Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions about Deepak Chopra. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Lead issues/revisions

I propose changing the current lead sentence from:

Through his books and videos, he has become one of the best-known and wealthiest figures in the "holistic-health" movement.

Through his books and seminars, he has become one of the most prominent and successful figures in the holistic health movement.

This was reverted with the comment that the current revision is a " better summary of article". The source makes no mention of wealth. Why is holistic health in quotes? And why is it a pipe link to alternative medicine when there is a separate article for holistic health?BlueStove (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the article body, and not (just) the citations given. The cited source put "holistic" in scare quotes (we should probably just link directly to alternative medicine though). The source says Chopra is "now a multi-millionaire thoroughly seduced by the placebo effect". Sounds like wealth to me: did you read the source? If anything our use of it is a bit whitewashed ... How should we convey the "thoroughly seduced by the placebo effect" thought, if at all? Alexbrn (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The proposal is less specific and strays from the sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I support this edit as basic common sense, and am confused why even editors who are traditionally opposed to Chopra oppose the change. It does nothing to change the message or source integrity, and the more generalized tone is appropriate for a lede. As far as the scare quotes, the sentence is in Wikipedia' voice, not the source's, and holistic health is an actual term on WP, so putting the quotations in is unnecessary and inappropriate, per WP:SCAREQUOTES. This is a thoroughly non-controversial change, and its rejection (along with almost every other minor edit that didn't originate from the usual crew) makes me wonder if this page is being owned. The Cap'n (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

At the very least, why would you pipe link 'holistic health' to alternative health when there is a holistic health article? The usage of sneer quotes in the source doesn't translate over to Wikipedia's NPOV voice. What else would holistic health mean in this context? Besides videos, Chopra has audio tapes and events, which would be more accurately summarized as seminars. There's a big stretch between being a multi-millionaire, to being the wealthiest individual in an industry and this source doesn't explicitly describe him as the wealthiest. The claim that Chopra has been "thoroughly seduced by the placebo effect" is quite a claim and would require additional sourcing than the mere passing mention in that article. He hasn't had his medical license revoked, and his professional affiliations are hardly suggestive of the malpractice the article implies.BlueStove (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree on the link, just link to alternative medicine in line with the cited source's text:

Deepak Chopra, arguably the most successful of America’s CAM practitioners, began his career well within the bounds of traditional medicine by serving as Chief of Staff at Boston Regional Medical Center and by teaching at Tufts University and Boston University Schools of Medicine. Now a multi-millionaire thoroughly seduced by the placebo effect, he is the author of 35 books plus 100 audio, video and CD-ROM titles that advocate virtually every form of alternative therapy.

Alexbrn (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

That "easter egg" is a link to holistic health, which is a subset of alternative medicine and reflects what the "consensus text" actually was. That said, the lead is supposed to be a holistic reflection of the article, not just the source used in the lead. BlueStove (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. And "holistic health" is really just a PR nonsense we should avoid in favour of more neutral terms as used in RS. Alexbrn (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It's worse than pr nonsense, as it sometimes refers to evidence-based medicine. We wouldn't want to create or encourage such misrepresentations of Chopra's approach. --Ronz (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the above is the epitome of WP:OR. You don't get to decide a term is just PR nonsense, and it's been established Chopra embraces evidence based medicine, with complementary treatments as an addition. That's already in the article, for crying out loud. Aside from the fact that Chopra identifies his healthcare approach as integrating mainstream and CAM (thereby not being an "alternative"), the definition of Holistic Healthcare is much closer to Chopra's stated definitions. The Cap'n (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, your COI is showing. It's not WP:OR just because someone disagrees or is unfamiliar with the subject matter, nor are we going to confuse pr campaigns as anything else. --Ronz (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I do maintain that simply dismissing something as PR without any evidence, reasoning, or sources to back it up is WP:OR. However, I take your point that I may be too familiar with this topic and verbiage to be an objective opinion on the name. Thank you for the reminder, Ronz. The Cap'n (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You have it backwards. Assuming that anything about Alt Med is not pr can be a stretch at best. If you cannot provide evidence for your assertions, claims, etc; don't be surprised as they're taken as pr. Follow WP:COITALK and provide evidence that your suggestions, opinions, etc are relevant to improving the quality of this encyclopedia rather promoting the interests of your employer. --Ronz (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

And here I was trying to be polite and reasonable... To claim that virtually all non-negative content about a massive genre (about which there are tens of thousands of medical studies) is worthless PR is one of the most blatantly biased and POV statements that I've seen on WP. It sounds very much like WP:RGW and WP:ADVOCACY. Please be careful, just as I recognize I have a POV on this topic, you obviously do too. As for evidence, I've been the one to provide evidence, sources, policy links, etc, to an almost silly degree, and the majority of your and Alexbrn's rejections have been "No, UNDUE" with no evidence or reasoning why. Please help build a consensus here, not shut down any differing positions. the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 02:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not what I'm claiming. Again, it appears you cannot see beyond your COI. If you cannot follow COITALK, then you're wasting our time here. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Whatever your personal stance is Ronz, Wikipedia is a balanced reflection of the sources, not what you perceive to be the "truth" (WP:TRUTH). With that being said, there are sources in the article that explicitly use the term holistic health to describe Chopra's work. This source explicitly states:

Despite the popular roots of the holistic health/New Age movements, a growing number of biomedical physicians have become proponents of holistic health as well as New Age healing. Over the past two decades, Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra, two biomedically trained physicians, have emerged as the visible and financially successful spokespersons of the movement.

— Baer, HA (June 2003). "The work of Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra--two holistic health/New Age gurus: a critique of the holistic health/New Age movements". Medical anthropology quarterly. 17 (2): 240–241. PMID 12846118.

This source also more accurately reflects the proposed change to Through his books and seminars, he has become one of the most prominent and successful figures in the holistic health movement.BlueStove (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Except that Baer (a figure with rather ... alternative views himself) then goes on to say that Chopra has failed at what he calls "holistic medicine" because he devotes his efforts to selling nonsense to the wealthy worried well. So you are completely abusing the source with your suggestion (twisting "financially successful" into "successful"). Time to drop the WP:STICK methinks. Alexbrn (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Baer's publications are referenced multiple times within the wiki article, so I don't understand why there is an issue with him in this context. Have you read the article? The article literally concludes by describing Chopra as one of the "leading exemplars of the holistic health/New Age movements." The article does not mention nonsense, but rather critiques/laments how Chopra, as a successful capitalistic entrepreneur, caters to an elite clientele, effectively outpricing the working proletariat. That's hardly the equivalent of peddling "nonsense", but rather a common business practice among successful MDs. I have added a number of supporting excerpts from the article below.

Relevant excerpts from Baer, HA (June 2003). "The work of Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra--two holistic health/New Age gurus: a critique of the holistic health/New Age movements". Medical anthropology quarterly. 17 (2): 233–250. PMID 12846118.

* Title: The Work of Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra: Two Holistic Health/New Age Gurus: A Critique of the Holistic Health/New Age Movements

Abstract: Despite the popular roots ofthe holistic health/NewAge movements, a growing number of biomedical physicians have become proponents of holistic health as well as New Age healing. Over the past two decades, Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra, two biomedically trained physicians, have emerged as the visible andfinancially successful spokespersons of the movement. This article provides brief biographical sketches of Weil and Chopra and compares and contrasts their respective views on health, illness, healing, and health care. It also considers the response of various biomedical parties to these holistic health/New Age gurus who have attempted to integrate biomedicine and various alternative healing and metaphysical systems. Finally, this article argues that Weil and Chopra both epitomize the limitations of the holistic health/New Age movements, albeit in different ways.

Although some holistic biomedical physicians, such as James Gordon (1988, 1996), a Harvard-trained physician and the director of the Center for Mind-Body Medicine in Washington, D.C., have captured some public attention, Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra have emerged over the past two decades as the most visible spokespersons of the holistic health movement. They have been propelled into fame as holistic biomedical physicians as a result of their success at manipulating the organs of mass communication-books, audiotapes, videotapes, and appearances on television. p 233

Chopra has authored some 25 books and produced more than 100 audio, video, and CD- ROM titles. In a special issue published on June 14, 1999, Time designated both Weil and Chopra as among the "Top 100 Icons and Heroes of the 20th Century" and referred to Chopra as the "poet-prophet of alternative medicine" (1999:206). A critical analysis of these two figures provides us with an excellent vehicle for ex- amining broader issues and trends within the holistic health/New Age movements, and, in particular, understanding how what emerged as a popular movement is in- creasingly becoming incorporated into biomedicine. p.234

I also discuss the response of various biomedical parties to these two holistic gurus who have attempted to integrate biomedicine and various alternative healing systems. I argue that both Weil and Chopra represent the limitations of the holistic health/New Age movements, such as their tendencies to downplay the role of social structural and environmental factors in the etiology of disease, particularly as manifested in the United States. p.234

In addition to Weil and Chopra, various other MDs have emerged as leading proponents of the holistic health movement or what has increasingly become referred to in various circles as "integrative medicine" or "complementary and alternative medicine." p235

A critical analysis of the views and writings of Weil and Chopra as the most visible proponents of the holistic health/New Age movements gives us insights into roots in biomedicine as well as similarities and differences between them. p236

Most of Weil's and Chopra's views of health, disease, and healing are unique to them but are part and parcel of concepts widely promulgated within the context of the larger holistic health/New Age movements. These two health gurus have been the leading disseminators. p 237

Like many other holistic MDs, Weil prefers to refer to his approach to healing as "integrative medicine," in that it blends components of both biomedicine and al- ternative medical systems of different sorts. p 238

In this section, I argue that both Weil and Chopra exemplify many of the con- tradictions of the holistic health/New Age movements. They also replicate several patterns characteristic of biomedicine, namely the individualization of health care, its commercialization, and problems of access to it.p240

Like the larger holistic health movement, both Weil and Chopra engage in a rather limited holism in that they both focus largely on the individual rather than society and its institutions. p240

