Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Craig Weiler of Weiler psi already settled this one year ago at Reality Sandwich. Ptarmigander (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i think that there have been quite a few good sources added since then that we should be careful to preserve. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

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

I haven't been editing for a while for a number of off-wiki reasons, but I want to nip this in the bud. First off, Askahrc is not an anagram for "chakras," and the notion that I'm that cheesy is painful. I've had this account for over 6 years and this is the only article related to anything remotely vedic-related I've ever edited. Secondly, I made a total of 19 edits over several months to the article I supposedly spearheaded. Finally, I think it seems fair to share whatever evidence has been compiled regarding some malfeasance I supposedly did. I have email enabled and am curious to hear, Manul. The Cap'n (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The detailed comparisons made between SAS81 and Tumbleman in the sock puppet investigation are highly convincing. And a speedy resolution is commendable, Good work Manul.

I am shocked.. shocked I say that Dr. Chopra would employ Tumbleman who was indefinitely banned from Wikipedia as his representative and give him his blessing as ISHAR Director of Operations. That there would be such deceitfulness behind attempting to alter Deepak's page and also accepting thousands of dollars from not only Dr. Chopra.. but from donors like Rupert Sheldrake.. ACEP (The Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology) Author Graham Hancock plus many smaller donations from Yogis and Meditators and new Agers around the world. $22,846. in an Indiegogo campaign. Also ISHAR is made up of such stellar luminaries like Robert Thurman and William Bushell of Tibet House.. Dean Ornish .. and many others. Simply a shocking turn of events.

It seems like so much of what SAS81 was saying for months here is suspect now. And SAS81 was the main ISHAR Wikipedian. No wonder that ISHAR is now saying: "Please note that Wikipedia user SAS81 is not currently affiliated with ISHAR." Does that "not currently affiliated" mean "maybe later"? They did not say "no longer affiliated" I notice.

Now if The Cap'n /Askahrc would disavow any past or present connection with ISHAR that would clear more things up. Nip that right in the bud. right? Then if that is settled apologies can be made for what was an understandable mistake and editors can turn their attention back to the job of editing on the Chopra page in the light of honest disclosure.. without being duped or taken for a ride.Ptarmigander (talk) 09:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No, Ptarmigander, as is prominently posted on both my User & Talk Pages, I am affiliated with ISHAR and have been since I was approached with a job unrelated to WP in August (at which point I completely stopped editing WP articles out of concern over any possible COI). Since I need to comment here I've posted disclaimers on my user/talk pages to be transparent, but my employment with ISHAR quelled my WP activity, it didn't fund it. SAS81 was focused on WP, but that is not the focus of ISHAR itself.

If anyone suspects I was SAS81 myself, that I edited articles under a different account since August or otherwise engaged in inappropriate behavior, please use a CheckUser. As for whatever relates to SAS81, I am limited in what I can disclose, but I can definitively state that user SAS81 is not and will not be affiliated with ISHAR, nor do they represent ISHAR on WP. That decision was made long before this issue on Wikipedia arose, and the need to address it on WP was not apparent until now.

Anyone is free to discuss this on my Talk Page if they are so inclined, but this page is not the right venue for a discussion like this. The Cap'n (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

So Cap'n your job at ISHAR is precisely SAS81's job at ISHAR. Sas81 stated -during his AE and numerous other times- about his role at ISHAR: "I’m a researcher and representative to an archive and repository." and now you state "I work for ISHAR as an archivist." "advising and helping build the archive" "My role is limited to content that ISHAR is curating."

And you have just disclosed this on your user and talk page after the fact of SAS81 being investigated and blocked. How convenient for ISHAR to not lose their arhivist and researcher. Ptarmigander (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

At what point in the past was User:Askahrc aware that SAS81 either was or was not a colleague at ISHAR? At what point in the past was User:Askahrc aware that SAS81 was a sockpuppet of Tumbleman? When was User:Askahrc going to tell Wikipedia that their colleague at work is an active sock-puppeteer on the Wiki? I don't see how any of this can possibly be made to make sense. I'll be very interested in the real explanation when it eventually emerges. Actually, no I won't. Who cares. --Nigelj (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Ptarmigander, SAS81's job was to represent an archive on WP, my job is build that archive. There's no more similarity between our roles than between a real estate agent and a gardener working on the same house. And it's not "convenience" that I am posting this information now; I already said I had no business or activity on WP until it came to our attention that the relationship (or lack thereof) between SAS81 and ISHAR might need to be stated on WP. Lastly, you seem to be claiming that I am SAS81, a serious accusation which should necessitate an SPI & CheckUser if you truly believe it. In any case, this Talk Page is not a forum and not the place to discuss your personal concerns about someone who has not edited this page in months. The Cap'n (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Nigelj "At what point in the past was User:Askahrc aware that SAS81 either was or was not a colleague at ISHAR?" -I know that Tumbleman stated one year ago that "If I do ever get my case repealed it will be through the activities of The Cap." and "The Capn has reached out to me and many other editors involved with the Sheldrake article and is interested in taking the proper steps in Wikipedia to correct this problem." So they have been in contact well before SAS81 showed up here last spring. Ptarmigander (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@The Cap'n I guess SAS81 was Rome Viharo the Director of Operations for ISHAR. I am assuming your position is something like the Director of Archiving? I see absolutely no reason to believe the statements you make about ISHAR or trust your statements or ISHAR's activities regarding Wikipedia anymore than I or anyone else should have believed or trusted SAS81's. As always- the proof is in the pudding. As far as any continuing Arbitration concerning this fiasco I believe the proper course is to seek arbitration and sanctions against the so called ISHAR Wikipedians should ISHAR pursue any further activities aimed at Sock puppeting.. meatpuppeting.. or canvassing and organizing editors especially in pseudo-science and alt. med topics on Wikipedia. Ptarmigander (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the thing that might be most lacking in the current article is a significant discussion of the book generation and their history of jumping to the best seller list. Do we have sources for that other than the intro blurbs to his speaking gigs? (and do we have coverage of his speaking gigs, thats another important aspect) We cover many of the ideas from his books but as separate from the books in a way that may be too abstract. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

He has written 22 NY Times best sellers. That is a remarkable achievement regardless of what you think about what he writes about. This fact should be prominently displayed in the opening and given more than a brief mention in the body.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.194.250 (talk • contribs)

