Talk:Deepak Chopra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

RfC about “Luring the sick”[edit]

I am closing this RfC on procedural grounds. First, it is poorly worded. Does "yes" mean include or exclude? Second, the question embodies the RfC proposer's own argument in favour of one particular outcome. Bluntly, it is a question of the form "should this saintly person be unjustly accused of X?" Guy (Help!) 23:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this BLP exclude the statement that this practicing physician "can lure sick people away from medical treatments?" At issue is that an M.D. discouraging necessary medical treatment constitutes malpractice and criminal negligence in his home of California, it clearly seems an exceptional claim to imply he may be doing so. WP:EXCEPTIONAL requires any exceptional claim to have multiple high-quality sources, especially when relating to a BLP. There is only one source for "lure sick people away" and it's neither from a medical professional nor provides any evidence for the statement. Here, here, and here are sources that reference Deepak Chopra endorsing mainstream medical treatment in addition to his approaches, so "luring" is both an exceptional and contested statement. Potential replacement: "-his claims for the effectiveness of alternative medicine are widely debated," which addresses the controversy but avoids possibly libelous implications. PollyStyrene (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

  • yes of course it should. This is a commonly cited danger of altmed woo and applies to Chopra as it does to any purveyor of such woo; the specific application for him is well sourced in the article already. Even the US chief purveyor of woo, the NCCIH, warns people not to forgo medical care in favor of altmed (ref). They provide that warning, because people actually do that. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • this practicing physician "can lure sick people away from medical treatments - no opinion only and attacking a living person. This whole BLP is an attack location, I am sure Chopra cares less and it matters to the real world even less, woo, lol, seems like there is a lot of anti woo here. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC 2[edit]

Unanimous consent to include the line.Light❯❯❯ Saber 15:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this article include or exclude the statement that "some argue that his claims for the effectiveness of alternative medicine can lure sick people away from medical treatments?". If it should be included, should it be in the lede? Guy (Help!) 23:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

  • include of course it should. This is a commonly cited danger of altmed woo and applies to Chopra as it does to any purveyor of such woo; the specific application for him is well sourced in the article already. Even the US chief purveyor of woo, the NCCIH, warns people not to forgo medical care in favor of altmed (ref). They provide that warning, because people actually do that. Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes include - obvious, well-sourced, and necessary to say per WP:PSCI policy. Alexbrn (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Include - this is an important aspect of all non-evidence-based approaches to medicine ("alternative medicine"), and it should be included whenever there are reliable sources for it. It could be in the lede but does not necessarily need to be. Please do not forget to comment on the last part of the RfC, even if you do not have an opinion on it (like me). --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment. I do think does need to be in the lead. He's a very controversial figure and that needs to be reflected in the lead for NPOV. If anything, I'd say the lead leans more towards puffery, but for a BLP on a controversial figure, it's pretty close to balanced. PermStrump(talk) 11:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Include in lede. See "Comments on RfC2" to verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Include. Compared to what a number of reliable sources have said over the years (I'll link to some additional sources below), this is a euphemism in the spirit of Biographies of living persons § Tone, i.e., "written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement". PermStrump(talk) 11:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Include - The sentence is cited and supported by information in the article body. ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments on RfC2[edit]

