→Lead Section: I've attributed the line to Ptolemy Tompkins in the lead and changed it to described as opposed to summarized as the article is not a representative view. |
→Lead Section: we need to summarize |
||
Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
:::::: Yes, you think you personally are better placed to judge Tomkins' suitability to write on this topic than ''Time'' magazine, because of far-fetched suppositions & accusations based on a web page. In any case, that was what ''Time''published and that's what we report, to be neutral. No answer to my request for your source, I notice. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 21:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC) |
:::::: Yes, you think you personally are better placed to judge Tomkins' suitability to write on this topic than ''Time'' magazine, because of far-fetched suppositions & accusations based on a web page. In any case, that was what ''Time''published and that's what we report, to be neutral. No answer to my request for your source, I notice. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 21:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::::: I've attributed the line to [[Ptolemy Tompkins]] in the lead and changed it to described as opposed to summarized as the article is not a representative view. His views may be controversial, but to summarily suggest a range of "dismissive to damning" is misleading. The lead still needs work to actually represent a NPOV.[[User:BlueStove|BlueStove]] ([[User talk:BlueStove|talk]]) 16:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC) |
::::::: I've attributed the line to [[Ptolemy Tompkins]] in the lead and changed it to described as opposed to summarized as the article is not a representative view. His views may be controversial, but to summarily suggest a range of "dismissive to damning" is misleading. The lead still needs work to actually represent a NPOV.[[User:BlueStove|BlueStove]] ([[User talk:BlueStove|talk]]) 16:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::::::: I have no idea why the attribution helps in any way. Seems rather inappropriate actually. |
|||
::::::::Given the lede should summarize, I think it would be best to do so rather than provide info from the Time article that is so contentious that we feel it cannot be presented in Wikipedia's voice. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 16:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:55, 25 February 2016
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 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Arbitration Enforcement
Notification:[1]
Bull-shit study at BLP/N
I asked for input at the BLP Notice board here on the recent use of this content (below). Although I think Ronz made a good effort to reduce the contentious and inflammatory quality of the content, I would agree the content is coatrack, adds no useful information to this article and is a BLP violation.
"A 2015 paper examining "the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit" used Chopra's Twitter feed as the canonical example, and compared this with fake Chopra quotes generated by a spoof website."
I will be off Wikipedia for a few days so leave this discussion to others.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC))
- Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of people's cherished delusions. Chopra undoubtedly believes that his comments are profound. Science undoubtedly shows that his audience is unable to distinguish between these statements and fake ones, which strongly suggests that his statements are, as the news commentary points out, pseudo-profound bullshit. That's not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Actually what the study points out is that Chopra's Tweets were used because, "we focus on Chopra here merely because others have claimed that some of the things that he has written seem like “woo-woo nonsense." "Bullshit is not only common; it is popular. Chopra is, of course, just one example among many." "We emphasize that we deliberately selected tweets that seemed vague and, therefore, the se- lected statements should not be taken as representative of Chopra’s tweet history or body of work."
