Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 9

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 5

←

→

Proposed Changes

More information Proposal by COI editor. Roundly rejected. Suggested reading for the COI editor to not make such incompatible suggestions again. Waste of time for anyone else to bother with. ...

Proposal by COI editor. Roundly rejected. Suggested reading for the COI editor to not make such incompatible suggestions again. Waste of time for anyone else to bother with.

This section is intended list out specific changes to the article with a justification of the sources used to justify that change. This is not intended to be a section to propose new sources and examine their quality indefinitely (we can do that in the many sections above), this is for clear, concise arguments of changes backed up by sources. The Cap'n (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to propose a further compromise. I am going to withdraw my request for listing Dr. Chopra as an endocrinologist specifically in the lead sentence. We've already formed a consensus over him as a physician with evidence to show he is practicing. He does run an all medical group, and I will provide further sources here as well. I'm going to have continual BLP problems with the reference to him as a 'New Age Guru' in the lead section, and I've proposed some alternatives that are mainstream terms that infer the role Dr Chopra plays in the eyes of millions. So I say we make this easier and here is a full lead section proposal. This is only to show my thinking on the lead and for consideration. I believe it matches BLP, neutrality, WP Fringe. SAS81 (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for lead - my version of neutrality and fringe

Deepak Chopra is an Indian American physician, prominent author and speaker. Representing what he calls the ‘wellness’ lifestyle, Deepak Chopra functions as a mainstream cheerleader for integrating western medicine with alternative mind body practices such as yoga and meditation. A notable entrepreneur and business leader, Deepak Chopra has become a prominent voice in the conscious capitalism movement and promotes ‘wellness’ as including a successful financial lifestyle.

A polarizing figure - Deepak Chopra acts as a thought leader to some and a promoter of dangerous ideas to others. Time Magazine called him a ‘magnet for criticism’ and Richard Dawkins has criticized his usage of ‘quantum physics’ in his explanations of consciousness. Hans Baer referred to him as a ‘New Age Guru’ and others have been suspicious of his blend of capitalism and alternative medicine.

thoughts appreciated. SAS81 (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

A watering-down. My advice: if you're to contribute anything useful here (which seems increasingly in doubt) leave the lede alone, work on the body and THEN we can ensure the lede reflects the body (as it does now) in accord with WP's policies and guidelines. See WP:LEDE, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE particularly. The essay WP:FLAT may also provide useful background. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Please be specific. The only thing I see watered down is the bias. What does my proposal specifically fail to mention? SAS81 (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Can you really not see? You assert the apparently positive with some peacock wording: "mainstream cheerleader", "notable entrepenaur", "thought leader", "prominent voice in the conscious capitalism movement" (WTF is that anyway!? we don't mention it elsewhere). The negative things are all attributed: "Dawkins has criticized", "others have been suspicious", etc. This gives the impression that his virtues are fact, his bad points mere opinion. And where has the well-sourced criticism of Chopra's harmful altmed advocacy gone? This is the guy who - sickeningly - thinks AIDS can be treated with "primordial sound", right?

If you are consciously doing this, it is likely just a cynical attempt to spin Wikimedia according to your employer's wish; if not, allow me to suggest you're so hopelessly riddled with POV that it renders you incapable of neutral editing. Either way, it is - yet again - a disappointing waste of other editors' valuable time. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I've observed SAS81 at this talk page, at COIN, and now on my own user talk page. I do not think they are trolling or an attempt at cynical spin. This editor seems to be sincere and cooperative, between the self-disclosure, restricting themselves to the discussion page as our COI guideline suggests, and changing usernames when prompted to. I think your latter suggestion is closer to the mark. People who work in public relations often have difficulty writing in an encyclopedic manner, it's anathema to that industry. That's one of the reasons why we have a COI guideline in the first place. I understand that this makes working with SAS81 frustrating, but I still don't see a reason to attribute bad faith to their efforts. -- Atama頭 22:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Atama:, SAS81 has stated numerous times that he is not a PR professional, but rather an archivist. 17:41, 24 April 2014 - "I'm not a PR or a press agent and I feel awkward when I am referred to that way." 23:00, 21 April 2014 - "I'm not speaking as Dr. Chopra's rep when I say we should want a pristinely neutral and respectable first sentence, I am speaking as an archivist and historian for an encyclopedia." 14:36, 25 April 2014 - "Acting more as an archivist - I'm not here to argue if Dr. Chopra's ideas and thoughts are true or false and nothing I have published here would even come close to suggesting otherwise." 21:59, 27 April 2014 - "I feel it relevant to explain that none of us are alternative medicine practitioners and hold our positions as researchers and historians due to accredited skill sets, with the consultation of university professors and medical doctors." 01:04, 28 April 2014 - "Admittedly I have an inherent bias because of my responsibilities of archiving and my direct relationship with the subject."

