Talk:Deepak Chopra

Unsourced HIV content, edit warring

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

(ec) It should be in the source, Chopra 2009, pp. 237, 239–241. If you're not seeing it there, please let me know in case I need to change the page numbers. The problem is that the text you've been restoring [1][2][3][4] isn't correct as written. In fact what's there needs to be fleshed out a little more to make his position clear, if we're going to mention it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The key question here is#; what is "his position" and according to what authority (if not using secondary sources)? Why have you not mentioned the extraordinary thing that Chopra says no drugs can treat HIV/AIDS (when AZT existed)? or his heavy use of anecdote? Use of primary sources here requires substantial editorial analysis/discretion which neither you, nor I, are qualified to undertake. The text as inserted by you is very partial. To avoid POV/OR problems here we need to stick to the secondary. The text I have been restoring is in accord with the strong secondary source cited. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The secondary source mentions this only in passing. That's a problem with quite a few of the secondary sources in the article; they're just brief mentions of Chopra. We have to get these things right, particularly per BLP. The way the version you restored was written made it sound as though he doesn't accept conventional views on AIDS, but he does. I'll read the primary sources again and make sure what we say there is accurate. I was intending to add a bit more anyway, as I said above, to flesh it out. (But I may not get to it today.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"but he does" ← really???? According to whom? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Re: AZT, he wrote in 1989: "No drug is capable of treating it [HIV/AIDS]: AZT, which helps postpone the active phase, is riddled with major side effects, making it impossible for some patients to take the drug." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn, With all due respect, SlimVirgin is not edit-warring, they're citing relevant content, and it's not cherry-picking, it's the very book the section is named after, with content directly relevant to the discussion. It's been introduced in various forms by various editors with pages of justification, and you're the only one disputing it. I've explained the numerous ways in which WP policy permits the use of primary sources to cite that same primary source, pointed out there's no independent analysis attributed to the primary, and noted that quoting a book (in the section about that book's content) is not restricted to whatever argument is made by a secondary critic. It's also been pointed out that the material being referenced is explaining what's in the book (through important contextual statements not covered in the secondary), not making an analysis of its legitimacy (that is what secondaries are necessary for), so the role of AZT and anecdotes has no relevance as to whether the primary can be cited.

All that, plus the fact that the secondary source is not being countered or questioned, makes your repeated disputes/reverts very hard to address, despite repeated attempts to negotiate or explain the validity of the edits. Mind you, while this has been somewhat contentious, it's just a content dispute and can be ironed out if we're all reasonable. The Cap'n (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

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

It's worth noting that WP:BLP says: "We must get the article right." All this talk of primary, secondary, tertiary misses the point that the article has to be accurate and fair. If someone removes material citing BLP, it really ought to stay out until it's fixed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no dispute on that point. I see though - disappointingly - you have been adding material which is simply not right. And not properly sourced. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This reliance on primary sources, backed by editors' personal opinions on what is and is not right, is going to lead to Arbcom enforcement otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Alex, you haven't said which parts are wrong or unsourced. The quotes attributed to Chopra in that section are in the secondary source too. Please say which part is unsourced/not properly sourced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with you Alex. Slim Virgin is a highly experienced editor and writer who is uninvolved in this topic, or in Fringe. Her edits have been neutral and accurate those that are pejorative to Chopra and those that aren't. This is first a BLP and I'd agree that if content is challenged it must be fixed.

All editors make decisions as to what content to include and how to summarize it. That is what editors do. The policies and guidelines in the encyclopedia are not ends in themselves they are means to help protect the integrity of the articles.

The way to fix any concerns is too explain exactly what they are with sources.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC))

I've seen SlimVirgin in action many, many times over the years, at articles, noticeboards, in mediation, etc. If anything, I'd expect her to be firmly on the other side of this issue, as she usually takes a strong stance against COI editors and fringe ideas, and so on (to the extent that she has been criticized for it in the past). So I think that in this situation she is very much not editing based on her personal opinions or beliefs, rather the opposite. I can only speak from personal opinion and my own anecdotal recollections, but I really did have to double-check that this was really SlimVirgin. This should give anyone pause who is familiar with her. -- Atama頭 22:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

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

All of these arguments would be suitable if the content in question was furthering a controversial statement, or if it was bringing in some irrelevant primary to discuss the issue, but the fact is that this is reporting (in the Quantum Healing section) a statement (from Quantum Healing) that was not fringe, and in fact endorsed Chopra's acceptance of the medical definition of AIDS. I did this through a quote, Slim did it through paraphrase, but in both cases we established this content was necessary to provide context, since the sole Schneiderman citation implied Chopra did not endorse the medical definition.

No one has argued the quote is not from QH, nor that it's an incorrect interpretation of that part of the text. The idea that a quote from a book in its own section needs to be backed up by independent sourcing is not standard WP practice (WP:FRIND says Independents are important for arguing notability and prominence of Fringe theories, neither of which is being attempted here). There seems to a conflation between arguing for accurate representation of Chopra's book and arguing for Chopra's legitimacy. An encyclopedia can do one without the other. The Cap'n (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Er, what? WP:FRIND begins, "The best sources to use when describing fringe theories..." You latched onto the second part of the sentence ("prominence", "notability") while seemingly missing the first part. vzaak 23:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I have not reviewed the specific edits in question, but in principle user:SlimVirgin seems to be in the right here. Primary sources are often the best possible source to accurately describe the article-subject's point-of-view, as long as they are not used excessively to the point of advocating for it. Especially in this case where reliable sources will have a scoffing attitude towards his view and are therefore likely to mis-represent it. Though I would be very careful in this case not to describe them in a way that offers legitimacy. CorporateM (Talk) 00:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

uhhh, if sources misrepresent, they are not reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• I gave two reasons for WP:FRIND, and those were just off the top of my head. Looking at the history of WP:FRINGE will surely give more insight. One would need very good reasons to toss aside the consensus for the principles embodied by the WP:FRIND section.

In one respect it doesn't make logical sense to grab material from a primary fringe-proponent source and then use an independent source as the rebuttal. The independent source is there to explain the relationship between the mainstream view and the fringe view. There is nothing explicitly connecting the independent source to whatever editors take from the primary source. We are talking about the essential WP:NPOV policy here (specifically WP:PSCI), not some guideline.

With respect to the Chopra article, I gather there is concern that Chopra is being misrepresented, and we are being offered a seemingly false choice between going against WP:FRIND or fairly representing Chopra. Bypassing WP:FRIND is the nuclear option, and I don't believe we're there yet. Is it really true that independent sources cannot provide what we need? That was my question to SlimVirgin.

For instance Baer says that Chopra has "attempted to integrate biomedicine and various alternative healing and metaphysical systems". That should put to rest the potential implication that Chopra is rejecting biomedicine, right? If that was even a concern in the first place. I would like to know very specifically the sought-after material which has not been found in independent sources. vzaak 01:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm about to go offline, so I'll post a reply tomorrow. Just wanted to say that I'm puzzled by this attempted ban on primary source-material written by the subject, which I don't think I've ever encountered before, especially not in a BLP. Chopra is the best source for something that Chopra said, and if we need analysis then we have to find a good secondary source, not someone who mentioned the issue in passing. Anyway, more tomorrow. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Baer's paper is titled "The Work of Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra". It's not "in passing". vzaak 03:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a different paper. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Now look at this, and look at our text:

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

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

Note there are actually two sources in the one citation (currently [53]): Chopra 2009 and then Schneiderman. (Incidentally, "Chopra 2009" is ambiguous here, though it obviously refers to a re-issue of Quantum Healing.)

The new text does have a WP:PROFRINGE spin, which can result from the use of primary sources without editors realizing it. vzaak 18:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any convincing arguments that WP:FRIND or FRINGE overwrites BLP policy to get it right. This article isn't a fringe article, it is a biography. The reader is not here to learn about fringe topics, but to learn about Deepak Chopra, what his ideas and contributions have been, and what the reception is to those ideas. Integrative medicine is also NOT fringe, it's mainstream. It's important we 'get it right' first and foremost. I see nothing in FRINGE that says we have to omit facts from a person's biography, or contradict facts about a person's biography just so FRIND is satisfied. If we apply what vzaak is suggesting - it means we get the article wrong but FRINGE right. That does not seem like a reasonable position. SAS81 (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

We get it right by following the sources and our policies/guidelines. FRINGE is simply a special case of NPOV, and it's in NPOV that's the problem: Trying to cherry pick "facts" to fit your job of putting Chopra in the best possible light. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that cherry-picking facts is a dangerous policy, which is why I think it's inappropriate to push for excluding facts that do not support a highly cherry-picked section of QH. How is it "profringe" to mention what was written in a book, in the section about that book? We can't exclude all mentions of Chopra's ideas out of some intense fear that someone, somewhere will read them and believe them.

Primary sources are, according to WP policy, an ideal source for referencing factual statements, especially when written in the book being discussed. Primary sources are legitimate sources for factual statements, we have a primary source that says a fact that needs stating since a secondary implies (but does not argue) that this fact was never said. Therefore we cite the primary source, the secondary provides the analysis, the reader is objectively informed, WP policy is upheld and we all can stop talking about this insanely lengthy contention. Everyone's a winner! The Cap'n (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey Ronz some clarity for you - My specific job is to represent information in the archive without bias, not to make Dr Chopra look good. I'm happy when this article is also without bias. And I've been extremely happy with the work that capn, slimvirgin, and a few others have made and the progress they have made is pretty much in tune with the progress I wanted to see, neutrality. I win when this article is neutral. So does Wikipedia. So does the reader of the article. So does Deepak Chopra. It's really not fair to keep spinning my participation here into something extreme. I'm not sure that focusing on this suspicious image of me as a closet PR or media marketer is helpful, it's casting aspersions on me as an editor as well as on my intentions. It's also not relevant to the content of the article. Can we put that aside and just focus on content? If you have a problem with an argument that I am making, or a source I am providing, then address that specifically and engage with me until you and I find resolution. SAS81 (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to believe you, but you've clearly demonstrated you don't understand our policies and are working against them. Drop pushing primary sources and the "facts" as you see them, then we won't be having these conversations. --Ronz (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Importance of fact-checking

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

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

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

OK:

• Perry, Tony (September 7, 1997). "So Rich, So Restless". Los Angeles Times. (This piece describes Chopra, in its lead sentence, as a "guru", which is apparently forbidden here).
• Beers, David (May 10, 2001). "It's all good: The appeal of Deepak Chopra". Salon.com.
• Lemons, Stephen (March 7, 2000). "The art of the spiritual smackdown". Salon.com.

Just a start. MastCell ^Talk 23:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@MastCell, it's obviously not currently forbidden to call Chopra a guru, since it's in the first sentence of the lede. But speaking of which, hasn't Chopra stated outright that he doesn't identify as a guru and dislikes being called that? There's two sources above for it (Chopra, Deepak. Brotherhood: Dharma, Destiny, and the American Dream. (New Harvest, 2013) p. 15 and Bhaduri Jha, Nilanjana. India Economic Times, 6/22/2004. Employee loyalty comes first, the rest will follow' ); I don't know if there are others, but that seems to pretty clearly fall under BLP/Public Figures. If Chopra himself is disputing the term, we cannot apply it to him as a factual statement, regardless of secondary sources, though if anyone here feel strongly about it they can say that "he has been called a guru", or that "some consider him a guru". The word doesn't seem to add much to the lede anyway, IMHO. The Cap'n (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's be clear: we use the terms found in reliable sources, whether or not the article subject dislikes them. I can't believe you've actually read the policy you're linking, because it states exactly that: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. In light of that policy, how can you argue that we can't use the term "guru" simply because Chopra dislikes it? MastCell ^Talk 21:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad you asked. I can argue it because I kept reading that same entry:

• Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe were divorced."
• Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.

Even if you could argue that "guru" is noteworthy and important to the article (which I find doubtful, given the lack of consensus with the term here in Talk), the fact remains that it is a term that the subject has refuted. If you feel it can be established as particularly important to the article, then by all means propose the term "guru", but according to WP policy Chopra's refutation of that term also has to be included. Given the lack of consensus and these qualifications, it seems a simpler choice to replace it with a less contentious term like "thinker" or "spokesperson" that conveys the same thing. The Cap'n (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Can we now assume that User:Askahrc has now relinquished his self imposed role as mediator on this page, or has that happened already and I missed the announcement? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Mastcell, to me it appears like you suggesting that 'New Age Guru' is a title that is now a judgement from society - like referring to Charles Manson as a serial killer even if Charles Manson would not prefer that term be used - and that is simply NOT the issue with this BLP and even more reason not to put it in WP's voice! 'Guru' has a very specific meaning, 'teacher' in India, and is a revered and affectionate title and implies a relationship with the guru and his followers. Only a 'guru' can declare themselves to be a 'guru' and all the responsibility that entails. That is specifically what Dr Chopra has rejected and NO authority or secondary source has the ability to 'relabel' people in such as way, not only does it show a cultural bias that is misinformed, it's arrogant to assume that's what makes someone a new age guru, simply being called one by a few sources! It's a bastardization of a term and I think this is what Capn' was suggesting.SAS81 (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

English is not a language encased in cement - in English, words and their meanings change and grow. "guru" has grown to have meaning(s) other than what "very specific meaning" it may have had at one time or in its native language. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Enlighten me then, please, what does it mean? SAS81 (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

as it is clear from the link, " Only a 'guru' can declare themselves to be a 'guru' " it clearly is NOT part of the standard definition/usage. (and yes, you may call me your English Language Guru for having enlightened you.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: try to look at it this way. Let's say Dr Chopra has been criticized for 'giving things away and then taking them back' and there were tons of secondary sources that referred to him as an Indian Giver. I'm sure millions of americans have used that term without realizing it's a misinformed pejorative infused with cultural bias. Please try to consider this from this angle, although my example is a little more extreme, it is the same issue. There are other ways to refer to Dr Chopra in a NPOV manner that can get across what ever point you want to make. SAS81 (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If it quacks like a duck ... -Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the lead of our own article "Guru" reads as follows ...

Guru (Devanagari गुरु) is a Sanskrit term for "teacher" or "master", especially in Indian religions. The Hindu guru-shishya tradition is the oral tradition or religious doctrine or experiential wisdom transmitted from teacher to student. In the United States, the word guru is a newer term, most often used to describe a teacher from the Hindu tradition. In the west some derogatory interpretations of the word have been noted, reflecting certain gurus who have allegedly exploited their followers' naiveté, due to the use of the term in new religious movements.

As I have said before, the term frames Chopra very well. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The term frames him very well to you, and that's your opinion. It's not an argument to include in Wikipedia's voice and since you have continuously have voiced your bias towards the subject matter, I'm not sure your opinion here is what we should be leaning on to determine a lead sentence from a NPOV on a BLP and if anything, your comment supports why it should be changed citing BLP. SAS81 (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

More pictures for Chopra center per request, question about sources for Chopra Foundation

I have more pictures that were requested by other WP editors regarding Chopra Center, but I don't want to clutter the talk page with them, should I just post them to my talk page like the others or in this section with a collapsable window? Also, I have lots of sources for Dr Chopra's work with his foundation which seems very unrepresented in this article and should have a focus. I'm not sure if this is a section in the article or just spread out across, but looking for advice on the best way to position these sources for all of you. SAS81 (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Are the pictures uploaded to the wiki commons? That's the place for images if you want them to be publicly accessible. As far as the foundation, I'm not sure a BLP is the best place for an in-depth discussion of an organization, even if it was founded by the subject. Let's see what references you have and we can figure out if it's a matter of a mention on the BLP or something more. The Cap'n (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

thx capn. Yes I know to upload them to Wikimedia, however I just know how to link to the actual images which will insert them into the talk page taking up space. I'll see if there is an easier way to link through. Here are some sources to begin with on the Chopra Foundation and its partners, including primary and secondary source mentions as well as some tertiary source reports on finances, etc. In order to save space and address people's concern with different citation styles, I did my best to enter it into Wikipedia's reference system. Hope that's helpful.

The Foundation’s Website

Nonprofit Status

Programs and Partnerships

SAS81 (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a lot of info for a subsection under Career, and maybe too much even for a section in a BLP, since it looks like most of this stuff is related to the organization more than the individual. I'll look through the sources and see what's there, though. The Cap'n (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Chopra Center Pix

Alexbrn Here are some Chopra Center photos per your request or anyone else that is interested in them for the article.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Isharonline&ilshowall=1 SAS81 (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The article should adhere to WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE

It is not true that WP:NPOV must be suspended in order to adhere to WP:BLP. In particular, the WP:PSCI section of WP:NPOV must not be suspended, and in particular WP:PSCI's explanatory guideline WP:FRINGE must not be suspended. I don't believe the claim that any part of any policy or guideline must be suspended in order to have an accurate article. I have asked for specifics behind this claim, but none have been forthcoming.

Wikipedia does not serve as a platform to promote fringe views. Fringe proponents cannot use their Wikipedia page to further their interests. Sorry. The WP:PSCI policy ensures that fringe proponents probably won't like the WP articles on them. Sorry. Deepak Chopra imagines that cunning "militant skeptics" are at work at Wikipedia, but really it is just WP policies that are at work.

It is not my job to explain WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE, but nonetheless I've offered a few illustrations on this talk page. However nobody should be in the position of having to convince editors to follow policies and guidelines. Those who aim to openly violate them have the burden of convincing others to do so. Since this article is under discretionary sanctions, I invite readers to review the expected behavior of editors, which includes following policies and guidelines. vzaak 04:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I find the article, for the first time in quite some time, IS actually supporting NPOV, BLP, and WP FRINGE and this concern seems a little of of left field. There seems to be some confusion that NPOV IS a 'skeptical point of view' which means or implies that a BLP has to be written from the perspective of those who criticize the subject of the biography (hence NPOV being suspended). WP: FRINGE does not require us to omit facts about a persons biography or facts about their views simply because their critics view them differently. That seems a little draconian and you can't have both. Stating facts is not 'promoting'. And BLP is a rule, not a guideline like FRINGE. The first rule is that it is important we get it right, by any means necessary. If we get the BLP right, then by default it should automatically comply with Fringe and NPOV. I say we continue to focus on getting it right. This article has come a long way and has made good progress. Most importantly, it's actually turning into a good read. FRINGE warriors tend to make an article read awkward, mainly because FRINGE has nothing to do with creating a good article, while BLP and NPOV do. SAS81 (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• As far as Wikipedia is concerned, there is no such thing as the "skeptical point of view". There is only the mainstream view and the fringe view. WP:PSCI, which is a policy, says that the mainstream reception of a fringe view must be prominently included.

• Again, I don't accept that violating any policy or guideline is necessary for the article to be accurate. I even gave an example of how using the Baer paper addressed a particular concern, but that seems to have gone unnoticed. Please present your case -- with specifics -- on why you need to violate a policy or guideline in order to get the article "right". I find it alarming that an editor is even claiming this. The burden is on you.

