Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 8

Update on TRPoD's breakdown

The last suggestion I made for compromise was: Deepak Chopra is an Indian American endocrinologist, best selling New Age author, motivational speaker and 'wellness' entrepreneur. Chopra is a polarizing figure, functioning as a spiritual leader to some and a promoter of dangerous ideas to others.

Let's work it out?

Dr. Chopra most certainly is a thought leader and that is what I now propose as a solution and compromise. Even if you disagree with his thoughts. I think this is a more appropriate and neutral way to frame him rather than guru or spiritual leader (since technically speaking he is neither of those things although he is those things to some people)

Here is my third suggestion (in which I am trying to work in your 'Fringe' concerns while still being respectful and neutral, referring only to facts)

Deepak Chopra is an Indian American endocrinologist, author, thought leader and 'wellness' entrepreneur. Chopra is a controversial figure, functioning as a New Age spiritual leader to some and a promoter of dangerous ideas to others.

sources for endocrinologist: 1 " DoctorFinder: Chopra, Deepak, MD. (Agree to terms, then search for Chopra, Deepak in California) 2, 3, 4

Notability as such: major doctors and scientists such as Candace Pert and Rudolph E. Tanzi have both mentioned him extensively as such ^{5 6} , in addition to it being a major component of his many best selling books.

Sources for 'thought leader' - which I am offering as a compromise to replace guru and spiritual leader in the lead sentence only. I dont see how 'new age guru' applies to any of the below. other than it being a pejorative - it's also not a fair mainstream representation of who Dr. Chopra is.

• Official Attendee of Clinton Global Initiative Summit (which is comprised of nothing but Global thought leaders)

• Gallup Senior Scientist: Mentioned specifically as a global leader.

• Kellogg School of Management: Top business school in the world. mentions Dr Chopra specifically as a thought leader and his role is to teach 'global leadership', a leader of leaders even.

• Forbes article mentions him as a global thought leader.

• Business Insider lists him as one of 6 major global thought leaders.

• Tech Crunch mentions him as an example of a influencer or thought leader.

• He is #3 of the 'biggest minds and ideas' on Linked in Pulse, ahead of both Bill Gates and Barack Obama.

I'm open to finding a better phrase for 'wellness' entrepreneur - but the article is missing this key component to Dr. Chopra's as an entrepreneur and thought leader. SAS81 (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This proposal is totally unbalanced. I'm not being paid for my time, so I don't feel like helping, but Oppose. Hipocrite (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This was not meant to be up for a vote Hipocrite - but rather to find compromises and explain each other's thinking. If a label is unbalanced, which specifically? What do you suggest as a replacement? What sources are you using? The proposal satisfies BLP and Fringe, is comprised of facts and is neutral. As a matter of fact, it brings the WP Fringe concern up in the lead much more prominently than it is currently. SAS81 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe start with pointing out a couple of sources from those offered that are both independent and reliable? At a glance, I'm seeing a lot of sources that are primary, not independent, or both. --Ronz (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you are using a definition of "primary" that I'm not familiar with? I'm referring to WP:PSTS and WP:BLPPRIMARY. I don't know what "mainstream" might refer to. By "independent" I mean WP:IS. --Ronz (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

So of the first four sources offered, the first and fourth are primary. The second is a public relations profile and the third is the book "Doctor of the Future". While I don't know what was meant by "mainstream", "Doctor of the Future" seems unlikely to be a reliable source in general, with all its acceptance and promotion of fringe viewpoints. Even if it were, it doesn't demonstrate that Chopra is more notable as an endocrinologist than how he's currently presented in this article. --Ronz (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"thought leader" is pretty much as meaningless a buzzword as "pioneer". How is that a helpful term in understanding Chopra and his actual impact? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm starting to go through the sources, and of the batch above there are a few simple clarifications to all parties:

• 1 " DoctorFinder: Chopra, Deepak, MD. (Agree to terms, then search for Chopra, Deepak in California) 2, 3, 4 (The American Medical Association is a notable secondary source, as is Gallup Inc, as both of them "...contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." The National Institute of Health ref is a notable source since it's a peer-reviewed medical journal, but since it was written by Chopra {and other Drs} is considered a primary source. "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." You could use the NIH source as evidence for the medical legitimacy of Chopra, but the conclusion would need to be spelled out in a secondary source to have full weight.)

