Line 334: | Line 334: | ||
* '''Weak no''' My main issue is with putting these statement in Wikipedia's voice: ''His treatments rely on the placebo effect. He misuses terms and ideas from quantum physics (quantum mysticism) and provides people with false hope which obscures the possibility of effective medical treatment.'' While likely all factual, the sources of these declarative statements should be attributed in the text so we know the "according to whom" of it all. Incidentally, this is done in the following sentence: ''A Time articled stated...''). [[User:SueDonem|SueDonem]] ([[User talk:SueDonem|talk]]) 00:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC) |
* '''Weak no''' My main issue is with putting these statement in Wikipedia's voice: ''His treatments rely on the placebo effect. He misuses terms and ideas from quantum physics (quantum mysticism) and provides people with false hope which obscures the possibility of effective medical treatment.'' While likely all factual, the sources of these declarative statements should be attributed in the text so we know the "according to whom" of it all. Incidentally, this is done in the following sentence: ''A Time articled stated...''). [[User:SueDonem|SueDonem]] ([[User talk:SueDonem|talk]]) 00:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
*:Are you saying the material just needs to be clearly sourced, or that it shouldn't be in Wikipedia's voice? If the latter, I don't see how it would meet FRINGE and POV. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 17:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC) |
*:Are you saying the material just needs to be clearly sourced, or that it shouldn't be in Wikipedia's voice? If the latter, I don't see how it would meet FRINGE and POV. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 17:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
*:: Both. I read the TIME article, for instance and see that the "false hope" citation reads: ''Chopra's extravagant claims for Ayurveda and other traditional healing techniques can, '''some have argued''', create false hope in genuinely ill people and dissuade them from seeking medical care and guidance.'' I have bolded to point out that this statement is not declarative of fact but of an opinion of "some". In general, the references for the sentences in question are all commentary which don't appear to be representational enough to declaratively write a fact (in Wikipedia's voice). Therefore, we either need attribution for these sentences or better sources. [[User:SueDonem|SueDonem]] ([[User talk:SueDonem|talk]]) 19:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
=== Comments on RfC === |
=== Comments on RfC === |
Revision as of 19:13, 8 March 2016
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arbitration Enforcement
Notification:[1]
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)
- I think we're all making this far more complicated than it needs to be. There are 3 simple reasons, completely divorced from anyone's subjective opinion of Chopra or Tomkins, that this ref does not belong with the statement "the medical and scientific communities' opinion of him as ranging from dismissive to damning; criticism includes statements that his approach could lure sick people away from effective treatments."
- 1) The Tomkins piece is NOT a WP:RS for stating as fact the opinions of the medical/scientific community. RS policy states that commentary, opinion, and analysis articles can only be used to describe the opinion of the writer, and cannot be used to make a statement of fact. In addition, WP standards on representing the positions of the medical establishment specifically state popular press is NOT a reliable source.
- 2)The statement falsifies the citation through a blatant logical fallacy. The ref states that Chopra has critics, most of whom are members of the medical or scientific fields V. the WP statement that most members of the medical/scientific fields are critics of Chopra. That is a massive distortion of the source and appropriate citing policy.
- 3)The ref never says anything like "his approach could lure sick people away from effective treatments". This statement cannot be attributed to Tomkins, and is of such a contentious and extraordinary nature (effectively accusing him of homicidal malpractice) that it would require an extraordinarily reliable and objective source.
- To sum up, Tomkins is not a reliable source for this "fact", the statement on WP has been fallaciously modified, and it cannot be used to support the extraordinary claim that Chopra is endangering lives. These are 3 evidenced reasons why this statement violates numerous WP policies and standards. I have not yet seen any argument for keeping it that trumps these. The Cap'n (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's not an extraordinary claim that Chopra is endangering lives. Quite the opposite.