• Fringe proponents have argued before that WP:FRINGE can be suspended on a BLP, giving rise to the relatively recent WP:BLPFRINGE section. As it says, the consensus is that both WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE should be followed. If you wish to argue against that then here is not the place -- go to WT:FRINGE for that.

• I understand it is off-putting to receive a suggestion to "actually read" something, but may I ask that everyone please actually read these: WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE? I often get the feeling that people aren't very familiar with the policies and guidelines to which they refer. (I also wonder if a scientific background is needed to fully understand WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE, but that is another matter.)

vzaak 05:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a stretch to assume we haven't read BLP, NPOV and FRINGE. Speaking for myself, it's actually my job to read them, re read them, read them again, question everything I think I know about them, and then read them once more and follow them to the best of my ability. I read the BLP/FRINGE section too, that was written by Barney Barney Barney a few months back. I would not call that a strong historical consensus and time will tell if that will hold up. I don't think it will if it was ever taken to AR, specifically because it exposes Wikipedia and puts it in a very awkward and vulnerable place regarding biography. FRINGE/BLP gives absolutely no guideline as to 'how' this magical union of BLP/FRINGE must happen, just says it 'should' happen and fails to notice that you can't have both a neutral point of view AND viewpoint of a critic of a biography be one and the same, it's just not possible in any reasonable sense of the word. It's just a vague heuristic that leads to contradictions, not resolutions. BLP on the other hand, as well as NPOV is pretty darn clear, and has had consensus since the dawn of Wikipedia and is also just plain ol common sense best practices very close to something researchers and journalists have to follow as well i.e. it's also a modern and mainstream professional standard that any rational person can easily pick up and adapt. Also unclear how integrative medicine is fringe, meditation is fringe, yoga is fringe, and consciousness/philosophy or spirituality is fringe. SAS81 (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

BLP is a policy and as such take precedent over guidelines. BLP is one of the policies that is most stringently adhered to because if its not the repercussions can be devastating for a living person. A BLP is not fringe because human beings are not fringe topics, although the may advocate fringe views. BLPs should not be written as fringe topics, but BLPs may contain content on fringe topics. NPOV refers to the quality of the article itself not the sources. Sources may be critical or positive to the subject and these are included per their weight in the mainstream, and per their weight to the article as a whole. Opinions either positive or negative in nature can be inline cited so that those positions are clearly not stated in Wikipedia's voice. First and foremost the BLP must do no harm which means no more harm than is already in the sources. Trivial content, gossip even sourced are generally not good additions to BLPs.(Littleolive oil (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC))

@Vzaak, this is unwarranted and unhelpful input. No one is trying to "suspend NPOV or WP:Fringe." The claim that anyone here is doing so is bizarre and unfounded. The arguments among various editors have been fairly intellectual ones about where Fringe concerns intersect with good BLP work and NPOV language, as well as the nature of sources. That's far from "suspending" WP:FRINGE (which has not even been the cause of major sticking points), and is typical of the type of discussion that is pretty standard in any reasonable consensus. Everyone here has been focused on verifying solid sources, while the claim that we're somehow pushing Fringe is not supported by the work of any of the major editors on the page. Whatever your take on it, WP:FRINGE is not at issue here.

Your tone is also pretty condescending, particularly given that you've barely contributed to this discussion before implying that the editors here are too lazy or uneducated to "actually read". You keep referencing everyone else's failure to offer specifics, then failed to list any of the supposedly egregious violations of WP:FRINGE that you see here.

People are honestly working hard to improve this page and establish consensus, please remember to keep your contributions civil, helpful, and content-based. The Cap'n (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@SAS81: This is the third time I have asked in this thread: please present your case, with specifics, for violating a Wikipedia policy or guideline. You have made a lot of assertions, but I still haven't seen a practical case for it. In the Chopra article, show the before-violation text and sources, the after-violation text and sources, and the reason that we should accept the after-violation state. Assertions in the abstract are not very illuminating; let's see the details here. vzaak 11:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by this question/non sequitor - I've been accused of a number of things, but never not being specific and not making a case. Why do I have to give you specifics on something you're claiming? If you view my history here on the talk page, you will see I've made my case very clear. I've also made my point pretty clear, this article is getting pretty darn good - and other than the awkward 'New Age Guru' in WP's voice, I'm not making any claims of violations in the article. I'm going to get back to getting sources together for everyone and focusing on content, in addition to my morning cup o joe now. SAS81 (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@SAS81: In this thread you claimed that BLP and FRINGE cannot both be upheld. Earlier you alluded to the same, "...it means we get the article wrong but FRINGE right". This is an amazing claim. It is your claim. Could you please describe specifically -- i.e., practically, tangibly with regard to the Chopra article -- what you are talking about? Fourth time asking.

You said, "FRINGE/BLP gives absolutely no guideline as to 'how' this magical union of BLP/FRINGE must happen, just says it 'should' happen and fails to notice that you can't have both a neutral point of view AND viewpoint of a critic of a biography be one and the same, it's just not possible in any reasonable sense of the word." But prominent criticism of Chopra in the article is the neutral point of view, according to the WP:NPOV policy, in particular WP:PSCI. It's not optional. That's why I keep linking to the WP:PSCI policy. WP:FRINGE is the explanatory guideline for that policy. vzaak 14:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Vzaak. Seems to me we all slightly differing views on how policies read. SAS is welcome to his as well as any of us. This is his Wikipedia too. He says he is happy with the progress in the article, progress that is being made by an uninvolved editor. Perhaps it would be better to take this to your talk page, but right now it seems to have nothing to do with the immediate writing of the article.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC))

No, this bears directly on the article. The fuller context of what I quoted from SAS81 is, "If we apply what vzaak is suggesting - it means we get the article wrong but FRINGE right." My "suggestion" is the expected practice on Wikipedia, which is to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (as stated on the discretionary sanctions page). We apparently agree that the current article does not comply with FRINGE. Before the article is brought back into compliance, it might be illuminating to find out what the heck is going on with people who think that a Wikipedia guideline can be shooed aside. Specifics are needed. Hammering this out now will potentially avoid edit warring. vzaak 17:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

No, Vzaak, we don't agree that the current article does not comply with FRINGE, and you've provided no evidence for thinking the article is "out of compliance." We've had no suspension of FRINGE, we've had no edit wars, we've had no content disputes based on challenges to any policy/guideline, and there's growing consensus for the page. Please do not imply problems where they do not exist.

The reason no one has answered your repeated question of "why we feel we can violate WP policies/guidelines" is that we don't and aren't. You're offering a false dichotomy that the editors here either support FRINGE or BLP, when in fact we all support both, and you haven't shown any edits where we don't. SAS81 is the only one who's said anything about BLP trumping FRINGE, but A) they don't edit the article at all, B) FRINGE has not been a factor in the edits on the article, and C) editors are allowed to have personal opinions on policy/guideline interactions. SAS81 can think that your interpretation of FRINGE is detrimental to a neutral BLP, and you can think that FRINGE can only be upheld in a BLP by focusing on criticism, that's nobody's business but your own. You don't need to police other editors' thoughts on BLP and FRINGE, so long as they're not actively disrupting the article with them. This seems like a lot of fuss for nothing. The Cap'n (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• I believe all editors are trying to work within the boundaries of expected practice. How expected practice is interpreted is not uniform. I spent a lot of time on the verifiability mediation and I can tell you that multiple good and experienced editors read that policy in different ways, none of it wrong, just interpreted differently.
• I believe the article was overly weighted towards criticism, but I am happy to leave the article in the hands of an uninvolved editor with Slim Virgin's experience in policy, and in her writing abilities. Add: Just rereading the article, it seems fine in terms of weight of criticism and with out the back and forth bits and pieces of content that characterize articles where content has been cherry picked to make points.
• SAS has yet to make a single edit to the article so I don't see him edit warring.
• When it comes to making controversial changes, I suspect those changes will have to be discussed specifically. Seldom in my experience has establishing an overriding position or interpretation been useful when it comes to individual changes.
• I didn't read SAS's comment as putting aside Fringe but rather that Fringe is not the dominating guide either in a discussion about how guidelines and policy apply or in a discussion on BLPs.
• If an editor has something to hammer out, they should but I'm not sure focusing on SAS in particular is the way to do it, might be more productive to wait until you have content to add.
• A note on SAS: In my opinion, such as it is, an editor couldn't do more to try to comply and to understand how Wikipedia functions. I don't see him attacking Chopra but that doesn't mean he isn't attempting to be neutral. I do assume good faith and suggest that those who are attacking Chopra here are also doing their best to create the right tone in this article. That there is disagreement is a given.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC))

Thx Capn and Olive once again for your support. @Vzaak, I'm not sure what this is about, but if you want to have a wonky nerdy WP Guideline discussion with my on my talk page they are probably right that's the place for it. I'll engage with you there as long as it's a genuine and respectful discussion. SAS81 (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I began this thread to continue the WP:FRIND issue discussed on this page with SlimVirgin and others. It is directly related to the article and not merely an abstract point about policy. One respondent in this thread actually tried to change WP:FRINGE in order to resolve the issue in their favor.[5] Another respondent here edited WP:FRINGE to weaken its stance regarding BLP/FRINGE, changing "must" to "should".[6] My initial post was not addressed to SAS81 in particular; I just replied to SAS81's response.

As I said to SlimVirgin, I understand what people are trying to do in good faith, but there are strong principles here which cannot be shooed away. For illustration I pointed to the Baer paper, as I did in this thread.

Since SlimVirgin has stopped participating, at this point I would prefer leave the matter until it comes up in the context of particular edits. In order to prevent confusion and/or warring I had hoped to get people on the same page first, but that is evidently very far from happening. vzaak 18:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts on Integrative Medicine

user:SAS81 has repeatedly stated on this talk page that "Integrative Medicine" is mainstream, which is of course a load of baloney. Integrative medicine is a cynical attempt by charlatans, snake-oil salesmen and true (woo) believers to get onto the gravy train that is the American health system. If Sassy insists on continuing this risible claim, I might ask for some sources to back up his assertion, and for evidence of effectiveness of this non evidence based nonsense. To probably misquote the late Jon Diamond "If it works, it is medicine ..." -Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Integrative medicine has entered the mainstream as evidenced by multiple, and prestigious medical schools which have integrative medicine departments/colleges. Physicians and actually veterinarians are being trained in health care methods that are not traditional. I believe Diamond's comment is more a rejection of the term alternative [to] medicine than integrative medicine. (Littleolive oil (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC))

I don't really have a dog in the fight of whether it's mainstream or not, but the claim that anyone who uses the term is a variety of 19th century insults piqued my interest. A quick perusal (I'm not spending much time on this at midnight, sorry) showed over a thousand peer reviewed studies on complementary medicine (another term for integrative medicine), hundreds of which apparently claim effectiveness in studies. Given his proclivity with sources in the past, do we really want SAS81 dumping all the sources he can find on Integrative Medicine onto this talk page? The Cap'n (talk) 07:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

We'd just hat the ones that show no evidence of efficacy, and the page would be cleaned up, with nothing left but some placebo effect. No problems. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Ask and you shall receive Roxy the Dog. Dr. Chopra himself also wanted to address your query which you can watch here.

SAS81 (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's try this one more time (strange, the ref list was pulling my list from yesterday and had to reformat.)

The first article is a good summary of the prevalence of Integrative Medicine in hospitals. The statistics here showed that out of 714 hospitals examined 299 (42%) offered integrative medicine treatments. If you'd like case more case examples of hospitals that offer complementary therapies, I can do that too, but that seems like a lot of space to spend on it.

"Hospitals Offering Complementary Medical Therapies". Nov 15, 2011. Retrieved May 27, 2014.

"Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine". New York Presbyterian Hospital. Retrieved 29 May 2014.

"Osher Center for Integrative Medicine Home". Harvard Medical School. Retrieved 29 May 2014.

"Integrative Medicine". Cedars Sinai Hospital. Retrieved 29 May 2014.

Comarow, Avery (Jan. 9, 2008). "Top Hospitals Embrace Alternative Medicine". US News Health. Retrieved 29 May 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

"Stanford Center for Integrative Medicine: Clinical Services for Mind and Body". Stanford Hospital and Clinics. Retrieved 29 May 2014. SAS81 (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Chopra quote in Consciousness section

I removed that quote on the basis that it serves no purpose whatsoever, even reading like an advertisement in the back of a book, and today SlimVirgin restored it. What is the rationale for including/restoring this quote please? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I do that a lot in articles I write, Gaba. It highlights key thoughts and breaks up the text for the reader. For the same thing in a recent FA I collaborated on, see Ezra Pound, where we did it for his poetry. I also used it in Christian Science, a GA, highlighting thoughts of the founder or people who knew her. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It may be okay when the quotation is uncontested as representative, but here it is unfortunate in lending a certain editorial ... flavour to the article. Entering "famous deepak chopra quotes" into Google soon yields "People who feel loved live longer; have fewer colds, lower blood pressure and lower cancer rates; and have fewer heart attacks". This is the sort of stuff that tends to attract (critical) attention from respected commentators, and so might be more worthy of being "up in lights" as a representative pronouncement. But a better idea yet is to stick to building the article out of secondary sources, rather than taking it in the direction of being a naive paean justified with a "this is what I do" argument. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding SlimVirgin but I have to agree with Alexbrn, doing it in other articles does not mean it should be done (or anywhere actually). As I said, I find that quote serves absolutely no purpose, it reads like an advertisement and being a hand picked quote its addition verges on WP:OR. I won't remove it again since you reverted me, but I'll back any other editor doing so. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It is his metaphysical position on the self, a philosophical view. It has nothing to do with advertising. Also, re "claims," it's a word that's best avoided; see WP:W2W. It's also not clear to me what the wild claims are (he offers advice about diet, exercise, sleep, meditation and visualization techniques). I think you may be responding to a parody of Chopra created by hostile editors who haven't read his work and/or hostile secondary sources who may also not have read him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It really is of absolutely no importance at all what the quote is about (I personally couldn't care less about his metaphysical views on anything) It reads exactly like the advertising done in the back of cheap self-help books and it has no reason to be in the article whatsoever. If it would improve the section in any way we could perhaps quote it within the appropriate context, as it stands it does not and it's nothing more than filling. It has no place in an encyclopedia and since you have presented no valid reasons as to why I should stay, I exhort any editor reading this to go ahead and remove it.

Re: "claims". We can discuss this in a separate section if you'd like but the wild claims are clearly saying "his practices can extend the human lifespan and treat chronic disease". That is a claim as wild as they come. There's no "arguing" going on here because he has no scientific evidence to back his position. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 20:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Keep. I think it helps contribute to the making of a 'good article', Slim Virgin also added some photos too. She takes great care in creating a good article so I hope she can have some support here. The quote helps break up the page and makes it look like a cohesive work. Sure, it could look like a promotion on a back of a book, but it looks more like something mainstream magazines and newspapers do out of respect for the audience. It's for the benefit of the reader. Regardless of the content of the quote - it's a strong add to any Wikipedia page. I say keep it in and let's find a better quote that the community feels comfortable with. People come to an article because they want to learn about a subject. I hardly think any reader would be offended by an easy to find quote that summarizes a subject's core thesis. I can see how critics of Dr Chopra would be offended by any presentation of his ideas as they are, but we should not let that interfere with Slim Virgin and others creating a good page. SAS81 (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Gaba Can you be specific about what claim exactly? When I hear this, it's usually because someone either has misinterpreted Dr Chopra's words or are just going off what they read on a skeptic site somewhere. I can provide sources for statements around Dr Chopra's words and what research he may or may not be referring to. If you have a false idea about his work and are basing your editing decision on that, it might be helpful to clear up now before you go any further. Fyi - I dont mind either your or SV's choice of words, I'm not challenging your edit on that word. SAS81 (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I usually prefer "says" as the most neutral way to describe someone's opinion.

On quotes: the problem is that the article currently implies that this one quote is more significant than pretty much every other quote by Dr. Chopra that the article includes. Making an argument for giving it that amount of WP:WEIGHT requires pretty strong sourcing. It might be "representative," but he's been quoted directly by numerous independent media outlets, so why can't we find something representative among the quotes that the better sources have seen fit to republish? There have to be good examples of this - can anyone supply some? If we can't find such quotes, then (speaking as someone who doesn't actually know Chopra's work here) that implies that they may not be representative after all.

(As an aside to SAS81: this edges into BLP territory as well. Plenty of people, especially "skeptics" as you call them, may think less of Dr. Chopra if they read that quote - in other words, there is a large group of people for whom the quote may qualify as negative content - and we don't have the sourcing required to justify giving it prominence.) Sunrise (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

SAS81 This is not an WP:RfC and WP is not a democracy. We add/remove content based on policy and guidelines, not on personal styling preference. In this case you need to explain why this particular quote is notable enough (out of possibly hundreds) to be included in this particular section and you need to do so based on as many reliable sources as possible and or needed. As I explained above and Sunrise reiterated, there is currently no explanation as to why this one quote is so significant and relevant that it should be included in that section. If no valid reason is given it will have to be removed.

I already explained and even quoted in full what Chopra's wild claims are. If you want to discuss this edit further, please open a new section so this one doesn't get derailed. Other than that, I have precisely zero interest in this fellow's work with the exception of what we might use to improve the article. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 04:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

thx for response Gaba_p, sorry maybe I did misunderstand the nature of what you are raising. I'm not commenting on the content of the quote, just having *some* quote, any quote, being formatted as a highlight on the page seems to make the page itself better. If this section is looking for what 'quotes' to put it - I'm leaving that up to the community of editors to determine and I can provide resources if anyone needs. Will do on the new section. SAS81 (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@sunrise - let me do a little digging around and see if there are any quotes that are notable - I see your point. SAS81 (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

pull out quotes are non standard. there should be no reason to "go looking " for them. if he had a quote that was worthy of being promoted in such a fashion, it would be obvious, a la "Mr. G, tear down this wall" or "Ask not what your country can do for you" and have third party commentary that would be covered in the article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly either way about whether a quote would improve the article or not in this case. But yes, the ideal case would be a quote that is both reported and analyzed in multiple high-quality sources. Sunrise (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Description of Chopra Center

Hi Balaenoptera musculus, the removal of the two sentences about the Chopra Center leaves that section making less sense. Baer offers his description of Ayurveda, but it's less clear why we're mentioning it, or what it consists of for Chopra. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree - I'll cut Baer's description of the humors now. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

No, Baer needs to stay (a scholarly source), but we also need a brief description of Chopra's work just before it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so now the section makes no sense at all. Please revert yourself, BM. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I've rephrased "these humors" to "the patient's humors" - hope that solves the problem.

The Baer citation for Chopra's opinion is still in there, no source was removed - but of course we need to have appropriate balance per WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT.

As you may have noticed, I've wikilinked 'humors' to the explanation at Ayurveda#Principles_and_terminology.

HTH!

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You're decimating the article. [7] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

As it should be when primary sources are used improperly. --Ronz (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarification, our policy for primary sources states, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." It goes on further to state, "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Policy further lists the criteria for using an article subject's self-published source for information about itself (or her/himself) and says it is allowed under these conditions:

• The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
• It does not involve claims about third parties.
• It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source.
• There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
• The article is not based primarily on such sources.