Okay that just go reverted by another editors who feels that stating that Chopra has published x amount of books with x amount of New York Times best sellers is UNDUE. Can someone please explain to me how being a best selling author is UNDUE in the lead but specific criticisms is not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.194.250 (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Being a best selling author is not WP:UNDUE, but listing how many books and "prominently displaying" it is UNDUE for the Lead plus a bit WP:PEACOCK and WP:PROMOTIONAL. Please sign your comments with "~~~~". --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not really talking about the lead, we introduce him as an author and a speaker which I think is good, but in the body we dont cover what that means and where how he has had impact peddling his snake oil to the worried wealthy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This sentence is in the lede: "His book The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success was on The New York Times Best Seller list[6] for 72 weeks.[7]" Is it appropriate for the lede to include "for 72 weeks."? QuackGuru (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

given trend for stacked purchasing to funnel sales to hit the list once so you can put a "NYT Bestseller" on the cover, the fact that it was on the list for over a year and a half is pretty remarkable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Lets keep in mind the WP:LEAD is used to establish the subject's notability. Factual statements about achievements are not only allowed, but encouraged to some extent. It just doesn't need to read like their PR person wrote it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Chopra is a practicing physician please see talk page archives. Has "been described as" is not weasel wording it is a convention used to introduce content. This has been discussed over and over. He is somethings like Indian-American. Then we can say he has been described in different ways by press, authors. (Littleolive oil (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC))

Chopra is currently a practicing physician according to which source? The term "has been" described suggests he no longer is described as. The part "has been" is past tense. QuackGuru (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

http://health.usnews.com/doctors/deepak-chopra-707300

https://www.breeze.ca.gov/datamart/detailsCADCA.do?selector=false&selectorType=&selectorReturnUrl=&anchor=1228309.0.0— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.194.250 (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

"On April 21, Deepak Chopra, former endocrinologist and author of books that have sold more than 10 million copies, packed B.C. Place Stadium in Vancouver, Canada, with people wanting to hear more."

It might work by adding "described as". Not sure about this. What do others think? QuackGuru (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Has "been described as" merely refers to the source which is always in our past unless we say something like "is described as in so and so's book". I don't mind either way(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC))

The source was recent. You don't use past tense in this case. QuackGuru (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Why have you changed physician to former endocrinologist and why former?(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC))

Has been is the present perfect tense which means something began in the past and continues into the present. This is the wording we need for this article. Chopra has been considered and still is considered a new a new age guru. The use of is, is not correct grammatically.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC))

The used of "considered" qualifies the usage to make us think the occasions (where such "consideration" took place) are in the past, this is different from a use of the tense qualified differently (e.g. "Deepak Chopra has been a New Age guru since the publication of his first book"). Olive's gloss "has been and still is considered" would be okay but wordier than just saying "is". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't suggested text. This was simply part of the discussion and a cmt about how "has been" is understood, and not a suggestion for text, "Chopra has been considered and still is considered a new age guru." Olive's gloss? No idea what that means. Grammatically, using "has been" is correct. "Considered" is another aspect of the sentence/ equation. That is, "new age guru" unless qualified by who considers ie, the source, suggests a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Chopra is for many not a new age guru, and for many more not even credible, while others think of him as a physician, healer, author. The use of is suggests a statement of fact while "new age guru" is an opinion not a fact held by the source and should not be included in the article as definitive or in Wikipedia's voice, but should be qualified by noting the source, or at the very least wording that indicates this is the opinion of a source. We are muddling together denotation and connotation here; what Chopra is and secondary characteristics as in how Chopra is viewed. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC))

The part "has been" is paste tense. This suggests he no longer is a new age guru. QuackGuru (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The lede section should introduce and summarize the article. Given we've a sizeable article here, if the article doesn't contain entire sections on a subject, it probably doesn't deserve much mention in the lede. Otherwise we risk violating WP:NPOV (especially WP:DUE) and WP:NOT (especially WP:SOAP).

Granted, the lede should introduce the article as well, so some topics may be given more detail in the lede than otherwise warranted by NPOV, especially early historical aspects of a subject that led into areas of prominence. Hence, the second paragraph of the lede. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding new material to the lede that is not addressed anywhere at all in the article is inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I added the new information to the body instead rather than restoring it to the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyone else feel that this sentence is kind of a non-statement, was just a offhanded remark at the end of the source, and doesn't really add anything of value to this article?

In 1995 Chopra was not licensed to practice medicine in California where he had a clinic; however, he did not see patients at this clinic "as a doctor" during this time. 104.173.194.250 (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

No information there. I'm fine with removing it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC))

When the sources talk about his initial set up of the clinic/center in CA, they frequently identify that he was not a medically practicing doctor there. And if it is so vitally important to mention that he IS a physician in the lead sentence, it seems very hypocritical to argue that his non-licensed status is then NOT relevant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Not hypocritical. He is a licensed and notable physician and the article does and should note that. But saying that he was not a licensed physician in a state where he was not even practicing medicine seems like a nonsensical statement that really says nothing when you think about it.104.173.194.250 (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, hypocritical. If his having a medical license is so damn important that it MUST be mentioned in the lead sentence as is being argued, then NOT having a medical license in CA must be at least important enough to mention in the body. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess you are not following the logic here. Because Chopra is a well-known doctor (health authority, medical expert, alternative medicine guru... your choice), presenting him as a physician in the lead follows WP:LEAD because it is definitional to the subject's notability. Not having a medical license in the state of CA during 1995 when he wasn't doing anything which would require him to have a medical license is a trivial point at best -- and likely just there as argumentative jab in an obvious editorial attempt to discredit the subject. When there is so much meaningful criticism out there discrediting Chopra, I should be surprised that a serious editor would be arguing to includes this meaningless bit of drivel. 104.173.194.250 (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Except that he is NOT known as a "physician" - he is known as new age guru/alt med pscyhobabbler/author / FOO (friend of Oprah). "Physicians" dont tell you you can hum your cancer away or not age by thinking positively. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like you have a strict definition of the term physician (and a strong opinion about the subject which may be clouding good editorial judgment). I see it like this: the subject is an accomplished medical doctor who then took that scientific knowledge and integrated it with some extremely woo concepts about health, and became wildly famous for those ideas. But he is still dealing with health. So he is still notable as a physician -- certainly not a physician who strictly follows mainstream medicine completely, but still a physician. This is not a trivial point. It is definitional to the subject notability. This other nonsense about Mario Andretti owning a car in California which he never drove but didn't have a California driver's license so he couldn't drive it anyways... that's just pure un-encyclopedic nonsense, possibly be strongly pushed by an editor with strong opinions against the subject. 104.173.194.250 (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

There are lots of people who "deal with health" - "physicians" do so with medical practice. woo-sters do it with woo. Where do you think humming your cancer away falls?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you want my personal opinion? That's not relevant. Chopra deals with health and does so with scientific medical practice mixed with all sorts of other non-scientific approaches. Remember, you keep pointing out the claim that his publishers insist on placing MD on his book covers. He has over 20 best-selling books. This means whether Chopra or you like it, his licensure is definitional to his notability. 104.173.194.250 (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Definitional AS COVER FOR THE WOO. If you arent going to include the second half, the first half at best meaningless and at worst deceptive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Shouting doesn't make your point any more clear. Chopra is a physician -- he has a current medical license. Therefore, describing him as a physician is not deceptive -- it is a fact. I am glad to know that you also agree that being a physician is definitional to Chopra's notability. Remember, this article is not promoting his magic cures as being anything but bunk; therefore, we are not using "physician" in a deceitful manner. This article already goes through great lengths - more than what is warranted - to let the reader know that the mainstream scientific opinion is that Chopra's ideas are bogus. 104.173.194.250 (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

