Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 2

User:Vivekachudamani (a WP:SPA) has recently removed a number of passages backed-up by high-quality sources on various grounds - largely an opinion that the author is not qualified to comment (something the peer-review panel of the publications in question took a different view on). In general the removed material might be characterized as "critical" of Chopra.

I think these removals are unjustified, and propose the content is kept. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If the content was sourced then it should be re-instated and then discussed here point by point to see if there is anything that merits removal. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I reinstated them, and they have been removed again, and replaced with puff quotes from the jacket of a Chopra book, dressed up as scholarly response. To be clear, the removed content was reliable third-party criticism sourced to peer-reviewed publications. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I propose re-instating the deleted content, and removing the puff quotes. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Reliably sourced content should be replaced. I'd note that this article probably falls under TM arbitration sanctions . (olive (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC))

• • I've notified and warned the user here. .(olive (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC))

I put in the quotes from the scientists regarding Chopra's views on quantum physics because they are scholars and scientists in the field of quantum physics who were commenting on Chopra's views referenced by his book co-authored by physicist Leonard Mlodinow. They aren't "puff quotes." These referenced quotes to the book were removed without good cause. When I replaced them later I explained in the notes that O'Har, Gamel, Baer and Kaminer are not really scholars and are only speculating on Chopra's wealth and reasons for his popularity such as his appeal to "magic" and that they never in thier material reference anything that Chopra wrote. So to contrast the actual scholar's references to Chopra that I submitted with the weak and speculative material that was taking it's place, I removed it. How is the speculation that Chopra is "perhaps the wealthiest" alternative medical practitioner supposed to be better sourced scholarship than the comments of leading nuclear physicists offering their views on Chopra's recent book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivekachudamani (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is a compilation of information taken from reliable sources. You have persistently removed RS content with out discussion, that's why you were warned. What you need to do is to leave content in place. Then, discuss here why you think that content should be removed. This article falls under an arbitration. You can't just remove content at any time because you don't agree with it, but especially with articles under an arbitration. If you do, with out discussion and consensus, you risk sanctions as the arbitration indicates. The procedure that will benefit everyone, and the article, is to place text here either that you wish to exclude or include, and with their sources, so that it can be discussed and a consensus reached. This is a collaborative project, you see, so you must work this issue out with other editors. Unilateral editing will cause you problems. Best Wishes.(olive (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC))

I have again removed the puff quotes from the article. I don't believe they are reliable commentary and have seen no argument to the contrary. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• • removed content:

So we can look at this.

Being a nuclear physicist dealing with basic quantum field theory I find my worldview agreeing with Deepak Chopra. The all-embracing holistic quantum field is a step forward from our classical reductionistic interpretation of a determined "reality". It suggests a dynamic, alive cosmos or "Wirklichkeit". Dr Chopra's work will be talked about for a long time to come.” Hans Peter Duerr, Director Emeritus, Max-Planck-Institute for Physics and Astrophysics,Nuclear physicist, Research Associate and co-worker of Werner Heisenberg 1958-1976^[1]

Comments:

• Its unlikely that a comment on a book cover is a RS. Sources must have oversight. A comment used to sell a book, and placed in or on the book does not have uninvolved oversight, and especially for a BLP where we must be scrupulous about sources. Vivekachudamani, I suggest you take this to the Reliable sources Notice Board and get outside input since you don't agree with editors here. And I'd add that you'd need to identify the source. I'd be happy to post something for you on a NB but you need to post the right source here, first. I don't see the quote in the source you've given.(olive (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC))

Dear Olive and Alexbrn,

I just discovered this conversation/response today to my edits back in February. I apologize both for the long space of time as I have been preoccupied with pressing matters, and for my lack of expertise in navigating my way through the wiki avenues of correspondence.

Regarding the removal of Duerr's quote on Chopra's understanding of quantum physics, I can accept that decision if book jacket material cannot be used in wiki articles.

What I was hoping to address was the misperception that physicists don't agree with Chopra's interpretation of quantum field theory, when in fact a number of eminent quantum physicists not only agree, but have been stating these views long before Chopra did. The role of the observer in quantum measurement has been debated by evenly divided groups for nearly a century, it does a disservice to the wiki reader to suggest that Chopra's position(which is also Heisenberg's Wigner and Bohr's) is somehow discreditable because he's not a physicist.

