporting reasons, including formal logic, WP policy citations, comparative quotes, and more. All have linked evidence to support them, yet you have summarily rejected them, without even addressing most of the points. At this point we need to A) view your citable evidence in support of the ref, B) accept that the ref is inappropriate and remove it, or C) initiate an RfC to resolve this stalemate. The Cap'n (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest dropping it at this point. You're convincing me that you cannot work beyond your coi in this matter. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I regret that this line of reasoning has left you discouraged. The Cap'n (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting that while many logically sound arguments have been made supporting removing the sentence in question, most refutations of this proposal do not provide thorough reasoning or valid counterpoints. This is a waste of time-- it is not about your personal opinion on the matter. Provide evidence or sound reasoning-- if not, then Wikipedia is not the place for you.

Another note: if one argues that it's appropriate to include one statement from Tompkins re: Chopra, then logically, should we not also include his other significant statements re: Chopra? For example, in the same article he writes: "Chopra has steadily enlarged his reputation from that of healer to philosopher-at-large. East and West, mind and body, science and spirit: Chopra's smiling, ever more confident face has become an icon of the hope that the world is entering a new age of synthesis and understanding where all such rifts will become mere memories." Given that the article has both positive and negative things to say, WP:WEIGHT to just include the damning part. Remember, WP:BALASPS : "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

Also remember we are talking about a WP:BLP, which, according to WP policy must be written "conservatively." "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion

The fact that editors are even arguing about this, when it is clearly in violation of WP policy, is shocking. Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I've filed an RfC below at Talk:Deepak_Chopra#RfC:_Is_the_lead.2C_among_other_parts_of_the_article.2C_reflective_of_the_sources_and_a_NPOV.3F.BlueStove (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead issues/revisions

I propose changing the current lead sentence from:

Through his books and videos, he has become one of the best-known and wealthiest figures in the "holistic-health" movement.

to

Through his books and seminars, he has become one of the most prominent and successful figures in the holistic health movement.

This was reverted with the comment that the current revision is a " better summary of article". The source makes no mention of wealth. Why is holistic health in quotes? And why is it a pipe link to alternative medicine when there is a separate article for holistic health?BlueStove (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the article body, and not (just) the citations given. The cited source put "holistic" in scare quotes (we should probably just link directly to alternative medicine though). The source says Chopra is "now a multi-millionaire thoroughly seduced by the placebo effect". Sounds like wealth to me: did you read the source? If anything our use of it is a bit whitewashed ... How should we convey the "thoroughly seduced by the placebo effect" thought, if at all? Alexbrn (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The proposal is less specific and strays from the sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I support this edit as basic common sense, and am confused why even editors who are traditionally opposed to Chopra oppose the change. It does nothing to change the message or source integrity, and the more generalized tone is appropriate for a lede. As far as the scare quotes, the sentence is in Wikipedia' voice, not the source's, and holistic health is an actual term on WP, so putting the quotations in is unnecessary and inappropriate, per WP:SCAREQUOTES. This is a thoroughly non-controversial change, and its rejection (along with almost every other minor edit that didn't originate from the usual crew) makes me wonder if this page is being owned. The Cap'n (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

At the very least, why would you pipe link 'holistic health' to alternative health when there is a holistic health article? The usage of sneer quotes in the source doesn't translate over to Wikipedia's NPOV voice. What else would holistic health mean in this context? Besides videos, Chopra has audio tapes and events, which would be more accurately summarized as seminars. There's a big stretch between being a multi-millionaire, to being the wealthiest individual in an industry and this source doesn't explicitly describe him as the wealthiest. The claim that Chopra has been "thoroughly seduced by the placebo effect" is quite a claim and would require additional sourcing than the mere passing mention in that article. He hasn't had his medical license revoked, and his professional affiliations are hardly suggestive of the malpractice the article implies.BlueStove (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree on the link, just link to alternative medicine in line with the cited source's text:

Deepak Chopra, arguably the most successful of America’s CAM practitioners, began his career well within the bounds of traditional medicine by serving as Chief of Staff at Boston Regional Medical Center and by teaching at Tufts University and Boston University Schools of Medicine. Now a multi-millionaire thoroughly seduced by the placebo effect, he is the author of 35 books plus 100 audio, video and CD-ROM titles that advocate virtually every form of alternative therapy.

Alexbrn (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

That "easter egg" is a link to holistic health, which is a subset of alternative medicine and reflects what the "consensus text" actually was. That said, the lead is supposed to be a holistic reflection of the article, not just the source used in the lead. BlueStove (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. And "holistic health" is really just a PR nonsense we should avoid in favour of more neutral terms as used in RS. Alexbrn (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It's worse than pr nonsense, as it sometimes refers to evidence-based medicine. We wouldn't want to create or encourage such misrepresentations of Chopra's approach. --Ronz (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the above is the epitome of WP:OR. You don't get to decide a term is just PR nonsense, and it's been established Chopra embraces evidence based medicine, with complementary treatments as an addition. That's already in the article, for crying out loud. Aside from the fact that Chopra identifies his healthcare approach as integrating mainstream and CAM (thereby not being an "alternative"), the definition of Holistic Healthcare is much closer to Chopra's stated definitions. The Cap'n (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, your COI is showing. It's not WP:OR just because someone disagrees or is unfamiliar with the subject matter, nor are we going to confuse pr campaigns as anything else. --Ronz (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I do maintain that simply dismissing something as PR without any evidence, reasoning, or sources to back it up is WP:OR. However, I take your point that I may be too familiar with this topic and verbiage to be an objective opinion on the name. Thank you for the reminder, Ronz. The Cap'n (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You have it backwards. Assuming that anything about Alt Med is not pr can be a stretch at best. If you cannot provide evidence for your assertions, claims, etc; don't be surprised as they're taken as pr. Follow WP:COITALK and provide evidence that your suggestions, opinions, etc are relevant to improving the quality of this encyclopedia rather promoting the interests of your employer. --Ronz (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

And here I was trying to be polite and reasonable... To claim that virtually all non-negative content about a massive genre (about which there are tens of thousands of medical studies) is worthless PR is one of the most blatantly biased and POV statements that I've seen on WP. It sounds very much like WP:RGW and WP:ADVOCACY. Please be careful, just as I recognize I have a POV on this topic, you obviously do too. As for evidence, I've been the one to provide evidence, sources, policy links, etc, to an almost silly degree, and the majority of your and Alexbrn's rejections have been "No, UNDUE" with no evidence or reasoning why. Please help build a consensus here, not shut down any differing positions. the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 02:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not what I'm claiming. Again, it appears you cannot see beyond your COI. If you cannot follow COITALK, then you're wasting our time here. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Whatever your personal stance is Ronz, Wikipedia is a balanced reflection of the sources, not what you perceive to be the "truth" (WP:TRUTH). With that being said, there are sources in the article that explicitly use the term holistic health to describe Chopra's work. This source explicitly states:

Despite the popular roots of the holistic health/New Age movements, a growing number of biomedical physicians have become proponents of holistic health as well as New Age healing. Over the past two decades, Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra, two biomedically trained physicians, have emerged as the visible and financially successful spokespersons of the movement.

— Baer, HA (June 2003). "The work of Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra--two holistic health/New Age gurus: a critique of the holistic health/New Age movements". Medical anthropology quarterly. 17 (2): 240–241. PMID 12846118.