That he drives a Mercedes is "decriptive" too. but it is not what he is noted for. (and no, i do not agree that his "being a physician" is definitional to him. "being a woomeister who uses the cover of a physician" is definitional. I agree that 2+2=4, I do not agree that 2=4 ) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are too prejudiced against the subject -- which is preventing you from editing/discussing this article objectively. I would highly encourage you to move on to work on articles where you are less emotionally invested. 104.173.194.250 (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for caring for my emotions. However, I will pass on accepting your diagnosis and even moreso your "cure". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I am concerned about good article writing. You are allowing your bias to create a conflict in accomplishing this task. Take a break for the holidays at least. Afterwards you may see that adding nonsensical statement -- like the one we are discussing -- isn't helpful to good article writing. 104.173.194.250 (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not a bias to represent what the sources have defined as notable about the subject as notable while not presenting half of what the sources have found notable without presenting the other half. THAT would be bias editing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

We are going in circles now. He is a physician. That's a fact. Some sources leave it at that. Some sources say that he is a physician and a new age guru. Some sources say he is a physician only to sell books. We can report on all of those sources, but none of those opinions distract us from the fact that he is a notable physician. By choosing one of those opinions -- the one which most closely matches your own bias -- and trying to shift the focus of the article to only present that opinion is biased editing. Thus, I am suggesting you have a conflict. 104.173.194.250 (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

If he were a notable physician, he would have done something notable physician-y. He hasnt. thats a fact. What he has done notably is woo. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Before you two take this infinitely recursive argument through the next dozen or so repetitions, you might pause to consider that you are arguing about something on which there is already a clear consensus (and unambiguous policy arguments): the fact that he is a licensed physician is well sourced and appropriate to treat in detail. Likewise, comments which evaluate his quality as a physician or an intellectual are also fair game, as are other judgements (supportive or critical) of his ideas and his scientific astuteness. With regard to the specific issue of the lead, the consensus is that mention of his role as a physician was not really appropriate to the very first sentence, but that it should be prominent information found in the first section of the lead. Considering those established bounds, what more do you need and why waste your energy going around in circles on this? Snow talk 09:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with removing that sentence. Cla68 (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This statement is verifiable to multiple sources and is noteworthy. The sources show he was seeing patients but not "as a doctor" back in the 1990s. He is licensed as of 2004 but he is not known for currently seeing patients as a doctor and I can't find sources that indicate that he is currently seeing patients as a doctor. QuackGuru (talk) 05:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So?104.173.194.250 (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Licensed and hospital affiliated with.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC))

I think the statement needs to be reworked and to better contextualized, but not necessarily removed altogether. In the sources, this fact is raised in the context of examining lawsuits and complaints filed against Mr. Chopra and whether A) it was appropriate for him to be engaged in medical-like consults and practices in California when he was not at the time licensed in that state and was not recommending treatment widely accepted by the scientific and medical communities as effective, and B) whether more broadly his status as a doctor has given credence to the views he espouses in his works and the products he endorses (basically the same issues editors are debating with regard to our sources and coverage here at present). As to the first class of details, it seems to me that an appropriate context could be the Legal actions section, since suits and complaints were filed, and discussing his status as a licensed physician (in general or in regard to specific locales/circumstances) is entirely appropriate in that context.

As to the broader issue of his status as a doctor instilling perceived value in the ideas, services and products he endorses or is directly involved with, things are a little more complicated, and I think we need to be mindful of sticking close to the sources. Some of those sources do directly speak to the fact that support for his advice derives at least partly from the fact that he is seen to be a physician (and especially was a factor in establishing his legitimacy at the beginning of his becoming a household name). But I'm not sure how much weight that deserves -- afterall, that's not a terribly surprising or incredibly informative detail to be adding, nor one particular to this subject. And we already have coverage of a significant number of sources that cast doubt on the medical and scientific value of Chopra's advice without going into the question of whether he is a "real" doctor. I wouldn't be surprised if he no longer sees patients as a physician -- why would he, when the only purpose it can serve is to distract from his main work, leave him vulnerable to lawsuits, and give potential fuel to his critics -- but we have no source really indicating either way with certainty. We do have sources that state that Chopra himself claims not to want the "Dr." to appear on/within his books, but his publishers insist otherwise. But the question of how the fact that he no longer practices (and the dubious scientific status of practices he endorses) influence his legitimacy as a physician is a highly subjective matter --- and, accordingly, we need to be cautious not to weigh in there with our own perspectives, but rather stick with what the sources say. But as we have the details as to when and where he was licensed, if there's context to discuss those facts, it's certainly reasonable to do so. Snow talk 18:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as context goes, it might be worth mentioning his repeated denials that he is/was a practicing physician. It might also be worth mentioning when he finally obtained a California license, if possible. --Ronz (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree it's worth mentioning, if he's on the record as saying as much. I've personally only seen some sources in which he's quoted as saying that he'd rather the title wasn't affixed to his books, but if he's repeatedly said outright that he is not a physician, that's pretty germane. Snow talk 23:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Mostly I think the sources are his spokesteam vociferously "clarifying" that when Chopra was seeing people in his California Clinic while he did not have his CA medical license, he was not seeing them as a "doctor". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Right -- the New York Magazine piece in particular goes into this in light of civil lawsuits, one of which involved a man who sought treatment for leukemia at the early clinics associated with Chopra and ayurveda healing, and who -- according to his wife, who filed the suite -- was told he was cured, only to die within the year. The wife also makes a point of claiming that their faith in Chopra derived in large part from his status as an M.D.; Chopra's direct involvement may have been limited to a single consult of some sort, but it's in light of this and similar practices at the center (prior to his California certification) that Chopra and his associates had to clarify through their publicist that "He sees patients, but not as a doctor." Snow talk 03:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, here is straight from the horses mouth in 1995 where he takes issue with a previous article identifying where he thinks the other article was incorrect " The insinuation that I practice medicine without a license in California. I have not practiced medicine in California or elsewhere for years. My principal occupation for the past several years has been as an author and a speaker. "-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The whole affair seems passingly notable enough to mention in brief in the legal actions section, provided Chopra's interpretation of events get summarized as well. But acceptable and strictly necessary are not the same thing of course. In any event, that would be the context in which discussion of his California certification would be most relevant. Snow talk 03:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

As recently as this year Chopra posted a video specifically for Wikipedia editors describing what he does which included information indicating he was a practicing physician, Quite frankly Its hard to understand the push here to discredit his allopathic medical background. The link to that video is in the talk page archives.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC))

Personally, I don't see any push to discredit his medical credentials. They are mentioned prominently in the lead and repeatedly throughout the rest of the article, and I haven't seen anyone indicating that information should be removed or even altered. This thread is merely about whether we note when he got his California licensing, which may very well be relevant in some context -- though I tend to agree that, as it was previously written and placed, the statement was without context, vague in meaning and perhaps unnecessary. But in any event, thank you for mentioning that video. I for one would like any additional information available on the nature of his current work -- though, unfortunately, as a primary source, it's use in terms of determining our content itself is negligible. Snow talk 23:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You're new here. Stick around!:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC))

Actually, I've been following the discussions here for quite a while, off and on. I just have the good sense to not commit to this particular talk page consistently! ;) Snow talk 00:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

What we know has happened here is that editors with a coi pushed to create undue emphasis on his credentials.