At the time this material was under a topic called Academic Scholars, and I felt that many of the authors referenced there were weak and it needed quotes from who had actually read some Chopra material and spoke to his ideas. Alexbrn removed my quotes quickly after I posted them and I couldn't understand why. I repeatedly reposted because I thought it was mischief-making. When he responded that Duerr's view of quantum physics in agreement with Chopra was a self-promoting puff quote, I felt that was incorrect and unfair, especially given the weak material there already. So to make that point I removed the biased material with brief explanations. The material was instantly put up again. And that's where I left off. Then later I saw Olive's message to me warning me not to unilaterally remove content or be sanctioned.I was urged to seek consensus first,which seems like a good idea, although I notice I have never been asked for clarification or a response before any of my reliably sourced content was removed.

But in the spirit of friendly cooperation I would like to get feedback from you about changing or removing these entries. It's not that they aren't referenced properly, but they lack informative content, they push a point of view instead of give substantive information about Chopra's ideas, actions or material.

1 Reception- In Academic Journals

Reviewing Susan Jacoby's book, The Age of American Unreason, Wendy Kaminer sees Chopra's popular reception in America as being symptomatic of many Americans' historical inability (as Jacoby puts it) "to distinguish between real scientists and those who peddled theories in the guise of science". Chopra's "nonsensical references to quantum physics" are placed in a lineage of American religious pseudoscience, extending back through Scientology to Christian Science.[49]

Kaminer is reviewing Jacoby's book and the implication is that the scholar Jacoby has something to say about Chopra. I read Kaminer's entire review as well as searched Jacoby's book and it's index. Jacoby never mentions Chopra. Here's the actual passage from Jacoby's book.

"Many Americans possessed just enough education to be fascinated by late nineteenth-century advances in both science and technology, but they had too little education to distinguish between real scientists and those who peddled social theories in the guise of science."

Jacoby is speaking of the false science of the social Darwinist of the capitalists of the Gilded Age. Given that Chopra’s name nor the words 'quantum physics' ever appears anywhere in the book, it's disingenuous to quote the book as if she was commenting on Chopra. Kaminer inserts her opinion about Chopra and his "nonsensical references to quantum physics" out of the blue without any foundation from the book, and with no further elaboration.

How is such a characterization not misleading to the casual reader searching for background information on Chopra?

2. Reception- In Academic Journals George O'Har, a professor of English at Boston College, saw Chopra as an exemplification of the fact that human beings need "magic" in their lives, and places "the sophistries of Chopra" alongside the emotivism of Oprah Winfrey, the special effects and logic of Star Trek, and the magic of Harry Potter.[45]

This entry misleads the reader into believing that needing magic is a criticism, when in fact O’Har is pointing out the limitations of a solely technological approach to human existence and suggesting we explore magic more fully to uncover a deeper meaningfulness to our lives. O'Har doesn't put the word magic in quotes. Here are O'Har's last three concluding sentences from his paper:

“We crave meaning and spirit in our lives, and we find them in the oddest places: the sophistries of a Deepak Chopra, the emotivism of an Oprah Winfrey, the special effects and logic of Star Trek and The Matrix. Now it's Harry Potter's turn. And while this is not an altogether good development, certainly it could be worse. One does hold out hope, though, that this disguised search for meaning—and it is precisely that—will someday result in an exploration that takes us beyond what is provided by an alternative world found only in the pages of children's books.

I doubt if most readers would realize from this wiki entry that O'Har is not ridiculing magic and that he's actually encouraging Chopra, Oprah, Star Wars, The Matrix and the Harry Potter books to keep going more deeply into the meaning of life.

If the reason this entry is included is for the phrase “sophistries of Deepak Chopra,” , then one would expect the article to support that in some way. It doesn’t. This opinion about Chopra's presentation is the only mention of Chopra in the entire piece. If this were an unbiased wiki entry, one would then find the identical entry of O'Har under Oprah Winfrey’s wikipage: Reception – in Academic journals. The “emotivism of an Oprah Winfrey” exemplifies our human need for "magic." I fail to see how the wiki reader will understand from this entry that O'Har thinks magic and not technology is the right direction to find meaning. And even if he sees limitations in Chopra's style of teaching, he still includes him in that camp.

3. Reception- In Academic Journals John Gamel (2008) also acknowledges Chopra's business success, thinking him "perhaps the wealthiest" of America's alternative medicine practitioners.[4]

Why state an opinion on Chopra’s wealth without supporting facts? Speculation on his wealth or lack of wealth has no relevance to how his ideas are received. If he was well known but financially unsuccessful, would that merit inclusion under Reception? The rest of the Gamel entry seems fine.

4. Reception- In Academic Journals According to medical anthropologist Hans Baer (2003), Chopra – as a wealthy individual – is an example of the American success story,[46]

Again, what is the connection between wealth and how academia receives Chopra's message?The rest of the Baer reference is fine with me.

