Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Hidden away nicely" in the "final" paragraph? There are only 3 paragraphs in the lede, 1/6 of all content in the lede is critique, "New Age guru" has been established as a critique, and none of it promotes Chopra's work as scientifically accepted or pushes his business (it's a pretty big statement to say that folks here are trying to advertise on WP).

Exactly which phrases in the lede are promotional, in your opinion? The vast majority of the info there is biographical in nature, which is appropriate given that this is a biography and not a polemic against pseudoscience. There's precisely one sentence about what Chopra believes, and it's presented as his ideas, not scientific consensus. I'm more than a little confused by this sudden fuss over the "promotional" nature of the lede, which seems to consist of demands for more critical statements to balance out unspecified promotions. The Cap'n (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Basically, yes.

• 1/6 versus 5/6 isn't balance, in my opinion.

• I do think there's a need for more critical statements to balance out the lede's depiction of him as a mainstream doctor. He may have been that earlier in his career, but he's not any longer.

• 'Guru' isn't a critical term (in British English at least) - I work in software and I'd be pleased to be described as a "software guru".

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

|}

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

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

• Oppose As per CorporateM's comment. --JustBerry (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support "supporters and holistic medicine supporters" < "academics, scientists, experts, etc." - we actually do give preference to the better sources of information. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support Support acknowledgment of the existence of criticism in the first para. See comments in threaded discussion. Roches (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Leave it alone The end of the third paragraph is a normal and appropriate place for critical reactions like this. It already says that he's prominent and has been called a "guru", so, unlike CorporateM, I don't think that it needs to give any additional emphasis to the idea that some people like him and his ideas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose at this point Premature RFC. Moving criticism in the lead has has never been discussed on this article talk page.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC))
• Oppose There's already a strong element of Reception (particularly criticism) present throughout, and giving that top billing is redundant given the prominence already noted in the lede and inappropriate given that a BLP is supposed to given priority to biographical details. I also agree with Littleolive oil, this has never been a significant topic on the Talk Page; the RfC is premature. The Cap'n (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• The Cap'n and Littleolive Oil have both clearly made the case for support - the WP:LEAD should reflect the content of the article which should reflect the mainstream views of the subject i.e. the complete dismissal of Chopra's ideas by the mainstream academics should be clearly and appropriately reflected in the lead and not minimized. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Just to clarify, you're not suggesting that The Cap'n actually !voted "Support", correct? -- Atama頭 18:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Askahrc placed a !vote followed by a rationale. while the !vote portion stated one thing, when you look at the rationale portion per policy, the rationale provided validates the other position.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that at all. The rationale clearly supports the vote of oppose. 198.228.211.70 (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks TRPOD. When and if I decide to vote here on the actual RfC, I'll probably be able to work out how to say it myself.:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC))

• Oppose - the lead is fine as it is. I read the matter here: [1] and feel that this article is an attack piece. Should we tag it with the {{db-attack}} tag? The BLP also mentions Tabloid journalism; won't Dr.Chopra sue wikipedia for this NPOV article?—Khabboos (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I rather support rewriting the criticism part in the lead and the article - it doens't look NPOV. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support The lead and the article does not represent the widespread mainstream derision Deepak's views receive. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:LEAD. Current format is a succinct version of the current article in toto. And per MOS:BEGIN, the first paragraph should be reserved for an NPOV description of the subject without being overly specific. Current first paragraph is spot on in compliance with this, offering neither clear praise nor criticism. SueDonem (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Certainly I strongly support some form of mention of the skepticism about his positions and practices; whatever your disposition to the man and his beliefs and claims, there's no doubt as to the fact that he's a lightning rod for both proponents and opposition new age practices and alternative medicine, and our sources reflect this, which is where we ought to be taking our cues as to weight, including in the lead. All of that said, the current version seems to more than adequately support this need. The lead is supposed to summarize the content of the article as succinctly as reasonable and this one serves decently well in that manner; we structure the lead in this fashion to attempt to serve readers who are looking for differing levels of information, but I don't think it's pragmatic to start editing to prioritize those who haven't the time to even read the lead, as it's unlikely they are going to extract a detailed and valuable amount of content anyway. As it is, I actually think having the criticism as capping statements of the lead does a good job of presenting the dichotomy of the man; how he and his proponents present his ideas and how they are received by skeptics. I think it's a good balance of interests, overall. Snow talk 01:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Snow Rise, can't word it better, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, also per Snow Rise. Gandydancer (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support moving up in the lead. He is most WP:NOTABLE, apparently, for alternative medicine - that he is a "licensed physician" is mentioned in the first sentence and his alt med reputation is discussed in the second, and glowingly. The mainstream view on alt med should come directly after that - neutrally stated and reliably sourced, of course, as per WP:FRINGE. There is no contradiction between BLP and FRINGE. My argument is based on WP:NOTABLE and on [{WP:FRINGE]]. Please make arguments based on policies/guidelines/essay, not just hand-waving. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - criticism is in the scope of the article, and should be presented in the lead in a neutral way. Zambelo; talk 06:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The criticism should stay in the body of the article and also should be summarised in the WP:LEDE. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support His medical licensing is nearly a trivia point. This is a classic WP:FRINGE problem, and efforts to be "neutral" are actually placing undue weight on and providing excessive support for his views. The exact contents of his views are essentially trivia: the important factor is that none of them have any basis in reality.—Kww(talk) 00:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Kww, on what basis do you judge what "the important factor" is for the lede? I just want to read your thought-process in arriving at what you deem trivial and what you deem important. Thank you. 198.228.211.70 (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Let's try an analogy. Assume someone in your town was selling snake oil to cure cancer. What's the most important piece of information for people to know?

