Talk:Deepak Chopra

Chopra Media Representative

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

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

To "Chopra Media Representative"

Advice presumably read and understood

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

Certain specific issues

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

Inaccuracies/misframing

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

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

World leader in mind body healing

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

Disrespect

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

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

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

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

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

"Practitioner"

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

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

"Pioneer"

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

"Yet President Bill Clinton reference to Dr Chopra as a ‘pioneer of alternative medicine’ is a notable source." I'm not sure the word "pioneer" is neutral. Can an argument be made that it is? Certainly Chopra is on the vanguard of the movement. That might be a more neutral way to put it. What do you think? Mr Clinton isn't an expert on medicine, so his opinion doesn't really count for that much. Also, he is a politician, so apt to say things that'll please his audience regardless of whether he believes them or not (sorry Bill). As for the word pioneer, "A person who is among the first to research and develop a new area of knowledge or activity" [1], possibly might be of use. However, I'm concerned that this definition implies that Dr Chopra is conducting research and that this is a new area of knowledge. Has he published any studies in peer-reviewed journals? Can something be "knowledge" if it's demonstrably false? Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"Physician"

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

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

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

Discrediting

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

Way Forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

response from Chopra representative

Thank you all for your responses. I was afraid I was going to get crickets, so very happy all of you have decided to participate despite what my nerves were telling me. I also want to thank you for the suggestions for next steps I should take, such as the BLPN or WP:OTRS. First I would like to see if I can work this out with the editors on this particular article - I have no reason to believe none of you are not neutral but if I believe that we will not be able to come to productive dialogue then I will explore those options.

I hope this is not too long or formatted the wrong way. I thought it best to post one response to all parties addressing the particulars first so at least we can understand the points of view involved here quickly. I’m also creating a new section that is going to address the lead - per your suggestions. I also spent the day writing and formatting this only to discover new sections popping up around my first post. For time reasons, this is the format I request we continue on (mainly because I dont have time to reformat this entire post - apologies)

@The Red Pen of Doom, @Guy, @JPS

I would like to understand how you define 'neutrality'. I'm having a hard time understanding how Wikipedia works here regarding the crossover of NPOV, BLP, and WP:Fringe. By definition ‘neutral’ means taking neither one side nor the other side in a matter of contention, does it not mean this on Wikipedia? Genuine question. Is the inherent contradiction between the application of BLP and Fringe based on a misunderstanding on my part?

My understanding of WP Fringe is that whatever defines fringe on Wikipedia (and I accept mind body healing is under that umbrella) then the mainstream scientific point of view must also be listed on that article. Yet it's very vague how this applied to a BLP, especially when it implies that mainstream scientist's opinions about Dr Chopra the person become the voice of the article, which contradicts neutrality in any definition of the term.

Its also probably a good idea for me to be transparent with you regarding what I mean by ‘framing’ or misframing. This is an issue that we deal with often in media, and framing and misframing are terms in the social or political sciences, including media studies. Sorry if my terminology is too wonky, but that is what is informing my perspective.

My concern is not just with sources but how those sources are (currently, and from my point of view) framing Dr Chopra to fit the narrative of his detractors. That's how it looks to us and that’s what I would call a ‘misframing’. We get that lots. Since we work with both mainstream publishers and journalists from all over the world, we know a misframed article from a neutral article when we read one. I’m extending good faith that this misframing is unintentional on Wikipedia.

I imagine your concern is that we want to frame Dr. Chopra from the point of view of his supporters or for marketing. That’s not why I am here. I have no such intention and I have only been authorized to clarify the article so it is more neutral. I'm also not an attorney, have not been advised of any legal notices, nor am I here to issue any legal warnings. Please extend good faith to me in return. I can accept that the article may not be changed to how I would prefer it or Dr. Chopra, but equally that means that the article may be changed in a way that will also not satisfy Dr. Chopra's critics or skeptics on Wikipedia as well.

If all of us walk away unsatisfied it may mean we will have a neutral article and that would be something I could live with.

@Alexbrn. It means I am an employee of Chopra LLC and I am authorized to respond or reply to any media concerns that may affect Dr Chopra or any of his concerns on Wikipedia or elsewhere. I am working directly in the offices of Chopra LLC and this is just one of many responsibilities I have. Chopra Media is a reference for the media division and is not a brand entity in and of itself. Yes I am revealing my COI as an employee with the specific authorization to address Wikipedia directly. I am aware of Wikipedia policies regarding BLP, Fringe, COI (among others). I am also authorized not to post any of my personal information, past experience, job duties or responsibilities other than those directly related to this issue. If there is another step I need to take regarding this COI please advise.

Additionally, this account will not be editing this article nor any other articles on Wikipedia, I am only authorized to participate in consensus building or talk on this page or any noticeboard that it may require.

Dr. Chopra has also recently become fascinated by Wikipedia and has expressed interest in editing articles directly himself. He does now have a Wikipedia account Deepak Chopra,MD but will not be participating in his biography or any articles directly related to any of his projects or work.

@Binkersternet - I believe its consistent with the principles of an encyclopedia to list, in the first sentence, their professional titles based on secondary sources while consulting primary sources when necessary. I believe that a physicians concerns are health and Dr Chopra’s point of view on mind body healing is informed by his knowledge and career in both western medicine and alternative medicine, indeed its why he is notable. He is a licensed physician. Therefore it seems to be to be significant. That’s my opinion and I believe a reasonable one - please correct me where you believe I am mistaken. To Olive’s point and yours, yes I will be addressing problems specifically with the entire lead section of the article, both the sources and the framing.

@LittleOlive oil thank you for the heads up and your help here!

Thank you Roxy the dog (i like your username). Yes I agree sources are helpful - but once we agree on what an appropriate source is, we still have to frame that source neutrally and one of my biggest problems with the article is the framing of the sources rather than just the sources themselves. Can I personally turn to you for support in framing sources more neutrally in this article?

Thank you Barney the barney barney - and I agree. I’m here to be civil and polite, even though I assume my point of view of Dr Chopra may be radically different than yours and we may have strong disagreements on these matters. I look forward to a productive and polite discussion. I am familiar with WP:ORTS but wanted to address the actual editors on this article first before I make any assumptions about the problems. Who says that all of you can’t be neutral ;) ChopraMedia (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition of Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV is representing the mainstream academic view(s) of the subject; giving appropriate weight to differing opinions as they are held within the mainstream WP:UNDUE; and not creating or implying false "balance" WP:VALID. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Please make an effort to be more concise. This is a mature article, changes will be incremental and you should focus on specific points. In terms of Chopra's beliefs, they are clearly covered by WP:FRINGE. His use of "quantum mysticism" is, to quote Murray Gell-Mann, "quantum flapdoodle", as you will know from his encounters with physicists. Chopra seems to surround himself with an impenetrable shield of self-belief, but those outside the bubble have little difficulty understanding that his claims amount to mysticism (i.e. essentially religious beliefs) not scientific or factual claims. Anybody who seriously advances homeopathy, "mind-body healing" and other scientifically unsupportable "alternative" health claims, falls into WP:FRINGE. That's not going to change. Guy (Help!) 10:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Problems with lead section, first sentence

Okay I want to start off with just one sentence - if we can find consensus here we can find it anywhere.

Deepak Chopra born October 22, 1947 is an Indian-American author, holistic health/New Age guru, and alternative medicine practitioner.

my notes: contains weasel words (new age guru). Misframed first sentence. source and framing comes from a critic. contains bias. not neutral.

Words like ‘new age’ and ‘guru’ while sometimes may be affectionate terms, they can also be perjoratives used to mis frame Dr Chopras contributions and level of respect, unbecoming of a formal and neutral description. Please see Guru. Dr Chopra is a prolific philosopher, and represents the philosophical world views of millions of people, including major world religions such as Hindu and Buddhism. Referencing him as simply a ‘guru’ is dismissive and disrespectful in some contexts, perhaps even a bit racist in some contexts, not just to Dr Chopra, but legitimate viewpoints and cultures around health and consciousness that are predominant in the world.

President Bill Clinton referred to Dr. Chopra as the ‘pioneer of alternative medicine’, making him somewhat more distinguishable than just a ‘practitioner of alternative medicine’, yet President Clinton’s quote about Dr Chopra is at the bottom of the article, while the weasel word descriptions frame Dr Chopra in the first sentence, misleading the reader as to the relevance of Dr Chopra. Additionally and most importantly, Dr. Chopra is not a practitioner of 'alternative medicine', has no license to practice alternative medicine so it's also misleading to inform readers that he is a practitioner of alternative medicine.

Dr. Chopra is, first and foremost - a physician, licensed in the state of California and Massachusetts. It is common sense and respectful to refer to him by his professional title, especially since it defines his entire career in mind body healing. Chopra’s medical training is in internal medicine and endocrinology. He is a Fellow of the American College of Physicians, a member of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. Assistant Clinical Professor, in the Family and Preventive Medicine Department at the University of California, San Diego, Health Sciences, Doctor of Science, Hartwick College, Doctor Honoris Causa, The Giordano Brunio University.

Dr. Chopra is a notable entrepreneur who is highly prolific by any reasonable definition of the term. The article’s voice appears to frame Dr Chopra as nothing more than a 'wealthy businessman' who is more than likely exploiting the gullible, making him indistinguishable from any tycoon who exploits resource for personal gain, confirming the 'guru' perjorative. I don't like that. While we understand this may be an opinion of Dr Chopra held by his many detractors - we do not believe that he should be framed this way as a neutral point of view. Not only does this paint a picture of Dr Chopra that is misleading by framing him that way, it also does not reflect what most neutral non opinion based sources suggest either. While all entrepreneurs are business men, not all businessmen are entrepreneurs. It's important to make that distinction because its intrinsically who Dr. Chopra is, intrinsically what makes him notable, and what all reasonable sources suggest.

I recommend:

Deepak Chopra is an Indian American physician, author, entrepreneur, and ‘the pioneer of alternative medicine.’

This sentence does not change any of the facts, nor does it whitewash his biography, nor does it suggest that mainstream science either rejects nor confirms Dr. Chopra’s ideas. the phrase ‘pioneer of alternative medicine’ implies not only his role as a world leader in the matters of mind body healing, but is a more respectful way to mention his role rather than ‘guru’ and ‘new age’ in the voice of Wikipedia itself. Plus - the source is the president of the united states, that's notable by any fair standard of the term.

That makes sense, yes? I’m fine with someone mentioning that a notable author says “Deepak Chopra is a new age guru” as long as their voice is quoted in the article and not the voice of Wikipedia/neutrality. ChopraMedia (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Clinton was US president, but his speech - lacking subject matter expertise and scholarly oversight - is not a good source for what we can assert about Chopra. The term "holistic health/New Age guru" is used by Hans Baer in the scholarly article we cite, so the sourcing seems good here. Intriguingly, the International Journal of Hindu Studies article we cite lists Chopra as a guru alongside other gurus like Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, which makes me wonder whether Chopra is a pukka guru as well as just one in popular western parlance. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

(Add) I notice this Time source[2] (which we aren't using) introduced Chopra as an "Indian-born doctor-turned-guru". Whatever we think about the precise wording here, I think Wikipedia seems to be in sync with uncontroversial mainstream categorizations from independent sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

(Add) And I also notice that the latest substantial piece on Chopra in the NYT (which we also aren't citing) introduces him as a "controversial New Age guru and booster of alternative medicine"[3] – so I'm not getting the impression that Wikipedia is non-mainstream in its intro ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we should list what Chopra is in the order by which he is notable. What is Chopra most notable for? I would say it is his advocacy of what he terms "mind-body health" and a spirituality that he thinks is accessible through New Age practices. He supports his ideas with reference to quantum mechanics. That's what he is most famous for, right? So how do we go about saying that? I actually don't think either formulation is particularly good at "framing" Chopra. He is foremost an advocate not an author and not a physician (though he is also both of those things). The thing he may be most wealthy for is his entrepreneurial endeavors, though I don't think he is particularly notable for that. So, ChopraMedia, do you agree with my assessment? Is Chopra most notable for advocating for these kinds of ideas above and beyond his other professional identities? If so, can you think of a lead-off sentence that may be able to illustrate this that does better than either the current sentence or the one you proposed? jps (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts: We have to discriminate between what Chopra is and how he has been labelled. What he is should be included in the first lines of the article and should summarize in as neutral a way as possible what we have in the article that describes his life and what is notable and significant about it.. For example, Chopra is a physician, author, entrepenuer and has become a significant (may not be neutral enough) and popular voice in bridging (or connecting) east-weat health care modalities (or something like that/just an example.)

The following are labels seems to me and as such should be introduced that way with something like, Chopra has been described as:

a new age guru

the pioneer of alternative medicine

holistic health/New Age guru

The problem with pulling labels out of sources is that we lose context and generally are relying on cliché driven terms that may or may not have clear meaning for the reader. As well, a label is generally opinion-based so they should be introduced to indicate opinion and should never be used in Wikipedia's voice.

And I'd suggest that if Clinton is speaking about matters of Government he can be considered an authority but on something health related his comment is another, although probably informed, opinion, and in general would carry the same weight as any other opinion His comment is a label and should not be included in the first line, but if used, should be clearly introduced as opinion. Just my "opinions" :O) (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC))

I think what Chopra is most notable for is being a "popular voice in bridging (or connecting) east-weat health care modalities". I wouldn't say that is the most neutral way of putting it, however. For one, it posits a dichotomy between "east-west health care modalities" that may not exist. For another, it isn't clear to me that Chopra actually is "bridging" since many people take issue with what he says (diplomats bridge by speaking to both sides of an issue, normally). Is there another way to talk about what Chopra is without these drawbacks? jps (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Good points, but I'd disagree on some. I wouldn't confuse neutrality with less than complete accuracy. Any attempt to characterize in a few words, Chopra's positions. philosophies/ modalities, which he has taken the pains to write several books on is doomed to be less than completely accurate. And any words we use to describe his body of work and thought will be open to legitimate discussion. I'm not attached to the words I used; they were just an example, and possibly a jumping off point for a way of thinking about how to organize the lead. Perhaps ChopraMedia has something in mind.

Bridging or connecting are ways of attempting to describe Chopra east west influences and connections which begin with the fact that a highly qualified physician in western medicine also sees eastern health modalities as useful and effective. Attempts to bridge simply means he attempts to connect. While many people take issue with what he says many don't. Moreover from what I see in sources his interest isn't in convincing anyone but in connections which inform human health on both spiritual and physical levels. I know very little about Chopra except what I read in sources, so that's my take.

I do suggest that his notability comes out of the fact that he is a highly-trained western physician as well as someone who has explored health from other viewpoints. I do not consider him a religious leader, since religion implies organization. I would consider that he is thought of as a spiritual leader if spirituality is defined as that which pertains to the human body and spirit and its development. None of these are my ideas but simply what I see in sources.

Maybe the best approach here is to try out multiple first sentences until we get something that gets to the root of his notability. We may need to use more than few words to do that. I'm fine with that if others are, too.