• Official Attendee of Clinton Global Initiative Summit (which is comprised of nothing but Global thought leaders) (This is a primary source because it was written at the time of the event by those associated directly with it, about those attending it. Again, it can be used to establish the weight of a conclusion, but is not one itself.)

• Gallup Senior Scientist: Mentioned specifically as a global leader. (This is a notable, mainstream secondary source, since Gallup is making an "evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."

• Kellogg School of Management: Top business school in the world. mentions Dr Chopra specifically as a thought leader and his role is to teach 'global leadership', a leader of leaders even. (Primary source if the citation is based on Chopra's teaching at Kellogg, but secondary if the citation is used to present the summary of Chopra's qualifications. "Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context.")

• Forbes article mentions him as a global thought leader. (Notable secondary source, particularly since Forbes is a mainstream third party entity.)

• Business Insider lists him as one of 6 major global thought leaders. (Secondary source, making an evaluative or analytic assessment.)

• Tech Crunch mentions him as an example of a influencer or thought leader. (Secondary source, though notability is a question here.)

• He is #3 of the 'biggest minds and ideas' on Linked in Pulse, ahead of both Bill Gates and Barack Obama. (This is a primary source, since it is a contemporary record of data with no evaluation or analysis. It is a notable source since LinkedIn is a reliable, mainstream independent entity, but since it's primary it should be used in conjunction with reliable secondary arguments)

It does seem that most of the sources above are secondary, and most (but not all) are reliable, mainstream and/or notable. I'm not attesting to the rest of SAS81's sources, just the selection above. I'll get into those when I have a bit more time, since I'm guessing they may not all be as concise. If anyone disagrees with my assessment of source types or reliability, please let me know. The Cap'n (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your implicit assessment that the sources say what the paid PR representative says they say. I further disagree that Gallup is a secondary source (they are reporting on their own employees), that Kellogg is a secondary source (they are reporting on their own program), and so on. In fact, I'm not sure you understand what a primary vs. secondary source is. Hipocrite (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think there's great confusion as to what it means to be a primary source. I don't know what "notable" means in this context either.

The AMA database entry is a primary source.

The Gallup profile is about their own employee. It has no independence at all, and demonstrates no prominence beyond what we currently present.

Kellog is promoting an event, therefore not independent.

The Forbes bit is a warmed-over press release promoting an event, therefore not independent.

Business Insider devotes a few paragraphs to him the context of how he turned his career away from medicine: "subsequently ending his promising career in endocrinology." It's a fluff piece and should be used with care if at all in a BLP.

Chopra is mentioned in passing by the TechCrunch article, and the information is ambiguous: "Be prepared to have a team devoted to managing this side of the business, and see if you can get a Deepak Chopra, Tim Ferriss, or other noted influencer, thought leader or celeb to co-author an app or module to showcase." This is an extremely poor source for such information in a BLP.

If those are the best offered, then we have little to nothing to work from, depending on how closely we follow BLP. --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@ Hipocrite, I am quite familiar with the distinction between primary and secondary sources, that's part of my day to day job (more on that below). As far as any "implicit assessment," I'm not summarizing content or arguments at this point, just establishing sourcing, and when I do I will go by by what I read in the sources themselves, not by rehashing what SAS81 says. If you disagree with my assessment I'm all ears, but please let me know which parts you think I got wrong and why.

Ronz, I do agree there needs to be clarification on what constitutes primary v. secondary sourcing, as this is coming up more and more often. I'm reposting your comments with my responses:

• The AMA database entry is a primary source.

"Primary source material is original material or conclusions. Secondary sourced material is based on primary sourced material, and may include synthesis..." The AMA compiles primary records (medical license, office practice info, etc) to create a synthesized summary of its members. The AMA did not produce any original material, so it is not a primary source.

• The Gallup profile is about their own employee. It has no independence at all, and demonstrates no prominence beyond what we currently present.

Please read WP:Secondary_does_not_mean_independent regarding confusion about the role of independence in secondary sources (namely, non-independent sources are legitimate as long as they are not the only source for an article). "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

• Kellog is promoting an event, therefore not independent.

Again, WP:Secondary_does_not_mean_independent & WP:BIASED, though it seems to me that the fact that Kellogg is hosting an event Chopra is featured at does not mean the university is not independent, any more than CNN would lose its independent status as a source for having Chopra on an interview.

• The Forbes bit is a warmed-over press release promoting an event, therefore not independent.