- This study itself was not about proving Chopra is creating bullshit, the authors are quite clear on that. This was a study concerned with analyzing how people respond to what the authors considered to be vague and meaningless phrases while the vaguest phrases and "mashed" up versions of words Chopra had tweeted were used. However I sent this to a NB because i feel this content and source are in a no man's land and perhaps or perhaps not should be included in an article about Chopra where it casts a certain light on Chopra's work which was not the intention of the study, given the author's statements. Whatever comes back form the NB should determine inclusion or not. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC))
- I share your concerns about the study. I think if we include it we should focus on the reporting about the study that directly relates to Chopra, rather than on the study itself. --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with that. The study is a WP:PRIMARY source. The commentary around it is what's interesting and relevant. I do not agree that the study is not about the sense of what Chopra says. Much of the commentary clearly sees that the underlying message very much is that "Chopralalia" is nonsense, and that is only putting his spiritual messages in the same basket as his use of scientific terminology, as noted by Leonard Mlodinow in the legendary video clip. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ronz and Littleolive oil, I suggest letting the anti-Chopra editors have their way with this article because when people see an edit as openly biased as putting "bullshit" in the lede of a BLP, it hurts WP in general and helps hasten the day of WP's demise or, at least, further erodes WP's credibility with the general public. Why fight it? Cla68 (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with that. The study is a WP:PRIMARY source. The commentary around it is what's interesting and relevant. I do not agree that the study is not about the sense of what Chopra says. Much of the commentary clearly sees that the underlying message very much is that "Chopralalia" is nonsense, and that is only putting his spiritual messages in the same basket as his use of scientific terminology, as noted by Leonard Mlodinow in the legendary video clip. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I share your concerns about the study. I think if we include it we should focus on the reporting about the study that directly relates to Chopra, rather than on the study itself. --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- This study itself was not about proving Chopra is creating bullshit, the authors are quite clear on that. This was a study concerned with analyzing how people respond to what the authors considered to be vague and meaningless phrases while the vaguest phrases and "mashed" up versions of words Chopra had tweeted were used. However I sent this to a NB because i feel this content and source are in a no man's land and perhaps or perhaps not should be included in an article about Chopra where it casts a certain light on Chopra's work which was not the intention of the study, given the author's statements. Whatever comes back form the NB should determine inclusion or not. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC))
Just as a general observation, there's nothing inherently wrong with the word "bullshit", and in fact the study of bullshit (taurascatics) is enjoying some currency in the academic literature right now (which is probably why this study appeared) ... see e.g. here. Our own article on On Bullshit also sets some of this out. It's really rather a fascinating concept. Alexbrn (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- So we have a primary study that uses Chopra's words in a "mashed" up way to generate phrases for the study while Chopra and his work is not the subject of the study. We have a secondary source that while verifiable is probably not a reliable source for research. I don't think we can rely on underlying messages since they tend to be subjective and are not explicit in the study. We don't have much left.(Littleolive oil (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC))
- Those are valid concerns. I just wanted to point out that us using the word "bullshit" is not a problem per se. As JzG observed, it's a rare case where WP:NOTCENSORED actually applies! Alexbrn (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- If I was looking for a fair and neutral presentation of Chopra's views, and saw a "bullshit" reference in the lede, I would stop reading the article and look elsewhere for the information I was looking for. So, that's why it's probably better to let the anti-Chopra WP admins have their way with the article, because it actually does their cause more harm than good. Cla68 (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's a good job there is no bullshit in the lead then, isn't it? -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- In general and this is not a reference to this article except as an example; I just try to look at the sources both in particular and in general and edit from that point. While you make a good point; if I ever started to feel personally responsible for the outcome of an article which is collaboratively edited; I'd have a hard time staying around at all. There is onus on editors to leave their biases at the door; sometimes that is successful and sometimes not. I do have grave concerns with this article given the outspoken position of some editing here. BLPs are about real people and their lives and WP has the power to damage those people so it seems to me our first priority is to be scrupulous about the neutral quality of the articles. Slim Virgin did some extensive and strong work on this article but I suspect the environment and the fact that most of what she did was reverted is telling. She is so highly experienced and has very little involvement in science based articles so I believe we can consider her input neutral, but that input was ignored in a fundamental way. She left the article finally. All I'm saying is we do the best we can and leave the rest to the gods and sure, if and when WP starts to look like it has biases the encyclopedia will be damaged. We have to care about the people we edit about in BLPs not because we agree with their lives but because they are human beings and no one gave us or can give us the right to damage in pursuit of our own ideologies. If we edit that way WP will fail eventually. Climbs off soapbox. Runs into the night.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC))
- Up to a point. Where a subject represents a collision between belief and reality, as with, for example, bogus cancer "cures", creationism, ESP and such, it is perfectly fine to be biased in favour of empirically established reality. See WP:RANDY. We're not obliged to give the time of day to nonsense within articles. If it's notable nonsense then we can describe it as such, we're not obliged to pursue false balance. We would not, for example, bend over backwards to respectfully accommodate the views of antivaxers ion articles on autism, because the science is absolutely clear, vaccines do not cause autism. We describe their views but we describe them in the terms used by reliable independent mainstream sources.
- The issue with Chopra is that he does not properly delineate between mystical and medical statements. Religious leaders always talk metaphysical concepts with no empirical foundation, that's the definition of a religious leader. Chopra freely intermingles the metaphysical with what sounds like actual physics, at least to anyone who does not understand physics. Pi equates to infinity, according to Deepak. As Mlodinow put it, we know what each of those words means, but in that order?...