Those are the restrictions that policy places on primary sources. As long as the usage does not violate those restrictions, the sources are acceptable, but sources that are used in violation of those restrictions should not be used. I suggest that any discussion regarding the usage of such sources should appeal to these principles stated in our No Original Research and Verifiability policies. Just so that we're clear when we're discussing whether or not primary sources are being used improperly. -- Atama頭 19:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I would also point out that even in cases when primary sources are acceptable, it is almost always better to use secondaries. Likewise, there are different qualities of sources within these categories: for example, the quote being discussed in the above section appears to be sourced to a secondary, but it's a weak secondary because it's not independent (and a couple of other reasons). And in cases when no secondaries can be found, the content is likely to warrant very little weight. I mention this because it looks like discussion on this talk page has been especially focused on the minimum standards. For myself, I tend to follow the rule of avoiding primaries altogether, except for specialized situations like to verify that an article subject/original document/etc actually said the words that a secondary source reports them to have said. Sunrise (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources per our policies may be the best reliable source in some circumstances. For example, the best source for Chopra's ideas, philosophies. theories is Chopra himself, and in such instances a primary source may be the definitive source. A primary source written by X which explains X's theory is, as well, the most significant source on X's theory and is a base for secondary sources which may explain X and his theory. Without that base we cannot truly verify what X has to say.

I'm concerned about the peremptory deletion of significant amounts of content. A more collaborative action might be to ask for discussion and agreement of content removal. When an article falls under 2 arbitrations, actions which remove so much content with out prior discussion and agreement is not the best way to move forward.

Peremptory reversion or removal of sourced material [8] 10) Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational.

(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC))

Seems multiple editors disagree with your personal viewpoints in this matter. Given BLP, it shouldn't be surprising to see editors favoring the removal of information that they find to be poorly sourced. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Ronz. You know there is an ongoing discussion on this - you took part in that discussion - on Fringe Theories talk page, so suggesting this is my opinion when I am referencing the understanding of the guideline by multiple experienced editors is misleading.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC))

If you are referencing the arbitration, I'm not sure what the arbs meant but I'm willing to clarify.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC))

It seems like this topic keeps coming up, despite the majority of editors here agreeing that primary sources are appropriate when used to describe factual statements in proper context, and no clear examples given of how primaries are being abused. The push to limit/abolish primary sources as unreliable (even when used to describe what is in that primary source) is the minority opinion, despite vociferous protest from that minority. The Cap'n (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No one is seeking to "push to limit/abolish primary sources as unreliable", so let's not waste time pretending otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this conversation has run in circles enough, but just to be clear, there's been extensive debate about limiting primary sources. Here's a few samples from above that refute the use of primary sources, quotes from primary sources, or the reputable nature of primary sources written by the subject themselves, as well as some other editors who have noticed the same issues I have. Note that these responses came despite repeated efforts at negotiating by putting primaries in context, in quotes, in paraphrase or simply citing them.

1. We are not meant to become a weird secondary source by relaying primary details from Chopra's books
2. Using primary sources to counter better ones is a POV (and in this case a BLPPRIMARY) violation.
3. We need to stop using primary sources and providing original summaries of them
4. Drop pushing primary sources and the "facts" as you see them
5. "equally reputable sources" How exactly are they equal? RE:Seriously? Whatever we may think of Chopra's scientific standing, he's a reliable, reputable source for reporting what he himself said. Accurately representing what's in a book is not endorsing it, for crying out loud, it's being an encyclopedia.
6. This reliance on primary sources, backed by editors' personal opinions on what is and is not right, is going to lead to Arbcom enforcement
7. it doesn't make logical sense to grab material from a primary fringe-proponent source and then use an independent source as the rebuttal.
8. I'm puzzled by this attempted ban on primary source-material written by the subject
9. The new text does have a WP:PROFRINGE spin, which can result from the use of primary sources

As I said, I don't think there's any use in pursuing this debate in light of uncompromising positions, but we shouldn't pretend there hasn't been a debate at all about primary use. The Cap'n (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel we're at an impasse. I hope that no one else feels the same. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I hope so too. There are certain things I love to be proven wrong about. The Cap'n (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Guru

I see people are edit-warring over use of the word guru in the first sentence of the WP:LEDE, saying No consensus - widely discussed at Talk page. What I see above is a short discussion that ended in an acrimonious, unpleasant and unedifying display of people bandying their abilities with differential equations, against citation formatting know-how, in what appears to be an attempt to avoid discussing the use of the word guru at any cost. Wiktionary defines a guru as "A Hindu or Sikh spiritual teacher." We don't usually insert important Hindi or Sanskrit terms prominently into articles without explanation or link. Perhaps the editors in question are referring to the second Wiktionary definition, where it has been used humorously and ironically by some during the twentieth century? We have adequate citations above that the subject of this biography is not happy being thus described. I would like to see the term removed. --Nigelj (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support removal. There's seems to be no consensus for it given the amount of discussion it has generated. It means different things to different people, either an insult or compliment depending on your perspective. That serves to illustrate that it's more connotation than denotation in this context, and it's therefore not a good term for the lead, especially not in Wikipedia's voice. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support removal in lead. I agree that the term is connotative, and further (again) is in this context a label rather than denotative. I think its fine to have a place where we can make a short note on how Chopra has been labelled, but not in Wikipedia's voice, and clearly cited to whomever's opinion this is.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC))

Consensus should be based upon following policie/guidelines and sources, not personal opinions nor the inability of some people to put aside their personal opinions. Amidst all the discussion, there are some good points on both sides. Lets summarize those points fairly and be sure to indicate what policies/guidelines are relevant. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• In case it's helpful, "guru" was first added on 7 December 2012 by Alexbrn. From 7–9 December it was removed by Alohamesamis, restored by Beyond My Ken, removed by Beyond My Ken, restored by Alexbrn, placed in quotation marks by Littleolive oil, quotation marks removed by Alexbrn, italics added by Littleolive oil.

  More recently: on 13 May 2014, it was removed by CorporateM, restored by Alexbrn (at the request of Roxy the dog, who used the words "pretty please"), and on 30 May removed by Balaenoptera musculus, restored by Roxy the dog. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support removal I removed it without realising it was already contentious (I'm new to this article). To me it appeared to be a WP:PEACOCK term, in that it is a very strong term of approbation (in British English at least). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
• [9] [10] "guru" is probably THE most widely used descriptor for Chopra, certainly more widely used than "licensed physician" . no one has presented anything for why we shouldnt be following the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly Support removal I'm having a hard time even understanding why this request is controversial. It's a label for someone, not a 'title'. As evidenced in this talk section, it is primarily used as either a pejorative or an affectionate term and therefore not proper to be in WP's voice. @TRPOD - oh we have said plenty why we should not follow *some* sources. Sources that refer to Dr Chopra as a guru are either pejorative (biased therefore) or affectionate (biased therefore) and since we cannot find ANY mainstream sources that reference Dr Chopra as a New Age Guru as a formal title, it should be removed. If this still does not make sense, let me explain it this way. Dr. Chopra has current positions in many mainstream institutions, such as the Clinton Global Initiative, Gallup, Devros Living, Kellogg's School of Management, etc etc - none of them refer to him as a New Age Guru. If this was a mainstream and accepted label for him, they would. Common sense. SAS81 (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

who said it was a "title"? it is a descriptor like "actor" "doctor" or "celebrity" which encompasses what he is most known for. He spouts out stuff that some people think is deeply insightful and follow him for and others think is complete nonsense. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Same difference, and it is NOT a descriptor in the way an actor or doctor is, primarily because actors and doctors identify THEMSELVES as such and there are actually credits or degrees which SHOW them to be as such. I wish the more suspicious minded editors would stop hiding their bias behind WP policy. You think he is a new age guru, i get it, it's WP:TRUE - it's just not a fact that he is and it's not appropriate for Wikipedia's voice. SAS81 (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with TheRedPenOfDoom, "Guru" is decidedly what he is known for and many WP:RS refer to him "new+age"+guru as such. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 23:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

A google search is not a RS. You've ignored the editors here who agree the word should be removed at the least in the lead. Discussion here is determining not just whether the word has been used in sources but how. (Littleolive oil (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC))

No, the WP:RS revealed by the Google search are WP:RS. The word has been used widely in WP:RS specifically to describe this person (or at least one facet of his), which means we must do it too. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 00:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No it does not mean 'we must do it too'. Wikipedia's policies are not programmatic like that. Let's use some common sense. He is also described as a thought leader by some very mainstream institutions, yet none of you accept that. Describing him as a New Age Guru is more than often a pejorative used by those suspicious of him and those suspicious of him here are the strongest supporters of using this word. SAS81 (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll repeat a Google search is not a RS. Second. you've ignored discussion and agreement here. The discussion is more nuanced than "we have to use it". We are trying to decide how to use the word and where it best fits in the article, if it does. (Littleolive oil (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC))

And I'll repeat too then: the WP:RS revealed by the Google search are WP:RS. There's no "agreement" here by any stretch of the word. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 03:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• During his myriad reporting assignments, Harris comes across several self-help gurus, including Deepak Chopra. Roanoke Times
• Duality, an upcoming short film featuring narration by New Age guru Deepak Chopra The Hollywood Reporter
• inspired by mindfulness guru Deepak Chopra. WA Today - website of Sydney Morning Herald news conglomorate
• Deepak Chopra: perfil del gurú de la medicina alternativa (Deepak Chopra: profile of a guru of alternative medicine El Pais
• “Karma is experience, and experience creates memory, and memory creates imagination and desire,” said new-age guru Deepak Chopra. Golf Week
• including alternative medicine guru Deepak Chopra Huffingtong Post

Those are all usages from within the past 4 weeks - from reliable sources all around the world, general news to genre publishers. Do you really want to press the ludicrous claim that the term "guru" is NOT widely applied to chopra by reliable sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I have never made that claim, so please, do not suggest that I have, or that am supporting the claim. Let me repeat what I am saying. There is agreement here to either remove guru, or remove it from the lead. The discussion is nuanced in terms of the kind of word guru is. Its not a matter of, its in the source so use it. Its a matter of how to use it, what it means, and the kind of descriptor it is.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC))

Perhaps you haven't noticed Littleolive oil but there is clearly not agreement here to remove it. Not from the article and not from the lead. If the term is used by WP:RS (as it most definitely is) then we are obliged to use it here, WP is based on WP:RS no matter what the term actually means or "the kind of descriptor it is". If WP:RS use it broadly (as they most definitely do) then so do we. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 03:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Gaba, please be straight with us. There is also no agreement to keep it either. And there are plenty of options to choose from to find better language, and none of the suspicious minded editors have explored them, there is this insistance on using a pejorative in WP's voice just so the 'SPOV' comes across in the lede. This is not a battleground, please don't turn it into one. SAS81 (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean SAS81, I am being straight. There's no agreement to remove it which obviously means that there is no agreement to keep it either. But since the term is widely used in WP:RS we abide by them. There's no getting around this fact. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If there is no agreement to keep it, then there is no consensus for it in the first place and therefore a collaboration to find a better term or better way to phrase it makes sense. SAS81 (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

There will be no "collaboration to find a better term" since that would be WP:OR and WP:SYN. We abide by what the WP:RS use. If they use guru we use guru. It is really that simple. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 22:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

if it was that simple, you would hardly have 4 or 5 Wikipedia editors trying to take it out. Who is 'they' and why do 'they' have so much authority on calling him a guru? What do you mean if 'they' use the term so must we? Which WP policy says that specifically? What if 'they' use many different terms to describe Dr Chopra, which ones should we choose? Why 'guru' and not pioneer? why 'guru' and not thought leader? Why a known skeptic pejorative and not a known mainstream descriptor used by reputable institutions or organizations? SAS81 (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Support Removal, I haven't seen a single, solid example how this belongs in a BLP when the subject disputes the term and there's no strong need for that specific term. The Cap'n (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

How about the fact that many many WP:RS use the term? That should give you an idea of why the term does in fact belong here. This is WP and we are bounded by what WP:RS say. People seem to keep forgetting this. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: The BLP issues come with including a term ("guru") that Chopra has refuted without mentioning he has refuted it. BLP allows the use of the disputed terms in accordance with the WP:RS, but requires the dispute be noted. How often the term is applied doesn't matter; there are hundreds (if not thousands) of responses that come up on Google claiming Barack Obama was born in Kenya, but that doesn't mean it belongs in his BLP lede without strong qualifiers. Likewise Chopra shouldn't be identified as a guru against his will without at least a notation that it is, in fact, against his will. The Cap'n (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If you can provide WP:RS of him refuting the term, we could add it in the article somewhere I'm sure. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 20:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I've already supplied this - but consider, then the lead sentence contradicts what the body of the article states. Then we have to raise a whole other issue and support 'why' people call him a guru when in fact he actually isn't. It's much much easier to say 'To some he is a new age guru'. Please understand my argument. I'm not saying 'New Age Guru' should not be used, I'm saying it should not be used in Wikipedia's voice as a main descriptor in the lede. SAS81 (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where you've supplied this, care to paste the link again here? There will be no discussion about "'why' people call him a guru" unless you can come up with WP:RS where this discussion appears. The descriptor guru should indeed be used in WP's voice both in the lead and in the body of the article if that is what many many WP:RS use. Since this is in fact the case, this is what we do. I feel like a broken record by now. Have I mentioned we are bounded by WP:RS? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 22:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)w

While I dont necessarily agree that the term "guru" MUST be used, those arguing against its use WP:BURDEN must at least provide some type of evidence that there is any other terminology is is used with anything near the frequency of "guru" . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia effect - re: guru

the Wikipedia factor - TRPOD and other editors who want 'guru'. You have sources that show Deepak Chopra being called a New Age Guru - have you thought that those sources are actually getting their descriptor from Wikipedia and then republishing? Even Dr Chopra's own media team made the same mistake and just pulled in whatever Wikipedia says. Paul Offlit's financial info probably even came from him tracking down the Skeptic's Dictionary source. I think this is the reason for the phrase 'it's very important we get it right.' SAS81 (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I feel like you are engaging in a constantly changing thread of arguments - when one gets shot down, you just switch it up (and eventually go back to the first). This is a waste of our time, but I'll refute this once and for all. You were already informed "In case it's helpful, "guru" was first added on 7 December 2012 by Alexbrn." Here are sources predating that that you were already given - [11] - 1997 [12] - 2001, [13] - 2000. Hipocrite (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, without evidence to back your claims SAS81 this discussion is utterly pointless. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Hipocrite - this is a contentious article, naturally there is disagreement. IF an editor disagrees with what I am saying, it's just that - a disagreement, its not as you put it a 'shot down' unless that editor was logically showing me an inconsistency, which there has not been. Sure there are sources that call him a new age guru from the past, and there will be more of them because of the Wikipedia effect. However, the FACT is that he is NOT a New Age guru, despite if those who love him or hate him think he is.

Here are the sources of Dr Chopra refuting the term guru.

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

(Chopra) I am neither motivational, nor am I a guru, the rest are labels. I am an explorer of a domain of awareness people call consciousness. Just like people climb mountains, I explore the mind. Then I report my findings. My background is in neuro-endocrinology — the study of brain chemicals. I am a physician by training. So I have a great interest in how consciousness differentiates cognition, moods and emotions, perceptions and behaviour, biological functions, social interaction, personal relations, environmental situations and even our interaction with nature.' Bhaduri Jha, Nilanjana. "Employee loyalty comes first, the rest will follow'". India Economic Times. India Economic Times. Retrieved 3 June 2014.

• 'Other people look favorably on me and smilingly tell me that I am a guru (a label I would never apply to myself, not because of its odor of charlatanism in the West, but because the title is revered in India).' Chopra, Deepak (2013). Brotherhood: Dharma, Destiny, and the American Dream. New Harvest. p. 15. ISBN 0544032101. SAS81 (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There are several problems with "guru" that cause unnecessary difficulties on this BLP. First, Chopra refutes the term, so it cannot be applied to him without an accompanying mention of his refutation, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and the default position per WP:BLPREMOVE is to remove the contested term until it's proven necessary, not preserve it until proven unacceptable. Secondly, "guru" is a loaded term, as even Wikipedia refers to it in Guru's lede as "In the west some derogatory interpretations of the word have been noted, reflecting certain gurus who have allegedly exploited their followers' naiveté..." Thirdly, if we are bound by WP:RS to report whatever term is used most frequently, then "spiritual guide" comes up 5,460,000 times in Google, vs. "Guru" with 1,950,000 times.

So we have serious BLP concerns with "guru", it's a biased term according to WP itself, the subject has refuted it, and there are more widely used terms that reflect the exact same description and aren't refuted by the subject. I think any reasonable person would agree that's meeting the burden to contest the term. There's more reasons to remove "guru" than to keep it. The Cap'n (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

While there are reasoned arguments for and against "guru", it is not a BLP issue. Wikipedia is full of editors who misuse WP:BLP as a cudgel without the foggiest understanding of the actual policy, so let's not further that trend here. Secondly, Chopra clearly acknowledges that he is frequently referred to as a "guru" by others, although he personally dislikes the term. If he is frequently described (by independent observers) as a "guru", then it is at least reasonable to consider using that descriptor here. Finally, the Google-hits argument is completely fallacious here - we don't base our coverage or naming conventions on raw Google-hit counts, for reasons that I would hope are obvious to you. MastCell ^Talk 04:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

1. The fact that Chopra himself dislikes the term is in no way a deterrent for using it here. At most, as I've said already, it could warrant a mention of this somewhere in the article.
2. As MastCell says crying BLP is not an argument in itself. There is absolutely no WP:BLP violation going on here.
3. See WP:GNUM.

Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 05:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand WP:GNUM, and that's why it wasn't a sole justification for the suggestion, just a example that claims that "guru" is the only option due to overwhelming prevalence are not accurate. I could look up the dozens of "spiritual guide" references and have an RS showdown, but that seems like an unnecessary amount of work.

As for BLP, I have not been crying BLP and don't appreciate the statement. I've been citing very specific portions of the policy (particularly WP:WELLKNOWN), explaining why it applies and discussing various possible options on how to address them. I have not threatened edit war, insisted material must be removed completely or otherwise acted unreasonably. As it is, my BLP concerns are mostly satisfied with the mention in the lede of Chopra's refutation, though for smooth reading the refutation should either be moved up next to New Age Guru, or Guru moved down next to the refutation. The Cap'n (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to how the policies you point out, especially WP:WELLKNOWN, relate to your concerns, points, and proposals. Could you start with WP:WELLKNOWN and explain in more detail? --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing. I've explained this in other sections above, but I know this talk page is massive. WP:WELLKNOWN states that if we allege something about a BLP subject that they refute, there are 2 scenarios:

A) We cannot find multiple RS confirming the alleged description, so we must remove it (obviously not the case with "guru").

B) We find multiple sources confirming the description despite the subject's refutation, so we include the alleged description, but; "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported."