I had planned to stay out of this discussion but reasonable Atama's response to my concerns and the mature discussion taking place here makes me think this discussion could be worth involvement.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC))

I question whether we have evidence that he is any more "highly trained" than any other person with a medical doctor degree. I'm also not sure I understand whether the east-west dichotomy being assumed here is backed by sources. I think it is fine to frame this as a spirituality issue.... I'm not sure of a definition that doesn't pertain to combinations of the human condition (and the body is obviously included in that) and the development of the human condition. I see these reflected in the sources. So starting from a "spirituality" definition might be the way forward here. jps (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@ChopraMedia: Your proposed replacement text is unacceptable. It's a promotional phrase, not a factual one. The pioneer of alternatives to medicine might be argued to be any one of a dozen people, notably Weil, but in any case you can't "pioneer" alternative medicine because alternative medicine is not a single coherent field, it's a mish-mash of therapies that either haven't been proven to work, or have been proven not to work. I am comfortable with framing Chopras beliefs as primarily religious of course, since that is accurate. In describing him as a "notable entrepreneur", I have a problem. His entrepreneurship seems to comprise to a large extent the successful exploitation of public ignorance and suspicion of medicine, to sell often worthless alternatives. That he does not understand they are worthless is not in any way an excuse. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Guy, perhaps it would be productive then if you could collaborate with me to find a compromise and make some suggestions. We are not going to get very far if you accuse me of being here for the purposes of promoting Dr. Chopra. I have explicitly stated my purposes (to make the page neutral and in accordance with WP guidelines). We are not going to agree on everything else you wrote, much of it is your own personal research and opinion that I believe WP Guidelines suggest does not belong in a biography of a living person. SAS81 (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

But I think the article is fine as it is. You want to persuade us that it fails WP:NPOV, you're welcome to try, but as I've said this has to be done by means of concise statements of incremental changes supported by both policy and reliable sources. I suspect it will take a while before you get the hang of this, we're here for the long haul so don't give up. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

sources

I would like to provide some sources that support what I write above as well as additional sources that may be useful. These sources are located in my sandbox here. I'm able to dig up more so don't be shy about telling me something is missing or unsupported. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChopraMedia/sandbox ChopraMedia (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this, but it would be more helpful if usable content distilled from these sources could be identified. If there are things that these sources can help us describe that aren't currently in the article or if there are things that are in the article that these sources can be used for (provided they pass our WP:RS standards) then I would be happy to look more in depth at those. jps (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree - we are currently overhauling all sources and references with proper citations broken down by primary, secondary, and tertiary. Will need a couple of days thanks for the heads up. SAS81 (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Guru as a descriptive title, Clinton as a source, distinctions in pop culture

I’m trying to continue the formatting that JPS suggested, at least I hope I am. Either way this makes sense to me thanks for doing all that work JPS, I would not have mind beginning that way if I was prepared for it. I hope this will suffice? ChopraMedia (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I see your point Alexbrn - and sure - there are many sources that are going to reference Deepak Chopra as a guru - far more than you listed actually. But is that who Deepak Chopra is - or is that how Deepak Chopra is perceived through the lens of popular culture? Dr. Chopra is apart of the zeitgeist, love him or hate him - surely that cannot be contested about him as an intrinsic quality. So yes, as I mentioned, ‘guru’ can be an affectionate term - it can also be a pejorative, and either way its an opinion about him not something intrinsic to who he is.

There are plenty of sources too, mainstream ones that have referenced President Bill Clinton as ‘America’s first black president’. Its a sign of affection when Chris Rock says it, and a pejorative when Rush Limbaugh says it, and absolutely an awkward first sentence if his bio on Wikipedia started off that way.

Speaking of US Presidents - surely you’re not suggesting that any US president does not have a large team of some of the most qualified academics in the world scouring through every speech he gives before a foreign dignitary and vetting everything he mentions? Naturally, a US president is going to have to speak about a number of topics that he may not have personal expertise in - but when a US president says something, its assumed it has the weight of the credibility of the United States behind it and the peer review of his staff.

Or any world leader actually, right? “A renowned physician and author, Deepak Chopra is undoubtedly one of the most lucid and inspired philosophers of our time.” – Mikhail Gorbachev, Citation of the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic awarded by the Pio Manzu International Scientific Committee Source: http://www.mythicjourneys.org/guest_chopra.html

I’m not suggesting we call him a philosopher either - nor a ‘world leader’ in mind body healing, inspite of the fact that’s a very reasonable assessment of Dr. Chopra. He is known and honored all over the world, by sitting presidents, world leaders, dignitaries, CEO’s, etc etc

Dr. Chopra is going to have many caricatures of him floating around in the mass media because, intrinsic to who he is, like President Bill Clinton he is also a product of pop culture.

I’m here to help all of you see the difference. Let’s make this article more neutral and therefore more respectable. ChopraMedia (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

But the sources the article uses for "guru" aren't "mass media", they're peer-reviewed academic publications - the kind of source Wikpedia generally prefers. It may be there are better words, but they need, ultimately, to be well-sourced. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn

I’m not saying the source for referring to Dr. Chopra is not a proper source, I am saying that its probably not the proper source specifically used for framing Dr. Chopra as a ‘new age guru’. The first problem with the source is that it defines itself as a critique of Dr. Chopra’s work and ideas. Although I haven’t read the paper - if it criticizes Dr. Chopra’s ideas, then perhaps it should be moved to the ‘receptions’ section. It does not seem reasonable to use a work of critique to define the basic biographical information of the lead section. ChopraMedia (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, your argument is shifting - you were mentioning above "caricatures of him floating around in the mass media". We follow the mainstream sources: if they say "guru" then it's okay for us to. I'm sure there are other, maybe better, ways we can introduce Chopra to give readers quick orientation here; but "guru" is not problematic as you seem to be implying - and it has the merit of letting people know quickly how he's viewed. Intriguingly, even deepakchopra.com seems to describe the man as "an Indian-born American physician, a holistic health/New Age guru, and the most famous of America's alternative medicine practitioners"[4] ... so there seems to be be end-to-end agreement on the term, from Chopra's own site to serious academia. What is your basis for questioning it? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I addressed this yesterday, we do not refer to Dr. Chopra as a new age guru and the page your referring to was text someone just copied from Wikipedia (and has now been deleted) - so please that's not our voice that's Wikipedia's that was mistakenly copied over. Specifically, Dr. Chopra is also quoted as saying that is NOT a term he uses to describe himself. Next, could you walk me through the consistency of your argument here so I can understand how you are applying guidelines? If I follow mainstream sources regarding Paris Hilton (with primary to boot) your argument would seem to imply that we could mention that Paris Hilton is 'not very smart', or that George W. Bush was the worst president in US history - in the voice of Wikipedia in the first sentence of the opening lead. The facts are all the sources you are using to identify Dr. Chopra are all sources that are publishing critiques of Dr. Chopra. I am not shifting my argument - rather I am clarifying my argument per your suggestions of how I proceed. This is specifically what I refer to as 'misframing'. The first sentence is going to frame the picture of Dr. Chopra to the reader. There sure seems to be allot of effort here to frame Dr. Chopra in the first sentence as to how his critics view him - which is entirely misleading coming from an encylopedia that offers neutrality as one of it's core principles. I think my argument is rather clear here. Work with me and I can find a compromise. SAS81 (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

As I keep saying, we reflect quality mainstream sources (as I hope the articles on Ms Hilton and Mr Bush do; I've not read them). Such sources on Chopra seem to be pretty much united in their take on him, and we mirror that. There would be a problem if we were not reflecting our sources properly, of if there are good sources that are not being taken into account. So far I've seen no evidence of either of these things. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Alex, cherrypicked mainstream sources that fit an image of Dr Chopra as a guru is not exactly what I was referring to. I am asking you to work with me to make sure we 'get it right' per BLP. I am asking you to respect the dignity of a living person, regardless of your view point of him. I am willing to work with you to find a balance with WP Fringe. A BLP is not an article for people to discover 'how people view Dr. Chopra'. That is not the intention of BLP I'm sure you know that. The intention of a BLP article is to discover WHO that person is, WHAT their ideas are , WHAT their contributions are and HOW they have been received (positive and negative). HOW we determine that is derived from mainstream sources. Big difference. SAS81 (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

SAS81, may I ask why you dispute the designation (that's one of many) of Chopra as a guru? You seem to be (if I'm correctly reading between the lines) of the opinion that this is a caricature of who Chopra is. I'd like to understand why you think that. I understand that there are some who associated a negative connotation with the word "guru" in the West, but I find such implied connotations to be very culturally biased -- and the fact that our article on the subject of gurus mentions this in the lede I think is very problematic -- but one thing at a time. In a plain sense I think that Chopra is a New Age religious figure, and there aren't a lot of descriptive words we have to describe such things, though I'm happy to wrack my brain again: "New Age spiritual leader", perhaps? jps (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey JPS, sorry your rejoinder here got buried. I replied here - thought it would help keep the formatting clear please join me there. SAS81 (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this an appropriate question to ask?

I’m hoping this question is either common or appropriate to ask. I’ve been doing a little more digging around the activity of this board. I’m in the weeds in a lot of ways trying to understand points of view expressed here. I also want to be transparent myself and wondering if requesting editor transparency is a fair request. Would the editors here mind being transparent about their own bias on the subject matter (skeptic/agnostic/supporter) with me so I can clarify points to the right point of view? I’m hoping to find common ground with all of you and I underestimated how complex this discussion has been on this article. ChopraMedia (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick heads up I might not be able to respond until Monday but this is important to me. You will hear from me by then the latest. ChopraMedia (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I personally think this is a very appropriate question to ask, but I'll warn you that generally Wikipedia culture says that such questions shouldn't be asked. Anyway, I'll answer for myself: I'm rather notorious around these parts for being a hardline skeptic, but I would argue a lot of this reputation is because I simply think Wikipedia is not equipped to be able to fairly treat edge-topics and boundary knowledge and so I try to eliminate as much stuff that cannot be verified as possible. You'll find me advocating for removing material more than adding material in subjects related to WP:FRINGE, and there is an uneasy tension between my approach and some other approaches which either want to promote or debunk certain ideas. I take a hardline view towards what should be explained in an article. For example, I have found that Chopra coined the phrase "quantum healing", but I'm not sure whether or not that fact deserves inclusion in Wikipedia as it is very difficult to identify exactly what that topic is since there are very few commentators who take it seriously outside of those who are involved directly with Chopra. As a scientist and an educator, most of what interests me in reference to this article are Chopra's claims about quantum mechanics and his disputes with evidence-based medicine. I certainly don't find much common ground with him on these points, but I also don't think that my disputes with him should matter at all with respect to actual article content. I see Chopra additionally as a highly visible face of an under-appreciated religious movement that is roughly aligned with New Age. He is an extremely important religious figure for people who believe this way, and I think he deserves as much respect as the Dalai Lama, the Pope, or any other explicitly religious figure, though I'm not sure he would agree with this lumping. When Chopra claims certain scientific knowledge, that's where I sometimes find his advocacy to be most problematic and difficult to frame properly -- especially when it comes to quantum mechanics which is a subject I haven't seen him show the competence of a physicist to comment upon, but I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. (I haven't, for example, seen Chopra explaining quantum mechanics the way Leonard Susskind does, and that he comments on the subject without seeming to be able to explain its fundamental conceits doesn't sit well with me.) But there is no sense in which the article on Wikipedia should promote my non-notable critique of Chopra (though there are notable critiques that roughly follow this that I believe should be included in the article). jps (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I advocate for raw meat and chasing cats. If Deepak is vegetarian, then there will be trouble. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I am English, so I occasionally believe in making understatements. I also occasionally believe that it's a slight tragedy that Dr Chopra, who is quite evidently an otherwise well educated and intelligent gentleman, would occasionally promote treatments that are medically unproven and contradicted by scientific knowledge, which in turn might occasionally lead to people suffering or worse. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I think its fine to ask the question as long as you don'e expect answers.:O). I do not, any more, say much about myself on Wikipedia since I have been harassed on and off Wikipedia. I don't know much about Chopra's modalities beyond sources nor do I know if they are effective. I do believe Chopra is well-meaning in the highest sense, and a deep and profound thinker. However, my position here has nothing to do with my personal opinions. We have no right to presume what motivates people nor do we have the right to judge. I want all Wikipedia BLPs to reflect the highest standards of neutrality and fairness whether I like what I see of that person or not. I have no right to do anything else both as a human being and as a Wikipedia editor. (That may sound preachy. Climbs down off soap box)

Quantum mechanics seems to be a very small part of the Chopra canon of thought, although it may underpin his other thinking. I suppose how the article deals with that is open to discussion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC))

• my bias is that Wikipedia articles should present the subject as they are viewed by the academic mainstream and have all promotional pablum eliminated with whatever tools are necessary, whether that be pens with red ink or flamethrowers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't care two hoots about Deepak Chopra, I do care several hoots about people making nonsensical and bogus claims to cure disease. "Quantum healing" and "mind body medicine" are terms without any medical validity, and as long as we're absolutely clear on that we can document them in enormous detail. Just like we do with homeopathy, the most obviously bogus of all the common bogus alternatives to medicine. Wikipedia's polciies are, according to a recent statement from Jimbo, bang on the money here, and as a long-time contributor to Wikipedia I aim to ensure that we stick to them. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

While I can understand opinion on this subject, Mind Body Medicine or Integrative Medicine has taken its place in conventional wisdom. Examples are numerous. Here are a few:

• University of Maryland Medical Center [5]

• Massachusetts General Hospital[6]

• Harvard Medical School[7]

• George Town Universty of Medicine[8]

• Yale School of Medicine[9]

• Stanford Center of Integrative Medicine[10]

(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC))

See WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree and time to move on.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC))

ChopraMedia representative name change SAS81

Wikipedia advised me on my talk page to change User name and I did. Just a heads up. Same person. Same Computer. ChopraMedia (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Physician intrinsic to who Dr. Chopra is

@JPS, @Barney the barney barney, Littleolive oil, Guy, Guy

Dr. Chopra is notable for being a physician (specifically an MD, Endocrinology) who embraced meditation and other mind body practices for restoring self regulation and self repair mechanisms otherwise known as homeostasis in the physical body (re:mind body healing definition). What he is known for, or ‘pioneering’ specifically is the value of subjective experience and well being on the measurable physical health of an individual. By ‘pioneering’ we certainly mean getting a lot of attention for an holistic approach to medicine and creating a wider adoption of this practice. It’s not bragging to say that Dr. Chopra has genuinely accomplished that. He did not ‘leave’ medical practice, rather he pioneered (along with a few others) implementing western medicine with mind/body practices (yoga, meditation for example) for the purposes of physical (body) health and emotional/psychological (mind) health.

Along the way, he became a celebrity and a prolific writer on spirituality and consciousness (which falls under the purview of philosophy, not medicine), and a entrepreneur. Not only is being a physician fundamental to who Deepak Chopra is, what he is notable for would be impossible without it.

At the moment Chopra center is involved in collaborative studies with Harvard Medical school, UCSF Medical School, UCSD medical school, Mount Sinai medical school NYC and Scripps Translational Science Institute in SD to assess gene expression, telomeres length, telomeric length and other aspects of cell biology including markers such as cytokines inflammatory response at the cellular level.

I could use some advice on what are the best sources to show things like his medical licensing, boards or honors that would qualify him both as a current physician and historically as well.

tldr; Without ‘physician’ in the title - it would be the same as referring to William Jefferson Clinton simply as a US ‘politician’ rather than a governor and president. While factually correct - it’s incomplete enough to also be factually misleading. ChopraMedia (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Chopra is notable for being an author and an advocate of new agey stuff. he is not notable for being a doctor. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, to some but not all people Chopra is known for being an author and writer of what some people, but not all label ‘new agey stuff’. However I think you will see many sources confirm - what makes Dr. Chopra notable is the fact that he is a western physician who is known for integrating alternative healing practices with western medicine. Even your own academic source makes this reference in the abstract describing who Dr. Chopra is. I quote: “It also considers the response of various biomedical parties to these holistic health/New Age gurus who have attempted to integrate biomedicine and various alternative healing and metaphysical systems.” SAS81 (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi SAS81: I think I understand where you are coming from and agree with your hopes to get a proper description on this page, but let's see how we might frame it. The story of how Chopra went from being an endocrinologist to someone who promotes specific spiritual practices as part-and-parcel to well-being is worthy of a biographical description in the body of the article, but how do we say what he is? He is not most famous for his physician credentials, though, I have no doubt, these credentials are part of what make him a sought-after consultant/guru/mentor/advisor/whatever. I think it is appropriate to say that Deepak Chopra is a promoter of or an advocate for an approach to medicine and health that emphasizes spiritual practices. That would be something I think we can all agree on. Do you? jps (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

JPS thank you for working for a compromise. I see your point on one hand, and I agree that calling him an advocate could be a compromise for the word 'pioneer' but not if it means we are removing the word physician from his title.

