Talk:Deepak Chopra

Arbitration Enforcement

Notification:[1]

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

Obvious BLP violation

This edit was original research. The word authority is also OR. QuackGuru (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

guru

OK, term has been called racist. Chopra objects to it. Its been removed. Please justify its retention per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Restoring_deleted_content. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

What source says he is a new age teacher? Your previous edit was original research. The source does not say he is a "controversial" Indian-American author. QuackGuru (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

TRY to reach consensus, QG. TRY. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I asked "What source says he is a new age teacher?" No specific answer to my question was given. Is the word guru disputed according the WP:V policy or is this a dispute with V policy? According to which reliable source the term is racist? The source does not say he is a "controversial" Indian-American author. I recently explained it in my edit summary and I previously explained it in my edit summary. Try to collaborate. QuackGuru (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You are arguing for the most insulting word possible. There are scads of sources that describe him in other ways. You are not trying to avoid the problematic term, but simply arguing for it. If you don't have other sources, and are unwilling to look, then you have said your piece; you are unwilling to be part of the solution. So be it. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• forbes: "Deepak Chopra ... is acknowledged as one of the master teachers of Eastern philosophy in the Western world. " That is Forbes, hardly a purveyor of woo. That is strict support for "teacher"
• skeptics dictionary does not even stoop to calling him a "guru": "Dr. Chopra has done more than any other single person to popularize the Maharishi's Ayurvedic medicine in America, including some New Age energy concepts" (one can argue without stretching that for adult education, teaching = popularizing.)

I am not advocating that we call him a "genius" or anything but "guru" is to me ... icky and racist. in this context. WP is better than that.

btw, have you seen the Chopra quote generator? funny. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC) (edit my comment to strike "racist" as anything other than my feeling at this point Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC))

I have previously argued for re-insertion of the word "guru" as it accurately pinpoints how Deepak is perceived. I have never seen it called a racist term before, and I am not persuaded it is. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 22:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, are you sure Chopra objects to the term, or is it a case of "modesty forbids"? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 22:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I've only now looked at the article, and I am not going to bang this drum for long, but I feel strongly that if the term guru is to be removed from the article there needs to be more than just a claim by a respected editor that the word is racist, but some justification by way of evidence, and a solid reason why the source which uses the words "new age guru" isn't acceptable. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 22:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

collins dictionary:

1. a Hindu or Sikh religious teacher or leader, giving personal spiritual guidance to his disciples
2. (often derogatory) a leader or chief theoretician of a movement, esp a spiritual or religious cult
3. (often facetious) a leading authority in a particular field "

He is not teaching hinduism or Sikhism... so... are we being derogatory or facetious? Neither is good. (and if you don't see the racism in pinning a hindu-derived honorific used in a derogatory way on an indian scientist-turned-new-age-teacher (who this article correctly portrays as making a mess of the boundary between science and religion), I don't know what to tell you. I have offered alternative sources for using "teacher"; that is all we need per BLP to remove this derogatory "guru" thing. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

it is NOT a BLP violation to follow the use of MANY MANY MANY reliably published mainstream sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• What label does Chopra use for himself? That's the label we should be using. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Search this page for the word "racist". (Hint, it isn't there) -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If Chopra doesn't like the label "guru" then we shouldn't be trying to use it. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not? Does Chopra have special authority over this page? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

As of September 17 2014, the Deepak Chopra website states "Chopra, who was accompanied by fellow New Age guru Gabrielle Bernstein and American singer India Arie, had aimed to bring together a “critical mass” of about 100,000 meditators to set the shared intention for peace."[2]

www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canada-posts-chopra-puts-survival-plan-into-action/article15941388/

http://www.americanbazaaronline.com/2014/07/22/indian-american-new-age-guru-deepak-chopra-attempt-guinness-record/

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/13/deepak_chopra_i_am_pissed_off_by_richard_dawkins_arrogance_and_his_pretense_of_being_a_really_good_scientist_he_is_not%E2%80%9D/

http://www.nj.com/independentpress/index.ssf/2014/02/new_age_guru_deepak_chopra_to.html