Though there's still some work that could be done, the current version satisfies those requirements for me. The Cap'n (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. So you think that the label is an allegation. I don't agree, but at least can see your point now.

I'm glad we've found a solution. However, a disclaimer in the lede is undue and disrupts what should be a succinct summary and introduction. How about the disclaimer as a note in the lede and a developed discussion in the article body with the full disclaimer there? --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn, out of curiosity, what was your justification for reverting my edit? Rather than using language implying an understanding of likes/dislikes, I put in a straight factual summation, "he has refuted applying the term "guru" to himself." That's more in line with WP's fact-first language than a statement that he "does not like to be identified..." All you said in your summary was "better sense." Why is "does not like" better than "refute"? The Cap'n (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This qualification shouldn't be here anyway, but at least let it be in sensible English. The primary meaning of "refute" is disprove, and he has not disproved "applying the term ... to himself" since it is applied to him, as the source notes. Are you a native English speaker? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly civil there. Yes, I am a native speaker, and also understand that one of the other most common definitions of "refute" includes to deny (a claim, charge, allegation, etc). You can bring in the 1964 linguistic disputation of the deny application, but that doesn't change the fact that it's in dictionaries as a usage of the word. In any case, "deny" itself is just as applicable, and still a far better word than "like" in an encyclopedia. The Cap'n (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No insult intended - there's nothing wrong with being a non-native English speaker!! But anyway, this is all wrong in the lede. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, I appreciate it. I understand there are concerns with this being in the lede at all, but that's where the consensus is at right now. While it's there, we should try to make it as fitting as possible. Changed the wording to address your concerns with "refute" and retain an encyclopedic tone. The Cap'n (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that a lot of work has gone into this part of the lede now. Taking away the other words, what we are left with in the first two sentences says that he 'is a ... guru ... although he rejects identification as a "guru".' The problem is that we are stating something that is not true about the man in Wikipedia's voice in the first sentence, then trying to mitigate having said it in the second. By the sensible definition of the word, someone who clearly says he rejects the title cannot actually be a guru ('A Hindu or Sikh spiritual teacher'). If we are using the word in the humorous, flippant, disrespectful and faintly racist sense, that is something that we should never do in Wikipedia's own voice. --Nigelj (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I gave it a shot, qualifying that he is characterized as a guru, and moving his rejection into the article body. [14] --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I adjusted slightly; it read a tiny bit awkward. I like the change you made. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC))

Wild claims by Chopra

In the lead of the article it says:

• "He has written that his practices can extend the human lifespan and treat chronic disease, a position criticized by scientists"..

I replaced "has written" with the much more appropriate "claims" since having absolutely no scientific evidence to back what he assures his practices achieve, that is a claim and nothing more. This was substituted with "argues" by SlimVirgin with no rationale given in a very large edit. I switched it back to "claims" explaining that this is in fact a wild claim rather than an argumentation (for which you'd need some evidence, which of course Chopra does not have) and today SlimVirgin restored the original "has written" claiming (as far as I can tell) WP:W2W. In that page I assume he refers to WP:CLAIM which states:

• To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence.

which is precisely what we should be doing. The credibility of such a wild statement should most definitely be called into question by stating clearly that he is claiming those things, since the scientific community calls them into question. Saying the he "has written" or that he "argues" gives them undue WP:WEIGHT and it's not acceptable. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gaba, I asked you this above yesterday, but it probably got lost in the rest of the discussion. Which wild claims are you thinking of? He offers advice about diet, exercise (yoga), stress relief (meditation), and the sleep-wake cycle so that his patients are sleeping, eating and relaxing well. He uses modern Western medicine and blends in ideas from traditional Hindu medicine. The difficulty with that part of the lead is that it's not well-written and it's not clear what it's referring to. Adding "claims" makes the writing worse and doesn't tell us what's being discussed. A rewrite would make more sense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

And I clearly said above (and now in this section again) what the wild claims are, there's no possibility for confusion since the sentence is quoted in full on the first comment of this section. The sentence states he claims "his practices can extend the human lifespan and treat chronic disease". That is a wild claim with no scientific evidence to support it (this must be the third time at least I repeat this) and we should make this fact crystal clear instead of whitewashing it with argues or has written.

How does using claim "makes the writing worse and doesn't tell us what's being discussed"? The first part is not valid (worse how? worse to whom?) and the second part doesn't make sense. What's being discussed? Nothing is being discussed. We are stating some of this person's claims, as simple as that.

Once again, personal preference is not a valid way to edit WP, we do so under policies and guidelines. I've explained why claim should be used as per WP:CLAIM and WP:UNDUE. If you have no other reasons than what you stated above, then I'd ask you to please self-revert. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence that eating and sleeping well, and avoiding stress, help people to avoid chronic diseases. Chopra is an endocrinologist and posted an interesting video, for our benefit, explaining what he does; did you see it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

"deep sound" is also well proven i am assuming? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

or maybe it is anti-proven [15] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It's here, posted in response to questions on this page. It will give you some background on his ideas. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Is he wearing diamond studded glasses? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Gaba is entirely correct in my view. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Gaba I'm going to track down the research Dr Chopra relies on for statements like you are referring to. I can say that as a matter of principle, Dr Chopra is pretty careful NOT to claim something that is not supported by some form of scientific research and more than likely, he is basing his statement on the research of Andrew Weil. Therefore your claim that his 'claims' are 'wild' need to be fact checked and that is what I am doing, and will be posting some sources for you all tomorrow. Since integrative medicine relies on third party data (science) as well as first person data (the effects of wellbeing, feeling 'blissful', etc etc) on health, this has historically caused some confusion. SAS81 (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Do the sources meet the criteria laid out in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I note two things:

1. No reason was presented as to why these supposed (see below) Chopra's wild claims in the lead should not be stated as such.
2. SlimVirgin apparently argues that Chopra did not in fact make those wild claims currently in the lead.

Therefore I'm going to do two things: first I'll restore again the correct word (claim) and second I'll add a citation needed tag to what the lead currently says Chopra said/wrote. If no source can be provided, then the last sentence of the lead will at least need a re-write to comply with sources. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Claim is a word per Wikipedia we do not use whatever our opinions are as to Chopra's claims.

The phrase "wild claims" is a personal pov and aligning an article per that pov is not something any editor should be doing. This has nothing to do with Chopra and whatever the claims are. We can't add content that reflects our opinions because it reflects our opinions. (Littleolive oil (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC))

Read WP:CLAIM:

• To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence.

As I stated above, with absolutely no scientific evidence for such wild claims (if in fact he made them, which is why I also added the cn tag) and even more knowing that those wild claims have been criticized by the scientific community, we must state them as such. In short: if you have no scientific validation for what you state your magic potion can do --> it's a claim. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 00:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If you don't know if he made the statements then the content must be removed now per BLP. We don't add citation tags in BLPs. Second you are quoting WP:CLAIM inaccurately to support your edit. The guideline is advising why not to use claim. It suggests we do not have the right to write in a way that calls " their statement's credibility into question." You are reverting the guideline's meaning.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC))

I had no idea we couldn't add cn tags to a BLP article, would you mind posting me to the policy that states this please?

I am actually not quoting WP:CLAIM inaccurately, in fact it is a verbatim quote (please do check it out). And we definitely should call "their statement's credibility into question" when the WP:RS used do so. Again, keyword: WP:RS. We do not create our own content here, we report on what WP:RS have stated. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 03:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced content in a BLP should be removed immediately, so the content should be removed rather than a tag added.

Yes, you quoted correctly... sorry about my wording. You are interpreting it incorrectly as far as I understand the guideline The guideline is saying we don't use the word claim because it colours the content we are adding, implies the statement is not true, and the questions the credibility of the speaker. As editors we don't have the right to do that; its POV editing. If the source is using the word claim we can too but we should quote or inline cite or both.

RS is only the base line for adding content. There are multiple other considerations. Those considerations have been discussed by multiple editors and multiple editors do not support inclusion of the word guru. Since this concern was still under discussion and since the majority of editors who responded on this thread did not support inclusion you as one editor stepped over many, and even with support of TRPOD, jumped the gun a little on this. You might have been better to wait and see how consensus would play out.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC))

We don't color the content by using such a word, the sources do. When a statement is ludicrous and the WP:RS agree on that, we use the word claim to make it clear that this isn't a leveled "debate" between this one person and the scientific community (which would be WP:UNDUE) and this isn't a case of "I say this, others say that and it's all valid" (which would be a violation of WP:FRINGE). If you want to see an example of this, head on over to Ken Ham where the word claim is used in the context of one of his most ridiculous claims (age of the Earth, right in the lead). Since the scientific community agrees that those claims are ridiculous, saying "Ham has written that the Earth is 6000 yrs old" has no effect other than to whitewash the fact that he has absolutely no evidence to support what he is claiming. Same deal here. We are not required to use sources that contain the word claim explicitly, otherwise WP would be a carbon copy of WP:RS. We use our better judgment based on what WP:RS say as I just explained above.

Re: guru. There is no agreement to remove the word and, as has been explained, its use is backed by many WP:RS. This is content for another thread though, so I won't dwell further into this. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gaba, a statement's ridiculousness is a matter of significant subjectivity and invites profound POV concerns. Moreover, the comparison with Ken Ham is not accurate, as there as significant differences between claims that are unproven by science (Chopra) and claims that are definitively disproven by science (Ham). That's an important distinction, but not the biggest issue with "claim." The biggest problem with WP:CLAIM is that the very section advises against its use in favor of what SV wrote: Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. I don' think the "extra care" has been established here, and there's no compelling argument that saying Chopra said something that he actually said is somehow legitimizing that statement. The Cap'n (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

How many of Ham's claims about the age of the earth have been proven? zero

How many of Chopra's claims about "deep sound" healing have been proven? zero

How many of Chopra's claims about "dont call that cancer you have been diagnosed with 'cancer' and that will help you be cured" have been proven? zero

How many of Chopra's claims about quantum healing have been proven? zero.

The batting averages are exactly equal, Chopra has just spread his nonsense around in areas that directly put people's health at risk -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Digging into this issue is producing the same results as other claims about what Dr Chopra's ideas are about - it seems like more confusion or misrepresentation. When you boil it down, many of Dr Chopra's positions are really not that radical but only if you know what those positions are and are familiar with his work. I think most of the criticisms of Dr Chopra are really just from a very orthodox perspective. This is why skeptic sources are incredibly problematic to rely on for the majority weight on the article. Skeptics play a kids game of 'telephone' with Dr Chopra's ideas - so by the time they get to the reader of this article, what Dr Chopra actually says and what they say he says are wildly different.

The sources on aging, which are almost exclusively taken from sources that identify themselves as openly hostile to Dr Chopra, paraphrase in the most radical way an idea that is not all that pseudoscientific: the way we live our lives affects our aging process. Below are a few sources that establish this as a pretty mainstream position.

These sources are from peer-reviewed journals that have concluded that meditation and/or yoga had a discernible beneficial effect on the elderly.

Gard T, Hölzel BK, Lazar SW. The potential effects of meditation on age-related cognitive decline: a systematic review. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014 Jan;1307:89-103. doi: 10.1111/nyas.12348. PubMed PMID: 24571182; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4024457. Impact Factor: 4.36

Prakash R, Rastogi P, Dubey I, Abhishek P, Chaudhury S, Small BJ. Long-term concentrative meditation and cognitive performance among older adults. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2012;19(4):479-94. doi: 10.1080/13825585.2011.630932. Epub 2011 Dec 13. PubMed PMID: 22149237.

Lavretsky H, Epel ES, Siddarth P, Nazarian N, Cyr NS, Khalsa DS, Lin J, Blackburn E, Irwin MR. A pilot study of yogic meditation for family dementia caregivers with depressive symptoms: effects on mental health, cognition, and telomerase activity. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2013 Jan;28(1):57-65. doi: 10.1002/gps.3790. Epub 2012 Mar 11. PubMed PMID: 22407663; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3423469. Impact Factor: 2.97

Below are more journals concluding that stress, anxiety and depression (mental states that complementary medicine focuses on) have an effect on aging.

O'Donovan A, Slavich GM, Epel ES, Neylan TC. Exaggerated neurobiological sensitivity to threat as a mechanism linking anxiety with increased risk for diseases of aging. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013 Jan;37(1):96-108. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.10.013. Epub 2012 Nov 2. Review. PubMed PMID: 23127296. Impact Factor: 9.44

Beaudreau SA, MacKay-Brandt A, Reynolds J. Application of a cognitive neuroscience perspective of cognitive control to late-life anxiety. J Anxiety Disord. 2013 Aug;27(6):559-66. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2013.03.006. Epub 2013 Mar 22. Review. PubMed PMID: 23602352; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3762945. Impact Factor: 2.52

SAS81 (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you think you accomplish by pasting a handful of articles dealing with yoga/meditation.

I've removed the citation needed tag from the lead seeing that references where up there not two weeks ago and SlimVirgin first replaced them with a book by Chopra which he then moved into one giant reference to finally remove it completely. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Article development

I'm being prevented from explaining, even briefly, what Ayurveda principles are based on, with the result that Chopra's ideas make less sense. This is the disputed paragraph (everything before "Chopra recommended in his early work" is being removed):

Physicians at the Chopra Center offer integrative medicine, combining conventional and complementary practices, including Ayurvedic principles. Medical anthropologist Hans A. Baer writes that Ayurveda is based on the view that the body consists of five elements (space, air, fire, water and earth) and that the combination of these gives rise to three doshas (humors) – vata, pitta and kapha – and ten body types. Chopra recommended in his early work that patients' body type be identified to tailor their treatment. According to Ayurveda, illness is caused by an imbalance in these humors – a failure of what Chopra calls the body's web of intelligence – and is treated with diet, exercise and meditative practices. These include what Chopra calls the bliss technique, which is when a patient learns how to experience herself as "pure awareness," and primordial sound or vibration, known as Shruti, which involves repeating a mantra.

Without the preamble, Chopra's view of body types is unexplained. It's also important to say something about Ayurveda and mantras, because later on we mention the Ayurvedic idea of vibration again. In fact I would like to make it clearer still. There really is no legitimate reason (within policy) to remove this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Policies which (in my view) support removal are WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV as a whole. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

How does explaining what Chopra actually does, that is, supplying background per the sources violate any of WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV? Could you explain?(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC))

There's been a lot of recent tossing around of WP:FRINGE as an excuse for censoring content, which is neither ethical nor what WP:FRINGE is about. Explaining that Chopra believes in Ayurveda no more promotes fringe than a page on any given spiritual/religious practice is promoting faith. It's our job to inform and explain, not limit access to information we disagree with. The Cap'n (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobody's censoring. Ayurveda is covered in depth at Ayurveda, and we absolutely should say that he believes in it (assuming we have reliable sources to confirm that he does).

"Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)." (WP:WEIGHT)

As a biography, the article should describe the subject's life, not promote his views or advertise his business.

Where the article discusses medicine and health, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) also applies, of course.

So that's why I wikilinked 'humors' to the article we already have which explains the Ayurveda theory of humors - rather than allowing this article to discuss them as though they were a mainstream medical theory.

--Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The "Ayurvedic idea of vibration" is a Maharishi/Chopra/new age idea, it is not a part of actual Ayurveda. It would be misleading to imply otherwise. Also the statement that Chopra or Chopra center "Physicians" offer the: "bliss technique, which is when a patient learns how to experience herself as "pure awareness," and primordial sound or vibration, known as'Shruti', which involves repeating a mantra." This description sounds like complete commercial hype and is very misleading. There is no correlation between "pure awareness" and mantra meditation except as a sales gimmick. Also there is no correlation between "primordial sound" and anything at all. Primordial Sound Meditation is a trademarked product. Beyond that it is a purely imaginative term. And what is this about a "patient"? I think that is stretching it. A look at Chopra centers gives me the idea that people are being sold stuff like spa treatments, yoga classes, "Vedic" astrology, supplements, books and CD's by mostly (if not entirely)non-physicians. They are not "patients" they are customers and to say otherwise buys into the hype that this is so very medical. It is the Chopra business plan to use a "medical" and "science" veneer to add bonus validity to the selling of numerous new age products-- in case anyone here is unaware or deliberately trying to avoid that.Ptarmigander (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Balaenoptera musculus, I completely agree that the article should focus predominately on discussing his life, but I think it's inaccurate to describe any of the edits proposed as intended to "promote his views or advertise his business." Stating what someone has said about their own beliefs is not an endorsement, and including non-critical information is not promotional or advertisement, it's informative. If we remove all the discussion of Chopra's ideas, we need to remove all mention of the criticism of those ideas. I don't think anyone really thinks either scenario will result in a better encyclopedia.

@Ptarmigander I understand your frustration, but the vast majority of what you're saying sounds like OR. That said, if you have reliable sources to back up meditation as a sales gimmick, or that Chopra is lying about employing physicians, or that vibrations/sounds/whatever is not part of traditional Hindu beliefs, please share them. The Cap'n (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A quick check of the staff and offerings at the Chopra Center reveals a veneer of medical practice. I think SAS81- in order to show good intent- should provide a full staff/ services breakdown of the Chopra Center. Looks to me like the staff consists of primarily "Vedic Masters", wellness facilitators, massage therapists, aromatherapists and yoga instructors and a couple of added in physicians (and how many of those couple of listed physicians are in daily residence?) Someone wants to describe the customers of the Chopra center as specifically "patients" and the staff as "physicians"? That is an exaggeration that favors The Chopra Center business model but may not accurately reflect what happens for the majority of attendees at the Chopra Center. Ptarmigander (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Primordial Sound meditation is a trademarked product so of course "Primordial Sound Meditation" is a sales gimmick. That is exactly what it is. There is no mention in any historical Hindu, "Vedic" or Yogic texts about "Primordial Sound Meditation "TM" So where is it's documented non commercial validity? I don't see any. Furthermore, as an aside, where is a reputable reference that says that this trademarked Chopra center meditation has anything to do with primordial sound? What the heck in the real world is "primordial sound"? Where is there one reputable science paper on primordial sound? Without that.. you only have "Primordial Sound" as a product label. No actual substance described by this label.

Regarding "vibrations" in Ayurveda, There is no "Ayurvedic idea of vibrations" in any historical Hindu or Vedic sources. Maybe you have some? No you don't. Ptarmigander (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Separation of ideas from reception violates NPOV

It violates WP:STRUCTURE by separating the points of view, and WP:UNDUE by giving more weight to primary and non-independent sources than secondary and independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

True, that. I've already started merging the 'Reception' section into the body of the text, i.e. integrating as described in WP:NOCRIT. More work needs to be done on this still... Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

support the integration. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Still needs tweaking. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Approach to healing

Thanks for attempts to compromise. I did revert because new content is actually not accurate. To explain:

• Integrative medicine is the combination of conventional or biomedical pracrtices with other modalities.
• Ayurveda is not a belief system although as with any system for healing belief in the system may be involved. Ayur Veda is a system for healing that is thousands of years old, so we do have to say its a system rather than a belief.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC))

And of course it is necessary for us to mention prominently that ayurvedic treatments are ineffective; failure to do so would not be neutral. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) More importantly, Ayurveda is pseudoscience based upon fringe beliefs. Integrative medicine is the combination of healing practices that are backed with evidence (conventional, evidence-based medicine) with other modalities that might sell well but are not demonstrated to have any positive healing properties. Chopra's "beliefs", "theories", "ideas", and "approaches" are difficult if not impossible to distinguish from simple marketing spin for his products and services. --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Littleolive oil: My concern was that we not characterise as medical treatment (per WP:MEDRS), or as an equally valid alternative to medical treatment, the products and services which Chopra and his staff sell as 'integrative medicine' or 'Ayurveda'. I'd be happy with any form of words which avoids this characterisation.