For one, I have not seen any argument, or sources, that suggest Dr. Chopra is NOT known for being a physician rather that Dr. Chopra is not known perhaps to a few editors here who are not familiar with his work or only read critical sources of Dr. Chopra. This seems like a controversial statement and requires a bit more of a burden of proof.

First, it is something intrinsic to who he is, so it is factually correct, like him being an Indian American. This is not controversial. Simple Wikipedia also refers to him that way - French Wikipedia - Spanish Wikipedia. I'm not suggesting those are sources we can use, but surely it supports my argument that he is known for being a medical doctor.

Secondly it is fundamental to why he is notable, without his medical practice, Dr. Chopra would have absolutely no credibility to even say 'hey let's combine western medicine with various mind body practices (some of them could be spiritual, but 'spiritual' itself can be very subjective and is not a clinical term Dr. Chopra uses medically - although in popular literature he may, big difference). I'm sure you know - there is plenty of unqualified people screaming from tree tops about meditation, yoga - yet Dr. Chopra is considered relevant here.

Dr. Chopra (note I refer to him as his official title of Doctor) is just famous, period. His fame and the levels of interpretations, deconstructions, etc etc around what he is famous for are going to be numerous and require original research to identify. I don't think anyone here can make some sort of critical theory argument to determine why this man is famous or what for in the millions of peoples minds that know him.

I'm also going to work on getting perfect archived sources for you for all of this, bare with me I'm running around with my head cut off trying to keep track of this very complex issue here on WP. thanks for trying to work this out with me, truly. SAS81 (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

that you as his press agent have decided to continuously refer to him by his medical title is of no concern to our discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not Dr. Chopra's press agent. I am transparent about my intentions and my agenda My reference to Dr. Chopra as Doctor Chopra is relevant to this discussion because like my reference to his title, it is intrinsic to who Dr. Chopra simply is. This is not a controversial subject. I am not arguing for Dr. Chopra's ideas about alternative healing. This is a biographical fact, intrinsically notable to who he is, his ideas and his entire history, past, present and future. SAS81 (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

You indicate that Chopra has a medical practice. Where is it based? How many patients does he see? What group/hospital/clinic is he affiliated with? These would be useful things to know and, perhaps, include. jps (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I think his AMA standing addresses that, anything further is just OR. Dr. Chopra is listed as a doctor of internal medicine with an office practice in good standing with the American Medical Association, specifically stating that he actively practices internal medicine (with a specialization in diabetes) out of his Carlsbad office. “DoctorFinder: Chopra, Deepak, MD.” American Medical Association website, accessed April 23, 2014. https://apps.ama-assn.org/doctorfinder/member.do?id=1398279052768&index=0&page=1 SAS81 (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we can say anything more than that he is licensed. There are many people who are licensed medical doctors in good standing with the AMA. That's not particularly compelling source material for writing an article about someone as notable as Chopra. jps (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

compromise?

Speaking of US Presidents (again) - if a US president mentions someone, regardless of the political reasons for doing so - that president is going to mention them in the context of their notability - otherwise there would be no reason to have that President’s attention. I’m open to compromising ‘pioneer’ for something else, as long as it’s not practioner and it is something respectful (rather than promoter or advertiser, which i consider ‘weasel -esque’ in this context).

Consider; What contributions must Dr. Chopra have made to get the attention of two world leaders? I think common sense + sources here must also apply.

I’m hoping we have enough consensus so far to at least remove the disrespectful ‘new age guru’ from the lead sentence. Can we make that change right away? ChopraMedia (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

If it's so "disrespectful" why does deepakchopra.com use that very term to describe him? This all seems very silly. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

We don’t use that term to describe him, and if we did or any of our affiliates, it would be in an affectionate manner like I mentioned previously and also just an opinion - that link was a placeholder page and who ever put that up just copied his Wikipedia biography to it without knowing better. So thats not our voice its Wikipedia’s and its taken down now. Thanks for the heads up! SAS81 (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"Practitioner" isn't a word anyone, I think, is wedded to, and it does have the extra problem of evoking someone who is most notable for practicing medicine. Chopra is most notable for his advocacy, I'd say. Can we identify him as an advocate or a champion for integrating spirituality into medicine and health? How about that? jps (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "practitioner" doesn't seem right (though it is sourced). "Advocate" would fit, though I'm not sure what he is advocating is predominantly "spiritual" - that aspect's seen I think as a schtick for a business based on decidedly material things: books, DVDs, anti-ageing creams, pills, etc. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@JPS - i think 'champion' would be an agreeable compromise to pioneer, you get a thumbs up from me on that one, as long as we still refer to him as a physician. As for being a 'practitioner' technically that IS something that requires a license (Chinese medical doctor, homeopath, etc etc) so he is NOT licensed as an alternative medicine practioner so that would just be misleading. Thanks for working this out. SAS81 (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

A "champion of alternative medicine" fits the bill nicely. Any objections? I'll be bold and try it out, but I may be reverted. jps (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you JPS for your willingness to compromise here. This is a productive place to begin. I'll work on getting you proper citations, what would be the best source for that? Since it's his actual degree and license, do we need secondary sources to support? SAS81 (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

A secondary source would be fine. We don't need to be intrusive and interrogate licensing boards or anything like that. A biographical article about him that mentioned this fact would work great. jps (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Although, I should have checked the article again! I see that Alexbrn was able to find a reference to the Massachusetts licensing board which is good enough for me! jps (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, actually on reflection I'm not so sure we should be calling-out Chopra as a physician so prominently in the lede: it's just not what he's notable for. He gave up practising mainstream medicine a few years after arriving in the US. I fear we're being led by the nose here (or pushed from the rear) to lend Chopra some credentials cred. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This credential, however, really is part of what Chopra is notable for because without it there would be no way he would have been given the airtime he's received. (Compare to Dr. Oz.) Note we explicitly don't say he is practicing medicine (another reason practitioner was not a good word), only that he is licensed to do so which is part of the defining characteristics. Compare, also, to someone like Russell Humphreys who, while not being a physicist by profession any longer, is in part notable for his credential in the subject. I think some discussion of credentialism is worthy of being included in the body of the article, of course, but it's okay to simply be up front about what credentials a biography subject has in the lede. jps (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Re, "champion": Instead of making something up, how about we properly summarize sources or at least find and include a source that justifies the label? --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Like this? jps (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

No. That's a press release specifically aimed at promoting Chopra. --Ronz (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I certainly agree that such is the designed goal of the press release, but I'm not sure why that indicates he's not a champion of alternative medicine. I think champion is a fairly neutral descriptor of what he does. See Wiktionary's definition for example (it's the secondary definitions, not the primary ones, of course, but you can tell that from context). Do you think otherwise? jps (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it best to just follow the policies closely when a change is so prominent in the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how using the word "champion" is opposed to policies. But then, quibbling over individual words I think is normally in the realm of style rather than policy. If it were possible to have policies that actually enabled the proper choice of wording then we could program a computer to write Wikipedia. In this case, I think it is better to explain why a particular word doesn't sit right rather than trying to apply policies which were never intended to be dissected in such a fashion. YMMV. jps (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the issues is that we are addressing the cart before the horse. The lead sentence is supposed to encapsulate what is important about the subject as addressed in the article; which is supposed to address the various aspects of the subject as covered by reliable sources. So.... Does the current article content appropriately reflect what reliable sources say about the subject? If so, then what is an appropriate way to capture the most important parts of the article in a single sentence? If the article doesnt appropriately cover the subject, then we are probably wasting time focusing on a single sentence in the lead (and a particular word in that sentence!) until there is a better understanding and development of what that lead sentence is supposed to be summarizing.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

NPOV, WP:Impartial, WP:DUE, WP:Fringe, BLP stuff

@The Red Pen of Doom, Guy, Ronz I’ve scoured, studied and absorbed WP:NPOV, including WP:DUE and WP:IMPARTIAL, with an emphasis on WP:Fringe and BLP. Although mainstream and reliable sources and the necessity of them is pretty clear, I don’t see the emphasis on mainstream academic views of the subject the way you’re phrasing it.

I’m here to make sure the biography of a living person is neutral and respectful and to help make sure we distinguish Dr. Chopra the physician, Dr. Chopra the author on spirituality/philosophy/consciousness, Dr. Chopra the celebrity, and Dr. Chopra the entrepreneur and the criticisms therien. Plus - I get that ‘mind body healing’ maybe qualifies for WP:fringe - but that’s just one component of Dr. Chopra’s work. WP:Fringe does not cover philosophy, consciousness, media or business ventures Dr. Chopra engages in. Right now the article just looks like a ‘Chopra salad’ all mixed up.

@Roxy the dog apparently you don’t have to be a vegetarian to eat a Chopra salad :) ChopraMedia (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

In the case of someone whose notability is their advocacy of fringe ideas, then NPOV is placing them as advocates of fringe ideas. (and you are still editing under your ChopraMedia account - make sure you log out and scramble the password) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

If the practice of medicine is from A to Z, twenty five years ago the "mind/body" was at Z. That you have named a handful of clinics means that it has moved to somewhere about V. That is still a long way from the "mainstream" of academics and the medical professions which tend to peter out between K and M. And the last I checked, Clinton has not even attended Medical School, let alone established himself as a clinician/researcher whose opinions about Medical concepts and technology we would care about. WP:MEDRES-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Apparently SAS81 is having trouble figuring out how to log out of the ChopraMedia account and log into the SAS81 account, I gave instructions at their user talk page to help them. -- Atama頭 22:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's true to say that "mind body healing" has become any less fringe. It's like homeopathy: it's faith healing without the deity. It may wax and wane in popularity, but it has never had any empirical validity and it's extremely unlikely it ever will, since it does not originate in the world of medical science, but instead in the world fo those who dislike the way medical science discards cherished beliefs when they are found to be wrong. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey @TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom the contradiction I’m finding with NPOV, to your point - is that the only sources that say Dr. Chopra is an advocate for fringe ideas and pseudoscience are all skeptic/critic sources whereas other sources that say he is notable, a pioneer, a medical doctor, a physician, etc etc do not seem to be represented. Again - US Presidents who mention US citizens in speeches to foreign dignitaries are going to mention what they are notable for. By definition. Clinton is also not a physicist, but he sure is qualified to introduce Stephen Hawking for what he is notable for. I’m asking that you work with me here. You may disagree with me, but my arguments are not themselves unreasonable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SAS81 (talk • contribs)

I do not follow all of your logic. We do not base our article about Hawking's scientific work on the fact that a president called him a scientist - we base it on the fact that scientists have reviewed and approve of his work in the standard scientific journals. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No of course not, but if a US president mentioned Dr. Hawkins as a 'pioneer of black hole physics' we assume the president is making that statement because that is what he is notable for and not a personal summary made by Bill Clinton. My logic is simple. Sitting US President mentions X in a speech to foreign dignitary = X is notable for whatever US President mentions. SAS81 (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The president is not an expert in "black hole physics" and so his assessment of someone as a "pioneer" in the field is valueless hoo ha attempting to gain meaningless approval via connection to someone famous.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I gave a straightforward statement explaining WHY a president's mention of someone's contributions MEANS those contributions are notable IRRESPECTIVE if that president himself is qualified to assess. If your going to disagree with me, fine, then disagree with the actual logic of my argument and show me the value of yours. You're not explaining to me why a sitting US presidents mention of someone contributions is not evidence of notability - you're just assessing Bill Clinton as a candidate for med school and that's not what I am arguing for. Do you actually believe that when a sitting US president makes a statement to a foreign dignitary that he is conveying simply his 'personal assessment' or the assessment of the United States of which he is the leader? Do you actually think that Bill Clinton himself sat down and typed into Google Alta Vista 'Deepak Chopra' and came to his own conclusions? Please, give me a genuine argument and work with me here. SAS81 (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

You can demand that I dont answer based on policy , but that is rather pointless because the content will be governed by policy, and so that is how i answered you. What the president may or may not have said during the obligatory promotional niceties of introductions is absolutely inconsequential to the discussion of what factors matter for a wikipedia article. Being president does NOT grant someone an actual value in their assessments of science, as our former president can attest (scroll about half way down for the paragraph starting "What a difference seven years makes." ) When you start discussing mainstream academics then we can make progress. Repeatedly appealing to the authority of the president in matters of science wont get you anywhere but WP:TE'd to WP:AE.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

JPS and I already found a compromise with 'pioneer of alternative medicine' to 'champion of alternative medicine'. The source supports Dr. Chopra's notability around alternative medicine while he also is not a practitioner. This seems like a great compromise so we can drop this issue. SAS81 (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

More Guru Stew, first sentence framing

@JPS thanks for opening up the discussion around ‘guru’. I have a number of problems with it and I will list all of them. I'm hoping the community can join in too and share their viewpoints.

1. ‘Guru’ (as mentioned in the article) can be a pejorative label as you can see already mentioned in the Guru article. You suggest this is only a cultural bias. I’m saying any usage of the term is cultural bias, positive or negative - and for that reason alone not proper for a first sentence which frames the entire BLP. That's the first argument, secondly is it is genuinely offensive in many contexts this way and thats probably not the best way to start an article. I understand you may not get that because culturally it is out of your peripheral so harder to relate to.

Contextually this is interesting to consider, encyclopedia.com's phrasing of their first sentence shows how they dealt with the problem actually highlights the answer to your question. "Deepak Chopra (born 1946) is an alternative medicine expert to some, and a money-making guru to others. "

2. ‘Guru’ as used in a manner of affection for various religious practices, most commonly found in India, implies a *very * very* specific relationship between the ‘guru’ or teacher, and the student or disciple, take Bhakti yoga for example. That relationship does not exist with Dr. Chopra and those who work with him, so he is neither a guru in the eastern sense of the word, nor is he intrinsically a guru in the western pejorative sense of the word.

3. I get that people label him guru, and people label steve jobs a guru too. The word guru has various cultural meanings. It’s not an official achievement or an award hard earned or anything like that. There is no official way to measure if someone really is a New Age Guru either, its just a label and by definition inherently not neutral.

4. Dr. Chopra has gone on record as saying he also does not consider himself a guru, so primary sources are not matching. I think that’s relevant to also consider.

5. I think I can find a compromise around the label ‘new age’ or spiritual in the lead section somewhere, just not in the first sentence. I agree that someone of Dr. Chopra’s level of fame, the fact that he is both loved and hated is also intrinsic to who he is. Neutral means showing that he is both loved and hated, yes?

So I am not trying to dis associate Dr Chopra from New Age criticisms or Spiritual by any means, I just want to see the framing more neutral so the reader can get a clear picture of who Dr Chopra is, what his ideas are, and what is the reception around those ideas. Also ‘New Age’ seems like a flakey term to describe Dr. Chopra’s spiritual philosophy in a lead sentence (even if that may not bother him, I'm saying that just from an encyclopedic perspective it seems flakey). I am just trying to distinguish a respectful and neutral framing of who he is so the reader can see the context of the various labels or reactions Dr. Chopra has received.

6. Or, we can just drop it all together in the first sentence. Let me run this by you and you tell me what you think, or feel free to tweak it a bit too. We have some consensus and some agreement, let’s see if we can expand on it some more. I think we can shorten holistic health guru and ‘champion of alternative medicine’ into one sentence.

Technically the term ‘holistic health’ is more appropriate in relationship to the actual body of work, since Dr. Chopra claims that both mainstream medicine & mind body healing practices such as meditation and yoga should work together for greater measurable physical and emotional health, thus 'holistic' health. The focus on alternative medicine only gives the reader the wrong impression of Dr. Chopra's ideas.

“Deepak Chopra is an Indian American endocrinologist, author, entrepreneur, and champion of holistic health.”