- I think it is legitimate to want Wikipedia to clearly delineate between fact, religious "truth" and nonsense. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- In general and this is not a reference to this article except as an example; I just try to look at the sources both in particular and in general and edit from that point. While you make a good point; if I ever started to feel personally responsible for the outcome of an article which is collaboratively edited; I'd have a hard time staying around at all. There is onus on editors to leave their biases at the door; sometimes that is successful and sometimes not. I do have grave concerns with this article given the outspoken position of some editing here. BLPs are about real people and their lives and WP has the power to damage those people so it seems to me our first priority is to be scrupulous about the neutral quality of the articles. Slim Virgin did some extensive and strong work on this article but I suspect the environment and the fact that most of what she did was reverted is telling. She is so highly experienced and has very little involvement in science based articles so I believe we can consider her input neutral, but that input was ignored in a fundamental way. She left the article finally. All I'm saying is we do the best we can and leave the rest to the gods and sure, if and when WP starts to look like it has biases the encyclopedia will be damaged. We have to care about the people we edit about in BLPs not because we agree with their lives but because they are human beings and no one gave us or can give us the right to damage in pursuit of our own ideologies. If we edit that way WP will fail eventually. Climbs off soapbox. Runs into the night.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC))
- It's a good job there is no bullshit in the lead then, isn't it? -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Instead of reacting to one's personal opinion and moralistic conditioning about the use of the word "bullshit", or defending the indefensible with repetitive contortionism, it might be good to understand the study and the way it so accurately applies to Deepak Chopra who is certainly a subject of the study - and the main reason the study has received so much coverage. Here is one of the study authors explaining.
- I was tending to be against it because it may appear as over negging, and I get that point. But then I thought about all comments, studied the issue, researched it and ended up thinking it is appropriate to use it. Sir Barkselot (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- If I was looking for a fair and neutral presentation of Chopra's views, and saw a "bullshit" reference in the lede, I would stop reading the article and look elsewhere for the information I was looking for. So, that's why it's probably better to let the anti-Chopra WP admins have their way with the article, because it actually does their cause more harm than good. Cla68 (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Those are valid concerns. I just wanted to point out that us using the word "bullshit" is not a problem per se. As JzG observed, it's a rare case where WP:NOTCENSORED actually applies! Alexbrn (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anyone suggesting they are offended by the word bullshit here. Let's reiterate what the issues per WP are. Primary study. Poor secondary sources. Chopra's words were tools/ materials not the point of the study. There is no suggestion that I see from anyone that we use bullshit in this article to refer to Chopra's words. My personal opinion on use of the word 200 times in an academic study is that It gets attention about as much attention as using the words dog poo. I would prefer an expansion of vocabulary, but the words do not offend me and aIl. By the way I thought this was a good discussion and all the points made were useful seems to me.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC))
- I did not see anyone saying they were "offended" but I think there is evidence of over-reactivity and misunderstanding of the study's well explained use of the word. Excuse me if when you said it was "inflammatory language" "contentious and inflammatory" that it "casts a certain light" was "openly biased" (and then compared it to "dog poo") I thought that showed a reactiveness and a misunderstanding of the word as it was used and explained in the study. Maybe you meant something else entirely. In any case it was also called "trash talking". And that it's use was a content killer that would hasten the day.Sir Barkselot (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Everything I said was in context of a total comment. I did offer my personal opinion on the use of the word after you posted. I didn't suggest the word was ofeensive. I did suggest its meaning is comparable to other such phrases. I do think strongly the word has no place in academia especially used 200 times where academics are supposed to have an extensive vocabulary. I didn't suggest my opinions had anything to do with whether the content is a RS. Those are the issues we have to deal with seems to me although I can understand the misunderstanding.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC))
- Given the dozen or so times primary sources that support Chopra's positions have been rejected on the sole premise that we should not reference primary research studies, only reviews, it would be hypocritical in the extreme to include this study. We can't include a source that has the same academic qualifications as previously rejected sources just because you like the message better. The Cap'n (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think we have to understand that this is the bottom line. Its a primary source with poor secondary sources. Chopra is not the subject of the study while his" rearranged" words are tools implemented in the study but are not the focus of the study. The outcomes are not about Chopra but about how human beings in general react to certain kinds of phrases and what that might mean about them to put it simply. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC))
