Line 443: | Line 443: | ||
:::This is an easy consensus, but my example does serve to illustrate, quite concisely, very well, and with a dash of humour, the mainstream view. -[[User:Roxy the dog|Roxy the dog]] ([[User talk:Roxy the dog|resonate]]) 18:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC) |
:::This is an easy consensus, but my example does serve to illustrate, quite concisely, very well, and with a dash of humour, the mainstream view. -[[User:Roxy the dog|Roxy the dog]] ([[User talk:Roxy the dog|resonate]]) 18:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC) |
||
{{od}} very confused here as to how the 'mainstream' view is being defined. I can confirm that this is not a 'mainstream' view or if it is mainstream, it is one of many mainstream views that contradict each other. For every scientist out there that you can find a quote of that is unfavorable to Dr. Chopra, I can find another one that is favorable. Chances are Brian Cox is not even familiar with Dr. Chopra's work and is just jumping on a bandwagon. [[User:SAS81|SAS81]] ([[User talk:SAS81|talk]]) 03:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Are photons conscious, or is Wikipedia controlled by militant skeptics? == |
== Are photons conscious, or is Wikipedia controlled by militant skeptics? == |
Revision as of 03:08, 28 June 2014
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Guru lead
Ronz. I like your change a lot! It seems a fair compromise.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC))
- Thanks! I hope others agree. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Ronz, I agree with Littleolive oil that this seems like a reasonable compromise and doesn't disrupt the flow of the article. The Cap'n (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- I too concur Ronz - I think taking it out of Wikipedia's voice was all it ever needed. Thanks for taking that bold step. SAS81 (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think a step back has been taken. Pity. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 03:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I too concur Ronz - I think taking it out of Wikipedia's voice was all it ever needed. Thanks for taking that bold step. SAS81 (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Ronz, I agree with Littleolive oil that this seems like a reasonable compromise and doesn't disrupt the flow of the article. The Cap'n (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
"Deepak Chopra: An 'Inner Stillness,' Even On The Subway", The New York Times The part "has been described" is original research and the source to verify the claim "New-Age guru" was deleted from the article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- QuackGuru, this was an established lede that had been worked out through lengthy consensus, please do not arbitrarily change such a contested phrase without gaining consensus for it. I put it back, though I included the Kaufman reference and some of your verbiage.
- "Has been described" is not unusual for WP, is not OR/ASSERT (there are at least two sources by Chopra specifically refuting the term, thus it's a contested descriptor) and is a phrase agreed upon by numerous editors. Stating "New Age Guru" as an uncontested fact violates WP:BLP:WELLKNOWN, is not an quantifiable, observable fact and whitewashes a contested term.
- In short, the revert was because your edit went against recent consensus, violated WP guidelines and misrepresents a common opinion as an objective fact. The Cap'n (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- The problem, Askahrc, is that Chopra's "refutation" is completely irrelevant. Nothing in our policies requires us to avoid using commonly used descriptors for people, and the word "guru" is commonly used to describe Chopra. In this particular case, I tend to agree that "described" is appropriate, but that's more because while Chopra is commonly described as a "guru", I tend to find it split between "New Age guru", "spiritual guru", "self-help guru", and even "guru to the stars", making the definitive statement "New Age guru" a bit of a stretch to state objectively.
- As for describing the lead as "worked out by lengthy consensus", it appears more to me that it has been worked on by people that are under the misapprehension that Chopra's opinion of his Wikipedia article and what people say about him matter. It doesn't.—Kww(talk) 20:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- According to Wiktionary and most other English dictionaries, guru has two meanings, first it refers to the well-established and highly respected role in the Hindu or Sikh traditions, of spiritual teacher. If Chopra says he is not one of these, he is best placed to know. Being a guru in this sense is somewhere related to being a priest or vicar in the Christian tradition: if you are one, you would certainly know that you are, and so would those in your spiritual community. The second meaning originates in the West, is much more recent in origin, and is meant humorously or in an ironical or derogative sense. This, to me, when applied to someone like Chopra, seems like calling someone a 'witch-doctor' just because they are of African descent, or calling a Native American a 'squaw' or a 'brave'. Any of these show a gross lack of respect for, or understanding of, the subject's own culture and its richness, and a blatant disregard for their personal integrity within it. This may be acceptable among the sub-eds who write headlines in the trashy end of the newspaper market, and for bloggers with little regard for the world around them, but it is not encyclopedic, and such dubious 'humour' should not appear in the first few sentences of any serious biography. --Nigelj (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Nigelj, Agreed, and that's almost verbatim the issue with this term and Chopra. It's literal, original meaning of "guru" is something very specific religiously, and if someone refutes that religious connection we cannot apply it as a fact, any more than we could say "John Doe is a Christian preacher, despite numerous declarations that he's not." As for the second meaning (and one Chopra has also specifically addressed as derogatory), it carries heavy overtones of either tongue-in-cheek or implications of charlatanism, either of which are too charged of terms to be used as an objective descriptor.
- @Kww, I think we agree on methodology, if not the end product, and I also agree with your assessment of "has been described" to delineate between the numerous implications of the term. I assure you, I am not motivated by concern over Chopra's opinion of this article. It'd be nice if a person liked their own BLP, but that's not our job. I'm concerned with accurately representing a BLP according to WP guidelines, and an important part of any BLP is assuring that the subject's own statements about themselves are given proper weight. More specifically, WP:WELLKNOWN gives an example stating that when describing aspects about a person that they contest, even when they're aspects everyone else agrees upon, the refutation must be noted. It's not about whether Chopra likes it, it's about the weight that his refutations have in determining what he identifies as. Finally, this consensus was by no means made by just people who sympathize with Chopra. Ronz, Littleolive oil, SlimVirgin and myself represent extremely diverse, frequently polar opposite, views on matters of WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE, and WP:PSTS. Along with numerous others, we all came to this decision for very different reasons. The Cap'n (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- To me, the misapplication of this term to Chopra's smacks of racism and ignorance. I have no idea why someone would argue to put a description such as that in the voice of Wikipedia. 166.137.216.178 (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- An excellent question, 166.137.216.178. Can anyone explain why it's so vital to use the word "guru"? Sure, there are RS's that use the term, but there are RS's that use other terms that we don't put such emphasis on. The only definitional distinction between "guru" and the more generalized "spiritual leader" is the secondary connotation of charlatanism. That's the only distinct aspect of "guru" that I can detect, especially since Chopra refutes identifying with the Hindu meaning. I'm open to other explanations as to why "guru" is uniquely ideal despite all this contention. The Cap'n (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Speaking as someone with actual experience of oriental gurus, and as someone with Hindu friends who talk naturally and respectfully about their actual gurus, our usage here seems cheap and trashy. I agree, it "smacks of racism and ignorance," as IP 166 put it. --Nigelj (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- An excellent question, 166.137.216.178. Can anyone explain why it's so vital to use the word "guru"? Sure, there are RS's that use the term, but there are RS's that use other terms that we don't put such emphasis on. The only definitional distinction between "guru" and the more generalized "spiritual leader" is the secondary connotation of charlatanism. That's the only distinct aspect of "guru" that I can detect, especially since Chopra refutes identifying with the Hindu meaning. I'm open to other explanations as to why "guru" is uniquely ideal despite all this contention. The Cap'n (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Move criticism up lede?
Should we move criticism of Dr Chopra up the lede? Right now it's in the second half of the final para. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Survey
- Support as proposer, per argument above. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose What I would support is moving Reception to the Lead, rather than the non-NPOV approach of "criticism". An NPOV description should summarize both the views from academics, scientists, experts, etc. that he is basically making stuff up to cash-in on ignorance, and the views of his followers and holistic medicine supporters. I may believe that anyone that thinks chi energy (or whatever) can cure cancer is gullible, but that doesn't prevent me from documenting the debate and including viewpoints that myself (and most any Wikipedian since we tend to be well-educated) are naturally going to disagree with. CorporateM (Talk) 14:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'd also support that suggestion. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose As per CorporateM's comment. --JustBerry (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Support "supporters and holistic medicine supporters" < "academics, scientists, experts, etc." - we actually do give preference to the better sources of information. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Support Support acknowledgment of the existence of criticism in the first para. See comments in threaded discussion. Roches (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Leave it alone The end of the third paragraph is a normal and appropriate place for critical reactions like this. It already says that he's prominent and has been called a "guru", so, unlike CorporateM, I don't think that it needs to give any additional emphasis to the idea that some people like him and his ideas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose at this point Premature RFC. Moving criticism in the lead has has never been discussed on this article talk page.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC))
- Oppose There's already a strong element of Reception (particularly criticism) present throughout, and giving that top billing is redundant given the prominence already noted in the lede and inappropriate given that a BLP is supposed to given priority to biographical details. I also agree with Littleolive oil, this has never been a significant topic on the Talk Page; the RfC is premature. The Cap'n (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- The Cap'n
and Littleolive Oilhave both clearly made the case for support - the WP:LEAD should reflect the content of the article which should reflect the mainstream views of the subject i.e. the complete dismissal of Chopra's ideas by the mainstream academics should be clearly and appropriately reflected in the lead and not minimized. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- @TheRedPenOfDoom: Just to clarify, you're not suggesting that The Cap'n actually !voted "Support", correct? -- Atama頭 18:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- User:Askahrc placed a !vote followed by a rationale. while the !vote portion stated one thing, when you look at the rationale portion per policy, the rationale provided validates the other position.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see that at all. The rationale clearly supports the vote of oppose. 198.228.211.70 (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- User:Askahrc placed a !vote followed by a rationale. while the !vote portion stated one thing, when you look at the rationale portion per policy, the rationale provided validates the other position.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- @TheRedPenOfDoom: Just to clarify, you're not suggesting that The Cap'n actually !voted "Support", correct? -- Atama頭 18:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Thanks TRPOD. When and if I decide to vote here on the actual RfC, I'll probably be able to work out how to say it myself.:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC))
- Oppose - the lead is fine as it is. I read the matter here: [1] and feel that this article is an attack piece. Should we tag it with the {{db-attack}} tag? The BLP also mentions Tabloid journalism; won't Dr.Chopra sue wikipedia for this NPOV article?—Khabboos (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - I rather support rewriting the criticism part in the lead and the article - it doens't look NPOV. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Support The lead and the article does not represent the widespread mainstream derision Deepak's views receive. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:LEAD. Current format is a succinct version of the current article in toto. And per MOS:BEGIN, the first paragraph should be reserved for an NPOV description of the subject without being overly specific. Current first paragraph is spot on in compliance with this, offering neither clear praise nor criticism. SueDonem (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Certainly I strongly support some form of mention of the skepticism about his positions and practices; whatever your disposition to the man and his beliefs and claims, there's no doubt as to the fact that he's a lightning rod for both proponents and opposition new age practices and alternative medicine, and our sources reflect this, which is where we ought to be taking our cues as to weight, including in the lead. All of that said, the current version seems to more than adequately support this need. The lead is supposed to summarize the content of the article as succinctly as reasonable and this one serves decently well in that manner; we structure the lead in this fashion to attempt to serve readers who are looking for differing levels of information, but I don't think it's pragmatic to start editing to prioritize those who haven't the time to even read the lead, as it's unlikely they are going to extract a detailed and valuable amount of content anyway. As it is, I actually think having the criticism as capping statements of the lead does a good job of presenting the dichotomy of the man; how he and his proponents present his ideas and how they are received by skeptics. I think it's a good balance of interests, overall. Snow talk 01:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose, per Snow Rise, can't word it better, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose, also per Snow Rise. Gandydancer (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Support moving up in the lead. He is most WP:NOTABLE, apparently, for alternative medicine - that he is a "licensed physician" is mentioned in the first sentence and his alt med reputation is discussed in the second, and glowingly. The mainstream view on alt med should come directly after that - neutrally stated and reliably sourced, of course, as per WP:FRINGE. There is no contradiction between BLP and FRINGE. My argument is based on WP:NOTABLE and on [{WP:FRINGE]]. Please make arguments based on policies/guidelines/essay, not just hand-waving. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Support - criticism is in the scope of the article, and should be presented in the lead in a neutral way. Zambelo; talk 06:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Support. The criticism should stay in the body of the article and also should be summarised in the WP:LEDE. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Support His medical licensing is nearly a trivia point. This is a classic WP:FRINGE problem, and efforts to be "neutral" are actually placing undue weight on and providing excessive support for his views. The exact contents of his views are essentially trivia: the important factor is that none of them have any basis in reality.—Kww(talk) 00:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Kww, on what basis do you judge what "the important factor" is for the lede? I just want to read your thought-process in arriving at what you deem trivial and what you deem important. Thank you. 198.228.211.70 (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Let's try an analogy. Assume someone in your town was selling snake oil to cure cancer. What's the most important piece of information for people to know?