I think we are getting closer. I would love to understand your concerns with the above phrasing too. Thanks everyone. SAS81 (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"Holistic health" is a fraught term. Holism means a variety of things and it is somewhat insulting to insinuate that those who do not support alternative medicine are not "holistic". I've also not seen any evidence that Chopra is a practicing endocrinologist. Can you point to his current activities in that field? jps (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes "holistic" used like that (as with "integrative" medicine) is largely a PR/advocacy term and best avoided. As for "endocrinologist" after some digging I found PMID 1986838 uses the word. However, the (very interesting) text goes on to describe how Chopra was turning his back on science and medicine, which rather suggests that this would be a rather bad choice of introductory term ... if anything, on the basis of this text it would be better to call him an opponent of medical science.

Opponent of medical science seems to frame things better than any of the other suggestions proposed so far, guru and champion don't seem to cut the mustard, despite my feeling that there is no real need to change the extant sentence. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

But Chopra doesn't think of himself as an opponent of medical science. So how do we get that across? He may be an opponent, but he, like others in his camp, sees himself as an integrator. I don't really know how to get this across. I think guru and champion may be destined for the garbage bin (though I like the contrast), but I don't think we have a good replacement yet. jps (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

any background he has in endocrinology has squat to do with his notability and therefore is WP:UNDUE weight to be giving in the lead sentence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

"Notability" has special meaning on Wikipedia, as it usually refers to WP:N and in this case WP:BIO. In this context, I don't think Chopra is notable for being a endocrinologist, or even a physician. However, no one has offered any sources so far.

It still may be appropriate in the lede as a major career achievement.

What do people think of [11]? I tried to address most of the comments above while streamlining it. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this is fine with me. I would like to interrogate further the complaints about the word "guru" which is, as far as I can tell, a basic synonym for "teacher" in Sanskrit. Seeing as how Chopra began his notorious campaigns with an acceptance of Ayurveda, this seems to me to be an appropriate word in spite of the connotations that come along for the ride. Chopra says, "I am neither motivational, nor am I a guru...." but I don't understand why he says that. He doesn't think he motivates people? Why not? I don't really understand where he is coming from. My current guess is that he is just being humble much the same way a teacher might say, "I'm not a teacher, the students teach themselves..." On the other hand, if there is a word that is better than "guru", I'd be thrilled to replace it. So far, I haven't seen one, but I'm hopeful. jps (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Ronz's edit is good. As to "guru", Chopra undoubtedly meets the colloquial definition of the term, and asserting some technically correct meaning that he does not meet in order to undermine the fact that a term which gets literally millions of Google hits under his name, should be omitted, looks to me like special pleading. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, we should consider all aspects, and there may be a word or term we haven't thought of yet that could work even better. But I find myself agreeing with the proposal that Chopra more than not shares characteristics with the way the word "guru" is most often understood. jps (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Compromising on 'guru' spiritual teacher or leader

The genuine problem we all have to solve is that Dr. Chopra is *both* loved *and* hated and there are probably few people anywhere that don't have some kind of opinion on him. I get what side of the fence many of you are on, and I'm fine with that position guys, I'm not trying to sell you on him. Dr Chopra is notable and so are these reactions to him. But we have to get the facts distinguished from the opinions.

Question for JPS or anyone: What do you want the article to say in the first sentence exactly regarding Dr Chopra role in mainstream society? Perhaps that would help. Guru is still a pejorative and I have going to have a lot of genuine BLP issues if a pejorative is used in the framing of Dr Chopra in Wikipedia's voice in the first sentence. Work with me to satisfy what you would like to see.

The awkward issue is 'guru' is how others see Deepak - it does not surprise me that it has so many hits. But consider say Haile Selassie. He too was seen as a spiritual leader, indeed even the messiah of the Rastafari. Yet he never looked at himself that way, it was a label put on him by others.

I think the article needs to show that yes, Dr. Chopra is considered a spiritual leader of New Age philosophy. How about we just take this out of the first sentence and create a second sentence which says something to the affect of "Deepak Chopra is considered a spiritual leader in the New Age movement."

I'm not speaking as Dr. Chopra's rep when I say we should want a pristinely neutral and respectable first sentence, I am speaking as an archivist and historian for an encyclopedia. I think this is where the term 'uncompromising neutrality' comes in.

Dr. Chopra is a best selling New Age author and philosopher, endocrinologist, entrepreneur and champion of integrative medicine.

SAS81 (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Micros w/JPS, 'spiritual leader' guru

I think I would be fine with switching guru for a statement to the effect of "Deepak Chopra is a spiritual leader in the New Age movement." (I don't like the word "considered" because it begs the question, "by whom?"). However, I do not feel very strongly about this and note that others are concerned because there are so many sources (both pro and con) which identify Chopra as a "guru". I don't think we have sources which identify Chopra as a practicing philosopher or endocrinologist. We do have sources saying he is a champion for integrative medicine, though this term isn't quite as good as "alternative medicine" in my estimation because it usually is invoked in mainstream hospitals rather than by advocates from the outside. jps (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a good place to build a compromise. However, even if we don't use the word 'considered', the question 'by whom?' is still going to require a source and that's still a tough question. As I said, I'm fine with it as a separate sentence, but it's still an opinion of him and just so you know its not something Dr Chopra identifies as and there is no official 'movement' that he is an actual designated leader - it's just an honorary or affectionate term given to him. Let me know what kind of sources you would need for that too. SAS81 (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Right. So we should try to see how this can be framed properly. Unfortunately, divorced of the negative connotations, "guru" sort of does this well. If we understood perhaps why Chopra doesn't identify this way it may help us to see why this wording is problematic. jps (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This is good progress, I think we are genuinely both seeing the same problem wearing our encyclopedia hats. And guru,spiritual leader or any similar reference is still fraught with all of the same problems from a BLP opening sentence perspective. Here is what I recommend. I am going to suggest the first two sentences which I think may address the problem. I know we dont have consensus in other things in the sentence yet, but just tell me what you think about the contexts around the 'teacher/leader/guru'. Another genuine problem is that Dr Chopra, love him or hate him, is a genuinely prolific individual, so he is also admittedly not easily capsulized yet since he is so notable still needs to be contained in the lead. I think all of these things can be addressed neutrally, in accordance with BLP and Fringe to boot, with framing closer to this:

Deepak Chopra is an Indian American endocrinologist, best selling New Age author, motivational speaker and 'wellness' entrepreneur. Chopra is a polarizing figure, functioning as a spiritual leader to some and a promoter of dangerous ideas to others.

I think just referring to him as a 'best selling' New Age author gives you what you want, combined with 'motivational' which is more neutral and can imply guru, teacher, leader and all sorts of things without telling the reader which to interpret. I could compromise on 'wellness' as a replacement for integrative or alternative medicine (I dont want to have to get into a long derailed convo about that sort of stuff just yet) and its broad enough to include Dr Chopra's actual contributions. I think Dr Chopra's ideas on 'wellness' are central to his life work and should be simply defined in the article so the reader understands the article is referencing Dr Chopra's ideas on wellness and acknowledging that some consider these ideas dangerous too.

Are we getting closer?

SAS81 (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That's simply whitewashing. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"Chopra is a polarizing figure" ← I think this exemplifies perfectly the WP:GEVAL fallacy. In one sense it's true, but one pole represents the credulous, misguided and/or uneducated people who laud Chopra; the other, the thorough, logical and/or scholarly scientific community who (it seems) berate him. Wikipedia must always emphasize the views of the latter group, in order to be neutral. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

you are again pushing the "endocrinologist" into the lead when that has zilch to do with this notability. also the phrase "best selling " /"award winning" etc are not appropriate to the lead sentence. So, no. You will need to take off your PR spin hat and remember that we are writing an encyclopedia and not a promotional blurb. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that we can't identify him primarily as an endocrinologist: it is simply not what Chopra is known for. Best selling New Age author? Sure. Motivational speaker? With proper context. "Wellness" entrepreneur? I don't know what that means. I would say "advocate/champion for alternative medicine". I would also eliminate the "polarizing figure" bit and I don't like the false dichotomy being set up. "Chopra is a spiritual leader to some in the New Age movement and has been criticized for promoting pseudoscience by skeptics and scientists who have evaluated his precise claims". That might work better. jps (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Stating facts is not ‘whitewashing’ - like i mentioned earlier, it aint braggin if it’s a notable fact. I'm going to address the 'endocrinologist' in another section as this areas was designated to discuss specifically a second sentence. But before we get much deeper into this collaboration - I think we all need to be on the same page about what neutrality means first. SAS81 (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

what neutrality means: is there consensus here for this interpretation?

@Alex - admittedly I’m having serious difficulty fusing ‘neutrality’ with ‘emphasizing’ the voice of one particular group or voice, especially a voice that you mention ‘berates’ him. I appreciate you being honest about your editing POV, but to me this flies in the face of what neutrality means, especially on a BLP. But if this is the understanding used by this forum here, then it makes sense why the article reads like simple a criticism of Deepak Chopra masquerading as a neutral article to me.

I do not see one policy rule or guideline that supports the editing voice that critics of a living person frame that person in an encyclopedia. That is not what I see WP:Fringe ‘guiding’ us to do - and it completely cancels out what neutrality means in a BLP. Consider what you’re saying there - that the voice and framing of the article needs to reflect the particular group of people that criticize and berate him?

I would like to take a vote below to see what sort of consensus this framing has on this article. Does this unique interpretation of ‘neutrality’ ‘BLP’, and ‘Fringe’ have the full support of all the other editors here as WP policy and guideline which needs to be enforced on this article? SAS81 (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

we have pointed you there many times. See WP:NPOV and its subsections WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE and WP:VALID. Neutrality at Wikipedia means representing the subject as they are seen by the mainstream academics in the subject area, which leads essentially to: Chopra is a popular modern snake-oil salesman. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Per WP:BLP "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." TRPOD, the comment above is defamatory and should be removed. I understand some have opinions of Chopra that are not of the highest, still this kind of comment falls below the threshold of what editors should be posting on a talk page on a BLP.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC))

  While I think TRPOD's comment is excessive and provoking in a manner that doesn't help our discussions, it could be easily sourced even if WP:BLPTALK didn't apply. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  It should be sources or removed, although why such a comment sourced or not, on a talk page, is necessary in a discussion, is beyond me.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC))

  Is it "related to making content choices" as stated in WP:BLPTALK? I think so. It characterizes and summarizes a viewpoint that most definitely should be taken into account in our discussions. Therefore it doesn't have to be sourced or removed. Are we going to put anything like it into the article? No one that I see is suggesting it, and if anyone does they should offer a source before adding anything of the kind to the article. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Its name calling pure and simple, and as you said "is excessive and provoking in a manner that doesn't help our discussions" and this is a BLP talk page. His choice.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC))

[12] Happy? As per an assessment by Newsweek as documented by Oxford U press. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

or from the University of California Press [13] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

or here [14] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

or here [15]. The specific phrase is probably far more often used than the "endocrinologist" appellation that our COI friend is attempting to get into the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Your choice.And this has nothing to do with my so-called happiness; it has to do with respect for another human being and how I discuss him in a public forum whether I like what he does or not. It also has nothing to do with making sure to determine what the reader will take away which is a non-neutral POV. It doesn't effect me and I doubt it affects Chopra. It affects this talk page, and that's fine, if that's what the encyclopedia supports. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC))

and my choice is to stand by my assessment that the mainstream academic assessment of Chopra can be summed up with popular modern day snake oil salesman and that when we follow the sources and WP:BLP demand that we follow WP:NPOV , popular modern day snake oil salesman is what the reader will be taking away . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to endorse what TRiPOD says. Sassy needs to read up and understand WP policy on BLP and FRINGE. Alternatively, read the good advice given by everybody on this talk page. There is is no "unique interpretation" of any WP policy or guideline on this page, just a just a normal framing of Chopra from the mainstream view. If Sassy continues to misunderstand this, we will get nowhere. Further, there is no need for a vote, and I shall not be participating in such a pointless exercise.-Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not helping clarify your thinking to keep referencing broad WP policies that not only am I familiar with at this point but could give a dissertation on. I am reading the same policy and following the same policy that you mention. I just can't find any evidence that the policy, or the sources you are using, support these extreme interpretations that your suggesting, mainly because you keep supporting nuanced applications of policy with broad guideline references that do nothing to explain exactly how you are coming to these conclusions.

These sources you link to above as evidence of 'mainstream' academic support of a pejorative label against Dr Chopra, justifying your own position are extremely problematic and sourced way out of context. It's flat out misleading to any archivist or researcher or encyclopedia to reference these sources they way that is mentioned here.

If one just looks at the sources your using - it's easy to see the sources also...

a) Prominently mention him as a physician, describe his mainstream reception as overwhelmingly positive, then described a criticism that used the term "snake-oil" as isolated and unusual or under the umbrella of suspicion around him by Dr Chopra's scoffers.

b) Prominently mention him as a physician, describe his mainstream reception as overwhelmingly positive, then characterize Dawkins' attack on him as excessive for using the term "snake oil."

c) Denounce him as a fraud, spread lies (that he has no valid medical license nor sees any patients), then mock both his ethnicity and the tragic deaths of his personal acquaintances (Princess Diana).

Are these the sources you all are signing off on to support neutrality on a BLP? SAS81 (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Micros on 'philosopher' eastern philosophy, notability

I accept that 'philosopher' may be tricky, but it is certainly closer to what he does and at least needs some consideration. It's just labeled as 'new age', but epistemologically speaking, it's eastern philosophy²⁰¹⁴. He is acknowledged as a philosopher articulating the eastern perspective in matters of consciousness specifically. Even as I write this Dr.Chopra is presenting at the Tuscon Conference on consciousness with other philosophical luminaries in consciousness and science. Dr. Chopra co authored with Leonard Mladinow 'War of the Worldviews'. I think this needs to be acknowledged somehow. Clearly very distinguished and notable people are somehow able to acknowledge Dr Chopra in a way that this article on him does not represent. SAS81 (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure that we can say that Chopra's advocacy is "Eastern Philosophy". He is not an academic philosopher: neither Eastern nor Western (and, anyway, this distinction is less a mainstream academic one than one made in popular culture). To delve into consciousness is probably not a can of worms we should be opening at this time. Basically, the purview of consciousness is neurology, and there is no sense in which Chopra is connected to that field. I will grant that there are arguments in certain philosophical quarters over such matters as the hard problem of consciousness, but even that is not what you mean by "eastern perspective" on "consciousness". The so-called "Tucson Conference" is really nothing more than a meeting of the various parapsychology groups, you should know, a perspective that is so WP:FRINGE that it can only be used to source the beliefs of the attendees. Connecting Chopra to parapsychology is a good direction, perhaps, and we can think about how that framing may go. But this is not mainstream thought here and we cannot confuse this. Finally, the "War of the Worldviews" perspective is one that we can consider, but there is a false dichotomy being presented here. The "War of the Worldviews" is a war between popular understandings of reality. If we take a step back and look at how academics treat these questions: the criticism is such that Chopra doesn't really have the credentials to be talking about the subjects upon which he is opining (quantum physics, consciousness), and where he does have expertise (endocrinology), he seems to avoid the issues and focus on nebulously defined techniques and terms from alternative medicine. It is not at all clear the Chopra has a working model for how chakras "integrate" into a medical diagnostic regimen, but he promotes such proposals anyway. So what do we do with this? I think the best thing to do is to make it clear that what Chopra is doing is going beyond his expertise and delving into areas that have been, historically, the purview of pseudoscience. How to frame this is the question. jps (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't accept that the Gorbachev quote only reflects the opinion of Gorbachev, consider it was the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic International Scientific Committee, awarded along with Richard Dawkins that prompted the quote AND the scientific award that he was given. SAS81 (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Was there some specific science that Deepak did that prompted the Gorby comments and the Italian award? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 03:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not see how receiving a medal from Italy is indicative of having done any science. jps (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It isn't, which is why I asked the question, which has so far been ignored. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Your question was not ignored Roxy the dog - its just not a question I can answer for you because that's OR and not the purpose the source was introduced. The source was introduced to show notability. The citation I gave you shows where you can go research and find your answer - but those kind of things is not what we even need to do to edit Wikipedia. We are not here to peer review proper sources. SAS81 (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I dont think there has been any question that Deepak Chopra is notable. The question is how do we present the content in the way that meets the WP:BLP requirement that the content is presented in accordance with WP:NPOV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to address the specific statement regarding 'Tucson Conference' referring to it as a meeting of 'parapsychology' groups and basically Fringe by jps. This is an uninformed statement regarding the Tucson Conference. All of the attendees represent various points of view on consciousness and the majority of them are western academic philosophers. sponsored by a mainstream university. The attendees and presentations are made by the most notable names in consciousness studies and philosophy, including Daniel Dennet, John Searle and Christopher Koch. I hardly think they would agree they were parapsychology groups attending a parapsychology conference. Dr. Chopra was on a panel alongside John Searle. The point is that Dr. Chopra represents his views on consciousness alongside some of the most academic philosophers in the world and is notable among them for his views on consciousness. SAS81 (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

i dont think that anyone has said "fringe is limited to eastern philosophies". there a just as many wingnut western fringe promoters as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Micros response for JPS, Gorby, eastern philosophy, academia, worldviews etc

Wearing my encyclopedia hat - I’m not going to look at popular labels of any kind to frame a neutral first few sentences. I’m going to have to study a bit WP policy on the boundaries of what is acceptable ‘philosophy’ - however my point is epistemological and from that perspective, of course it is eastern philosophy and of course ‘philosophy’ since it is a world view and central arguments are the same and its pretty easy to trace Chopra’s epistemological roots back to Eastern Philosophy.