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/09/11/spiritual-guru-deepak-chopras-health-routine

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/deepak-chopra-narrated-short-film-702411

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/deepak-chopra-net-worth/

The term "new age guru" is confirmed per multiple sources. QuackGuru (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

(awaits self revert by respected editor.) -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

websters: 1 a personal religious teacher and spiritual guide in Hinduism
2
a : a teacher and especially intellectual guide in matters of fundamental concern
b : one who is an acknowledged leader or chief proponent
c : a person with knowledge or expertise : expert
oxford american dictionary
1: Hindu spiritual teacher or head of a religious sect
2a influential teacher
2b revered mentor
oxford dictionary of word origins
guru: [E17th] This is from Hindi and Punjabi, from Sanskit guru'weighty, grave, dignified'... this led to 'elder, teacher'
American Heritage Dictionary

an acknowledged and influential advocate, as of a movement or idea”.

Only Collins sees "facetious" or "derogatory" - and they are only "sometimes"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, i withdraw "racist" as I cannot find a independnt source I am happy enough with now. (i have seen that a few times but cannot find it now, so I have to withdraw it.) However, I am sticking with:

a) away back when chopra's representative showed up here in April he/she said: "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...". Dismissive, disrepsectul... perhaps racist. So denigrating to the subject of the article.

b) as mentioned, consistent with that, Chopra does not use that term for himself (sourced in the article with this

c) as mentioned above, dictionary definition has clear denigrating meanings

d) Roxy pointed to our guru article which is also makes it clear that the term as used in the West has derogatory connotations

e) So.. I think nobody can honestly deny that the derogatory connotations are there, and I reckon that the quack-fighters take certain delight in that, and I realize that it will be hard to swing consensus on this term, BUT

g) already presented above, there are sources for neutral terms like "teacher" that we can use, that are not derogatory. So let's use them, again per BLP, "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement."

h) if folks really insist on using the term "guru" i would be grudgingly OK with it being stated something like "commonly called a 'new age guru'" so it is not in Wikipedia's voice, at least.

i) very interested to hear from anybody supporting use of the term, that they consider to be a neutral or positive term. (and please don't hide behind "it doesn't matter if we think it is positive or negative, it is in the sources and that is all we need") Folks are choosing it here. thanks! this is my last statement on this. don't want to beat a dead horse. but please do consider the derogatory aspects. Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Chopra's paid agent found anything other short of deification "offensive" - and we most certainly do not pander to present Wikipedia articles as the subject desires. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

What source says "commonly called" a new age guru? As of September 17 2014, the Deepak Chopra website does refer to the term "New Age guru".[3]. A Chopra's representative does not represent NPOV or BLP policies. QuackGuru (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Does the skeptics dictionary call him a "guru"? "Of course, Chopra has a web site where he will be honored to take your money for one of his many books, tapes, or seminars. We should not be too harsh with our guru, however."[4] QuackGuru (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

as i wrote above, the skeptics dictionary does not call him a guru. your question shows you are not even reading my posts, QG. just pounding away on the dead horse. TRPoD - I am not calling for deification, and generally if something is insulting, and there is a different and supported thing to say, why not do it? it doesn't take a away from the substance. I get it that ya'all want to be clear his health ideas are not scientific (and i agree he is far too sloppy, far too often, and the article establishes this well) but the "guru" is just stooping low for an encyclopedia. you are not responding to that. Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"As would be expected of a guru spreading false hope, Chopra's trustworthiness has been compromised."[5] QuackGuru (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: you appear to be basing your position on the fact that we should be positioning our article as the Chopra's PR hack would have it. That you are not directly calling for deification is a distinction without a difference. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

as i wrote above, i figured that folks would be intransigent to changing this. it would have required persuading, since "guru" is well supported by sources. i failed. thanks for talking. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