5. All of Robert Todd Carroll's references.

Author Todd Carroll said Chopra left the TM organization when it “became too stressful” and was a “hindrance to his success”.[30]

These quotes suggest that Chopra said this somewhere to someone. That is not the case. Here is the actual sentence along with the previous sentence.

Soon he was an international purveyor of herbs and tablets through MAPI. When association with TM itself became too stressful and a hindrance to his success, he left.

Carroll speculated on the reason for Chopra's departure. He gives no source at all.

Another Carroll reference: According to the book Skeptics Dictionary, Chopra's "mind-body claims get even murkier as he tries to connect Ayurveda with quantum physics.”[30]

This is a value statement on Chopra’s writing style, not a substantive critique of ideas. Calling Chopra's writing "murkier" only reflects Carroll's cognitive capacity. It offers the reader only Carroll’s point of view, no useful information.

The third Carroll reference: Chopra acknowledges that his thought has been inspired by Jiddu Krishnamurti and others. [30]

This text no longer exists in the Skeptics Dictionary. There is another reference for the same entry, so it can remain, only the reference number needs to be removed.

Carroll’s work is full of biased and invented positions as well as demonstrably incorrect information. Including his citations is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and even to self-respecting skeptics. His lack of credibility is shown where he says. “Chopra has no license to practice medicine in California.” Chopra has always retained his medical license in CA and in MA. Carroll just made that up. Regarding the Sapolsky lawsuit, he claims that Deepak Chopra plagiarized Sapolsky by “lifting large chunks of his work” when in fact it was one stress endocrine chart from a textbook that was mistakenly included in a Chopra book without proper attribution. On his wikiquote page, Robert Todd Carroll says: “ The reader is forewarned that The Skeptics Dictionary does not try to present a balanced account of occult subjects.” Why would editors use this material if the author himself admits to bias, and has no respect for the facts?

That's it. Tell me what you think.Vivekachudamani (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm starting this topic based on Alexbrn's recent comment under the Robert Todd Carroll section: He defends his bias on the Deepak Chopra article thus: "Chopra's writings on quantum science are labelled by all experts on the topic as nonsense on toast; Wikipedia reflects the mainstream, and is quite properly doing so here." Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This bias is an important topic for discussion, since this apparently is a common belief among some wiki editors and it means that the article material will be consciously or unconsciously shaped to fit their preconceived belief that Chopra is nonsense and outside the mainstream. While Chopra's views of consciousness in the universe is rejected by classical physicists in the arch materialist/reductionist school, the role of consciousness or observer in quantum measurement(the Copenhagen Interpretation)is one of most well known and widely taught schools of quantum theory. Quantum physicist don't regard the role of the observer as nonsense or ridiculous at all-even the ones who are looking for alternative theories.

Last year Chopra co-wrote "War of the Worldviews" with CalTech physicist Leonard Mlodinow (a co-author with Stephen Hawking)Mlodinow is an expert and he doesn't label Chopra's writings as nonsense. Even where he differs with Chopra on the role of consciousness in quantum measurement, he respects his position as a main school of quantum mechanics in the same camp as Eugene Wigner, Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr,and Sir Arthur Eddington, as well as many other eminent physicists.

Menas Kafatos is the Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor of Computational Physics at Chapman University. He has written extensively on quantum theory and noetic issues, including quantum effects in brain science and life. He is an expert in quantum theory and he clearly doesn't think Chopra is nonsense.

"The issue of measurement theory in quantum mechanics and implications for consciousness in general have been the subject of more than 100 years of serious research by many physicists, including many of the founders of quantum mechanics. To dismiss the possibility of consciousness playing a central role in the universe, which is Chopra's point of view, by critics, is just a metaphysical assumption and should be exposed as that. Using words to attack someone like Chopra, without building the case why one favors a strictly materialist world-view, does not substitute for sound, logical set of arguments. In fact, in my books "The Conscious Universe" (Springer, 2000) and "The Non-local Universe" (Oxford, 1999) written with Robert Nadeau, we bring up the hidden metaphysics of those who only favor a classical, physically-based universe. Such a universe does not exist. The universe of quantum theory may be strange to the classically-conditioned mind but it, nevertheless, is the real universe. My own view is that a consciousness-based universe, although cannot be directly proven externally, as consciousness itself ultimately involves the subjective experience and all associated qualia, is the simplest and logically only self-consistent model. Otherwise, one runs either into infinite regressions and arguments that are not born by quantum theory, or one has to assume a set of very strange, and unpalatable realities, such as many worlds, most of them devoid of life."