1. The species of snake from which the oil is extracted?
2. The molecular weight of the oil?
3. The degrees that the person procuring the oil from the snake has earned?
4. That if you give him money, he will be richer and you will still die from your cancer?

I hope you answered (4). If you didn't, I'm concerned about your reasoning skills. Similarly, the most important thing about Deepak Chopra is not the details of his statements, the places from which those statements are made, or his degrees, it's that the statements he makes are without medical or scientific foundation.—Kww(talk) 01:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That analogy isn't applicable because this is not the real world. This is an encyclopedia. So it's not a comparable situation. Wikipedia isn't here to warn people about snake oil salesmen. I take it that you disagree with this. I take it that you think warning readers about pseudoscience and con-men is our primary purpose, judging by your analogy. Am I wrong? If so please clarify. 198.228.211.70 (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd be just as happy to not have article about Deepak Chopra or any form of pseudoscience. However, when we have an article about con-men and pseudoscience, I believe that "con-man" and "pseudoscience" are generally the most important aspects of the topic.—Kww(talk) 02:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the insight on what you believe. Is it just that? A belief? Or is it Wikipedia policy that first and foremost we must expose the con-men and pseudo-scientists? And only after that is established clearly, then we can get into what a person is actually notable for? 198.228.211.70 (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

what, pray tell, is he notable for outside of the promotion of pseudoscience? Being an FOO (Friend of Oprah?) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that even WWE waits to the third paragraph before telling us that pro wrestling is fake. The debunkers' POV is not synonymous with NPOV. If the community at large thinks they are equivalent then there is something fundamentally wrong with Wikipedia. We should start a public and general RFC to see if debunking should be our primary goal here or if we should leave that to RationalWiki. in the meantime, it's good for me to now understand your primary editorial motivation – to debunk. 198.228.211.70 (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it's to accurately describe. It's unreasonable for an article on Deepak Chopra to appear to be about someone that makes valid medical and scientific claims because that isn't an accurate description.—Kww(talk) 13:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I see the difference now. So do you believe that this accurate description of the debunkers' POV should always be the most important feature of a pseudoscience-related subject's article? That it should be the first thing presented to the reader? If so, why? 198.228.211.70 (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, per WP:BLP. Cla68 (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

please identify what part of BLP applies because BLP clearly states that we must follow NPOV which says that we must present content in relation to the manner the subject is covered in reliable academic sources. In this case there has not been any substantial mainstream academic sources provided which is not critical of views and claims that Chopra makes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP#Balance mentions proportionate space, but it, indeed, makes no mention of placement of criticism in the article (e.g., whether including it in the lede should be avoided or not). jps (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Support. I'm here as an RfC - Maths/Science/Tech invitee with a background in chemistry. For me, this part of the article is best treated by not considering the name of the person involved. For the first paragraph, I consider whether that paragraph alone would convey all the most important information included in the article. That is, would a person reading the first paragraph and nothing else see an objective summary of the article?

The fact that Dr. Chopra is controversial is one of the important facts about him. I support including this fact in the first paragraph.