The current text in the lede is "and some argue that his claims for the effectiveness of alternative medicine can lure sick people away from medical treatments.[16]" The web archived source says "Chopra is just another huckster purveying watered-down Eastern wisdom mixed with pseudo science and pop psychology — to the outright damning. Chopra's extravagant claims for Ayurveda and other traditional healing techniques can, some have argued, create false hope in genuinely ill people and dissuade them from seeking medical care and guidance."[1] There was a previous RfC. See Talk:Deepak_Chopra/Archive_25#RfC:_Is_the_lead.2C_among_other_parts_of_the_article.2C_reflective_of_the_sources_and_a_NPOV.3F. I and others did improve the wording in the lede during the previous RfC. See Talk:Deepak_Chopra/Archive_25#Comments_on_updated_lede. QuackGuru (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Last time we had this discussion (see QuackGuru's link), I pulled quotes of common ways Chopra has been described in the media over the years and dumped a bunch of sources on a subpage: Talk:Deepak Chopra/Source dump. Some are cited in other parts of article, but others weren't used, because all of the critical statements about him are well sourced so it would be redundant. Here's some quotes from additional sources that support keeping the full sentence and in the lead.
Extended content
  • Leland (1997), "Deepak's Instant Karma", Newsweek 
    William Jarvis of the National Council Against Health Fraud, whose profile has risen along with the doctor's, accuses Chopra of substituting superstition for medicine, and depriving patients of several centuries of scientific advances.
  • Labash, Matt (July 1, 1996), "The End of History and the Last Guru; Correction Appended", The Weekly Standard, 1 (41), p. 18 
    Dr. John Renner reported in the Kansas City Star in 1991 that Chopra had encouraged conference attendees to "wash the eyes out with saliva" as "an effective treatment for even well-established cataracts." Dr. Renner talked to numerous ophthalmologists who concurred this was a dangerous procedure with no proven benefits, especially since mouth bacteria could cause corneal ulcerations.
  • Molé, Phil (1998), "Deepak's dangerous dogmas", Skeptic, 6 (2) 
    Yet, arguments based on superficial logic are not only persuasive, but also dangerous, since they may lead us into errant patterns of thinking.
    [Chopra] wholeheartedly endorses the unification of medicine and spirituality. His solution is to develop a new model of medicine relying heavily on meditation--a practice he believes will enable us to alter the quantum-mechanical structure of our bodies… In order to truly influence our bodies, therefore, we would have to observe all of the atoms in the body parts we wanted to heal. But how can someone with lung cancer, for instance, "observe" the atoms deep inside his chest cavity? How can a potential heart attack victim "see" the atoms of calcium forming plaques in his arteries?
  • Park (2000), Voodoo medicine in a scientific world, in After the Science Wars 
    Treatment such as magnet therapy, homeopathy or reflexology, which have only a placebo effect… But if something like Chopra's spiritual healing is substituted for genuine medical intervention in the treatment of cancer, it may deny patients any prospect of a cure, while adding a sense of guilt to their suffering.
  • Renner (1991), "Guru offers KC unsound advice", Kansas City Star 
    Chopra's message not only indicates extreme hostility to medicine, it also contains numerous examples of unsound health advice. A typical example, and one of the most disturbing is Chopra's recommendation for improving vision: "And then take a little swish of water, and swish it around in your mouth, a little a half cup or so. Mix it copiously with your saliva, take it out into an eye cup and wash the eyes with it."
    Almost everyone knows that the mouth contains bacteria of many kinds. I have consulted numerous ophthalmologists; all concurred this is a dangerous procedure with no proven benefit, and much possible harm. [...] This is not sound, proven medical advice designed to improve vision. This is a ritual typical of the rituals involved in such prescientific health folklore systems as ayurvedic.
  • Hassani (2016), "Deepak Chopra's 'Physics': it starts with a swindle", Skeptical Inquirer 
    One of the early trivializers of fundamental physics is Deepak Chopra, whose indiscriminate use of words such as quantum, energy, field, and non-locality renders them as frivolous as a burp after a course of tandoori chicken. Accordingly, it is worthwhile to examine his "physics" and unravel the egregious conceptual blunders he incessantly concocts, especially when these blunders serve as the foundation for the conclusions that he touts as scientific facts to his readers and followers. [...] This is so not only because [Chopra] is writing about (his distorted version of) science, but also because he commands millions of followers who literally regard him as a prophet. His words, fogged by a plume of terminology stolen from science--a discipline revered and trusted, albeit misunderstood, by the public--are powerful maxims and mottos for his disciples.
Even in Chopra's own words in 2014, he said this is a common criticism he gets: "Most of the skeptic editors on my article believe me to be a very dangerous man..." And how apropos is the rest of that quote... "[they] believe that it is Wikipedia's responsibility to warn the world of how dangerous my ideas are. –Deepak Chopra[2]
PermStrump(talk) 13:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Question: What justifies the word "some"? I read only 1 source in the 1st paragraph in this section arguing people may be lured away. The other sources in this section do not explain luring people away.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Answer: The source used to verify the claim uses the supported weasel word "some". The other sources in this section are not being used to verify the claim. The other sources in this section are being used to show this type of claim is common. QuackGuru (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jiyo smartphone app and partnership with Beverly Hills[edit]