- Olive may have not understood how the study was conducted, and I may have misunderstood too, but in it, researchers compared real Chopraisms taken from his twitter feed, with made up stuff (bullshit) from a website using Chopras actual words but computer generated to appear as if they were real. The study appears to suggest that few people can tell Chopra's bullshit from real bullshit - something quite central to this article. -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think we have to understand that this is the bottom line. Its a primary source with poor secondary sources. Chopra is not the subject of the study while his" rearranged" words are tools implemented in the study but are not the focus of the study. The outcomes are not about Chopra but about how human beings in general react to certain kinds of phrases and what that might mean about them to put it simply. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC))
- Given the dozen or so times primary sources that support Chopra's positions have been rejected on the sole premise that we should not reference primary research studies, only reviews, it would be hypocritical in the extreme to include this study. We can't include a source that has the same academic qualifications as previously rejected sources just because you like the message better. The Cap'n (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'd suggest reading the study a little closer. Chopra was not the center of the study, but incidental to it, and the point of the study was not to determine Chopra's BS from real BS, but to gauge the analytical capabilities of people who find any sayings (random, inspirational, jumbled) to be profound. The study openly states that Chopra's quotes were either jumbled up from a parody site OR actual Tweets specifically selected out of context to maximize their vagueness. The study has nothing to do with Chopra's work or scientific credentials, but focuses on openess to spirituality or inspiration, as discussed in the study's definitions and methodology, which categorizes anyone who believes in god as being susceptible to BS.
- All that aside, it's a primary source and a rather poor scientific study. If peer-reviewed medical studies are being rejected for being primary, this one certainly should not qualify. I'd also think carefully before insisting on referencing secondary coverage, as those that aren't simply repeating the study's abstract include many that consider it sensationalist and demonstrating terrible methodology. The Cap'n (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hm. Several points. I'm the original poster who added:
"In 2015, a team of University of Waterloo researchers used randomly generated strings and quotes from Chopra's twitter feed, to study receptivity to pseudo-profound statements. They concluded that lack of receptivity to such statements is "not merely a matter of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagueness in otherwise impressive sounding claims". [116] They correlated the inability to discriminate pseudo-profound from actual profound statements with cognitive styles and supernatural beliefs, and found "that a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an important component"[116] of considering Chopra's tweets to be profound."¬
to the section on skepticism.
I carefully avoided the profanity in the study title, because even if named WP editors think profanity is completely ok if you are quoting someone, I think it's completely ok to avoid gratuitously offending people, even when quoting others who don't mind being offensive. I was quite annoyed that someone locked the article in order to quote the profanity.... and seems to think nobody should be offended by the profanity. Surprise! I think the profanity is offensive and instantly not NPOV, but clearly my opinion isn't shared by named editors on either side of the Chopra controversies.
I had never heard of Chopra before I read the study, and came to Wikipedia to find out why anyone would use his twitter feed content as source material for a study. I thought that if someone I'd never heard of was notable enough to use in a study, then the article on them should mention the study, especially since it explored why people would consider Chopra's tweets as profound, and why people wouldn't. In the absence of a section on "Research about Chopra" or "Controversies about Chopra" , I thought the section on skepticism was the best fit, since the Waterloo study authors were clearly skeptical of Chopra. Maybe I should have created a new section, but I'm not even bold enough to create a userid. 108.63.192.106 (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- There is no need to avoid the "profanity" in the title because Wikipedia is not censored. We do not Bowdlerise. The study uses the term "bullshit", and uses it in its classical sense of statements where the person making them does not actually care if they are true or not. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
To lighten the mood
This from SMBC. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- and here it thought the dog poo cmt was lightening the mood... maybe you have to have a dog and all that entails... play on words intended. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC))
- e/c with olive, responding to Guy ... In response, Duty Calls from xkcd. -Roxy the dog™ woof 20:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Never not funny. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- This is a polite way of saying "I've seen this so many times, it's boring" isn't it? -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Never not funny. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Gratitude is the Music of the Heart and our Soul's longing is the instrument that plays it. Thankyou. @Littleolive oil. Sir Barkselot (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Lead Section
Hi all- I just noticed an issue re: validity with the last sentence in the lead-- I think it's slightly misleading by saying "The medical and scientific communities' opinion of him ranges from dismissive to damning." This implies that the the medical and scientific community has wholeheartedly dismissed/damned him, whereas the evidence suggests that this range is a bit broader (I'm just thinking of his book with the Harvard neuro professor, a couple peer-reviewed journal articles, the US Navy inviting him to talk about mind-body medicine, co-headlining a scientific conference with Sir Roger Penrose— yes, the one who works with Stephen Hawking, etc). In any case, this is a very strong claim with a very weak source-- the cited article is not impartial and so I don’t think it’s appropriate for Wikipedia.