Like most holistic health practitioners, Weil and Chopra tend to either down- play or ignore occupational and environmental factors, such as air and water pollution and toxic waste. p240

Weil and Chopra exemplify par excellence the increasing entrepreneurialization of the holistic health movement (Brennan 2002). p241

Practitioners such as Weil and Chopra indicate that the holistic health move- ment has evolved into a "marketed social movement" (Goldstein 1992:151). p241

Although a fair number of biomedical physicians have become spokespersons for alternative medicine, a perusal of books and websites on alternative medicine indicate that Weil and Chopra have managed, through astute marketing, to transform themselves into the leading gurus of holistic medicine or New Age healing. ability of Weil and Chopra to capitalize on the popularity of the holistic health movement over the past three decades also reflects the growing entre- preneurialization of biomedicine on a number of levels, ranging from the emergence of health care corporations and health maintenance organizations (HMOs) to phy- sicians and hospitals advertising their services, which, at one time, the biomedical profession would have deemed unethical, unprofessional, and crass. Indeed, the biomedical profession appears. p242

As holistic health services are generally not covered by insurance policies, Medicare, and Medicaid, they tend to cater primarily to white, upper and upper- middle-class people, and to members of the counterculture who have chosen to funnel their often limited financial resources into alternative medicine. p242

In keeping with the general orientation of the holistic health/New Age move- ments, both Weil and Chopra either ignore or downplay community service, social reform, and other collective goals. p242

The prominence of Weil and Chopra, both trained biomedical physicians, as the leading holistic health/New Age gurus, exemplifies the danger that the holistic health movement as a grassroots phenomenon is increasingly becoming co-opted by biomedicine. Biomedicine has responded to the holistic health movement with mixed attitudes. Despite the growing interest of biomedical and osteopathic physi- cians in holistic health, as Alster observes, "It is important to recall that physicians were latecomers, arriving to find other groups already well established and claim- ing to offer different and even superior services than those available from physi- cians and physician-controlled agencies" p243

Despite ongoing skepticism of Weil, Chopra, and holistic medicine in general within biomedical corridors, biomedicine increasingly has been coming to terms with the reality that many of its patients want alternative therapies. p245

In other words, holistic health as a popular movement is quickly being biomedicalized and institutionalized. Furthermore, it also is evolving into a profes- sionalized entity increasingly referred to as "complementary and alternative medi- cine (CAM)" or "integrative medicine"-a style of medicine that, while recogniz- ing the benefits of alternative therapies and mind-body-spirit connections, downplays the role of political-economic, environmental, and social structural forces in contributing to disease. C. Everett Koop, former surgeon general, is de- veloping a medical center at Dartmouth that combines biomedicine and CAM (Castleman 2000:5). Indeed, a growing number of biomedical physicians allude to CAM, while at the same time downplaying the notion of holistic health (Freeman and Lawlis 2001; Micozzi 2001; Novey 2000). p245

As we see in my critique of the two leading proponents of the holistic health/ New Age movements, for the most part these movements in their present form have not lived up to such hopes. Instead, they engage in a rather limited holism, in that their focus is largely on the individual rather than on society and its institutions. In emphasizing individual responsibility for health, wellness, and spirituality, Weil and Chopra provide an alternative form of medical hegemony by reinforcing indi- vidualizing patterns in U.S. society specifically and in the capitalist world-system more generally, given that both have an international audience. They also serve as modem exemplars of the U.S. success story-a myth that continues to legitimize patterns of social inequality. Whereas the "worried well" found in the upper and upper-middle classes indeed often can offer afford to partake in the various com- modities and services that Weil and Chopra promote, it is doubtful whether their advice on health and well-being has much meaning for many working-class people and other people of modest means in the United States and around the globe. In conclusion, although this article focuses on the two leading exemplars of the holistic health/New Age movements-movements that have become popular in many other countries, particularly in western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and even Third World nations (Baer 2001; Brown 1997; Davis-Floyd and St. John 1998; Hess 1993)-anthropologists still have much to learn about them. p246

I am not twisting "financially successful" into "successful." It is implied that if you are successful, that it is in the financial sense, although I would support a change to either "financially successful" or "successful." BlueStove (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue is your misrepresenting the source to puff-up Chopra's reputation: when Baer says Chopra has failed at holistic health we can't use him to say Chopra has been a success. The only "success" Baer allows is that Chopra has enriched himself handsomely. We don't plagiarise texts so lifting phrases is discouraged. BTW, the amount of quotation you have above may amount to a copyright violation. I suggest redaction: people can read the article themselves. Alexbrn (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The quotes are for commentary of the article which falls under fair use. If an admin feels otherwise, they may redact the material. The article is literally entitled "The Work of Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra: Two Holistic Health/New Age Gurus: A Critique of the Holistic Health/New Age Movements" and repeatedly refers to Chopra and Weil as leaders in holistic health: "views and writings of Weil and Chopra as the most visible proponents of the holistic health", "In addition to Weil and Chopra, various other MDs have emerged as leading proponents of the holistic health movement", "two leading proponents of the holistic health/New Age movements","two leading exemplars of the holistic health", etc. I'm not sure how you can be described as a leading proponent of a movement, and yet be considered unsuccessful within its context. BlueStove (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Then you haven't understood the article, sorry. Baer's conception of "holistic health" includes help for the poor and an emphasis on social equality of care. By his yardstick, Chopra falls short. Trying to use Baer to laud Chopra is a gross misrepresentation. Alexbrn (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Again there's this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that if someone suggests content that isn't explicitly negative, it's lauding/PR/promotional/misrepresentative, even when it's simply stating exactly what's in the source. This is not helpful for building any kind of consensus, especially when you're effectively establishing two standards for sourcing, one for sources you like and another for sources you don't. This isn't a matter of WP:FRINGE; no one is trying to prove any extraordinary claims other than biographical details.

As far as WP:COITALK, A) I am not a paid editor, I am an editor who works for an organization with ties to Chopra's nonprofit foundation. I disclosed my COI publicly because it's the right thing to do, but I am no more paid to spend time on this Talk page than you. B) I am not refusing to accept consensus, I am arguing for it. You and Alexbrn have refused to compromise on a single point despite numerous objections from various editors, and have reverted virtually every edit that did not come from yourselves. That's not responsible WP behavior. the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 17:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

"if someone suggests content that isn't explicitly negative..." You misrepresent other editors saying so, and by doing so demonstrate the mentality that you accuse others of taking. Please stop.

"This isn't a matter of WP:FRINGE". Yes it most certainly is. If you're not going to provide evidence, don't expect that dismissals like this help your arguments in any way.

Your relationship with Chopra is financial, so ignoring the recommendations of WP:COI certainly won't help you demonstrate that you're trying to work cooperatively with editors who do not share your biases.

Sorry to focus on you like this, but at some point we need to start taking measures to get this disruption under control. How about we go back to focusing on the sources and policies? --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right that it's not appropriate for me to assume the motivations of other editors, Ronz, and I will try to restrain from that. I would encourage you to do the same, however, when you characterize edits as nothing but PR, promotion, or POV pushing.

Your comments on my disrupting discussions of evidence and policy are bizarre, to say the least. Every one of my content suggestions have been supported with sources, quotes, links, and WP policy justifications. When I do so, the evidence presented is either dismissed out of hand or (more often) not responded to at all. I have worked hard to work ethically within my own CoI and POV, but it does not seem you are willing to address your own POV issues. I hope you will and we can all come to consensus, but I have my concerns. I am beginning to wonder if there's any source you could accept that contradicted your personal views? the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 20:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Likewise Ronz. One can't help but see the level of absurdity in this statement as well as in the implied threats per disruption made by another editor. This page is meant for discussion, and that's what is going on here. I'm not sure why the discussion derailed into accusations instead of dealing with legitimate concerns for and against sources, the legitimate purview of a talk page. I've been watching this discussion for awhile and see no reason to charge anyone with disruption or anything else. Just saying'.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC))

Ronz, I understood the article as my earlier comment matches your explanation.

I've filed an RfC below Talk:Deepak_Chopra#RfC:_Is_the_lead.2C_among_other_parts_of_the_article.2C_reflective_of_the_sources_and_a_NPOV.3F.BlueStove (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead Section

Hi all- I just noticed an issue re: validity with the last sentence in the lead-- I think it's slightly misleading by saying "The medical and scientific communities' opinion of him ranges from dismissive to damning." This implies that the the medical and scientific community has wholeheartedly dismissed/damned him, whereas the evidence suggests that this range is a bit broader (I'm just thinking of his book with the Harvard neuro professor, a couple peer-reviewed journal articles, the US Navy inviting him to talk about mind-body medicine, co-headlining a scientific conference with Sir Roger Penrose— yes, the one who works with Stephen Hawking, etc). In any case, this is a very strong claim with a very weak source-- the cited article is not impartial and so I don’t think it’s appropriate for Wikipedia.

I propose the the language change to, “The medical and scientific communities' opinion of him ranges from damning to accepting." Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be WP:OR. --Ronz (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It's always seemed to me that the citing of "The medical and scientific communities' opinion of him ranges from dismissive to damning." is itself textbook WP:CHERRYPICKING, especially considering the fact it includes the negative half of the statement while excluding the qualifications the author was explaining, or the fact that he never said he was citing these communities as a whole.

_{Ever since his early days as an advocate of alternative healing and nutrition, Chopra has been a magnet for criticism — most of it from the medical and scientific communities. Accusations have ranged from the dismissive — Chopra is just another huckster purveying watered-down Eastern wisdom mixed with pseudo science and pop psychology — to the outright damning.} Tompkins. Mentioning a wide range of perceptions, an unspecified (and unqualified) number of which may come from various groups, is not a reliable sourcing for citing anything, let alone pretending it qualifies as an authoritative source on the majority of scientists everywhere.