that said the accusation of meatpuppeting is false and completely without proof. STRIKE IT. I mean that. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Sanctions have been applied to editors of longer standing who have not, in the opinion of Wikipedia's administrative bodies, consistently exercised independent judgement." Your entire basis is that the paid PR 's concerns should be our concerns and the basis for our discussions- ie not acting as any form independent of the paid PRs positions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

i am very far from a new user. My entire basis was not the PR rep's statement. Strike it. Last request.Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I too agree that the term "guru" as used is this article (and in the NY Times article!) smacks of bigotry. And it's not just that the term is sometimes defined in the dictionary as derogatory (although that's part of it). It's the choice to apply this word to a person who is Indian. If Chopra was Italian (but not Catholic) would it be okay to call him the "New Age Pope"? If he were Israeli (but not Jewish), would it be okay to call him the "New Age Rabbi"? We're applying a religious term to a person who is not of that faith but is from a place where that faith is popular. That's bigotry. Please rephrase with a non-bigoted synonym; this way the meaning will still be the same (unless you feel that bigotry is necessary for the meaning). SueDonem (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Are we using the term differently than the sources? If not, and we agree that the sources are reliable for the information, then I don't see any policy-based problems. --Ronz (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it possible that the source succumbed (even unwittingly) to bigotry? If so, should we perpetuate this? Rather, let's use a less loaded term which means the same thing. It's not a source violation to use a synonymous term. If we changed "man" to "male"... It we changed "physician" to "doctor"... it wouldn't be a problem. Let me ask you (and everyone else here) this question: What meaning do you think the word "guru" has in the context in which we are currently using it in the lead?

someone who has (to credulous Western sensibilities) an exotic mystical schtick? The word may be problematic in itself, but it gets us "in the zone" of meaning quite nicely, which is presumably why so many RS's (including academic pieces) use it. Is there some equivalent wording that does the same job? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think "New Age" covers "mystical" certainly... I'm not sure why "exotic" is all that important to convey. "Schtick" is another way of say what a person does. I think the word "guru" also implies some sense of mastery (like a sage, a teacher, a master, an authority, et cetera). Do you think that should be conveyed if we were to opt for equivalent wording? SueDonem (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oxford University Press (2013) "Gurus of quantum spirituality such as Deepak Chopra'"
• Southern Illinois University Press (2014) "Guru Style: Deepak Chopra"
• Princeton University Press (2006) Deepak Chopra, for instance, is a medically trained, highly successful, media-savvy guru"
• Routlage (2008) "even later-day gurus such as Deepak Chopra"

That such prestigious institutions along with the NYT are ALL so free with content "smacking of bigotry" will take quite a bit more evidence than your personal assessment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, especially in light of the ongoing problems this article has had, this looks like yet another attempt to ignore sources and policies to argue for changes that are personally pleasing to a few. --Ronz (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If the term truly was racist, I would advocate for removing it asap. Other editors above have pointed out how well "New Age Guru" fits Chopra -suedonem said "(like a sage, a teacher, a master, an authority, et cetera)" which fits, as does Alexbrn's "someone who has (to credulous Western sensibilities) an exotic mystical schtick?" and our article on Guru says " In the West some derogatory interpretations of the word have been noted, reflecting certain gurus who have allegedly exploited their followers' naiveté, due to the use of the term in certain new religious movements." Book sales to followers exploited by their naiveté have been lucrative. I agree with JD that the term is slightly derogatory, but mainstream scientific view and all that, if Chopra turns his back on the modern world to promote his magic, then so be it. If the cap fits. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

and yes, the Chopra quote generator is one of the funniest things on teh Internetz. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

If Chopra is so against the "offensive" use of "guru" , did he have a "come to Jesus" moment sometime between 2008 and now? [6] [7] [8] ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Qatar Airways, in association with ‘The Chopra Centre for Wellbeing’ and its founder, lifestyle guru Deepak Chopra"
• "says Deepak Chopra, the popular new age management guru. "
• Wellness guru Deepak Chopra,
• Sony has teamed up with Richard Branson and new age guru Deepak Chopra