Since the solution would have to be agreeable to both supporters and non-supporters, we could acknowledge that actively advocating for alternative medicine, in the courts and in the public eye, has been an important aspect of Dr. Chopra's life. What he does is more than supporting alternative medicine, practicing it, or even publishing books about it. By saying that he needs to argue in favor of it, we implicitly say that others are arguing against it. We also state why he is so well-known: that he actively argues in favor of alternative medicine. Roches (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support Where Chopra makes it into the most reliable scientific or medical sources, it is generally in relation to criticism related to being a new age guru or in relation to quantum woo. Scientific American. There are plenty of skeptic critics noting this. When Chopra engages in public discussions, this is also generally the topic e.g New Republic, response and counter-response: New Republic, or The Future of God debate Harris, Shermer vs Chopra, Houston of "In the absence of a conscious entity, the moon remains a radically ambiguous and ceaselessly flowing quantum soup" fame [2], or his interview by Dawkins, etc. (These are all essentially primary sources, I'm trying to give a flavour of high profile activity, not give the secondary sources themselves) Noting he is a physician without promptly noting the sustained criticism he receives from scientists would violate NPOV. Second Quantization (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I also note, on a somewhat related matter, that the article provides what I think sounds like dangerous advice if a reader believed it: "He acknowledges that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, but claims that, "'[h]earing' the virus in its vicinity, the DNA mistakes it for a friendly or compatible sound". Ayurveda uses vibrations which are claimed to correct this supposed sound distortion.". It has a one line response of "Medical professor Lawrence Schneiderman writes that Chopra's treatment has "to put it mildly ... no supporting empirical data." Attributed responses always have the impression of some sort of balance of the "Well, he says this, and the other person say that". Combine this with the emphasis on being a physician and the systemic reduction of criticism appears to be a dangerous mix. Second Quantization (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Mostly Oppose The controversy surrounding him is a large part of his notability, and thus should be covered in the lead. However, the criticism seems to be in a pretty logical place. The lead isn't long, so the criticism isn't exactly buried. If there was a way of moving the criticism up to the second paragraph, that would work too. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 15:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

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

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

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

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

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

No. I'm asserting the RfC, a dispute resolution procedure, is premature. Very simple. Please don't put words into my mouth. Very unsanitary. :O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC))

• It's not Wikilawyering to say that something should be discussed in Talk before an RfC is brought in. That's just standard procedure. As far as WP:UNDUE, there are 6 clearly critical statements in the lede, vs. 2 clearly positive statements. That 3:1 for criticism as it stands (hence the discussions about balancing the negative tone, NOT increasing it). What ratio of criticism do you think is appropriate for a BLP? The Cap'n (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Also, I'm a little curious as to why a BLP was listed under Maths, Science, and Technology but didn't include Biographies. The Cap'n (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be best to have some proposals rather than trying to address this more abstractly.

Note: This topic was touched upon briefly in Talk:Deepak_Chopra#Shermer_quote, especially (18:17, 2 June 2014). --Ronz (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ronz, I agree, it'd be helpful to discuss specifics rather than abstractions. I'd asked in the previous section exactly which sentences in the lede Balaenoptera musculus considered inappropriately promotional, as that seems a good place to start. I can't find any content in the lede that isn't typical of a BLP (summary, biographical details, prominent views, reception). The Cap'n (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not wikilawyering to say that you believe "that something should be discussed in Talk before an RfC is brought in".

However, there's absolutely no "discuss first" rule for RFC. That's because RFCs can be used for a wide variety of purposes. The first sentence of WP:RFC lists "disputes" and "article content" as separate, unrelated reasons for starting an RFC. This appears to be an RFC about article content. It is therefore procedurally acceptable, even if there is no dispute to resolve at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines, article content, or user conduct.

I guess I'm suggesting process is generally to discuss in article before requesting outside input.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC))

WhatamIdoing, Agreed. I'm not implying that BM has violated any rules, simply that they haven't established any need for this particular resolution or specifics on what's wrong with the current lede, either on the Talk Page before now or in the RfC itself. There have been RfC's discussed before, but it was generally about the use of sources, burdens of RS, MEDRS and the double standards with criticism v. positive statements. The positioning of criticism in the lede has not been a major topic of discussion, and any RfC on a BLP should definitely have included Biography, not just Maths, Science and Tech, per WP:RFC. The RfC by SAS81 below is more representative of the issues that have been troublesome on this page, so hopefully we'll still get some kind of resolution going. The Cap'n (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that the RFC below will prove useless due to the broad and vague nature of the complaint.