I'll try a different formulation, revert if you don't like it...

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the article. I did make a change. Ayurveda is a system for healing not a belief so I've adjusted that. Strictly speaking, this (below) is OR: The source doesn't mention Ayurveda in reference to Chopra, the subject of the article. The content added is "inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context." However, I have no problem using this content with agreement on the article talk page. (Littleolive oil (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC))

"there is, however, no scientific evidence to show that Ayurveda is effective in treating any disease."

Thanks Littleolive oil, I'm quite happy with your changes.

Re "there is, however, no scientific evidence to show that Ayurveda is effective in treating any disease - it's a comment on Ayurveda in general, rather than on Chopra, so I don't think it matters that Chopra isn't the subject of the source (because Ayurveda is).

The whole sentence in our article is "According to Ayurveda, illness is caused by an imbalance in the patient's doshas or humours, and is treated with diet, exercise and meditative practices[57] - there is, however, no scientific evidence to show that Ayurveda is effective in treating any disease.[58]"

The source (Cancer Research UK) says: "There is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer or any other disease."

I'm sure other editors will have comments on whether or not the proposed text is original research or is reasonable based on that source, I'm happy to wait for their comments.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

We have to be careful in veering and developing areas that are auxiliary to the subject /topic of this article which is not Ayurveda. We should be defining Ayurveda as Chopra and those who comment on Chopra use it, otherwise we end up with WP:Coatrack content. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC))

I think this is a common source of confusion that's out there. Balaenoptera musculus - problem here is you are not defining what 'ayurveda' means. When we mention Ayurveda in assosciation with Dr Chopra and integrative medicine, specifically we are referencing meditation and Yoga - and there is LOTS of research there to support meditation and yoga integrated with western medical treatments. Ayurveda as a term refers to a large body of practices, rituals, and even some hokus pokus from ancient times, so it's not fair, nor accurate to lump Dr Chopra in with an entire body of practices when specifically his treatment is with yoga and meditation AND there is research to support that. Ayurveda, all by itself IS alternative medicine. 'Alternative' is not apart of Dr Chopra's work, his work is 'complimentary', i.e. complimenting chemotherapy with things like Yoga and meditation. The position inserted into this article is giving too much weight to integrative medicine from the orthodox point of view which is not supported by sources. SAS81 (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure - 'elements from Ayurveda'? Or we could not mention Ayurdeva and just say 'meditation and yoga'.

Re "LOTS of research": great! Please supply references which meet WP:MEDRS.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I've already supplied many sources in this thread already. I think you need to establish why those sources are not being acknowledged in your edits or why your edits are contradicting them. I'll also be posting another batch of these sources shortly but it's already established, Integrative Medicine IS mainstream so please review the source threads on this page. Additionally, you could also familiarize yourself with Dr. Chopra's actual views on integrative medicine and what he is claiming in some primary sources I've provided in TALK for consideration purposes and to balance secondary sources since many have been using misleading contexts from secondary sources. Additionally, if you have a specific question for Dr Chopra and want clarity on your choice of sources, let me know, we are here to help you make the page better. SAS81 (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Below are a few sources from reputable, peer-reviewed journals that discuss the acceptance of meditation and yoga as complements to biomedical treatments. Though there are serious problems with the impact factor system it's the most widely known, so I included them for each of these sources. SAS81 (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for closure, Integrative Medicine

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) Here are high quality peer reviewed evidence based medical journals that support Dr Chopra's claim of integrating meditation and yoga in conjunction with mainstream treatments. Claims that integrative medicine is 'pseudoscience or quakery' not supported by evidence is a false idea and factually incorrect and an outdated medical opinion from the 1990's. Please let's bring closure to this argument around integrative medicine.

Goyal M, Singh S, Sibinga EM, Gould NF, Rowland-Seymour A, Sharma R, Berger Z, Sleicher D, Maron DD, Shihab HM, Ranasinghe PD, Linn S, Saha S, Bass EB, Haythornthwaite JA. Meditation programs for psychological stress and well-being: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Mar;174(3):357-68. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13018. Review. PubMed PMID: 24395196. Impact Factor: 10.78

Jung YH, Kang DH, Byun MS, Shim G, Kwon SJ, Jang GE, Lee US, An SC, Jang JH, Kwon JS. Influence of brain-derived neurotrophic factor and catechol O-methyl transferase polymorphisms on effects of meditation on plasma catecholamines and stress. Stress. 2012 Jan;15(1):97-104. doi: 10.3109/10253890.2011.592880. Epub 2011 Jul 26. PubMed PMID: 21790467. Impact Factor: 3.21

Creswell JD, Pacilio LE, Lindsay EK, Brown KW. Brief mindfulness meditation training alters psychological and neuroendocrine responses to social evaluative stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2014 Jun;44:1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2014.02.007. Epub 2014 Feb 23. PubMed PMID: 24767614. Impact Factor: 5.13

Hoge EA, Bui E, Marques L, Metcalf CA, Morris LK, Robinaugh DJ, Worthington JJ, Pollack MH, Simon NM. Randomized controlled trial of mindfulness meditation for generalized anxiety disorder: effects on anxiety and stress reactivity. J Clin Psychiatry. 2013 Aug;74(8):786-92. doi: 10.4088/JCP.12m08083. PubMed PMID: 23541163; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3772979. Impact Factor: 5.79

Bilderbeck AC, Farias M, Brazil IA, Jakobowitz S, Wikholm C. Participation in a 10-week course of yoga improves behavioural control and decreases psychological distress in a prison population. J Psychiatr Res. 2013 Oct;47(10):1438-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2013.06.014. Epub 2013 Jul 16. PubMed PMID: 23866738. Impact Factor: 4.06

van Uden-Kraan CF, Chinapaw MJ, Drossaert CH, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Buffart. Cancer patients' experiences with and perceived outcomes of yoga: results from focus groups. Support Care Cancer. 2013 Jul;21(7):1861-70. doi:10.1007/s00520-013-1728-4. Epub 2013 Feb 12. PubMed PMID: 23400315. Impact Factor: 2.6

Van Puymbroeck M, Burk BN, Shinew KJ, Cronan Kuhlenschmidt M, Schmid AA. Perceived health benefits from yoga among breast cancer survivors. Am J Health Promot. 2013 May-Jun;27(5):308-15. doi: 10.4278/ajhp.110316-QUAL-119. Epub 2013 Feb 12. PubMed PMID: 23402226. Impact Factor: 2.3

Huang FJ, Chien DK, Chung UL. Effects of Hatha yoga on stress in middle-aged women. J Nurs Res. 2013 Mar;21(1):59-66. doi:10.1097/jnr.0b013e3182829d6d. PubMed PMID: 23407338. Impact Factor: 2.97

SAS81 (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

How did you find these sources, exactly? Have you read WP:MEDRS? Hipocrite (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources are primarily from pubmed. Yup, have read WP:MEDRS. SAS81 (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

How did you find these sources, exactly? What search terms did you use? Why did you pick these specific sources? Do they follow the guidelines in MEDRS? Hipocrite (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

None of these sources deal with integrative medicine as a whole, they are a handful of articles about meditation/yoga. You can't synthesize out of this 8 articles that integrative medicine, whose definition is so vague it fits almost any possible treatment, is either mainstream or not alternative medicine. Not sure what else you were trying to get out of this. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Gaba - they are a handful of peer reviewed journals that, per WP:MEDRS, support the benefits of integrating yoga and mediation with western medical treatment specifically. That is the core message of Dr Chopra's work. What Dr Chopra claims IS supported by peer review research and study, and is referred to as integrative medicine and complimentary medicine. The reason you're not seeing a clear delineation between integrative medicine and mainstream medicine in the actual journal is because there is no delineation between integrative medicine and mainstream medicine. Remember, this is 2014 and much of the skeptic literature is outdated. SAS81 (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

These articles prove nothing. Hipocrite (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hipocrite The data you need to know to make a valued decision as an editor in accordance with WP is in each citation. I only share my search terms with the NSA. SAS81 (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

These sources are not MEDRS compatible. The deliberate obfuscation of search terms demonstrates the attempt to bias the search by the COI editor. I am done wasting my time with him. Hipocrite (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the 'closed discussion' tag you put on this, please do not do that. This discussion is not closed it has been open for weeks, you have just not been participating in it. The sources I provided are WP MEDRS. If you are making a claim that they are not, or that somehow my search term may have corrupted the data found in a peer reviewed journal, then spell it out clearly without the blind aspersions. SAS81 (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Reveal your search terms. Hipocrite (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

if your looking for helpful hints on using pubmed search, try 'yoga' and 'meditation', that's worked for me in the past. I wouldn't confuse me giving you a citation to be accessed on Pubmed with how we come to discover the source itself - and however we come across valid WP MEDRS sources is irrelevant. It's either published or it isn't. I'm just here to show that it's published, not interpret the research of doctors. SAS81 (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Most of these are primary sources and so not WP:MEDRS, but they are not relevant to Chopra's offering in any case, unless it is directly mentioned. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Reveal your search terms. The deliberate obfuscation is hiding something. When conducting a systematic review, which, you know, is the kind of thing professional archivists like yourself do, revealing the search terms is the basic first step - your failure to do so indicates that the terms themselves are nefarious - did you go with "positive result" AND yoga? NOT "not statistically significant" AND "statistically significant" AND "yoga"? The possibilities for biased search terms are endless. Hipocrite (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You're assuming I used search terms to begin with. We are an archive and also get advised directly by academics and doctors and many others. Don't confuse showing pubmed for access is the same as pubmed for our discovery of the paper. other than that, please FOC. SAS81 (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

So when I said "How did you find these sources, exactly," you felt that saying "Sources are primarily from pubmed," but when pressed, they are now "also get advised directly by academics and doctors and many others." Which of your statements are true? Hipocrite (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's simplify this. SAS81: what specific edit are you proposing based on the articles you've presented here? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 20:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Hipocrite, you might be getting a little paranoid here ("nefarious?"). They're pubmed sources, the PMID tag right in there, and I was able to find a good number of these by just going with frequent search suggestions on pubmed itself. Typing in "meditation" prompted "mindfulness meditation", and the first suggestion that popped up that seemed to relate to these sources was "mindfulness meditation anxiety". I found a few there, and I'm guessing more common sense searches will do the same. Also, the ones I checked out are not primary sources (ie. clinical trials) but rather secondary reviews and analyses of those findings, making them ideal for WP:MEDRS. It's possible I missed something, but they seem to be fairly reputable.

More to the point, though, editors are not required to provide a paper trail for sources, only verifiability and reliability. The PMIDs allow verification and the fact that they're reputable peer reviewed journal pieces establishes reliability. You can bark out demands to "reveal your search terms" over and over again, but it doesn't matter to WP whether SAS81 looked up this info themselves, had it in a library file somewhere or was referred to it by Beelzebub, the sources stand on their own. Refute them with better sources if you like, but trying to play detective to determine whether you'll believe medical journal reviews is the height of WP:OR.

I agree with Gaba_p, lets focus on the specific changes that are under discussion. There's been so much back and forth about peripheral matters that it's not even clear what the proposed change is. Is it to establish "integrative medicine" as the term in place of "alternative medicine" in the lede, or a broader push for an reassessment of sources on Chopra's views in Ideas? The Cap'n (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Having gone through the list, exactly one of them is a secondary source - the first one. (When you've read enough papers you can be fairly sure just from reading titles, but I checked them individually anyways.)

The easiest way to make sure that you're getting secondary sources from a PubMed search is to set your filters to "Review," which you can do at the top left of any search page (instructions here). If the filter is on, it will be indicated by a checkmark. Sunrise (talk) 02:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the info, Sunrise, I've been trying to get used to pubmed in verifying these sources myself. So we've got a solid secondary source and some other primaries. My question remains, what are we trying to evaluate here? The first source is a RS for something, I could see a mention in the Approach to Healing section about the effects of meditation. The Cap'n (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, capn thank you. There is lots of material to be found in PubMed to support the medical benefits of meditation and yoga, which would be good to have in the Approach to Healing entry - that's a good idea. Right now it simply says that there is no evidence supporting any benefits to Ayurveda, but as I've mentioned before, Dr Chopra's work focuses on meditation and yoga in particular. He also makes a point to say that there is a lot of 'superstitious' elements in Ayurveda so one has to be careful (should i provide sources for that?). There is plenty of evidence for the benefits of these approaches, which I welcome anyone else to provide to Wikipedia standards. But to some people, meditation and yoga and their benefits are just 'woo' and that's the party line. That's the reason why I keep bringing up Integrative Medicine, it's distinct from Alternative Medicine in that it's supportive of and supported by scientific evidence. I also bring this up to counter the 'wild claims' argument. It's unbalanced to say, in a source not directly connected to Dr Chopra, that there's no evidence of the benefits of Dr Chopra's work by focusing just on Ayurveda in general, his emphasis on meditation and yoga should be considered too and presented in the section. SAS81 (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

SAS81 second request: please present the precise edit you are proposing be made to the article or I will be closing this thread as per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to try and clarify and maybe focus this thread. The issues concerning the entry, there is no evidence supporting benefits of Ayurveda, is probably OR and the source not a RS for an article on Deepak Chopra and Ayurveda simply because it is not a source that references Chopra. It is possible to use the content with agreement here making sure it represents the source which indicates there is no evidence from randomized control trials that suggest Ayurveda is effective in curing disease. The source makes mention of some potentially promising preliminary research on herbal treatments, and that Ayurveda can help alleviate cancer symptoms. The source also discusses the potential dangers of some aspects of Ayurvedic treatments. All of this represents the source while what we have in the article now does not. I'd suggest removing all of the content from this source and look for comments on Ayurveda and its usefulness or lack thereof in a secondary source that specifically references Chopra. Whatever is added on Ayurveda's effectiveness in this article should come out of secondary sources, MEDRS compliant that discuss Chopra and Ayurveda. If we can't find something like that and if there is agreement to add content that discusses Ayurveda lets make sure we represent the source, and keep it succinct so, we don't end up with coat rack load of content.

How and why Dr Chopra uses Ayurveda is a separate issue, and should be represented in the article. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC))

"simply because it is not a source that references Chopra" In this case we'd expect it not to reference him since the reason for it being there is to give a basic summary of the medical evidence per FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Its OR. Fringe is not a reason to ignore OR and can't trump a policy. IAR to include this with agreement from editors here is a possibility as long as the source is represented accurately. I personally have no problem with the content under those conditions. What do others say?(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC))

It's not OR, nor are we ignoring OR, nor are we using FRINGE to trump OR or any other policies. No need to ignore any rules, just follow them. --Ronz (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with you. As does the WP:OR policy "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article,...In this case Deepak Chopra. Ayurveda is not the subject of the article. To suggest that we can go to any source and add content from that source to support and advance a Fringe allegation has no basis in any of our policies or guidelines and has extensive repercussions. I'm suggestion the editors here can IAR and with consensus add the content with some slight adjustment per the source which would follow our policies. If no one wants to do that, no problem.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC))

Are you suggesting that Ayurveda is not absolutely central to the topic, Deepak C? C'mon Olive, Ronz is correct. WP:FRINGE is very important here. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Ronz and Roxy the dog, this "look for comments on Ayurveda and its usefulness or lack thereof in a secondary source that specifically references Chopra" is not a reasonable request by WP guidelines. Ayurveda is a topic in itself, independent of Chopra, so we are of course allowed to use sources that reference that topic when discussing that topic within an article about another topic (such as this one). Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you realize what you are suggesting, all of you. If I decide as an editor that some aspect of a topic, beyond what the article is actually about, is central to an article, I can then go to any source and add content pretty much, as much as I want to that article. We define that as coatrack content and the synthesizing of content from non-specific, to the subject - of - the - article sources with the content of the topic of the article as OR. I could do or say pretty much anything by combining content that way. However what I see here is that you all are adamant about using the source and content this way, and that this is allowable because Ayurveda is fringe. Fringe to what I wonder. Anyway, I've made my point, and see that you three are not interested in pursuing this. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC))

I shall not be able to pay attention here for a few hours, as I suddenly realised I have to remove all references to "Morphic Resonance" from the Rupert Sheldrake BLP. seeya. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Well at least you have a sense of humour.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC))

"Do you realize..." What we're doing isn't coatracking or off-topic tangents. Providing proper context with due weight is essential to creating good articles. Sometimes sources for such context will not actually mention the direct subject of the article. We are addressing a topic that is extremely prominent in Chopra's life, so there's no problem. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This conversation is really getting de-railed. If some editors here are saying they want to use sources on Ayurveda (sans Dr. Chopra) as valid sources of critiques about Dr. Chopra's work then they have to accept peer reviewed journals, also sans Dr Chopra, that meditation and yoga are beneficial when integrated with western medical practice and supervision. See the problem? Now sources conflict. If sources are conflicting, and they are both peer reviewed sources...what's next guys? SAS81 (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gaba As to the specific edit I am requesting being changed it's more the specific questions I have been asked, I think it was BM who asked for sources - specifically that addressed the 'wild claim' scenario. Additionally, Roxy and a few other editors, you included, keep making the inference that integrative medicine is in the fringe category (to put it nicely) and is not mainstream. Well it's mainstream, and as long as editors keep arguing otherwise, I'm going to continue to post facts to the talk page. SAS81 (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, here's a specific edit suggestion. We include some indication of the nuanced positions in the Healing section.