Though I reiterate the piece on independent sources, I agree this article doesn't really have much weight behind it. I think if we're going to reference what Forbes says about Chopra, this is the most [place] (it's just a simple bio, though if we wanted to there are a bunch of articles that could be brought in, if/when I have the time).

• Business Insider devotes a few paragraphs to him the context of how he turned his career away from medicine: "subsequently ending his promising career in endocrinology." It's a fluff piece and should be used with care if at all in a BLP.

I should point out the other half of that quote established that he hadn't moved away from medicine: "But Chopra’s career wasn’t over. His adviser was “so arrogant that he had antagonized a lot of people, one of whom took delight in hiring me if it snubbed my adviser,” he explains." [] But more importantly, there's no connection to COI nor independence issues. You or I may think it's a fluff piece, but that's OR. I agree it should be used carefully in the BLP, but it can certainly be used to support broader arguments.

• Chopra is mentioned in passing by the TechCrunch article, and the information is ambiguous: "Be prepared to have a team devoted to managing this side of the business, and see if you can get a Deepak Chopra, Tim Ferriss, or other noted influencer, thought leader or celeb to co-author an app or module to showcase." This is an extremely poor source for such information in a BLP.

As I mentioned in my summary, I agree that this source is not notable enough to warrant adding any sections to the article.

Even if these sources get included, the broader issue of how to categorize Chopra's mainstream standing remains. I agree with both of you that "notability" and "mainstream" are problematically vague terms here. In addition to standard WP policies of WP:Verifiability, WP:NOR and WP:PSTS, can we come up with some best practice guidelines for what we can all agree would constitute acceptable mainstream sources? I'll kick it off (feel free to debate these propositions): peer-reviewed journals, independent news articles, independent scholarly books, statements by notable figures (primary, true, but acceptable if no analysis is linked to the statement?), professional standing (medical, guruey and whatnot) and major independent websites. I look forward to your feedback. The Cap'n (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You assert you know the difference between a primary and secondary source, but then use speaker blurbs as a secondary source. There's a problem there, in that you, fresh of your sanctions for antagonizing people via strawman socks in articles directly related to this one, are again distorting the truth. Speaker blurbs are not secondary sources. Hipocrite (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

We have seen the "statements by notable figures (primary, true, but acceptable if no analysis is linked to the statement?)," being promoted here and they are completely unacceptable. IE Clinton and Gorbachev puff quotes being touted as establishing Chopra's place in the scientific community. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hipocrite, Thank you for your helpful feedback...

To which source are you referring as a speaker blurb, and how would you designate it? A primary source? A tertiary? If you're going to call me a liar, explain what the truth is rather than simply making assertions.

While we're on the topic of WP:CIVIL, I'd like to qualify the fact that the sock accusations you brought up (out of nowhere) were part of a pattern by a specific editor of accusing me (and numerous others) of socking over and over until the latest round was finally dismissed by admins, and had nothing to do with Deepak Chopra. I don't appreciate aspersions and am trying to civilly work on this page as requested in COI and BLP. I'm not trying to legitimize alternative medicine, I'm trying as a 3rd party to establish what we'll consider mainstream sources. Can we focus on working out differences and building consensus, or is this a zero-sum issue? The Cap'n (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Askahrc is continuing to cast evidence-free WP:ASPERSIONS at me. No place is appropriate for this, but especially not an article talk page. Two administrators concluded, based upon evidence, that Askahrc had been harassing users from behind an IP sockpuppet. The other SPIs that Askahrc disputes regarding another editor (not "numerous" editors -- one edtior) are similarly backed by strong evidence; in one case the evidence was called "overwhelming" (see for yourself). Askahrc's dispute is really with the administrators evaluating the SPIs, however instead of challenging them he has been casting baseless aspersions at me in an apparent attempt to gain credibility. This is inappropriate and must stop immediately. vzaak 15:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom, Good point, thank you for responding. It seems reasonable that non-scientifically notable figures' endorsements should not be considered indicative of endorsement by the scientific community. What about statements for/against Chopra by notable scientific figures? Should we give those those weight or consider them just another individual statement? The Cap'n (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Responding to 22:32, 29 April 2014:

Independence has nothing to do with a source being primary, secondary, etc. I'm glad we agree on that at least.

Sources that specifically promote Chopra are by their nature of little use to us, especially when they don't provide context to support their own claims.

The AMA database is a primary source, or at least no different from a primary source in any way that matters. While it verifies the information, it doesn't demonstrate that the material deserves any prominence at all. It is data without context.