This source also more accurately reflects the proposed change to Through his books and seminars, he has become one of the most prominent and successful figures in the holistic health movement.BlueStove (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Except that Baer (a figure with rather ... alternative views himself) then goes on to say that Chopra has failed at what he calls "holistic medicine" because he devotes his efforts to selling nonsense to the wealthy worried well. So you are completely abusing the source with your suggestion (twisting "financially successful" into "successful"). Time to drop the WP:STICK methinks. Alexbrn (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Baer's publications are referenced multiple times within the wiki article, so I don't understand why there is an issue with him in this context. Have you read the article? The article literally concludes by describing Chopra as one of the "leading exemplars of the holistic health/New Age movements." The article does not mention nonsense, but rather critiques/laments how Chopra, as a successful capitalistic entrepreneur, caters to an elite clientele, effectively outpricing the working proletariat. That's hardly the equivalent of peddling "nonsense", but rather a common business practice among successful MDs. I have added a number of supporting excerpts from the article below.

Relevant excerpts from Baer, HA (June 2003). "The work of Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra--two holistic health/New Age gurus: a critique of the holistic health/New Age movements". Medical anthropology quarterly. 17 (2): 233–250. PMID 12846118.

* Title: The Work of Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra: Two Holistic Health/New Age Gurus: A Critique of the Holistic Health/New Age Movements Abstract: Despite the popular roots ofthe holistic health/NewAge movements, a growing number of biomedical physicians have become proponents of holistic health as well as New Age healing. Over the past two decades, Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra, two biomedically trained physicians, have emerged as the visible andfinancially successful spokespersons of the movement. This article provides brief biographical sketches of Weil and Chopra and compares and contrasts their respective views on health, illness, healing, and health care. It also considers the response of various biomedical parties to these holistic health/New Age gurus who have attempted to integrate biomedicine and various alternative healing and metaphysical systems. Finally, this article argues that Weil and Chopra both epitomize the limitations of the holistic health/New Age movements, albeit in different ways. Although some holistic biomedical physicians, such as James Gordon (1988, 1996), a Harvard-trained physician and the director of the Center for Mind-Body Medicine in Washington, D.C., have captured some public attention, Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra have emerged over the past two decades as the most visible spokespersons of the holistic health movement. They have been propelled into fame as holistic biomedical physicians as a result of their success at manipulating the organs of mass communication-books, audiotapes, videotapes, and appearances on television. p 233 Chopra has authored some 25 books and produced more than 100 audio, video, and CD- ROM titles. In a special issue published on June 14, 1999, Time designated both Weil and Chopra as among the "Top 100 Icons and Heroes of the 20th Century" and referred to Chopra as the "poet-prophet of alternative medicine" (1999:206). A critical analysis of these two figures provides us with an excellent vehicle for ex- amining broader issues and trends within the holistic health/New Age movements, and, in particular, understanding how what emerged as a popular movement is in- creasingly becoming incorporated into biomedicine. p.234 I also discuss the response of various biomedical parties to these two holistic gurus who have attempted to integrate biomedicine and various alternative healing systems. I argue that both Weil and Chopra represent the limitations of the holistic health/New Age movements, such as their tendencies to downplay the role of social structural and environmental factors in the etiology of disease, particularly as manifested in the United States. p.234 In addition to Weil and Chopra, various other MDs have emerged as leading proponents of the holistic health movement or what has increasingly become referred to in various circles as "integrative medicine" or "complementary and alternative medicine." p235 A critical analysis of the views and writings of Weil and Chopra as the most visible proponents of the holistic health/New Age movements gives us insights into roots in biomedicine as well as similarities and differences between them. p236 Most of Weil's and Chopra's views of health, disease, and healing are unique to them but are part and parcel of concepts widely promulgated within the context of the larger holistic health/New Age movements. These two health gurus have been the leading disseminators. p 237 Like many other holistic MDs, Weil prefers to refer to his approach to healing as "integrative medicine," in that it blends components of both biomedicine and al- ternative medical systems of different sorts. p 238 In this section, I argue that both Weil and Chopra exemplify many of the con- tradictions of the holistic health/New Age movements. They also replicate several patterns characteristic of biomedicine, namely the individualization of health care, its commercialization, and problems of access to it.p240 Like the larger holistic health movement, both Weil and Chopra engage in a rather limited holism in that they both focus largely on the individual rather than society and its institutions. p240 Like most holistic health practitioners, Weil and Chopra tend to either down- play or ignore occupational and environmental factors, such as air and water pollution and toxic waste. p240 Weil and Chopra exemplify par excellence the increasing entrepreneurialization of the holistic health movement (Brennan 2002). p241 Practitioners such as Weil and Chopra indicate that the holistic health move- ment has evolved into a "marketed social movement" (Goldstein 1992:151). p241 Although a fair number of biomedical physicians have become spokespersons for alternative medicine, a perusal of books and websites on alternative medicine indicate that Weil and Chopra have managed, through astute marketing, to transform themselves into the leading gurus of holistic medicine or New Age healing. ability of Weil and Chopra to capitalize on the popularity of the holistic health movement over the past three decades also reflects the growing entre- preneurialization of biomedicine on a number of levels, ranging from the emergence of health care corporations and health maintenance organizations (HMOs) to phy- sicians and hospitals advertising their services, which, at one time, the biomedical profession would have deemed unethical, unprofessional, and crass. Indeed, the biomedical profession appears. p242 As holistic health services are generally not covered by insurance policies, Medicare, and Medicaid, they tend to cater primarily to white, upper and upper- middle-class people, and to members of the counterculture who have chosen to funnel their often limited financial resources into alternative medicine. p242 In keeping with the general orientation of the holistic health/New Age move- ments, both Weil and Chopra either ignore or downplay community service, social reform, and other collective goals. p242 The prominence of Weil and Chopra, both trained biomedical physicians, as the leading holistic health/New Age gurus, exemplifies the danger that the holistic health movement as a grassroots phenomenon is increasingly becoming co-opted by biomedicine. Biomedicine has responded to the holistic health movement with mixed attitudes. Despite the growing interest of biomedical and osteopathic physi- cians in holistic health, as Alster observes, "It is important to recall that physicians were latecomers, arriving to find other groups already well established and claim- ing to offer different and even superior services than those available from physi- cians and physician-controlled agencies" p243 Despite ongoing skepticism of Weil, Chopra, and holistic medicine in general within biomedical corridors, biomedicine increasingly has been coming to terms with the reality that many of its patients want alternative therapies. p245 In other words, holistic health as a popular movement is quickly being biomedicalized and institutionalized. Furthermore, it also is evolving into a profes- sionalized entity increasingly referred to as "complementary and alternative medi- cine (CAM)" or "integrative medicine"-a style of medicine that, while recogniz- ing the benefits of alternative therapies and mind-body-spirit connections, downplays the role of political-economic, environmental, and social structural forces in contributing to disease. C. Everett Koop, former surgeon general, is de- veloping a medical center at Dartmouth that combines biomedicine and CAM (Castleman 2000:5). Indeed, a growing number of biomedical physicians allude to CAM, while at the same time downplaying the notion of holistic health (Freeman and Lawlis 2001; Micozzi 2001; Novey 2000). p245 As we see in my critique of the two leading proponents of the holistic health/ New Age movements, for the most part these movements in their present form have not lived up to such hopes. Instead, they engage in a rather limited holism, in that their focus is largely on the individual rather than on society and its institutions. In emphasizing individual responsibility for health, wellness, and spirituality, Weil and Chopra provide an alternative form of medical hegemony by reinforcing indi- vidualizing patterns in U.S. society specifically and in the capitalist world-system more generally, given that both have an international audience. They also serve as modem exemplars of the U.S. success story-a myth that continues to legitimize patterns of social inequality. Whereas the "worried well" found in the upper and upper-middle classes indeed often can offer afford to partake in the various com- modities and services that Weil and Chopra promote, it is doubtful whether their advice on health and well-being has much meaning for many working-class people and other people of modest means in the United States and around the globe. In conclusion, although this article focuses on the two leading exemplars of the holistic health/New Age movements-movements that have become popular in many other countries, particularly in western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and even Third World nations (Baer 2001; Brown 1997; Davis-Floyd and St. John 1998; Hess 1993)-anthropologists still have much to learn about them. p246