You’ve included a rather harsh assessment re: false dichotomy. You say ‘take a step back’ and look at ‘how these academics’ view his work - lots of problems with this but I am only going to list two for now :)

1. First problem: I’m defining Dr Chopra’s clear notability discussing one world view (broadly called ‘spiritual’ but consistent with eastern philosophy, some but not all new age thinking) with another world view (science, physicalism, materialism, etc). This is clearly what facts and sources support. Dr. Chopra engages thought leaders in science, medicine, business and politics.

2. If you say academics say he is not qualified for this, then I would like to see the exact sources and summary for that but also, I’m not sure what you’re suggesting, that we don’t mention something that is clearly notable because some academics don’t believe he is qualified? I think if we keep the focus on notability this problem goes away and its just a matter of making sure that voice, which is one of many when it comes to Dr Chopra, is represented in his article but does not frame his article. SAS81 (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Roxy re: 'how is this proof he has done science?' To say the least, it shows the level of Dr Chopra’s notability in matters of (whatever you want to call it) mind body medicine, integrative medicine, and his philosophy thereof. If a 15 member scientific panel representing a major European country awards a medal for ‘something something’ science to Dr Chopra AND Richard Dawkins - clearly the award is for something he is notable for AND the medal is also ONLY for notable people also recognized (like Dawkins). Central to Dr Chopra's work is bringing science and (call it what you want) spirituality, mind body, etc etc together.

I understand you’re critical of his ideas - but this is WP:Notability we are talking about here and ‘it ain’t braggin’ if ya done it’ applies. SAS81 (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

We can use the quote to show that he is famous. We can't use the quote to show he is a scientist. There is a difference. I don't think that Chopra has published any papers in philosophy journals. That's where the academic discourse in philosophy happens, and that's the sort of minimum buy-in I would expect for labeling someone a "philosopher" without the "arm chair" epithet. jps (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

We can use the quote to also show what he is notable for. We are going to have to have a 'come to jesus moment' on what neutrality means though. Because we have sources that support Dr Chopra making valuable contributions and being acknowledged as such at a very high and pristine level and other sources berating him for the same thing. I dont think all of you have made the case that you think you have. SAS81 (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

please provide these sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sources that align with WP:FRIND that show that Chopra has made any valuable scientific contributions. I have seen a lot of unreliable sources written by fellow travelers make this claim, but they aren't properly independent sources. jps (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

One way out of the "Eastern Philosophy" forest may be to attribute some of Chopra's beliefs to himself. What does he have to say about what he's doing? Does he see himself as a bridge between east and west or something like that? We could simply quote what he says he is and the compare/contrast that with reliable and prominent sources that argue similarly or differently. jps (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

JPS, this I can work with. Yes, specifically Dr Chopra does see himself as building a bridge between 'science and spirituality'. Clearly Dr Chopra has a different philosophical view of what consciousness is and this informs much of his work. Let me find some good quotes for you here standby. SAS81 (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This would be the best way you could help us contribute to the article. Good quotes on what Chopra says he is doing would be invaluable because we could summarize this and say what he says in the lede, for example. jps (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

JPS, Roxy, sources, holistic health, integrative medicine

Hey JPS, my apologies if you feel insulted by my description of holistic health in context to how terms are being used in this immediate discussion - that was not my intention and I think its because both of us are conflating terms across the board. Holistic health should not be confused with philosophical holism and holistic health as a specific definition that itself does not apply to Dr Chopra either. Some call it integrative medicine. Some call it holistic health. Some say mind body medicine. Some even confuse it and just label it ‘alternative medicine’. I’m sure a few here have some labels for it to. For me, it makes sense to follow the labels the encyclopedia is currently using.

Secondly, Dr. Chopra himself does not practice alternative medicine (as its properly defined) either. He practices (and writes, lectures about) endocrinology specifically in context to integrative medicine. Yes he writes best selling new age books too, but we have to note the difference.

His specific contribution in endocrinology are integrative medicine as defined in the encyclopedia. Integrative medicine looks at the subjective contributions to measurable physical health by evaluating personal lifestyle (which includes any ‘spiritual’ practice, emotional well being from family, community as well as financial well being as all contributing to measurable physical health). That’s what holistic health refers to in this context. The value of subjective experience along side western medicine.

SAS81 (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there are meaningful distinctions between alternative medicine and "integrative" or "holistic" or "complementary" medicine. If you have sources which make this distinction which are independent of the movement, that would be nice to see.

I asked earlier for an indication of what clinic/group/hospital Chopra is affiliated with when he practices endocrinology. I haven't seen any sources which indicate he is still practicing this actively, as in, seeing patients or doing research. I don't know what you mean by "in context to integrative medicine". Either he is practicing medicine or he isn't. We need sources.

Your statement, "His specific contribution in endocrinology are integrative medicine as defined in the encyclopedia." doesn't make any sense -- perhaps you'd like to rephrase it? Are you saying that Chopra's "contributions" to endocrinology are all in the realm of "integrative medicine"? Because if that's the case then we can clearly say he is not a mainstream endocrinologist and we ought not to be calling him such. But I may misunderstand you.

Finally you say, "Integrative medicine looks at the subjective contributions to measurable physical health by evaluating personal lifestyle." Do you have a sources for this? People can evaluate physical lifestyles without appealing to the modalities that Chopra appeals to. When my doctor says, "get more exercise", is this integrative medicine? If not, you'll have to come up with a better definition.

You state something very strange: "The value of subjective experience along side western medicine." -- Western Medicine values subjective experience a lot, so I'm not sure what this dichotomy is trying to communicate.

In short, I'm having a hard time understanding a lot of what you're saying here. You may need to tighten your language and explain a bit more simply avoiding words that are not easily defined like "integrative medicine".

jps (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair questions I suppose. By 'integrative medicine' I mean what the article on Wikipedia means. The consensus that Wikipedia already acknowledges. I don't believe that your statements regarding integrative medicine represent mainstream consensus - it's a non controversy.

Since we have established that the term integrative medicine is the proper medical term to reference treating the whole person and using methods in alternative medicine combined with biomedicine, in Dr. Chopra's case that biomedicine is endocrinology.

Therefore, Dr. Chopras contribution to endocrinology is the contribution of alternative practices such as yoga or meditation with the biomedicine of western medicine specifically where his expertise is.

Dr. Chopra is listed as a doctor of internal medicine with an office practice in good standing with the American Medical Association, specifically stating that he actively practices internal medicine (with a specialization in diabetes) out of his Carlsbad office. “DoctorFinder: Chopra, Deepak, MD.” American Medical Association website, accessed April 23, 2014. https://apps.ama-assn.org/doctorfinder/member.do?id=1398279052768&index=0&page=1 SAS81 (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that my statements on "integrative medicine" are fairly in line with how the subject is treated in the highest-quality medical literature (which is to say basically ignored or considered an issue of palliative care, bedside manner, and patient compassion rather than one of biological medicine). Chopra has a unique perspective that there is some way to connect his beliefs with physical mechanisms, but when he goes further to explain why he ends up in the realm of quantum mysticism or other pseudoscientific rabbit holes. That's all neither here nor there, though, because the idea that there is a distinction between integrative medicine and alternative medicine is simply an example of the euphemism treadmill in action. The funding in the US is mostly done through NCCAM, and the alternative is directly in their title. I don't see any evidence that there is a consistent or serious way in which alternative medicine and "biomedicine" have been meaningfully "integrated" beyond simply using the word. Wikipedia's article on the subject is rather dreadful, to be sure. I don't think we can state without, say, a statement from other endocrinologists who don't practice alternative medicine that Chopra has contributed to endocrinology. If you have sources like this, I'd be glad to see them.

It is true that Chopra is listed as a doctor by the AMA, but that's not exactly relevant to whether its appropriate to label him an endocrinologist in the lede. His background in endocrinology is agreed upon by all, but I don't think you have made an unequivocal case that he is a practicing endocrinologist.

jps (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources for Dr. Chopra in the field of endocrinology and integrative medicine

Chopra’s medical training is in internal medicine and endocrinology. He is a Fellow of the American College of Physicians, a member of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, possessing a medical license in Massachusetts and California.

“My Practice Details,” HealthGrades Inc., accessed April 20, 2014, http://www.healthgrades.com/physician/dr-deepak-chopra-28dr8/background-check Medium: Website Category: Medical/Scientific WP ref: “My Practice Details,” HealthGrades Inc., accessed April 20, 2014, http://www.healthgrades.com/physician/dr-deepak-chopra-28dr8/background-check

“Dr. Deepak Chopra, Endocrinologist in Carlsbad, CA.” US News: Health. Accessed April 20, 2014. http://health.usnews.com/doctors/deepak-chopra-707300 Medium: News, Website Category: Medical/Scientific, News/Commentary WP ref: “Dr. Deepak Chopra, Endocrinologist in Carlsbad, CA.” ‘’US News: Health.’’ Accessed April 20, 2014. http://health.usnews.com/doctors/deepak-chopra-707300

“Profile: Deepak Chopra.” Forbes, accessed April 20, 2014, http://www.forbes.com/profile/deepak-chopra-2/ Medium: News, Website Category: Medical/Scientific, News/Commentary, Biography WP ref: “Profile: Deepak Chopra.” ‘’Forbes’’, accessed April 20, 2014, http://www.forbes.com/profile/deepak-chopra-2/

SAS81 (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

These are interesting database citations, but they only, to me, indicate that he is licensed, not that he is practicing. How do they indicate something differently to you? jps (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

In terms of Dr. Chopra's current practice in Endocrinology, well first and foremost he runs and owns the Chopra Center, specifically the Mind Body medical group at the Chopra center which employs other California licensed physicians who see patients and guests at the center. Dr. Chopra does see patients occasionally but he is more focused on research, lecturing and his courses, which are also AMA approved CME course under the aegis of UCSD medical school. Also to maintain a license there are obviously requirements, one cannot easily just continue to be a licensed physician if they are not maintaining the practice according to whatever medical boards are requiring. I can see what else I can get for you. The Chopra Center for Well Being is famous, I'm surprised it does not have a Wikipedia page. SAS81 (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That's what I thought you might be referring to. The Chopra Center for Well Being, however, doesn't appear to be a medical practice in the normal sense. What are the ambulatory care regimens of the center? If someone comes in for a diabetes consultation, is their blood sugar taken? Are amputations done at the center or are they merely referred to other locations? How extensive is the medical treatment being offered? I note, for example, that the insurance scheme is left up to the patient rather than the center which is rather peculiar for most American medical institutions. Is there a provision for accepting medicare or medicaid?

Maintaining a license to practice medicine does not require having a practice. You simply have to renew your license which is something that can be done, for example, by someone who is hoping to practice medicine again but isn't doing so currently. [16].

jps (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@SAS81: As jps notes, maintaining one's medical license is actually extremely easy. It requires only a functioning bank account (to pay renewal fees) and a certain amount of CME credit (which can be obtained easily by, you know, going to hear a lecture from Deepak Chopra). I recall seeing a statement from Chopra that he no longer practices medicine (in the sense of seeing patients personally), but I can't find the source for some reason. Since your userpage states that you speak with Chopra daily, maybe you could ask him how many patients he sees annually (in the sense of having a documented physician-patient relationship, billing professional fees, etc). He doesn't appear to have any Medicare billing from 2012 (the most year for which data are publicly available), but some physicians don't accept Medicare because of the low reimbursement rate, so that's not definitive. MastCell ^Talk 22:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Chopra is listed as a doctor of internal medicine with an office practice in good standing with the American Medical Association, specifically stating that he actively practices internal medicine (with a specialization in diabetes) out of his Carlsbad office. “DoctorFinder: Chopra, Deepak, MD.” American Medical Association website, accessed April 23, 2014. https://apps.ama-assn.org/doctorfinder/member.do?id=1398279052768&index=0&page=1 SAS81 (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's the thing about "integrative medicine". Medicine is the field of practice guided by medical science, alternatives to medicine are the fields of practice comprised of the things that have not made it into medicine because either there's no proof they work, or there's concrete proof they don't work; it's mainly guided by belief, opinion and pseudoscience.

Integrative baking: you integrate cow pie with apple pie. The apple pie is not improved as a result. Integrative medicine is just the latest rebranding of failed ideas, in an attempt to weasel them into mainstream practice, and obscuring the essential separation between treatments that provably work and those which don't, is what Chopra is best known for. Integrative medicine is a bad thing, not a good thing. Be very careful how firmly you nail Chopra's colours to that particular mast. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@guy - I'm going with mainstream consensus as reflected in Wikipedia regarding integrative medicine. I can't really respond to the rest of your comment because it sounds like OR outside of the mainstream and not what I am here to do. SAS81 (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Mastcell - I'm having a hard time obliging your request to peep into Dr Chopra's medical records with Wikipedia's guidelines against Original Research. AMA lists him as operating and maintaining an office practice. That's good enough for this discussion. SAS81 (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

As regards Integrative medicine, Wikipedia is not a reliable source - in fact I noticed our article had some neutrality (and other) problems. (I have started addressing them). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not my problem. Wikipedia's current article on Integrative Medicine is consistent with the mainstream medical perspective.SAS81 (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, we're at risk of drifting off-topic, but your source and (now) our article rather make the point that while within the world of Integrative medicine, there is respect for it. Outside that world (i.e. in the mainstream) ... not so much. Wikipedia shall neutrally reflect that. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Integrative Medicine is mainstream I'm a little surprised that what little sources you're using they are also misinformed. I will be compiling medium to high impact journals and sources shortly. I do not believe your understanding of integrative medicine reflects mainstream consensus and all sources and knowledge on my end here contradict directly what you are implying. Secondly, if integrative medicine is not 'respected' as you state it, then that should be in the reception section on the article on Integrative Medicine and it should not somehow be summarized to frame the medical career of Dr. Chopra in a way that discredits him. SAS81 (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I think what you need to do is find some properly WP:FRIND sources. Look for sources authored by doctors who are not involved with alternative medicine especially. jps (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Dr Chopra notability for integrative medicine without rejecting medical or scientific facts

0. Dr. Chopra is a Senior Scientist @Gallup listing Deepak Chopra as one of a body of “leading experts who advise and consult with Gallup researchers and select clients. “Gallup Senior Scientists/Senior Advisors”, Gallup Inc., last updated April 20, 2014, 2:00AM, http://www.gallup.com/corporate/19318/gallup-senior-scientists.aspx

1. “A renowned physician and author, Deepak Chopra is undoubtedly one of the most lucid and inspired philosophers of our time.” – Mikhail Gorbachev, Citation of the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic awarded by the Pio Manzu International Scientific Committee

WP ref: Deepak Chopra, M.D. - 15th Annual Scientific Meeting Featured Speaker, accessed April 18, 2014, http://hfsa.org/deepak_chopra.asp.