Did you know that you can change the categories on an RFC at any time? It's not set in stone in the original edit. WP:RFC has the complete list of codes, if you don't know which one you'd like to add. Add whatever you want, and wait for the bot's next run. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Bizarre fixation on a process question is Wikilawyering hogwash. What evidence is there on the MASSIVE volume of words in all of the sections above and the numerous archive pages created in just the last few weeks that free wheeling "discussions" on this page are in any way effective method of generating a consensus? On this page a specific identified change and an RfC to identify consensus are probably the best way of identifying consensus and improving the article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I read the matter here: [3] and feel that this article is an attack piece. Should we tag it with the {{db-attack}} tag? The BLP also mentions Tabloid journalism which says that the way they (in this case, Dr.Chopra) use drugs (medicines) would violate BLP; won't Dr.Chopra sue wikipedia for this NPOV article?—Khabboos (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Even if he advocates hypnotherapy, meditation or auto-suggestion as one of the cures for an ailment, if it is helping someone (due to the placebo effect or whatever else) it shouldn't be used to attack him.—Khabboos (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have been trying to stay out of this, however I was hoping Khabbos could please provide specifics on how this rises to the level he is talking about especially since that policy mentions unsourced information while as far as can see everything is sourced. In addition there has been an "archiver" who is "serving the concerns Dr Chopra has about his article," why are you mentioning sueing for this article when Dr. Chopra's own archivest has not made such a comment? VViking_TalkEdits 15:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

That "archiver" has been topic banned! Suing wikipedia could be next on his agenda. Shouldn't we set things right here if there is anything wrong, before wikipedia gets sued?—Khabboos (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

So what is "wrong" you mentioned some very vague big picture items you are concerned about, however I see nothing specific that is actionable. In addition I don't think he has been TB...at least not yet. VViking_TalkEdits 15:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh! I'm sorry about the TB - you're right, but s/he's on the verge of it. The whole article is an attack piece and reference no.6 may be libelous if we go by the contents of Tabloid journalism—Khabboos (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom, please retract your statement that I support the changes proposed. I clearly stated that I Opposed due to the status quo reflecting the existing prominence, that criticism was in no way minimized and that moving it up was NOT reflective of the article's content or BLP standards. Please do not "correct" other editors' votes or claim they actually meant something else. The Cap'n (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Khabboos I want to make sure we are looking at the same reference Number 6 which includes a number of different articles, from a number of different sources. Are you saying that the San Francisco Chronicle, Time Magazine and the Oxford University Press are Tabloid journalism? I know there is no single source that is considered reliable in all situations, but these are three solid sources that are often quoted and used. VViking_TalkEdits 00:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

What is with these numerous alarmist threats that Deepak will SLAPP Wikimedia with a lawsuit? Seems like an attempt to scare/manipulate a desired outcome on Chopra's page.IMO.

If Dr. Chopra did sue then maybe Deepak's page could get a comprehensive section on Chopra's many lawsuits. Didn't there used to be such a stand alone section? All there is now is an imbedded mention of the JAMA lawsuit. Dr. Chopra is one of the most litigious of all New Age businessmen. Numerous suits have been publicly mentioned over the years and some have many interesting features. Including Chopra's claims of corruption and cronyism of Judges in the San Diego judicial system. There is a long list of Chopra civil suits. Most recently according to Courthouse News Dr. Chopra is suing James Walsh of Intentional Chocolates (search also: Dean Radin + Intentional Chocolate -Leela Bar- HESA institute- The Consciousness Project Hopeful Solutions for Epic Problems) It Appears Chopra claims Jim Walsh "rolled" him for over 5 million. http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/10/25/62353.htm This high degree of legal activity seems a large part of who Deepak Chopra is. No one is that surprised that he just might sue- as demonstrated by Khabboos jumping in again and again waving the spectre of it. Ptarmigander (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I have also read about his many lawsuits, so we (wikipedians) need to be careful!—Khabboos (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Khabboos, though I would add to all involved that if we keep within the bounds of good BLP practice, there will be nothing to sue about because we will not be representing anything other than fact. Making up various names for subjects that they reject is not representing facts, nor is replacing biographical details with more and more criticism for criticisms' sake, nor is treating praise and condemnation with two different sourcing standards. None of these are good BLP practice, and they're a large of the reason why we're even having a discussion about libel. What does that tell you? This is a BLP, stick with BLP policies and we'll be fine. If we try to turn a biography into a polemic, we may encounter problems, and we'd deserve them. The Cap'n (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

We're getting off topic. Lawsuits are difficult to cover if at any point they get settled under non-disclosure. Still, any that are notable must be covered, and any that are highly prominent should be.