I am not twisting "financially successful" into "successful." It is implied that if you are successful, that it is in the financial sense, although I would support a change to either "financially successful" or "successful." BlueStove (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue is your misrepresenting the source to puff-up Chopra's reputation: when Baer says Chopra has failed at holistic health we can't use him to say Chopra has been a success. The only "success" Baer allows is that Chopra has enriched himself handsomely. We don't plagiarise texts so lifting phrases is discouraged. BTW, the amount of quotation you have above may amount to a copyright violation. I suggest redaction: people can read the article themselves. Alexbrn (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The quotes are for commentary of the article which falls under fair use. If an admin feels otherwise, they may redact the material. The article is literally entitled "The Work of Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra: Two Holistic Health/New Age Gurus: A Critique of the Holistic Health/New Age Movements" and repeatedly refers to Chopra and Weil as leaders in holistic health: "views and writings of Weil and Chopra as the most visible proponents of the holistic health", "In addition to Weil and Chopra, various other MDs have emerged as leading proponents of the holistic health movement", "two leading proponents of the holistic health/New Age movements","two leading exemplars of the holistic health", etc. I'm not sure how you can be described as a leading proponent of a movement, and yet be considered unsuccessful within its context. BlueStove (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Then you haven't understood the article, sorry. Baer's conception of "holistic health" includes help for the poor and an emphasis on social equality of care. By his yardstick, Chopra falls short. Trying to use Baer to laud Chopra is a gross misrepresentation. Alexbrn (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Again there's this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that if someone suggests content that isn't explicitly negative, it's lauding/PR/promotional/misrepresentative, even when it's simply stating exactly what's in the source. This is not helpful for building any kind of consensus, especially when you're effectively establishing two standards for sourcing, one for sources you like and another for sources you don't. This isn't a matter of WP:FRINGE; no one is trying to prove any extraordinary claims other than biographical details.

As far as WP:COITALK, A) I am not a paid editor, I am an editor who works for an organization with ties to Chopra's nonprofit foundation. I disclosed my COI publicly because it's the right thing to do, but I am no more paid to spend time on this Talk page than you. B) I am not refusing to accept consensus, I am arguing for it. You and Alexbrn have refused to compromise on a single point despite numerous objections from various editors, and have reverted virtually every edit that did not come from yourselves. That's not responsible WP behavior. the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 17:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

"if someone suggests content that isn't explicitly negative..." You misrepresent other editors saying so, and by doing so demonstrate the mentality that you accuse others of taking. Please stop.

"This isn't a matter of WP:FRINGE". Yes it most certainly is. If you're not going to provide evidence, don't expect that dismissals like this help your arguments in any way.

Your relationship with Chopra is financial, so ignoring the recommendations of WP:COI certainly won't help you demonstrate that you're trying to work cooperatively with editors who do not share your biases.

Sorry to focus on you like this, but at some point we need to start taking measures to get this disruption under control. How about we go back to focusing on the sources and policies? --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right that it's not appropriate for me to assume the motivations of other editors, Ronz, and I will try to restrain from that. I would encourage you to do the same, however, when you characterize edits as nothing but PR, promotion, or POV pushing.

Your comments on my disrupting discussions of evidence and policy are bizarre, to say the least. Every one of my content suggestions have been supported with sources, quotes, links, and WP policy justifications. When I do so, the evidence presented is either dismissed out of hand or (more often) not responded to at all. I have worked hard to work ethically within my own CoI and POV, but it does not seem you are willing to address your own POV issues. I hope you will and we can all come to consensus, but I have my concerns. I am beginning to wonder if there's any source you could accept that contradicted your personal views? the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 20:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Likewise Ronz. One can't help but see the level of absurdity in this statement as well as in the implied threats per disruption made by another editor. This page is meant for discussion, and that's what is going on here. I'm not sure why the discussion derailed into accusations instead of dealing with legitimate concerns for and against sources, the legitimate purview of a talk page. I've been watching this discussion for awhile and see no reason to charge anyone with disruption or anything else. Just saying'.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC))

Ronz, I understood the article as my earlier comment matches your explanation.

I've filed an RfC below Talk:Deepak_Chopra#RfC:_Is_the_lead.2C_among_other_parts_of_the_article.2C_reflective_of_the_sources_and_a_NPOV.3F.BlueStove (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Inapplicable revert due to "WP:UNDUE" and Fringe

There's a revertof an edit by Orthopedicfootwear that is justified as "Rv. undue, especially with fringe payload." This seemed odd to me for a number of reasons, though I welcome Orthopedicfootwear or Alexbrn to correct me if I'm missing something they discussed off this page. WP:UNDUE is supposed to prevent minority opinions from being presented as equal to the vast majority, with the Flat Earth believers being used as an example. WP:FRINGE is related, saying that fringe theories should not be misrepresented as having more support than they actually do. The source is the San Diego Union Tribune, a Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper, reporting on a widely publicized project by the U.S. Navy to incorporate integrative medicine into their treatment of soldiers and veterans. Deepak Chopra was highlighted as the main speaker at the Navy summit, and both Naval medical officers and the Rand Corporation were referenced as supporting the evidence behind integrative medicine. That's what the source said, and as far as I can tell, that's what Orthopedicfootwear wrote here. What's the objection?

WP policies on UNDUE and FRINGE are not carte blanche to reject any source that reports on research or implementation, as these are factual statements of events, not assertions of support. If the ref was used to argue "all of Deepak Chopra's positions have been shown to be effective by the Navy", that would be UNDUE and possibly FRINGE. But that's not what happened. Reporting a major event put on by a massive gov't institution while covering the person headlining it and the stated positions of medical officers & one of the largest R&D companies in the US, all sourced to one of the most reliable possible sources; that's what WP is supposed to do.

I don't see that this is an UNDUE or FRINGE issue so much as a personal opinion issue. Disagreeing with what the Navy did doesn't change the fact that they did it, and it's applicable to the topic. It's a WP:RS that specifically references the reception to Chopra's Approach to Healthcare, which is more applicable than many of the websites or commentaries that are cited elsewhere in that same section. Thoughts from everyone? The Cap'n (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not venue for promotion. Articles should focus around topics of historical significance, and so should not duplicate the trivia and promotion found in news sources. --Ronz (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Enough with the pro-fringe PR already. Alexbrn (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to hear the justification for calling it "fringe." It's the US Navy we're talking about here Alexbrn, you have made quite a few assertions but have not explained any of them appropriately. And Ronz -- this page is CLEARLY FAR from being a venue for promotion. But also-- can you explain to me why you consider the addition in question "promotion?" It is stating an event that occurred, and sharing a science-driven perspective from a noteworthy source on the subject.