Current: Chopra and physicians at the Chopra Center practise integrative medicine, combining the medical model of conventional Western medicine with alternative therapies such as Ayurveda.[73] According to Ayurveda, illness is caused by an imbalance in the patient's doshas or humours, and is treated with diet, exercise and meditative practices[74] - there is, however, no scientific evidence to show that Ayurveda is effective in treating any disease.[75]

Proposed: Chopra and physicians at the Chopra Center practise integrative medicine, combining the medical model of conventional Western medicine with alternative therapies such as Ayurveda.[73] According to Ayurveda, illness is caused by an imbalance in the patient's doshas or humours, and is treated with diet, exercise and meditative practices[74]. While there are studies that support some benefits from meditation[new RS], there is, however, no scientific evidence to show that Ayurveda in general is effective for treatment of disease.[75]

It's a start. I think it would reflect the position of both Chopra and science accurately. That is the goal, after all. The Cap'n (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No, violates WP:MEDRS. Hipocrite (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

How? Editors on all sides agree the source (Goyal M, Singh S, Sibinga EM, Gould NF, Rowland-Seymour A, Sharma R, Berger Z, Sleicher D, Maron DD, Shihab HM, Ranasinghe PD, Linn S, Saha S, Bass EB, Haythornthwaite JA. Meditation programs for psychological stress and well-being: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Mar;174(3):357-68. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13018. Review. PubMed PMID: 24395196.) is a secondary source review from a peer-reviewed medical journal with a reputable impact level. Don't just make assertions, say how that violates MEDRS. The Cap'n (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It violates OR and V as well. The source simply doesn't verify the information. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, how? The source concludes "Clinicians should be aware that meditation programs can result in small to moderate reductions of multiple negative dimensions of psychological stress. Thus, clinicians should be prepared to talk with their patients about the role that a meditation program could have in addressing psychological stress." That is paraphrased without OR by the pretty moderate "some benefits" verbiage, and is easily and directly verified in the source. Which part of the source or the proposed edit do you find objectionable and why? The Cap'n (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The Cap'n in case you haven't noticed there's a cn tag on the first sentence now (which I added since it as sourced to a book apparently) To say this " While there are studies that support some benefits from meditation", you'd need a secondary WP:RS that stated as much. You can't lump toghether a couple of articles from Pubmed and come to that conclusion yourself, that's WP:OR and WP:SYN. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand that, Gaba_p, and that's why I'm not proposing "lumping together a couple of articles," I'm proposing citing a secondary WP:RS (the one listed in my previous posts) that describes meditation as possessing some benefits. I'm not inserting any OR or SYN, just citing a medical review that meets MEDRS. This is the exact procedure we're supposed to follow, what is the hang up? It's not my OR, it's the conclusion of the review; it's not SYN, it's one article; it's not violating MEDRS, it's a secondary peer-reviewed journal in good standing. It's not even a controversial statement, WP's own articles on meditation say far more about the attributes of meditation than "support some benefits." This is a moderate, reasonable reference that balances out a paragraph that is otherwise more than a little slanted. The Cap'n (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This thread has become a tangled mess, it's almost impossible to follow what's being discussed anymore. The Cap'n what WP:RS are you proposing we use? Do I understand correctly that you want to use this source (not sure which one) to reference this "While there are studies that support some benefits from meditation[new RS]"? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It's still an OR, NPOV, MEDRS, and FRINGE violation. Plus, the techniques from meditation that actually work have been incorporated into evidence-based medicine - it's just that they are not as effective as other medical treatments. The study cited mentions this last part as well about other treatments being more effective. --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gaba_p, I completely understand your point about this hellscape of a Talk Page, it takes me 5 minutes just to find responses. To answer your question, the source I'm referencing is (Goyal M, Singh S, Sibinga EM, Gould NF, Rowland-Seymour A, Sharma R, Berger Z, Sleicher D, Maron DD, Shihab HM, Ranasinghe PD, Linn S, Saha S, Bass EB, Haythornthwaite JA. Meditation programs for psychological stress and well-being: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Mar;174(3):357-68. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13018. Review. PubMed PMID: 24395196.), a secondary peer-reviewed journal study that found some benefits to meditation. I proposed to make a statement that certain studies had found some benefits to meditation. This is somehow controversial.

@Ronz, I have a couple of basic rejoinders. First, I've provided very specific explanations as to how this source is not a violation of OR, NPOV, MEDRS or FRINGE (namely, I'm citing almost exactly what the study found, reporting a secondary source's analysis is not POV, the journal meets all standards of MEDRS, and I'm not giving undue weight to any Fringe position by saying meditation might have some benefits). Please explain with equal specificity why, despite all these points, this source violates all those policies and guidelines. Secondly, in referencing the article's conclusion that such meditation practices were medically mainstream (and yet still violating WP:Fringe?), you seem to be supporting SAS81's point about integrative medicine. I see no contradiction in the fact that the study said other treatments were at least as effective; I'm certainly not proposing we say meditation will cure diseases. Example, even if there are better ways to treat a migraine, an article on Tylenol can still list its benefits. Lastly, before we attach to much almighty weight to this discussion, please bear in mind that there's already WP articles on meditation that speak more extensively of its benefits. This isn't uncharted ground, or even controversial, and the proposed edit simply addresses the issue that a source debunking traditional Ayurveda is not representative of Chopra's focus on yoga and meditation.

I'm not trying to be obstreperous here, but this is getting frustrating. I keep explaining my reasoning in greater and greater depth, and keep receiving responses that drop policy names with no specific justifications. At least meet me halfway on your reasoning, folks. The Cap'n (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be best just to drop it, but WP:DR has other options.

According to meditation, "The term meditation refers to a broad variety of practices (much like the term sports)..." So to provide sources without knowing what applies and how is most certainly original research specifically to promote a point of view that violates FRINGE and MEDRS.

This isn't an accident that we're having such a conversation, it's a feature of alternative medicine and its pseudoscience aspects: cherry pick whatever research that sounds like it might apply (or at least makes the presentation seem more scientific), without understanding the research, it's application, and context. While Chopra and his employees are free to do so, it has no bearing on this article beyond the attention (usually negative) it causes. --Ronz (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

in the approach to healing section, there is a quote from Sam Harris from the 'Future of God' debate regarding Dr Chopra's usage of QM. Why is that in this section? This section is about Dr Chopra's approach to healing. The Sam Harris quote is in response to Dr Chopra talking about consciousness and 'God', a philosophical issue so the critique is out of place in this section. SAS81 (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

SAS81 you changed the focus of the thread again. If you want to discuss a new issue, open a separate thread and be clear and concise about which specific edit you are proposing. I will not be commenting here anymore, I consider this issue closed as no clear edit was proposed. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A request

Balaenoptera musculus, would you please gain consensus for any further edits? You're adding material that is already in the article, inadvertently restoring BLP violations, and restoring material that was problematic for other reasons. Also, reception sections are standard, and it makes no sense to discuss reception before the ideas. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to take into account comments on specific parts of the article text. Please raise the issues you'd like to raise.

In the case of some of the material I'm restoring that was previously deleted from the article, I've searched the talk page archives to see if it had already been discussed - although possibly using the wrong keywords, so if you can point me to existing discussions on Talk (particularly re serious issues such as BLP violations) then please do.

Re the 'Reception' section, please see the discussion above, and WP:NOCRIT.

I won't be bound by your attempted prohibition on editing the article without your permission - per Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Balaenoptera musculus, This article falls under two arbitrations which means that collaboration and finding consensus for large scale changes is suggested in the strongest terms; deletion of content is especially a concern. While I respect the effort you've made I concur with SV here in that you have made extensive changes with out agreement to do so. If those changes have been contested, and they have, you should get agreement to both proceed further and to return your edits to the article. You don't need a single editor's permission to make changes and I don't see that SV is suggesting that, but do note the arbitrations (TM Arbitration. and Pseudoscience Arbitration) and that WP:BOLD is not be the best way forward. Contentious articles and those under arbitrations aren't edited in the way standard articles are edited. Collaboration and discussion are necessary.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC))

Collaboration means just that. I'm not seeing any problem that can't be addressed with normal WP:DR processes, that of course includes focusing on content. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I would much prefer to focus on content, rather than individual editors.

@Littleolive oil: What SlimVirgin seems to object to is me restoring deleted content which is critical of Chopra. That's not got anything to do with deletion of content - in fact I'm restoring deleted content - it's the opposite.

SV seems to be saying that a consensus discussion such as this one Talk:Deepak_Chopra#Separation_of_ideas_from_reception_violates_NPOV is not valid unless they say so. Looks like WP:OWNership behaviour to me.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Incidentally Littleolive oil, thanks for referring me to the arbitration cases. They make very interesting reading, particularly your own topic ban for tendentious editing (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Log_of_topic_bans_and_blocks) and your unsuccessful appeal. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

SV has never suggested that her version is preferred. In fact her versions have been edited and compromised versions created. She is asking for agreement on your changes which are major changes in the article structure. If you choose not to work that way, that is your choice. As for the arbitrations, do you think I would have deliberately linked you to them if I thought they really explained anything about my editing or were truthful in anyway, or if I thought you were the kind of editor who would muddy the waters of a discussion by dragging up the past. As for the appeal; the arbs missed some major issues which I later emailed a couple about, but I had no desire at that time to pursue the issues further, and did not ask for a further look at the case. And stick around, Wikipedia is interesting, and not so simple as it might seem, in the dark backwaters of contentious topic areas.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC))

"Dragging up the past"?

You (rather unwisely) brought up the topic yourself. Perhaps you thought I'd be intimidated; that's not the case.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Best not to assume. SV is, as am I, asking for discussion before you change days of work. Its clear from a comprehensive view SV edits that she has not edited per a positive to Chopra POV.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC))

What I was trying to point out was that for an editor who is not familiar with the arbitrations, and I did very deliberately link so that you would have the information, (I am not concerned about someone seeing what's in those arbitrations; they don't define me or the situations), editing on this article is not the usual. I thought it would be helpful for you to know why you are being asked to slow down and get consensus, that this isn't just some personal request; its a standard that is supposed to help us all on contentious articles. Intimidation? Sorry I don't see how the information is intimidating, and that wasn't meant in the least. Apologies if you felt intimidated.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC))

@Balaenoptera musculus, it's not about SlimVirgin trying to WP:OWN this article (she's been very reasonable about contentious issues), but rather that there are parts of this article that are very contentious and require consensus to shift without resulting in an edit war. There are plenty of parts of the article I'm frustrated with, but I'm trying to work them out here before charging ahead. Your contributions are appreciated, but also please respect the efforts of others on what's been a very touchy page. The Cap'n (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Roger. I'm ok with that.

Also, I have no objection to my changes being reverted, if the reasons are good (e.g. SV was entirely correct to revert the 'legal' section - I hadn't noticed the info had been incorporated elsewhere in the article). WP:BRD.

What's a little frustrating is being castigated by SV for not discussing on the talk page when the discussion is right there directly above.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Shermer quote

I've removed the Shermer quote from the lede. Adding such quotes to the lede section seems grossly undue, and introducing such a quote out of context makes it doubly so.

Some of the information from the source could fit with the related information already in the "Approach to healing" section. --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The quote was in the article until recently. I don't see any explanation as to why it, and quite a lot of other critical quotes, have been removed (if there is one somewhere on Talk then point me to it).

It could go in 'approach to healing' or elsewhere, doesn't have to be in the lead.

Relegating all criticism to the end of the lede doesn't feel like balance to me.

In past weeks many critical quotes have been removed and primary source quotes from Chopra introduced instead. The tone of the article has been substantially changed to favour Chopra.

Was there a consensus for this change of tone from neutral to cheerleading? Perhaps someone could point me to it.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Shermer is a professional skeptic - who is the 'we' he is referring to specifically? he can't speak for the scientific community, but he can speak for the skeptic community, that should be highlighted. SAS81 (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:SCEPTICISMisMAINSTREAM

SAS81, I'm unsurprised to find that you don't like Chopra being criticised, given you are his employee and representative on Wikipedia (SAS81: "I am an employee of Dr. Deepak Chopra and represent his direct interests on Wikipedia and elsewhere.").

The many other quotes from scientists about Chopra - lots of which have been deleted from the article recently - would seem to indicate that Shermer does speak for the scientific community when he makes that particular statement.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You need to read my updated COI. I don't mind Dr. Chopra being criticized actually, not at all. He puts himself out there and its expected he would be. It's not my job to defend him from a PR perspective, my job is to make sure that proper weight is being put to those criticisms and that the criticisms do not misrepresent Dr Chopra's actual ideas, work or research. So I have to deal with 'skeptic' organizations and literature quite often. Most skeptic literature is more like a kids 'telephone' game and spread very misleading information to the public. One does not have to dig through there sources much before a contradiction is found or usually something taken so far out of context it makes me wonder what they are actually criticizing. One of the most common is discrediting Dr. Chopra as a pseudoscientist. Most of these sources also completely confuse Dr. Chopra the physician with Deepak Chopra the celebrity or Deepak Chopra the spiritual thought leader. So yup - I'm going to be on the watch out for extreme orthodox perspectives on integrative medicine and Dr Chopra and make sure those points of view are not presented as a neutral point of view. SAS81 (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You're claiming that any sceptic's view is invalid purely by virtue of them being a declared sceptic, whereas your own view - bought and paid for by Dr Chopra - is entirely unbiased?

Absolutely hilarious.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Responding to Balaenoptera musculus concerns about the article:

As far as quotes go, the lede simply isn't a place for them, especially from critics, especially out of context.

The lede needs to both summarize and introduce the article. The second paragraph, "Chopra obtained his medical degree..." seems to have excessive detail that isn't warranted by the article and sources, and detail that simply doesn't belong in the lede at all such as the locations of past endeavors and names of non-notable people. --Ronz (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree I agree, quote doesn't have to be in the lede. I don't think all criticism should be deferred until the end of the final para, of course. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Thank you for being willing to compromise, it's appreciated. Also, just as a heads up, WP:SCEPTICISMisMAINSTREAM is probably not the best authority to rely on, it's a pet project that has no input or edits by anyone but its creator. It started out as their own user page, then they promoted it themselves to WP status. WP:FRINGE is a better authority, and says many similar things. The Cap'n (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Balaenoptera musculus - I agree that I would have a bias on the 'other' side of this argument as a matter of record - and I reveal that and am open about it and that's why I have to work harder at being more neutral than other editors because of my position. That's also why I know that WP can work, something great can happen when different viewpoints collaborate together and it's not rocket science. It's another thing however to say that a SPOV is somehow neutral and NOT an argument on one side of a debate but just a disinterested mainstream viewpoint spoken by the mainstream middle, as Barney_theBarney has written in his magnum opus referenced in this thread. So you have a bias and I have a bias. The idea is that you and I can collaborate to find a neutral way to frame a sentence that both of us could agree on. That's entirely possible, doable even. Shall we tango? SAS81 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"you have a bias." No. You have a bias toward Chopra. Please don't think your bias is similar to the viewpoints of anyone else here, or use such assumptions as a point from which to find neutrality. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Didn't say it was similar, I just said it's naive to assume that orthodox or skeptic viewpoints are neutral viewpoints in matters of a biography of a living person. SAS81 (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you don't think they are similar. Now stop talking about your assumptions of others' biases and we'll be fine.

As far as policies/guidelines go, we will follow FRINGE, MEDRS, etc which all specifically highlight that we give special prominence to orthodox (science & medicine) and skeptic (identification of pseudoscience and the like) viewpoints. --Ronz (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, Ronz, that's not exactly correct. MEDRS never mentions the words orthodox, skeptic or fringe, and the only time it mentions alternative medicine is to mention that it's held to the same standards as other medicine: "This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article, including alternative medicine." There's a premium on scientific evidence, but resisting any changes to the status quo opinion (ie. orthodoxy) is not part of MEDRS.

FRINGE, meanwhile, does not give skeptical authors more weight, but rather sets a higher burden of proof for fringe authors. Being a self-described skeptic does not make an author more prominent. Small details, but they make a difference when discussing sources as carefully as we have been. The Cap'n (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"that's not exactly correct" Let's not Wikilawyer. Such details don't make a difference because we're not discussing any specific improvements to the article but rather repeated misunderstandings of even the very basics of FRINGE, MEDRS, NPOV, COI, etc.

"Orthodox" is used to misrepresent modern, evidence-based medicine and science by those who repeatedly try to sell pseudoscience. Likewise "skeptics" is used to label and attempt to undermine those who spend the time analyzing and rebutting pseudoscience and the like. Let's not play into such misrepresentations. --Ronz (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't wikilawyering, it was a polite way of saying "you're wrong." Leaving all other terms and definitions aside, you said that FRINGE and MEDRS give special prominence to orthodox and skeptic sources. Sorry, but that's false. MEDRS set a very high standard of quality for medical sources that has nothing to do with the sources' viewpoint, but rather its qualitative methodology. FRINGE sets a higher bar for pseudoscientific viewpoints, not a lower bar for skeptical ones.

As an aside to people on all sides of this discussion, skepticism and orthodoxy are not synonyms for each other; they are two, often contradictory, branches of thought. Skepticism embraces doubt, orthodoxy embraces truth. These details do matter because when people have different perspectives on these fundamental ideas, it's very hard to come to any kind of consensus. Take a look at the countless walls of text above for evidence of that. The Cap'n (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"Leaving all other terms and definitions aside" Why are you doing so? I tried to clarify my position. Please don't ignore it, nor by doing so misrepresent me. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't intend to misrepresent you and apologize if I did. I'm trying to explain my position as well, and am certainly not ignoring yours. The other terms and definitions I set aside were discussions on "NPOV, COI, etc" that were peripheral to our discussion on FRINGE and MEDRS. It's entirely possible I misunderstood your mentioning of those policies, I was simply trying to restrict my response to the topic at hand (ie. FRINGE/MEDRS and Orthodox/Skeptic). The Cap'n (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@SAS81: "You need to read my updated COI."

• Why - have you quit your job with Chopra?

I see that your updated user page is more equivocal and less honest about your financial relationship with Chopra - that is not to your credit.

@SAS81: "I agree that I would have a bias"

• We all have our biases.

The difference between your bias and mine is that you're paid to hold your opinion, and I'm not.

You're paid to promote Chopra.

@SAS81: "It's another thing however to say that a SPOV is somehow neutral and NOT an argument on one side of a debate but just a disinterested mainstream viewpoint spoken by the mainstream middle"

• "Another thing?"

Yes, an honest thing. Science is sceptical. It's built-in to the scientific method.

We had this thing called The Enlightenment (don't know if you've heard of it), since then the Dark Ages have come to an end and the use of magical thinking to separate others from their money is now frowned upon.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Fuzzy Numbers and Reliability

There are a couple of spots where very specific numbers are cited, and I haven't been able to trace them back through sources. Paul Offit states that Chopra grossed $20 million and charges $10,000 for anti-aging products. First, I can't find any mention of those numbers in the source listed (which is tricky as it includes 3 sources), and secondly, how he came up with those numbers (tax returns, Chopra's catalog, etc). I'd appreciate any help clearing this up.

Whatever questions I have about Offit's numbers, he's a reliable source otherwise on the medical perspectives on Chopra. On the other hand, philosopher Robert Todd Carroll is prominently cited as a source on Chopra, dismissing Chopra's position on aging as biomedically unscientific and also referencing his finances without sources. While I can see the importance of discussing these points, Carroll does not seem to be a reliable source. He's not a physician, has no medical background, no scientific training and is not relevant to the topic in any way other than having written about Chopra in the "Skeptic's Dictionary", a tertiary source that should not be cited so prominently in any case per WP:TERTIARY. His reliability is cast into further doubt due to factual errors about Chopra, such as the assertion that the Chopra Center is a "faith-healing center" that employs no medical professionals and that Deepak Chopra does not possess a medical license (p.47). All of these statements have been proven false (a few times on this page alone) and can be verified through simple fact-checking of government records. Whatever his contributions elsewhere, Carroll does not appear to be a reliable authority on Chopra (due to being a tertiary source, including factual errors and having no background in biomedicine) and I propose removing his statements. If someone can find a more reliable, secondary source that says the same thing, that'd be ideal. The Cap'n (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Carroll is a reliable source for fringe topics. --Ronz (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback, but that's just an assertion. My specific reasons for arguing his current referencing is not reliable are:

1. He is a tertiary source being cited by name as an authority for very specific aspects of Chopra's life, in direct contravention of WP:PSTS.
2. He has no scientific or medical training, yet is being used qualitatively to analyze Chopra's medical legitimacy (or lack thereof).
3. His work does not include citations for important data and is riddled with factual errors.