The ref comes from a mention in a Lifestyle piece that goes on to praise Chopra as much as it critiques him, and definitely has absolutely no authority to be used as a reliable source for something as huge and nuanced as the position of the medical and scientific community. Can anyone here tell me with a straight face that if someone tried to cite a piece like this that happened to say Chopra was positively viewed by those communities, they wouldn't protest? If not, this ref is long past due for removal. The Cap'n (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

In order to keep this productive as opposed to my just complaining, I propose removing the statement altogether. The points about Chopra's detractors are amply represented (overly so, many would argue), we don't need a cherry picked ref to over-generalize millions of people's opinions on top of that. The Cap'n (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I've added a {{dubious}} tag to the statement. The "opinion of ranges from dismissive to damning" isn't much of a range (and he has gotten positive feedback), and it isn't balancing the lead. It would be better to say something along the lines that Chopra is a controversial figure within the medical community.BlueStove (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed it just as you contributed here. (and I disagree with you re your suggestion) Current version introduces and summarises well. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, most of the medical community neither condemns nor damns him - self-evident nonsense is normally just ignored. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

-I've restored the ^{[dead link]} tag. I'm not a driveby editor, I left a note on the talk page. The current line does not summarize, but rather presents a poorly sourced, biased view. The ignoring of that "self-evident nonsense" requires a source (WP:TRUTH). BlueStove (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok so it looks like we all agree that both the claim and its sources are not appropriate. How do you all feel about removing the sentence, as The Cap'n suggested? At least until something better is decided? Especially given Wikipedia policy about the pages of living people and being accurate/not defamatory. Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

There is certainly not agreement, not that is would matter if there was - especially among some fresh accounts who have just beamed into the page - since this is not a vote. We are governed by our need for neutrality-based consensus based on the WP:PAGs. If Chopra's views are held in poor regard as reported in RS, then we shall relay that knowledge. Alexbrn (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that we are governed by our need for neutrality-based consensus. Which is why it is not appropriate to assert that the range of opinions about him is no narrow and negative using a single article by an author who is not neutral. Ptolemy Tompkins, who wrote the Times article, has conflicts of interest with this topic. Check out his website. He admits that he has " pronounced interest in current ideas about the evolution of consciousness." which is a field that Chopra is very involved in. Tompkins has authored multiple books on the topic of new age spirituality, souls and metaphysics. He also explains that he is an avid reader of books on spirituality, new age spirituality, and the afterlife, and he shares his view of many of these online. His opinions are based on his personal experience of spirituality, however.^[1] Additionally, he admits that his books didn't get very good critical reception. So I think it's dangerous to use an article from someone who has such publicly stated strong feelings about the many of the same things Chopra is involved in. Especially given that he has financial interests in it, given that writing about consciousness and the soul etc. has been his job for decades. You see what I mean? I am all for neutral, but I just don't think that this is neutral. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

And adding "an article in Times magazine" doesn't solve the problem of the source. I could easily go find an article from a reputable source saying that members of the medical community respect admire him, but just because the article exists doesn't mean it should be in the lead on WP. Also-- the claim in the article re: he dissuades people from seeking proper medical care is not property sourced either; it just says " some have argued." If we are talking about something as ambigious as "hope," and attributing to it dramatic implications, and doing it on the page of a living individual, then there should be better sourcing. One Time article by a new age ideologue without any citations or sources does not seem sufficient to make these claims. Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

References

[1]
http://ptolemytompkins.com/the-modern-book-of-the-dead/

Which basically amounts to you not liking the source for personal reasons you've conjured up. It's an article in Time which gives us a decent insight into how Chopra's views are viewed and is fine in our lede as a summary of points we deal with in greater depth later. As for your easily-findable source which says "members of the medical community respect admire him" [sic] ... where? Alexbrn (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I just outlined, with evidence, exactly why I think the source is not sufficient due to the author's personal history. As I said, what I care about is neutrality. That is why I explained in detail where I see a conflict of interest. I don't know why you said I am "conjuring up" "personal reasons." Instead of attacking my character, I think it would be more productive if you responded to the points that I brought up. Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you think you personally are better placed to judge Tomkins' suitability to write on this topic than Time magazine, because of far-fetched suppositions & accusations based on a web page. In any case, that was what Timepublished and that's what we report, to be neutral. No answer to my request for your source, I notice. Alexbrn (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I've attributed the line to Ptolemy Tompkins in the lead and changed it to described as opposed to summarized as the article is not a representative view. His views may be controversial, but to summarily suggest a range of "dismissive to damning" is misleading. The lead still needs work to actually represent a NPOV.BlueStove (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea why the attribution helps in any way. Seems rather inappropriate actually.

Given the lede should summarize, I think it would be best to do so rather than provide info from the Time article that is so contentious that we feel it cannot be presented in Wikipedia's voice. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we're all making this far more complicated than it needs to be. There are 3 simple reasons, completely divorced from anyone's subjective opinion of Chopra or Tomkins, that this ref does not belong with the statement "the medical and scientific communities' opinion of him as ranging from dismissive to damning; criticism includes statements that his approach could lure sick people away from effective treatments."

1) The Tomkins piece is NOT a WP:RS for stating as fact the opinions of the medical/scientific community. RS policy states that commentary, opinion, and analysis articles can only be used to describe the opinion of the writer, and cannot be used to make a statement of fact. In addition, WP standards on representing the positions of the medical establishment specifically state popular press is NOT a reliable source.
2)The statement falsifies the citation through a blatant logical fallacy. The ref states that Chopra has critics, most of whom are members of the medical or scientific fields V. the WP statement that most members of the medical/scientific fields are critics of Chopra. That is a massive distortion of the source and appropriate citing policy.
3)The ref never says anything like "his approach could lure sick people away from effective treatments". This statement cannot be attributed to Tomkins, and is of such a contentious and extraordinary nature (effectively accusing him of homicidal malpractice) that it would require an extraordinarily reliable and objective source.

To sum up, Tomkins is not a reliable source for this "fact", the statement on WP has been fallaciously modified, and it cannot be used to support the extraordinary claim that Chopra is endangering lives. These are 3 evidenced reasons why this statement violates numerous WP policies and standards. I have not yet seen any argument for keeping it that trumps these. The Cap'n (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not an extraordinary claim that Chopra is endangering lives. Quite the opposite.

Tomkins viewpoints are noteworthy and most definitely should be included, probably expanded upon, not in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

With respect, it IS an extraordinary claim to state that a medical doctor in good standing might be causing the deaths of his patients. To make that claim with no better evidence than a commentary article or the opinion of a non-physician skeptic author violates WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:EXTRAORDINARY, and basic ethics.

I would point out that points 1) and 2) stand uncontested, and either by itself is reason to remove the line.

As far as expanding on Tomkins due to his noteworthiness, does that mean you have no objections to adding:

"The book became a best seller, got Chopra wide coverage in the media and established his image as a man of science with the soul of a mystic. In the years since, Chopra has steadily enlarged his reputation from that of healer to philosopher-at-large."
"Anyone with a glancing knowledge of the writings of the human-potential movement of the past 40 years will have no trouble finding in Chopra's work influences, both hidden and acknowledged, from beyond India's borders. Abraham Maslow, Teilhard de Chardin, Joseph Campbell, Carlos Castaneda and other counterculture standards blend into the mix with a healthy helping of contemporary psychologists, biologists and physicists."
"Chopra is as rich as he is today not because he has been dishonest with anyone, but because his basic message — that love, health and happiness are possible, that mystery is real and that the universe is ultimately a friendly and benevolent place where orthodoxies old and new can meet and make peace with one another — is one that he wants to believe in just as sincerely as his readers do."

If you'd consider those sections of Tomkins to be as noteworthy as the parts that can be used to cite negative statements, then we have the beginning of consensus. The Cap'n (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Cap'n makes very valid points, especially concerning the creative leap between what is actually said in the source, and what it written on WP. And once again, Alexbrn, I request that you adopt a less antagonistic tone with me. We don't want your personal hostility or emotional attachment to this issue to effect your ability to be a neutral contributor. Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"it IS an extraordinary claim " Why should anyone agree, let alone agree that we should use such assertions to determine article content? --Ronz (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Cap'n is part of Chopra's PR, of course he says that. The source is fine and the text seems to me to reflect what the source says. Not liking it doesn't make it "dubious" - though the irony of arguing over a dubious tag on an article discussing Chopra's dubious claims is not lost on me. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Generally, a biography lead does not specifically mention a publication, unless the publication has had an over-arching effect on the individual (which it does not in this case). The manner in which Time is name-dropped without attributing the author who has a wiki article is very peculiar. It would be better to present the figure as controversial from Wikipedia's voice and have several references. The range of "dismissive to damning" is redundant and fails to recognize that he does have supporters within the medical community.BlueStove (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Tomkins views are already expounded upon in the Deepak Chopra#Alternative medicine. Anything further, if not already, would be WP:UNDUE.BlueStove (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, though I'm not clear if it would be due or undue to expound further elsewhere. I'm just focused on the lede, where I think we agree. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No. We don't agree. The lead needs work, and it's current state isn't reflective of a NPOV. The line should be written in Wikipedia's voice, and to reflect a neutral tone.BlueStove (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Ronz & Guy, what is ironic is dismissing my position as an assertion with nothing but your own assertions. I did not assert, I argued with evidence, citing numerous WP policies that disqualify the Tomkins ref. No one has rebutted with any evidence so far, aside from vague aspersions and protestations of "But I KNOW Chopra is wrong!" My arguments stand, friends. The Cap'n (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's put together a rational decision rather than building walls of text (for the record, Guy, I am not in PR and have been clear about my relationship with the subject). As I see it, the arguments AGAINST including the ref are:

It is clearly not a Reliable Source per WP policy on both news sources and reporting on the medical establishment.
The text in the article does not match the ref cited, and trying to do so is a false consequent logical fallacy. Honestly, this should be enough on its own to remove the text. If any editor thinks "most of Chopra's critics are scientists" = "most scientists are critics of Chopra", they should reconsider their qualifications to edit this page.
The critiques made in the text are repeated in that very paragraph, and Tomkins's critiques are repeated further on in the article, with no evidence or reasoning that these are overwhelmingly important aspects of Chopra other than editors' opinions. This is an WP:UNDUE problem.
The critical sections of Tomkins are justified by claiming Tomkins is highly reputable and noteworthy, yet none of the noncritical statements by Tomkins have historically been allowed on the page. This violates WP:NPOV.
Claiming an MD in good standing is contributing to the deaths of his patients is a major claim that needs WP:EXTRAORDINARY evidence, not a blurb in a commentary piece.