Additionally, to your point that WP shouldn't duplicate the trivia and promotion found in news sources, can you explain why you argued that the Tompkins piece is "noteworthy and most definitely should be included," but detailing the relationship between Chopra and the US Navy doesn't belong? It's not up to your personal preference to determine what is and what is not noteworthy. Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It's fringey using the words of some random US navy guy to say "the evidence is there for a lot of the underlying science" when that (which doesn't really make sense anyway) doesn't really tell the whole story: that there's a boatload of nonsense in these areas too. Predominantly though the problem is that the proposed edit is UNDUE. Please also be aware of our WP:SOCK policy. Alexbrn (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

By definition this is not WP:PROMOTION nor trivia, it's a statement of historical fact by a reliable source. It's a misunderstanding of WP:PROMOTE to imply any news article that is not negative in coverage is promotional. WP is also not a venue for This piece does not promote Chopra in any way, it reports that he was there in an important role as part of its thorough coverage of the event. As far as WP:TRIVIA, this is a program put on by the United States Navy, supported by evidence from the Rand Corp, that incorporates part of Deepak's Chopra's approach to healthcare... in the section titled "Approach to Healthcare." There are random quotes already in that section speculating on how much he charges for lectures, individuals calling him names, a variety of highly POV books, and criticisms on his use of physics terms... in a section about his Approach to Healthcare. Are you really arguing that these are of greater historical significance than the U.S. military working with Chopra and one of the biggest research companies presenting supporting evidence? In addition to all this, WP:BLP mandates that we provide NPOV coverage of significant events, and it'd be a gross violation to claim criticisms by bloggers are more acceptable than affiliations with the U.S. Navy.

As far as fringe goes, how on earth does that apply here? It's a reliable source talking about the Navy pursuing meditation, yoga, etc. That's nowhere near WP:FRINGE. The "random US navy guy" is a medical officer and the organizer of the entire summit, and he's backed up by the Rand Corp, or is that "some random guys in a lab?". Not to mention the fact that FRINGE and UNDUE don't apply since the statement is about Chopra's work with the Navy, not whether or not meditation truly works. Please stop using buzzwords in place of reasoned argument, and explain what exactly about this source is fringe?

Finally, Alexbrn, are you talking to me or Orthopedicfootwear about WP:SOCK? I've seen mentions of WP:SPI used to push people off of pages on numerous occasions (and have been threatened with them countless times), and want to be sure that's not what's happening. The Cap'n (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn I am aware of WP:SPI. I assume that your mentioning that was intended to imply that I am a sock puppet.  I'm sure your aware that the existence of an opinion that is contrary to yours doesn't mean that sock puppetry is occurring. 

In the spirit of WP, I  welcome open and informed discussion. But baselessly trying to discredit someone who disagrees with you is not in the spirit of WP. It also makes it seem like you would rather focus on personal attacks rather than content, which is what we should be talking about. in every exchange I have provided refs and policy links to try to reason my way to consensus, and the only "violations" I’ve committed are respectfully disagreeing with a couple of the editors. In most of our interactions you have been needlessly hostile toward, aiming your rebuttals more at my character than the content, and still failing to move the discussion forward.

See WP:GF. You might also want to check out WP:POINT Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think already regret getting involved, but here I go… I thought I’d chime in to be a more neutral voice since I have almost no background knowledge or opinions on Deepak Chopra, his beliefs and/or his practices. From my perspective, which is probably similar to a lot of other people unfamiliar with Chopra’s work, this article is really, really hard to follow and the Approach to health care subsection was a pretty good representation of the recurring issues that I found as I skimmed the whole article.

As to the topic at hand… Was Orthopedicfootwear’s new Navy/RAND paragraph an appropriate addition? My "vote" is no, because…

• WP:IINFO and WP:NOTNEWS: Sure, the Navy/RAND paragraph technically relates to Chopra’s approach to healthcare, but it doesn't explain it and its superfluity detracts from the comprehensibility of an already abstruse subsection (not to mention the rest of the article). I just want to understand what Chopra does, for crying out loud!! I don't want to read about what each new person had to say about a loosely related topic if it doesn't bring me any closer to understanding what he does. I'm not sure which policy Ronz's had in mind when he/she used the term "trivia," but maybe the wording of WP:NOTNEWS is a little bit more relevant than WP:TRIVIA, but they're pretty similar, so let's not split hairs. The takeaway is that the Navy/RAND sources are hot off the presses (Feb 2016) and only tangentially relate to the intention of the subsection, so the fact that they’re in WP:RS is irrelevant. There are other areas where this article appropriately acknowledges professionals who support Chopra’s work. We certainly shouldn't reference every single one of his supporters and detractors. Rushing to add every new statement published about him does more harm than good to the article’s overall integrity, which is already suffering from poor flow and readability.

• See also essays WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:TLDR: The bottom line is that for someone like me coming to this article to learn about something new, the Navy/RAND paragraph (and the 1st paragraph in the subsection) is clutter that's just distracting. It makes it more difficult to find the information that concretely explains what Chopra’s approach to healthcare is actually all about. The first paragraph that directly addresses it is the one that starts, “Chopra and physicians at the Chopra Center practise integrative medicine…” (IMHO there’s a good bit that should be trimmed even after that sentence, but that discussion is probably better left for another time…)

FWIW. Permstrump (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. I should have linked NOTNEWS in my reply. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• just want to be clear that the OP mischaracterizes the source when they write "a widely publicized project by the U.S. Navy to incorporate integrative medicine into their treatment of soldiers and veterans". Nothing in the source provided says that the Navy is actually planning any such thing. It does talk about what "savvy advocates " within and outside the military are arguing for. Big difference. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll add that I agree very much with the WP:NOTNEWS thing. This article is not a blog that tracks what Chopra does. it is an encyclopedia article about him. It's a typical newbie mistake to make edits like this, NBD. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Permstrump, the outside perspective is very helpful. I understand your concerns about the jumbled mess of many parts of the article, and agree Approach to Healthcare is particularly messy. I appreciate your reasoning, I think there's room for consensus here.

• WP:IINFO / WP:NOTNEWS: The reason I feel the source is relevant to the page overall is that it has been argued many, many times on this Talk Page (and has manifested in the tone of the article) that Chopra is almost universally dismissed by medical professionals, has no evidence for any of his approaches, and is only notable for his negative coverage. It seems noteworthy that a RS factually stated A) Chopra's approach to healthcare includes meditation, yoga, & therapy, B) The Navy shares these approaches & asked Chopra to discuss them, and C) medical officers and the notable Rand Corp. both endorsed the evidence behind his approaches. I'll grant that, as phrased, this is not conveyed efficiently (see below for suggested text), but given that there are 8 refs of negative reception v.0 of any other kind of reception (generally rejected as "WP:PROMOTION"), we need to keep WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BALANCE in mind.
• WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:TLDR: No argument on the TLDR, this subsection (and much of the article) is a redundant, non-sequitur nightmare. That said, this ref seems to deal with the reception of his approach to healthcare in Section: Ideas & Reception, Subsection: Approach to Healthcare. Much of the clutter is random descriptions of his theories and their detractors, while "healthcare" seems to imply his approach to the whole medical system, not discrete positions. This source specifically references broad healthcare views that Chopra & the Navy share, so it seems topical to me. If we start cutting RS that (even indirectly) deal with his approach to healthcare, we ought to trim mediocre sources that have nothing to do with it, like guesses on lecture fees, denigrating awards, and discussions of physics. I'd suggest either moving this source to Teaching and Other Roles (along with a general cleanup of any other sources that don't directly deal with Chopra's approach to healthcare, most of which could be shunted into the next subsection of Alternative Medicine), or include this ref as topical to Chopra's healthcare positions.
• Suggested text to make news relevancy and topicality clear: "In February 2016 Deepak Chopra led a "resiliency medicine" summit at the request of the United States Navy, in which he discussed how his views on holistic healthcare echoed the military's planned implementation of meditation, yoga, and compassionate therapy. Navy psychiatrist and summit organizer Commander Jeff Milligan stated he was confident in the evidence behind these practices, a position supported by research into meditation for PTSD and depression at the Rand Corporation. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/feb/26/navy-alternative-medicine-chopra/