Are you calling him a liar, and not being a "researcher and historian due to accredited skill sets," but rather a base PR professional? You could ask him I guess, but he's already said that he's not permitted to tell you what his credentials are - see 01:42, 11 April 2014 - " I am also authorized not to post any of my personal information, past experience, job duties or responsibilities other than those directly related to this issue." Hipocrite (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Bloke walks into a pub and says "What's the difference between a PR professional and a Troll?" -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Hipocrite: "Are you calling him a liar, and not being a "researcher and historian due to accredited skill sets," but rather a base PR professional?" I wasn't aware of those claims. To be perfectly honest, SAS81 does write like a PR professional. I'm sorry SAS81, but I've dealt with PR people many times over the years and your proposals don't look like the writing of a researcher and historian, it's the kind of writing I've seen from professional promoters multiple times. Not that I'm calling you a liar, because I have no way of knowing either way, but judging by your submissions this really does not look like a scholarly contribution. I'm not sure if it's due to pressure from your employer(s), or if you're drawing from talking points that you're compelled to include, or this is a skewed point of view based on your close work with the organization and/or Deepak Chopra himself, but the tone of what you've written above looks very promotional. You know I haven't taken sides in this debate and I still don't plan to get directly involved in the development of this article, but I have to confirm the opinion of others about how your suggestion appears. -- Atama頭 15:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Atama: on his userpage, SAS81 does indeed say "I'm not a PR or a press agent and I feel awkward when I am referred to that way." But he also says he's leading a research and archiving team working (and perhaps set up? that's not clear) on the basis of a grant from the Chopra Foundation. And that he speaks personally, daily, with Chopra and consults him "directly" (hmm? as opposed to what?) regarding Wikipedia's principles. Please read it for yourself, as I have quoted slightly loosely and added italics. @SAS81: I believe every word you say, and I get it that your function is not that of "PR or press agent" or, at least, your title/job description isn't that of PR or press agent. But from your own words, it doesn't look to me as if your actual function is removed from that of PR guy by more than a scintilla. Indeed, from the 'speaking daily' and 'consulting directly' phrasing, wouldn't it be fair to call you Chopra's mouthpiece? That's merely from what you say yourself on your userpage. (And indeed, you do call yourself "Chopra representative" higher up on this page.) From your proposed lead here, I agree with Atama that you speak PR-speak, not ordinary or neutral or encyclopedic English.

Another point, that Alexbrn and Hipocrite (in his inimitably rude way) have raised above, is that editors don't get paid to do this, while it appears that you are. The other people on this page are volunteers, they have day jobs, and I think you may be expecting too much of them when you ask them to chew over every proposed sentence before you will, reluctantly, concede the possibility of changing anything. Please read the comments you do get closely, value them more (if I may say so), and consider them, rather than merely treating them as debating points for you to bat aside. For instance, I thought Alex's comment here was (even if a little impatient) quite enlightening. Did you give it due weight, did you consider it? It's quite easy to wear out volunteers. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC).

No. This writing is not encyclopedic. Waste of time to discuss. Hipocrite (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

If we are going to collaborate, just saying 'no' without making a contribution or sharing your thinking is not helpful. @Alex explain me your thinking, why is 'new age guru' okay to be attributed in Wikipedia's voice but not 'mainstream cheerleader', 'notable entrepreneur', 'prominent voice' ? Those are all labels that describe facts about Dr. Chopra in a respectable way. He is world famous, you can't take his fame and his notability of him away when they are intrinsic to who he is. It's simply a fact that he is accomplished, love him or hate him. This entire article fails to mention many facts and contexts regarding Dr. Chopra. Yes of course the negative things are attributed, those are opinions of Dr. Chopra, and not 'facts'. It is not my opinion that Dr. Chopra is a 'thought leader' and I even attributed that as well (a thought leader to some, a promoter of dangerous ideas to others..) right now, the article serves the reader to discover only what Dr. Chopra's critics think of him and how they interpret his ideas. Again, what does my proposal leave out? SAS81 (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You are being paid to fillibuster. I'm not. Will you pay me for my time to help you learn to write for wikipedia? Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll even make a contribution to Wikipedia if you jump in to help. SAS81 (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You say it is an assertable "fact" that Chopra is a "mainstream cheerleader"!? Best just leave it there, I think. This just looks like trolling. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This suggestion from the Chopra Vanity Archive Project is a joke, and a waste of time. WP:IDHT all over the place, no concept of why the current article frames Chopra as it does, no concept of the policies of how wikipedia is supposed to be written, a huge time sink for volunteer editors. Based on the article as it is written, SAS81 has presented no sustainable argument for any substantial changes, and proposing changes to the lead without first making substantial changes to the body text which it summarises will not wash. Nothing I see on this page has come close to improving Chopra's WP:BLP. Meh. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is so difficult for all of you. If I make a suggestion - it's to show you my thinking. I'm not saying "hey someone go copy and paste my edit into the article!" so telling me 'NO!' when I'm asking you all to collaborate is not helpful. It's meant to be something to build upon. Don't like a word? then take it out and explain why. None of you are acknowledging the compromises I am making and words like 'cheerleader' have also been suggested by JPS in terms of finding a better label for Dr. Chopra. You're informing me that my statement is biased, and I accept that liklihood of my position, but that does not remove your bias as skeptics - so I'm willing to work on a compromise.