- Kww, on what basis do you judge what "the important factor" is for the lede? I just want to read your thought-process in arriving at what you deem trivial and what you deem important. Thank you. 198.228.211.70 (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- The species of snake from which the oil is extracted?
- The molecular weight of the oil?
- The degrees that the person procuring the oil from the snake has earned?
- That if you give him money, he will be richer and you will still die from your cancer?
- I hope you answered (4). If you didn't, I'm concerned about your reasoning skills. Similarly, the most important thing about Deepak Chopra is not the details of his statements, the places from which those statements are made, or his degrees, it's that the statements he makes are without medical or scientific foundation.—Kww(talk) 01:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- That analogy isn't applicable because this is not the real world. This is an encyclopedia. So it's not a comparable situation. Wikipedia isn't here to warn people about snake oil salesmen. I take it that you disagree with this. I take it that you think warning readers about pseudoscience and con-men is our primary purpose, judging by your analogy. Am I wrong? If so please clarify. 198.228.211.70 (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be just as happy to not have article about Deepak Chopra or any form of pseudoscience. However, when we have an article about con-men and pseudoscience, I believe that "con-man" and "pseudoscience" are generally the most important aspects of the topic.—Kww(talk) 02:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for the insight on what you believe. Is it just that? A belief? Or is it Wikipedia policy that first and foremost we must expose the con-men and pseudo-scientists? And only after that is established clearly, then we can get into what a person is actually notable for? 198.228.211.70 (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- what, pray tell, is he notable for outside of the promotion of pseudoscience? Being an FOO (Friend of Oprah?) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note that even WWE waits to the third paragraph before telling us that pro wrestling is fake. The debunkers' POV is not synonymous with NPOV. If the community at large thinks they are equivalent then there is something fundamentally wrong with Wikipedia. We should start a public and general RFC to see if debunking should be our primary goal here or if we should leave that to RationalWiki. in the meantime, it's good for me to now understand your primary editorial motivation – to debunk. 198.228.211.70 (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, it's to accurately describe. It's unreasonable for an article on Deepak Chopra to appear to be about someone that makes valid medical and scientific claims because that isn't an accurate description.—Kww(talk) 13:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, yes. I see the difference now. So do you believe that this accurate description of the debunkers' POV should always be the most important feature of a pseudoscience-related subject's article? That it should be the first thing presented to the reader? If so, why? 198.228.211.70 (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, it's to accurately describe. It's unreasonable for an article on Deepak Chopra to appear to be about someone that makes valid medical and scientific claims because that isn't an accurate description.—Kww(talk) 13:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note that even WWE waits to the third paragraph before telling us that pro wrestling is fake. The debunkers' POV is not synonymous with NPOV. If the community at large thinks they are equivalent then there is something fundamentally wrong with Wikipedia. We should start a public and general RFC to see if debunking should be our primary goal here or if we should leave that to RationalWiki. in the meantime, it's good for me to now understand your primary editorial motivation – to debunk. 198.228.211.70 (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- what, pray tell, is he notable for outside of the promotion of pseudoscience? Being an FOO (Friend of Oprah?) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for the insight on what you believe. Is it just that? A belief? Or is it Wikipedia policy that first and foremost we must expose the con-men and pseudo-scientists? And only after that is established clearly, then we can get into what a person is actually notable for? 198.228.211.70 (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be just as happy to not have article about Deepak Chopra or any form of pseudoscience. However, when we have an article about con-men and pseudoscience, I believe that "con-man" and "pseudoscience" are generally the most important aspects of the topic.—Kww(talk) 02:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- That analogy isn't applicable because this is not the real world. This is an encyclopedia. So it's not a comparable situation. Wikipedia isn't here to warn people about snake oil salesmen. I take it that you disagree with this. I take it that you think warning readers about pseudoscience and con-men is our primary purpose, judging by your analogy. Am I wrong? If so please clarify. 198.228.211.70 (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- please identify what part of BLP applies because BLP clearly states that we must follow NPOV which says that we must present content in relation to the manner the subject is covered in reliable academic sources. In this case there has not been any substantial mainstream academic sources provided which is not critical of views and claims that Chopra makes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- WP:BLP#Balance mentions proportionate space, but it, indeed, makes no mention of placement of criticism in the article (e.g., whether including it in the lede should be avoided or not). jps (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- please identify what part of BLP applies because BLP clearly states that we must follow NPOV which says that we must present content in relation to the manner the subject is covered in reliable academic sources. In this case there has not been any substantial mainstream academic sources provided which is not critical of views and claims that Chopra makes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Support. I'm here as an RfC - Maths/Science/Tech invitee with a background in chemistry. For me, this part of the article is best treated by not considering the name of the person involved. For the first paragraph, I consider whether that paragraph alone would convey all the most important information included in the article. That is, would a person reading the first paragraph and nothing else see an objective summary of the article?
- The fact that Dr. Chopra is controversial is one of the important facts about him. I support including this fact in the first paragraph.
- Since the solution would have to be agreeable to both supporters and non-supporters, we could acknowledge that actively advocating for alternative medicine, in the courts and in the public eye, has been an important aspect of Dr. Chopra's life. What he does is more than supporting alternative medicine, practicing it, or even publishing books about it. By saying that he needs to argue in favor of it, we implicitly say that others are arguing against it. We also state why he is so well-known: that he actively argues in favor of alternative medicine. Roches (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Support Where Chopra makes it into the most reliable scientific or medical sources, it is generally in relation to criticism related to being a new age guru or in relation to quantum woo. Scientific American. There are plenty of skeptic critics noting this. When Chopra engages in public discussions, this is also generally the topic e.g New Republic, response and counter-response: New Republic, or The Future of God debate Harris, Shermer vs Chopra, Houston of "In the absence of a conscious entity, the moon remains a radically ambiguous and ceaselessly flowing quantum soup" fame [2], or his interview by Dawkins, etc. (These are all essentially primary sources, I'm trying to give a flavour of high profile activity, not give the secondary sources themselves) Noting he is a physician without promptly noting the sustained criticism he receives from scientists would violate NPOV. Second Quantization (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- I also note, on a somewhat related matter, that the article provides what I think sounds like dangerous advice if a reader believed it: "He acknowledges that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, but claims that, "'[h]earing' the virus in its vicinity, the DNA mistakes it for a friendly or compatible sound". Ayurveda uses vibrations which are claimed to correct this supposed sound distortion.". It has a one line response of "Medical professor Lawrence Schneiderman writes that Chopra's treatment has "to put it mildly ... no supporting empirical data." Attributed responses always have the impression of some sort of balance of the "Well, he says this, and the other person say that". Combine this with the emphasis on being a physician and the systemic reduction of criticism appears to be a dangerous mix. Second Quantization (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
Question: I am wondering why the criticism should be moved. What is the reasoning? What is the advantage for the reader? Does it make sense for a reader to encounter criticism before they encounter the information the criticism is about. I'm also wondering why we have an RfC and dispute resolution before this question was raised on this talk page. I might have missed that discussion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC))
"Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
(Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight).- Article's promotional tone is extensively discussed above as are (now reverted) edits which make the lede less flattering.
- Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but as I noted above, this RfC is premature. DR should be used for disputes, unless this move has specifically been discussed and it hasn't then we don't know if there is a dispute on this issue or not. Discussion on the talk page should come first.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC))
No. I'm asserting the RfC, a dispute resolution procedure, is premature. Very simple. Please don't put words into my mouth. Very unsanitary. :O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC))
- It's not Wikilawyering to say that something should be discussed in Talk before an RfC is brought in. That's just standard procedure. As far as WP:UNDUE, there are 6 clearly critical statements in the lede, vs. 2 clearly positive statements. That 3:1 for criticism as it stands (hence the discussions about balancing the negative tone, NOT increasing it). What ratio of criticism do you think is appropriate for a BLP? The Cap'n (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think it would be best to have some proposals rather than trying to address this more abstractly.
- Note: This topic was touched upon briefly in Talk:Deepak_Chopra#Shermer_quote, especially (18:17, 2 June 2014). --Ronz (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Ronz, I agree, it'd be helpful to discuss specifics rather than abstractions. I'd asked in the previous section exactly which sentences in the lede Balaenoptera musculus considered inappropriately promotional, as that seems a good place to start. I can't find any content in the lede that isn't typical of a BLP (summary, biographical details, prominent views, reception). The Cap'n (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's not wikilawyering to say that you believe "that something should be discussed in Talk before an RfC is brought in".
- However, there's absolutely no "discuss first" rule for RFC. That's because RFCs can be used for a wide variety of purposes. The first sentence of WP:RFC lists "disputes" and "article content" as separate, unrelated reasons for starting an RFC. This appears to be an RFC about article content. It is therefore procedurally acceptable, even if there is no dispute to resolve at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Ronz, I agree, it'd be helpful to discuss specifics rather than abstractions. I'd asked in the previous section exactly which sentences in the lede Balaenoptera musculus considered inappropriately promotional, as that seems a good place to start. I can't find any content in the lede that isn't typical of a BLP (summary, biographical details, prominent views, reception). The Cap'n (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines, article content, or user conduct.