The arguments FOR including the ref are:

Tomkins is important and his article represents what Chopra is reputable for (though only the critical parts).
Deepak Chopra is obviously a danger to his patients and saying so does not require qualified, objective coverage.
Tomkins' article is a reliable source and he is qualified to speak for the medical and scientific communities.

Please add points I may have missed, but it seems evident to me that the first 2 arguments FOR are pure assertions, while the third is thoroughly debunked by the various policies cited above. If you have rebuttals, please cite evidence and logical arguments. If you don't, let's move forward and edit the text. There are solid reasons to remove the ref that cite the source material and WP policies, and they cannot be rejected by simply reverting over & over. The Cap'n (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I notice you didn't address my concerns, but rather tried to make this about individuals rather than policy and sources. That's not the way to gain any consensus, especially given the COI. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused... My last post listed 8 detailed points on policy and sourcing, and never named any individual other than a brief note to Guy. If you're referring to my earlier post where I mentioned you, it was not my intention to focus things on you, I agree wholeheartedly that policy and sound refs should win the day. I was trying to address the implication that I had made no arguments but assertions, and if my frustration at that impression came across as hostile, I apologize. That was not my intent.

Going back to policy and sourcing, I thought you concerns were addressed in my last post, where I discussed WP:EXTRAORDINARY and WP:UNDUE as they pertain here. If you have a line of reasoning I did not address, please let me know so we can all build a rational consensus. The Cap'n (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I see no EXTRAORDINARY, UNDUE, nor RS problems, just the assertions that there are some. --Ronz (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

ASSERTION: [uh-sur-shuh n] noun 1. a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason.

I have cited 5 supporting reasons, including formal logic, WP policy citations, comparative quotes, and more. All have linked evidence to support them, yet you have summarily rejected them, without even addressing most of the points. At this point we need to A) view your citable evidence in support of the ref, B) accept that the ref is inappropriate and remove it, or C) initiate an RfC to resolve this stalemate. The Cap'n (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest dropping it at this point. You're convincing me that you cannot work beyond your coi in this matter. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I regret that this line of reasoning has left you discouraged. The Cap'n (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting that while many logically sound arguments have been made supporting removing the sentence in question, most refutations of this proposal do not provide thorough reasoning or valid counterpoints. This is a waste of time-- it is not about your personal opinion on the matter. Provide evidence or sound reasoning-- if not, then Wikipedia is not the place for you.

Another note: if one argues that it's appropriate to include one statement from Tompkins re: Chopra, then logically, should we not also include his other significant statements re: Chopra? For example, in the same article he writes: "Chopra has steadily enlarged his reputation from that of healer to philosopher-at-large. East and West, mind and body, science and spirit: Chopra's smiling, ever more confident face has become an icon of the hope that the world is entering a new age of synthesis and understanding where all such rifts will become mere memories." Given that the article has both positive and negative things to say, WP:WEIGHT to just include the damning part. Remember, WP:BALASPS : "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

Also remember we are talking about a WP:BLP, which, according to WP policy must be written "conservatively." "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) 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

The fact that editors are even arguing about this, when it is clearly in violation of WP policy, is shocking. Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I've filed an RfC below at Talk:Deepak_Chopra#RfC:_Is_the_lead.2C_among_other_parts_of_the_article.2C_reflective_of_the_sources_and_a_NPOV.3F.BlueStove (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

BLP Sources on Chopra

I'll add more stuff to this as I go along, but several people have referenced they can't find sources for various aspects of Chopra's BLP (aside from the critiques, which are easily found), so I thought I'd throw up biographical data with sourcing for those who find the info relevant. More to come...

Chopra is a clinical professor at UCSD in their Division of Family Medicine (1, 2)

the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 19:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are proposing. Those two sources are primary sources. QuackGuru (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm proposing we try to include more up to date biographical details, ie. he is currently a clinical professor at UCSD, which seems as significant a point as winning the Ig Nobel prize (which is also cited to a primary source). Basic objective biographical details, such as the work the subject is involved in, should be at least as much a priority as commentary on a BLP. Primary sources are not disallowed in a BLP, especially when establishing a basic point of fact, and UCSD's faculty list is a reliable source for is faculty at UCSD. That being said, secondary sources are ideal, so:

San Diego Union Tribune news article on the topic

the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 20:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure which section it belongs. Perhaps Deepak_Chopra#Early_life_and_education? QuackGuru (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

the Cap'n, how about some reliable, independent sources from 2014ish that talk about what his main or most consistent professional role has been for the majority of the 2000s/2010s. Is it public speaking, writing, direct clinical work, etc.? Sources for that are hard to find. It's easy to find self-published bios and PR pieces about one-time events or laundry lists of everything he's ever done with an ambiguous timeframe. PermStrump(talk) 05:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I will dip into my personal archives and look into that, Permstrump, thank you for the suggestion. There's a lot of content from that period, but the majority is not suitable for WP, so it will take some sifting. As an aside, he is not engaged in a one-off with UCSD, but does work with the university on a regular basis, serving as a full professor and working with a research department at UCSD. This is mentioned in the Tribune piece, which was an independent (and even critical at the end of the article) news piece. the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 08:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the West coast years section is the best place to add it. QuackGuru (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The UCSD is a reliable source for content on qualification material on Chopra. This kind of entry in a family medicine division has university oversight. I'm not sure if this would be considered primary or secondary but we have to remember that what we are looking for is reliability, and primary sources if used carefully can be reliable and at time are the best and most definitive sources possible. That a university in a medical division would knowingly add false information is pretty far fetched. Imagine the litigation that university could face. We can trust that the information on Chopra in regards to his qualifications is accurate and reliable(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC))

Robbins, Gary (March 15, 2016). "UCSD deepens ties with Deepak Chopra". The San Diego Union-Tribune.

"In 2016 Chopra was promoted from assistant professor to full professor at UCSD in their Department of Family Medicine." I added it to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Remove revert placebo

This content and discussion on both content meaning and its sources is ongoing. Adding another source, and we have only two sources possibly one that is reliable at this point, is premature both for the content and the sources. I'd add in a twist that two sources on "placebo" out of an entire field of sources is fringe to the mainstream and as is violates undue. If we want to characterize in a general way some of Chopra's methods we can but we need context and we need multiple sources. Selection of one term to characterize and entire body of work as is now pushes a POV.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC))

Discussion on WP: Medicine talk seems to indicate the source in place is not reliable and there is non agreement for the new source added as to its reliability. Further as above the terms is used to characterize and entire body of work and per the ongoing discussion this is not necessarily accepted. Both may violate BLP. Wait per discussion and BLP for agreement as to reliability of sources and content.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC))

A different source was added. Where was the discussion the other source is unreliable? You did not provide an argument the other source is unreliable. QuackGuru (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Olive is deleting the whole thing, including the new source. Looks like a blatant POV-push to a radically new version of the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

edit conflict

I will not revert again. I am reverting per BLP which means nothing to some because the subject of the article does not deserve fair treatment. BLP does not protect him because he falls under the pseudoscience mantle a nicer word, if we can imagine, than all of the trash that has been lobbed at him by our so-called neutral editors. I know very little about this man but he doesn't deserve the treatment on this article . NO one does per our own rules. The content is still under discussion and should not be there in the first place given the original source is not reliable, and there is no agreement for adding the content in fact, neutral discussion on WP medicine NB indicates the content is questionable. Per BLP it should be removed automatically. Yet, here we are again hammering in the same kind of content no matter the objections or from who. POV push??? Laughable! C'est la vie. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC))

If you think the other source is unreliable then please provide an argument. QuackGuru (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Not my point as you should know if you've read my comments above. This is about process and using language in content as honestly as possible. One source does not make an accusation acceptable. In context with other explanations in the body of the article such a claim might be usable. In the lead with one RS it isn't. Continue on. I'm done with this issue.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC))

Let me clarify: We have content in a BLP that is/was disputed both for the content itself, and the source. What do we do with that kind of content in a BLP. That's right we remove it pending agreement and discussion which is ongoing. Adding another source while leaving in a disputed source does not remedy the disputed content, disputed on a neutral talk page. Its very simple if we honor our own rules on BLPs and collaboration. But what we seem to have here is agreement from two to my one to leave in the content. So be it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC))

RS is the point. QuackGuru (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No its not. That we potentially have one reliable source does not condone content that is disputed by neutral editors, that violates weight and that is taken our of context both of the body of an article, and the entire body of work of an individual. That's why we have WP:Weight - so that a few sources do not carry the kind of impact this content does in a lead of one of our articles. Anyway. We disagree.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC))

"which means nothing to some because the subject of the article does not deserve fair treatment..." I think these assumptions, and making changes to the article based upon these assumptions, are serious violations of out policies and fall under ArbCom enforcement. I'm glad you're stepping away from it. --Ronz (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Please note above for very clear points about why I made the edits to this article. Don't mischaracterize me. Further, my points about the vitriol on the article are supportable to an extraordinary degree. I am stepping away because I have no doubt that what I have to say will be ignored and really, life is too short.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC))

You wrote it, and did so to justify your edits. How can it be a mischaracterization? If you want to strike out your attacks, or attempt to justify them with diffs, you'd at least be attempting to make a case for yourself. --Ronz (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Editors are trashing the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Trashing? Please. WP:BOLD