"Dr. Chopra is one of the most litigious of all New Age businessmen" says who? --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the OT Ronz. Salon called him the "High Lama of Litigation".Ptarmigander (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Deepak Chopra, the high lama of litigation, may be a pussycat on TV, but cross him in the courtroom and you'll have a tiger on your tail." (Salon, 2000). "... when the matter is litigation, not karma, and the rules of evidence, not the rules of ayurveda, are in play, Chopra is an aggressive adversary." (Los Angeles Times, 1997). MastCell ^Talk 19:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to whoever added the 'biog' category to this RfC - my omission. Littleolive oil's wikilawyering seems tendentious to me. How about addressing the content issues instead of the process or the tone? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Khabboos: No legal threats please. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2014 (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.

Lead again

The second paragraph of the lead:

Chopra obtained his medical degree in India before emigrating in 1970 to the United States, where he specialized in endocrinology and became Chief of Staff at the New England Memorial Hospital (NEMH). In the 1980s he began practicing transcendental meditation (TM) and in 1985 resigned his position at NEMH to establish the Maharishi Ayurveda Health Center. Chopra left the TM movement in 1994 and founded the Chopra Center for Wellbeing, now located in Carlsbad, California.

seems trivial to me. At the very least, it should be moved down, so that what he is known for, in the third paragraph, should be moved up. Perhaps it should disappear from the lead entirely. (Need it be said that, although I believe Kww's lead is accurate, it may have WP:DUE weight problems.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This has been brought up before and received no responses. I say it's time to be bold with it. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence of the third paragraph:

Combining principles from Ayurveda (Hindu traditional medicine) and mainstream medicine, Chopra's approach to health incorporates ideas about the mind-body relationship, teleology in nature and the primacy of consciousness over matter – that "consciousness creates reality."

seems a bit puffery puffery to me. If it could be sourced without using his own works, it might be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• prefer to wait until the RfC about the lead has closed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  I can understand that. I just don't see any chance of the RfC producing a consensus, other than one opposing Kww's choice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about that. The RFC on making criticism more prominent is nearly at a dead heat numerically, and none of the oppose votes have a sound foundation in policy or guideline. They seem to be primarily based on the notion that Chopra's opinion of himself needs to be given prominence. I agree that the medical career that he abandoned 30 years ago is no longer prominent enough to warrant mention in the lead.—Kww(talk) 14:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's see if we can find something without his own words. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like "puffery" so much as the type of biographical information that is supposed to be the focus of a Biography of a Living Person. Why are we pushing to remove the one chunk of information in the lede that is purely and objectively factual?

@Kww, first off, it's not quite a dead heat, as there are more Oppose/Leave It Alone than Support. Secondly, it's not very responsible to generalize statements like "none of the oppose votes have a sound foundation in policy or guideline." WP:BLP is a sound policy, WP:BALANCE is a sound guideline, WP:NPOV is a sound policy, WP:LEAD & MOS:BEGIN are sound guidelines, and these were all referenced at length in the RfC Survey. What hasn't been a strongly represented opinion among the Opposes has been the idea that the lede needs to be Chopra's opinion of himself. I try to be careful not to misrepresent the arguments of others even if I disagree with them; please extend the same courtesy. The Cap'n (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It was 12:10 at last count, so there isn't a numeric imbalance bigger than sampling error. Given that moving criticism up in the lead is not contraindicated by WP:BLP, WP:BALANCE, or WP:NPOV, none of those arguments have a sound foundation in policy or guidelines. I could argue that criticism needed to be moved up based on WP:Short horizontal line, but that would not mean that my argument had a sound foundation in policy or guidelines.—Kww(talk) 23:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Askahrc, the second paragraph is the sort of biographical information, which should be in any encyclopedic biography, but not in the lead. The first sentence of the third paragraph was puffery, but, if accurate, the first and third paragraphs constitute a reasonable lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Disagree and Premature - Per MOS:INTRO: The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. With about half of the article addressing the subject's "Biography", the two sentences we are affording this info in the current lead is the minimum mention warranted in this concise version of the article. SueDonem (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

References

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.