I guess I'm suggesting process is generally to discuss in article before requesting outside input.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC))
- WhatamIdoing, Agreed. I'm not implying that BM has violated any rules, simply that they haven't established any need for this particular resolution or specifics on what's wrong with the current lede, either on the Talk Page before now or in the RfC itself. There have been RfC's discussed before, but it was generally about the use of sources, burdens of RS, MEDRS and the double standards with criticism v. positive statements. The positioning of criticism in the lede has not been a major topic of discussion, and any RfC on a BLP should definitely have included Biography, not just Maths, Science and Tech, per WP:RFC. The RfC by SAS81 below is more representative of the issues that have been troublesome on this page, so hopefully we'll still get some kind of resolution going. The Cap'n (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- I suspect that the RFC below will prove useless due to the broad and vague nature of the complaint.
- Did you know that you can change the categories on an RFC at any time? It's not set in stone in the original edit. WP:RFC has the complete list of codes, if you don't know which one you'd like to add. Add whatever you want, and wait for the bot's next run. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing, Agreed. I'm not implying that BM has violated any rules, simply that they haven't established any need for this particular resolution or specifics on what's wrong with the current lede, either on the Talk Page before now or in the RfC itself. There have been RfC's discussed before, but it was generally about the use of sources, burdens of RS, MEDRS and the double standards with criticism v. positive statements. The positioning of criticism in the lede has not been a major topic of discussion, and any RfC on a BLP should definitely have included Biography, not just Maths, Science and Tech, per WP:RFC. The RfC by SAS81 below is more representative of the issues that have been troublesome on this page, so hopefully we'll still get some kind of resolution going. The Cap'n (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Bizarre fixation on a process question is Wikilawyering hogwash. What evidence is there on the MASSIVE volume of words in all of the sections above and the numerous archive pages created in just the last few weeks that free wheeling "discussions" on this page are in any way effective method of generating a consensus? On this page a specific identified change and an RfC to identify consensus are probably the best way of identifying consensus and improving the article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I read the matter here: [3] and feel that this article is an attack piece. Should we tag it with the {{db-attack}} tag? The BLP also mentions Tabloid journalism which says that the way they (in this case, Dr.Chopra) use drugs (medicines) would violate BLP; won't Dr.Chopra sue wikipedia for this NPOV article?—Khabboos (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Even if he advocates hypnotherapy, meditation or auto-suggestion as one of the cures for an ailment, if it is helping someone (due to the placebo effect or whatever else) it shouldn't be used to attack him.—Khabboos (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have been trying to stay out of this, however I was hoping Khabbos could please provide specifics on how this rises to the level he is talking about especially since that policy mentions unsourced information while as far as can see everything is sourced. In addition there has been an "archiver" who is "serving the concerns Dr Chopra has about his article," why are you mentioning sueing for this article when Dr. Chopra's own archivest has not made such a comment? VVikingTalkEdits 15:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- That "archiver" has been topic banned! Suing wikipedia could be next on his agenda. Shouldn't we set things right here if there is anything wrong, before wikipedia gets sued?—Khabboos (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- So what is "wrong" you mentioned some very vague big picture items you are concerned about, however I see nothing specific that is actionable. In addition I don't think he has been TB...at least not yet. VVikingTalkEdits 15:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oh! I'm sorry about the TB - you're right, but s/he's on the verge of it. The whole article is an attack piece and reference no.6 may be libelous if we go by the contents of Tabloid journalism—Khabboos (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- So what is "wrong" you mentioned some very vague big picture items you are concerned about, however I see nothing specific that is actionable. In addition I don't think he has been TB...at least not yet. VVikingTalkEdits 15:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- That "archiver" has been topic banned! Suing wikipedia could be next on his agenda. Shouldn't we set things right here if there is anything wrong, before wikipedia gets sued?—Khabboos (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have been trying to stay out of this, however I was hoping Khabbos could please provide specifics on how this rises to the level he is talking about especially since that policy mentions unsourced information while as far as can see everything is sourced. In addition there has been an "archiver" who is "serving the concerns Dr Chopra has about his article," why are you mentioning sueing for this article when Dr. Chopra's own archivest has not made such a comment? VVikingTalkEdits 15:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@TheRedPenOfDoom, please retract your statement that I support the changes proposed. I clearly stated that I Opposed due to the status quo reflecting the existing prominence, that criticism was in no way minimized and that moving it up was NOT reflective of the article's content or BLP standards. Please do not "correct" other editors' votes or claim they actually meant something else. The Cap'n (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@Khabboos I want to make sure we are looking at the same reference Number 6 which includes a number of different articles, from a number of different sources. Are you saying that the San Francisco Chronicle, Time Magazine and the Oxford University Press are Tabloid journalism? I know there is no single source that is considered reliable in all situations, but these are three solid sources that are often quoted and used. VVikingTalkEdits 00:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- What is with these numerous alarmist threats that Deepak will SLAPP Wikimedia with a lawsuit? Seems like an attempt to scare/manipulate a desired outcome on Chopra's page.IMO.
If Dr. Chopra did sue then maybe Deepak's page could get a comprehensive section on Chopra's many lawsuits. Didn't there used to be such a stand alone section? All there is now is an imbedded mention of the JAMA lawsuit. Dr. Chopra is one of the most litigious of all New Age businessmen. Numerous suits have been publicly mentioned over the years and some have many interesting features. Including Chopra's claims of corruption and cronyism of Judges in the San Diego judicial system. There is a long list of Chopra civil suits. Most recently according to Courthouse News Dr. Chopra is suing James Walsh of Intentional Chocolates (search also: Dean Radin + Intentional Chocolate -Leela Bar- HESA institute- The Consciousness Project Hopeful Solutions for Epic Problems) It Appears Chopra claims Jim Walsh "rolled" him for over 5 million. http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/10/25/62353.htm This high degree of legal activity seems a large part of who Deepak Chopra is. No one is that surprised that he just might sue- as demonstrated by Khabboos jumping in again and again waving the spectre of it. Ptarmigander (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have also read about his many lawsuits, so we (wikipedians) need to be careful!—Khabboos (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Khabboos, though I would add to all involved that if we keep within the bounds of good BLP practice, there will be nothing to sue about because we will not be representing anything other than fact. Making up various names for subjects that they reject is not representing facts, nor is replacing biographical details with more and more criticism for criticisms' sake, nor is treating praise and condemnation with two different sourcing standards. None of these are good BLP practice, and they're a large of the reason why we're even having a discussion about libel. What does that tell you? This is a BLP, stick with BLP policies and we'll be fine. If we try to turn a biography into a polemic, we may encounter problems, and we'd deserve them. The Cap'n (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- We're getting off topic. Lawsuits are difficult to cover if at any point they get settled under non-disclosure. Still, any that are notable must be covered, and any that are highly prominent should be.
- "Dr. Chopra is one of the most litigious of all New Age businessmen" says who? --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry about the OT Ronz. Salon called him the "High Lama of Litigation".Ptarmigander (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) "Deepak Chopra, the high lama of litigation, may be a pussycat on TV, but cross him in the courtroom and you'll have a tiger on your tail." (Salon, 2000). "... when the matter is litigation, not karma, and the rules of evidence, not the rules of ayurveda, are in play, Chopra is an aggressive adversary." (Los Angeles Times, 1997). MastCell Talk 19:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Khabboos, though I would add to all involved that if we keep within the bounds of good BLP practice, there will be nothing to sue about because we will not be representing anything other than fact. Making up various names for subjects that they reject is not representing facts, nor is replacing biographical details with more and more criticism for criticisms' sake, nor is treating praise and condemnation with two different sourcing standards. None of these are good BLP practice, and they're a large of the reason why we're even having a discussion about libel. What does that tell you? This is a BLP, stick with BLP policies and we'll be fine. If we try to turn a biography into a polemic, we may encounter problems, and we'd deserve them. The Cap'n (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you to whoever added the 'biog' category to this RfC - my omission. Littleolive oil's wikilawyering seems tendentious to me. How about addressing the content issues instead of the process or the tone? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
@Khabboos: No legal threats please. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Arbitration Enforcement
Notification:[4]
Recent addition about Sam Slovick removed
Cla68 has added "Sam Slovick reports that a number of Wikipedia administrators have expressed concerns about how Chopra's biography article has been treated by Wikipedia editors, including an effort to misrepresent his view on AIDS in order to discredit him", with a reference to Deepak Chopra and the Future of Wikipedia, to the section "Position on Wikipedia". Compare the thread above. I've removed it because it seems non-notable and undue. Also, User:Sam Slovick appears to be a somewhat biased source, as he has has his own beef with Wikipedia: check out the history of his article Sam Slovick, originally created as an autobiography. That may have something to do with the way he throws in "one of a number of admins" in a Huffington Post report which is about User:SlimVirgin's objections, exclusively:
A look behind the curtain at Wikipedia talk pages reveals that a highly decorated and respected Wikipedia editor, 'SlimVirgin,' recently became one of a number of admins who stepped up to defend Chopra. SV writes, "It's hard to disagree that there's a problem when you look through the [Chopra's] article and talk page.
Cla68 has slanted it further by removing Slim from the equation, writing simply that "Slovick reports that a number of Wikipedia administrators have expressed concerns". (I quite understand that we don't necessarily want to mention a particular user, Slim, in this article, so that's all right as such, but the way it's done has an unfortunate embiggening effect.) Anyway. The whole addition is undue, IMO. Bishonen | talk 08:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC).
- I wonder if the whole "Chopra writes about his wiki page" coverage is undue, and if we need to mention it at all. If we do, then perhaps it should also be noted that Chopra has assigned a paid employee to monitor and influence his wiki page in his favour, a situation considered unethical by the vast majority of wiki editors. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think so, it was originally a bit smaller and integrated into a section on "Skepticism" so that the mention of Wikipedia was really only incidental in the long-running cross-talk there has been between Chopra and the skeptics. I think moving back to something like that would be more due until and unless this spat gets coverage in some reasonable secondary source. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- There is no reason to mention the latest Wikipedia controversies in the article. They are not nearly as WP:PROMINENT as, say, his involvement with Oprah. jps (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. I caught sight of the addition and thought it should be reverted (my very first edit to this article, I think), but I really agree that the whole section is undue. Get rid of it. Bishonen | talk 11:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC).
- That was my position as well when I reflagged the section in the article and started the section Talk:Deepak_Chopra#Chopra_on_Wikipedia_--_NPOV_issues_via_UNDUE_weight (which as most sections on the page got very verbose and very off topic). His Wikipedia efforts might be appropriate to include as an example if we had a section on his general promotion of woo, but currently we dont, so I support removal of the content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. I caught sight of the addition and thought it should be reverted (my very first edit to this article, I think), but I really agree that the whole section is undue. Get rid of it. Bishonen | talk 11:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC).
