Talk:Deepak Chopra

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Deepak Chopra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding category Criticism and moving that part from main article[edit]

Move this section from top and create a subsection at 2.9 called 'Criticism':

The ideas Chopra promotes have been regularly criticized by medical and scientific professionals as pseudoscience.[17][18][19][20] This criticism has been described as ranging "from dismissive [to] damning".[17] For example, Robert Carroll states Chopra attempts to integrate Ayurveda with quantum mechanics to justify his teachings.[21] Chopra argues that what he calls "quantum healing" cures any manner of ailments, including cancer, through effects that he claims are literally based on the same principles as quantum mechanics.[15] This has led physicists to object to his use of the term quantum in reference to medical conditions and the human body.[15] His treatments generally elicit nothing but a placebo response,[6] and have drawn criticism that the unwarranted claims made for them may raise "false hope" and lure sick people away from legitimate medical treatments.[17] He is placed by David Gorski among the "quacks", "cranks" and "purveyors of woo", and described as "arrogantly obstinate".[22] Richard Dawkins has said that Chopra uses "quantum jargon as plausible-sounding hocus pocus".[23] Omkar khalipe (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your proposal is inappropriate on many levels, violating WP:LEDE and WP:STRUCTURE to start. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Funnily enough that very change was later made, and edit warred over, by another new account,[1] which had put in some exceedingly trivial edits, seemingly to achieve autoconfirmed status. I have inquired of a CU. Bishonen | talk 17:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC).
On a closer look, never mind bothering a CU. Sock and master blocked per WP:DUCK. Bishonen | talk 18:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC).
Well the top part is pretty bloated, could use an update if you ask me. EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I suggest reviewing past discussions and making a new proposal based on a good understanding of applicable policies and the concerns previously brought up on how to best trim the lede. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
After reviewing the references in the criticism section I removed one as blogs should not be used for living persons. Added dubious tags to two others as they don't seem to align with what's stated. EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I've restored it, because I believe this has been discussed at length. Have you figured out how to use the search functionality of this page to find previous discussions? --Ronz (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


The criticism does not fit with neutrality standards.
- Removed reference to blogger. Read the about him page @ Hardly a valid source for a living person.
- Added Dubious tags on two references that don't match up with their claim, let's discuss. EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"Neutrality standards" probably don't mean what you think they do. It's a reliable source for skeptical viewpoints, especially when it comes to questionable medical claims outside regular evidence-based medicine.
Have you reviewed the past discussions yet? --Ronz (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)