Hans Peter Duerr, Scientific Member and Dir.em. Max-Planck-Institut fuer Physik and Astrophysik, and Munich, Germany, Member of the Board of Directors 1970-1997, Chairman of the Board 1978-1980; Nuclear physicist, Research Associate and coworker of Werner Heisenberg 1958-1976; Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Werner-Heisenberg-Institut fuer Physik, Munich 1971, 1978-1980, 1987-1992, Vice-Chairman 1972-1977, 1981-1986, 1993-1995, Emeritus 1997

Duerr says: "Being a nuclear physicist dealing with basic quantum field theory I find my worldview agreeing with Deepak Chopra. The all-embracing holistic quantum field is a step forward from our classical reductionistic interpretation of a determined "reality". It suggests a dynamic, alive cosmos or "Wirklichkeit".

January 31st, 2013 I put these physicists quotes under the RECEPTION -SCHOLARS section to add some background to the quantum physics discussion by actual physicists who have taken the time to read Chopra's work. Alexbrn immediately removed them saying they were "puff quotes" and because they were used on the book jacket, they weren't reliable.

At present there is only this entry in the article to support "all experts" who say Chopra is "nonsense on toast"

In 2012, reviewing War of the Worldviews – a book co-authored by Chopra and Leonard Mlodinow – physics professor Mark Alford explains that the work is set out as a debate between the two authors, "[covering] all the big questions: cosmology, life and evolution, the mind and brain, and God." Alford considers the two sides of the debate a false opposition, and concludes that "the counterpoint to Chopra's speculations is not science, with its complicated structure of facts, theories, and hypotheses, but something much more basic. The antidote to Chopra is Occam."[56]

That's a start, but this is how Alford simplified his review and which gives a clearer summary of his thoughts.

"The book’s sensational title implies that the debate is a war. It also assumes that science is a worldview, a natural counterpoint to Chopra’s spirituality. But Chopra clearly loves science, and he even competes with Mlodinow to explain such issues as the history of the cosmos and the role of DNA. The issues underlying the Chopra–Mlodinow debate extend beyond science and into philosophy. Chopra emphasizes that his real disagreement is not with science per se. Rather, it is with “materialism,” by which he means physicalism, the philosophical assertion that physics provides not just a good description, but a full account of all that there is to the universe. Chopra goes beyond science in one direction, using it as a jumping-off point for his inspirational metaphysics. But, as Chopra points out, the materialism that lies in the opposite direction is also a form of metaphysics."

Alford manages to get to the real point of contention--the physical/reductionist view against Chopra's view that consciousness is real. The criticism of Chopra is not really about competing theories of quantum physics or whether it is okay to use quantum theory as a model (metaphor) for consciousness. No physicist who has read War of the Worldviews says Chopra's understanding of quantum mechanics is incorrect or is nonsense. I think retired professor Victor Stenger is the only one who actually criticized Chopra, and that was back in the late 80's when Chopra's early thoughts were less defined and probably deserved some criticism. Anyway, my point is that Alexbrn's position that this wikipedia article should be slanted against Chopra because his "writings on quantum science are labelled by all experts on the topic as nonsense on toast," is simply wrong. Such as categorical statement should be supportable by at least one quantum physicist who will say that Chopra's view of consciousness in the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum theory is "nonsense" and not mainstream.

The larger issue is that an editor can decide on their own what what is "nonsense" and then push that narrative even though they are given ample evidence to the contrary. It's one thing to not know Chopra's actual views on quantum physics and then amend things later to reflect an evolving, improving article. It's quite another thing to show that you don't know his views or books, don't want to know, and don't want other wikipedia readers to know either. That you are proud to be uninformed and encourage wiki readers to be uninformed and biased too.

The remedy for this is simple. Take down the false controversy about Deepak's views about quantum physics, and stop removing reliably sourced content that informs the readers his views. Vivekachudamani (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

We already have material on Chopre'a "quantum" stuff in the the Reception section, and no - we're not replacing it with promotional blurbs from book covers. Chopra peddles what Michael Shermer has called "quantum psedoscience" and there is a weight of referencing supporting this (the Kaminer review, Carroll, the Dawkins interview, the Ig Nobel Prize ...). We don't give Chopra's views weight here but instead follow the guidance in WP:FRINGE and place them firmly in the context of the mainstream. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Alexbrn for citing Shermer from ancient history. Here is what he had to say in 2012 after he read Chopra and Mlodinow's book "War of the Worldview" and after he had presented at the Chopra Foundation Sages and Scientists Symposium that year.