Business Insider: If we cannot identify fluff pieces when discussing possible changes in pov for BLP articles, we're in big trouble. It's a hook/teaser article introducing a series about career challenges, very briefly summarizing some highly recognizable people's short articles about themselves. It's lazy journalism: get a bunch of people to write articles on a topic and highlight a few as an introduction.

I don't see any real disagreement with my conclusion that there's little or nothing here that should influence the prominence of information in this BLP article. --Ronz (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

When the AMA database is being used to verify that Chopra is listed as an endocrinologist in the AMA data base, it is being used as a primary source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

From reviewing the (many, many, many) posts above, it looks like the AMA database was intended to verify the fact that Chopra is a licensed endocrinologist, which may have been under doubt at some point. Is that accurate, SAS81? The purpose for which the AMA source is intended does make a difference.

I heard back from TRPoD on the unacceptability of statements from notable figures (what about scientific ones?), so does that mean that moving forward the rest of us agree that using peer-reviewed journals, independent news articles, independent scholarly books, professional standing (medical, guruey and whatnot) and major independent websites constitutes notable sources? I'd feel more comfortable with the NPOV issue if we were focusing on the quality of the sources rather than whether we personally felt it was inappropriately promoting Chopra, which should still eliminate bad/fluffy pieces. Otherwise it seems like SAS81's in a bit of a Catch-22; if they want to argue a positive point about Chopra they need a notable source, but any source that makes a positive point about Chopra is by definition not notable. Basically, in an ideal world, what kind of sources could SAS81 provide that we'd find acceptable? The Cap'n (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about how physicians are licensed and credentialed (as well as about primary vs. secondary sources). There is no such thing as a "licensed endocrinologist". When physicians are licensed, they are free to practice any kind of medicine they choose. One is either a "licensed physician" or not; there are no separate licenses for specific specialties or subspecialties. To verify that Chopra is a licensed physician, the appropriate primary source is the Medical Board of California (), not the AMA Physician Masterfile. (Note that these are both primary sources).

Separately, physicians may be board-certified in various specialties. This process is separate from licensing, and is not formally required to practice medicine (although it is increasingly viewed as essential by hospitals and academic medical centers). Chopra is board-certified in Internal Medicine (in 1973) and Endocrinology (in 1977). The appropriate primary source to verify his board certification is the American Board of Internal Medicine website: . If we're committed to using primary sources, we should at least use the correct ones. MastCell ^Talk 15:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

No no confusion. Lets call it what is is. A mistake on my part and I should have known better given that although I do not have the experience in human medicine the same systems are in place in animal medicine where I have a little more information. I don't agree that sites which list licensing and board-certification are primary sources since they must have oversight.

I do agree that these sources are usable as verification. I don't see a commitment to using primary sources. Primary sources can be definitive for some kinds of information.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC))

Askahrc. Thanks for your input here. Notable is not generally a term used in reference to sources, so I'm not sure what you mean here when you say notable. What we have to determine is first, if a source is verifiable and then whether that verifiable source is a reliable source for the content we want to add. Sources that are either pejorative or positive to the topic are sources that can be used. We expect to find both kinds of sources. The quality of the source, the weight that source has per the RS sources determine if and how much of that source we can use in an article. The AMA is a reliable source for determining if Chopra is an licensed endocrinologist. It is not a primary source and has oversight. If we want to expand on that information we would need other sources. In terms of support for health claim content peer reviewed papers are not generally used unless they have been reviewed or part of a meta-analysis for example. See WP:MEDRS. Sources are only reliable per the content we want to add. While this article has content that deals with health claims it also has content that does not. The article is now full of possible reliable sources. They are worth looking at for new content.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC))

I'm not sure where the focus on "oversight" comes from. Primary sources are not necessarily defined by oversight or lack thereof. For instance, court documents posted on a state's official website are clearly subject to oversight, but they remain primary sources. Likewise, research papers in the medical literature are subject to oversight (in the form of peer review) but remain primary sources. The AMA Physician lookup (like the medical board and ABIM credentialing lookups) are primary sources. They are simply databases with a publicly searchable Web interface.

I'm not categorically opposed to the use of primary sources (they can be useful to verify someone's credentials, for instance), but we need to be precise in how we use them. I note that you're still using the term "licensed endocrinologist", which is technically incorrect. Granted, it's probably a relatively minor matter, but these sorts of technicalities over credentialing tend to flare up in situations where subsets of editors are committed to promoting or discrediting a physician (cf. the Stephen Barrett article), so precision is important. MastCell ^Talk 19:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

No, not continuing to use licensed endocrinologist. The two posts were combined. You're looking at the first post not the last post I made. I've fixed that formatting.