Before:His treatments are based on the placebo effect.[8][14] He uses the language of quantum mysticism, which misuses terms and ideas from quantum physics.[15] His claims provide people with false hope which obscures the possibility of effective medical treatment.[15] The ideas he promotes have been criticized mostly by medical and scientific professionals, with opinions of him ranging from dismissive to damning.[16] His claims for the effectiveness of alternative medicine can, some have argued, lure sick people away from medical treatments.[16]

After:The Antioch Review has stated his treatments rely on the placebo effect.[7][13] He has been criticized by medical and scientific professionals for his usage of quantum mysticism and promotion of alternative medicine, a practice that critics have argued may lure sick people away from medical treatments

All the sources and criticism remain, but in a more compendious format.BlueStove (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Say "The Antioch Review has stated ..." is not only sub-literate, but gives the false impression that it is just one individually stated view. This is POV-pushing as warned against in WP:ASSERT, and especially nonsensical when cited to two sources. Alexbrn (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Does the second source explicitly mention "placebo"?If it does, then it can be changed.BlueStove (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. You mean you're removing stuff without even reading the sources?! You are aware our job here is to reflect what'a in sources, so this would be problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

"The Antioch Review"... is no longer true when there is another source in the lede. The changes are not going to fly. I'm going to fix it myself tomorrow. QuackGuru (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't find the term "placebo" in the second source, or am I missing somethingBlueStove (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#MEDRS_required_to_support_claim_that_something_is_placebo.3F for V. QuackGuru (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

~~It's right there in the article. Have you read the article? Alexbrn (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)~~ Whoops, no I've been looking at the wrong text. This is in Gamel's piece and not in Baer. So Baer should not be cited here. Sorry, my mistake. Alexbrn (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are all of the sources I've found so far that refer to Chopra's methods as placebo. Some are already cited in the article, others aren't. PermStrump(talk) 06:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

More information Chopra sources mentioning placebo ...

Chopra sources mentioning placebo

Gamel (2008) Hokum on the Rise: The 70-Percent Solution. The Antioch Review.

Now a multi-millionaire thoroughly seduced by the placebo effect, [Chopra] is the author of 35 books plus 100 audio, video and CD-ROM titles that advocate virtually every form of alternative therapy.

Gubernick et al. (1995) The happiness hucksters. Forbes.

Call it, if you will, the pink pill effect-- a placebo. People believe the pills cure them, it makes them feel better, and sometimes the symptoms go away. It's they who did the cure, but the pink pills were a useful prop. Whatever you think of these happiness hucksters [Chopra and others], modern technology has given them a mighty boost.

Labash (1996) The End of History and the Last Guru; Correction Appended. The Weekly Standard: Vol. 1, No. 41; Pg. 18; July 1, 1996.

After obtaining a list of the herbs present in these remedies from Quantum Publications, I ran them by Purdue University's Dr. Varro Tyler, a professor of pharmacognosy (the study of drugs that come from natural sources). Tyler said none of these herbs was proven to have the alleged effects, though he did allow that products like OptiCalm contain ingredients that can be calming. And, he added, "anything has a placebo effect if you believe it. It acts about a third of the time in a positive fashion -- especially for subjective sensations like headache pain."

Park (2000) Voodoo medicine in a scientific world. After the Science Wars.

Treatment such as magnet therapy, homeopathy or reflexology, which have only a placebo effect… But if something like Chopra's spiritual healing is substituted for genuine medical intervention in the treatment of cancer, it may deny patients any prospect of a cure, while adding a sense of guilt to their suffering.

Warrick (1992) Medical Muddle. LA Times.

Dr. Herbert Benson, president of Harvard Medical School's Mind/Body Medical Institute [says]... "[ayurveda] lacks the scientific documentation that the relaxation response has." The warm oil massages, special seasonal diets and aroma therapies that may be prescribed by ayurvedic physicians, says Benson, may have more to do with another well-documented medical phenomenon . . . "the placebo effect, where belief and expectancy can lead to truly remarkable medical improvements."

Chopra, Deepak (2012) I Will Not Be Pleased - Your Health and the Nocebo Effect. SFGate.

Some people benefit from being given a sugar pill instead of an actual drug... The placebo effect is real medicine, because it triggers the body's healing system. One could argue that this is the best medicine, in fact, since: a. drugs do not trigger the healing system and b. the placebo effect has no side effects.

Feel free to add more. PermStrump(talk) 06:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

What we have now in the article is content that implies all of Chopra's work depends on placebo. If that is the meaning we are looking for then we need a source that says that specifically in reference to Chopra. I'm not suggesting these sources either do or do not fulfill this need. Just a general comment. And thanks for digging up sources Permstrump.(Littleolive oil (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC))

This was a mistake and sources should not be invisible. QuackGuru (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought the lead doesn't need references as long as it's cited later on. PermStrump(talk) 07:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Ideally, refs aren't placed in the lead to avoid WP:LEADCLUTTER and because the lead is a summary of the body. The article already has over 100 references, so why the lead is littered with duplicative references is unclear. I also don't understand why my revision to the lead was reverted and the {{NPOV}} tag removed. BlueStove (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Controversial articles regularly have refs in the lede, precisely because people often like to argue over wording and substance there. Ideally yes, this is done sparingly... and ideally some of this edit conflict – the part that is about content, and not just summarization – would be over the relevant text in the body of the article, not the lede. – SJ + 18:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the refs should stay in the lede. Commenting them out does not benefit the reader. QuackGuru (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead Revision

Before: His treatments are based on the placebo effect.[8][14] He uses the language of quantum mysticism, which misuses terms and ideas from quantum physics.[15] His claims provide people with false hope which obscures the possibility of effective medical treatment.[15] The ideas he promotes have been criticized mostly by medical and scientific professionals, with opinions of him ranging from dismissive to damning.[16] His claims for the effectiveness of alternative medicine can, some have argued, lure sick people away from medical treatments.[16]

BlueStove revision: The Antioch Review has stated his treatments rely on the placebo effect.[7][13] He has been criticized by medical and scientific professionals for his usage of quantum mysticism and promotion of alternative medicine, a practice that critics have argued may lure sick people away from medical treatments

QuackGuru revision: The Antioch Review states his treatments rely on the placebo effect.[7] He uses the language of quantum mysticism in relation to quantum physics, while physicists cringe at his use of "quantum" in relation to curing cancer.[13] If Chopra's spiritual healing is an alternative for medical intervention in treating cancer, it could deny people any possibility of a cure.[13] The ideas he promotes have been criticized mostly by medical and scientific professionals, with opinions of him ranging from dismissive to damning; and his claims for the effectiveness of alternative medicine can, some have argued, lure sick people away from medical treatments.[14]

The manner in which the current lead is editorialized is not in line with NPOV and BLP. Additionally, it is rather redundant, and has been copied in its entirety within the body of the article. BlueStove (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi BlueStove, I like your revision for its conciseness. The second and last sentences in the current paragraph are indeed mostly redundant.

I would make your second sentence two separate ones: general criticism (for q. mysticism and alt. medicine), and specific concerns that applying this practice to critical/deadly illness can keep sick people from undergoing medical treatments. You can still cite [13] and [14] at the end of your version. – SJ + 18:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"He has been criticized by medical and scientific professionals for his usage of quantum mysticism and promotion of alternative medicine, a practice that critics have argued may lure sick people away from medical treatments" fails verification. Please do not restore the OR. QuackGuru (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The word "some" failed V. That tag was removed without fixing the problems. Changes were made to the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

boring edit warring user comments, please stop your warring here and go away Govindaharihari (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Since you have not been able to support the changed based on policy then they should be reverted until there is a consensus. Sourced text should not be replaced with OR or ambiguous text. The OR I tagged is still in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

boring edit warring user comments from Quack quack, see his block log and a current report here please stop your warring here and go away Govindaharihari (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Multiple edit conflicts and per my edits: The source says "Physicists". Per Wikipedia we can never say all unless the source says all. In this case some is implied. (We can't ever say every last one which is what all means). Some is not my favorite word to use since it a weasel word but I don't see another word that encompasses some but not all. I have edited faithfully to the sources.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC))

I’ve been looking for a good article (as in WP:GA) on a controversial figure to see how the controversy was addressed in the lead and I think David Icke is a pretty good example. I liked how they quoted Icke repeating what his critics have said about him, “[Icke] said that a subsequent appearance on BBC's Wogan changed his life, turning him from a respected household name into a public laughing stock.” It just seemed in good taste. Chopra says his critics accuse him and/or his ideas of being: very dangerous, pseudoscience, a cult, a charlatan, fringe, New Age mysticism, deluded, quack, psychotic, woo, fantasies of a self-aggrandizing guru. These are all things that have been said numerous times by various critics and Chopra has chosen to share these criticisms on several occasions, so any of those remarks are definitely WP:DUE and what could be more WP:NPOV than using his own words? What do people think about starting the last paragraph with something like this:

Chopra is aware that he’s a controversial figure.[3] He says skeptics have called him a “fringe charlatan” and that these skeptics feel it is their “responsibility to warn the world of how dangerous [his] ideas are.”[4] Sources:

We could add 1-2 sentences from a previous version after that, but IMHO Chopra summed it up pretty well himself. Thoughts? PermStrump(talk) 20:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Permstrump, before the text is added to the lede it should be in the body first. QuackGuru (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Littleolive oil, I just checked the edit history. It was removed, but you restored it. You tagged it and then you removed the tag. I don't understand your rationale for you removing the tag since you acknowledged "The source says "Physicists" and you are aware it is a weasel word. QuackGuru (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Per my edits: This (bold below) is not in the sources given. Per BLP is has to be removed. As well, added as it was it didn't really make grammatical sense.

He uses the language of quantum mysticism, leading physicists to object to his use of "quantum" in terms of curing cancer. His claims for the effectiveness of alternative medicine can, some have argued, lure sick people away from medical treatments.