“There is nothing more important than the worldview you hold. It determines nearly everything you think, do, and say. Like the fish who notices not the water in which he swims, we live in our worldviews without even noticing them. Yet most conflicts in life can be traced to worldview differences, and none more so than the worldviews of science and religion. War of the Worldviews is the best single volume I've ever read on this vital subject. Deepak Chopra and Leonard Mlodinow well capture the essence of the debate and do so in such an engaging style that you can't stop reading. I know both authors well, and even though I side with one worldview over the other, I found myself compelled to read Deepak deeper to understand his worldview. Those on Deepak's side will feel the same compulsion to read Leonard's contributions.” Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, monthly columnist Scientific American, adjunct professor Claremont Graduate University and Chapman University.

Shermer's views apparently have evolved over the last 10-20 years. He had the intellectual honesty to put aside his earlier bias and actually read and listen to Chopra's ideas and here he is encouraging other readers to do the same. Since you admire him, you might want to emulate his openness and fairness. Since I posted this in January this year and you took it down within minutes, you must have read it and known that Shermer no longer disparages Chopra, but you still felt confident that no one else knew and that, and that you could win sympathy for your argument by dusting off some old comment about "quantum psedoscience" as you spell it and implying this is Shermer's current position.

You cite Shermer as your support for your biased position even though you have known for a long time that Shermer does not believe that anymore. That is not intellectual honesty. You cite Kaminer and Carroll even though I have thoroughly refuted your sources on them already. You cite an old hatchet job video of Dawkins even though the recently released unedited version shows Dawkins ambushed Chopra. But all that aside, your argument for not including real quantum physicists views on Chopra's "quantum psedoscience" is that these experts after reading Chopra, made the mistake of having their positions published in the comment section in the beginning section of the book. Who needs to hear from quantum physicists when you have old, uninformed opinions, from cranks, lawyers, non-scientists, who don't know the first thing about quantum physics,telling us Chopra's views of quantum physics are pseudoscience?

Think about that. You are saying if you want to know how experts in the field of quantum theory view Chopra's latest ideas on physics, don't give us physicists views who have read last year's book. You argue it serves the reader better to include journalist/lawyer Wendy Kaminer's one line "Chopra's quantum nonsense" in a review of Susan Jacoby's book that never even mentions Chopra or quantum physics anywhere. Nor does Kaminer have anything more to say about Chopra or quantum physics in the rest of her book review. Doesn't that dishonesty bother you just a little? Jacoby's book was about 19th century US capitalism co-opting social Darwinism to their own ends. I told you about this in February and again last week, but you still have the temerity to claim today that Kaminer is an expert in offering a critique of Chopra's quantum physics than a real physicist.

Dawkins doesn't know anything about quantum physics and hasn't done any real science since the eighties. He's in Cambridge's Education department, their PR section to publicize their ideas to the public. His job is to sensationalize things, and create attention through inciting controversy. He'll be the first to tell you he doesn't know quantum physics. Why you cite him as an expert in quantum physics is another mystery.

You even bring up Carroll as an expert in Chopra's quantum physics, though Carroll is not a quantum physicist and his one comment about Chopra's "murkier" explanations were regarding his inability to understand a passage in Chopra's book published in 1989. It's unclear to me why Carroll's intellectual limitations in understanding physics somehow makes him an expert on quantum physics here. Your view is we should give the readers Carroll's view instead of actual physicists who both understand the subject and have read Chopra's work.

Also, you mention the Ig Nobel as if that meant anything serious. It's actually a light-hearted and humorous affair intended to poke gentle fun. It is not meant as a serious judgment or condemnation. Did you know Giem, a recent recipient of the Ig Nobel award went on to win a real Nobel Prize in physics for his work on graphene in 2010?

Your sources are old, obsolete, biased, misleading or outright wrong. You haven't kept up-to-date. Chopra's ideas on alternative medicine may have been outside the mainstream in the 80's but it isn't now. And they have never been "fringe" by Wikipedia standards. His ideas of quantum theory in itself has never been outside the major schools of quantum mechanics. Even his ideas on the interface of quantum reality with neurobiology has become a subject of serious and fruitful research in the last decade.

You cherry-pick your way through irrelevant sources, 30 year old sources and unauthoritive sources to paint a predetermined picture that Chopra is fringe, and then claim this is the general opinion. When confronted on one of the sources, simply assert it is good and say this is the general opinion because it fits the other sources you picked. Your argument that everyone thinks Chopra is fringe boils down to you thinking he is fringe and finding a few other people who agree.