Carroll is an appropriate source for broad statements, such as the "controversial nature of Chopra's work" or something like that, per WP:TERTIARY, but he's not acceptable as an in-text qualitative authority on Chopra. We need reliable, professional, qualified secondary sources for specific analysis. The Cap'n (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not just an assertion, it's a statement from doing a bit of checking against our policies and their application. One simply has to look to see he's been repeatedly found to be a reliable source at RSN and is used in hundreds of other articles, including ones very similar to this.

I don't understand how the specific reasons given make a case for Carroll not being reliable, nor how they derive from any Wikipedia policies. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm just waiting to get sign off to post more on this, but Paul Offits numbers are being denied and refuted left and right by Dr Chopra's accountants. Certain things, such as Chopra center selling anti aging products for $10k a year are also being denied and it's making a few people upset on my end that this is being used to represent Chopra Center. I am waiting on what kind of sources I can provide but these statements on his financials I can confirm are all misleading information. Ronz I get that Carroll is used as a reliable source by suspicious and skeptic editors on subject matter covered in 'The Skeptics Dictionary' - but if you were a researcher investigating just one of the topics he purports to report on, his credibility would sink faster than an elephant in quicksand. He is a passionate critic and not to consider that he has a natural bias towards the subject matter would be irresponsible editing, research, or journalism. SAS81 (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

He's a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

He may be reliable to show the skeptic position, but he is (clearly) not reliable to report facts about Dr Chopra's ideas and especially Dr Chopra's financial status. SAS81 (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

He is not used to report facts about his financial status. His statements are specifically attributed to him. "Paul Offit stated, writing in 2013, that Chopra's business grossed around $20 million annually, built on the sale of courses, books, videos, herbal supplements and massage oils; a year's worth of anti-aging products can cost up to $10,000." If there are alternative or differing views, we can add them as well. Hipocrite (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Alternative or differing views that are worthy of mention per NPOV that is. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ronz, my apologies on the assertion comment, I didn't mean to imply you hadn't considered Carroll's qualifications. For clarity's sake I'll include explanations of my concerns in the same format as above:

1. WP:RELIABLE says that "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." Citing Carroll's views on specific parts of Chopra's work is certainly detailed discussion.

2. WP:RS/MC states that "Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies." Carroll is none of these things. As a philosopher Carroll is certainly qualified to discuss skepticism in general, but he is not a reliable source on the scientific validity of Chopra.

3. WP:RS also warns against including sources that have factual inaccuracies, which we've established Carroll has with Chopra (errors= Chopra's medical license, the Chopra Center's lack of medical credentials, unsourced financial reports, etc).

As I've said, Carroll is a fine source for many other fringe topics and is reliable for broad statements about skepticism, but he's not a secondary source, not a scientific expert and not appropriate to be cited as such. Analysis should be limited to reliable secondary sources. I'm not here to critique Carroll or his referencing elsewhere, just on the way he's being used here.

@SAS81, if you actually do have concrete information or sources on this data, that would be helpful to examine as I haven't seen any reliable info from anyone on these numbers. The Cap'n (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence that Carroll is inaccurate about anything, merely outdated. You allege that it is inaccurate because we now know he is licensed. There is no evidence that he was licensed in 2003. There is strong evidence, in fact, he was not - see [16]. Hipocrite (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

We're going to continue this? Hundreds of Wikipedia articles use Carroll as a source, and he's been brought to RSN many times. That's pretty wide consensus. It's going to take a huge amount of work to overturn that consensus.

Carroll is a secondary source, and a well-known and respected academic source at that. He's exactly the type of source we should be using and using more. Pity he's not focused more of his writing on topics directly applicable to this article.

Carroll most certainly is a reliable source on the scientific validity of Chopra. Pseudoscience is one of Carroll's specialties.

Carroll provides sources, so I think it safe to assume that the material is sourced and accurate at least as far some information may have become outdated. It's not our place to do original research to try to discredit opinions that some don't like, rather it's a violation of OR and NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand The Skeptics Dictionary is a prominent piece of skeptic literature - it's just hasn't been shown to be reliable when it comes to biographical facts about Dr Chopra or facts about what Dr Chopra's ideas are. At best it signifies an orthodox point of view and if used as a source in a BLP it should be with caution and fact checked with other sources. And it's not just about what it prints, its also about what it omits. It omits facts that would contradict what's in it. It doesn't look to satisfy neutrality, it looks to satisfy what its audience wants to read, a SPOV about a subject matter. By definition it's contrarian and therefore not neutral, especially when Dr Chopra has had a dispute with skeptics for 15 years or more. SAS81 (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you personally don't like it as a reference.

"fact checked with other sources" No. That would be a SYN and NPOV violation, as pointed out. --Ronz (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

when are you going to get it???? " At best it signifies an orthodox point of view" - that is EXACTLY the types of sourcing and framing of topics that we are SUPPOSED to use. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You might as well have said "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" I'm never going to 'get it' the way you want me too when a source your suggesting is reputable is printing misleading or factually incorrect statements about Dr. Chopra that any sane and rational person can see and verify for themselves. The skeptical narrative of Dr. Chopra is NOT the mainstream narrative of Dr. Chopra. It's ludicrous to suggest it is and it's worrisome that suspicious editors can't tell the difference. SAS81 (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

A source is only reliable per the content it supports. Skeptics dictionary may be verifiable as a source but its reliability must be decided per Chopra. If we have information that indicates Carroll is not accurate then we are bound to either state Carroll has asserted something but his assertion has been refuted or we don't use Carroll at all. There's a point where common sense comes into writing as good article. We don't knowingly put inaccurate content into an article ,and most especially we don't in a BLP. So that all editors can see Carroll's allegations, I'd post them here along with the supposedly accurate content so the two can be compared? (Littleolive oil (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC))

And that is all dependent upon reliable sources presenting information counter to what Carroll has published. Until such is provided, this discussion is entirely moot-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't have to counter Carroll we have to show his reliability. That may include counter information or it may not. I'd add that each instance of content we want to use from Skeptic's dictionary must be verified as reliable for the specific content in our article. No source is carte blanche reliable.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC))

I think we're banging our heads against a wall a bit more than we need to. I provided 3 reasons above why Carroll is an inappropriate source (WP:TERTIARY, WP:RS/MC, and WP:RS errors); 1 was argued, 1 was briefly mentioned and 1 went completely unaddressed. I'm willing to accept that the RS inaccuracies in Carroll are a result of being out of date, but its tertiary nature was only asserted against and WP:RS/MC was never refuted at all. It seems to me that the Skeptic's Dictionary, as a compilation of topic articles based on other secondary sources, is a tertiary source (and mentions in its own foreword that it is not a balanced source). As for WP:RS/MC, there is a heated discussion on this page about whether a broad opinion by President Clinton on Chopra in Reception is acceptable given his lack of medical qualifications, yet we're okay with including blocks of text about a philosopher making claims about the medical validity of Chopra's work throughout the article? Other than being cited by many other skeptics and being interested in the topic, how is Carroll qualified to weigh medical claims? If his book is based on scientific writings that debunk Chopra, cite those instead. The Cap'n (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm making a simple point. I may not be making it simply though. :O) We can't say a source that is verifiable as a source which this source is, is carte blanche reliable or unreliable for anything unless we know specifically what we want to use it for. Sources are only reliable per the specific content we want to use in the article. What that means is, look at the content and then editors can decide if what they have is reliably sourced content; that is that the source they are using is reliable per that content More generalized discussion won't translate to anything concrete. Anyway, I'll leave you to it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC))

Agreed, Littleolive oil. Being cited for other content does not mean it is a RS for this content, especially given the WP:MEDRS nature of medical authority required for the claims he's making here. The Cap'n (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually our whole WP:V is based on the premise that mainstream, major publishing house works are presumptively reliable sources WP:RS - there would be no Wikipedia without that. If you wish to assert that any particular work from a major publishing house or part of a work from a major publishing house does NOT qualify as a reliable source for a particular claim in a particular article- the onus is on you to provide evidence that WP:RS is not met. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This thread is surreal. How can Carroll's work be possibly be a unreliable source for what (as we put) "Robert Carroll writes ... "? I think people are wanting to doubt The Truth™ of what he writes, but that is another matter. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:Verifiability "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Until and unless specific content is identified along with the source which "directly supports the contribution" whether the source is reliable or not for that content cannot be discerned. Onus is on the editor adding the content to show the content is verifiable; and he does this by showing the content can be sourced to a RS.

• Discussion of the specific content and the source in relation to that content might bring some closure here on contentious issues. (Littleolive oil (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC))

We say Carroll wrote something, and source it. Are you arguing he didn't write these things? Surreal. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not discussing the source here. I'm pointing out policy because policy interpretation is not accurate. Carrol is not an automatic RS for everything as has been suggested here and onus is on the editor adding content to show its verifiable and a RS not the other way around. I'm suggesting that if the specific content could be identified and the source identified for that content how that content is placed in the article will be easier to discuss. Misunderstanding of policy and guideline cannot be used as a means to support the source and content. Until that is clarified and the content and source identified clearly how can decisions be made. Apparently an editor is contesting the source for whatever the content is.

I am not posting an opinion on Carroll at this time . But I'd suggest that if Carroll is shown to be wrong or outdated the procedure is to either not use the source as non - reliable or to use the source and use other RSs that add the suggested accurate information, in-line citing the sources so the content is not in Wikipedia's voice. That's as much as I can say. The rest is up to those adding or discounting the content.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC))

I can't follow this mess so someone explain to me what is being proposed please. Carrol's book is a WP:RS and the statement is attributed to him in the section Teaching and other roles, there is no issue here. Is this whole discussion about the sentence attributed to him in the section Ageing? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I certainly agree he wrote those things, Alexbrn, I'm not arguing that (and yes, Gaba_p, this massive wall is about one source in one section. Welcome to the madness that is this page). The RS issue is that Robert Todd Carroll is being used to refute Chopra's alt/int-med aging positions as scientifically unsound, yet Carroll does not meet WP:MEDRS. We can't get around that by tacking on a "Carroll says..." The fact that it's in an encyclopedic section on a medical issue indicates it's a professional medical opinion. There have been lengthy discussions about whether Bill Clinton could be cited for his opinion on Chopra given his lack of a medical background, and Carroll is in an even more demanding position. Clinton was speaking to Chopra's popular perception, Carroll is speaking to Chopra's medical claims. Carroll has no scientific training, no medical background and no qualifications to determine medical validity. Being a frequently cited author does not change these lack of qualifications. Regarding statements about current medical positions, WP:MEDRS says:

Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.

Carroll clearly does not meet any of these MEDRS standards, so we can include his non-scientific opinions of Chopra in Reception, but cannot use his refutations of Chopra's medical validity. If someone discovers a medical degree or peer-reviewed journal he wrote, or has an actual medical source, feel free to put that in. To sum up, Carroll does not meet WP:MEDRS. Please do not revert unless you can show that he does. Let's just find an actual medical source that says the same thing. The Cap'n (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A medical source isn't required for commenting on fringe beliefs and their implications. --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn, this is a topic currently under discussion and I've respectfully asked that reversions be explained by how Carroll meets MEDRS. I don't want to edit war, but you've reverted a policy-driven deletion without addressing the policy. Please explain how Carroll meets MEDRS or I feel I need to remove the citation.

@Ronz, where is it written that MEDRS doesn't apply to Fringe matters? The topic of treating aging is clearly medically-related, that's the issue people have with Chopra's take on it. Everything in WP:FRINGE states that there is a higher standard for sources relating to anything fringe, not a lower standard for representing scientific viewpoints. If there was a source by some doctor of theology saying that Chopra's views on aging were scientifically sound and medically evidenced, would that be exempt from MEDRS too? Anything referencing the medical validity of a topic must meet MEDRS, that just policy. The fact that Carroll is criticizing Chopra on a controversial topic doesn't mean that he can be portrayed as an expert on that topic (aging/medicine) he's commenting on. His opinion is a personal one with no academic or professional weight, and is not acceptable for this use. We need to find a better, scientifically based source. The Cap'n (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Carroll is a reliable source for Carroll's view, n'est-ce pas? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not arguing that Carroll's argument is not being portrayed accurately, but rather that by including his refutation of Chopra's medical positions in the Aging section, we are portraying Carroll as a medical expert. WP:MEDRS describes this exact scenario and states that when referencing (either to support or debunk) medical or scientific validity, a medical expert source is needed. Carroll is not. Thus we either need to remove the refutation or include one that meets the requirement of MEDRS. We can include Carroll's views on Chopra's finances in that section, and reference his general distrust of Chopra in the Reception section, but he is not a medical expert and it's not appropriate to cite him when refuting medical positions. The Cap'n (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:MEDRS applies to that sourced statement. I support the re-addition of content done by Alexbrn, you shouldn't remove content while it's being discussed and even worst if there's no consensus to do so. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 20:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I have not removed Alexbrn's content. See above for why MEDRS applies to claims of medical/scientific validity. The Cap'n (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say you removed "Alexbrn's content, I said you removed the content that is being discussed as you did here.

This "ageing is simply learned behaviour" and this "aging can be accelerated, for example by a person engaging in "cynical mistrust"" are not a "medical position" so there's no requirement that a it be refuted by a "medical expert". It's simply nonsense and the refutation is well sourced and clearly attributed. There's no violation of WP:MEDRS at all. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Before you solidify that position, please consider that if we state that Chopra's positions on things like aging are subject to nothing but the standards of an opinion, then any basic RS would be able to be cited in support of that position too, of which even WP:FRINGE would allow. I'm trying to set the highest standard of sourcing possible, and am wary of lowering it. The Cap'n (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a shift of burden followed by an attempt to ignoring the burden altogether. It's the type of thing that those who promote fringe viewpoints do. Let's not waste time with such nonsense. --Ronz (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS: "This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article, including alternative medicine." Content related to health or medical issues requires MEDRS compliant sources.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC))

What medical claim is being made? there is a claim about a cost of treatments being peddled, but that is not a medical claim - its an economics claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I see the point. Like I said, it's a reversal of burden. I think the guideline needs clarification. If we tried to hold to this, then we couldn't mention any of Chopra's health beliefs at all since none are backed by MEDRS sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The Cap'n & Littleolive oil we've come to a full stop here since you claim WP:MEDRS applies in a way other editors do not agree it applies. Any of you is welcome to take the issue over to WP:RSN or open an WP:RfC. Otherwise this is the end of this discussion for me. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Actually I haven't claimed anything. I quoted MEDRS, and summarized it. I think how it applies here has to be discussed. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC))

It seems to me that WP:FRINGE is about coverage of any idea "not broadly supported by scholarship in its field". It gives guidelines about how to present these fringe ideas alongside the equivalent mainstream ideas. Therefore the mainstream must be represented by sourced material that clearly represents "scholarship in its field", i.e. in the case of medical claims about ageing and life expectancy, by WP:MEDRS sources on those topics. If these are the mainstream ideas, it shouldn't be hard to find mainstream sources. --Nigelj (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nigelj, we're using sources in the Ideas sections to debunk Chopra's positions under FRINGE, but those sources (Carroll especially) aren't qualified to establish the scholarly medical mainstream in the first place. My argument all along has been that if these are really such thoroughly debunked positions, there must be sources out there that meet MEDRS. Just because a skeptical author is popular doesn't mean he's qualified to be presented as a medical authority. I find it hard to believe that anyone here thinks that directly quoting someone speaking to the "unscientific" nature of a physician's position on aging in an encyclopedia is not presenting that source as a medical/scientific authority. The Cap'n (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you agree that the burden should be reversed. Take it up at the proper forum or an RfC here if you need clarification on how the policies and guidelines apply. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

People here seem to be having trouble understanding what I said. I never said that I think that the article should say that Chopra can make you live forever. I said that Chopra's statements regarding ageing and life expectancy are clearly fringe statements, and so need to be contrasted properly against mainstream scholarship in the relevant field. What I'm complaining about is that Carroll's polemical remarks are an extremely poor representation of mainstream medical scholarship in the field of mind-body interaction and the placebo effect. A scholarly encyclopedia article would reference mainstream MEDRS sources at that point, not a dictionary of "definitions, arguments, and essays on subjects supernatural, occult, paranormal, and pseudoscientific."[17] I'm saying it's a prime opportunity for some scholarship, and it's being wasted. Let's find the MEDRS sources that prove that there are no medical benefits whatsoever to meditation, positive attitudes, and so on. --Nigelj (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

In my understanding, no research has been conducted into Chopra's particular brand of therapy - and we could not generalize from other types of therapy as they may not be strictly equivalent. His statements about ageing are, yes, clearly fringe and Carroll directly addresses them. Carroll is a reliable source for Carroll's view, and we do not need a WP:MEDRS source to present Carroll's view as such; if anything, WP:PARITY would give us flexibility in sourcing to contextualize fringe statements even if we had a less good source than Carroll here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposals for Reception section

Someone took President Clinton's quote about Dr. Chopra out of receptions area, not sure why that's pretty notable. Also the reception section is comprised of 4 paragraphs and 3 of them are devoted to criticisms. He is a global celebrity, so we should have this section flushed out a bit more. I'm going to be adding some sources here in the next few days for editors to consider. I also think we should consider putting the whole 'guru' issue in this section too. the lede paragraph reads very awkward right now. If Chopra rejects the term, why is WP giving it to him? Now we have created a drama that needs to be explained. Good luck with that one. SAS81 (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

For fuck sake is your memory less than 2 hours long? We have been over and over and over Clinton. He has no valid background in declaring anything about medical practices. It is WP:UNDUE emphasis and an attempt to give inappropriate WP:WEIGHT to someone whose opinion on the subject is not a WP:VALID representation of the mainstream experts. If you have some quote from Clinton on a topic where Clinton is an actual expert- like how Chopra makes money on the talk circuit- then it might be appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom but I believe that sort of language is more for Reddit and less advised for Wikipedia, please withdraw. Not only withdraw the nasty word, but withdraw your entire comment, as it's out of line. Clinton's quote is not being used to support any medical claim, it's being used to show the level of reception Dr Chopra has for the reception section itself and your rebuttal is an aspersion and straw man. If a living person gets an accolade from a standing US president in an address to a foreign nation, even if it is an opinion, there is absolutely no WP policy that says we should omit that fact that Dr Chopra was acknowledged by a sitting US president. Your tone is disruptive to Wikipedia editing. SAS81 (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