Who cares what Chopra says in his videos aimed specifically at Wikipedia editors? It's irrelevant to article content. --Ronz (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"undue emphasis on his credentials" -- Is this your opinion again? 104.173.194.250 (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Well we're not talking about what editors may or may not have done in the past. We're talking about what we, the currently active editors, do with regard the specific issues raised above, in a manner consistent with our sourcing and policies. As to the usefulness of that (or any similar) video, a major point in my mentioning it was to explicitly point out that as a primary source of that sort, it was not suitable for the purposes of sourcing. That being said, being incompatible with that purpose does not make any source automatically devoid of information that might prove relevant to editors working on a given subject; understanding the context of the information one is representing isn't a liability to objective and neutral editing, it's an obligation of same. And if you don't believe that how a man views himself and criticism of his work is in any significant sense relevant to understanding him as a subject you are editing about, I very much feel you are confusing two separate editorial processes and the reasons why we have WP:V and WP:N policies of the sort we do in the first place. So who cares? Well, I do, for one. Even as someone who has been displeased with the amount of interference from single-purpose editors with apparent serious conflicts of interest who seemed to be trying to instill his voice here. Especially in that context, actually. Did I find anything in it that was particularly inconsistent with what I expected? No. But in the circumstances of contributing on this space, it was worth taking the look and not altogether uninformative. Snow talk 02:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"Through his books and videos, he has become one of the best-known and wealthiest figures in the holistic-health movement.[6]" I think it can be balanced with " The Superstition 2008 book wrote that "The fact that Chopra’s pseudoscientific New Age blather sells at all is a sad commentary on reading tastes." QuackGuru (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's the difference between how we think:

I read the sentence "Through his books and videos, he has become one of the best-known and wealthiest figures in the holistic-health movement." and I see plain facts -- no opinions, just facts. I see what you would like to add, and I read total opinion. How is adding anything from that opinion going to help balance the neutrality of the facts? Somehow you believe it will (and I would love to know why) -- and that is the difference between how we think. 104.173.194.250 (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That would not be anything approaching an appropriate change for the lead, which is not the place to be directly quoting specific subjective opinions of the man at length, be they damning criticisms or gushingly adoring/defensive support. The lead is for objective overview of the subject which cleaves as closely as possible to the consensus of the sources, and represented in dispassionate and non-inflammatory prose. Specific quotes can be saved for later sections and even there WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:COPYVIO and a bevy of other policies advise us to reasonably limit how much of our content comes in the form of reproducing the exact wording of others, and to put reasonable limits on the number and reasonable effort into making sure they represent a good spread of perspectives, while also not distorting the consensus view, whether that be overwhelming praise, near-universal condemnation or (almost always) something in-between. In short, please see WP:SNOWBALL. Because frankly this tug-of-war between two sides who stake out extreme positions on every single little section and point -- and (increasingly) every sentence, phrase, and word within them -- is just getting to be a waste of everyone's time. Other than as a helpful display reminding us all of how two sides can be diametrically opposed on a given issue and still be missing due attention to policy in a nearly identical fashion. Anyone who wants to see the man referred to in language even remotely approaching either "a devoted healer" or, indeed, "a quack guru" in the lead (in the form of our own wording or a quote) should just give up now, because there are too many experienced editors involved now (attracted by the fuss of past arguments of these sorts) for that to happen. Snow talk 02:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The source is fine as far as I can tell. One way of dealing with such heavily biased language in a BLP is to paraphrase it. I'd also ask to see the the quote with some context. I can see part of the book online but not the page noted in the source. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC))

I have no problem with the quote per say. It's obviously struck out a very strong position on the man, but that doesn't necessarily preclude it's utility, so long as it's appropriately attributed and contextualized. But the lead is not the place to be presenting and discussing such personalized opinions. Snow talk 23:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I do have a problem with the quote. This is a BLP and we should abide by "do no harm". That means to me that while we can and must include content per weight that discusses criticism we don't have to use inflammatory, snide language to do so. Our job is information not creating emotional impact the way a second class rag would. How do we say what we need to say with out degrading ourselves, the subject, and the encyclopedia. One way of doing that is to paraphrase the quote so that we give the reader the information with out the bias.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC))

We are not allowed to censor criticism. We must preserve the spirit of the source, and when it's criticism, I think it's best that we stay out of it and just quote, with proper attribution. We have no responsibility to "do no harm" by preventing readers from reading what the critics have said. We don't write hagiographies here, and we don't engage in historical revisionism. We document what reliable sources have said, both fact and opinions. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

A couple of points here. First, I was responding to your own assertion that the source was solid. I'm not advocating for its inclusion one way or another; it might very well be appropriate, but as it's at the extreme end of dialogue on the subject, it would need significant discussion and a solid consensus to add -- and a great deal of careful attribution and contextualization if it was. My narrow purpose in responding to this thread was to state that it most definitely is not appropriate to the lead. However, I must strongly disagree with you that this is an example of a type of quote which is best handled by paraphrasing. The fact of the matter it is, the wording of the statement is so strong and damning that there is no way to restructure it in the dispassionate and neutral tone that our prose must have here without completely subverting the very meaning and intent of the quote. It's an absolutely non-neutral statement, so working it into our objective description of the man would actually be a serious departure from policy. In other words, the solution your propose to avoid bias is actually the one way in which one would guarantee bias. Because if we try to faithfully render that quote into the text using our own language, we would in essence be endorsing a strong position made by a single source, because we wouldn't be overtly noting the source. If, however, we provide a quote, making it clear that the point being made is that of one individual, juxtaposed against the context of our more factually-worded discussion on the man, the reader can contrast the two and we avoid inadvertently endorsing a specific position. And, ideally, if we do our job right, our more neutral framing content will give them some of the information and context necessary to decide for themselves what they think of that strongly worded criticism.