I propose the the language change to, “The medical and scientific communities' opinion of him ranges from damning to accepting." Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's always seemed to me that the citing of "The medical and scientific communities' opinion of him ranges from dismissive to damning." is itself textbook WP:CHERRYPICKING, especially considering the fact it includes the negative half of the statement while excluding the qualifications the author was explaining, or the fact that he never said he was citing these communities as a whole.
- Ever since his early days as an advocate of alternative healing and nutrition, Chopra has been a magnet for criticism — most of it from the medical and scientific communities. Accusations have ranged from the dismissive — Chopra is just another huckster purveying watered-down Eastern wisdom mixed with pseudo science and pop psychology — to the outright damning. Tompkins. Mentioning a wide range of perceptions, an unspecified (and unqualified) number of which may come from various groups, is not a reliable sourcing for citing anything, let alone pretending it qualifies as an authoritative source on the majority of scientists everywhere.
- The ref comes from a mention in a Lifestyle piece that goes on to praise Chopra as much as it critiques him, and definitely has absolutely no authority to be used as a reliable source for something as huge and nuanced as the position of the medical and scientific community. Can anyone here tell me with a straight face that if someone tried to cite a piece like this that happened to say Chopra was positively viewed by those communities, they wouldn't protest? If not, this ref is long past due for removal. The Cap'n (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- In order to keep this productive as opposed to my just complaining, I propose removing the statement altogether. The points about Chopra's detractors are amply represented (overly so, many would argue), we don't need a cherry picked ref to over-generalize millions of people's opinions on top of that. The Cap'n (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've added a {{dubious}} tag to the statement. The "opinion of ranges from dismissive to damning" isn't much of a range (and he has gotten positive feedback), and it isn't balancing the lead. It would be better to say something along the lines that Chopra is a controversial figure within the medical community.BlueStove (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I removed it just as you contributed here. (and I disagree with you re your suggestion) Current version introduces and summarises well. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've added a {{dubious}} tag to the statement. The "opinion of ranges from dismissive to damning" isn't much of a range (and he has gotten positive feedback), and it isn't balancing the lead. It would be better to say something along the lines that Chopra is a controversial figure within the medical community.BlueStove (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- In order to keep this productive as opposed to my just complaining, I propose removing the statement altogether. The points about Chopra's detractors are amply represented (overly so, many would argue), we don't need a cherry picked ref to over-generalize millions of people's opinions on top of that. The Cap'n (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
-I've restored the [dead link] tag. I'm not a driveby editor, I left a note on the talk page. The current line does not summarize, but rather presents a poorly sourced, biased view. The ignoring of that "self-evident nonsense" requires a source (WP:TRUTH). BlueStove (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok so it looks like we all agree that both the claim and its sources are not appropriate. How do you all feel about removing the sentence, as The Cap'n suggested? At least until something better is decided? Especially given Wikipedia policy about the pages of living people and being accurate/not defamatory. Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- There is certainly not agreement, not that is would matter if there was - especially among some fresh accounts who have just beamed into the page - since this is not a vote. We are governed by our need for neutrality-based consensus based on the WP:PAGs. If Chopra's views are held in poor regard as reported in RS, then we shall relay that knowledge. Alexbrn (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- You are absolutely correct that we are governed by our need for neutrality-based consensus. Which is why it is not appropriate to assert that the range of opinions about him is no narrow and negative using a single article by an author who is not neutral. Ptolemy Tompkins, who wrote the Times article, has conflicts of interest with this topic. Check out his website. He admits that he has " pronounced interest in current ideas about the evolution of consciousness." which is a field that Chopra is very involved in. Tompkins has authored multiple books on the topic of new age spirituality, souls and metaphysics. He also explains that he is an avid reader of books on spirituality, new age spirituality, and the afterlife, and he shares his view of many of these online. His opinions are based on his personal experience of spirituality, however.[1] Additionally, he admits that his books didn't get very good critical reception. So I think it's dangerous to use an article from someone who has such publicly stated strong feelings about the many of the same things Chopra is involved in. Especially given that he has financial interests in it, given that writing about consciousness and the soul etc. has been his job for decades. You see what I mean? I am all for neutral, but I just don't think that this is neutral. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