Per our policy sources must have "meaningful editorial oversight", primary sources tend to not have that kind of oversight. Research studies are one of the exceptions, although suggested by a scientist editing Wikipedia (not recent) that in fact a study is secondary once published and primary when data is collected and the paper written by the researchers themselves, but prior to publication. The study becomes reliable when included in a meta analysis, review, and so on, but until then is still secondary although, not reliable per Wikipedia. I'm not arguing this interpretation here, just an aside.

Somebody has to publish those look-ups otherwise anyone could post information. At any rate, this point is debatable, but do agree that primary sources can be useful for simple identifying, verifying information. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC))

There is no "meaningful editorial oversight" of the AMA, state medical board, or ABIM credentialing databases. They're just databases. When a physician is issued a license, his/her demographics are imported into the database (along with a few self-reported variables like practice activity breakdown and specialty). This is not the sort of oversight that defines a secondary source. As an analogy, someone has to publish and maintain court documents on the relevant official websites, but these remain primary sources. The fact that data are made available over the Internet doesn't constitute "meaningful editorial oversight". MastCell ^Talk 20:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I can agree on this. Editorial oversight in this case is not meaningful, and one assumes the person ( possible meaningful aspect) entering the data is not going to be entering false information and is not expert in any way, but a technician. In discussing court documents with a lawyer, I've been told some court documents do have meaningful oversight, apparently, but that's another discussion and one I am not knowledgable enough to discuss(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC))

This has been a wonderfully productive discussion. Opening up new section for best practices via Capn, sources and clarification below. SAS81 (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all your great input, Littleolive oil & MastCell! I think we have consensus that sources like AMA and similar databases are either primary sources or close enough to primary that they can/should be used to verify factual statements (possession of a valid license, board certification, etc) but not to articulate arguments.

I regret my lack of clarity in using the nonterm "notable sources." One of the main responses to SAS81's secondaries is that they are not independent or "important" enough to be used to describe attributes for which Deepak Chopra is notable. This seems a vague position that leaves too much room for OR, so I was trying to establish what kind of sources we can agree should be used to justify descriptions of what Chopra is notable for. I mentioned "notable sources" without explaining what I meant, apologies. The Cap'n (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Much of the above is abusing "secondary does not mean independent". What that means is that independent does not automatically imply secondary. It doesn't work the other way around--you can't use it to say that something can be secondary even though it's not independent. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Vzaak, I am not casting aspersions, did not even mention your name and did not contradict the admins. This has so far been a respectful, productive discussion; if you have any personal issues with me please bring them up on my talk, otherwise lets WP:FOC. Also, please be conscientious about WP:BOTTOMPOST. The Cap'n (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ken Arromdee, There was no abuse of "secondary does not mean independent" implied here. The reason I brought it up is that independence was being used to discount a source as not being secondary, when in fact the two are not interrelated, either way around. You can have a source be secondary even though it's not independent, that's exactly what WP (and common academia) presents: "Secondary" does not mean "independent" or "uninvolved". Most independent sources are not secondary sources." It works both ways. Besides, policy is that an article (and we can extrapolate arguments within an article) must possess at least some independent sources, but certainly does not state that they are the only permissible sources. "Articles should not be built using only vested-interest sources."

I'm not really arguing with your sentiment, as I too would strongly prefer to rely on independent sources, but I did feel it necessary to point out that non-independent references can hypothetically still be acceptable secondary sources. The Cap'n (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"independence was being used to discount a source as not being secondary" You sure about that? Diffs please. As far as I see, it is a straw man, hopefully from a misunderstanding of the comments. --Ronz (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ronz, my statement above was aimed at Hipocrite's comment above that asserted a source did not qualify as secondary because Chopra had spoken at the institution writing the content. My argument is that this makes it non-independent, but is still secondary (the speech itself would have been primary, obviously). I asked for clarification of Hipocrite's comment and didn't receive any, so this is the meaning I took away from it, anyway. If I misunderstood I'm open to being corrected, I'm don't want to misrepresent anyone. The Cap'n (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You're referring to . Given all the discussion since, I think it's best to summarize what's been said since. --Ronz (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ronz, thank you for the clarification, I'd missed the other diff. Sorry for my delay in replying, I agree that this thread is becoming monstrous and suggest we create a new one with a boiled down summary. Feel free to do so, or I can in the next day or so. The Cap'n (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Best practices, primary secondary in context

Appreciate everyone's input. From an archiving perspective, I agree (almost) with Capn's input considering the context of what I was establishing and all sources at this stage are for discussion and 'common sense' assessments. If you need 'better' sources to establish what common sense shows as a mainstream label towards Dr. Chopra, let me know.