WP ref: Books LLC, ed. ‘’Recipients of the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic: Richard Dawkins, Deepak Chopra, Michael Albert.’’ (Books LLC, 2010) ISBN 1155583027, 9781155583020

2. “Chopra admits that it would be misleading to suggest that all drugs provide only symptomatic relief. Although he uses ayurvedic techniques in his practice he is still a practicing endocrinologist.”

WP: Goldman, Brian, PhD. Ayurvedism, Eastern medicine moves west. ‘’CMAJ.’’ Jan 15, 1991; 144(2): 218–221. Accessed April 20, 2014. PMCID: PMC1452998, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1452998/

3. WP ref: Chopra, Deepak. Reality and consciousness: A view from the East: Comment on “Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory” by Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose. ‘’Physics of Life Reviews’’, Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2014, Pages 81–82. Accessed April 20, 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.001

SAS81 (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi SAS81.... The Brian Goldman citation from 1991 edition of CMAJ is the best you've got here, but it is pretty out-of-date. Do you have anything of that caliber that is more recent?

The Gallup listing only says that they hired him as a consultant so we could label him as a "consultant" on the basis of that source. The Gorbachev quote is only good for the opinions of Gorbachev. And the "Physics of Life Reviews" is a WP:FRINGE source that cannot be used to validate mainstream credentials.

jps (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This just looks like resume padding. It's superfluous. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

mainstream medical research sources for integrative medicine practices

I'm not sure how to make this list collapse, and I would prefer to put this in the sources but I am not sure if I am allowed to do that with my COI.

Extended content

Integrating clinical medical practices with holistic medicine from the the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) at the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM). 1. Jain S, Pavlik D, Distefan J, Bruyere RL, Acer J, Garcia R, Coulter I, Ives J, Roesch SC, Jonas W, Mills PJ. “Complementary medicine for fatigue and cortisol variability in breast cancer survivors: a randomized controlled trial.” ‘’Cancer.’’ 2012 Feb 1;118(3):777-87. doi: 10.1002/cncr.26345. Epub 2011 Aug 5. Accessed April 20, 2014, PMID: 21823103 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21823103 2. Mills PJ, Jain S. Biofield therapies and psychoneuroimmunology. ‘’Brain Behav Immun.’’ 2010 Nov;24(8):1229-30. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2010.07.246. Epub 2010 Jul 23. Last accessed April 20, 2014, PMID: 20656011 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20656011 3. Jain S, Mills PJ. Biofield therapies: helpful or full of hype? A best evidence synthesis. ‘’Int J Behav Med’’. 2010 Mar;17(1):1-16. doi: 10.1007/s12529-009-9062-4. Review. Erratum in: Int J Behav Med. 2011 Mar;18(1):79-82. Last accessed April 20, 2014 PMID: 19856109 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19856109 4. Jain S, Mills PJ. Integrating integrative medicine research: what can we learn from each other? J Soc Integr Oncol. 2008 Spring;6(2):45-6. Last accessed April 20, 2014, PMID: 18544283 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 5. Jain S, Mills PJ. Integrating integrative medicine research: what can we learn from each other? ‘’J Soc Integr Oncol’’. 2008 Spring;6(2):45-6. Last accessed April 20, 2014, PMID: 18544283 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18544283 6. Bower JE, Greendale G, Crosswell AD, Garet D, Sternlieb B, Ganz PA, Irwin MR, Olmstead R, Arevalo J, Cole SW. Yoga reduces inflammatory signaling in fatigued breast cancer survivors: A randomized controlled trial. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2014 May;43:20-9. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2014.01.019. Epub 2014 Jan 30. Last accessed April 20, 2014, PMID: 24703167 [PubMed - in process] 7. Bower JE, Greendale G, Crosswell AD, Garet D, Sternlieb B, Ganz PA, Irwin MR, Olmstead R, Arevalo J, Cole SW. Yoga reduces inflammatory signaling in fatigued breast cancer survivors: A randomized controlled trial. ‘’Psychoneuroendocrinology’’. 2014 May;43:20-9. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2014.01.019. Epub 2014 Jan 30. Last accessed April 20, 2014, PMID: 24703167 [PubMed - in process] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24703167 8. Kiecolt-Glaser JK, Bennett JM, Andridge R, Peng J, Shapiro CL, Malarkey WB, Emery CF, Layman R, Mrozek EE, Glaser R. Yoga's Impact on Inflammation, Mood, and Fatigue in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Randomized Controlled Trial. ‘’J Clin Oncol’’. 2014 Apr 1;32(10):1040-9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.51.8860. Epub 2014 Jan 27. PMID: 24470004 [PubMed - in process] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24470004 9. Yadav RK, Magan D, Mehta N, Sharma R, Mahapatra SC. Efficacy of a short-term yoga-based lifestyle intervention in reducing stress and inflammation: preliminary results. ‘’J Altern Complement Med.’’ 2012 Jul;18(7):662-7. doi: 10.1089/acm.2011.0265. Last accessed April 20, 2014, PMID: 22830969 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22830969 10. Yogic meditation reverses NF-κB and IRF-related transcriptome dynamics in leukocytes of family dementia caregivers in a randomized controlled trial. ‘’Psychoneuroendocrinology’’. 2013 Mar;38(3):348-55. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2012.06.011. Epub 2012 Jul 15. Accessed April 20, 2014, PMID: 22795617 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22795617 11. Effects of yoga on inflammation and exercise capacity in patients with chronic heart failure. ‘’J Card Fail’’. 2008 Jun;14(5):407-13. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2007.12.007. Epub 2008 May 27. Accessed April 20, 2014, PMID: 18514933 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18514933 12. Seo DY, Lee S, Figueroa A, Kim HK, Baek YH, Kwak YS, Kim N, Choi TH, Rhee BD, Ko KS, Park BJ, Park SY, Han J. Yoga training improves metabolic parameters in obese boys. Korean J Physiol Pharmacol. 2012 Jun;16(3):175-80. doi: 10.4196/kjpp.2012.16.3.175. Epub 2012 Jun 26. Accessed April 20, 2014, PMID: 22802698 [PubMed] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22802698 13. Nidhi R, Padmalatha V, Nagarathna R, Ram A. Effect of a yoga program on glucose metabolism and blood lipid levels in adolescent girls with polycystic ovary syndrome. ‘’Int J Gynaecol Obstet’’. 2012 Jul;118(1):37-41. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2012.01.027. Epub 2012 Apr 14. Accessed April 20, 2014, PMID: 22507264 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22507264 14. Effects of yoga exercise on serum adiponectin and metabolic syndrome factors in obese postmenopausal women. Menopause. 2012 Mar;19(3):296-301. doi: 10.1097/gme.0b013e31822d59a2. ‘’Erratum in: Menopause’’. 2012 Apr;19(4):486. Accessed April 20, 2014, PMID: 22089179 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22089179 15. Nidhi R, Padmalatha V, Nagarathna R, Ram A. Effect of a yoga program on glucose metabolism and blood lipid levels in adolescent girls with polycystic ovary syndrome. ‘’Int J Gynaecol Obstet.’’ 2012 Jul;118(1):37-41. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2012.01.027. Epub 2012 Apr 14. Accessed April 20, 2014, PMID: 22507264 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22507264 16. Paul-Labrador M, Polk D, Dwyer JH, Velasquez I, Nidich S, Rainforth M, Schneider R, Merz CN. Effects of a randomized controlled trial of transcendental meditation on components of the metabolic syndrome in subjects with coronary heart disease. ‘’Arch Intern Med’’. 2006 Jun 12;166(11):1218-24. Accessed April 20, 2014, PMID: 16772250 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16772250

SAS81 (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is to be done with any of these dubious sources. Many of them don't rise to our WP:MEDRS level, but I also don't see any of them addressing Chopra in particular. What do you want to do with them? We typically include sources for actual text rather than laundry lists. So let us know what content you want to see associated with these sources (if any). jps (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you be specific re: dubious? My understanding is they are all mainstream medical sources. I've read WP:MEDRS. These were just meant to be general sources showing mainstream medical research in integrative medicine not necessarily Deepak just establishing integrative medicine as mainstream. SAS81 (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Many of these are not "mainstream medical sources". For example, the "J Altern Complement Med." is a journal devoted to alternative medicine. Many of the rest of them are in low-impact, poor quality journals and the studies are suffering from small-number statistics, irregularities in study design, and lack of proper peer-review. Alternative medicine has been studied seriously by a few high-impact, high-quality sources, and, where it has, the results have been rather uninspiring. That there is a lot of money flowing into alternative medicine in the US, for example, is because of congressional mandate, actually, and the rather corrupt NCCAM system (recently exposed to be a juggernaut by a number of journalists following the money flow of millions of dollars from NCCAM to institutes that do little more than line the pockets of consultants at teaching hospitals). In any case, this is a discussion for another page. Alternative medicine and the complementary/integrative/holistic synonyms are firmly considered WP:FRINGE by Wikipedia standards. jps (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

requesting process for collaboration and editing

@Everyone above - a few things. One I would prefer if you are going to make a disruption to the first sentence, removing a term such as 'holistic health' which is a term all of you have been fine with on this page for who knows how long - to find a consensus with me first before you do so. I requested above all of you edit or tweak the first sentence I offered in this thread. This means you could take out a word or augment a word or add a word. If each of you do this individually here in talk, it would be more collaborative and then I could see each of your individual point of view. I am willing to make compromises with all of you. I am aware I have a number of restrictions as an editor here - but I am still an editor here who is seeking to make a contribution to the betterment of the encyclopedia. If I did not have my COI, I could have reverted that edit and requested we finish talking about it first. So I am requesting the courtesy of collaboration here. My agenda here is to make this article uncompromisingly neutral, specifically to the guidelines and founding principles of Wikipedia as well as to the very real facts of the subject. Also, many of you raised a number of really good points - please stand by I am getting all of my sources properly citationed as we speak. SAS81 (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

your special connection to Chopra does not give you special weight in this discussion. consensus does not mean "everyone absolutely agrees". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why you think that "holistic health" is a term I or anyone else has been "fine" with on this page. I haven't liked it at all, but in the interest of keeping the peace and compromise, I often tolerate wording I might not otherwise like. I explained above the problem with the term and haven't seen any rejoinders to this. We might assume, actually, that people either didn't notice the problem or didn't realize it was a problem. Either way, being bold and changing a sentence in the article is par for the Wikipedia course, and I applaud Ronz's initiative. If you have a convincing argument for why "holistic health" should stay in the lede and in what fashion, please make it. I thank you for your last suggestion because it crystalized for me (and perhaps others) the problematic way the term was being used. "Alternative health" is a much better description of his advocacy. Note that Chopra rarely discusses mainstream health topics in his work in spite of his insistence that he supports an "integrative" or "holistic" approach. He is more concerned about the alternative rather than the mainstream aspects. We have lots of evidence to that effect. jps (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that if Sassy had made that revert regarding "holistic health" it would have been difficult to justify for an ordinary editor, and impossible for an ed with the COI of being the chopra media representative. This prompts me to believe that Sassy still hasn't fully understood how collaborative editing and consensus works. Consensus is not a vote of any kind imho, nor does any individual have any veto on what does or doesn't go into the article page.

Another thing to note is that wiki pages evolve over time, and it appears that Sassy's involvement has prompted some serious reassessment of the page. This is A Good Thing. "Alternative health" does appear to be an improvement from "holistic health," bearing in mind Chopra's obvious interest in promoting it over real medicine/health.

Perhaps the message should be sent back up the command structure of Chopracorp that while we welcome the involvement of the chopra media team in this page, there will be no honey coated whitewash of the page outside of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Minor rant over. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@JPS As an aside, of all the bullshit weasel terms used by the SCAM community, "holistic health" pisses me off the most. I have coeliac disease, diagnosed last year. This diagnosis involved symptoms of anaemia and other unpleasantries. My doctor referred me to a GI surgeon for suspect cancer, took blood tests, identified an anomalous liver enzyme reading, did more blood tests for tTGA, referred me for a jejunal biopsy and diagnosis was confirmed, at which point he referred me to a (registered, licensed, not-a-bullshit-"nutritionist") dietician for advice on gluten free diet, and also got me a DEXA scan to quantify the effect on my bones, so I have a diagnosis of osteoporosis and am on two years of calcium and vitamin D, which, with the diet change, should fix the problem. THAT is holistic health. Selling supplements, complementary and alternative medicine is not "holistic" because it encompasses everything EXCEPT the actual evidence-based medicine that is necessarily the core of any effective treatment programme. Minchin's Law applies: these things are only alternative because they either have not been proven to work, or have been proven not to work. The holistic bollocks is an extremely profitable marketing strategy for exploiting the worried well, and when it persuades them to eschew real medicine when they are actually ill, it becomes dangerously fraudulent.

So it is vitally important that we do not support the notion that the sort of tosh peddled by the "holistic" industry is somehow more than medicine, because in every conceivable and meaningful way, it is, beyond doubt, very much less. "Holistic health" means absolutely nothing other than medicalising everyday life in order to sell fake treatments for often fake diseases. I have yet to see a "holistic health" programme that would not be better replaced by advising the patient to buy themselves a bicycle and ride it.

Rant over... Guy (Help!) 18:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

He does better rants than me, don't you think? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@SAS81 do not make the mistake of believing that collaboration means agreement with or acceptance of your proposals. In explaining why a proposed edit is unacceptable, we are still collaborating. Please also make the effort to be more concise and focused in your requests. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

While I can accept that consensus does not mean perfect agreement, I assume consensus at least means being responsive towards requests for collaboration and a willingness to consider other points of view. If an editor here is accusing me of 'white washing' Dr. Chopra's biography, please include a diff and please watch WP:ASPERSIONS. I have to hold a very high standard of neutrality and work towards that as well as you all. SAS81 (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

At some point, all these comments start to be more than a little disruptive. As you have a coi, you need to get comfortable offering your opinions and leaving it at that. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, SAS81! I think that it is best to simply state what you think needs to be changed in the article and provide some arguments for why those changes should be made. We can best move forward in that fashion. For example, a lot of discussion was had about why "holistic health" may not be the best term to use. If you think there are arguments that haven't been given enough consideration, I would like to see them. Further, it would be nice to start moving forward and seeing if there are other aspects of this biography that are in need of editorial work. You note that we have made progress. The lede is different than when you started discussing matters with us. I would even say that the lede is substantially better than it was before you began sharing your concerns. If you are pleased with what has happened, then we should just carry on. If there is some other outcome that you were hoping for, then I'm not sure what to say. This is actually an example of Wikipedia functioning just about as fluidly as it possibly can (I would be hard-pressed to think of an instance where a comparable editing situation on Wikipedia did not turn out better than it did here). In short: keep calm and carry on. If you would like, start a new section detailing a specific thing you are concerned about and we can take it from there. jps (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Well said. I'd only add that it's always best for everyone to offer new sources (or point out existing ones) that support the changes being discussed. --Ronz (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

donzo. I am not sure if I am allowed to place sources in the source list so my apologies if I am crowding too much space here. I have lots more coming as that is my responsibility to archive all of his material. SAS81 (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have lots more coming, and it's in a similar vein, you're going to get yourself escorted firmly to the door. This is a mature article which clearly complies with policy - it is not and never will be a promotional tool for Chopra. I don't know if you saw Jimmy Wales' recent response to a bunch of alt med proponents - we're certainly going to stop short of adding Chopra into the category of "lunatic charlatans" but it is equally clear that we're not going to go anywhere near implying that his views on alternatives to medicine, quantum woo and the like are correct. Like it or not, in medicine and physics alike Chopra's name is a byword for bullshit. You seem to be in pretty deep denial about that. We will not, for sure, echo RationalWiki in our presentation of Chopra and his ideas but we're going to be a lot closer to the Center For Inquiry than the Center for Holistic Wellness in our overall balance here, and that is very much by design. If you want the article to say that his ideas are widely accepted as sound medical theories, you'll first need to get them widely accepted as sound medical theories, then get mainstream sources to say that. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

SAS81. It might be better to archive all of the sources you have in a user sandbox. Talk pages traditionally have been kept for actual discussion, Then when and if you are suggesting content you could both suggest the content and point to the specific sources for that content. (I'm trying to stay our of this discussion but see a few points of order so adding cmts. which might be useful.)(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC))

Thanks Olive and that's coming! SAS81 (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Guy

1.) Why bother to stop short calling him a 'lunatic charlatan'? From what I can tell - it's what you believe to be true, it's what you believe proper mainstream sources support, and its what you believe Wikipedia's responsibility is as an encyclopedia to therefore properly note. What's stoping you from doing this?