- There is no reason to mention the latest Wikipedia controversies in the article. They are not nearly as WP:PROMINENT as, say, his involvement with Oprah. jps (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think so, it was originally a bit smaller and integrated into a section on "Skepticism" so that the mention of Wikipedia was really only incidental in the long-running cross-talk there has been between Chopra and the skeptics. I think moving back to something like that would be more due until and unless this spat gets coverage in some reasonable secondary source. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Allegations that a cabal of Wikipedia editors is seeking to undermine Chopra by discrediting him in his WP:BLP seems like it would be something that would be mentioned in his WP BLP, to me. Chopra is concerned enough about it that he has actually mentioned it in the media himself, if I understand correctly. Sam Slovick is sufficiently notable that he has his own WP BLP, and it doesn't mention anything about a beef with Wikipedia. Even so, that doesn't undermine the notability of the event. In the past, alleged attacks on WP BLPs have been mentioned in the media once they come to light. By the way, have any of you in this discussion participated in adding negative information to this bio as Slovick mentions? If so, you shouldn't be commenting on this discussion per WP:COI. Cla68 (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, the fact that someone is unhappy that the Wikipedia page about them is not the purely promotional fooferla that they wish is not notable. If their interactions with wikipedia were widely covered by reliable sources, perhaps, but that aint the case here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- And your expansive interpretation of COI would quickly turn Wikipedia into Promopedia with the subject of every article simply needing to post a blog piece "calling out" any editor who is not filling the article with promotional spam to prevent NPOV from being applied. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- You are aware, aren't you, that the Huffington Post has been awarded the Pulitzer Prize? I think they and their readers might find it curious that WP editors are judging it a source of inferior importance to use as a source in Wikipedia. Also, you didn't answer my question, have you participated in adding any kind of pejorative information to this article? If so, you shouldn't be participating in this discussion per WP:COI. I formally ask everyone here to detail their involvement with the article and recuse themselves as appropriate. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- You don't have any means on Wikipedia to make this kind of formal request of anyone on an article talkpage. If you think something is awry, you might consider bringing up your concerns with administrators or arbitrators. Users are entitled to answer or not answer your questions as they see fit. jps (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- you are aware that the Huf Po also has an entire wing devoted to UFOs and Bigfoot? your ridiculous request that anyone who has posted content that is not promotional to the article recuse themselves is absurd and calls into question your WP:COMPETENCE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- It is not a conflict of interest to "add... any kind of pejorative information to [an] article." Please control yourself. Hipocrite (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- You are aware, aren't you, that the Huffington Post has been awarded the Pulitzer Prize? I think they and their readers might find it curious that WP editors are judging it a source of inferior importance to use as a source in Wikipedia. Also, you didn't answer my question, have you participated in adding any kind of pejorative information to this article? If so, you shouldn't be participating in this discussion per WP:COI. I formally ask everyone here to detail their involvement with the article and recuse themselves as appropriate. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- And your expansive interpretation of COI would quickly turn Wikipedia into Promopedia with the subject of every article simply needing to post a blog piece "calling out" any editor who is not filling the article with promotional spam to prevent NPOV from being applied. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, the fact that someone is unhappy that the Wikipedia page about them is not the purely promotional fooferla that they wish is not notable. If their interactions with wikipedia were widely covered by reliable sources, perhaps, but that aint the case here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
FYI. Cla68 has posted about this talkpage section and his editing to Wikipediocracy. jps (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Speaking of HuffPo etc, is there enough attention outside WP on this article to put a "This article have been mentioned by media" on this page? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
While Cla68's suggestion about recusals based on COI is not particularly feasible, it's also not fair for people to insist on this dichotomy that any perspective is either deriding Chopra or promoting him. Covering significant parts of his life are what biographies do, but it feels like anytime someone proposes coverage of something that is not negative it's described as "promotional" or "advertising" with no explanation of exactly why. I do think that there is a growing prominence with Chopra's attention to this article that should be covered, and as far as I can tell Slovick is an independent secondary source (correct me if there's evidence to the contrary). Whether one thinks Huff Po's coverage of silly things like Bigfoot discredits them is OR, the important factors are A) Is the topic relevant, B) Is Slovick reliable, C) Is there somewhere this could fit into the article? I feel comfortable with the first two, the last I need to look into. The Cap'n (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think that the topic may be relevant, but WP:RECENTISM needs to be considered as well as whether this is WP:DUE compared to other much more famous events in Chopra's life. jps (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- It is the UNDUE weight that is the issue. This aspect of his life has been covered by two bloggers. If the article were book length biography, then fine throw in a paragraph, but to call out as important and relevant in this short of an article is silly Wikipedia navel gazing and considering anything to do with the encyclopedia as WAY more important than it actually is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- I do think that WP:RECENTISM is a concern. I'm less convinced by the WP:UNDUE argument, as there are plenty of things represented on the page that have less material behind them than multiple videos and Huff Po postings. I'd suggest keeping an eye on this and seeing if it develops into a significant trend that should be represented. The Cap'n (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Chopra has appeared in Oprah Winfrey's media empire dozens if not hundreds of times in various forms. And yet, we have a paltry two sentences devoted to this relationship. Having an entire section devoted to Chopra's relationship with Wikipedia, then, seems rather undue to me. YMMV. jps (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- I do think that WP:RECENTISM is a concern. I'm less convinced by the WP:UNDUE argument, as there are plenty of things represented on the page that have less material behind them than multiple videos and Huff Po postings. I'd suggest keeping an eye on this and seeing if it develops into a significant trend that should be represented. The Cap'n (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- It is the UNDUE weight that is the issue. This aspect of his life has been covered by two bloggers. If the article were book length biography, then fine throw in a paragraph, but to call out as important and relevant in this short of an article is silly Wikipedia navel gazing and considering anything to do with the encyclopedia as WAY more important than it actually is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
COI recusals
We're not doing this
|
---|
In the discussions above, a Huntington Post article alleges that Wikipedia editor critics of Chopra have been defaming him here in this Wikipedia article by, among other things, misrepresenting his stance on AIDS. Therefore, any discussion on whether to include mention of these allegations in WP needs to be free from COI taint. This means, any editor who has added or advocated the adding of any kind of pejorative or prejudicial text to this article needs to recuse from this discussion. If you have advocated or actually added any negative information on Chopra, I formally ask that you list your name below. I will post a notice of this discussion at AN so it can be monitored by WP's administration. Thank you: Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Also I proposed adding the HAF/ Hindu American Foundation response to Deepak Chopra (in Reception) that claims he is making his fortune off sanitizing Hindu sacred practices and beliefs. This is actually very notable because it was widely reported nationally and internationally and also it is the origin of the "take back Yoga" campaign which points out that Hindus have the same right to ask that their sacred practices not be exploited as Native Americans have when they ask people not to play pretend Indian and sanitize and sell Native ceremonies. This also however is not strictly a negative since Dr. Chopra according to what I read online seems to have admitted that he sanitized Hinduism. (“The reason I sanitized it is there's a lot of junk in [Hinduism],”) So that can not really be an anti Chopra criticism if Dr. Chopra has admitted to doing it. I also made a proposal to add mention of Deepak hiring a paid public relations advocate for his Wikipedia website and Founding ISHAR. ISHAR has been claimed by the representative to be a completely unbiased academic repository. This claim gives a very positive slant to the PR representatives image, but more and more it is looking like ISHAR could be a pseudoscience Trojan Horse and public relations advocacy vehicle for people that are employed in what Wikipedia would call the fringe and pseudoscience fields. (Which if true in any way.. that will mean that SAS81 has broken Wikipedia terms of use by being a COI misrepresenting his/her affiliations. I have discussed this more on the COI noticeboard discussion on SAS81). Regarding the mentioning in the Chopra article of hiring the paid PR rep and founding of ISHAR, I currently agree with TRPOD that no mention on Deepak's page is warranted. But I think that may change soon as the latest episode unfolds and gains wider coverage. And just so you, Cla68, don't think I am one sided, I also see some areas where imbalanced criticism of dr, Chopra does exist on the page and I think that it should be changed. I have considered contacting and talking with Dr. Chopra's representative about it. The reason I have not so far is I have some concerns about the representative's forthrightness regarding his/her affiliations ..and framing of them. That has given me some hesitancy in extending more in that direction.Ptarmigander (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
|
Proposed new lead
Our current lead would appear to be a whitewashing at best and a gross distortion of the reality at worst. May I suggest the following rearrangement?
Deepak Chopra (/ˈdiːpɑːk ˈtʃoʊprə/) (born October 22, 1947) is an Indian-American author, public speaker and licensed physician.Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Criticized for claiming that his practices can extend the human lifespan and treat chronic disease, he relies on the placebo effect, misuses terms and ideas from quantum physics (quantum mysticism), and provides people with false hope that may obscure the possibility of effective medical treatment.[1]
A prominent alternative-medicine advocate and author of several dozen books and videos, he has been described[according to whom?] as a New-Age guru and is one of the best-known and wealthiest figures in the holistic-health movement.[2]
Chopra obtained his medical degree in India before emigrating in 1970 to the United States, where he specialized in endocrinology and became Chief of Staff at the New England Memorial Hospital (NEMH). In the 1980s he began practicing transcendental meditation (TM) and in 1985 resigned his position at NEMH to establish the Maharishi Ayurveda Health Center. Chopra left the TM movement in 1994 and founded the Chopra Center for Wellbeing, now located in Carlsbad, California.[3]
Combining principles from Ayurveda (Hindu traditional medicine) and mainstream medicine, Chopra's approach to health incorporates ideas about the mind-body relationship, teleology in nature and the primacy of consciousness over matter – that "consciousness creates reality."[4]
- ^ For Chopra and the placebo effect, Gamel (Antioch Review) 2008; Deepak Chopra, "I Will Not Be Pleased - Your Health and the Nocebo Effect", San Francisco Chronicle, October 17, 2012.
- For "false hope," Ptolemy Tompkins, "New Age Supersage", Time, November 14, 2008.
- For criticism of quantum-physics terminology and denying people the prospects of a cure, Robert L. Park, "Voodoo medicine in a scientific world," in Keith Ashman and Phillip Barringer (eds.), After the Science Wars: Science and the Study of Science, Taylor & Francis, 2000, p. 137; Robert L. Park, Voodoo Science, Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 192ff.
- ^ "Hokum on the Rise: The 70-Percent Solution"
- ^ Hans A. Baer (2003). "The Work of Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra—Two Holistic Health/New Age Gurus: A Critique of the Holistic Health/New Age Movements". Medical Anthropology Quarterly. 17 (2): p. 237. doi:10.1525/maq.2003.17.2.233. PMID 12846118.; Hans A. Baer, Toward an Integrative Medicine: Merging Alternative Therapies with Biomedicine, AltaMira Press, 2004, pp. 121–122.