@Roxy - it's a fact that Dr Chopra is famous and is known for 'encouraging' something. You're all fine with calling him a 'new age guru' to account for that. I'm trying to come up with a better label that is not a pejorative that is used by his critics.

@all of you - what would be helpful is if you could be specific. If you're not specific, then it just looks like you want me out of here because your skeptics and don't believe any other POV should be on the page. SAS81 (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

SAS81, I can see how the lede above is an attempt to compromise, but the main difficulty editors have (from what I can tell) is that some of the material you posted is not prominently mentioned in the body of the article (conscious capitalism, cheerleader). The lede is not just a summary of Chopra, it's a summary of the Chopra article and the statements in it should be almost a thesis statement of the main points of the article. To that end, do you have materials to suggest adding some of the statements you made into the body of the article? If the sources pan out we can add material to the appropriate section of the body, then eventually adjust the lede to reflect a new content summary. The Cap'n (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Alexbrn that SAS81 should concentrate on specific facts in the article body before tackling the lead section. The text suggested by SAS81 is too promotional (cheerleader? mainstream??) so we should ignore it and move on. Since there is solid consensus against the suggested text, it is high time to close out this discussion. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@@Atama: I trust you - and I can see how it looks like that, but the fact is I'm not a PR rep but I will try harder not to look like one regardless. It looks like that because my background is in media studies and specifically how issues are framed in the media. While I am a researcher, I am not an historian, that is the other archivist who is employed and is not participating on Wikipedia. I direct you to the sections below where I explain each sentence and why I choose to frame him in this light as a compromise but most importantly to share with the community my thinking. JPS was the one who suggested 'cheerleader' as a possible alternative to 'guru'. If I am using words like 'mainstream' 'cheerleader' and 'prominent' is because these are all fair labels to describe someone is who is popular, famous, or have had an impact and previous words that a historian would consider (such as physician, endocrinologist, philosopher, etc) have been rejected. 'New Age Guru' is absolutely NOT a term an historian archivist would use to frame Dr Chopra unless they were specifically criticizing him. If I sound like a PR rep, it's probably because I am peeling away at the layers trying to remove the 'rational wiki' influence the article currently has and trying to put both perspectives respectfully in the article. Everything that I frame is supported by sources, of which I will start making suggestions for in the body.

@Alexbrn - I'm not seeing the sources state that Dr Chopra proposes sound therapy for AIDS cures or to that matter I'm not finding him say much of anything outside of the mainstream when it comes to finding cures for these diseases. Can you show sources that talk about that specifically? He is not notable for talking about AIDS and cancer and even he himself as informed me he cannot even recall making any statements about AIDS and cancer except in passing reference. I'm all for removing some of the 'weasel' language which is designed to 'scare' the reader regarding Dr. Chopra. How do you propose we address certain facts about Dr Chopra such as the level of presence he has and his fame? That's missing from the article. You seem to be arguing that what critics say about Dr Chopra are facts, but facts that supporters use to describe Chopra are opinions. I'm saying we MUST have criticisms of Dr Chopra in the article, but we must also address his real accomplishments. By omitting facts about Dr Chopra, including facts about labels that Dr Chopra is given, we are skewering the article towards a biased review of his career.

Can't see, or won't see? Luckily for us Chopra's bonkers pronouncements on AIDS have attracted attention from one of the very stongest sources we use, an article by Lawrence Schneiderman, who is a top-tier academic, published in the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, a high-ranking medical ethics journal. Schneiderman writes

I paid a visit to the alternative health section of the University of California San Diego bookstore to see what a few of the most celebrated gurus have to say about AIDS, for example. First I looked in the book Quantum Healing by Deepak Chopra, M.D. (6) According to Dr. Chopra, AIDS involves a "distortion in the proper sequence of intelligence" in a person's DNA. Siren-like, the AIDS virus emits a sound that lures the DNA to its destruction. (7) "'Hearing' the virus in its vicinity, the DNA mistakes it for a friendly or compatible sound. (8) This is a believable explanation, says Dr. Chopra, "once one realizes that DNA, which the virus is exploiting, is itself a bundle of vibrations." (9) The treatment? Reshape "the proper sequence of sounds using Ayurveda's primordial sound," which "guides the disrupted DNA back into line." (10) "Once the sequence of sound is restored," Dr. Chopra assures us, "the tremendous structural rigidity of the DNA should again protect it from future disruptions. (11) To put it mildly, Dr. Chopra proposes a treatment and prevention program for AIDS that has no supporting empirical data.

"To put it mildly"—indeed. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

(Add) As for cancer, Chopra's flapdoodle about this disease and quantum physics has attracted the attention of another strong source: distinguished physics professor Robert L. Park, published by Routledge in the volume After the Science Wars: Science and the Study of Science. Park writes:

Physicists wince at Chopra's use of "quantum" in the context of curing cancer. Much of the sort of vague New Age quackery that is so popular these days is peddled for vague chronic symptoms such as headaches, fatigue, back pain or digestive disorders. Treatments such as magnet therapy, homeopathy or reflexology, which have only a placebo effect, may actually benefit the not-very-sick-to-begin-with if they replace unneeded antibiotics or antidepressants. 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. Reality, when at last it sets it, is all the more cruel.