- Tomkins viewpoints are noteworthy and most definitely should be included, probably expanded upon, not in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- With respect, it IS an extraordinary claim to state that a medical doctor in good standing might be causing the deaths of his patients. To make that claim with no better evidence than a commentary article or the opinion of a non-physician skeptic author violates WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:EXTRAORDINARY, and basic ethics.
- I would point out that points 1) and 2) stand uncontested, and either by itself is reason to remove the line.
- As far as expanding on Tomkins due to his noteworthiness, does that mean you have no objections to adding:
- "The book became a best seller, got Chopra wide coverage in the media and established his image as a man of science with the soul of a mystic. In the years since, Chopra has steadily enlarged his reputation from that of healer to philosopher-at-large."
- "Anyone with a glancing knowledge of the writings of the human-potential movement of the past 40 years will have no trouble finding in Chopra's work influences, both hidden and acknowledged, from beyond India's borders. Abraham Maslow, Teilhard de Chardin, Joseph Campbell, Carlos Castaneda and other counterculture standards blend into the mix with a healthy helping of contemporary psychologists, biologists and physicists."
- "Chopra is as rich as he is today not because he has been dishonest with anyone, but because his basic message — that love, health and happiness are possible, that mystery is real and that the universe is ultimately a friendly and benevolent place where orthodoxies old and new can meet and make peace with one another — is one that he wants to believe in just as sincerely as his readers do."
- If you'd consider those sections of Tomkins to be as noteworthy as the parts that can be used to cite negative statements, then we have the beginning of consensus. The Cap'n (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- The Cap'n makes very valid points, especially concerning the creative leap between what is actually said in the source, and what it written on WP. And once again, Alexbrn, I request that you adopt a less antagonistic tone with me. We don't want your personal hostility or emotional attachment to this issue to effect your ability to be a neutral contributor. Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- "it IS an extraordinary claim " Why should anyone agree, let alone agree that we should use such assertions to determine article content? --Ronz (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- The Cap'n is part of Chopra's PR, of course he says that. The source is fine and the text seems to me to reflect what the source says. Not liking it doesn't make it "dubious" - though the irony of arguing over a dubious tag on an article discussing Chopra's dubious claims is not lost on me. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Generally, a biography lead does not specifically mention a publication, unless the publication has had an over-arching effect on the individual (which it does not in this case). The manner in which Time is name-dropped without attributing the author who has a wiki article is very peculiar. It would be better to present the figure as controversial from Wikipedia's voice and have several references. The range of "dismissive to damning" is redundant and fails to recognize that he does have supporters within the medical community.BlueStove (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Tomkins views are already expounded upon in the Deepak Chopra#Alternative medicine. Anything further, if not already, would be WP:UNDUE.BlueStove (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- The Cap'n makes very valid points, especially concerning the creative leap between what is actually said in the source, and what it written on WP. And once again, Alexbrn, I request that you adopt a less antagonistic tone with me. We don't want your personal hostility or emotional attachment to this issue to effect your ability to be a neutral contributor. Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- As far as expanding on Tomkins due to his noteworthiness, does that mean you have no objections to adding:
- Ronz & Guy, what is ironic is dismissing my position as an assertion with nothing but your own assertions. I did not assert, I argued with evidence, citing numerous WP policies that disqualify the Tomkins ref. No one has rebutted with any evidence so far, aside from vague aspersions and protestations of "But I KNOW Chopra is wrong!" My arguments stand, friends. The Cap'n (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Let's put together a rational decision rather than building walls of text (for the record, Guy, I am not in PR and have been clear about my relationship with the subject). As I see it, the arguments AGAINST including the ref are:
- It is clearly not a Reliable Source per WP policy on both news sources and reporting on the medical establishment.
- The text in the article does not match the ref cited, and trying to do so is a false consequent logical fallacy. Honestly, this should be enough on its own to remove the text. If any editor thinks "most of Chopra's critics are scientists" = "most scientists are critics of Chopra", they should reconsider their qualifications to edit this page.