- ^ Deepak Chopra, Quantum Healing: Exploring the Frontiers of Mind Body Medicine, Random House, 2009 [1989], preface; Brian Goldman, "Ayurvedism: Eastern Medicine Moves West", Canadian Medical Association Journal, 144(2), January 15, 1991, pp. 218–221.
- Good start, I'd say. I think some parts of the second paragraph need tighter wording and stronger sourcing. jps (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- @kww, the current lede has undergone many, many discussions and is the result of hard-won consensus. I understand your concerns with whitewashing, but please be sure to get consensus on the Talk before moving forward with these changes.
- For myself, I have serious BLP reservations about portraying statements of criticism as statements of fact (that his work relies solely on the placebo effect, that his work intrinsically offers "false hope", etc), as well as the placement of critiques about a smattering of his positions above broad biographical details (something that's been discussed at length here). Rather than completely rewriting a carefully wrought and negotiated lede, please let us know which specific sections you feel distort reality and we can work from there. The Cap'n (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Specifically, Askahrc, the reason is that the critiques are statements of fact. No reliable source about quantum mechanics indicates that Chopra's statements are reasonable. No medical sources provide evidence of any curative effects of his treatments, that they are effective treatments of disease, or that they extend lifespans. No reliable source indicates that any hope that he provides people is anything but false. I did not "completely rewrite" the lead, I simply took out a few wishy-washy qualifiers and rearranged it in order of importance.—Kww(talk) 19:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- By what standards are you determining order of importance? 198.228.211.70 (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Specifically, Askahrc, the reason is that the critiques are statements of fact. No reliable source about quantum mechanics indicates that Chopra's statements are reasonable. No medical sources provide evidence of any curative effects of his treatments, that they are effective treatments of disease, or that they extend lifespans. No reliable source indicates that any hope that he provides people is anything but false. I did not "completely rewrite" the lead, I simply took out a few wishy-washy qualifiers and rearranged it in order of importance.—Kww(talk) 19:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Proposals like this makes cartoons like this seem not so outlandish: Wikipedia these days... Why oh why do you want the second sentence of the first paragraph to be the debunker's POV? Yes, Chopra's critical reception is notable, but not opening-paragraph notable. If you don't consider yourself a militant skeptic - a cynic really - then don't give this ridiculous proposal any consideration. 198.228.216.21 (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The part "has been described" should be removed from the lede. We state statements of criticism as statements of fact unless there is a serious dispute. I support getting the lede back on track. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Kww, how do you quantify as fact "giving false hope," or "relying on placebo effect?" These are statements of opinion, which may be well represented, but are not objective facts. The placebo effect has been claimed as a large part of Chopra's results, but there are also plenty of medical journals who have endorsed some benefits from meditation and yoga, the two main treatments Chopra offers (again, discussed extensively in the jungle of text above). That doesn't that we should claim his treatments are medically endorsed, but it also doesn't mean we can say there's it's a fact that he relies solely on placebo effect (and for what? at the Chopra Center, or in his proposed ideas, or in his private practice?). As for "false hope," I trust I don't have to get into how that's not a qualified fact. The portions that are supported by factual concerns (quantum terminology, etc) are certainly not more well-known issues than his ideology, spirituality, medical background and the other highly significant (and RS represented) aspects of his BLP. Finally, the criticisms about Chopra have always been present in the lede, and their position is representative of their relevancy to a BLP: Name, Significance, Background, Positions, Reception.
- Long story short, less than 10 days ago we had an RfC on this exact issue of emphasizing criticism at the top of the lede, and it was rejected. Please see the arguments there so we don't rehash the whole issue, then let us know if you have concerns that were not addressed there.
- @QuackGuru, I agree with getting things on track, but the "has been described" was part of a consensus discussed above and accepted by both sides of the argument to keep the term present but qualified. That qualification was necessary due to Chopra's repeated denial of the term "guru," which according to BLP policy meant we could not apply the descriptor as a statement of fact. The Cap'n (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose proposal. The current lede is very neutrally phrased and fair. Placing criticism in the second sentence of a BLP is a violation of that policy and we all should know better than that. Cla68 (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- premature - while the RfC above about what content to include and where in the lead is still open having a second discussion about what to include is just going to cause confusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose This proposed wording would be an extraordinary violation of encyclopediality, and would ride roughshod on the letter and spirit of BLP. Rumiton (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: The third paragraph from the proposal above is the second from the article without changes ("Chopra obtained his..."). --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose With respect to Kww, the proposed lede is less encyclopedic, less neutral and dismisses many hours of work in coming to a consensus for the previous version. (@QuackGuru, the BLP section that says so is in WP:WELLKNOWN, which states that if a subject rejects a descriptor that is widely used, the descriptor can be used with the proviso that the subject's rejection of it is clear. Also, "New Age Guru" is not an objective, quantifiable fact, just one term among others that people have used. This was discussed in the Guru section above at length) The Cap'n (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- The "New Age Guru" language is unchanged from the current lead, where it is currently the second sentence. As for "consensus", that consensus would seem to include representatives of Deepak Chopra himself and editors that have long plagued the encyclopedia by attempting to include undue praise about transcendental meditation into articles. Discount them and the consensus would seem to go the other way.—Kww(talk) 21:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please consider that your critical point of view on the subject and your belief that Wikipedia articles should primarily be written from the debunkers' POV may also be problematic here. 198.228.211.70 (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Premature and Oppose per WP:LEAD and specifically per MOS:BEGIN; whereas the first paragraph should be reserved for an NPOV description of the subject without being overly specific. SueDonem (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please don't misuse WP:NPOV in that way. The second sentence is NPOV, in that it discards all points of view excluded by WP:FRINGE. Chopra's assertions are "proposals which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus" and, as such, "may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification."—Kww(talk) 23:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response, Kww. Per MOS:BEGIN: The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. It is my opinion that the proposed first paragraph doesn't adhere to this. It is specifically written from a critical (not neutral) POV; it exclusively presents criticism - in effect defining the topic (Chopra) by his criticism. Someone could just as well write the first paragraph solely focusing on Chopra's education because they feel that defines who Chopra is. Or just about his vast authorship. Or his business acumen. Rather than focusing on just criticism, or education, or authorship, or business acumen or anything else, I believe that the current lead paragraph give a neutral and non-specific "definition" of who Chopra is – which is more precisely what MOS:BEGIN warrants. SueDonem (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Again, you distort NPOV to mean things it does not. My proposed lead does not focus on "criticism", it focuses on a factual description of what he is notable for espousing.—Kww(talk) 01:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps getting rid of the "criticized" phrasing in favor of "Known for claiming that his practices can extend the human lifespan and treat chronic disease, he relies on the placebo effect, misuses terms and ideas from quantum physics (quantum mysticism), and provides people with false hope that may obscure the possibility of effective medical treatment." would eliminate any source of confusion. It is, after all, those false claims that are the foundation of his authorship, his business, and his fame.—Kww(talk) 01:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Your passion for this topic is infectious. With RFCs I am prone to give my two-cents and move along. But your points keep bringing me uncharacteristically back. And reading your last two posts truly demonstrates that you are a reasonable person. At first you wrote that your proposed lead does not focus on "criticism". And then - perhaps after re-reading your proposal and reflecting on MOS:BEGIN - you saw that the proposed opening paragraph very much does focus on criticism. I think your proposed lead still has a long way to go before I would give it my blessing, but it is nice to see that you're not inflexible. Your staunch defense followed by open-mindedness reminds me a lot of a personal hero - Ralph Waldo Emerson - who opined: Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. SueDonem (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - Coming in from seeing the RFC notice a bit back.. It seems that the current article (particularly the body) is too extremely whitewashed of issues regarding Chopra, but your proposed lead is a bit too extreme in the criticism of Chopra. For instance, outright saying he is someone who, in fact, he "relies on the placebo effect, misuses terms and ideas from quantum physics (quantum mysticism), and provides people with false hope that may obscure the possibility of effective medical treatment.[1]" as one of the first, most important facts about him is misleading and seems charged.. as if everyone agrees that is exactly who Deepak Chopra is and that is the consensus. Why not have a middle-way approach instead of going all out like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasangika37 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Kww, the consensus on the lede was not made up of TM believers, it was made up of a smattering of different editors with different motives, including people who had WP:FRINGE concerns like you, respected and impartial editors like SlimVirgin, people who had BLP concerns like myself and many others. I don't know the full background of all the editors involved in the lede consensus, but it seems the majority had little or no connection to TM. It was not a slapdash or one-sided discussion. The Cap'n (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- What would make you think that SlimVirgin isn't known for editing articles in a fashion that made them more favorable to New Age, TM, and similar positions?—Kww(talk) 19:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- In short, this. My own experiences with her reinforce that summary. The Cap'n (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Kww, I find it reprehensible your assumption a people's editorial motivations and therefore willingness to discount their opinions. 198.228.211.70 (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'll agree to the extent that she tends to edit against people with COI problems. For TM, New Age, and miscellaneous woowoo topics, I'll disagree. I didn't state that there was nobody involved in the discussion that thought the article was too harsh for reasons divorced from a generalized support of these things, simply that when one discounted the editors that do edit in favor of TM and New Age topics, the balance is not in favor of the current lead.—Kww(talk) 20:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- And if we applied the same standards to discount the editors who edit in disfavor of TM and New Age topics, the balance would likely shift back the other way. Or hey, I got an idea, let's instead respect everyone's opinions ... especially when their worldview doesn't align with our own. How's that for a plan, Kww? 198.228.211.70 (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- In short, this. My own experiences with her reinforce that summary. The Cap'n (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- What would make you think that SlimVirgin isn't known for editing articles in a fashion that made them more favorable to New Age, TM, and similar positions?—Kww(talk) 19:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Kww, the consensus on the lede was not made up of TM believers, it was made up of a smattering of different editors with different motives, including people who had WP:FRINGE concerns like you, respected and impartial editors like SlimVirgin, people who had BLP concerns like myself and many others. I don't know the full background of all the editors involved in the lede consensus, but it seems the majority had little or no connection to TM. It was not a slapdash or one-sided discussion. The Cap'n (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Contributions/198.228.211.70's last statement wholeheartedly, let's assume good faith and respect each other's opinions. We can't try to determine what consensus would be based on the hypothetical that we can discount everyone whose opinions are based on reasons we don't like. Therefore we weigh arguments and sources equally, fairly and civilly, particularly when leading to a consensus. That's been going on here for some time, and I for one am very pleased with how open (if not efficient) the discussion on the Talk Page has been. The Cap'n (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- The reason we have WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE is precisely so that we can discount the opinions of editors that attempt to promote them. It's a part of weighing arguments. Reliable sources clearly state that Chopra's writings and statements are false. Any effort to portray that as simply being criticism of a legitimate point of view is not called for by WP:NPOV, and, despite the protestations of our anonymous friend, promotion of false views has no place whatsoever in an encyclopedia.—Kww(talk) 02:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Your interpretation of WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE is perversely incorrect. Neither of those policies have anything to do with discounting opinions of our fellow editors. No one here in this RFC is attempting to balance the opinions of the scientific community with pseudoscientific or fringe theories. We are simply discussing the proper order to display content in the lead. The is not about the balance of scientific opinion vs. pseudoscientific opinion. This is about balancing scientific opinion with non-scientific biographic information such as Chopra's fame, his life story, his schooling and career, his books, etc. You, Kww, are POV-pushing for scientific criticism to take precedence over everything else. The majority of editors disagree with you. Accept it and move on. Your argumentation is getting tendentious and your language is getting personally inflammatory. Need I remind you that this article is covered by ANI sanctions? 