I've not looked for a source that would prevent an OR problem for that quote and link to quantum mysticism, but it's now watered down to the point where the meaning has been lost. That's not an improvement, nor is it neutral. --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The content reflects the sources. A very close reflection of the sources is neutral. Adding content that is not sourced to make some kind of point isn't. I have no objections to reflecting the sources as long as there is no copyvio and as long as the content reflects those sources. I do object to adding content to make a point not in the sources-simple WP policy.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC))

Of course it is sourced. See "Let you imagine that he was using "quantum" in some metaphorical sense, he informs.."

If you object to using language not in the source then why did you restore the unsupported the weasel word "some"? QuackGuru (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Quantum mysticism is not in the sources cited. "Some" is implied as I have already explained. Since you have carried on this argument with other editors on other articles and that did not go well, I would suggest you let this idea go here. As a point per WP:RS/AC. The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. and per WP: Weasel:pertaining to "some". The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC))

QG. Thanks for cleaning up the source.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC))

It is found in the source the part you deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to quote "quantum mysticism" and the page from the source here. If its in the source (and I've missed it) it can certainly be added.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC))

See "Let you imagine that he was using "quantum" in some metaphorical sense, he informs.."

He uses the language of "quantum" in a metaphorical sense. That is "quantum mysticism". QuackGuru (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Taking something in a source and defining metaphorically or not off WP is OR. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC))

See "Let you imagine that he was using "quantum" in some metaphorical sense, he informs.."

The above is a quote from the source. He uses the term "quantum" in a metaphorical sense. QuackGuru (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The phrase is quantum mysticism not quantum. This becoming tendentious. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC))

You stated the phrase is quantum mysticism not quantum. Not sure what you mean. I quoted the source that confirms he uses the term "quantum" in a metaphorical sense. QuackGuru (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

According to WP: Weasel: The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution. Since the source and body do not support the weasel word it can be removed in accordance with consensus. The source does not indicate if it is some, all or most. Editors cannot make assumptions or create original thought not found in the source. The lead mentions "physicists object to his misuse of quantum" but does not explain why physicists object to his misuse. The sentence is too vague. QuackGuru (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Your analysis is literal and does not capture meaning. We have an article which describes multiple views on Chopra. At no place in this article can we oe do we say all scientists, all physicists and indeed Wikipedia warns us against this usage per the quote I gave you. That's why we must use a qualifier in our lead. In the body of the article we can use attribution to specific speakers but in the lead we shouldn't. You also twisted the discussion on quantum mysticism to make it look as if the original discussion was about quantum and not quantum mysticism. I am not going to fight this anymore since its impossible to discuss something with someone who twists the cmts being made. Since I have been watching another discussion where you did much the same thing on another article; I have concerns.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC))

Organizing sources

Balance in the lede to satisfy NPOV

The lede was He has been described by the New York Times as a "controversial New Age guru"[6] and by the Time magazine as "the poet-prophet of alternative medicine."[7] We should keep both or delete both. Deleting one and leaving the other in the lede is not neutral IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I like it, because those are 2 of the top 3 most common ways that I've seen him introduced in newspaper articles. The 3rd most common way is some variation of “Deepak Chopra, self-help guru and best-selling author...” It's clearly attributed that this is how he's described by others, so we're not saying he is definitively a guru, just that it's how he's commonly described in the press. I don’t even actually think the NYT quote is that negative ("controversial New Age guru"). Before I knew it was contentious, I actually considered it a really good choice for a quote, because it seemed to me an appropriate way to acknowledge the fact that he’s controversial while balancing it out with something that was, in my mind, positive (guru, which I think of as a fancy way to say “expert”). Is part of the reason that people don’t like it because they have a negative connotation with the words “guru” or “New Age”? Like I said somewhere above, 2 weeks ago I didn’t know anything about Chopra and I didn’t/still don’t really understand what “New Age” means (or if it has a commonly understood connotation), so when I first read the sentence from that lens, the only thing that jumped out at me was that this part felt defensive and out of place: "a title Chopra says he has 'rejected for over thirty years.'" I wasn’t sure which part of the title he rejected, “controversial,” “New Age,” “guru,” or all of it. So when I read the source and the direct quote was, “If skeptics want to call me a self-aggrandizing guru, a title I’ve rejected for over 30 years, I thought it was out of place, probably WP:SYNTH and didn't add anything to an already verbose and abstruse article. Am I missing something about why that quote is so negative? PermStrump(talk) 19:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

We've discussed the first "controversial New Age guru" at depth. It's well sourced and summarizes viewpoints on him well. Anyone disagree?

I don't see anything remotely similar about the second in terms of discussion, sources, or summarizing viewpoints. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there another quote that can be added to the lede for balance? QuackGuru (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Are we missing something that is due further weight in the lede? What part of his notability/background/etc are we not capturing/summarizing/emphasizing enough? --Ronz (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The source is from 2013

Family history

Leader in integrative medicine? Physician?

I don't think the recent changes summarize the body. I thought he is not a practicing physician. QuackGuru (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Note the source. I have no idea why there are ongoing attempts to suggest Chopra is not a physician. And he most certainly was a first advocate/leader of integrative medicine. I toned that down too, since he was one of the first. The first line indicates the significant aspects in the life of the biography subject which make that subject of the article notable. These are the significant facts. We have to cite what is in the sources fairly.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC))

The source you used in your edit summary is not RS and does not verify he is a practicing physician. The primary source fails RS and the primary source states he is a voluntary clinical professor. The primary source does not verify he is a "leader" of integrative medicine. User:Littleolive oil, back in 2014 you were arguing to include physician in the lede. See Talk:Deepak_Chopra/Archive_22#Physician. In 1995 Chopra stated he prefers not to be identified as an M.D. QuackGuru (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a definitive source for establishing that Chopra is a physician. Do we really think a school of medicine can afford to say that he is board certified as a physician and lie about it. We are looking for RS and those sources are sometimes primary although, this may be a secondary source given I am sure there is oversight on a university web page in medicine. The source also says he is leader in integrative medicine. Do we need to look for more sources of which we all know there are many which acknowledge his field as integrative medicine. We must reference fairly, and deliberately leaving out pertinent information in this article would be a none-compliant, BLP, and POV violation. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC))

He's definitely a physician and, IMHO, that fact very much belongs in the lead and the infobox (license verification and explanation below), but I'll have to read some more before weighing in on whether "leader in integrative medicine" is WP:DUE. My understanding is that he moved to CA in 1993, but didn't become licensed in CA until 2004. His license appears to have been active in MA since it was originally issued in 1973. (It completely makes sense that someone might choose to do that and I can expand on why if anyone wants me to.) You have to be licensed in the state you’re practicing in, so since Chopra wasn’t a licensed physician in CA in 1995 (the date of the source QuackGuru mentioned where Chopra said he prefers not to be identified as an MD), it would have been illegal for him to represent himself as one or to practice there despite still having a license in MA. Some sources published between 1993-2004 note that he wasn’t licensed or didn’t practice anymore, because that was true at that time. You’ll notice a change in the way he describes himself and the way he’s described by the media starting in 2004 when he obtained the CA license (Jan 2004). In this article (June 2004), he told a journalist, “I am a physician by training.” In 2011, he said, “I am a doctor who loved the philosophy of Vedanta…” See also, here (2005), here (2012) and here (2016). Those are just a few examples, but there are plenty of others. The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) verifies that he’s been board certified in internal medicine since 1973 and in endocrinology since 1977. Their website says, “ABIM's website serves as primary source verification” as they are the granting authority. It also says that physicians are required to renew annually on April 1st, so this information is up-to-date as of at least April 1, 2015. Someone can check again in 2 weeks if they feel so inclined, but I assume he will pay to renew them.

It’s unclear to me whether he’s currently practicing, but regardless, he’s verifiably licensed and board certified. Whether or not he’s practicing, he's legally allowed to call himself a physician in the state where he lives and works, and the fact that he’s a physician is WP:DEFINING for him as he has been "commonly and consistently" described as one in reliable sources for the past 12 years. I’ve been thinking it was odd that it wasn’t in the lead, which is why I added it earlier today. When Ronz removed it, he also removed it from the infobox, but FYI it had been in the infobox for at least 2 weeks (presumably longer, but that's when I noticed it). Just clarifying that Littleolive oil wasn’t adding it anew to the infobox today. PermStrump(talk) 21:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't think his credentials should be in the lead as it makes more sense to expand on that in the body and it would make the lead sound too much like a resume. I do think that the first sentence should say he's an author, public speaker and physician in whatever order someone else sees fit. PermStrump(talk) 22:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in commenting on this.

We've had some discussion about it in the past, if I recall correctly.

He's a licensed physician no doubt. It's a credential. What he does is advocate alt med, write, present. To say he's a physician first and foremost is unsupported by any source, even that of small minority. Or am I missing something? --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I can post a bunch more sources in addition to the 5 I already mentioned above that call him a physician or where he calls himself a physician, but before I waste my time, I just want to clarify that I understand your argument... Are you saying that regardless of the number of primary sources plus independent reliable sources that call him a physician, you don't think it should be in the first paragraph unless those sources say he's practicing as a physician? And we're not counting sources about his current roles as a professor at 2 medical schools as contributing to his notability as a practicing physician? I'm not sure I agree, but I want to make sure I understand the argument first. PermStrump(talk) 16:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

According to the RfC, consensus is against including it in the first sentence. See Talk:Deepak_Chopra/Archive_22#Request_for_comment.2F_physician. The source did not say he is a leader of integrative medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the RfC. I think that explains it well. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Chopra is board certified which means he is a physician who can practice medicine. Do not conflate this with the act of practising medicine. We can't ignore the sources, and no one at any point is saying he is a physician first and foremost, although he was a physician first. However, that he is a physician is significant in tandem with the alternative medicine he advocates. I'd add that consensus can change, and never overrides the necessity that we present BLPs with the greatest care. Deliberately leaving out the significant fact in the first paragraph that Chopra is a physician has been and continues to be a calculated slight and is POV editing.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC))

You are continuing to push this. There were previous discussions. See Talk:Deepak_Chopra/Archive_22#Physician The consensus is against including it. See Talk:Deepak_Chopra/Archive_22#Request_for_comment.2F_physician

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deepak_Chopra&type=revision&diff=637367162&oldid=637365209

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deepak_Chopra&type=revision&diff=638301025&oldid=638298754

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deepak_Chopra&type=revision&diff=638311690&oldid=638307802

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deepak_Chopra&type=revision&diff=638382067&oldid=638377863

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deepak_Chopra&type=revision&diff=638417212&oldid=638405301

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deepak_Chopra&type=revision&diff=710881259&oldid=710874539 You have been reverting over the word physician despite there being no evidence he is practicing physician. If Chopra is not a practicing physician then it is not his occupation. QuackGuru (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Olive here. Chopra is a physician, and I've never understood the resistance to mentioning this in the lead sentence. For these purposes, it doesn't really matter whether he practiced, or practices, medicine. There are plenty of physicians who have pursued career paths outside medicine. Michael Crichton never practiced a day in his life, and was never even licensed, yet we describe him (properly) as a physician, among other things. Ray Muzyka hasn't practiced medicine in decades; he runs a video-game company, but we still note that he's a physician. And so on. MastCell ^Talk 17:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The statement at Ray Muzyka in the lede is unsourced. If Ray Muzyka is not currently a practicing physician then it should at least say was a physician.