What are your thoughts on the above? I see plenty of room to compromise and address both sets of concerns. The Cap'n (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm just responding to the proposed edit. It's just news. It is not information of enduring encyclopedic interest about the man. He gives lots of talks. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want to talk about a more general re-organization please do that in a new section so it can be discussed clearly and carefully. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

And you again misrepresent the source as though it makes statements about "The Navy", which is a) not true per the source, and b) a big old WP:COATRACK. This article is about Chopra, not about the acceptance of alt med. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The Cap'n I'm open to the possibility that those sources could potentially add value somewhere else in this article, but I think this particular section should focus exclusively on explaining Chopra's approach to healthcare as clearly and succinctly as possible. Knowing that the Navy and RAND also use some of the same methods doesn’t further my understanding of what Chopra does, so it feels like a red herring and that’s probably part of the reason some people said it seems promotional. I’m pretty sure that even the world’s most impeccably articulated explanation of Chopra’s approach to healthcare will still be pretty dense, so WP:LESSISMORE. (I can't believe that's not a thing.)

As far as the other areas of the article you mentioned that also have extraneous details, I haven’t gone back yet to look at the specific parts you were referring to, but I will. I'm trying really hard not to derail this thread. I started working on a pared down draft of this section though and I’ll post on the talkpage for comments when I’m done. Permstrump (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I can see your point, Permstrump, let's agree it doesn't belong in Approach to Healthcare. What about Teaching and Other Roles? Given that it's a lecture at a summit, it seems to fit there (even if "Other roles" isn't enough of a catch-all).

I look forward to seeing a pared down version, and thank you for spending the time to do housekeeping! The Cap'n (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The Cap'n: If we step back to look at the article as a whole, I honestly don’t think there’s anywhere you can put those 2 citations that would improve the article as it currently stands and I think anywhere you’d put them would exacerbate all of its existing issues and drag out arguments on the talkpage that will ultimately end with that stuff not getting added in. They don’t provide anything that’s essential and unique about the big-picture of Deepak Chopra. If it ever gets to a point where the extraneous crap has been edited out and it’s a really crisp and neutral article, then, hypothetically, with a strong argument for how it would contribute something essential that isn’t already reflected through another source, it might not be out of the realm of possibilities to hope that you could edit in those sources and have it stick.

There’s no urgent need for them though (hence WP:NOTNEWS), so I think you should choose your battles. I don’t think it’s realistic to expect you’ll be able to add it in and leave it in as the article stands now. Several editors have already spent a decent chunk of time just talking about it on this talkpage and probably more time has been wasted arguing about issues only tangentially related to those 2 sources.

If your ultimate goal is to improve this article, I think a better use of time would be to start weeding out the extraneous details, tightening up a lot of the sentence structure, and tagging citations with dead links (which there are plenty of). I'll post my draft of this one section any time now. Swearsies. I keep getting sidetracked. Permstrump (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

You make a solid point, Permstrump. Trying to add what I think are good refs to this jumbled page is like trying to tell a story in a rock concert; it just adds to the noise. I would love to see a more tidy version of this page, and given all the contentiousness and WP:BLP's position on contentious=removal, I think short and abbreviated would be better than long, rambling, and POV. I'll start playing with the ref list in my sandbox and see if there are any areas of pure duplication, complete non-sequiturs, etc. I look forward to seeing your draft, but trust me, I know what it's like to get overwhelmed! the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 20:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

POV

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

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

• Yes, lede accurately reflects the sources. Chopra spins his advice as profound philosophy, medical advice and such. It's pretty clear that much of it is wacky and indistinguishable from new age word salad. That's not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, lede accurately reflects the sources, except there is no need to attribute "New Age Guru" as currently, it only needs to be stated in wiki voice. Other than that, and the constant pov pushing from true believers and employees, as a BLP it is OK. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, the lead section represents accurately the lack of respect that Chopra receives from the scientific community. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• May be undue As I mentioned [2], "Given the lede should summarize, I think it would be best to do so rather than provide info from the Time article that is so contentious that we feel it cannot be presented in Wikipedia's voice". We'd have a better article is we could agree upon wording for the lede that could be presented in Wikipedia's voice. --Ronz (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes and No. I think the weight given to controversies is fair and proportional, but the Times reference (“medical and scientific communities' opinion of him as rang[es] from dismissive to damning”) should be replaced with a better-worded quote that expresses a similar sentiment. This has been brought on the talkpage before as some editors felt it was cherrypicking. IMHO that's not the issue, but I agree with Ronz that it's not in Wikipedia's voice. There numerous sources that comment on how Chopra is perceived by the larger medical and scientific community, so I think it's possible for us to reach consensus about a different quote. I'll make a list of sources in the comment section.

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

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

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

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

• No the sentence in the lead does not accurately reflect the source and that any positive portions of the article have been rejected. Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• No -- I do not see the current text as a neutral representation of the source or the BLP subject.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Treatment of controversy in lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How so?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beliefs and practices

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

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

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

Comments on RfC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's what the article says (2):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:SueDonem, the text in the lede does say "some".[3] I did fix it. Let's start with "His treatments rely on the placebo effect." I could not verify the claim after reading the source. QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments on updated lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Ronz, please read the 2005 book. See "Let you imagine that he was using "quantum" in some metaphorical sense, he informs.."[4] Robert Carroll is not used to verify the text for the metaphorical content. Carroll stated, among other things, "Deepak Chopra Mangles Quantum Mechanics – Again "Deepak Chopra has made a career out of misunderstanding quantum mechanics (QM) ... And now he has done it again, in that anti-science rag the Huffington Post."[5] QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Remove revert placebo

This content and discussion on both content meaning and its sources is ongoing. Adding another source, and we have only two sources possibly one that is reliable at this point, is premature both for the content and the sources. I'd add in a twist that two sources on "placebo" out of an entire field of sources is fringe to the mainstream and as is violates undue. If we want to characterize in a general way some of Chopra's methods we can but we need context and we need multiple sources. Selection of one term to characterize and entire body of work as is now pushes a POV.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC))

Discussion on WP: Medicine talk seems to indicate the source in place is not reliable and there is non agreement for the new source added as to its reliability. Further as above the terms is used to characterize and entire body of work and per the ongoing discussion this is not necessarily accepted. Both may violate BLP. Wait per discussion and BLP for agreement as to reliability of sources and content.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC))

A different source was added. Where was the discussion the other source is unreliable? You did not provide an argument the other source is unreliable. QuackGuru (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Olive is deleting the whole thing, including the new source. Looks like a blatant POV-push to a radically new version of the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

edit conflict

I will not revert again. I am reverting per BLP which means nothing to some because the subject of the article does not deserve fair treatment. BLP does not protect him because he falls under the pseudoscience mantle a nicer word, if we can imagine, than all of the trash that has been lobbed at him by our so-called neutral editors. I know very little about this man but he doesn't deserve the treatment on this article . NO one does per our own rules. The content is still under discussion and should not be there in the first place given the original source is not reliable, and there is no agreement for adding the content in fact, neutral discussion on WP medicine NB indicates the content is questionable. Per BLP it should be removed automatically. Yet, here we are again hammering in the same kind of content no matter the objections or from who. POV push??? Laughable! C'est la vie. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC))