198.228.208.204 (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank goodness that as a matter of principle we have to present wiki articles from a mainstream point of view then, otherwise the fringe pushers here would have a field day. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Of course I 100% agree with that statement, Roxy; except applied right here right now it is an obvious Strawman argument. 198.228.208.204 (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not. The lead, as formulated, emphasises Chopra's accomplishments and would make it appear that there is some kind of disagreement as to whether his views have merit. There are places where we need to be careful about neutrality: we don't have any reliable sources as to whether Chopra genuinely believes his own statements, which means that any characterization of him as either a fraud or delusional is matter of opinion and needs to be couched as such. This article attempts to obfuscate the fact that there is no third choice.—Kww(talk) 15:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- make it appear that there is some kind of disagreement as to whether his views have merit. That is pure militant skeptic paranoia. The current lead is quite clear about the scientific reception of Chopra's ideas. The issue is that you want to make this the primary focus of the lead and the biography in general. That is pure militant skepticism. Once again, the is not RationalWiki. This is a biography which must be written from a neutral POV representing verifiable information in proportion to how they appear in the sum total of reliable sources. 198.228.208.204 (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Where pray tell are these reliable sources that say that his ideas have any merit? There are certainly none that show there is any actual evidence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- where pray tell am I asserting there are reliable sources which say his ideas have scientific validity? Please read what this discussion is about and stop arguing with a Strawman. 198.228.208.168 (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- The issue is that you are attempting to talk around the "scientific validity" . The NPOV presentation of " representing verifiable information in proportion to how they appear in the sum total of reliable sources" is that the reliable sources frame Chopra as making wild unsupported claims about which he has zero scientifically valid evidence. To present him in any other way is to completely fail NPOV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- You still are arguing with a Strawman. I am not suggesting that we present Chopra's ideas as scientifically valid. Please re-read, comprehend, and then see if you disagree still. 166.137.216.178 (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- The issue is that you are attempting to talk around the "scientific validity" . The NPOV presentation of " representing verifiable information in proportion to how they appear in the sum total of reliable sources" is that the reliable sources frame Chopra as making wild unsupported claims about which he has zero scientifically valid evidence. To present him in any other way is to completely fail NPOV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Reordering aside, the current lead contains the text "He claims that his practices can extend the human lifespan and treat chronic disease, a position criticized by scientists, who say his treatments rely on the placebo effect", which is the core of my objection. It paints the issue as a "he says, others say" situation as opposed to "his claims are false". I could come to live with the order of the lead if it didn't misdescribe the situation that way.—Kww(talk) 23:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Propose a revision to just that then. 198.228.209.181 (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- where pray tell am I asserting there are reliable sources which say his ideas have scientific validity? Please read what this discussion is about and stop arguing with a Strawman. 198.228.208.168 (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Where pray tell are these reliable sources that say that his ideas have any merit? There are certainly none that show there is any actual evidence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- make it appear that there is some kind of disagreement as to whether his views have merit. That is pure militant skeptic paranoia. The current lead is quite clear about the scientific reception of Chopra's ideas. The issue is that you want to make this the primary focus of the lead and the biography in general. That is pure militant skepticism. Once again, the is not RationalWiki. This is a biography which must be written from a neutral POV representing verifiable information in proportion to how they appear in the sum total of reliable sources. 198.228.208.204 (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not. The lead, as formulated, emphasises Chopra's accomplishments and would make it appear that there is some kind of disagreement as to whether his views have merit. There are places where we need to be careful about neutrality: we don't have any reliable sources as to whether Chopra genuinely believes his own statements, which means that any characterization of him as either a fraud or delusional is matter of opinion and needs to be couched as such. This article attempts to obfuscate the fact that there is no third choice.—Kww(talk) 15:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Of course I 100% agree with that statement, Roxy; except applied right here right now it is an obvious Strawman argument. 198.228.208.204 (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank goodness that as a matter of principle we have to present wiki articles from a mainstream point of view then, otherwise the fringe pushers here would have a field day. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Your interpretation of WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE is perversely incorrect. Neither of those policies have anything to do with discounting opinions of our fellow editors. No one here in this RFC is attempting to balance the opinions of the scientific community with pseudoscientific or fringe theories. We are simply discussing the proper order to display content in the lead. The is not about the balance of scientific opinion vs. pseudoscientific opinion. This is about balancing scientific opinion with non-scientific biographic information such as Chopra's fame, his life story, his schooling and career, his books, etc. You, Kww, are POV-pushing for scientific criticism to take precedence over everything else. The majority of editors disagree with you. Accept it and move on. Your argumentation is getting tendentious and your language is getting personally inflammatory. Need I remind you that this article is covered by ANI sanctions? 198.228.208.204 (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. The suggested wording is not appropriate because it portrays as facts the various criticisms that have been leveled against Chopra. These criticisms are valid but they do not rise to the level of established fact. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- They most certainly do. Chopra's statements come under the umbrella of WP:FRINGE:"Proposals which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification." The notion that the criticisms do not rise to the level of established fact is exactly the false impression that this article creates in its current form.—Kww(talk) 23:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- So then, you are arguing that the mind-body connection is fringe? According to the FDA:
- NCCAM describes mind-body medicine as focusing on "the interactions among the brain, mind, body, and behavior, and the powerful ways in which emotional, mental, social, spiritual, and behavioral factors can directly affect health."13 It states that mind-body medicine "typically focuses on intervention strategies that are thought to promote health, such as relaxation, hypnosis, visual imagery, meditation, yoga, biofeedback, tai chi, qi gong, cognitive-behavioral therapies, group support, autogenic training, and spirituality."' Gandydancer (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not everything on that list is fringe, no. You aren't seriously trying to say that because relaxing can be therapeutic, quantum healing must have some merit, are you?—Kww(talk) 00:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- (e/c) you have not provided a source that says you can hum away your AIDS virus or yoga yourself to 130 years old or rid yourself of cancer by thinking that you dont have cancer. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Kww, if I agreed with your version here then I would have said so. I think the suggested text is a blunt instrument for bludgeoning the reader against any sympathy with Chopra. I believe that we can put together a more nuanced lead section than that! Regarding supposed facts, the bit about Chopra giving people "false hope" has never been a proven fact, with studies made to prove or disprove the accusation. Rather, it is a personal observation of Robert Todd Carroll. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- I could live without that bit. Perhaps simply "he misuses terms and ideas from quantum physics (quantum mysticism) to support claims that his practices can extend the human lifespan and treat chronic disease, while the treatments themselves yield results indistinguishable from the placebo effect" would hew more closely to known facts? As for generating sympathy for Chopra, why would that be one of the criteria you use to judge a lead?—Kww(talk) 02:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- NCCAM describes mind-body medicine as focusing on "the interactions among the brain, mind, body, and behavior, and the powerful ways in which emotional, mental, social, spiritual, and behavioral factors can directly affect health."13 It states that mind-body medicine "typically focuses on intervention strategies that are thought to promote health, such as relaxation, hypnosis, visual imagery, meditation, yoga, biofeedback, tai chi, qi gong, cognitive-behavioral therapies, group support, autogenic training, and spirituality."' Gandydancer (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. The wording of the article should be made more neutral according to WP:BLP policy, not less. As SlimVirgin said, there is an attempt in this article to put wikipedia guidelines and essays above the BLP policy. --Calypsomusic (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Quackwatch article
Stephen Barrett. "A Few Thoughts on Ayurvedic Mumbo-Jumbo". This Quackwatch article can be used in this page and the Ayurveda page. QuackGuru (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, to the extent that it makes comments about Chopra, himself, it cannot be used. To the extent it makes comments about his statements, it's possible. Please read WP:BLPSPS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Edit did not match edit summary
This change makes no sense. A lot of the article is now disorganised and text is missing. Some of the sections names have also been deleted. See the previous version with the section names organised text. QuackGuru (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Reception
Hi my name is ptarmigander and I am a newbie and I could use some help.
- I have a question about the Reception section. That section seems like it might be weighted toward the critical to me. I think it's best to have the criticism like Goldilock's porridge. Not to Hot not too Cold.
- So what I am wondering is- It occurs to me that the Oprah thing was and still is a large part of the Chopra phenomenon. And that is clearly Reception. But the Oprah thing is covered in the West Coast Years section.
- Now, is the Oprah thing more a West Coast years (Chronological) issue or is it a Reception issue?
- I am not saying it should be mentioned in both sections.
- Should it? But I do see Paul Offit is used in both sections. You know as kind of a backhand criticism of Chopra's excess/success.
- Also there is the issue that while the "Oprah thing" is not mentioned in Reception Oprah is slammed there(with a sweeping generalization). Why is Oprah being slammed in a Chopra article? Could seem a bit fishy. Like trying to double dip.Ptarmigander (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Our goal is not to be "not too hot, not too cold" , our goal is to WP:NPOV accurately represent the mainstream academic view of the subject. the mainstream academic views of health claims are essentially unanimously that its at best pure bunk. On the other hand, the mainstream academic view of his cultivation of his celebrity is that of an expert class. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
So not to hot or not too cold.. but just right. Sure must take a while to learn that.Ptarmigander (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, more like Cold AND Hot. Cold reception of his medical claims, a warm reception of his media entrepreneurship. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Alright. And where does inspiration fit in? From a psychological standpoint Chopra gives many people inspiration. This is a form of psychological compensation. Like religion the compensatory ideas are not factual. In fact they usually involve super powers and imaginary worlds. Life after death, Wish fulfillment. Mind over matter, Heaven and reincarnation. etc. They are non-factual and that is part of their appeal as compensations. They offer an illusory and always lofty freedom. But aren't such inspirational fantasies considered by psychologists to serve an important purpose in society? Mr. Chopra is being an insightful businessman to tap into this. This may set off alarms of exploitation in people anxious to judge, but regardless, for many people believing these fantasies is a genuine and valid psychological need. Not everybody can drop their need to entertain fantasies that give them hope and give them a promise of super powers and higher realms. Some one has got to keep hope alive. Especially for unstable people. Isn't this a major complaint made by Chopra? That science is crushing inspiration? His answer- to have science accept the fantasy- is not a good solution granted, but spiritual fantasy serves an important function in society. Ptarmigander (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
But aren't such inspirational fantasies considered by psychologists to serve an important purpose in society? We would need a reliable source to support inclusion of something like this – preferably something written by a psychology expert and published with professional editorial review. 198.228.208.66 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Where is SAS81? He's pretty good at providing sources. I'll check too. That is a good idea, 198.228.208.66. Ptarmigander (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Let me quickly add before any Chopra reps take offense at my dismantling of Chopra's appeal. I do think Deepak Chopra is more than just a clever businessman. I feel he believes wholeheartedly that the unitive experience that some Yogis and Rishis may have experienced in meditation could be the key to all these fantasy powers and realms. -It may instead be the key to no longer needing such fantasy compensations- But either way I think Deepak believes this deep meditative state could be a perception (an experience) of the same source state or near source states that Quantum Physics tries to describe. I think this singular belief in the unitive experience is key to Deepak Chopra's spirituality and in turn to everything else he espouses. This mingling of the peak of Indian (Vedic) spirituality into all Chopra's other endeavors is why I believe the topic of Spirituality is central to Deepak Chopra's life and it deserves a wider coverage in his Bio. In the Spirituality and Religion section.