If there were something innately offensive "most insulting word" "smacks of bigotry" " icky and racist" about the use of "guru" in a non Hindu/Sikh religious leader, The Hindu would not be so free to use it so repeatedly in such a manner in relation to Mr. Chopra. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I still find it racially objectionable, but it appears that I am overruled by the quality of sources presented here. No further protestation from me. SueDonem (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Your personal objection is noted and over-ruled by the preponderance of sources indicating otherwise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Thanks for restating it better than I did! SueDonem (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And thank you for being so very cooperative! --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

What this man preaches is clearly psuedoscience and harmful to the well being of the public. Can we please rewrite the article as an objective and neutral one and not pander to the will of this man's advertisers/legal department? 2.125.119.32 (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

This is "New Age Irony" isn't it? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Fallout from the Chopra representative and the implications on the article

I had planned to ignore this matter entirely, as nothing can really be done unless SAS81 becomes active again. However a point was recently made here about the current article being unsatisfactory as a result of the push by SAS81, Askahrc ("The Cap'n"), and others. Because of this lasting impact on Wikipedia, and because making claims without evidence is a bad thing, I have filed an SPI for SAS81, connecting him to indef blocked user Tumbleman. It is only a start, and plenty more evidence could be added if necessary.

In addition, it turns out that Askahrc (anagram of "chakras") is employed by Tumbleman, or works directly with him. Indeed a connection (though perhaps not yet a financial connection) between them began just days before the shenanigans Askahrc orchestrated leading up to his arbitration request, for which he was formally admonished. (Evidence will be provided via email upon request.)

The attitude and activities of SAS81 were certainly disruptive, leading to the AE request on him, and the undisclosed connection with "The Cap'n" is troubling. Again, all of this could be ignored except for the lasting implications on the Chopra article itself, since the "summer push" did affect the article. For this reason I decided to let everyone know about the current situation. Manul 06:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that there's anything to do here. The article is fairly stable, free from large-scale revert wars, which it would not be if there was a serious imbalance. The SPI case should take its course separately, with no need to revisit this bio. Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Well this is so far very limited and not such accurate information Manul. Tumbleman who is not an editor or active on Wikipedia is the director of operations and one of the founders of ISHAR but he was not the one who was socking SAS81. If you read SAS81 carefully that is beyond Tumbleman's capabilities. "SAS81" has a background in cultural history and research.

Any business connection between the Cap'n and Tumbleman (and Deepak Chopra) is only the tip of an Iceberg. "The Cap'n" was the active editor spearheading the edits and suggestions and votes on the Chopra page while "SAS81" was touting the moral high ground.. influencing (some) editors to his aid while claiming full and open disclosure. It is that activity that has as you say "lasting impact on Wikipedia" and "implications on the Chopra article itself"... That, along with the Capn's undisclosed identity is in part why the page should be revisited -eventually in full light- and rewritten more accurately and honestly as per the above suggestion concerning Chopra's overarching pseudoscience orientation. The one you should run the SPI on is the Cap'n. And his further undisclosed connections should be brought out at least to admins (And there is a wealth of solid evidence there) -so administrators are aware of the situation should the Cap'n and ISHAR attempt to interact with Wikipedia in the future. Ptarmigander (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Well done - Tumbleman (Rome Viharo) is indeed SAS81, a representative of ISHAR. He should be banned because he has already been blocked on many accounts. If you want further proof, please see [9] (second paragraph) :) And no this is not WP:OUTING. Please read Tumbleman's OWN post signing his comment with his real name [10], he did this on other occasions as well. Everyone knows who he is. He used his name on his Tumbleman account many times (check his talk-page history for more). Goblin Face (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything that points to SAS being Tumbleman or SAS being the Cap'n. Maybe I'm missing something. As for the article. I don't think it hurts to revisit an article; that's what editors do but a BLP is not pseudoscience; its about a human being not a science of any kind. Could there be aspects that are fringe to mainstream science or so called pseudoscience, sure, but let's not confuse the terms. What I see here are a lot of accusations with out any proof. Further, un less I remembering incorrectly no sanctions were placed on SAS, and anyone for any reason and they do, can take an editor to AE or arbitration so I think we can safely tuck that implied accusation away. I'd like to see a full scale check on these accounts and positive evidence there was socking before we toss arounds anymore accusations that assume connections.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC))