If you think the other source is unreliable then please provide an argument. QuackGuru (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Not my point as you should know if you've read my comments above. This is about process and using language in content as honestly as possible. One source does not make an accusation acceptable. In context with other explanations in the body of the article such a claim might be usable. In the lead with one RS it isn't. Continue on. I'm done with this issue.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC))

Let me clarify: We have content in a BLP that is/was disputed both for the content itself, and the source. What do we do with that kind of content in a BLP. That's right we remove it pending agreement and discussion which is ongoing. Adding another source while leaving in a disputed source does not remedy the disputed content, disputed on a neutral talk page. Its very simple if we honor our own rules on BLPs and collaboration. But what we seem to have here is agreement from two to my one to leave in the content. So be it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC))

RS is the point. QuackGuru (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No its not. That we potentially have one reliable source does not condone content that is disputed by neutral editors, that violates weight and that is taken our of context both of the body of an article, and the entire body of work of an individual. That's why we have WP:Weight - so that a few sources do not carry the kind of impact this content does in a lead of one of our articles. Anyway. We disagree.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC))

"which means nothing to some because the subject of the article does not deserve fair treatment..." I think these assumptions, and making changes to the article based upon these assumptions, are serious violations of out policies and fall under ArbCom enforcement. I'm glad you're stepping away from it. --Ronz (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Please note above for very clear points about why I made the edits to this article. Don't mischaracterize me. Further, my points about the vitriol on the article are supportable to an extraordinary degree. I am stepping away because I have no doubt that what I have to say will be ignored and really, life is too short.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC))

You wrote it, and did so to justify your edits. How can it be a mischaracterization? If you want to strike out your attacks, or attempt to justify them with diffs, you'd at least be attempting to make a case for yourself. --Ronz (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Editors are trashing the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Trashing? Please. WP:BOLD

Before:His treatments are based on the placebo effect.[8][14] He uses the language of quantum mysticism, which misuses terms and ideas from quantum physics.[15] His claims provide people with false hope which obscures the possibility of effective medical treatment.[15] The ideas he promotes have been criticized mostly by medical and scientific professionals, with opinions of him ranging from dismissive to damning.[16] His claims for the effectiveness of alternative medicine can, some have argued, lure sick people away from medical treatments.[16]

After:The Antioch Review has stated his treatments rely on the placebo effect.[7][13] He has been criticized by medical and scientific professionals for his usage of quantum mysticism and promotion of alternative medicine, a practice that critics have argued may lure sick people away from medical treatments

All the sources and criticism remain, but in a more compendious format.BlueStove (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Say "The Antioch Review has stated ..." is not only sub-literate, but gives the false impression that it is just one individually stated view. This is POV-pushing as warned against in WP:ASSERT, and especially nonsensical when cited to two sources. Alexbrn (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Does the second source explicitly mention "placebo"?If it does, then it can be changed.BlueStove (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. You mean you're removing stuff without even reading the sources?! You are aware our job here is to reflect what'a in sources, so this would be problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

"The Antioch Review"... is no longer true when there is another source in the lede. The changes are not going to fly. I'm going to fix it myself tomorrow. QuackGuru (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't find the term "placebo" in the second source, or am I missing somethingBlueStove (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#MEDRS_required_to_support_claim_that_something_is_placebo.3F for V. QuackGuru (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It's right there in the article. Have you read the article? Alexbrn (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Whoops, no I've been looking at the wrong text. This is in Gamel's piece and not in Baer. So Baer should not be cited here. Sorry, my mistake. Alexbrn (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are all of the sources I've found so far that refer to Chopra's methods as placebo. Some are already cited in the article, others aren't. PermStrump(talk) 06:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Chopra sources mentioning placebo

Gamel (2008) Hokum on the Rise: The 70-Percent Solution. The Antioch Review. Now a multi-millionaire thoroughly seduced by the placebo effect, [Chopra] is the author of 35 books plus 100 audio, video and CD-ROM titles that advocate virtually every form of alternative therapy. Gubernick et al. (1995) The happiness hucksters. Forbes. Call it, if you will, the pink pill effect-- a placebo. People believe the pills cure them, it makes them feel better, and sometimes the symptoms go away. It's they who did the cure, but the pink pills were a useful prop. Whatever you think of these happiness hucksters [Chopra and others], modern technology has given them a mighty boost. Labash (1996) The End of History and the Last Guru; Correction Appended. The Weekly Standard: Vol. 1, No. 41; Pg. 18; July 1, 1996. After obtaining a list of the herbs present in these remedies from Quantum Publications, I ran them by Purdue University's Dr. Varro Tyler, a professor of pharmacognosy (the study of drugs that come from natural sources). Tyler said none of these herbs was proven to have the alleged effects, though he did allow that products like OptiCalm contain ingredients that can be calming. And, he added, "anything has a placebo effect if you believe it. It acts about a third of the time in a positive fashion -- especially for subjective sensations like headache pain." Park (2000) Voodoo medicine in a scientific world. After the Science Wars. Treatment such as magnet therapy, homeopathy or reflexology, which have only a placebo effect… But if something like Chopra's spiritual healing is substituted for genuine medical intervention in the treatment of cancer, it may deny patients any prospect of a cure, while adding a sense of guilt to their suffering. Warrick (1992) Medical Muddle. LA Times. Dr. Herbert Benson, president of Harvard Medical School's Mind/Body Medical Institute [says]... "[ayurveda] lacks the scientific documentation that the relaxation response has." The warm oil massages, special seasonal diets and aroma therapies that may be prescribed by ayurvedic physicians, says Benson, may have more to do with another well-documented medical phenomenon . . . "the placebo effect, where belief and expectancy can lead to truly remarkable medical improvements." Chopra, Deepak (2012) I Will Not Be Pleased - Your Health and the Nocebo Effect. SFGate. Some people benefit from being given a sugar pill instead of an actual drug... The placebo effect is real medicine, because it triggers the body's healing system. One could argue that this is the best medicine, in fact, since: a. drugs do not trigger the healing system and b. the placebo effect has no side effects. Feel free to add more. PermStrump(talk) 06:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

What we have now in the article is content that implies all of Chopra's work depends on placebo. If that is the meaning we are looking for then we need a source that says that specifically in reference to Chopra. I'm not suggesting these sources either do or do not fulfill this need. Just a general comment. And thanks for digging up sources Permstrump.(Littleolive oil (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC))

This was a mistake and sources should not be invisible. QuackGuru (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought the lead doesn't need references as long as it's cited later on. PermStrump(talk) 07:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Ideally, refs aren't placed in the lead to avoid WP:LEADCLUTTER and because the lead is a summary of the body. The article already has over 100 references, so why the lead is littered with duplicative references is unclear. I also don't understand why my revision to the lead was reverted and the {{NPOV}} tag removed. BlueStove (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Controversial articles regularly have refs in the lede, precisely because people often like to argue over wording and substance there. Ideally yes, this is done sparingly... and ideally some of this edit conflict – the part that is about content, and not just summarization – would be over the relevant text in the body of the article, not the lede. – SJ + 18:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the refs should stay in the lede. Commenting them out does not benefit the reader. QuackGuru (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead Revision