2.)Acting more as an archivist - I'm not here to argue if Dr. Chopra's ideas and thoughts are true or false and nothing I have published here would even come close to suggesting otherwise. I am here to present sources and correct what I believe to be very clear and strong biases that have framed the entire BLP of Dr Chopra simply by applying Wikipedia's own neutrality and BLP policies.

3.)Wikipedia's neutrality policy would suggest that the article should be neither like Center of Inquiry nor Wellness Center, but rather a voice of neutrality that shows the relevancy of both of those points of view directly in relationship to the subject of the article properly sourced and weighted.

4.)I'm wondering if you can confirm consensus on your end regarding this particular viewpoint of neutrality that many here appear to operate from. This I believe is where our real disagreement is. You and I ping ponging back and forth like this on sources is just functioning as a cold war comprised of nothing but straw men.

5.)We really need to find and build a consensus here on what 'neutrality' actually means and find a definition that all editors on this board can get behind and comprehend. SAS81 (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

We DO have a consensus of what "'neutrality' actually means" at Wikipedia and it has been pointed out to you ad nauseum. We present the subject as they are seen and represented by mainstream academia. Your complete refusal to accept that fact is really crossing into the WP:TE realm which combined with your WP:COI and the fact that this article falls under the arbcom pseudoscience actions indicates that a trip to WP:AE will shortly be in the offing if you do not drop the stick. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section

I think "Criticism" is more appropriate than "Writing and ideas", as the section is mostly about others' responses. I've seen better wording, but can't recall nor find the alternatives atm - maybe "Reception"? --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying not to take any sides on this article, I don't want to get directly involved. But I'd like to point out that our neutral POV policy states:

"Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other."

So a section devoted specifically to criticisms of Deepak Chopra is discouraged by policy, as would a section devoted to praise, or even a section devoted to both (as it would be prone to "back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents". A section called "criticism" implies that it should contain negative POV information so it should probably be avoided. -- Atama頭 22:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed it to "Reception". Maybe "Ideas and reception" would be better? --Ronz (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I think "Ideas and reception" would be perfect. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 02:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Atama, an uninvolved editor, pointed out per Wikipedia's neutraL POV policy, as it pertains to structure, that a more neutral structure folds "debates into the narrative" of the article. I don't belive changing the name of the section makes the section a less critical section. Further, The critical section is roughly at least half the article length which I suggest violates undue weight. We should fix this, and faster is better as this is a BLP and a non-neutral structure is unfair to the subject of the article and violates multiple policies.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC))

Actually, there's quite a bit in the section outlining Chopra's notions. The theories about cancer remission, AIDS, quantum healing, etc. These are properly contextualized by the mainstream take on them pointing out they're all (let us say) questionable. We'd only be undue if our balance of material was out of kilter with how quality mainstream sources treat these notions. I don't believe we are. But if you know of quality sources which seriously entertain Chopra's ideas, and which we can usefully take into account, then please produce them! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what there is to "fix". Criticism is fine when properly supported by sources and our policies. Given the fringe beliefs, they are going to be addressed per FRINGE, leading to more article content on those beliefs. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Ronze. While this article has elements of fringe content/sources /material this is a BLP not a so-called fringe article. Further, all criticism of Chopra does not all fall under our fringe guidelines, is not fringe content. Some of it is just, well, criticism. While criticism is fine, undue weight is not which is the issue I raised.

Our first issue would seem to be with how criticism is dealt with in the article, its placement per NPOV, criticism is best incorporated into the content of the article and not isolated in a single section. Do others see a reason to ignore that guide in this article. Could we deal with that issue, first(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC))

To clarify, I'm not saying that BLP doesn't apply. I'm saying that there is a great deal of FRINGE-related material here. --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this. You’re correct, the entire section looks like a ‘criticism’ section but its called ‘writings and ideas’. Such undue. very weight. wow.  :)

I think reception is a good way to frame the section, but we need to add a section so readers can learn about his major contributions. It’s entirely appropriate for a section of a biography to have a list of the subjects contributions, right? People want to learn who Dr.Chopra is, what his ideas are and the article should present those ideas and contributions as they are. Dr. Chopra is prolific, and we don’t expect the encyclopedia to cover all of them. I would expect at least major contributions or ideas to be listed in an encyclopedia.

I propose some sort of framework for presenting his major notable contributions (including books, major ideas or themes, and businesses) and then a section for ‘reception’ which should merge with the section called ‘skepticism’.

thoughts? ChopraMedia (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It's fine as is. The proposed arguments against it show no understanding of our neutrality policy (or as they are expanded upon in WP:FRINGE). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain further for the sake of a newer user? (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC))

Best to read the linked policy and guidance (you really should!); they express it better than I can in a comment here. Jimbo's recent views on WP:Lunatic charlatans also offer a handy informal gloss. The upshot is: Chopra's notions will receive a treatment here that mirrors their treatment in high-quality sources: which is generally unfavourable. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn. I am not a new user. ChopraMedia seems to be. Comments like, "its silly" or "its fine the way it is" is not particularly helpful to them nor does it explain what you are talking about. I suggest you explain yourself in terms that can be understood by other editors here. I am familiar with Jimbo's comments and am sorry that Wikipedia's leadership could not express an opinion whatever that opinion is, with out name calling. I wonder what kind of example that sets, and how that behaviour underpins our own civility policy. An appeal to authority has very little impact here. We have policies and we have guidelines which stand alone, with out an appeal to authority or suggesting name calling is acceptable. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC))

Everybody needs to understand and abide by the neutrality policy; new and old editors alike. It is really no good me trying to give an "explanation" of that policy here when it is set out perfectly well and at length in the policy itself. Editors who insist on starting off by attempting to effect major changes in controversial articles need to do other editors the courtesy of at least attempting to get some basic understanding of how it applies. The essay on Jimbo's comments is a useful informal add-on as I say: any cranks and charlatans who want to push a fringe POV are wasting their time here (and the time of other editors). This article can be improved: let's do it properly ... a discussion of new high-quality sources (for example) might be a good start. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You are invoking policy. Please explain how it applies here. Chopra Media immediately outlined how they understood NPOV and have been doing so all the way along. If their take on that differs from other editors here that should be explained for all involved. No editor has definitive position in these discussions, and all editors should be ready to explain howe they are using policy if challenged. Whether I agree with ChopraMedia or not; this statement "Editors who insist on starting off by attempting to effect major changes in controversial articles need to do other editors the courtesy of at least attempting to get some basic understanding of how it applies." is not accurate of their opening statement or fair to them. I won't let it stand with out noting it. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC))

I already wrote "The upshot is: Chopra's notions will receive a treatment here that mirrors their treatment in high-quality sources: which is generally unfavourable". The article is doing that, which is fine. At this point, editors seeking a change would probably do better to propose a precise textual change, with rationale, rather than vaguely indicate a section needs "fixing". Let's WP:FOC. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

If your solely viewing mainstreams sources that are criticisms of Dr. Chopra, chances are your going to come to an unfavorable conclusion. I'm not sure we are going to make it through this successfully if the only argument or explanation I am given is that I'm not familiar with some broad policy. I am extremely familiar by this point with neutrality and fringe. It's why I'm here. We just disagree about how those WP guidelines are being applied. SAS81 (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

again, per our policy,WP:UNDUE, relying upon mainstream academic criticism/analysis/commentary is EXACTLY what we are supposed to do. If you continue to want to rely on non-mainstream and nonacademic critiques, we are going to continue to get nowhere until such point as you are topic banned under WP:AE for disruptive editing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with let's relying on mainstream sources, some of which may be academic (where necessary), some analysis, and some commentary. And then let's use common sense. That is how I understand what we are supposed to do. If you believe I do not understand BLP and Fringe and I am exceeding the boundaries, please point out the non mainstream fringe source I am referencing with a diff. No WP:ASPERSIONS please. I am having a nuanced discussion and I've asked a few very specific critical questions. I think if you took a little time to work to see the point of view I am coming from, many of your aspersions will vanish. SAS81 (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

where are there any aspersions? you repeatedly appealed to the President's authority as a basis for identifying Chopra as a "pioneer" and i keep pointing out that under our policies the President's opinion in areas where he has no expertise such as medical science or even alternative medicine is of little to no value. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"If your solely viewing mainstreams sources that are criticisms ..." ← I think this shows a misconception about the sourcing here. Editors are using mainstream/quality sources and those sources happen to be critical of Chopra: it's precisely his "mountebank" nature (to use Miller's term) which makes him of interest to scholars & scientists. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@TRPOD - perhaps my argument was not as clear to you as I assumed - establishing Dr. Chopra as a pioneer (or champion even) of alternative medicine does not require Bill Clinton's quote and that was never what I was arguing, there are plenty of sources we can use to establish that. bill clinton's quote only shows that's what Dr. Chopra is notable for regarding AM and more importantly the clarification that he is NOT an alternative medicine practitioner. There's a distinction there. I'm suggesting the latter - you're assuming the former. plus, it's resolved now and it looks like we have a consensus forming anyway. Let's move on? SAS81 (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn - well we will have a review of many more proper sources to add to your list so that confusion never happens again. SAS81 (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Categorizing Chopra? / New source?

I notice the the eminent professor Chris Miller[17] has recently spoken on the topic of the "epistemology of scientific crackpottery" and offered a view on Chopra. Miller breaks down the "different outlier scientific phenotypes" into four: "the mountebank, the con man, and two types of heretics". Miller categorizes Chopra specifically in the "mountebank" category and is quoted as saying:

There are many such charlatans [mountebanks]. My favorite is Deepak Chopra. He is a medic who fancies himself a quantum physicist, and who attracts huge gullible, fee-paying audiences — the modern version of traveling to the Lourdes grotto – to be made well through his idiotic program of “quantum healing.”[18]

I am wondering how/if this might be usefully included in our article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Alexbrn. Like I said I'm not a new editor. This next step is pretty typical, very transparent, and funny. Who are you kidding? I with draw, assuming my comments where ever of any use, with apologies to all editors here, who wanted logical, reasonable discussion. Best wishes to all.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC))

Let me just say that I think "Chopra is a medical quisling" would be totally inappropriate per WP:BLP and WP:HATCHETJOB. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Alex gotta encourage you straight up here - let's work towards compromise, not battleground. SAS81 (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I see Alex presenting a source for discussion—which is what article talkpages are intended for, after all—and Littleolive oil responding combatively and then flouncing off. Alex is using this talkpage properly. Insofar as there is a "battleground" issue here, your concerns would be best directed toward Littleolive oil. MastCell ^Talk 21:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering that I have raised a significant BLP issue regarding UNDUE weight on criticisms of Dr Chopra and have expressed an extreme willingness to work to find compromises, it appears to me that introducing a new source suggesting Dr. Chopra is charlatan is a passive way of informing me of his uncompromising position. That's not going to get us anywhere. SAS81 (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a number of editors are making good-faith efforts to address your concerns about undue weight. But other editors are certainly allowed to continue discussing potential sources while your concerns are being addressed. I'm not sure what you expect—that editors will post only positive or promotional sources from now on? Instances where prominent academics and scientists are critical—or supportive—of Chopra are useful as a means of addressing your concern over the proper weight to give such material. It's reasonable for Alex to post such a source for discussion (in fact, he's following best practices by posting the source here for discussion before attempting to incorporate it into the article). Ideally, editors would respond by explaining why they do (or don't) consider this source useful for the article, rather than accusing the person posting the source of bad faith and leaving in a huff. These sorts of behavioral expectations are laid out in the talk page guidelines if you're interested in further reading. MastCell ^Talk 23:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm requesting that Alex specifically to work with me - that is all. SAS81 (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought he was working with you. If you want to start using out-of-the-mainstream-academic positive assessments of Chopra, we will need to balance by offering out-of-the-mainstream-academic negative assessments as well. (although I am pretty sure that Miller is not all that far out of the mainstream academic view).-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

So far the only source I have been arguing for is President BIll Clinton. If you want to include that as some fringe position I have taken turning me into a maniac who is reaching out of the mainstream I would just say WP:FOC. SAS81 (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning Clinton's words is okay (and, we do); I believe you were arguing for using his words unattributed as a description of Chopra in the article lede - which is not okay. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that is that Clinton is a politician and not a scientist. His statements about Chopra will not have any connection to the (lack of) scientific validity of Chopra's assertions. I don't think Miller is a great source to use here, but the question is a good one: is Chopra promoting, as his believers claim, a new and groundbreaking view of science, or is he promoting a mix of mysticism and nonsense to a gullible public. I'm pretty clear on how real doctors and real physicists view his claims of "quantum healing" and "mind body healing", and so are the sources. Chopra's supporters portray him as a "Galileo", but he isn't, because in order to don the mantle of Galileo it is not sufficient to be persecuted, you must also be right. To be right in quantum physics, requires rigorous mathematical proofs, otherwise you are engaging in what Murray Gell-Mann called "quantum flapdoodle". Chopra's claims about quantum healing, lack the necessary mathematics and are clearly rejected by people who are specialists in the field of quantum mechanics. Which is a long-winded way of saying: we should explain his beliefs, but we should be very careful to avoid giving the false impression that they are scientifically or empirically valid, still less correct. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

This source is a good one for criticizing Chopra's quantum physics claims. Other than that, it's basically polemical. Useful for notable criticism, but we have other sources that do this job well too. Add it to the pile, I guess. jps (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Miller's wording is quite "spicey". Maybe see if he turns the lecture into something in print and then we can revisit it to see what he says in full about Chopra. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@JPS pretty much agree with that assessment. Thanks for helping to build consensus. SAS81 (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Alternative diagnoses

Resolved

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

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

WTF does "Micros" mean?

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

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

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

Moving forward

The questions that we should be addressing are 1) Does the body of the article appropriately represent the mainstream academic view of the subject?

If not, 2) What is missing and needs to be added to the body? What is over-represented and needs to be condensed or removed from the body?

If yes, 3)Does the lead section appropriately summarize the body?

If not, 4) What is missing and needs to be added to the lead? What is over-represented and needs to be condensed or removed from the lead?