Regarding Tumbleman I would point out that Tumbleman/Viharo is the "Director of Operations of ISHAR". He is not the "Director of Archiving of ISHAR". These are two different people. This can be googled. SAS81 often touted his background as an archivist in cultural history and research. Anyone can do the math.

Craig Weiler of Weiler psi already settled this one year ago at Reality Sandwich. I would post the link but Manul might jump on me and possibly delete me again. Ptarmigander (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying, Tumbleman has been quite public I believe. My concern is the linking of the three user names. I like my math to be very clear... no guessing in math. :O) If you're suggesting Tumbleman is Cap'n. No idea so far. If you're suggesting SAS and Tumblerman are different users, I'd agree. If you're suggesting SAS is the Cap'n, doesn't seem likely. If you're suggesting SAS was sanctioned at AE or Arb, Nope. If you're suggesting that SAS did anything but try to work here in as a productive way as he knew how, I'd agree. Was the environment easy to work in? Nope. I left And Slim Virgin left. In total let's wait for a check on the users and maybe not judge the other users on the page. If there's need to work on the article no reason not do it but it must be neutral not slanted in any direction. My thoughts.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC))

I suppose there are some concerns about outing here. Although Craig Weiler when discussing cyber-bullying already did that last year. But maybe he was wrong? Still, that would not change all the other information out there. So math .. homework... it all adds up to the same mastery of the subject at hand. As far as SAS81 trying "to work here in as a productive way as he knew how" I think that is humorous, nearly prescient and an absolutely correct assessment. And I too am in favor of a neutral un-slanted approach regarding the greatest pseudo-science oriented author of all time. I think Deepak deserves more credit in this area. No need to get negative about such an accomplishment.Ptarmigander (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As Manul has shown SAS and Tumbleman both have a very similar writing style, make the same little grammar habits and say the same stuff frequently accusing other editors of being biased etc. Likely at the minimum they are related or have been sharing accounts, this is something Tumbleman has been involved with before. But Tumbleman is a strange fellow even accusing other people of logging onto his account or using his IP in the past, can't be bothered to show diffs but they are there if you look on Sheldrake's talk-page from last year. But this is not a place to discuss this so I will not be further commenting. You can discuss that on the SPI if needed be. I have nothing against Tumbleman personally and neither does anyone else here, but his editing activities on SAS or association with this account are disrupting to Wikipedia both on and on the website. Goblin Face (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

"Greatest pseudoscience editor of all time".That's neutral? Best wishes here. I have nothing against anyone here either but this environment is not my cup of tea, so I'll leave you to it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)0

LOL! Well put, although there are others who vie for that position. Whatever the case, he's certainly been good at cashing in on his fame and fantasies. P. T. Barnum, D. D. Palmer, and especially B. J. Palmer would have been proud of him.

Littleolive oil, this is the talk page, where NPOV does not apply, so lighten up. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

BLP applies to talk pages. And I'm plenty light, but I tend not to find fun in trashing another human being whoever it is, so that's my position and why I feel its better to leave this article to others.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC))

But the article did wind up fairly imbalanced as a result of these persistent efforts. Reading it would give the impression that Chopra is a legitimate medical professional.—Kww(talk) 03:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Please compare a previous version back in May before the damage was done to this article. I spent a lot of time in the edit history checking a lot of different edits. I think this is probably the version we can start from. Maybe we can start a draft using the previous version and merge the current version into a draft. The current version does not tell the reader much. That was the WP:POINT. QuackGuru (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• SAS81 has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Tumbleman. Manul 05:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)