Again, very much ambivalent to that particular quote; it's hard to think of a criteria or policy that it fails with regard to being permissible for inclusion. On the other hand, as you say, just because you can add something does not mean you should and it's hard to classify that clip as anything short of severe. But then harshness is not in itself a reason for exclusion. The real issue, as I see it, is that we should have reasonable caps on the number of total direct quotes in a BLP, and indeed a reasonable limit to those which treat the subject in an overall disparaging manner. We already have a number of these in the article, and I'm not sure this one would add anything new. But, again, if it were added I think it would need to be in the form of a direct quote and, for this and other reasons, would certainly not be appropriate to the lead. Snow talk 07:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I should like to add, as a general point relevant to several currently running discussions here, something which I have never seen referenced on this talk page but which we could do with remembering: the correct way to balance a strong subjective position in a Wikipedia article is generally by providing sources with different perspectives, rather than trying to get the original statement/quote removed merely because you feel it's position is biased. It may very well be biased, but that doesn't mean we are being biased in mentioning it. WP:NPOV is very clear on this; sometimes it is our role to present some very one-sided and/or potent statements. Sometimes the voices on a given subject are so numerous (especially in the case of BLP) that we have to find a way to encapsulate them with a limited selection and use our best editorial discretion (combined with consensus) to decide which are the significant recurring opinions. But in general, it's almost always a more winning strategy (with regard to the benefits for our editors and our readers both) to add a counter example -- provided of course that you can find a reliable source! Are you in the camp that feels Chopra is being unflatteringly characterized here and concerned that the large number of quotes from scientists and journalists questioning the scientific or technical veracity of the ideas he presents might be "skewing" things? Well, instead of trying to counter an argument that we aren't here to debate in the first place (that is, whether what the source said was true or not), try to find something positive to add. The man has been a household name for a while now. Has he won any awards, been granted any honorary degrees, been involved in any professional committees or organization, been sited as an influence on another major figure. Awards are the best, because the people who support the awardee often see them as evidence of their high regard for them, while those who deadset against that same person often see the establishment granting the award in a similar light, so they see view it as evidence for their position ("Well of course those guys think he's the tits!"). Everyone goes away happy. Okay, maybe not so much happy as smug, but everything is a little less adversarial in any event...

Point is, some of this potential material surely exists, with sources covering it -- and to whatever extent it does not, well then, it's not really bias to show more of the sources that do exist relative those that do not. Whatever story is told by them collectively is what we ought to be striving to present, not a cherry-picked collection of facts which just happen to conform to how we feel about the guy. This applies to those on both sides of the gulf which divides many of the active editors here right now. So, similar to the above scenario, if you don't like that Chopra is regarded as a physician, bear in mind that he is a licensed practitioner and there is no shortage of sources that have regarded him as such, at various points in time, even in cases of sources which seem to regard him as a charlatan, this is often stipulated. Well rather than try to assault his formal background and certification, which seem to be an established matter of public record, try instead noting that Chopra himself has claimed that he is not altogether comfortable with his medical title being attached to at least some of his books. What I'm getting at is that we're meant to be taking ourselves out of the equation here as much as possible and my honest assessment of this page is that often that's been the major stumbling block here for a long while -- not just because of single-purpose contributors present here in the past who didn't share that core community value of editorial impartiality, but also more broadly because each side of the camps that have resulted are convinced that if they don't stay active in pushing in one direction that the other will skew the overall picture. That's why I think a more additive approach might break that cycle. Just make sure that you have a good source, that you keep everything in context, and, really, just leave the poor lead alone for a little while! Snow talk 08:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm nit sure who you are addressing, but you've misunderstood me so I'd like to clarify. I have no problem with biased sources/opinionated sources. Many sources are biased in nature. WP outlines ways to deal with that. As I said above the Park source for now looks reliable to me. "Do no harm" used to be a standard for BLPs. The spirit of that phrase still exists. We do not have the right to harm the reputation of the subject of a BLP. We harm when we make more of content than the sources do. Taking a quote from a single source out of context and isolating in an article may be "undue". Why? We are writing to summarize the sources on Chopra, to generalize in a way. That is encyclopedic. To take a quote that shows a highly biased view positive or negative from a single source weights that very specific view point. Better to add content, even more content than we have in this quote that gives more information and better context using multiple sources. This is bow we use sources and how we draw from the mainstream. Further adding content that is an opposing view to create balance is not how we create neutrality We create neutral articles and content by observing the mainstream view on the topic and creating content that reflects that mainstream. The back and forth that comes from adding first one side of a position than another creates choppy hard to read and understand articles. Finally I doubt its a good idea to cast editors as players two camps. This assumes a lot about what editors are doing and believing and can create a divisive environment on top of what might already exist. Thank you for your thoughtful comments. In the end I won't fight whatever the consensus is here whether I think its wrong or not. Life is too short.:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC))

In this case, "do no harm" isn't possible, Littleolive oil. The question is whether we mitigate the harm done to the gullible, ill, and unintelligent, or the harm done to the person attempting to take advantage of them. I know which I consider to be more important.—Kww(talk) 19:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Myself, I don't view it as a matter of making a choice to prioritize the needs of one individual or group over another (except insofar as our policies are all based on the core argument as to what best serves our readers). Rather, I see it as a matter of adhering to WP:V and WP:NPOV. We report what the sources say, regardless of what that means for the interests of one Deepak Chopra or the greater common good, either one. Snow talk 23:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Snow Rise, that's exactly what we do. We need to keep in mind that the overarching goal of Wikipedia is to document the sum total of human knowledge as it is found in RS. Notability is the minimum requirement for the creation of an article, but content of articles is determined by if a RS says something. We just need to frame and source the content properly. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the history of discussion here, including the currently active threads, I don't see how it could be considered a radical statement to say that a divisive environment does in fact exist here, one that reflects entrenched views and mindsets that run counter to consensus making strategies. Note that I didn't say all active editors fell cleanly into one camp or the other, only that this state of affairs has handicapped discussion and process here for a long while. I think that's self-evident and something you can't help but reference, if you're going to try to bring those sides together to find reasonable compromise solutions moving forward.

Anyway, as to the content itself, we're not far off in most respects. Note that your comments about the need to present a general summary when there's such a plurality of voices on a subject (BLP or otherwise) echoes my own. But I'm afraid I don't follow all of your arguments there. I don't see how examining additional perspectives leads to particularly "choppy" prose; rather I see it as a rather fundamental and unavoidable editorial process. I think you need to accept that there are going to be quite a few quotes in any BLP article, and that when the subject elicits such strong language in his critics (and indeed, for any public figure your going to find someone with strong opinions), most editors are most comfortable with letting those sources speak for themselves rather than trying to engineer their statements into our own prose and run the risk of veering from NP:NPOV. I agree that reasonable limits should be put on how many quotes are used -- for brevity's sake, if nothing else -- in principle. But in practical terms, if there's a particular quote that a significant number of editors wish to see added, and it's suitable under all of our content guidelines, good luck keeping it out. Because once it's passed policy, the only arguments you have left to bare it are matters of style and tone. And they may very well be spot on, but those matters are (rightfully) considered more subjective and have little influence here. Quotes and other new content are inevitable -- so yes, choppiness is inevitable in the sense that a large number of editors being active on a given page sometimes causes the original flow of prose to get broken up a little, but that's just a consequence of the Wikipedia additive process and the bumps that arise from new additions of useful perspectives and content can be smoothed out in successive passes.