- There is certainly not agreement, not that is would matter if there was - especially among some fresh accounts who have just beamed into the page - since this is not a vote. We are governed by our need for neutrality-based consensus based on the WP:PAGs. If Chopra's views are held in poor regard as reported in RS, then we shall relay that knowledge. Alexbrn (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- And adding "an article in Times magazine" doesn't solve the problem of the source. I could easily go find an article from a reputable source saying that members of the medical community respect admire him, but just because the article exists doesn't mean it should be in the lead on WP. Also-- the claim in the article re: he dissuades people from seeking proper medical care is not property sourced either; it just says " some have argued." If we are talking about something as ambigious as "hope," and attributing to it dramatic implications, and doing it on the page of a living individual, then there should be better sourcing. One Time article by a new age ideologue without any citations or sources does not seem sufficient to make these claims. Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Which basically amounts to you not liking the source for personal reasons you've conjured up. It's an article in Time which gives us a decent insight into how Chopra's views are viewed and is fine in our lede as a summary of points we deal with in greater depth later. As for your easily-findable source which says "members of the medical community respect admire him" [sic] ... where? Alexbrn (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I just outlined, with evidence, exactly why I think the source is not sufficient due to the author's personal history. As I said, what I care about is neutrality. That is why I explained in detail where I see a conflict of interest. I don't know why you said I am "conjuring up" "personal reasons." Instead of attacking my character, I think it would be more productive if you responded to the points that I brought up. Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, you think you personally are better placed to judge Tomkins' suitability to write on this topic than Time magazine, because of far-fetched suppositions & accusations based on a web page. In any case, that was what Timepublished and that's what we report, to be neutral. No answer to my request for your source, I notice. Alexbrn (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've attributed the line to Ptolemy Tompkins in the lead and changed it to described as opposed to summarized as the article is not a representative view. His views may be controversial, but to summarily suggest a range of "dismissive to damning" is misleading. The lead still needs work to actually represent a NPOV.BlueStove (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have no idea why the attribution helps in any way. Seems rather inappropriate actually.
- Given the lede should summarize, I think it would be best to do so rather than provide info from the Time article that is so contentious that we feel it cannot be presented in Wikipedia's voice. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've attributed the line to Ptolemy Tompkins in the lead and changed it to described as opposed to summarized as the article is not a representative view. His views may be controversial, but to summarily suggest a range of "dismissive to damning" is misleading. The lead still needs work to actually represent a NPOV.BlueStove (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, you think you personally are better placed to judge Tomkins' suitability to write on this topic than Time magazine, because of far-fetched suppositions & accusations based on a web page. In any case, that was what Timepublished and that's what we report, to be neutral. No answer to my request for your source, I notice. Alexbrn (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I just outlined, with evidence, exactly why I think the source is not sufficient due to the author's personal history. As I said, what I care about is neutrality. That is why I explained in detail where I see a conflict of interest. I don't know why you said I am "conjuring up" "personal reasons." Instead of attacking my character, I think it would be more productive if you responded to the points that I brought up. Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Which basically amounts to you not liking the source for personal reasons you've conjured up. It's an article in Time which gives us a decent insight into how Chopra's views are viewed and is fine in our lede as a summary of points we deal with in greater depth later. As for your easily-findable source which says "members of the medical community respect admire him" [sic] ... where? Alexbrn (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)