Before: His treatments are based on the placebo effect.[8][14] He uses the language of quantum mysticism, which misuses terms and ideas from quantum physics.[15] His claims provide people with false hope which obscures the possibility of effective medical treatment.[15] The ideas he promotes have been criticized mostly by medical and scientific professionals, with opinions of him ranging from dismissive to damning.[16] His claims for the effectiveness of alternative medicine can, some have argued, lure sick people away from medical treatments.[16]

BlueStove revision: The Antioch Review has stated his treatments rely on the placebo effect.[7][13] He has been criticized by medical and scientific professionals for his usage of quantum mysticism and promotion of alternative medicine, a practice that critics have argued may lure sick people away from medical treatments

QuackGuru revision: The Antioch Review states his treatments rely on the placebo effect.[7] He uses the language of quantum mysticism in relation to quantum physics, while physicists cringe at his use of "quantum" in relation to curing cancer.[13] If Chopra's spiritual healing is an alternative for medical intervention in treating cancer, it could deny people any possibility of a cure.[13] The ideas he promotes have been criticized mostly by medical and scientific professionals, with opinions of him ranging from dismissive to damning; and his claims for the effectiveness of alternative medicine can, some have argued, lure sick people away from medical treatments.[14]

The manner in which the current lead is editorialized is not in line with NPOV and BLP. Additionally, it is rather redundant, and has been copied in its entirety within the body of the article. BlueStove (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi BlueStove, I like your revision for its conciseness. The second and last sentences in the current paragraph are indeed mostly redundant.

I would make your second sentence two separate ones: general criticism (for q. mysticism and alt. medicine), and specific concerns that applying this practice to critical/deadly illness can keep sick people from undergoing medical treatments. You can still cite [13] and [14] at the end of your version. – SJ + 18:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"He has been criticized by medical and scientific professionals for his usage of quantum mysticism and promotion of alternative medicine, a practice that critics have argued may lure sick people away from medical treatments" fails verification. Please do not restore the OR. QuackGuru (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The word "some"[6] failed V. That tag was removed without fixing the problems. Changes were made to the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

boring edit warring user comments, please stop your warring here and go away Govindaharihari (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Since you have not been able to support the changed based on policy then they should be reverted until there is a consensus. Sourced text should not be replaced with OR or ambiguous text. The OR I tagged is still in the lede.[7] QuackGuru (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

boring edit warring user comments from Quack quack, see his block log and a current report here please stop your warring here and go away Govindaharihari (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Multiple edit conflicts and per my edits: The source says "Physicists". Per Wikipedia we can never say all unless the source says all. In this case some is implied. (We can't ever say every last one which is what all means). Some is not my favorite word to use since it a weasel word but I don't see another word that encompasses some but not all. I have edited faithfully to the sources.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC))

I’ve been looking for a good article (as in WP:GA) on a controversial figure to see how the controversy was addressed in the lead and I think David Icke is a pretty good example. I liked how they quoted Icke repeating what his critics have said about him, “[Icke] said that a subsequent appearance on BBC's Wogan changed his life, turning him from a respected household name into a public laughing stock.” It just seemed in good taste. Chopra says his critics accuse him and/or his ideas of being: very dangerous, pseudoscience, a cult, a charlatan, fringe, New Age mysticism, deluded, quack, psychotic, woo, fantasies of a self-aggrandizing guru. These are all things that have been said numerous times by various critics and Chopra has chosen to share these criticisms on several occasions, so any of those remarks are definitely WP:DUE and what could be more WP:NPOV than using his own words? What do people think about starting the last paragraph with something like this:

Chopra is aware that he’s a controversial figure.[3] He says skeptics have called him a “fringe charlatan” and that these skeptics feel it is their “responsibility to warn the world of how dangerous [his] ideas are.”[4] Sources: [8][9]

We could add 1-2 sentences from a previous version after that, but IMHO Chopra summed it up pretty well himself. Thoughts? PermStrump(talk) 20:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Permstrump, before the text is added to the lede it should be in the body first. QuackGuru (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Littleolive oil, I just checked the edit history. It was removed, but you restored it. You tagged it and then you removed the tag. I don't understand your rationale for you removing the tag since you acknowledged "The source says "Physicists" and you are aware it is a weasel word.[10] QuackGuru (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Per my edits: This (bold below) is not in the sources given. Per BLP is has to be removed. As well, added as it was it didn't really make grammatical sense.

He uses the language of quantum mysticism, leading physicists to object to his use of "quantum" in terms of curing cancer. His claims for the effectiveness of alternative medicine can, some have argued, lure sick people away from medical treatments.

I've not looked for a source that would prevent an OR problem for that quote and link to quantum mysticism, but it's now watered down to the point where the meaning has been lost. That's not an improvement, nor is it neutral. --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The content reflects the sources. A very close reflection of the sources is neutral. Adding content that is not sourced to make some kind of point isn't. I have no objections to reflecting the sources as long as there is no copyvio and as long as the content reflects those sources. I do object to adding content to make a point not in the sources-simple WP policy.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC))

Of course it is sourced. See "Let you imagine that he was using "quantum" in some metaphorical sense, he informs.."[11]

If you object to using language not in the source then why did you restore the unsupported the weasel word "some"?[12] QuackGuru (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Quantum mysticism is not in the sources cited. "Some" is implied as I have already explained. Since you have carried on this argument with other editors on other articles and that did not go well, I would suggest you let this idea go here. As a point per WP:RS/AC. The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. and per WP: Weasel:pertaining to "some". The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC))

QG. Thanks for cleaning up the source.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC))

It is found in the source the part you deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to quote "quantum mysticism" and the page from the source here. If its in the source (and I've missed it) it can certainly be added.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC))

See "Let you imagine that he was using "quantum" in some metaphorical sense, he informs.."[13]

He uses the language of "quantum" in a metaphorical sense. That is "quantum mysticism". QuackGuru (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Taking something in a source and defining metaphorically or not off WP is OR. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC))

See "Let you imagine that he was using "quantum" in some metaphorical sense, he informs.."[14]

The above is a quote from the source. He uses the term "quantum" in a metaphorical sense. QuackGuru (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The phrase is quantum mysticism not quantum. This becoming tendentious. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC))

You stated the phrase is quantum mysticism not quantum. Not sure what you mean. I quoted the source that confirms he uses the term "quantum" in a metaphorical sense. QuackGuru (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

According to WP: Weasel: The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution. Since the source and body do not support the weasel word it can be removed in accordance with consensus. The source does not indicate if it is some, all or most. Editors cannot make assumptions or create original thought not found in the source. The lead mentions "physicists object to his misuse of quantum" but does not explain why physicists object to his misuse. The sentence is too vague. QuackGuru (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Your analysis is literal and does not capture meaning. We have an article which describes multiple views on Chopra. At no place in this article can we oe do we say all scientists, all physicists and indeed Wikipedia warns us against this usage per the quote I gave you. That's why we must use a qualifier in our lead. In the body of the article we can use attribution to specific speakers but in the lead we shouldn't. You also twisted the discussion on quantum mysticism to make it look as if the original discussion was about quantum and not quantum mysticism. I am not going to fight this anymore since its impossible to discuss something with someone who twists the cmts being made. Since I have been watching another discussion where you did much the same thing on another article; I have concerns.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC))

Organizing sources

I've been keep a list of sources that address controversies/criticisms about Chopra. It's getting really long, so instead of posting it here where it will monopolize the code on this talkpage, I started User:Permstrump/Chopra just to keep track of references. Right now it only has sources addressing his controversies broken down by category. I'm sharing it here, so we can all get on the same page about what sources are out there in addition to the ones already cited, and which criticisms are DUE and not cherrypicking, so we can make the lead an accurate summary/reflection of the available sources and then hopefully we can start talking about other issues with this article, of which there are many. PermStrump(talk) 20:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Probably better to make it a subpage here. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you meant a section? I can copy and paste it, but what's a subpage? PermStrump(talk) 04:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

A (semi-?) permanent talk page adjunct per WP:SP. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I had no idea you could do that! Thanks for the advice, Ronz. Hey, the Cap'n: Want to add your sources to a new section on the very first subpage I ever created? It's Talk:Deepak Chopra/Source dump. PermStrump(talk) 14:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy to! I didn't know about this option either, this is a great tool for organizing clear, comparative sourcing; I love it. the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 22:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

BLP Sources on Chopra

I'll add more stuff to this as I go along, but several people have referenced they can't find sources for various aspects of Chopra's BLP (aside from the critiques, which are easily found), so I thought I'd throw up biographical data with sourcing for those who find the info relevant. More to come...