- The critiques made in the text are repeated in that very paragraph, and Tomkins's critiques are repeated further on in the article, with no evidence or reasoning that these are overwhelmingly important aspects of Chopra other than editors' opinions. This is an WP:UNDUE problem.
- The critical sections of Tomkins are justified by claiming Tomkins is highly reputable and noteworthy, yet none of the noncritical statements by Tomkins have historically been allowed on the page. This violates WP:NPOV.
- Claiming an MD in good standing is contributing to the deaths of his patients is a major claim that needs WP:EXTRAORDINARY evidence, not a blurb in a commentary piece.
- The arguments FOR including the ref are:
- Tomkins is important and his article represents what Chopra is reputable for (though only the critical parts).
- Deepak Chopra is obviously a danger to his patients and saying so does not require qualified, objective coverage.
- Tomkins' article is a reliable source and he is qualified to speak for the medical and scientific communities.
- Please add points I may have missed, but it seems evident to me that the first 2 arguments FOR are pure assertions, while the third is thoroughly debunked by the various policies cited above. If you have rebuttals, please cite evidence and logical arguments. If you don't, let's move forward and edit the text. There are solid reasons to remove the ref that cite the source material and WP policies, and they cannot be rejected by simply reverting over & over. The Cap'n (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Let's put together a rational decision rather than building walls of text (for the record, Guy, I am not in PR and have been clear about my relationship with the subject). As I see it, the arguments AGAINST including the ref are:
- I'm a bit confused... My last post listed 8 detailed points on policy and sourcing, and never named any individual other than a brief note to Guy. If you're referring to my earlier post where I mentioned you, it was not my intention to focus things on you, I agree wholeheartedly that policy and sound refs should win the day. I was trying to address the implication that I had made no arguments but assertions, and if my frustration at that impression came across as hostile, I apologize. That was not my intent.
- Going back to policy and sourcing, I thought you concerns were addressed in my last post, where I discussed WP:EXTRAORDINARY and WP:UNDUE as they pertain here. If you have a line of reasoning I did not address, please let me know so we can all build a rational consensus. The Cap'n (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
- ASSERTION: [uh-sur-shuh n] noun 1. a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason.
- I have cited 5 supporting reasons, including formal logic, WP policy citations, comparative quotes, and more. All have linked evidence to support them, yet you have summarily rejected them, without even addressing most of the points. At this point we need to A) view your citable evidence in support of the ref, B) accept that the ref is inappropriate and remove it, or C) initiate an RfC to resolve this stalemate. The Cap'n (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think it is worth noting that while many logically sound arguments have been made supporting removing the sentence in question, most refutations of this proposal do not provide thorough reasoning or valid counterpoints. This is a waste of time-- it is not about your personal opinion on the matter. Provide evidence or sound reasoning-- if not, then Wikipedia is not the place for you.
- Another note: if one argues that it's appropriate to include one statement from Tompkins re: Chopra, then logically, should we not also include his other significant statements re: Chopra? For example, in the same article he writes: "Chopra has steadily enlarged his reputation from that of healer to philosopher-at-large. East and West, mind and body, science and spirit: Chopra's smiling, ever more confident face has become an icon of the hope that the world is entering a new age of synthesis and understanding where all such rifts will become mere memories." Given that the article has both positive and negative things to say, WP:WEIGHT to just include the damning part. Remember, WP:BALASPS : "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."
- Also remember we are talking about a WP:BLP, which, according to WP policy must be written "conservatively." "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion
- The fact that editors are even arguing about this, when it is clearly in violation of WP policy, is shocking. Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've filed an RfC below at Talk:Deepak_Chopra#RfC:_Is_the_lead.2C_among_other_parts_of_the_article.2C_reflective_of_the_sources_and_a_NPOV.3F.BlueStove (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Lead issues/revisions
I propose changing the current lead sentence from:
Through his books and videos, he has become one of the best-known and wealthiest figures in the "holistic-health" movement.
to
Through his books and seminars, he has become one of the most prominent and successful figures in the holistic health movement.