- I will come up with some suggestions and look for some sources.Ptarmigander (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Be careful with this: as Chopra is an apparently intelligent and obviously well-educated man, we have no reason to assume that he actually believes anything he says. On the other hand, we have no reliable sources that indicate that he understands that most of his claims are false. Any discussion of this aspect of his life can't make an assumption one way or the other: he may be a fool, he may be a fraud, but we don't know which one is actually the case. Any material you add should not state what he believes, only what he says.—Kww(talk) 18:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Kww, reliable sources are necessary for expressing what Chopra believes or thinks about himself, and assumptions about even commonsense matters sometimes need to be sourced, as what's commonsense to some isn't to others. Ie., as an atheist I cannot comprehend an intelligent person believing in magical cloud people, but that incomprehension doesn't stop some of the most intelligent people in the world believing in some form of a deity. If something hasn't been adequately cited to a secondary source, it's problematic to state as a fact, whether it's complimentary or critical in nature. Once we get numerous secondaries, then we can weigh out the balance of NPOV to make sure the content is still factual without using disproportionate sourcing to weigh the article too heavily in one direction. "Hot AND Cold" is a good metaphor for that, as we need to be careful not to use NPOV to canonize one specific perspective that we call "neutral". Thus, the argument I've been pushing has not been that critical sources should be less valued, but that positive sources should be equally valued. I don't think that's happened yet, but WP is and always will be a work in progress. The Cap'n (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- We may still disagree. I don't think there is a reliable source as to what Choprah believes. If he believes it, he would say so. If he doesn't believe it but is only saying it to make money, he would still say so. Therefore, what he says doesn't provide any information about what he believes. No one else can possibly know, so they can only report on what he says. That means we can only report on what he says, and never on what he believes.—Kww(talk) 02:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Can we change the title of this section to "Chopra and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" please? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 03:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- We may still disagree. I don't think there is a reliable source as to what Choprah believes. If he believes it, he would say so. If he doesn't believe it but is only saying it to make money, he would still say so. Therefore, what he says doesn't provide any information about what he believes. No one else can possibly know, so they can only report on what he says. That means we can only report on what he says, and never on what he believes.—Kww(talk) 02:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Kww, reliable sources are necessary for expressing what Chopra believes or thinks about himself, and assumptions about even commonsense matters sometimes need to be sourced, as what's commonsense to some isn't to others. Ie., as an atheist I cannot comprehend an intelligent person believing in magical cloud people, but that incomprehension doesn't stop some of the most intelligent people in the world believing in some form of a deity. If something hasn't been adequately cited to a secondary source, it's problematic to state as a fact, whether it's complimentary or critical in nature. Once we get numerous secondaries, then we can weigh out the balance of NPOV to make sure the content is still factual without using disproportionate sourcing to weigh the article too heavily in one direction. "Hot AND Cold" is a good metaphor for that, as we need to be careful not to use NPOV to canonize one specific perspective that we call "neutral". Thus, the argument I've been pushing has not been that critical sources should be less valued, but that positive sources should be equally valued. I don't think that's happened yet, but WP is and always will be a work in progress. The Cap'n (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'll be bringing in some sources to this shortly, please standby everyone thank you. SAS81 (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Be careful with this: as Chopra is an apparently intelligent and obviously well-educated man, we have no reason to assume that he actually believes anything he says. On the other hand, we have no reliable sources that indicate that he understands that most of his claims are false. Any discussion of this aspect of his life can't make an assumption one way or the other: he may be a fool, he may be a fraud, but we don't know which one is actually the case. Any material you add should not state what he believes, only what he says.—Kww(talk) 18:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't entirely leave out the excluded middle. The middle between Kww's options is a bit constrictive. "he may be a fool, he may be a fraud, but we don't know which one is actually the case." Ptarmigander (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- There's no middle ground supported by reliable sources. He's either unaware that his statements are false or aware that his statements are false and makes them anyway. That his statements are true isn't under consideration, because all reliable sources on medicine and quantum physics say that they are not.—Kww(talk) 19:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Jytdog, we got sidetracked by a question about establishing beliefs versus statements that, I grant, isn't really appropriate for Reception, but is a conversation worth having. I'd be fine with either continuing the conversation in this thread or someone starting a new one to discuss statements of belief more thoroughly (maybe a better solution). The Cap'n (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- respectfully, the only thing that matters is what content we can generate based on the most reliable secondary sources say. much of the Talk above is unsourced speculation that has no place here - this is not a forum.... Jytdog (talk) 200:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree with the importance of sourcing anything that's stated in the article, though I would point out that primary sources are also acceptable (if less ideal than secondary) sources for determining viewpoints (not analysis of them), especially in a BLP. Also, please be sure to sign off on your posts. I'm assuming this is Jytdog but am not sure. The Cap'n (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Everything that Wikipedia says about sources urges us to rely on secondary sources -- there are many many good things that come from that and many many many bad things that are avoided. Anywhere on Wikipedia, you generally need a very good reason to use a primary source and then, you use it with great care. On a contested article like this, everybody should raise that bar even higher and only bring a primary source with a very very good reason, and everybody should keep content based on a primary source very very constricted and narrow. In my experience, when people push for content based on primary sources in a contested article, they are generally POV-pushing - it is a red flag. There is some bit of content the party really wants in the article and he/she cannot find it in reliable secondary sources. Very backward from how we operate. ugh. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree with the importance of sourcing anything that's stated in the article, though I would point out that primary sources are also acceptable (if less ideal than secondary) sources for determining viewpoints (not analysis of them), especially in a BLP. Also, please be sure to sign off on your posts. I'm assuming this is Jytdog but am not sure. The Cap'n (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- respectfully, the only thing that matters is what content we can generate based on the most reliable secondary sources say. much of the Talk above is unsourced speculation that has no place here - this is not a forum.... Jytdog (talk) 200:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Jytdog, we got sidetracked by a question about establishing beliefs versus statements that, I grant, isn't really appropriate for Reception, but is a conversation worth having. I'd be fine with either continuing the conversation in this thread or someone starting a new one to discuss statements of belief more thoroughly (maybe a better solution). The Cap'n (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Chopra Spiritual views
per the request of this community - Dr Chopra embraces the perennial philosophy of universal truths, much like Aldous Huxley and Henry David Thoreau, with that truth being informed by Vedanta's position that the universe and consciousness are inextricable - or that everything exists inside of consciousness. Alan Watts is an ideal example of a philosopher who explained this holistic nature of sentient organisms in a nondual, nonreductionist manner. Consciousness is the unifying element behind this perspective, as Dr Chopra has said, 'In the real world – the world of consciousness – there are not objects. Objects exist through perception. Another way of putting it is to say, “there are no nouns, only verbs." The universe is a verb. It’s an activity. It never stops.' It's a broader concept than I can discuss here, but it's a long-established philosophy that deserves a mention.
Here are a collection of sources, both primary and secondary, which establish Dr Chopra as a follower of Vedanta. All of his spiritual views are just a modernization of Vedanta. There's been a lot of discussion over primary sources, but I think it's pretty obvious and accepted in Wikipedia policies to allow primary sources as reliable information on what the subject says they believe. I've put them on my talk page out of concern I've been taking up too much talk page space.
Link to Chopra Vedanta sources.
Chopra and the perennial philosophy - sources. SAS81 (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I support including Dr. Chopra's Vedanta orientation in the Spirituality and religion section.(I am working on it) One thing though, in Vedanta isn't the source of all things (Brahma) beyond all things? Chopra says: "There's a transcendent, space-less, timeless, dimensionless order of being that orchestrates all the energy and information in the universe. " Isn't the view of Vedanta that the primary reality is beyond all relativity. All dualities. So this would be also be beyond consciousness and not-consciousness. Where in Vedanta does it say that the non-relative absolute is Consciousness? Understandably, science hasn't found evidence that everything is conscious or is made of consciousness. But where exactly does that conclusion arise from Vedanta?
- Do you have a more direct Vedanta source for that idea SAS81? That might help explain where Dr. Chopra came up with it and then it could be more properly contextualized as Spiritual/Religious. Ptarmigander (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- It is certainly possible to use them as sources for what he says he believes, so long as the article doesn't imply genuine belief. There is also the question as to how important the details of his claims actually are.—Kww(talk) 18:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with Kww in regards to being careful to describe statements, not assumptions, but we also have to be careful not to go too far and assume bad faith by inserting weasel words like "claims", "insists", etc. As to the importance, this is a BLP, and the personal beliefs of someone who's known for being a spiritual leader seem pretty vital. The Cap'n (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the evidence or the sources that support your statements Kww, Dr. Chopra's claims that meditation, yoga can be beneficial to health and integrated into Western medical practice are claims that are supported by evidence. While those views may have been more controversial 30 years ago, now they are the mainstream. I believe if you're operating under the assumption that Dr. Chopra makes false or misleading claims and I'm worried that is guiding you to edit the article towards a slanted point of view.
Excellent question, Ptarmigander
It is important to note that he does not identify as an orthodox adherent to any religious outlook, but rather uses both perennial philosophy and Vedanta to inform his understanding of each other as well as other issues. He explained part of this premise as '...full comprehension of the universe will be connecting the consciousness, which is the ground of the cosmos, to our individual experience of consciousness. Our ground of existence is the same as the ground state of the universe. This is the message of Vedanta: Atman is Brahman. Individual consciousness fully awakened is the same as the essential nature of the entire cosmos. Somehow our consciousness participates and is integral to the creation of the universe. Sadly, by the time we realize our true creative role, our ignorant actions might have already destroyed our planetary home.' (1)
Also, Dr. Chopra's spiritual views may have evolved from Vedanta - but they also were directly obtained from meditation experiences - i.e. the experience of non duality is what informs the perennial or vedanta philosophy. Many of the early quantum physicists were also perennial philosophers, such as schrodinger and bohm. While this view is a minority one, many other distinguished minds of science and philosophy have shared the same or identical viewpoint.