"New Age quackery"—indeed.

I'll add that ideally, this is the quality of sourcing which we should aspire to be using throughout this article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Bishonen, Capn and Binksternet . I agree focusing on the body is a good idea and will move in that direction. However, I've just been following the advice of the community. At this stage, I've laid off this article for a week. I made a simple statement above and a simple proposal. I think it's disingenuous to accuse me of coming on here and pushing everyone to work full time on the article. I get that they are volunteering, however that does not mean they do not have to be responsible for their editing or decisions because they are not getting paid. Many of them seem to spend allot of time criticizing me and going around to various noticeboards wasting other editors and admins time - and it would take far less time to just collaborate. SAS81 (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You have NOT been listening - you were told to identify issues in the body of the article multiple times. The one time you responded to a question about what was missing from the body, you recited a laundry list of items that you claimed were "missing" and every point was covered both in the lead and the body. That is not listening and that is not reading. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra is an Indian American physician, prominent author and speaker.

Please tell me the problems with this, explain your thinking about this sentence. these are facts. I am offering the word 'prominent' as a compromise so as to account for his fame in a way that is acceptable. I've also offered to shorten it and I retracted my previous requests! SAS81 (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Representing what he calls the ‘wellness’ lifestyle, Deepak Chopra functions as a mainstream cheerleader for integrating western medicine with alternative mind body practices such as yoga and meditation.

This sentence is comprised of facts. by 'mainstream' it just means 'famous'. Don't like the word? take it out. 'wellness' i am too offering as a compromise. Technically the term is 'integrative medicine' but there is no consensus around that term here so I found a word and attributed the meaning to Dr Chopra, as a compromise. the remainder of the sentence is still factual and tells us facts about Dr. Chopra. What is the problem with this sentence specifically?SAS81 (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"Cheerleader" doesn't sound terribly encyclopedic, what about "spokesperson" or "figurehead"? Also, please see above for a summary of my views on adding this to the body of the article first. I think a piece on Chopra's role as the popular face of his movement would not be out of order. The Cap'n (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for other words to describe a role he plays. I offerred 'Cheerleader' because I believe JPS suggested that as a possibility earlier. I'm just trying to offer suggestions other than 'New Age Guru' that can describe Dr Chopra but still reference the very real fact that to some people, many of them extremely notable, Dr Chopra is a thought leader. It's also a fact he promotes the integration of western medicine with things like yoga or meditation and that is one of the things he is extremely famous for. I'm fine with 'figurehead'. 'Spokesperson' does not seem to reflect the degree of his influence (anyone can be a spokesperson). SAS81 (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

A notable entrepreneur and business leader, Deepak Chopra has become a prominent voice in the conscious capitalism movement and promotes ‘wellness’ as including a successful financial lifestyle.

I can understand some problems with this sentence because I introduced 'conscious capitalism' into it. but this is a simple discussion, you can ask me questions but it's also a fact! Dr. Chopra simply IS a business leader and prominent business leaders and institutions refer to him that way. Currently the article just stops short of calling him a charlatan out to make a buck. This misleads the reader. SAS81 (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, reference the section above about inserting material into the body, but more significantly, what is Conscious Capitalism? It's not a common term that I'm aware of, in connection to Chopra or not, and thus should definitely be in the body of the article. Do you have specific sources on this? The Cap'n (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I accept that I should not have included 'conscious capitalism' at this stage, it was probably from my frustration. I'm just trying to find a way to frame Dr Chopra for something he is extremely notable for. He is not a 'business man' enjoying 'business success' from advertising cures for cancer and aids, which is how the article currently leans towards him in the framing. His views on entrepreneurship and business leadership are essential to his biography as they are essential facts about him. Why would the Clinton Global Initiative, Linked IN, Devos Living, Kellog's all reference Dr Chopra is such a prestigious way? I believe if this article is meant to inform the reader about Dr Chopra, editors here should not be afraid to include genuine accomplishments, especially when he is notable for such. I agree the focus should be more in the body around this, and i will be introducing some more sources. SAS81 (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

read WP:PEACOCK . Read it again. And read it again. Then come back and tell us what your understanding of the issues with this phrase are. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

A polarizing figure - Deepak Chopra acts as a thought leader to some and a promoter of dangerous ideas to others.