This was reverted with the comment that the current revision is a " better summary of article". The source makes no mention of wealth. Why is holistic health in quotes? And why is it a pipe link to alternative medicine when there is a separate article for holistic health?BlueStove (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- The lede summarizes the article body, and not (just) the citations given. The cited source put "holistic" in scare quotes (we should probably just link directly to alternative medicine though). The source says Chopra is "now a multi-millionaire thoroughly seduced by the placebo effect". Sounds like wealth to me: did you read the source? If anything our use of it is a bit whitewashed ... How should we convey the "thoroughly seduced by the placebo effect" thought, if at all? Alexbrn (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- I support this edit as basic common sense, and am confused why even editors who are traditionally opposed to Chopra oppose the change. It does nothing to change the message or source integrity, and the more generalized tone is appropriate for a lede. As far as the scare quotes, the sentence is in Wikipedia' voice, not the source's, and holistic health is an actual term on WP, so putting the quotations in is unnecessary and inappropriate, per WP:SCAREQUOTES. This is a thoroughly non-controversial change, and its rejection (along with almost every other minor edit that didn't originate from the usual crew) makes me wonder if this page is being owned. The Cap'n (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- At the very least, why would you pipe link 'holistic health' to alternative health when there is a holistic health article? The usage of sneer quotes in the source doesn't translate over to Wikipedia's NPOV voice. What else would holistic health mean in this context? Besides videos, Chopra has audio tapes and events, which would be more accurately summarized as seminars. There's a big stretch between being a multi-millionaire, to being the wealthiest individual in an industry and this source doesn't explicitly describe him as the wealthiest. The claim that Chopra has been "thoroughly seduced by the placebo effect" is quite a claim and would require additional sourcing than the mere passing mention in that article. He hasn't had his medical license revoked, and his professional affiliations are hardly suggestive of the malpractice the article implies.BlueStove (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- I support this edit as basic common sense, and am confused why even editors who are traditionally opposed to Chopra oppose the change. It does nothing to change the message or source integrity, and the more generalized tone is appropriate for a lede. As far as the scare quotes, the sentence is in Wikipedia' voice, not the source's, and holistic health is an actual term on WP, so putting the quotations in is unnecessary and inappropriate, per WP:SCAREQUOTES. This is a thoroughly non-controversial change, and its rejection (along with almost every other minor edit that didn't originate from the usual crew) makes me wonder if this page is being owned. The Cap'n (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree on the link, just link to alternative medicine in line with the cited source's text:
Deepak Chopra, arguably the most successful of America’s CAM practitioners, began his career well within the bounds of traditional medicine by serving as Chief of Staff at Boston Regional Medical Center and by teaching at Tufts University and Boston University Schools of Medicine. Now a multi-millionaire thoroughly seduced by the placebo effect, he is the author of 35 books plus 100 audio, video and CD-ROM titles that advocate virtually every form of alternative therapy.