First thing, TheRedPenOfDoom, your vulgarity is unwarranted and inappropriate. As someone who's been on the receiving end of more than a little profanity, I think a retraction is in order. Secondly, maybe you should review what this request is about. The reception section is not just about medical experts, but Chopra's popular reception. More than half of the figures cited in the Reception section as critical of Chopra have no weight as experts in medicine (journalists, English professors, sociologists, political activists). Also, if Robert Todd Carroll, who has no medical qualifications whatsoever, can be hailed as an authority on Chopra's medical validity, then the former leader of the free world's opinion on Chopra as a person should be valid! The Cap'n (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

No. I will not withdraw. vulgarities are the least SAS81 should expect for their tendentious editing. its absolutely offensive to me that volunteer wikipedia editors must waste their time because a paid hack is bringing up yet again a promotional piece that has been multiple demonstrated to be inappropriate. if PRarchivist withdraws their most recent attempt to glam onto inappropriate use of Clinton, then I will consider.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD - Discretionary sanctions govern you just as much as they govern me. This includes casting aspersions and I'm sure it also covers vulgar language. At least if you're going to do that, at least throw in an actual valid argument. You're argument is not a genuine one and you're veiling your bias on the subject matter with a WP Policy that is far from being applicable. This is not an article on alternative medicine - it's a BLP and once more you already know this. I challenge any neutral editor to explain the rationale of not allowing a public quote made in a public speech about a living person by a sitting US president is somehow not allowed because of MEDRS or FRINGE. Trying to omit facts about a biography because your afraid they give validity to the subject is the very definition of conflict of interest and biased editing and it's not working. Once more, these kind of tactics are pushing quality editors like Slim Virgin away from the article. SAS81 (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

No, TheRedPenOfDoom, profanity speaks to your conduct, not anyone else's, and on an article Talk Page is a direction violation of WP:IUC 1.A. Claiming extreme provocation is not an excuse here, especially since this is a perfectly fair issue to raise. You've provided no reason why the other 6 non-medical opinions in Reception are perfectly valid, but Clinton must meet MEDRS in order to express his personal (not "medical") opinion of Chopra. Chopra himself is not a medical claim, he's a person, and people besides doctors (and critics) are allowed to have their opinions about him represented if they're notable enough. From your reaction I understand this obviously strikes a cord with you, but it's a pretty standard request and your refusal to listen to reason amounts to WP:IDHT. The Cap'n (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree TheRedPenOfDoom's wording is inappropriate. I also agree that SAS81 is disruptive to this article and this talk page. An occasional outburst against a long disruption is to be expected. However, it might be best to put some restraint on the disruption. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

what am I doing specifically that is disruptive? SAS81 (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm responding on SAS81's talk page for the time being. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

There's no good reason not to have Bill Clinton's quote there, it's a RS, it's relevant to the section (Reception) and there's other, less significant opinions already listed. Not to mention the Clinton quote is already included in the citation that's still there. I honestly don't see why Clinton was removed in the first place but foreign leaders, English professors and activists' opinions were left alone. Let's see if an edit can go unreverted for more than an hour.... The Cap'n (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

there are plenty of reasons why the clinton quote is unacceptable WP;UNDUE / WP:VALID / WP:RS - Clinton is not anywhere near a reliable source for identifying what "pioneering medicine" looks like. giving his promotional spiel space is WP:UNDUE weight from an opinion that is not a WP:VALID assessor. That Chopra has bedazzled celebrities into treating him as a guru may be a valid point to include, but we would treat that as "celebrities like X, Y, and Clinton, treat Chopra as a guru" (third party source) and not via WP:OR inclusion of gushy promotional quotes from the said bedazzled celebrity followers ( "it's being used to show the level of reception Dr Chopra has " )-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was discussed. It's simple flattery. It's suitable for marketing and public relations material, but not an encyclopedia article. --Ronz (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

So why are Gorbachev and Landesman RS? It does seem like POTUS should be considered as more than just a celebrity who is "bedazzled" by Chopra (how is that linked to "guru"). Also, we can't have it both ways, if we say that the President of the US is not a valid source to to determine a figure's place in alternative medicine, we can't have a philosopher (Robert Todd Carroll) telling us what are medically valid positions. Clinton is at least as valid a source as Carroll, and saying we can keep Carroll's far more specific but unsupported MEDRS claim but must exclude Clinton's comment is as clear a double standard as I've seen. TRPoD's comments make it clear that the issue is not the source, but rather the fact that it was a compliment as opposed to a criticism. I've tried to find middle ground throughout these discussions, but this kind of double standard bias is disturbing and inappropriate. The Cap'n (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Gorbachev and Landesman shouldn't be there either. I know that Clinton does not have the appropriate background to be making claims about "medical pioneers" - therefore he was removed. Gorby may or may not have the background to be making assessments about philosophy. If you wish to make the case that he doesnt. I am all ears. Carroll is not making a MEDRS claim, Carroll is an expert in the area of quackery. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is an implied endorsement of Chopra's methods? I can see that as being problematic, Clinton is just another layman consumer of medical products, same as all of us. OTOH, the fact that Clinton has seen fit to use the word "pioneer" is significant to a BLP. If he said that about me, I would want it included in my biography. Maybe a more noncommittal, neutral wording might work? Rumiton (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"If he said that about me" Everyone likes flattery, especially when it can be used for self-promotion. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Flattery is a loaded, nasty kind of word, which gets us nowhere. Recognition might be a better and more neutral choice. Rumiton (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

President Clinton was flattering the Indian people in a State Dinner speech in New Delhi. As is the custom he heaped it on. Deepak is named as a "pioneer". That says little if you think of it. Alfred Packer the cannibal prospector, who is surely notable, could have been called "a pioneer" of Colorado gold mining. It would not automatically make him an effective gold-miner. Anyway, the text of the speech makes it clear that President Clinton is using Deepak as an example of a notable Indian American. Although it should be mentioned that there are many Indian people that do not feel Deepak is such a good example because of his whitewashing and selling of Hindu practices. . ie: Dr. Aseem Shukla co-founder of the Hindu American Foundation - who called Chopra an exponent of the art of "How to Deconstruct, Repackage and Sell Hindu Philosophy Without Calling it Hindu!". This is in Chopra's page isn't it?

Here is the Clinton speech excerpt for anyone that has not read it: "My country has been enriched by the contributions of more than a million Indian-Americans, from Vinod Dahm, the father of the Pentium chip, to Deepak Chopra, pioneer of alternative medicine, to Sabeer Bhatia, creator of the free-mail system Hotmail, the free E-mail system." "So we have gotten a lot from India." Clinton did not say pioneer of "integrative" medicine by the way he said alternative medicine. Kevin Trudeau is also a pioneer of alternative medicine.Ptarmigander (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Since this is in a proposals for the reception section I think Dr. Aseem Shukla of the Hindu American Foundation and a leader in the Hindu American community speaks for many: "The contention that yoga's foundation is "in consciousness alone," thereby preceding Hinduism, is a sad demonstration of the extent Chopra and other Hindu philosophical profiteers will go to disassociate themselves from Hinduism." It seems to me that according to the Hindu American Foundation Deepak Chopra is a profiteer sanitizing Hinduism to make a profit on the New Age market. That is reception.Ptarmigander (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

When you say he "whitewashed" and "sanitized" Hinduism, you are implying that Hinduism in itself is a somehow dark or dirty thing. I am seeing quite a lot of very POV terminology on both sides of this debate. I think some more effort towards neutrality would be helpful. Rumiton (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you are reacting to the idea of the words and have no concept of the actual cultural problem. How dare you claim I am implying that Hinduism is something dirty? That is much closer to Deepak's position and it is well documented. Whitewash and sanitize are not my words. They are commonly used to describe prejudicial treatment of Hindus and Hindu culture. ie

“They’re completely whitewashing history and sanitizing Hinduism,” said Anu Mandavilli, a volunteer for the Bay Area-based group Friends of South Asia."

These terms are regularly used regarding exchanges between Deepak Chopra and Aseem Shukla of the Hindu American Foundation. example:"Aseem Shukla last month tangled with Chopra over the whitewashing of yoga."-Newsweek Since it appears Deepak himself has admitted it. “The reason I sanitized it is there's a lot of junk in [Hinduism],” -"explains Deepak Chopra"- and the quote given above by dr. Shukla explains Deepak's business practices so well (accurately not negatively)I think it should definitely be included in Reception. The Hindu American Foundation represents a lot of people.Ptarmigander (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom, Ptarmigander, so let me get this straight:

• President Clinton referring to Chopra as a "pioneer in alternative medicine" requires MEDRS, but philosopher Robert Todd Carroll's description of Chopra's position on the conditions affecting aging as "a false hope based on an unscientific imagination" is in no way related to medical or scientific arguments and does not need to meet MEDRS.
• Positive (or even non-critical) statements from RS about Chopra are "flattery" and "promotion" that should be removed (Gorbachev, Landesman). Arguments that we need a more balanced Reception section leads to suggestions for even more critical statements in Reception, despite there already being 3X as many critical statements as positive or neutral statements. One would think Chopra was almost universally hated from glancing at his Reception section, rather than being a popular celebrity and best-selling author (not suggesting we include "best-selling" at this time).
• Critical sources, even those with no qualifications other than selling books on skepticism (Carroll) are considered neutral, reliable sources on medical validity, while President Clinton is unreliable due to the (extremely OR) idea that he was only complimenting Chopra in order to pander to an Indian crowd.
• The article can make statements that Ayurveda (one aspect of Chopra's approach) has no medical utility, but cannot say that meditation may have some benefits (another aspect of Chopra's approach, and one that is well supported even on WP).
• When I argued that Pres. Clinton has at least an equivalent significance as the other sources speaking well of Chopra, the response was that I could either exclude Clinton specifically or remove the other positive statements. This is a prime example of the "You lose/I win" style of negotiation.

In summary, it's becoming very clear that there is a significant and unjustifiable double standard on this page, particularly regarding Reception. Critical statements on specific medical positions are exempt from MEDRS because they're focused on medical "quackery" (which is apparently something people with no background in medicine or science are able to officially designate, despite there being nothing in MEDRS or FRINGE to support that position), but broad statements of a high reputation are subject to such tight restrictions that the POTUS does not qualify. Positive remarks are unacceptable and suggested for deletion, but negative remarks are encouraged in greater numbers. Descriptions of Chopra's work in negative tones is NPOV, but including contextual material that offers any legitimacy whatsoever is decried as violating NPOV, FRINGE, UNDUE and so on. Protests that these practices themselves violate WP:BLP have been summarily dismissed.

There is a double standard that has developed where sources that are critical to Chopra are held to a far lower standard than sources that are positive about him. The justification for this seems to be a highly OR opinion that if the mainstream opinion is that Chopra is a quack, anything that doesn't describe him negatively is not mainstream and thus UNDUE. There's little I can do to negotiate with that kind of position. I'm starting to think we need some outside, neutral help here. The Cap'n (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

No double standard. Just application of FRINGE and SOAP in an effort to write an encyclopedia article rather than promoting Chopra, his fringe theories, and alternative medicine. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure why I am blanketed in with TRPOD on this issue. I feel immediately branded as a negatory. I believe things are very negotiable. I think that President Clinton mentioned Deepak as a notable Indian American. He is notable because of the volume of alternative medicine and pop spirituality products that he generates. Profiteering is not negative per se. It is often considered the American way. Deepak says that he is proud of it.

My concern since this is a section on proposals for reception is that the reception of Deepak Chopra by the Hindu American community as voiced by the Hindu American Foundation is that Dr. Chopra is profiting by sanitizing Hinduism. Chopra seems to have admitted to this sanitization and he has stated repeatedly that he is not ashamed of how he gets his money so where is the negative exactly? This seems a very good addition to the reception section. I have nothing to do with other already existing parts of the reception section and I support an accurate portrayal of the subject.Ptarmigander (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ptarmigander, I'm not trying to brand anyone as negative themselves, you or TRPoD. I may disagree with each of you on a few approaches, but I respect everyone here for volunteering their time (except SAS81 for obvious reasons) to try to improve WP. I tagged you in the message because I had read your post carefully and part of my own was in response to it. I absolutely believe and trust that everyone here is willing to negotiate, otherwise WP wouldn't grow. I do feel that a double standard has evolved despite everyone's best intentions, but this is a matter I'm eager to work with people to address, certainly including you. Thank you for discussing your thoughts and I apologize if I accidentally misrepresented you at any point. The Cap'n (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

List of Straw man arguments on Clinton

• Clinton is promoting Deepak Chopra, therefore , if Wikipedia mentions the quote, Wikipedia will be promoting Deepak Chopra.

strawman. This is factually incorrect and original research The statement was NOT a personal statement made by Bill Clinton, it was a statement made by POTUS speaking to a foreign dignitary. Sitting presidents do not make personal statements in speeches and do not ‘promote’ US citizens or their books.

• Clinton is not qualified to make a claim that he is a pioneer of alternative medicine.

strawman. POTUS is qualified to make ANY statement because POTUS has executive teams of the most impressive academics in the country who must vet every single thing POTUS says so POTUS has credibility when he speaks on numerous issues he may personally have no expertise in. Common sense. POTUS also mentions the mapping of the human genome and the landing of the Mars Rover..why? because they are NOTABLE and that’s his job, to address what is notable in society in speeches. This is POTUS, not OPRAH.

Additionally, the claim is that he is a ‘pioneer of alternative medicine’....is that far off the mark? If Deepak Chopra was not notable in the way Clinton claims, POTUS by definition never would have bothered to make the comment.

• Only criticisms should go in the receptions section, and any favorable comment should be disregarded as promotional. SAS81 is only interested in promoting Dr Chopra.

POTUS statement is probably a hallmark of any biography. To omit a POTUS statement from a biography has no historical or literary merit whatsoever as an argument. It only serves one purpose, to decrease the amount of credibility the article gives to Dr. Chopra. POTUS does give Dr Chopra credibility, yes. That credibility is a fact and yes I want that represented in the article. I believe it is very misleading for any editor to continue to claim ad nauseaum that I have an agenda and a bias and they fail to see that their own personal viewpoints are twisting a WP policy torturously towards their own agenda and viewpoint. I would support bringing in some more opinions. What makes it difficult is quality editors like SlimVirgin are turned off of this level of Fringe warrior pushback logic so it may be hard to bring them in. Capn and Olive you are saints for sticking with this like you are. SAS81 (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Bill Clinton's comment is worth including in the article body, not the lede (and attributed, of course) provided it is covered in some reasonable published source. What is the source being proposed for this? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

(Add) Hunting around, it seems from this source that both Bill and Hillary are fans, and that Chopra has even slept at the White House. The source also says Chopra thinks the magic of Merlin is real, which is something I've not seen mentioned before. Really? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@SAS81: "I believe it is very misleading for any editor to continue to claim ad nauseaum that I have an agenda and a bias and they fail to see that their own personal viewpoints are twisting a WP policy torturously towards their own agenda and viewpoint."

• Nonsense.

The fact is that you are paid to promote Chopra.

Other editors (on both sides of this dispute) are holding their opinions in good faith - you are paid to hold yours. Your dishonesty in pretending that you are no more biased than any other editor is contemptible.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn, the source I found that was already in the article's reference list was Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton, 2000-2001, January 1 to June 26, 2000, Government Printing Office, 2001, p. 508. It seems like a pretty solid RS. While the source you mentioned has certainly got a lot of interesting statements, "Makers and Takers: How Conservatives Do All the Work While Liberals Whine..." doesn't seem like the most neutral or reliable source for the information. It only references Chopra in order to deride the Clintons for being foolish, alongside accusations that they read the novel the Celestine Prophecy (a work of fiction Schweiser denounces for being, well, fictional). I'm open to using Schweiser to support other statements, but feel that using him as a sole source is unwise. That said, I too would love to hear more about Merlin! The Cap'n (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Guru lead

Ronz. I like your change a lot! It seems a fair compromise.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC))

Thanks! I hope others agree. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ronz, I agree with Littleolive oil that this seems like a reasonable compromise and doesn't disrupt the flow of the article. The Cap'n (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I too concur Ronz - I think taking it out of Wikipedia's voice was all it ever needed. Thanks for taking that bold step. SAS81 (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

skepdic-web ref fixed

I'm having a hard time tracking it down. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Found it! --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Move criticism up lede - we're not here to advertise Chopra

OK, so right now the lede defers all criticism until the second half of the final para.

Hidden away nicely, despite the medical/scientific consensus on Dr Chopra, which is very clear.

I think that we should move some of the criticism up, so that the start of the lede reflects Wikipedia policies on WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT.

The job of this article is not to advertise Chopra or his businesses.

Right now it reads as though it were - perhaps because of the changes which have taken place in the past few weeks due to Dr Chopra's exhortations to his supporters to come to Wikipedia and bias the article in his favour ("See you on the page!"), and to the influence of Dr Chopra's employee User:SAS81 here on the talk page ("I am an employee of Dr. Deepak Chopra and represent his direct interests on Wikipedia and elsewhere").

I don't believe these pro-Chopra changes have the consensus of the wider Wikipedia community behind them.

JW's response to a recent petition on Change.org concerning 'holistic approaches to healing' may be relevant:

No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful.

Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Move criticism up lede?

Should we move criticism of Dr Chopra up the lede? Right now it's in the second half of the final para. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as proposer, per argument above. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose What I would support is moving Reception to the Lead, rather than the non-NPOV approach of "criticism". An NPOV description should summarize both the views from academics, scientists, experts, etc. that he is basically making stuff up to cash-in on ignorance, and the views of his followers and holistic medicine supporters. I may believe that anyone that thinks chi energy (or whatever) can cure cancer is gullible, but that doesn't prevent me from documenting the debate and including viewpoints that myself (and most any Wikipedian since we tend to be well-educated) are naturally going to disagree with. CorporateM (Talk) 14:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd also support that suggestion. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support "supporters and holistic medicine supporters" < "academics, scientists, experts, etc." - we actually do give preference to the better sources of information. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Leave it alone The end of the third paragraph is a normal and appropriate place for critical reactions like this. It already says that he's prominent and has been called a "guru", so, unlike CorporateM, I don't think that it needs to give any additional emphasis to the idea that some people like him and his ideas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose at this point Premature RFC. Moving criticism in the lead has has never been discussed on this article talk page.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC))

Threaded discussion

Question: I am wondering why the criticism should be moved. What is the reasoning? What is the advantage for the reader? Does it make sense for a reader to encounter criticism before they encounter the information the criticism is about. I'm also wondering why we have an RfC and dispute resolution before this question was raised on this talk page. I might have missed that discussion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC))

• "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." (Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight).
• Article's promotional tone is extensively discussed above as are (now reverted) edits which make the lede less flattering.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• • Sorry, but as I noted above, this RfC is premature. DR should be used for disputes, unless this move has specifically been discussed and it hasn't then we don't know if there is a dispute on this issue or not. Discussion on the talk page should come first.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC))

• Are you asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)