• Chopra is a clinical professor at UCSD in their Division of Family Medicine (1, 2)

the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 19:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are proposing. Those two sources are primary sources. QuackGuru (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm proposing we try to include more up to date biographical details, ie. he is currently a clinical professor at UCSD, which seems as significant a point as winning the Ig Nobel prize (which is also cited to a primary source). Basic objective biographical details, such as the work the subject is involved in, should be at least as much a priority as commentary on a BLP. Primary sources are not disallowed in a BLP, especially when establishing a basic point of fact, and UCSD's faculty list is a reliable source for is faculty at UCSD. That being said, secondary sources are ideal, so:

• San Diego Union Tribune news article on the topic

the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 20:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure which section it belongs. Perhaps Deepak_Chopra#Early_life_and_education? QuackGuru (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

the Cap'n, how about some reliable, independent sources from 2014ish that talk about what his main or most consistent professional role has been for the majority of the 2000s/2010s. Is it public speaking, writing, direct clinical work, etc.? Sources for that are hard to find. It's easy to find self-published bios and PR pieces about one-time events or laundry lists of everything he's ever done with an ambiguous timeframe. PermStrump(talk) 05:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I will dip into my personal archives and look into that, Permstrump, thank you for the suggestion. There's a lot of content from that period, but the majority is not suitable for WP, so it will take some sifting. As an aside, he is not engaged in a one-off with UCSD, but does work with the university on a regular basis, serving as a full professor and working with a research department at UCSD. This is mentioned in the Tribune piece, which was an independent (and even critical at the end of the article) news piece. the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 08:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the West coast years section is the best place to add it. QuackGuru (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The UCSD is a reliable source for content on qualification material on Chopra. This kind of entry in a family medicine division has university oversight. I'm not sure if this would be considered primary or secondary but we have to remember that what we are looking for is reliability, and primary sources if used carefully can be reliable and at time are the best and most definitive sources possible. That a university in a medical division would knowingly add false information is pretty far fetched. Imagine the litigation that university could face. We can trust that the information on Chopra in regards to his qualifications is accurate and reliable(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC))

• Robbins, Gary (March 15, 2016). "UCSD deepens ties with Deepak Chopra". The San Diego Union-Tribune.

"In 2016 Chopra was promoted from assistant professor to full professor at UCSD in their Department of Family Medicine." I added it to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Does Chopra reject the title "guru"?

In this diff I restore some wording that was removed on the basis that Chopra only rejected the title "self-aggrandizing guru" rather than "guru" full stop. I think that this is a rather strained interpretation of the source. I basically see only one possible interpretation of the source, Chopra doesn't like the term "guru". This seems a reasonable point to include since "guru" is a term that is bestowed upon someone rather than an objective identifier so Chopra's verifiable opinion on the matter deserves inclusion.

jps (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree it can be included in the lede. It is mentioned in the body, using the same source. QuackGuru (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, the lede should be in Wikipedia's voice with few if any exceptions. When editors feel they need to balance or qualify information like this (and having "For example, John Gamel writing for the The Antioch Review states" in the last paragraph of the lede), then we have a problem.

Given our lack of progress in these matters, I'm for removing them from the lede completely, per BLP, until we can come up with wording and sourcing that we can agree upon. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

For the lede we can move the attribution to the body for that sentence. If the attribution is in the body then it does not need to be repeated in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't want us to get sidetracked on the Gamel source. As far as "guru" is concerned, I don't think the addition that qualifies Chopra's perspective belongs in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Permstrump removed it from the lede. I added it to the body instead. Then jps restored it to the lede. Who is going to decide if it stays in the lede? QuackGuru (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

We could follow BLP and keep it out until there is consensus to include it. --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

My first explanation was an attempt to be brief, but here goes... The source cited in the article was Chopra’s response to a different piece Strauss had published the week before that heavily criticised Chopra. She did open the original article with, “Labeled by The New York Times in 2013 as 'the controversial New Age guru,' and beloved by Oprah Winfrey, [Deepak Chopra] has written more than 80 books…” But that was hardly the part of her article that Chopra was taking issue with. Chopra referred to the piece as an "ad-hominem attack" and in response to other parts of it, Chopra wrote, “I don’t care if a band of vocal scoffers makes catcalls from the sidelines. However, in a recent blog, Valerie Strauss goes beyond catcalls, accusing me of being an evolution denier, which is absolutely false... If Ms. Strauss or any other skeptic believes that these issues are woo or the fantasies of a self-aggrandizing guru—a title I’ve rejected for thirty years—they are victims of psychological projection… I have friends who say I’d be better off having my Twitter account cancelled, because I’m guilty of spontaneous outbursts in reaction to attacks...” 1) One interpretation is that he's basically just saying, "Nuh uh! You're a delusional, self-aggrandizing guru" 2) Another interpretation is that if he had just said, “If Ms. Strauss or any other skeptic believes that these issues are woo or the fantasies of a self-aggrandizing guru, they are victims of psychological projection,” it could have been misconstrued that he was referring to himself as a guru, which would be uncouth, because like jps said, it's a title that you only say about someone else, not about yourself. BUT if he has actually been rejecting that title for 30 years, there should be plenty more quotes in other sources that predate this one. He didn’t reject the label when the NYT published it 2 years earlier and he's been called a guru countless times by countless journalists since at least the '90s, but I haven’t come across any other instance where he’s objected to it. I honestly think it was a figure of speech, but even if he genuinely meant it, it's still WP:UNDUE for the lead if he only said it this one time. I'm totally willing to put my foot in my mouth if he said it before. I tried to look it up before deleting it and didn't find anything though. PermStrump(talk) 23:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

So I just noticed that there is a different source in the body from 2004 where Chopra rejected to being called a guru, but it's kind of a similar situation where I still don't think he means it literally. You see in that situation, he was discussing his fallout with the Maharishi. Apparently the Maharishi accused Chopra of trying to compete with him for the position "guru." The reporter asked Chopra directly "Motivational guru, poet, prophet, pioneer of alternative medicine, inspired philosopher — which epithet would Deepak Chopra use to define himself?" And Chopra's response was, "I am neither motivational, nor am I a guru, the rest are labels." Again, he was in a position where the only choice was the clarify that he wasn't calling himself a guru, because that's uncouth. I think it's kind of disingenuous to ignore to culture context and pretend we think he's being literal. It would be different if he was randomly announcing that he wants journalists and everyone else to stop calling him a guru or if he protested on a regular basis when it was printed about him. If he has been doing that and I missed it, then I'll put my foot in my mouth. :-P PermStrump(talk) 19:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)