Here are a few sources that explore the Vedantic views on consciousness, reality and awareness. As I said, for a longer discussion, please see me on my Talk Page.
- Chaudhuri, Haridas (1962-04-01). "Existentialism and VedÄ nta". Philosophy East and West. 12 (1): 3–17. doi:10.2307/1397242. JSTOR 1397242. Retrieved 2014-06-26.
- Vivekananda, Swami (1896). The Ideal of a Universal Religion: Address on Vedanta Philosophy Delivered at Hardman Hall, New York, Sunday, January 12, 1896.
- Arjunwadkar, Krishna S. (1996-01-01). "A RATIONAL APPROACH TO VEDĀNTA". Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 77 (1/4): 223–234. JSTOR 41702172. Retrieved 2014-06-26.
- Radhakrishnan, S. (1916-04-01). "THE VEDANTIC APPROACH TO REALITY". The Monist. 26 (2): 200–231. JSTOR 27900585. Retrieved 2014-06-26.
SAS81 (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Are tweets WP:RS if self published?
If so, then the following exchange is peachy...
- @DeepakChopra [said] ... "Real scientists have epistemic humility, reverence for existence, value transcendence, have healthy skepticism @allforafairsoc @ProfBrianCox"
- @ProfBrianCox [said] ... "The most important attribute for a 'real scientist', as you put it @DeepakChopra, is to actually understand some science."
This was just this week. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 06:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- twits are self published and are only reliable for non promotional content about the subject who twits it and in general, twitting and twits are WP:IINFO for which coverage in the article would be WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- The biggest problem with tweets is context: it's very difficult to use them without running afoul of WP:OR while trying to place the tweet into the larger discussion.—Kww(talk) 14:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- I tend to agree, Twitter (the ban of my existence, despite its usefulness during the Arab Spring) usually consists of self-published primary blurts of truncated opinion, and trying to place them into a context and larger analysis as befits an encyclopedia is highly problematic. The Cap'n (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- This is an easy consensus, but my example does serve to illustrate, quite concisely, very well, and with a dash of humour, the mainstream view. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
very confused here as to how the 'mainstream' view is being defined. I can confirm that this is not a 'mainstream' view or if it is mainstream, it is one of many mainstream views that contradict each other. For every scientist out there that you can find a quote of that is unfavorable to Dr. Chopra, I can find another one that is favorable. Chances are Brian Cox is not even familiar with Dr. Chopra's work and is just jumping on a bandwagon. SAS81 (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Are photons conscious, or is Wikipedia controlled by militant skeptics?
I have reverted a rather strong statement in the article on BLP grounds, but not worrying about Chopra's rights, rather those of Jerry Coyne not to be misrepresented in print by Wikipedia. The paragraph was cited to Forbes, and sure enough if you look there, you see Steven Salzberg quoting something from Chopra about whether photons are conscious, immediately followed by a quote from Coyne about woo and psychobabble. The problem is that Salzberg gives us a link to the Coyne article. If you follow this link you find an article not about photons, but about the alleged band of 'militant skeptics' that Rupert Sheldrake and Chopra say have taken control of their Wikipedia's articles. After a long quote from Chopra about Sheldrake’s Wikipedia entry, Coyne does indeed give us the quote about woo and psychobabble. The problem is that he is not talking about Chopra's views on the possible consciousness of photons by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore by saying in Wikipedia's voice that he does, we are misrepresenting him. If we want to make a point about Chopra and photon consciousness, then the attribution would have to go to Salzberg not Coyne, but really should not ignore the misattribution of the sourcing in Salzberg's piece.
Personally, I don't think there is anything to be gained by following this tortured path. It seems to me a good example of 'more heat than light' where muddled strong words end up not showing anything up clearly, except the muddle. There must be better written criticisms of Chopra's published work on consciousness than this, to lead us toward an actual encyclopedia article, rather than a collection of disconnected polemic remarks. --Nigelj (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Are photons conscious, or is Wikipedia controlled by militant skeptics? Obviously neither, but if I had to choose, the correct answer is obviously the photons. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'll point out that the article by Salzberg is an opinion piece (which should be evident by the writing style of the article), and it even states on the page, "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." The policy covering the use of such a source is WP:RSOPINION. -- Atama頭 19:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- My point was that if the use this opinion piece, we should attribute the opinion to Salzberg not to Coyne, as the latter has said no such thing, that we know of. On the other hand, what real use is Salzberg's opinion once we know that it's based on a misquote? --Nigelj (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'll point out that the article by Salzberg is an opinion piece (which should be evident by the writing style of the article), and it even states on the page, "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." The policy covering the use of such a source is WP:RSOPINION. -- Atama頭 19:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Lead again
The second paragraph of the lead:
Chopra obtained his medical degree in India before emigrating in 1970 to the United States, where he specialized in endocrinology and became Chief of Staff at the New England Memorial Hospital (NEMH). In the 1980s he began practicing transcendental meditation (TM) and in 1985 resigned his position at NEMH to establish the Maharishi Ayurveda Health Center. Chopra left the TM movement in 1994 and founded the Chopra Center for Wellbeing, now located in Carlsbad, California.[1]
seems trivial to me. At the very least, it should be moved down, so that what he is known for, in the third paragraph, should be moved up. Perhaps it should disappear from the lead entirely. (Need it be said that, although I believe Kww's lead is accurate, it may have WP:DUE weight problems.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- This has been brought up before and received no responses. I say it's time to be bold with it. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The first sentence of the third paragraph:
Combining principles from Ayurveda (Hindu traditional medicine) and mainstream medicine, Chopra's approach to health incorporates ideas about the mind-body relationship, teleology in nature and the primacy of consciousness over matter – that "consciousness creates reality."
seems a bit puffery puffery to me. If it could be sourced without using his own works, it might be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- prefer to wait until the RfC about the lead has closed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I can understand that. I just don't see any chance of the RfC producing a consensus, other than one opposing Kww's choice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know about that. The RFC on making criticism more prominent is nearly at a dead heat numerically, and none of the oppose votes have a sound foundation in policy or guideline. They seem to be primarily based on the notion that Chopra's opinion of himself needs to be given prominence. I agree that the medical career that he abandoned 30 years ago is no longer prominent enough to warrant mention in the lead.—Kww(talk) 14:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- That doesn't seem like "puffery" so much as the type of biographical information that is supposed to be the focus of a Biography of a Living Person. Why are we pushing to remove the one chunk of information in the lede that is purely and objectively factual?
- @Kww, first off, it's not quite a dead heat, as there are more Oppose/Leave It Alone than Support. Secondly, it's not very responsible to generalize statements like "none of the oppose votes have a sound foundation in policy or guideline." WP:BLP is a sound policy, WP:BALANCE is a sound guideline, WP:NPOV is a sound policy, WP:LEAD & MOS:BEGIN are sound guidelines, and these were all referenced at length in the RfC Survey. What hasn't been a strongly represented opinion among the Opposes has been the idea that the lede needs to be Chopra's opinion of himself. I try to be careful not to misrepresent the arguments of others even if I disagree with them; please extend the same courtesy. The Cap'n (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- It was 12:10 at last count, so there isn't a numeric imbalance bigger than sampling error. Given that moving criticism up in the lead is not contraindicated by WP:BLP, WP:BALANCE, or WP:NPOV, none of those arguments have a sound foundation in policy or guidelines. I could argue that criticism needed to be moved up based on WP:Short horizontal line, but that would not mean that my argument had a sound foundation in policy or guidelines.—Kww(talk) 23:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
References
- ^ Hans A. Baer (2003). "The Work of Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra—Two Holistic Health/New Age Gurus: A Critique of the Holistic Health/New Age Movements". Medical Anthropology Quarterly. 17 (2): p. 237. doi:10.1525/maq.2003.17.2.233. PMID 12846118.; Hans A. Baer, Toward an Integrative Medicine: Merging Alternative Therapies with Biomedicine, AltaMira Press, 2004, pp. 121–122.
An Excluded Middle
- One thing missing between Dr. Chopra the Scourge of Standard Medicine and Quantum Physics and Dr. Chopra the extremely successful businessman is the fact that Dr. Chopra is probably the most popular and well known current-day provider of spiritual ideas. (next to the Pope)
These ideas although contrary to mainstream science and medicine offer a benefit to millions of people as inspirational beliefs. These inspirational beliefs, like the fantasy beliefs of religion, have an established benefit. They offer "compensatory wish fulfillment, which (is) recuperative in effect” ( Otto Fenichel, The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis (London 1946) p. 554)
Various studies have pointed to the useful aspects of these type of beliefs.
- Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., McGregor, I., & Nash, K. (2010). Religious belief as compensatory control. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 37-48
- Salamone, F., The Selfobject Function of Compensatory Fantasy. Clinical Social Work Journal; Vol 23, Number 3; 327
Dr. Chopra offers a class of spiritual beliefs that are an evolution from the formal materialistic Father-God of the Heavens. Toward a formless timeless source of all being. He has written and spoken about this many times. And it shows how Chopra differs from many organized religions, how he offers an evolving set of beliefs moving from formal to formless (and also toward science) and this should probably be included in the Spirituality and Religion section also.
- Deepak Chopra is a tireless champion for those that need and desire such compensatory uplifting spiritual beliefs. He is fighting the "Good Fight" for their validity and their place in society. That he is such a tireless crusader in this is a source of great comfort for many people. How much more compensating these beliefs are if they are popular and they are part of a coming revolution and people think they are even proven by science- or about to be proven by science.
- Plus- it does not hurt their compensatory value that these beliefs are reviled and despised by those unimaginative atheists, materialists and skeptics. That even seems to help their value.
- Deepak Chopra is so helping these people. Many of them really need the inspiration.
- No amount of brain imaging will ever explain why, when a person loses all their compensations they try to commit suicide.
- Dr. Chopra is constantly supporting and enriching the quality of these spiritual compensations and increasing their value as inspirational vehicles. Very much like the pastor of a large church that goes out and performs good deeds to support the brotherhood and charity tenets of his religion. Dr. Chopra is out committing his resources to looking after his flock and advocating for their beliefs. It is a huge endeavor and it is a very large flock.Ptarmigander (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Very interesting post, Ptarmigander, with some pretty provocative ideas. I'd be interested in seeing a different paradigm to this page that doesn't dwell so heavily on the "Science v. Woo" aspect that doesn't seem to be healthy for WP or us editors. What type of material did you have in mind? A new section or a broader reassessment? Given the contentiousness of this article we have to be very careful how we approach any significant changes, and dramatically expand your selection of sources. Interested to see what you propose... The Cap'n (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Your argument is a variant of WP:USEFUL: that while his teachings are bullshit, they are useful bullshit. But that's the opinion of Ptarmigander, and thus has no place here. Are there reliable sources stating that spiritual, business or political leaders have openly made this argument in favor of Chopraism? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)