Larry Sanger is a philosopher, but there were problems with including it in the lede because he is not really known as philosopher. Same with this article. Chopra is not notable for being a physician. QuackGuru (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

What about Michael Crichton? That article's lead mentions that he was a physician. SueDonem (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Michael Crichton isn't a good an example, because I don't think it should be written that way in the lead. In the US, a license is legally required in order to present yourself to the public as a physician or to use the credentials MD at the end of your name. If I were MC, I'd take issue with "physician" being listed in the first sentence of the lead as my first profession b/c I'd want to be careful to prevent getting accused of misrepresenting myself as a medical doctor. It makes sense for his lead to mention that he earned a medical degree, but not in the first sentence and not with the current wording. I didn't even know he went to medical school, btw. It makes a lot more sense for Chopra than for Crichton. PermStrump(talk) 19:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You're incorrect. It is not necessary to have an active medical license to use the initials "M.D." after your name. Those initials signify only that one has graduated from medical school and thus acquired a medical degree. It is necessary to be licensed in order to provide medical services, which is quite different. MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Quack Guru. There is profound difference between pushing a pov and asking that fact be included in a BLP. Chopra is Board Certified as the source we have indicates; this means he is a physician. You as an editor cannot for your own purposes redefine what that means and then exclude material based on that incorrect definition. Thank you for posting the diffs that show I have tried in every way to compromise and explain so that this article is compliant. And as well, I am always disturbed when, whatever we may think of Chopra's move into alternative health care, he and others like him only received the certifications after years of very hard work. He is recognized in this country as Board Certified which means that not only he is a physician in good standing, but he has also trained well beyond that and continues to update his training and knowledge on a regular basis. We have no right to draw a picture of anyone inaccurately but especially those who have put this kind of work into their lives

Chopra is notable for multiple reasons. This is different from what is significant in terms of describing him and his work. I believe you have confused notability and significance. If this article was written on individual facts that indicate notability we would not include anything about family for example. What we must note is what is significant that underpins that notability. Possibly one of the most significant factors is that a well-established, western trained physician began the process of integrating alternative forms of what he considered to be healing modalities into his understanding of western medicine. Its silly to think that some guy off the street could have had the same impact with out the background in western medicine that Chopra has.

This is far beyond having earned a medical degree. This person is a specialist who must update his certification, must be current with the information in his field and above all can practice as he sees fit based on his credentials.

Finally you have a physician, MastCell, explaining this to you and still you push this wrong idea.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC))

Chopra's notability derives in part because he is a physician which is part of the appeal to authority that made him popular with the Maharishi (back when they were buddies) and later with Oprah. If Chopra hadn't ever been a physician, he wouldn't have the notability he currently has. We spend quite a bit of space in the article explaining this, in fact. I'm a little confused as to why people feel so strongly that someone not practicing as a physician should not be called a physician. jps (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Well put! SueDonem (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Could someone track down and list sources discussing the significance of his being a medical doctor? If I recall correctly, there were some that noted it gave him an air of respectabilty not found in the alt-med advocates of the day when he first appeared on Oprah. Didn't we have something about this in the article body at one time? --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking further, there's really nothing to hang it on in the first paragraph. At least the second paragraph is relevant, though still could be seen as making the implication he's a practicing physician. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be the norm to list that someone is/was a medical professional in the lead sentence, even if their notability isn't derived from their medical professional. Aside from the examples above (Michael Crichton, et cetera), I also found one more with Stephen Barrett: Stephen Joel Barrett (/ˈbærɪt/; born 1933) is an American retired psychiatrist, author, co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), and the webmaster of Quackwatch. In this case, Barrett's (as with Crichton's and Chopra's) notability didn't come from their medical degree/profession. So while there doesn't seem to be a hard-and-fast Wiki rule which states that if a person is a doctor, it should be stated in their BLP's lead sentence, that does seem to be the normal practice. If we are claiming that there is a consensus with this article to break with that practice, than I believe we need to better understand and perhaps revisit articles such as Crichton's and Barrett's to apply the same treatment. SueDonem (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:OSE - there is no general consensus that applies, at least none pointed out yet. If someone can point out GA-quality articles where the topic was discussed, or other even other relevant discussions, then we can review if and how those decisions apply here. Meanwhile, BLP does apply, which says the burden is on those seeking inclusion. We've already had an RfC on the matter, so it's going to take some discussion to change consensus.

I think we should build on jps' very good points, We just need to identify the sources to look into the matter. Currently, we have little in the article about the significance of his being an MD, and nothing in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you please point me to the RFC and to jps' points? SueDonem (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Deepak_Chopra/Archive_22#Request_for_comment.2F_physician.

jps 23:01, 21 March 2016, the start of this indentation. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ronz. You are deflecting discussion away from the agreement established here and are reverting against consensus. If you have points to make per moving the version in place please relate them here and wait for other editors to weigh in and agree before reverting.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC))

"Result: Consensus is against including the word "physician" in the first sentence of the article." See Talk:Deepak_Chopra/Archive_22#Request_for_comment.2F_physician. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Consensus can be superseded by a more recent discussion and agreement. Here. Consensus is never written in stone. Consensus can be overridden at any time by a newer agreement which is what happened here. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC))

See "14 editors were opposed to including the word "physician" in the first sentence of the article." See Talk:Deepak_Chopra/Archive_22#Request_for_comment.2F_physician. Who specifically supported including it in the first sentence here in this thread? I'm sure it is less than 14. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

This is going to be solved by following policy and sources. No one's offered sources yet. BLP says the burden is on those seeking inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You missed this and the discussion. . Your edit summary on the last edit you made to the article mischaracterizes. There is discussion in this thread on the fact that the source describes Chopra as being Board Certified and what that means in terms of being a physician. It is a pov edit to ignore the agreement here and revert jps' edit to the article. It is a pov edit to ignore the cmt of a physician who is explaining from this field, his field of expertise. It is disingenuous too accuse of edit warring when you are edit warring yourself. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC))

I like the idea of saying "licensed physician," because it sounds less like we're implying he's a practicing physician without compromising NPOV or being too wordy. I think the current placement is a bit of a non sequitur though. Right now it says, "Deepak Chopra... is an Indian American author and public speaker, advocating for alternative medicine and popular forms of spirituality.[4][5] A licensed physician, he has been described by the New York Times as a "controversial New Age guru"." How about... "Deepak Chopra... is an Indian American author and public speaker. A licensed physician, he advocates for alternative medicine and popular forms of spirituality. He has been described by the New York Times...." Or it could go at the end of the same sentence, "He advocates for alternative medicine and popular forms of spirituality as a licensed physician." Is anyone still asking for sources or was that before this compromise? It's hard to tell from the edit history. I feel he is notable for being a physician and started making a list of sources the other day, but got sidetracked. I can post it if that's still up for discussion, so lmk. PermStrump(talk) 22:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I have made my position known and was part of the the consensus reached here. I have little more to say. Taking this discussion around in the same circles again and again is tendentious and probably not worth the time. We have agreement; if we want to change that agreement fine but that should be done with a new agreement not removing edits made without agreement. Anyway, busy in real life and did the best I could here.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC))

And noting: Ronz's recent changes have made the lead even more pejorative similar to a common retaliation tactic often used to intimidate editors from further disagreement. I hope this was not a tactic here.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC))

Your bad faith assumptions are noted. --Ronz (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It's important to note that consensus can change. I think that keeping the description from the New York Times is probably not the best thing for the lede per my discussion with Permstrump above. Mentioning his physician status seems a reasonable nod to how he became famous. Are there people willing to argue against these points? jps (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Consensus changes by addressing past concerns, offering new sources, getting agreement that policies may have been previously overlooked or misinterpreted. I don't believe any of that has happened here. --Ronz (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Permstrump wrote, I like the idea of saying "licensed physician..." That's my intent, and I believe my comments indicated why. Saying "physician" only, and placing it along with his occupations misleadingly implies that he is a practicing physician in some manner, rather than holding the credential for the prominence it gives him.

I agree the wording and transitions are awkward. While we await sources, is anyone claiming that his being a physician is significant beyond giving him credibility that few alt-med proponents have, especially in his early days?