5) Does the initial sentence appropriately encapsulate what a reader coming to the article should know about the subject as identified by the body and the lead paragraphs? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I am thinking of adding something on Chopra's views on genetics (+response). He's also had some impact I think with his ideas about sexual activity, and about major religious figures (e.g. Jesus). I've seen these things mentioned in the secondary literature and there may be enough weight there to warrant inclusion? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

i would think that for any of these topics if there are two or three sources discussing in a fairly significant manner (or if the topic is used by a reliable source as their introductory identification blurb of Chopra ) the subjects would be worthy of mention in the body, (unless Chopra's take on them are so esoteric or complex that the appropriate presentation and context would take too long to establish in prose) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

What's missing are all mainstream views of the subject that show him to be a prominent endocrinologist, entrepreneur, pioneer, best selling author on mind body healing, consciousness and spirituality. What's missing is the impact he is made and why he is so notable. Both Bill Clinton and Gorbachev have given him very public accolades as a physician and a philosopher. Why? He has written 75 books, 23 NYTimes best sellers, and built an empire. Why is he so successful? He lectures, panels and writes books with some of the most prominent scientists and philosophers in the world. Why do they give him the attention?

One begins to wonder what makes Dr. Chopra so interesting for him to get that level of attention but they certainly wont find it from reading this article.

What's also missing are editors on this article who know the subject matter specifically, have read Deepak's books, are familiar with medical topics such as integrative medicine, and are familiar with philosophy and spirituality. That a number of dedicated editors here are suggesting that Dr Chopra is not notable for being either a physician or a endocrinologist tells me no one here have read any number of his best selling books, which mentions his work as a physician and endocrinologist in dozens of them. It also tells me they have not looked at their own sources, the majority of which mention him as a physician or endocrinologist. SAS81 (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts on the body and the lead are the following. Both myself and Dr. Chopra find the article to be highly biased, misleading and incomplete by either omission or undue weight on criticisms. Obviously the first sentence frames the article and the subject - and that is why my attention has been there in addition to editors here specifically requesting I point out which sentence and which problem specifically, which I have been obliging. SAS81 (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

sorry I am NOT going to any endocrinologist who has learned his trade via reading NYT bestsellers and any endocrinologist who has is absolutely about the farthest thing away from mainstream academic endocrinology. Medicine does not work that way. mainstream / academic medicine is based on repeatable clinical trials, not who can shuck $25 bucks a piece out of the yokels for a hardback.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@SAS81: regarding your specific points about "what is not included in the article"

• "a prominent endocrinologist," - he is certainly not one of the prominently published endocrinologists who has influenced the field. i am also pretty sure that when you ask endocrinologists "Who are the top guys in your field?" Chopra will not be on the top ten list. What exactly do you mean by "prominent endocrinologist"?
• entrepreneur, well, actually its right there in the lead section "Chopra has enjoyed business success "; in the body we have " became the founding president of the American Association of Ayurvedic Medicine," and " found the Chopra Center for Wellbeing " (both also covered in the lead) and " Chopra's business grosses approximately $20 million annually, and is built on the sale of various alternative medicine products such as herbal supplements, massage oils, books, videos and courses. " what exactly from the entrepreneur aspects are we missing?
• "pioneer," WP:PEACOCK you will need to be more specific about what you mean by that
• "best selling author " as noted above, we do already include the success of his book sales, and as noted in WP:PEACOCK we do not just throw around the appellation "best selling". The article could specifically call out that his books have been on best selling lists.

Without some more specifics, i dont see much of your claims as having a basis, particularly to claim that they are "missing". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thinking on the specifics. Now I'm a bit clearer on your thinking. This is something I can work with. I'm going to address these with massive sources. Standby. SAS81 (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

There are many labels that have been applied to Dr Chopra. We are just trying to find the best one that does not omit facts and that is also not a pejorative. Pioneer, guru, thought leader, global leader, transformation leader, spiritual leader, world renown philosopher, top motivational speaker and professor are all labels that have been applied to Dr. Chopra by mainstream sources and they all are trying to infer something similar. I'm working to try to satisfy your concerns as well here. SAS81 (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Update on TRPoD's breakdown

The last suggestion I made for compromise was: Deepak Chopra is an Indian American endocrinologist, best selling New Age author, motivational speaker and 'wellness' entrepreneur. Chopra is a polarizing figure, functioning as a spiritual leader to some and a promoter of dangerous ideas to others.

Let's work it out?

Dr. Chopra most certainly is a thought leader and that is what I now propose as a solution and compromise. Even if you disagree with his thoughts. I think this is a more appropriate and neutral way to frame him rather than guru or spiritual leader (since technically speaking he is neither of those things although he is those things to some people)

Here is my third suggestion (in which I am trying to work in your 'Fringe' concerns while still being respectful and neutral, referring only to facts)

Deepak Chopra is an Indian American endocrinologist, author, thought leader and 'wellness' entrepreneur. Chopra is a controversial figure, functioning as a New Age spiritual leader to some and a promoter of dangerous ideas to others.

sources for endocrinologist: 1 " DoctorFinder: Chopra, Deepak, MD. (Agree to terms, then search for Chopra, Deepak in California) 2, 3, 4

Notability as such: major doctors and scientists such as Candace Pert and Rudolph E. Tanzi have both mentioned him extensively as such ^{5 6} , in addition to it being a major component of his many best selling books.

Sources for 'thought leader' - which I am offering as a compromise to replace guru and spiritual leader in the lead sentence only. I dont see how 'new age guru' applies to any of the below. other than it being a pejorative - it's also not a fair mainstream representation of who Dr. Chopra is.

• Official Attendee of Clinton Global Initiative Summit (which is comprised of nothing but Global thought leaders)

• Gallup Senior Scientist: Mentioned specifically as a global leader.

• Kellogg School of Management: Top business school in the world. mentions Dr Chopra specifically as a thought leader and his role is to teach 'global leadership', a leader of leaders even.

• Forbes article mentions him as a global thought leader.

• Business Insider lists him as one of 6 major global thought leaders.

• Tech Crunch mentions him as an example of a influencer or thought leader.

• He is #3 of the 'biggest minds and ideas' on Linked in Pulse, ahead of both Bill Gates and Barack Obama.

I'm open to finding a better phrase for 'wellness' entrepreneur - but the article is missing this key component to Dr. Chopra's as an entrepreneur and thought leader. SAS81 (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This proposal is totally unbalanced. I'm not being paid for my time, so I don't feel like helping, but Oppose. Hipocrite (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This was not meant to be up for a vote Hipocrite - but rather to find compromises and explain each other's thinking. If a label is unbalanced, which specifically? What do you suggest as a replacement? What sources are you using? The proposal satisfies BLP and Fringe, is comprised of facts and is neutral. As a matter of fact, it brings the WP Fringe concern up in the lead much more prominently than it is currently. SAS81 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe start with pointing out a couple of sources from those offered that are both independent and reliable? At a glance, I'm seeing a lot of sources that are primary, not independent, or both. --Ronz (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

None of these sources I've listed in this section are primary sources, they are all mainstream independent sources. I have more too I just don't want to clutter the board. SAS81 (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you are using a definition of "primary" that I'm not familiar with? I'm referring to WP:PSTS and WP:BLPPRIMARY. I don't know what "mainstream" might refer to. By "independent" I mean WP:IS. --Ronz (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

So of the first four sources offered, the first and fourth are primary. The second is a public relations profile and the third is the book "Doctor of the Future". While I don't know what was meant by "mainstream", "Doctor of the Future" seems unlikely to be a reliable source in general, with all its acceptance and promotion of fringe viewpoints. Even if it were, it doesn't demonstrate that Chopra is more notable as an endocrinologist than how he's currently presented in this article. --Ronz (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"thought leader" is pretty much as meaningless a buzzword as "pioneer". How is that a helpful term in understanding Chopra and his actual impact? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm starting to go through the sources, and of the batch above there are a few simple clarifications to all parties:

• 1 " DoctorFinder: Chopra, Deepak, MD. (Agree to terms, then search for Chopra, Deepak in California) 2, 3, 4 (The American Medical Association is a notable secondary source, as is Gallup Inc, as both of them "...contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." The National Institute of Health ref is a notable source since it's a peer-reviewed medical journal, but since it was written by Chopra {and other Drs} is considered a primary source. "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." You could use the NIH source as evidence for the medical legitimacy of Chopra, but the conclusion would need to be spelled out in a secondary source to have full weight.)

• Official Attendee of Clinton Global Initiative Summit (which is comprised of nothing but Global thought leaders) (This is a primary source because it was written at the time of the event by those associated directly with it, about those attending it. Again, it can be used to establish the weight of a conclusion, but is not one itself.)

• Gallup Senior Scientist: Mentioned specifically as a global leader. (This is a notable, mainstream secondary source, since Gallup is making an "evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."

• Kellogg School of Management: Top business school in the world. mentions Dr Chopra specifically as a thought leader and his role is to teach 'global leadership', a leader of leaders even. (Primary source if the citation is based on Chopra's teaching at Kellogg, but secondary if the citation is used to present the summary of Chopra's qualifications. "Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context.")

• Forbes article mentions him as a global thought leader. (Notable secondary source, particularly since Forbes is a mainstream third party entity.)

• Business Insider lists him as one of 6 major global thought leaders. (Secondary source, making an evaluative or analytic assessment.)

• Tech Crunch mentions him as an example of a influencer or thought leader. (Secondary source, though notability is a question here.)

• He is #3 of the 'biggest minds and ideas' on Linked in Pulse, ahead of both Bill Gates and Barack Obama. (This is a primary source, since it is a contemporary record of data with no evaluation or analysis. It is a notable source since LinkedIn is a reliable, mainstream independent entity, but since it's primary it should be used in conjunction with reliable secondary arguments)

It does seem that most of the sources above are secondary, and most (but not all) are reliable, mainstream and/or notable. I'm not attesting to the rest of SAS81's sources, just the selection above. I'll get into those when I have a bit more time, since I'm guessing they may not all be as concise. If anyone disagrees with my assessment of source types or reliability, please let me know. The Cap'n (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your implicit assessment that the sources say what the paid PR representative says they say. I further disagree that Gallup is a secondary source (they are reporting on their own employees), that Kellogg is a secondary source (they are reporting on their own program), and so on. In fact, I'm not sure you understand what a primary vs. secondary source is. Hipocrite (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think there's great confusion as to what it means to be a primary source. I don't know what "notable" means in this context either.

The AMA database entry is a primary source.

The Gallup profile is about their own employee. It has no independence at all, and demonstrates no prominence beyond what we currently present.

Kellog is promoting an event, therefore not independent.

The Forbes bit is a warmed-over press release promoting an event, therefore not independent.

Business Insider devotes a few paragraphs to him the context of how he turned his career away from medicine: "subsequently ending his promising career in endocrinology." It's a fluff piece and should be used with care if at all in a BLP.

Chopra is mentioned in passing by the TechCrunch article, and the information is ambiguous: "Be prepared to have a team devoted to managing this side of the business, and see if you can get a Deepak Chopra, Tim Ferriss, or other noted influencer, thought leader or celeb to co-author an app or module to showcase." This is an extremely poor source for such information in a BLP.

If those are the best offered, then we have little to nothing to work from, depending on how closely we follow BLP. --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@ Hipocrite, I am quite familiar with the distinction between primary and secondary sources, that's part of my day to day job (more on that below). As far as any "implicit assessment," I'm not summarizing content or arguments at this point, just establishing sourcing, and when I do I will go by by what I read in the sources themselves, not by rehashing what SAS81 says. If you disagree with my assessment I'm all ears, but please let me know which parts you think I got wrong and why.

Ronz, I do agree there needs to be clarification on what constitutes primary v. secondary sourcing, as this is coming up more and more often. I'm reposting your comments with my responses:

• The AMA database entry is a primary source.

"Primary source material is original material or conclusions. Secondary sourced material is based on primary sourced material, and may include synthesis..." The AMA compiles primary records (medical license, office practice info, etc) to create a synthesized summary of its members. The AMA did not produce any original material, so it is not a primary source.

• The Gallup profile is about their own employee. It has no independence at all, and demonstrates no prominence beyond what we currently present.

Please read WP:Secondary_does_not_mean_independent regarding confusion about the role of independence in secondary sources (namely, non-independent sources are legitimate as long as they are not the only source for an article). "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

• Kellog is promoting an event, therefore not independent.

Again, WP:Secondary_does_not_mean_independent & WP:BIASED, though it seems to me that the fact that Kellogg is hosting an event Chopra is featured at does not mean the university is not independent, any more than CNN would lose its independent status as a source for having Chopra on an interview.

• The Forbes bit is a warmed-over press release promoting an event, therefore not independent.

Though I reiterate the piece on independent sources, I agree this article doesn't really have much weight behind it. I think if we're going to reference what Forbes says about Chopra, this is the most [place] (it's just a simple bio, though if we wanted to there are a bunch of articles that could be brought in, if/when I have the time).

• Business Insider devotes a few paragraphs to him the context of how he turned his career away from medicine: "subsequently ending his promising career in endocrinology." It's a fluff piece and should be used with care if at all in a BLP.

I should point out the other half of that quote established that he hadn't moved away from medicine: "But Chopra’s career wasn’t over. His adviser was “so arrogant that he had antagonized a lot of people, one of whom took delight in hiring me if it snubbed my adviser,” he explains." [[19]] But more importantly, there's no connection to COI nor independence issues. You or I may think it's a fluff piece, but that's OR. I agree it should be used carefully in the BLP, but it can certainly be used to support broader arguments.

• Chopra is mentioned in passing by the TechCrunch article, and the information is ambiguous: "Be prepared to have a team devoted to managing this side of the business, and see if you can get a Deepak Chopra, Tim Ferriss, or other noted influencer, thought leader or celeb to co-author an app or module to showcase." This is an extremely poor source for such information in a BLP.

As I mentioned in my summary, I agree that this source is not notable enough to warrant adding any sections to the article.

Even if these sources get included, the broader issue of how to categorize Chopra's mainstream standing remains. I agree with both of you that "notability" and "mainstream" are problematically vague terms here. In addition to standard WP policies of WP:Verifiability, WP:NOR and WP:PSTS, can we come up with some best practice guidelines for what we can all agree would constitute acceptable mainstream sources? I'll kick it off (feel free to debate these propositions): peer-reviewed journals, independent news articles, independent scholarly books, statements by notable figures (primary, true, but acceptable if no analysis is linked to the statement?), professional standing (medical, guruey and whatnot) and major independent websites. I look forward to your feedback. The Cap'n (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You assert you know the difference between a primary and secondary source, but then use speaker blurbs as a secondary source. There's a problem there, in that you, fresh of your sanctions for antagonizing people via strawman socks in articles directly related to this one, are again distorting the truth. Speaker blurbs are not secondary sources. Hipocrite (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

We have seen the "statements by notable figures (primary, true, but acceptable if no analysis is linked to the statement?)," being promoted here and they are completely unacceptable. IE Clinton and Gorbachev puff quotes being touted as establishing Chopra's place in the scientific community. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful feedback...

To which source are you referring as a speaker blurb, and how would you designate it? A primary source? A tertiary? If you're going to call me a liar, explain what the truth is rather than simply making assertions.

While we're on the topic of WP:CIVIL, I'd like to qualify the fact that the sock accusations you brought up (out of nowhere) were part of a pattern by a specific editor of accusing me (and numerous others) of socking over and over until the latest round was finally dismissed by admins, and had nothing to do with Deepak Chopra. I don't appreciate aspersions and am trying to civilly work on this page as requested in COI and BLP. I'm not trying to legitimize alternative medicine, I'm trying as a 3rd party to establish what we'll consider mainstream sources. Can we focus on working out differences and building consensus, or is this a zero-sum issue? The Cap'n (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard

Template:BLP noticeboard SAS81 (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. WP:IDHT, WP:FORUMSHOPPING, Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

suggestion

I'm all for archiving the majority of this talk page, and keeping everything from number 10 "Moving Forward" posted by TPRoD on. This is getting cluttered and I see how I may have participated in that unwillingly. I think we can pick up the BLP noticeboard and everything else easily by following TPRoD's lead and taking it from there. I dont know how to archive these and I assume I probably shouldn't, but all for if someone else does. SAS81 (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)