User:Alexbrn has removed referenced information about Deepak Chopra's partnership with the City of Beverly Hills as "undue", and they suggest the mere mention of the app could be undue, too. I disagree. I think the content should be restored--we need to update the article with Chopra's current activities like this one.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Undue, yes. And smells spammy - this article has had trouble with promotional content before. I notice Jiyo has been redirected here too. Alexbrn (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I created the redirect so that anyone who looks for it can be redirected here, yes. When I looked for the app earlier today, there was nothing on Wikipedia and I had to google it. Problem fixed now. As for Beverly Hills, why would it be "spammy" or "promotional" to include that? It's not. We simply relay the facts based on reliable third-party sources. Is this a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies to deletion discussions. NPOV is a foundational pillar of Wikipedia and content must be due, reflecting accepted knowledge on a topic. It is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Going on at length about some app associated with Chopra would be undue. Alexbrn (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
It's just one sentence (not "going on at length"). Chopra has launched a partnership with the city of Beverly Hills to promote the app. Yes, what he is doing is promoting/selling a product. No, relaying that fact is not promotion; it's just relevant to his biography. It is perfectly NPOV to relay that fact. It would be POV if we used positive qualifiers about the app, but that's not what the sentence is about, at all.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I removed the rest, which was sourced with a slightly-warmed-over press release. Without independent sources that demonstrate some encyclopedic value, it looks like WP:SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Here are two examples of reliable third-party sources about the app:
And The Beverly Hills Courier is also an RS--it's not Chopra's website. Shall we restore the content now?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the The Beverly Hills Courier article should be used for the reasons already given.
The two new sources above are better. Thanks. What do you propose to add as content? --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I think we should restore the content I added, but add these two references instead of TechCrunch. We may want to add a short description of the app as well, but that's up to you at this point--I am getting discouraged. I also do not understand why you won't restore the Beverly Hills-related content; it's encyclopedic/factual. He's taking an active role in the city by giving talks, leading walks, and letting residents use his app--it's not promotional to say that. He's taking part in the smart city movement.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The thought of Wikipedia promoting Chopra's app is deeply disturbing. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
That is not what we are doing. We are simply relaying the fact that he has an app, just like we have relayed the fact that he has books. Should we delete all his books because he sells them?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Two of the sources are fine. This is not spam and if worded carefully is no more promotional than noting books Chopra has written. Since use of the app has been paired with the city of Beverly Hills it is significant. Alone, that Chopra created an app might be undue.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC))
  • See WP:FART. This is an encyclopedia. Is anybody going to care about this app in three years? Don't know? Great then leave it out for now. Said another way, there are roughly 2.5 million apps in google play and also in itunes. Why is it worth talking about this one in WP? Other than WP:FANCRUFT? Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Because it's part of his career path, and we should relay facts based on reliable third-party sources. This article is about Chopra, so we won't mention 2.5 million apps, only his. By the same token, we don't mention every book ever published, only his. Will people remember every single one of his books in three years? Who knows? That's not for us to decide. There is relevant info in RS; we add it. It's only two sentences. I don't get the intense opposition to this.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes you have made it clear that this you believe this is encyclopedic and DUE. Others will weigh in with time. Are you trying to understand the objections? Jytdog (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Because it's part of his career path Says what independent source? All I see is he's lent his name to an app, and has done some initial marketing for it. Maybe he's done a bit more, but nothing that the sources indicate.
The Beverly Hills bit is and announcement by the mayor in a local paper, that's SOAP. If something comes of it, then we might have something that doesn't fit squarely in NOT. --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey guys. Any chance this discussion can be carried on without the usual, Chopra article escalation into toxic tone territory or without insertion of personal opinion on the article subject. You know. neutral. Just askin' (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC))

The text removed was:

In March 2017, the mayor of Beverly Hills, California, Lili Bosse, announced that the city residents would have access to the app, and that Chopra would give talks and lead walks in the city.

That is WP:UNDUE. Tracking who-said-what about each item in a person's life is not the point of an encyclopedic article. Put another way, if the reference was in the external links, it would be removed per WP:EL because the link does not provide any analysis or insight into the life or career of Chopra. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact that he launched an app was also removed though. I find that strange, especially since we've found RS on CNN and MarketWatch. As for BH, will this be accepted once he has led walks/talks?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Whether to add content or not about the app is simply based on opinion rather than clear policy. That Chopra created an app is like the books he wrote and writes, ongoing information about Chopra's life. The question is whether the app content is undue or not, that is, significant enough in terms of the man's life as a " healer" to be included. Biographies contain lots of content that may be less or more significant but all of it helps to describe a life. Since we have two reliable sources about the app we can assume the sources find the information at least somewhat significant, and frankly its the sources that may indicate what our position could be. I'd say as a summary statement and again my opinion, that while this content is not critical, and lots of WP content isn't, it is of interest in Chopra's ongoing attempts to reach the public. I am not judging why he does this, just that he does. I don't see why this content shouldn't be included without the big fuss generated, but I also don't think the article will be damaged if its left out. Since there seems to be a difference of opinion on this we might just wait and see if this step towards using technology is repeated and noted in RS, and if so then I'd suggest to even the critics that we include that kind of content.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC))
makes sense to wait and see what kind of impact this app makes as discussed in RS beyond the initial burst of hype on its release. yes. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)