These sources I am providing at this stage are for discussion and consideration only in terms of establishing facts regarding labels applied to Dr. Chopra. I am using them as secondary sources to establish facts about how Dr Chopra is labeled and perceived. Sure, some of those sources could be primary or secondary, depending on the context they are applied.

It's a fact that Dr Chopra is labeled as a thought leader in the mainstream, among other labels assigned to him. That's all these sources show. The phrase 'thought leader' is no more or less meaningful than the label 'guru'. Any phrase or label that is applied to Chopra is going to be just as meaningful or meaningless as any other phrase. I believe the article requires showing mainstream labels and perspectives around this controversial figure - i believe it's the only way it can be neutral.

Tech Crunch, sure, by itself that's a weak source if my argument was solely resting on that source, but the point was that even briefly mentioned in passing in an unrelated article that is NOT promoting Dr Chopra, he is still referred to as a 'thought leader'.

Kellog's is a notable institution that trains 'thought leaders' and are synonymous with 'leadership' in their sector with global credibility as such. Therefore, they act as a secondary source to support the argument that Dr. Chopra is labeled as a 'thought leader' and teachers courses in business leadership (dr chopra is prominent in the 'conscious capitalism' movement). I don't think it's genuine to disqualify a global institution as biased because they are in it for the money. They have credibility producing leaders and offering leadership and Dr. Chopra is prominently apart of their institution because he is notable for thought leadership.

Gallup is unusually high quality institution that actually defines mainstream. There is absolutely no reason to put suspicions on Gallup for having Dr Chopra as a Senior Scientist on wellness and reference him as a thought leader in that sector. If Guru was the accepted mainstream term, then I would expect Gallup and Kellog's to be listing Dr Chopra as a New Age Guru for their New Age course and Gallup's Astrology section. (sarcasm)

The AMA source was to establish not Dr. Chopra as an endocrinologist, but rather as maintaining an office practice (I think it was JPS who asked for evidence he maintains an actual practice, instead of just a vanity license). Now that we have established Dr Chopra both as a practicing physician and an endocrinologist, prominently mentioned as such in books by notable scientists specifically for his contributions to endocrinology and in mainstream media I believe these sources are satisfied but please advise what source would work better.

I'm signing off for today and just wanted to leave these thoughts. If the Capn is willing, I look forward to participating in his suggestion for best practices for reviewing and assigning sources. Appreciate everyone's time. SAS81 (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

it seems that we are again running down into rabbit holes over label minutia. The labels we use to describe Chopra in the lead are dependent upon what the body of the article shows Chopra to be notable for.

The big questions that need to be addressed are :

1) What significant events or achievements and impacts are missing from the article?

2) What content is covered too extensively?

Once we have identified where people think the overall issues are, then we can worry about if something is primary source or not and if it is, whether the proposed use of the source is an acceptable one and then based on its importance within the article whether it raises to one of the major attributes we want to call out in the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with some points TRPoD, but would clarify that as far I understand notability is the baseline, what determines if an article can be included in Wikipedia in the first place. The lead must summarize the body of the article, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects" so the body will be much more than what has been considered notable about Chopra. "The lead should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Maybe we could substitute significant for notable in the context of what is most important in the article. Important for all editors to have the same understanding seems to me which might head off potential conflict later(Littleolive oil (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

Wikipedia WP:N "notability" is about whether the subject is worthy of note to have an encyclopedia article at all. there is no serious consideration that Chopra does not meet the criteria laid out to have a stand alone article. The content of the article and the space we spend on it is dependent upon WHAT the reliable academic sources have noted about the subject and we follow their lead per WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I think a lot of confusion has stemmed from differing terminology, which is what this section is all about. Rather than calling them "notable sources" let's stick to verifiable and reliable sources. I would disagree that academic sources are the only acceptable references (I think major news publications, etc are relevant), so perhaps the scope of criteria for sources are:

• Secondary (except for factual statements)
• Verifiable
• Reliable (no blogs, etc)
• Relevant (ie. news pieces are not relevant to his medical standing, but may be relevant to his public standing)

Again, I think peer-reviewed journals, independent news articles, independent scholarly books, professional standing (medical, guruey and whatnot) and major independent websites would fit these criteria, but what you all think of these standards? The Cap'n (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Independence

The amount of context provided in the sources, especially historical context. --Ronz (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly correct. The issue of Chopra being an endocrinologist is one of significance (i.e. editorial judgment) not verifiability; it is abundantly clear that those sources which mention this do so primarily in order to present Chopra as an authority in some area where his views run counter to the scientific consensus. It is not appropriate for Wikipedia to do this, for reasons thoroughly explained above. We are not under any obligation to keep explaining this until SAS81 accepts it, which is just as well because he probably never will. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

@jps, I agree with your overall summary, particularly the focus on expert discussion. Chopra is mentioned in a lot of press releases and journo-blog blurbs, many of which seem to recycle the same data and aren't generally reviewed, let alone by a professional. That said, what do we consider a media expert? I'm clear on medical and scientific experts (doctors and scientists), obviously, but the media seems a little fuzzier. Are going to refer to major news publications as media authorities (Time, NYT, Wall St Journal, etc)? If we limit it to academia we'll likely be restricted to college work and blogs, most of which will not be particularly neutral or reliable. As I mentioned above, I'd prefer to leave out puff/hit pieces, blogs, etc, and focus on reliable experts, which IMO includes major news publications (not editorials, of course). Also, I looked through Quackwatch for stuff on Chopra's medical practice being operational or not and couldn't find anything. Do you have a source? Thanks again! The Cap'n (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Media studies of Chopra include this: . Quackwatch discussion of Chopra here: . jps (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, jps. "A Critique of the Holistic Health/New Age Movements" by Boer piece seems to be an excellent example of an academic media expert. I'm not sure the essay by Dr. Barrett on Quackwatch is in the same class, however. I've read & like a lot of Dr. Barrett's contributions and think the essay is a good source for debunking alternative medicine, specifically Ayurvedism, but he doesn't seem to have much background or expertise outside of the medical field and the article reflects this focus. I'm not sure I'd consider him a media expert. How about TIME magazine (excluding editorials)? TIME is a reputable media figure and is independent of Chopra's interests. Their archives are divided into different categories, the most significant would likely be cover stories, perhaps followed by health and science.

(Proposed Format for organizing acceptable sources) Expert Media Sources:

• "A Critique of the Holistic Health/New Age Movements" by Hans Boer Good
• "A Few Thoughts on Ayurvedic Mumbo-Jumbo" by Stephen Barrett, M.D. Questionable
• Relevant Non-Editorial TIME Magazine Articles Good(?)

The Cap'n (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry? You asked for where Quackwatch discussed Chopra's medical practice. This is the example. It's not an example of a media studies source. Time magazine is pretty pulp, certainly not academic. That's not to say we can't use time magazine, only that it doesn't stand in the same class as the Boer source, for example. jps (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, miscommunication. Quackwatch is certainly an acceptable source regarding the medical community. I agree that TIME is not academic, but would it count as expert? If not, are there any major news outlets that are? I would think that for fields that do not lend themselves to scholarly writing (ie. media perception) expert news coverage could substitute for academic coverage, though not trump it. For example, if the Boer article and the NYT got into a deathmatch, Boer would win but the match would be legitimate. Does that bizarre analogy make any sense at all? The Cap'n (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Trying to decide in advance which publications might make good sources is perhaps not the best use of our time: it will always depend on what is being sourced. Baer's article (it is Baer not Boer, there is a fault in some of the publisher's metadata) is already well used in the article; so is Time; Quackwatch is nearly always a top source on altmed topics. All are potentially very good sources, though if Time had advanced (say) some claims of medical effectiveness, then it would not be a good, WP:MEDRS source for that. In general, this Talk page is getting very bloated to little point. I'd like to see some concrete proposals for textual changes - I think that may move things in a more productive direction. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point, Alexbrn, and thanks for the clarification on Baer. I agree that this talk page is getting cumbersome and not progressing in a clear direction, though there's a lot of good feedback above that shouldn't be archived yet. Is anyone against my making a Proposed Changes section so that we can see if any of these sources lead anywhere, then collapsing many of these talk sections? The Cap'n (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)