By gaming the system, you have been allowed to bully and bluster your prejudices through on this article for too long. You have shown yourself incapable of listening, learning, or interacting with reason and explanation on this article. I have offered full reasoning and support for my points. Your response to all my comments is a repetition of the same theme: "Chopra is a fraud and everybody knows it." You don't seem to recognize how absurd this response is. Your possessive biased control on this Wikipedia article is doing Wikipedia readers a grievous disservice. You have never mentioned that a concern. All you want to do is push your point of view. It will not only be in Wikipedia's readers' best interest if you retire from this article, it will also be better for you. I'm sincere about this, if you can't accept change, it's time to let go. Vivekachudamani (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The Shermer pseudoscience reference is from his 2012 book. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes,published in 2012, put taken from a December 17,2009 Larry King Live discussion. It was from this point that Shermer and Chopra began to correspond directly and get to know each other and each other's ideas. That led to Shermer speaking at the Sages and Scientists Symposium. His changed and respectful view of Chopra is reflected in the thoughtful analysis of Chopra's book last year that I gave you above. Here you seem to be suggesting that Shermer's 2009 TV comments on the mind outside the brain, is a more honest reflection of Shermer's analysis of Chopra's present views of quantum physics than Shermer's actual 2012 comments directly pertaining to Chopra and Mlodinow's book.

You can't seem to fathom that Shermer likes Chopra and respects his ideas even if he doesn't agree with him. Why is that something you don't want readers to know?

You work hard to make sure Wikipedia readers get poor information, misinformation, and biased information? I am truly puzzled.Some poor newbie put up something about Chopra being on Men's Wearhouse's board of directors, but apparently didn't provide the source. Instead of helping them out and putting up any one of a half dozen online sources you bit the newbie and just took it off and added that it was irrelevant. By being a board member of a Fortune 1000 company it supports the image that Chopra is mainstream and not fringe. Is that what you meant by irrelevant? Because it's irrelevant to your agenda? I'll go in now and put some sources in for the person who put up the Men's Wearhouse thing. Vivekachudamani (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

TLDR, Can you make your points in a more succinct fashion if you expect us to read it, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• If you think Mlodinow agreed with Chopra's position you are delusional. The thesis of that book is entirely to contrast the spiritualism approach with a scientific treatment; that's the point. When Shermer says about understanding his worldview, he is talking about the spiritualism; understanding why he believes what he does is not the same as accepting it as valid. Chopra's illogical mentions of quantum effects is not taken seriously by physicists and is incoherent. This should be self-evident to anyone with the briefest experiences with actual quantum mechanics (not the spiritualist nonsense). Stenger commented in 1997, not in the 1980s. The word Noetic is a term of art for pseudoscience writers, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the Talk page, this where we are supposed to explain things, not just throw labels around like "delusional" "spiritualism" or "incoherent." I have explained myself as directly as possible. If you want to be part of the conversation, then you need to read other's comments. That's how the talk page works. If something is unclear, then ask for clarification. Once you understand, they you reply with your comments in such a way that indicates you actually read the thread.

I wrote that even though co-author Mlodinow may differ in opinion with Chopra, he respects and understands his quantum physics position as a main school of quantum mechanics known as the Copenhagen Interpretation. He knows the Copenhagen Interpretation is one of the original versions of quantum theory and is taught extensively in textbooks. I clearly didn't say that Mlodinow agreed with Chopra. So who is being delusional here? I've read the entire book. I listened to Mlodinow talk as well. I've also taken some basic college courses in Quantum Mechanics, so I can tell you that you comment "Chopra's illogical mentions of quantum effects is not taken seriously by physicists and is incoherent," is not true. If the Copenhagen Interpretation was incoherent, it wouldn't be taught in universities. If you had read the comments from eminent, published physicists Kafatos and Duerr above you would know he is taken seriously. Why else would they read the book and say they agree with him? I've got other physicists quotes too. It reveals your extreme bias, lack of neutrality and carelessness when you make assertions like these that have already been demonstrated as false.

Stenger's 1997 book is commenting on the ideas in Chopra's book Quantum Healing from 1989, published almost 25 years ago. Just because you and Stenger haven't kept up with Chopra's evolving ideas, or with the rapidly growing research in the biological quantum mechanisms being discovered in animal retinas and navigational systems, does not mean that wikipedia readers should be decades behind the times because of your willful ignorance and lazy research.

Regarding Shermer, you don't seem to understand the concept of how Shermer can respect Chopra and his worldview and still hold a different view. It's called being mature, professional and open-minded. You should give it a try.

The nutshell Wikipedia guidelines for Biographies of Living Person pages are: Material about living persons added to any'Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. Your comments about Chopra indicate you are not careful or neutral. If you can't be neutral about this, then find another article where you can be neutral or where it is not a BLP.