This is a FACT. are editors here suggesting that we do not inform the reader that to some people Dr Chopra is a thought leader? Am I not including WPFringe by saying that to others he promotes dangerous ideas? Please don't tell me what voice an encyclopedia should have when none of you seem to be aware of what voice a neutral statement should take. SAS81 (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I get how this works! You put out a proposed quote that is so far out of NPOV, then ask others, who support NPOV, to compromise with you - thus biasing the article your way. I'll give you an alternative! A thoroughly disreputable figure, Deepak Chopra acts as a cult leader to some and a promoter of pseudoscientific nonsense resulting in grave injury to others. Lets compromise! Hipocrite (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Well your close, that is how collaborative writing works. And you see my thinking, and now I see yours. And if those are facts, I will oblige. Can you share with me the sources that show that Dr Chopra is a cult leader to some people and that he is a 'thoroughly disreputable figure' as a matter of biographical fact? And if he is such a disreputable figure - why do such prestigious mainstream institutions such as The Clinton Global Initiative, Kellogg's, Gallup and Delos Living focus on including him in such a prestigious manner? Do you think this article should be warning them against Dr. Chopra? You seem to have a view outside of the mainstream view of him. Genuine question. SAS81 (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of hyperbole? Genuine question. Hipocrite (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard of it just never heard it being used as a genuine consideration for framing a neutral article on Wikipedia. You've shared your views. If your views are facts, backed with sources, you will have my support. If my views are facts, backed with sources, I expect you to have mine. I expect both of us to work together. And yes, if you're asking to get paid, I will actually will be hiring researchers with Wikipedia experience so email me if those are serious questions. I will also make a contribution to Wikipedia under the REWARDS program specifically if you agree to work this through with me in a rational discussion. I'm willing to be honest and rational and listen, yes I'm paid so that's my job. if you need to be paid to do those things I'll see what I can oblige. SAS81 (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm listening and making compromises, how come you're not?

Please post your comments about that HERE and keep the FOC above. thanks SAS81 (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Specifically - if I ask "What are the problems with this sentence" I dont mean 'Why arn't you posting this?' I just mean explain your thinking so I can work with you. SAS81 (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Atama: I appreciate your advice and fair judgement. I seem to be in a position to lose no matter what I do to compromise. First they ask me to focus on a sentence and I do and then they have problems because the body does not reflect the request. Then they ask me to focus on a section and I do and then I get accused of writing a PR journal and accused of being a troll?? SAS81 (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, I've done nothing but weigh in on your sources and I'm already being called far worse. For better or worse, anything associated with WP:FRINGE gets people's blood boiling, so there's going to be heated, intense reactions to most things you do. It's regrettable and I've been trying to keep it from dissuading me (I'm stubborn like that), but it does make working toward consensus hard. Just be patient and forthright, though, and things will work out. The Cap'n (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@SAS81: Working through content dispute resolution is a difficult and time-consuming process. I was a mediator for years, but I haven't done it for a long time because, frankly, it's a time-sink. I've literally spent months trying to resolve a dispute between a few people at a single article before. I've moved on to more urgent matters that require someone with admin tools (mediation only requires social skills, not technical tools), lately it has involved trying to reduce the backlog at sockpuppet investigations. But in my time as mediator I did learn a lot of tricks.

My suggestion to you in this situation is to slow down. Pick one thing, just one thing in the article that you think needs to be changed. One single point. Express your concerns, express how you'd like it to be changed, and ask if there is a way to implement that change that satisfies Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Don't express it in terms that you want specific wording, but something a bit more general. Just to give you an idea, one term you advocated is "mainstream cheerleader" which a number of people considered to be a peacock term (that's Wikipedia-speech for verbiage that unnecessarily inflates an article subject). Maybe you can say what you meant by that phrase, offer something to support your claim, and then ask how to rephrase the term to reflect the concept you're trying to convey. I'm not saying you should start there but this is just an example of somewhere you could start. I recommend that you instead narrow down the one specific thing that you consider to be most troublesome about the article and work on a compromise. My experience in dispute resolution is that people become less overwhelmed when you just focus on one thing at a time.

And finally, be prepared for rejection. This is something that everyone on Wikipedia faces now and then. It doesn't just have to do with your status as a paid individual with a conflict of interest, you will try to implement something that you just can't get consensus for. It happens to me too. Sometimes it can feel like you're being bullied, and sometimes people are bullied, but most of the time you're just in a position where your viewpoint is in the minority and you have to accept that your suggestion isn't going to be implemented. You can try to compromise, but even that won't always work. So just be prepared and don't take it personally when it happens, because it will. -- Atama頭 16:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not willing to "compromise" on the lead as you have suggested because it is absolutely incompatible with Wikipedia content and presentation guidelines, POLICIES THAT YOU HAVE BEEN GUIDED TO MULTIPLE TIMES AND CONTINUE TO EITHER IGNORE OR LACK THE COMPETENCY TO UNDERSTAND. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively, "no."

To keep up with the promotional material coming from the paid PR representative would require hours of work. I, unlike the paid editor, am not being compensated for my time. I'm not wasting it any more. Pay me or stop pushing the same points. Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion thread has run its course. SAS81 should move on to making suggestions regarding specific facts in the article body. Here's hoping that the positive spin is not so pronounced there. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

SAS81, Hipocrite has highlighted (above) a well-known problem from game theory. Two boys find a cake. The first boy grabs it and wants to eat it all. The second boy thinks they should take half each. An adult suggests they compromise between the two proposals, so the first boy gets three-quarters.

Some of your suggestions sound like the first boy, i.e. making proposals that aren't acceptable and expecting people to compromise on the basis of them. A better approach would be to start afresh with neutral material and language. A good way for a conflicted editor to suggest edits, per WP:NOPAY, is to use the {{request edit}} template. Gather good sources, write your proposal in disinterested language, post it, then give people a few days to respond so that volunteers don't feel overwhelmed. Best to avoid the lead at the moment, because focusing on that has made people suspicious.