The other point I just don't follow to the same conclusion as you is the "do no harm" principle. It's an admirable motivation, and something worth keeping in mind, but as nebulous personal principle, it has to take a back seat to actual policy on these matters. Fact is, as active editors in any area (and in BLP articles in particular) sometimes in the course of reporting what the sources say faithfully, we're going to be providing perspectives which are critical of people, sometimes even in a caustic manner. It's not really our job to avoid those sources. It's not our job to stoke the flames of existing debate either, of course, so we can decide how much is an appropriate amount to emphasize, but we do that to make sure our content is representative of the reality of the subject, not to protect the person involved. Any courtesy towards shielding their image from "undue" or "excessive" criticism that may result is merely incidental to our actual goal of keeping the tone of the article neutral for our readers. Snow talk 23:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Do no harm is far from a personal position. Until recently and for years the phrase was an integral part of the BLP policy and on an implied level still is. What that phrase suggests in terms of our editorialship is that while per reliable sources and per weight in the mainstream sources we include certain kinds of information, how we include that information is an editorial decision. We do not have to include the foulest language we can find to make a point. what we have to do is make sure the reader knows the point as been made in the source. If they want to see how that point was made they can go to the source. Creating a neutral article does not mean we have to present both sides of a position. What it means is that we have to represent per weight in the article what is in the sources per their weight in the sources. Further we have no obligation to repeat in the language of the source what that information is. Can we? Sure. Should we? Maybe. Maybe not. Sources often use language that is degrading. Is it our job to repeat that language or is out job to understand the point being made and its context and give our reader that information? Please don't confuse anything I have said with for example these phrases, "It's not really our job to avoid those sources.". I have never advised avoiding sources. "I don't see how examining additional perspectives leads to particularly 'choppy prose'." In a nutshell. we look at the sources on a topic. We examine anything we can find. Then, we add content not becuse it presents another view but because it represents some aspect of the mainstream on the topic.

Kww. I don't think that's a neutral position, to be honest. I don't think most WP editors are in the position to judge the life work of anyone and certainly I don't take on the responsibility of protecting the public from Chopra's alleged misdeeds by writing the article in a way that warns the public. Our job is to represent the multiple mainstream views per significant content we find in sources. Anything else and we stray into potentially, non neutral territory.

Snow. We may be saying the same thing in different words. I've spent enough time on this issue so will be moving on. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC))

We also have to consider MEDRES to consider (and no, Chopra's MD does not qualify him under that requirement). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Responding to the original post, I think quoting should generally be avoided in most cases, as it is often used to add material that is not encyclopedic in tone; the quotes are used because we would never put something so POV-laden in Wikipedia's voice. I disagree that the Lede is not adequately negative, because the criticisms are well-documented in the final paragraph of the Lede in a much more neutral manner. However, I am wondering if anyone has more information about this source in order to establish whether it is actually reliable enough for such a bold claim as "wealthiest and most well-known". If it is reliable, it does belong in its present position as his main claim to notability, but either the first or last sentence (or both) of the final paragraph should be moved up after that one. CorporateM (Talk) 21:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that source is perfectly good for that purpose. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The prominence within the article of his being a physician has always been in dispute. This was pushed against a coi by editors that have since been blocked. If it should be placed more prominently than any mention of his new age and alt med advocacy, it needs to be discussed at length with some very convincing arguments based upon policies and sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• per "physician" should NOT be in the lead sentence. The "doctor" is gimmick used and supported by his publishers to attempt to establish a false authority for his "hum your cancer away" non-medical nonsense that Wikipedia should NOT be a participant in. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

We already discussed that above; you already edit warred over it (This, as opposed to WP:BRD); and now you want to 'discuss' it again. I've had enough of you people again already. You go ahead, I'll eventually help tidy this up when a few more of you have been blocked or banned. --Nigelj (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

there was clearly no consensus in the above discussion for retention of "physician" in the lead. putting forth the false assertion that there was is pretty disruptive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• I can't say I've kept up with this talkpage, but Chopra is a physician, after all, and I think it's reasonable to mention that in the lead. MastCell ^Talk 22:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Apologies for deleting your comment. Not sure how that happened, but happy you caught the error and restored the cmt. I didn't notice the cmt or that I had somehow deleted it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC))

No worries. MastCell ^Talk 23:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"retention of 'physician'"? The word was discussed ad nauseum months ago and its addition came out of those discussions. Unless Ronz missed the discussions that indicate this is clearly a contentious word and issue this edit summary seems some what surprising and misleading "please don't revert because of personal opinion on possibility of edit being controversial" What personal opinion, and yes of course this is controversial; we all experienced that and above all this was still in discussion at the time of the revert. There seems to be some further confusion here on several issues:

• ..."pushed against a coi by editors that have since been blocked." An editor was blocked as an alleged sock. Where there others sanctioned. I may have missed that.
• The word physician has been heavily discussed in the past and there was agreement to add or at the least leave it in place once added. Consensus can change of course.
• The word physician was reverted after removal during what was an ongoing discussion.
• Who doubts that Chopra is a physician?
• What COI of editors are you talking about. the editor here with a COI declared that COI. He did not make a secret of it.
• This is a pretty substantial opinion. "The "doctor" is gimmick used and supported by his publishers to attempt to establish a false authority.: Are you suggesting he wasn't a chief of staff and isn't a licensed physician.
• I'm with Nigel on this article. I see multiple discrepancies between what happened and what is being alleged. Its hard to discuss in a productive way in those circumstances.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC))

ad nauseum discussions led by and including illegitimate sock puppets. consensus can change and after discovery that the previous "consensus" was tainted, revisiting is clearly appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede indicates he practiced as a physician. The infobox includes "physician". My concern is that of weight and prominence, as I've repeatedly indicated. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It is the combination of allopathic medical training, credentials, and experience along with alternative modalities that has created the notability around Chopra. There are many, many who practice alternative health modalities, but they are not notable. Noting a physician is a physician and who was clearly significant in his field is not undue weight. Infoboxes and leads have different functions/purposes and they can have the same information; there is no redundancy of information and so no undue weight.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC))

"Chopra obtained his medical degree in India...". He has a medical degree. That means he is a physician. Is he currently practicing medicine? I don't think he has the time. QuackGuru (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed he did. What are you suggesting? As well, he was a Chief of Staff at a major American hospital. "I don't think he has the time", a personal opinion and assumption, is not an argument for excluding so simple a fact that this man is a physician. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC))

He certainly was a physician. Aside from the health directory, do we have any corroborating sources that he still is a physician? I wouldn't have any objection to listing the profession in the past tense.—Kww(talk) 17:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Chopra's fame is not from his status as a physician. We can certainly tell the reader about his medical degree and the facts of his being a doctor, but we should not emphasize it since that is not what made him famous. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Kww, I am no fan of Chopra, but I think you've got that backwards. You need to find a source that says he is no longer a physician, not one that says he still is. I've worked with plenty of physicians who should have had their rights to practice taken away, but it is not so easy as you may think. Certainly advocating alternative medicine is no reason to remove the right to practice medicine. For the last few years I've been watching Wikipedia turn into a witch hunt for anything that is even remotely related to alt med that verges on hysteria. Gandydancer (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