And why did you mention "Noetic" out of nowhere? No one has been talking about noetic anything. Where you writing that for somewhere else and accidentally left it here?

Vivekachudamani (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Describing Deepak Chopra's views as the Copenhagen principle is profoundly wrong and ignorant. Sorry, but there is no polite way of saying that. I suggest you read Copenhagen interpretation. You brought up "Noetic", Look at your 4th paragraph where you use the word noetic, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• As a point to all here :This is the talk page of a BLP as such derogatory comments about the subject of the article whatever any of us might think of him, are not acceptable. And lets be friendly about our interactions. I have to deal with the tragic death of someone close to me so apologize for leaving this discussion, for now at least.

As a parting word: Skeptic's Dictionary's purpose is to debunk, lets not kid ourselves, and as well, agreement at RSN has for content in the past sourced to Skeptic's dictionary agreed the source for that content is reliable. This does not mean Skeptic's Dict. is reliable for this content now. There is no consensus for its use here, so I'd suggest the RSN on this content.(olive (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC))

Sorry to hear about the death of someone close to you, I will take the issue to RSN, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Searching around, I have found another good source: a 2010 Chicago UP book by Massimo Pigliucci with some commentary on Chopra and quantum science. I have added a paragraph to the article on this. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC) And in this article the author argues that Chopra's work is of the kind that has led to the "scandalous" situation in which "librarians and book store managers wonder whether to shelve a book under 'quantum physics,' 'religion,' or 'new age.'" This might be valuable as it's from a hard physics journal - but I suppose we don't need to have an exhaustive collection of criticism of Chopra's quantum notions (it would be rather long). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Wolfie is requesting consensus for additions to the article. I suggest this refers to all editors on this page not just one. As well this is a WP: BLP which means be sensitive to what you are adding on a living person and take into account weight and tone when adding disparaging content. I won't be around for a while to monitor and I shouldn't have to. We're all mature editors here. And Alexbrn your biases are showing. (olive (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC))

I have added nothing to the article, I am maintaining the status-qua. Why you are accusing Alexbrn of bias I do not know. It is a simple statement of fact that Chopra's mentions of Quantum physics are meaningless , and we've even been extra nice by having it attributed. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus - of course. But a good way to test/establish consensus is to first make an edit. "No consensus" is not (on its own and in the absence of discussion) a valid reason for opposing an edit. So I await some substantive points (focussed on the edit rather than the editor, please). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion Wolfie ... I wasn't addressing you. I was suggesting that your request for consensus be honored by all editors including Alex.(olive (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC))

Sorry about your loss Olive. I've had to deal with the passing of two close friends recently myself.

I'm concerned IRWolfie may be a sock puppet or meat puppet for Alexbrn. Before yesterday, he only edited here on October 26, 2012, then disappeared. A little over a month later on December 7, 2012 Alexbrn came in and has been here ever since. IRWolfie then showed up here yesterday, for the first time since 2012, to support Alex on the Carroll source the moment Olive said she wouldn't use it on a BLP. Alex/Wolfie both have the same impatient bias, the same truncated writing style, and both have made a point of supporting the other's position. But given that neither of them are neutral editors, and neutrality is the one thing required in a BLP, their contributions may be irrelevant or marginalized regardless of who they are.

For too long this Deepak Chopra article has been edited as if it wasn't a BLP. To refresh your memories Jimmy Wales said of BLP's in 2006 :

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. ... Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

That's crystal clear. Contentious material that is poorly sourced--whether it is negative, positive, or questionable should be removed immediately without waiting for discussion. We have a lot of contentious material here with poor sources, and when I and others have removed it in the past, Alex repeatedly restored it without consensus, in violation of WP: BLP policy.

Wolfie/Alex, there's no point in debating the Copenhagen Interpretation here with you. I have done my research and am secure in my understanding. Your need for disparaging language only emphasizes that you lack a substantive argument.