He's first and foremost an alt med advocate, so it should be first and foremost in the article. --Ronz (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

He is Indian born. He is American. This like that the fact that he is a physician, and please read what Mastcell wrote, is the background information that we include with BLPs. What concerns me, and no I'm not focusing on editors unless editors sidestep the standards of logical, fair conversation, and ignore agreement while re forming what the discussion was about. You did revert against the agreement on this page. How can you deny that? The original conversation was about whether to include physician in the opening sentence. The discussion was about whether Chopra is a physician and what that means. Agreement was that he is a physician and that is synonymous with practicing physician. He is board certified and that means he can practice and maybe does. Our position is not to investigate whether Chopra trots off to the office everyday which seems to be how some view the definition of practicing, but whether he, according to the definitions in his profession, and not our opinions, is a practicing physician, and he is. I hope you noticed what I said about retaliation; that's why I put it there and with forethought, and why I hope that you did not follow that path, although many have in my very long experience. In the midst of a discussion using one word, you made more changes which created a derogatory tone. I feel this is not the way to deal with other editors who are editing in good faith and are trying to reach consensus on a single change. I am removing myself from this discussion because once again a simple discussion with some good collaboration has become a muddled conflation of discussions. You have threatened another editor in a disingenuous way. This is disappointing for sure, not because of the changes to the article which in relation to what's important in life is close to the bottom of the ladder, but because clear agreement and what seemed like understanding and agreement, the beginnings of good collaboration with people who I seldom agree with, but on some levels respect, was derailed, so that discussion instead of moving forward now circles back once again in a tendentious cycle, and so I will move onto something for now that is more positive and productive.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC))

"you made more changes which created a derogatory tone" "You have threatened another editor in a disingenuous way." Please strike if you are indeed going to assume good faith and not focus on editors. --Ronz (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Amazing. Chopra might be a leader in integrating bullshit into medicine, but he's certainly not a leader in medicine of any remotely valid kind. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for that . I still think we can make progress with this. I think it would be best to focus only on how we include his being a physician into the lede. --Ronz (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with it at the moment, again? We mention he's a licensed physician without giving it undue prominence. Seems fine. (There could be more in the body: ISTR at one point while legals claims were in the air Chopra has adamant he was not a practicing physician, e.g.) Alexbrn (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

See Perry, Tony (7 September 1997). "So Rich, So Restless". Los Angeles Times. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) See "A licensed physician, in 1980 he became chief of staff at the New England Memorial Hospital (NEMH).[8]" I moved the text to a better spot for readability and provided a ref titled "So Rich, So Restless" to verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation guide

External links modified

Does Chopra reject the title "guru"?

In this diff I restore some wording that was removed on the basis that Chopra only rejected the title "self-aggrandizing guru" rather than "guru" full stop. I think that this is a rather strained interpretation of the source. I basically see only one possible interpretation of the source, Chopra doesn't like the term "guru". This seems a reasonable point to include since "guru" is a term that is bestowed upon someone rather than an objective identifier so Chopra's verifiable opinion on the matter deserves inclusion.

jps (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree it can be included in the lede. It is mentioned in the body, using the same source. QuackGuru (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, the lede should be in Wikipedia's voice with few if any exceptions. When editors feel they need to balance or qualify information like this (and having "For example, John Gamel writing for the The Antioch Review states" in the last paragraph of the lede), then we have a problem.

Given our lack of progress in these matters, I'm for removing them from the lede completely, per BLP, until we can come up with wording and sourcing that we can agree upon. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

For the lede we can move the attribution to the body for that sentence. If the attribution is in the body then it does not need to be repeated in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't want us to get sidetracked on the Gamel source. As far as "guru" is concerned, I don't think the addition that qualifies Chopra's perspective belongs in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Permstrump removed it from the lede. I added it to the body instead. Then jps restored it to the lede. Who is going to decide if it stays in the lede? QuackGuru (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

We could follow BLP and keep it out until there is consensus to include it. --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

My first explanation was an attempt to be brief, but here goes... The source cited in the article was Chopra’s response to a different piece Strauss had published the week before that heavily criticised Chopra. She did open the original article with, “Labeled by The New York Times in 2013 as 'the controversial New Age guru,' and beloved by Oprah Winfrey, [Deepak Chopra] has written more than 80 books…” But that was hardly the part of her article that Chopra was taking issue with. Chopra referred to the piece as an "ad-hominem attack" and in response to other parts of it, Chopra wrote, “I don’t care if a band of vocal scoffers makes catcalls from the sidelines. However, in a recent blog, Valerie Strauss goes beyond catcalls, accusing me of being an evolution denier, which is absolutely false... If Ms. Strauss or any other skeptic believes that these issues are woo or the fantasies of a self-aggrandizing guru—a title I’ve rejected for thirty years—they are victims of psychological projection… I have friends who say I’d be better off having my Twitter account cancelled, because I’m guilty of spontaneous outbursts in reaction to attacks...” 1) One interpretation is that he's basically just saying, "Nuh uh! You're a delusional, self-aggrandizing guru" 2) Another interpretation is that if he had just said, “If Ms. Strauss or any other skeptic believes that these issues are woo or the fantasies of a self-aggrandizing guru, they are victims of psychological projection,” it could have been misconstrued that he was referring to himself as a guru, which would be uncouth, because like jps said, it's a title that you only say about someone else, not about yourself. BUT if he has actually been rejecting that title for 30 years, there should be plenty more quotes in other sources that predate this one. He didn’t reject the label when the NYT published it 2 years earlier and he's been called a guru countless times by countless journalists since at least the '90s, but I haven’t come across any other instance where he’s objected to it. I honestly think it was a figure of speech, but even if he genuinely meant it, it's still WP:UNDUE for the lead if he only said it this one time. I'm totally willing to put my foot in my mouth if he said it before. I tried to look it up before deleting it and didn't find anything though. PermStrump(talk) 23:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

So I just noticed that there is a different source in the body from 2004 where Chopra rejected to being called a guru, but it's kind of a similar situation where I still don't think he means it literally. You see in that situation, he was discussing his fallout with the Maharishi. Apparently the Maharishi accused Chopra of trying to compete with him for the position "guru." The reporter asked Chopra directly "Motivational guru, poet, prophet, pioneer of alternative medicine, inspired philosopher — which epithet would Deepak Chopra use to define himself?" And Chopra's response was, "I am neither motivational, nor am I a guru, the rest are labels." Again, he was in a position where the only choice was the clarify that he wasn't calling himself a guru, because that's uncouth. I think it's kind of disingenuous to ignore to culture context and pretend we think he's being literal. It would be different if he was randomly announcing that he wants journalists and everyone else to stop calling him a guru or if he protested on a regular basis when it was printed about him. If he has been doing that and I missed it, then I'll put my foot in my mouth. :-P PermStrump(talk) 19:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I reverted my own edit from the body. It probably should be removed. QuackGuru (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if at least part of the issue is that some people feel "controversial new age guru" should be offset with something more positive? Because maybe it would be easier to agree on an alternative rather than whether or not Chopra genuinely, and notably rejects being called a guru (more than he'd reject having any other label in general). Hypothetically, it could say something like... "He has been described by the New York Times as a "controversial New Age guru"[6] and by Time magazine as "the poet-prophet of alternative medicine."" Tbh... I have no idea what "poet-prophet" means, but it sounds positive. PermStrump(talk) 23:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It is definitely possible that Chopra is rejecting the title "guru" because that's what good gurus do. However, I don't think we are able to decide whether that's what is happening. jps (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

See "Chopra left the Transcendental Meditation movement around the time he moved to California in January 1993.[40] By his own account, the Maharishi had accused him of competing for the Maharishi's position as guru,[41] although Chopra rejects identification as a "guru".[42] See Deepak_Chopra#West_Coast_years. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is the guru of the Transcendental Meditation movement. Deepak Chopra was involved in the movement, but was not the "guru" of the TM movement. QuackGuru (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I think it is entirely possible that the "30 years" referenced by Chopra in the WaPo interview is a reference to his desire not to be the successor to the Maharishi. It's not clear, but it seems reasonable that we should at least try to make sure the article doesn't simply leave the "guru" designation without qualification considering the evidence that he doesn't want the title. jps (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The part "New Age guru" is a label. The title "guru" is referring to guru of the TM movement. They are unrelated. QuackGuru (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It's simply not true that the New Age movement and the TM movement are unrelated. jps (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It begins in the second paragraph in the lede where Maharishi Mahesh and the TM movement is mentioned. See "He met Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in 1985 and became involved with the Transcendental Meditation movement (TM). He resigned his position at NEMH shortly after to establish the Maharishi Ayurveda Health Center.[9]" The first paragraph is about a different story about what the New York Times described him as a "New Age guru". The title "guru" is specifically about the TM movement. Deepak Chopra was responding to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's accusation. QuackGuru (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but to claim the two stories are unrelated when they are both about similar characterizations seems to me to be a stretch. jps (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The dispute is not with the New York Times. QuackGuru (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course, but it involves the same word. jps (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The New age label is different than the TM title. The source has to make the connection. QuackGuru (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

One might also say that "self-aggrandizing" is different than both. It's not a very convincing argument. jps (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fine in the body. It's just an extraneous detail in the lead. His rejection of the title isn't WP:DEFINING. Journalists quoting the NYT in calling him a "controversial new age guru" is. In the quote from 2004 he basically said he rejects all labels, so should we not describe him as anything? PermStrump(talk) 03:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The argument is not that we should honor Chopra's request. The argument is that if we include a statement describing him as a "guru", which is clearly an opinion, it seems reasonable to include his opinion as well. jps (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but I think it takes away from the flow and from the information that's more essential in the lead. Two weeks ago, before I knew anything about Chopra, my gut reaction to the line about him rejecting the title of the guru was that it read like a defensive tangent thrown in as a result of edit warring, and not a meaningful aside in the introductory paragraph, which prompted me to check the source and then I really didn't feel like it was an accurate reflection of the the sentiment in the article. Especially since I don't think the NYT means it literally either, so that makes it a little confusing as to why he'd reject to it too. Americans use that word to basically mean "expert," which is how I interpreted the line from the NYT source and the lead. PermStrump(talk) 14:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Maybe the characterization doesn't belong in the lede then since this kind of analysis isn't really going to work in the introductory paragraph? jps (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think there's just too much nuance. It makes a lot more sense the way it's included in the body in the context of whatever happened with the Maharishi. PermStrump(talk) 14:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, this is so overcomplicated that it seems better to not include the direct quote because the contextualization in the lede simply is not possible. jps (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)