There is a COI template for the top of talk pages that takes you with one click to the request-edit template. It also gives a header and a date when the request was made. I'll add it for you in a minute. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that's done. All you have to do is click, make your suggestion with your sources, and save. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Misc

Does anyone have access to citation 4? "Offit, Paul (2013). Do You Believe in Magic? The Sense and Nonsense of Alternative Medicine" or the full-text of this TIME Magazine article? CorporateM (Talk) 13:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I had access to the Offit book when I added that content, but it appears its content is no longer accessible via Google Books; the Time article appears to have been cross-posted here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources

I was wondering if citation 14 was added by anyone that is still paying attention to the article that may be able to provide the text or vouch for its contents. A Google search shows that the article exists (second hit on the search), but the website is no longer hosting the content (broken link). My library doesn't appear to have a copy in their online archives, nor does Highbeam. It looks to be a reliable source for the information it is cited for, but I'd like to verify it. CorporateM (Talk) 21:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hipocrite (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!!! I will take a look in a moment. CorporateM (Talk) 21:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I added an attribution since the source is an interview. Also, this edit is a bit iffy (again coming from an interview) and anyone is welcome to change it back if they disagree. I also noticed that the source points out that TIME Magazine called him the "poet prophet of alternative medicine", which made me think it was a copy/paste of promotional materials at first, but I found other sources that are secondary from TIME Magazine that discuss it. It seems this may actually warrant inclusion, though I'm not sure where to put it. Anyways, I have it on my watchlist and I might circle back later (maybe in a few months maybe) if the drama has died down by then. I wouldn't mind bringing it up to GA. CorporateM (Talk) 23:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn I wanted to discuss this on Talk rather than revert, but I don't think the removal of that content was necessary. When my justification was that the previous version was not providing a contextual account of the original source, introducing a quote from the original source is not undue. Including the quote on the Ayurvedic stuff right next to an analysis of the dangers of denying medical knowledge gives the impression that was the context of the quote, when in fact he emphasized the medical facts behind AIDS in the same section. That's why the representation is an issue.

It's true that the source comes from a book Chopra wrote, but the section in question is summarizing that same book. The analysis of the content is from an appropriately secondary source, but it is acceptable (and standard) to use the original, primary document to establish its own quotes and content. The Cap'n (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Your analysis of the primary texts or of what is important "context" is immaterial - we follow the analyses in secondary sources. This is in a section about "alternative medicine", and Schneiderman's point is about evidence and ethics wrt HIV/AIDS treatment, so your addition was also off-topic. Worse, it might have the POV implication there is some mitigating sanity in Chopra's view, whereas the real context here is that mixing real medicine with nonsense gives you: nonsense. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't have any analysis of the primary texts, I included what was actually said in them and left the secondary sources to do the analysis. Everything in that paragraph was in reference to Chopra's comments on AIDS from his Quantum Healing book, so referencing what Chopra said about AIDS in Quantum Healing is not only on-topic and leaves the secondary analysis coherent, it's necessary for accuracy. Also, arguing that we need to exclude any source that doesn't make the subject look adequately insane is itself POV and very much against BLP. Many of Chopra's views may seem silly, but that doesn't mean we can exclude the ones that aren't just to emphasize illegitimacy. The Cap'n (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources are generally allowed for explaining the point-of-view of the article-subject, so long as they are not used to substantially alter the weight of the arguments. That is a case where you would have to take a look at the article as a whole and see if primary sources are used excessively in a manner that turns the page into a kind of advocacy for the article-subject's point-of-view. CorporateM (Talk) 14:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yup, and they have no bearing on the efficacy or ethical status of Chopra's altmed views on HIV/AIDS, so are at best confusing. If Chopra had written something that bore directly on the Schneiderman point, that would be another matter. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course they don't, and I didn't try to argue the efficacy or ethics of Chopra, but rather included a reference to the source that Schneiderman is talking about (that's about as directly bearing as you can get). There is no Schneiderman point without this source, I don't see how this is contentious. I'm not trying to say that Chopra's views were effective, ethical, magical, or anything, and that's the point. I'm not trying to say anything, I'm trying to accurately represent what the section relates to. Chopra said A, Schneiderman said B in response. We can't post B without a reference to A. I'm not looking to edit-war, Alexbrn, but I'm not seeing a lot of a solid justification behind these reverts. The source does bear directly on this specific topic, the Schneiderman quotes are rebutting a point that is not fully represented in the first place and the content makes no independent analysis nor justification for Chopra's views, it just states them. The Cap'n (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Huh? In Quantum Healing Chopra gives a cursory description of orthodox theories & treatments (which you are quoting, though you might have quoted the most astonishing bit: "no drug is capable of treating it [i.e. AIDS]") and then Chopra segues into his own beliefs which he writes might offer "a move toward a deeper level of understanding, and therefore of treatment." Your edit is in a section on Chopra's own ideas on alternative medicine and it is those with which Schneiderman is taking issue. You edit introduces content which is (a) irrelevant to the section, (b) irrelevant to our secondary source and (c) a misrepresentation of what Chopra is writing in relation to Schneiderman's points. If we wanted to add relevant material from Quantum Healing, we could add more detail quoting for example that Chopra thinks "cancer and AIDS seem to be cases where the proper sequence of sutras must be unravelled at the deepest level". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for including more objective material rather than less, so feel free to include the sutra stuff. Also, yes, I'm including material in a section on Chopra's own ideas on alternative medicine, which, appropriately, are quotes of Chopra's own ideas. The section is on Chopra's ideas and their reception, my material is Chopra's ideas, Schneiderman is the reception. Just curious, what is your justification for stating that quoting Quantum Healing would be relevant if we were including material that depicted Chopra as "insane" but is irrelevant if it seems to say "there is some mitigating sanity in Chopra's view"? That's not the way BLP works.