We DO say he is a physician. The issue is how much weight and when to talk about that. As an encyclopedia, we cover the the subject is noted for, not what they may have done that has no impact or import. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Depends on what you call "hysterical". Alternative medicine is generally harmful, either actively through the application of dangerous treatment, or passively, through leading people to not seek effective treatment. While we shouldn't denigrate the tiny percentage of therapies that are both beneficial and founded in the alternative medicine movement, we need to be very careful not to let advocates use Wikipedia as a method for promoting harmful things.—Kww(talk) 18:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not an article about a Alternative Medicine therapy, This is a BLP about a famous doctor (yes, a doctor who - according to the article is still affiliated with Scripps Memorial Hospital) who prescribes Alternative Medicine as a therapy. This cartoon sums up exactly what is going on here. 104.34.169.198 (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No, he's a famous alt-med advocate. If editors aren't interested in addressing the WP:DUE concerns here, don't expect to make any headway in creating more emphasis in the article on his being a physician. --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

What I would like to keep out of this discussion is opinion on the value of either the man or his medicine which has no bearing on what should be added to this article. Second, as per the talk page archives Chopra is a prasctising physician. Third, we should not be removing that content while there is ongoing discussion as to whether that content remians in the article, Fourth, Chopra does not have to be famous for content to be added about the physician aspect of his career, but it must be significant information. Chopra as physician is significant information because this lent credibility to his health related claims and practices. Fourth, the revert also reverted a roll back which was also in discussion and for which there is strong opposition. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC))

While there may be flapping (even lots of it) , there is no policy or sourcing that supports the flapping. see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion and WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we should follow the relevant policies. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Flapping? What's that? What policy supports exclusion of significant content to the subject of the BLP? What is being discussed is not whether a policy supports including content. Policy clearly supports inclusion of significant content. What is being discussed is whether that content is significant. Per Bull Rangifer physician can be readded?(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC))

The policy, as has been pointed out, is WP:DUE. Please don't ask us to repeat it again. --Ronz (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Where do you see me asking you to repeat a policy? I did ask what flapping refers to? Undue does not allow for removal of significant content in a BLP. There is no undue weight in establishing what constitutes significance in a man's life. There may be undue in establishing criticism in a first paragraph before the reader knows much about the subject of the article, and excluding content that clearly defines a person because It somehow gives him credibility we don't want him to have in allopathic medicine. We do not get to exclude pertinent and or significant information. As I said above, the issue is what is significant.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC))

Time Magazine refers to Chopra as a "medical expert": http://content.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1858571,00.html. He is a renowned doctor. Whether or not you like his beliefs, that he is a notable physician is beyond question.

If you want to sway anyone here, should should attempt to follow WP:AGF and WP:CON. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. What do you think of the source supporting that he has been described as a medical expert?104.173.194.250 (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The article is an interview - a primary source with a brief introduction. He's not described as an expert. There's no description or any explanation of any sort. The introduction to the interview labels him an expert. It's unsubstantiated puffery. --Ronz (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

How are you determining that Time Magazine calling Chopra a medical expert is "unsubstantiated puffery"? 104.173.194.250 (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I actually read the article. --Ronz (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

So Time Magazine's claim that Chopra is a "medical expert" is "unsubstantiated puffery" according to Ronz's opinion. Okay. Thanks. 104.173.194.250 (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Is it based upon anything of concern to us that are trying to improve this encyclopedia? Again, you might want to WP:FOC, WP:AGF, and not treat this like a personal dispute. --Ronz (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I seems to me that you have not yet come up with a good reason to exclude this source to verify that Chopra has been described as a medical expert. Instead you are bombarding me with behavioral policies. So instead of continuing down this path, let me rephrase: What do you think about using this source to state something like: "Chopra has been described as a medical expert, Ayurvedic entrepreneur and New Age savant"? Time is an extremely popular magazine. This sort of introductory description leading into an interview could and should be taken as a factual depiction of how the subject is viewed by the population at large. 104.173.194.250 (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/02/26/deepak_chopra_drops_145m_on_healthcentric_delos_condo.php Not sure if this source adds much to this article. It was recently deleted from the see also section. QuackGuru (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Wealthy celebrities routinely buy and sell expensive homes, and upscale real estate sources give routine coverage to such transactions. Unless we have more in-depth coverage, I don't see how this factoid adds much to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Tend to agree. A more general breakdown of his wealth might be appropriate if we had those sources, but this particular detail just seems too ancillary to justify inclusion. Snow talk 12:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but the ref was actually placed because someone had challenged his NYC residency. 'See also' is an innocuous section to allude to this tangential fact, sans burden of ref. Castncoot (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

He is not known for his ties to New York and New York is not known for his recent purchase of a home there. Irrelevant trivial non connections.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the see also section is appropriate, as it's usually reserved for significant connection to other topics. But there's nothing wrong with noting he is a resident of New York, nor with using the ref in question to validate that fact, if it's been challenged, without even referencing the matter of the condo. At present though, I see no reference to his being a resident of New York in the article; if anyone could point out any diffs in regard to where it previously stood, that would be helpful in deciding how to approach this fact. Snow talk 01:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

there was film called thrive in which he speaks. No mention of that film, the producer nor that Deepak does not repudiate that film is found in wikipedia. I think it is notable and should be added. I do not add it personally as I have not time to waste with the kind of people that worry about the word physician to the extent that they seem to - inevitable the same process would be occur with which ever phrasing I choose, so some more hardy folks can source and add this, though I do think it important to challenge the conflated aspects of different peopels beliefs that are being bundeled togethr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.28.124 (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The Time reference being used in the lead can't be easily read by anonymous users, its content is hidden behind a log in wall. The would be assasin (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

That is unfortunate, but this fact does not in and of itself disqualify it as a source for supporting content, as per our WP:Reliable sources policy. Even so, if you or any other editor can find any additional sourcing which supports these same details but does not suffer from the drawback of being behind a paywall, it would still be to the benefit of the article. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

If you search for the quote included in the ref, you can find full copies online. For instance on this blog. – SJ + 06:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE says that there doesn't need to be a ^{[citation needed]} or a citation at the start of the second paragraph, "Chopra obtained a medical degree in India before emigrating in 1970 to the United States." The first part is sourced in the body of the article, in the sentence "He spent his first months as a doctor working in rural India, including, he writes, six months in a village where the lights went out whenever it rained." If he hadn't gotten his medical degree, he wouldn't have been a doctor there. The second part is sourced in the body of the article, in the sentence "He married in India in 1970 before emigrating with his wife that year to the United States (the couple have two children and three grandchildren as of 2014)." 192.12.149.16 (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

As the note in the lead says, it is the quality of the source that is at question. The source in the body is the subject claiming a medical license under our policies about content where the subjects are making claims about themselves, this claim is borderline and a request for better cite is completely appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Then it's not a case of "citation needed," but "better citation needed." Please change it to a better tag. ^{[better source needed]} maybe. 192.12.149.16 (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about the graduation date (68 or 69?).