All neutral editors can improve this article by removing poorly sourced contentious material immediately. I will also get started on that cleanup job soon once I have a little more time. If a consensus can be reached after it has been removed, then it can be restored or some modified version can be restored. Otherwise, WP: BLP policy says it remains off. "The burden of proof is on those editors wishing to add, restore, or undelete it. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first."WP:BLP

So Alex and Wolfie, when your contentious material with poor sources is taken off do not restore it by asserting it is a reliable source. You need to gain consensus from neutral editors on the talk page first. Remember Jimmy Wales' warning: "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Vivekachudamani (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You think I'm a sock puppet eh? Off to WP:SPI you go and substantiate your allegations, otherwise immediately retract your comment, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Of all the Wiki-characters who exist - you are one of the very last persons I would think likely to have an alternate persona! And I think my BLP-credibility is fairly good. Collect (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

On July 4, 2013 under 'Recent large-scale removal of content' I contended that this Reception- In Academic Journals entry for George O'Har, is poorly sourced because it is misleading. Alexbrn originally included this entry as a way to support his opinion that Chopra believes in magic and therefore academics don't take him seriously. I have read the entire article and that is not the author's intent. Here is what Alexbrn's entry said:

George O'Har a professor of English at Boston College, saw Chopra as an exemplification of the fact that human beings need "magic" in their lives, and places "the sophistries of Chopra" alongside the emotivism of Oprah Winfrey, the special effects and logic of Star Trek, and the magic of Harry Potter.[45]

This entry misleads the reader into believing that needing magic is a criticism, when in fact O’Har is pointing out the limitations of a solely technological approach to human existence and suggesting we explore magic more fully to uncover a deeper meaningfulness to our lives. O'Har, also a writer of science-fiction books, Says we need meaning in our lives and we can't find it in technology and need magic and spirit to find that meaning. O'Har doesn't disparage magic or put it in quotes. Here are O'Har's last three concluding sentences from his paper:

“We crave meaning and spirit in our lives, and we find them in the oddest places: the sophistries of a Deepak Chopra, the emotivism of an Oprah Winfrey, the special effects and logic of Star Trek and The Matrix. Now it's Harry Potter's turn. And while this is not an altogether good development, certainly it could be worse. One does hold out hope, though, that this disguised search for meaning—and it is precisely that—will someday result in an exploration that takes us beyond what is provided by an alternative world found only in the pages of children's books.

I doubt anyone would realize from this wiki entry that O'Har is not ridiculing magic. In fact he's actually encouraging Chopra, Oprah, Star Wars, The Matrix and the Harry Potter books to keep going more deeply into the meaning of life. Well sourced material is clear and helpful. This material is confusing and misleading.

If the reason this entry is included is for the phrase “sophistries of Deepak Chopra,” , then one would expect the article to support that in some way. It doesn’t. This opinion about Chopra's presentation is the only mention of Chopra in the entire piece. If this were an unbiased wiki entry, one would then find the identical entry of O'Har under Oprah Winfrey’s wikipage: Reception – in Academic journals. The “emotivism of an Oprah Winfrey” exemplifies our human need for "magic." I fail to see how the wiki reader will understand from this entry that O'Har thinks magic and not technology is the right direction to find meaning. And even if O'Har sees limitations in Chopra's style of teaching, he still includes him in that camp where meaning is to be found. Therefore this is poorly sourced and according to WP:BLP has been removed and must stay removed until consensus is reached.

I personally wouldn't mind having O'Har's discussion of Technology and Magic included if it accurately reflected his ideas on meaning and spirit. My only concern then is relevance. Does that really belong on a BLP page? Would an identical entry on Oprah's page be justified? Vivekachudamani (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I note you removed this long-standing article content with the misleading edit summary "-=contentious material added without consensus-violation of WP: BLP policy- 1st warning-see talk page". You have removed this content before and been warned on your talk page by other editors for disruptive editing. You are also currently at 4RR for this article (I have warned you on your Talk page on this). Continued disruptive editing on this article is highly likely to result in your being sanctioned: please do not repeatedly edit against consensus. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

READ WK:BLP policy. I am following it. You are not. Simple. Contentious poorly sourced material should be removed immediately without discussion. All my reasons have been laid out above. If consensus arrives at a acceptable version, then it can be reinserted. Until there is consensus the material has to be removed immediately for as many times as it takes. Meanwhile, your violations are adding up quickly.Vivekachudamani (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• The George comment should either be developed into a clear point or removed, although I don't agree that it was a criticism necessarily (it does not read as one). It's not exactly clear what the point is. I will have a look at the source and see what I can make of it (if anything), IRWolfie- (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems a shame that this positive commentary on Chopra has been deleted (I too don't see it as negative). Taken together, these paragraphs from "academic journals" go to the heart of the Deepak Chopra phenomenon I think - although of course we could not explictly join the dots ourselves here on WP. From them I get that human beings have an innate need for something "beyond" (O'Har), than his nonsensical (Kaminer) work is popular, and appeals predominantly to the wealthy worried well (Baer) and that as a result Chopra is a great success (Gamel). In one Indian newspaper I was reading (unfortunately not RS), Chopra was described admiringly as a great example of an Indian salesman and this is an aspect of his success the article could bring out more I think. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)