By the way, the reason why I didn't feel it relevant to bring up Chopra's insane idea that there are no medications to treat HIV/AIDS is that the book was written in 1989, when there were no medications to treat HIV/AIDS. This is why context is important. The Cap'n (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's not covered by the secondaries or directly related to a secondary, it's probably undue. From what you are saying, I do not think you understand the source. The only person who has used the word "insane" (repeatedly), or who has raised the topic of Chopra's sanity (as opposed to the sanity of his views) is - you. Another misunderstanding, I am sure. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You write "the book was written in 1989, when there were no medications to treat HIV/AIDS." This is blatently false. . Hipocrite (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Hipocrite here's the timeline of AZT distribution, which was not broadly distributed until the same year the book was published, 1989. Also, can you define the difference between "false" and "blatently false"? @Alexbrn, again, how is the QH book not related to the secondary when the secondary is writing about the QH book? As far as sanity, you said "Worse, it might have the POV implication there is some mitigating sanity in Chopra's view..." Whether you're referencing the man or his views, excluding content because people might not think he or his views are appropriately decried is not ideal BLP work. Putting in what Chopra said, followed by Schneiderman's analysis of what Chopra said, is NPOV and accurate. What is the problem here? I'm not trying to write a puff piece or anything, just reference the content being discussed. I'd welcome some other opinions. What do you think, CorporateM? Is the inclusion of a reference from the Chopra book Schneiderman's discussing undue here? The Cap'n (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you really doubling down on your misstatements? Now it's just willful. AZT was widely distributed well before 1989. Your source doesn't say that it wasn't. Please stop making things up. Still further - you said "there were no medications to treat HIV/AIDS," not "no widely distributed..." You said "no." Could you consider writing, perhaps, that you were wrong, just once, given that you were, and remain, wrong? Hipocrite (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure. After reviewing the sources, I was wrong in my initial statement and AZT was available in limited distribution in 1987, not 1989. Also, I said that as an off-hand example of material I did not include in the article, so I'm not sure why you're so concerned with it, but there you are. The Cap'n (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how many ways I can say this. I'll try one more time: Schneiderman is addressing different content in Chopra's book than the content you included. Have you read Schneiderman? Chopra actually discusses AZT in Quantum Healing so I'm astonished you asserted it didn't exist when he was writing. Are you actually reading these sources? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I have read the sources and still think the content makes sense there, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to slow everything down with another wall of text, especially since I can see your point. As for AZT, that was my mistake, as I noted above. I'm okay with leaving it and moving on. The Cap'n (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

New references found

I had forgotten “advice,” a category created in the 1990s when New Age books by Deepak Chopra with wacky titles like The Quantum Alternative to Growing Old began dominating the nonfiction list. I’m pretty sure there is only one alternative to growing old, and I don’t recommend it. Nonetheless, Chopra once had four books in the nonfiction top-10 at the same time. The fact that Chopra’s pseudoscientific New Age blather sells at all is a sad commentary on reading tastes, but we don’t burn books anymore, even terrible books. However, we do segregate them. It’s not a perfect solution.

Source: Robert L. Park. (2009). Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science. Princeton University Press. pp. 124-125

By broadcasting his series of lectures, it gave him an unchallenged forum to preach his brand of magical metaphysics supported by deceptive pseudoscience. His philosophy is fundamentally and deeply religious, but Chopra gets great mileage with the media and public by disguising the religion as science. Even mainstream religions don't clamor for equal time because they too are blindsided by the clever approach. When KCET in Los Angeles used Chopra as a fundraiser, he spewed his usual gibberish, the moderator heaped on the usual praise, and the pledges poured in. It was like a New Age televangelical fundraiser.

Source: Kurt Butler. (1999). Lying for Fun and Profit: The Truth about the Media: Exposes the Corrupt Symbiosis Between Media Giants and the Health Fraud Industries. Health Wise Productions. p. 164

Chopra has forsaken rationalism and become a godman with a difference. Instead of fooling people with sleight of hand, he fools them with sleight of tongue. And instead of scamming superstitious Indian peasants, he scams the superstitious American middle class. This recipe has brought him great wealth. After his conversion to the TM cult Chopra was appointed Lord of Immortality by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and became Ayurvedic medicine's messiah in America.