• Professor's bio, Kellogg School says 1969
• NNDB and the Chopra Center for Wellbeing bio says 1968

It might be worth finding a most-official source if only to clear that up.

Better to avoid a cn in the lede if possible, I edited slightly to leave the uncertain details to the body. – SJ + 07:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Why the attempts to change the last paragraph of the lede? The first attempt was outright blanking. The second de-emphasizes the FRINGE issues with his ideas and practice. --Ronz (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see blanking. I see a merge of content. Perhaps I'm missing something.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC))

Blanking is a serious accusation which as far asI can tell isn't appropriate here. Its nice to have new set of eyes so would like him to treated well and fairly.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC))

Blanking. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not blanking.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC))_

Ronz. I'm going walk away from this, but I believe this is a mistake on your part. This is such a highly contentious article that I think we have to be very careful about how we characterize other editors, and your "blanking" statement seems highly inaccurate.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC))

Blanking or whitewashing is arguable depending on how you interpret these things, but there is no doubt that those edits are unacceptable, removing a neat summary from the body of the scientific perspective. Solid work Ronz, no mistake there. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 11:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The latest attempt is an improvement over the previous. I tried to massage it a bit, but decided the original was best. Presenting the scientific and medical community as "critics" undermines the FRINGE and MEDRS issues, placing him in the roll of underdog and hero when he's someone promoting nonsense for great profit to himself while endangering the health of those who believe him. --Ronz (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

There was a deletion and revert regarding a quote by Michael Shermer about Deepak Chopra. The quote was removed by Shermer himself, who says it is inaccurate. I know the two of them have been conversing and Shermer has been expressing frustration that he is being misrepresented about his views of Chopra, but that is in private emails and thus cannot be cited. I can try to see if he will make a public statement to that effect. He's been purposefully tweeting what he describes as his actual perceptions of Chopra (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), but I wanted to explore what type of statement Shermer could make to justify his claim that this quote is inaccurate and does not reflect his views. While the subject of a quote doesn't have any special authority to remove it (hence I agree with the revert), it seems reasonable that a public statement of refutation should suffice to remove it. Thoughts? The Cap'n (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

How do you know it is really Shermer who edited the article? All I know is that the user name is "Shermermichael". And Shermer's tweets do not actually contradict the quote. A pseudoscientist does not have to be aware of his own pseudoscientist-ness. Probably most of them believe what they say, they are just not competent enough to tell real science from what they are doing. Shermer wrote a book on the subject (Why People Believe Weird Things) where he makes that point. So he should know that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I know it's Shermer who edited the page because I'm on the email thread where he's discussing it, though as I mentioned before, I recognize that's an uncitable source. While he certainly (and strongly) disagrees with Chopra on many issues, in this email conversation he expressed that he did not feel the quote was an accurate representation of his views, and he would not say that now (again, uncitable from an email, I know). I understand he hasn't yet contradicted the statement on his Twitter page, I wanted to see if other editors would consider removing or amending the quote if he did make a statement to that effect. In the meantime I know he's tried to remove it a few times himself, which is obviously problematic. He asked if someone would be willing to see what can be done to get it removed in accordance with WP policies, so I'm here doing so as a courtesy. The Cap'n (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

OK. Then there are two possibilities:

• He can publish a retraction and explain the reasons for it. He has a journal, so it should be easy. Then we can quote him retracting it, or simply remove the quote.
• We are not forced to quote anything - we have to choose anyway, from a large set of quotable text, those few bits we think should be in the article. We could just agree that the quote is not needed. The rules do not demand a reliable source for removing anything. Who is against this? Please say why. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Hob Gadling, I appreciate it. I'm personally in favor of the latter option; the point that Shermer is skeptical of Chopra is cited in several other places, and the term pseudoscience is cited elsewhere in another context, so there seems no need to include a quote that the speaker doesn't endorse. As mentioned, I've had off-wiki conversations with both Chopra and Shermer, so there's a COI with me removing it myself, but I'd encourage someone else to do so, assuming there's no compelling arguments to keep it. The Cap'n (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen any reasons to keep it and several reasons to remove it. Hob Gadling, would you be willing to make the edit? It seems uncontroversial, but I don't want to give the appearance of COI editing by doing so myself. The Cap'n (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems to provide due context for the section. Maybe a bit to much meta-info? I've changed it slightly. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

After finding a copy of the source, I'd prefer if we worked from a better source, if one can be found. --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• It gives the appearance, rightly or wrongly, of wanting the last word to be a hatchet job. In my book, that's unencyclopedic. Jusdafax 20:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Chopra says he had no money. I'm not going to start edit warring on the penniless content, but denying the content of the source seems a poor way to deal with an article. (Littleolive oil (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC))

Chopra said, did he? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Aw come on. View the source which is a video of Chopra speaking in a public forum. If the source is not reliable discuss it. Good grief!(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC))

It is wonderful that Chopra has speaking engagements where he can recite his story about going from penniless to wealthy. Good for him! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You think the pennilessness was meant to be literal or figurative? Is it simply a matter of American currency or all currencies? jps (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems likely to be figurative, but interpretation would be OR. I haven't seen any arguments against Littleolive oil's logic (TRPoD's comments are not exactly productive here), so I'd argue for its inclusion. Quotes from Deepak Chopra are a reliable source for determining what Deepak Chopra said, after all... The Cap'n (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Might be better if "The Cap'n" was listed above along with his other name- Askahrc- as a conflict of interest. Isn't he a paid employee of Chopra Foundation and Chopra advocate? Since it does not list The Cap'n as a COI people responding to him or following his suggestions about edits etc. or even coming here to assess the complaints about Wikipedia and Chopra might not fully realize that fact. Bedblug (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)bedblug

I'd be happy to clarify that, though I don't know how to adjust the COI template to show an AKA. I do not wish to give any false impressions. I work for a non-profit that receives funding from the Chopra Foundation (though I would clarify I am not an employee of the Foundation and my position does not entail promoting Deepak Chopra, but managing an online reference library). Therefore I have announced on my Talk page and elsewhere that I do not consider myself uninvolved enough to edit his article directly. I do think there are serious issues on this page, and have long before I became involved with the Chopra Foundation, but I acknowledge I have a potential conflict of interest now. The Cap'n (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

In what sense is the bibliography "select". Selected by who, on the basis of what? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Check the talk archives for discussion? I'd hope all the best-sellers are listed, especially any that had long-standing as a best seller. --Ronz (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

He has cranked out 80 books or so, and we only list 20, so it is a "selected" portion of the 80. Whether there was any specific criteria or thought given to the 20 in the "selection" - i am pretty sure, "No". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I've had no luck finding any discussions about the biblio selection at all.

Anyone know what the general consensus is for WP:GA-quality selection criteria for a bibliography? --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ronz, I did not see anything in general for Bibliographies. However, under the WikiProject Bibliographies subpages, I did find Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies/Science task force/Assessment, which might be of some use to you. Peaceray (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)