Source: Kurt Butler. (1999). Lying for Fun and Profit: The Truth about the Media: Exposes the Corrupt Symbiosis Between Media Giants and the Health Fraud Industries. Health Wise Productions. p. 237 Goblin Face (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Chopra is also mentioned in Kurt Butler and Stephen Barrett's book A Consumer's Guide to "Alternative Medicine": A Close Look at Homeopathy, Acupuncture, Faith-healing, and Other Unconventional Treatments. (1992). Prometheus Books. pp. 110-116. Goblin Face (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Chopra is also mentioned in the book Sleeping with Extra-Terrestrials: The Rise of Irrationalism and Perils of Piety by Wendy Kaminer on pages 165-167. Does anyone have access to these sources? Goblin Face (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I have added the book by Butler and Barrett to the further reading section. Some information about the book can be found here , . Butler is a nutritionist and health writer who founded the Quackery Action Council. In his book Lying for Fun and Profit, Butler has an entire chapter on Chopra. I have added some brief quotes above. I suggest that some of Butler's commentary be added to the article. Goblin Face (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Park's commentary deleted

"Physics professor Robert L. Park has written that physicists wince at the "New Age quackery" in Chopra's cancer theories." - Is there any reason this was deleted, can we add this back in. Goblin Face (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It's repetitive of material that's already in that section. I think it would make sense to remove/paraphrase some more quotes, because there's a quite a bit of "me too" in the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits: GA?

I note CorporateM has recently performed a bold edit on this article, removing a large amount of its more weakly-sourced content, copy editing, and making various other changes. The (much discussed) lead has also been re-worked. Overall, I think this improves the article (I have just done some minor tidying-up edits afterwards). I wonder, is it time to think of taking this article towards being a GA? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it still has a ways to go to meet the GA standard, but it is close enough that it would be worthwhile to start aiming for it. The first thing that comes to mind is that all the sources need to be checked one-by-one. For example, citation 35 and 37 look like they may be bordering on advocacy sources. Number 60 needs an accessdate. Citation 64, yuck. And there are still quite a few default bio-type pages that are posted on third-party websites, but are the types of places that repost bios provided by the article-subject. Some of these I did not remove on my first read-through, because the article-text looked like something worth keeping if we can find better sources. CorporateM (Talk) 08:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you think it would be better to nix the "and alternative medicine" part in the first sentence to avoid the double "and"? I just started reading our page on New Age and I got the sense there was some redundancy between the two (alternative medicine being one outlet for a New Age philosophy?). I know very little about the topic... CorporateM (Talk) 08:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you guys consider putting "New Age Guru" back? If all this article consisted of the sentence ... "Deepak Chopra is a New Age Guru" it wouldn't have actually lost much. It frames him so well. Pretty please? ;) -Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose the word "guru" has been much discussed and there is consensus for it. I have been wondering about "celebrity" too, since that seems in the sources a fair amount. I agree we can ditch CAM from the first sentence to avoid the double "and" -- we mention CAM in the next sentence anyway. I've tried an edit - see what you think ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - and all joking aside, I do think the page has been improved noticeably today. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Normally I would think of "guru" as promotional, but in this case there are strong sources for it and being a "guru" seems to be his primary claim to notability. I might be of a different opinion after reading more. CorporateM (Talk) 13:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

what is the reason for mentioning chopra's "wealth" in the first paragraph, and what is the basis of comparison on which someone says he is one of the "wealthiest" new age figures? do we have comparables? seems like an implied criticism somehow, like he is in it for the money, which if true should be shown by data, not innuendo. Zach bender (talk) 04:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Ref and date format

I'd like to tidy the refs if that's okay. A couple of things:

Most are last name, first name; some are the other way round. Does anyone mind if I make them first name, last name? There's no reason to put the last name first if the list isn't alphabetical, and they're easier to write if we don't have to change the order.

Also, a couple of refs have a dash after the page, "e.g. pp. 46–". Is that p. 46, p. 46ff? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Meh, I usually go with whatever the citation templates do. The extra dash is often put in there by the automatic citation wizards and has to be taken out manually. I'm glad to see there is more discussion about actual sources (above). As a side-note, it looks like there is a weird run-on sentence in the second paragraph of the Lead. CorporateM (Talk) 20:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll take the absence of objection as an okay to go ahead, so I'll do that during my next edits. I may also try (over time) to flesh it out with some biographical details and info about his work. Some of the sources could be replaced too; it's better to choose a small number of high-quality sources and stick with them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The date formats are also inconsistent. My own preference is day-month-year, but I don't mind either way. If people have a preference, please say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as dates go, I'm fine with any layout as long as the month is spelled out to prevent confusion by those who aren't used to that system. I also prefer last name, first, but it's nothing I'm passionate about. I just think it makes it easier for those searching for specific authors. The Cap'n (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply. I had already changed to first name/last name when you posted, but we can easily change back if people want to. I'd quite like to line up the dates as day first, but given it's about someone in the US (where they prefer month first), I'll wait to see if there are objections. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)