Alexbrn (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- That "easter egg" is a link to holistic health, which is a subset of alternative medicine and reflects what the "consensus text" actually was. That said, the lead is supposed to be a holistic reflection of the article, not just the source used in the lead. BlueStove (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. And "holistic health" is really just a PR nonsense we should avoid in favour of more neutral terms as used in RS. Alexbrn (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's worse than pr nonsense, as it sometimes refers to evidence-based medicine. We wouldn't want to create or encourage such misrepresentations of Chopra's approach. --Ronz (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please note that the above is the epitome of WP:OR. You don't get to decide a term is just PR nonsense, and it's been established Chopra embraces evidence based medicine, with complementary treatments as an addition. That's already in the article, for crying out loud. Aside from the fact that Chopra identifies his healthcare approach as integrating mainstream and CAM (thereby not being an "alternative"), the definition of Holistic Healthcare is much closer to Chopra's stated definitions. The Cap'n (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's worse than pr nonsense, as it sometimes refers to evidence-based medicine. We wouldn't want to create or encourage such misrepresentations of Chopra's approach. --Ronz (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. And "holistic health" is really just a PR nonsense we should avoid in favour of more neutral terms as used in RS. Alexbrn (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- I do maintain that simply dismissing something as PR without any evidence, reasoning, or sources to back it up is WP:OR. However, I take your point that I may be too familiar with this topic and verbiage to be an objective opinion on the name. Thank you for the reminder, Ronz. The Cap'n (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- You have it backwards. Assuming that anything about Alt Med is not pr can be a stretch at best. If you cannot provide evidence for your assertions, claims, etc; don't be surprised as they're taken as pr. Follow WP:COITALK and provide evidence that your suggestions, opinions, etc are relevant to improving the quality of this encyclopedia rather promoting the interests of your employer. --Ronz (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- And here I was trying to be polite and reasonable... To claim that virtually all non-negative content about a massive genre (about which there are tens of thousands of medical studies) is worthless PR is one of the most blatantly biased and POV statements that I've seen on WP. It sounds very much like WP:RGW and WP:ADVOCACY. Please be careful, just as I recognize I have a POV on this topic, you obviously do too. As for evidence, I've been the one to provide evidence, sources, policy links, etc, to an almost silly degree, and the majority of your and Alexbrn's rejections have been "No, UNDUE" with no evidence or reasoning why. Please help build a consensus here, not shut down any differing positions. the Cap'n Hail me! 02:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Whatever your personal stance is Ronz, Wikipedia is a balanced reflection of the sources, not what you perceive to be the "truth" (WP:TRUTH). With that being said, there are sources in the article that explicitly use the term holistic health to describe Chopra's work. This source explicitly states:
Despite the popular roots of the holistic health/New Age movements, a growing number of biomedical physicians have become proponents of holistic health as well as New Age healing. Over the past two decades, Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra, two biomedically trained physicians, have emerged as the visible and financially successful spokespersons of the movement.
— Baer, HA (June 2003). "The work of Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra--two holistic health/New Age gurus: a critique of the holistic health/New Age movements". Medical anthropology quarterly. 17 (2): 240–241. PMID 12846118.- This source also more accurately reflects the proposed change to Through his books and seminars, he has become one of the most prominent and successful figures in the holistic health movement.BlueStove (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Except that Baer (a figure with rather ... alternative views himself) then goes on to say that Chopra has failed at what he calls "holistic medicine" because he devotes his efforts to selling nonsense to the wealthy worried well. So you are completely abusing the source with your suggestion (twisting "financially successful" into "successful"). Time to drop the WP:STICK methinks. Alexbrn (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- And here I was trying to be polite and reasonable... To claim that virtually all non-negative content about a massive genre (about which there are tens of thousands of medical studies) is worthless PR is one of the most blatantly biased and POV statements that I've seen on WP. It sounds very much like WP:RGW and WP:ADVOCACY. Please be careful, just as I recognize I have a POV on this topic, you obviously do too. As for evidence, I've been the one to provide evidence, sources, policy links, etc, to an almost silly degree, and the majority of your and Alexbrn's rejections have been "No, UNDUE" with no evidence or reasoning why. Please help build a consensus here, not shut down any differing positions. the Cap'n Hail me! 02:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- You have it backwards. Assuming that anything about Alt Med is not pr can be a stretch at best. If you cannot provide evidence for your assertions, claims, etc; don't be surprised as they're taken as pr. Follow WP:COITALK and provide evidence that your suggestions, opinions, etc are relevant to improving the quality of this encyclopedia rather promoting the interests of your employer. --Ronz (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Baer's publications are referenced multiple times within the wiki article, so I don't understand why there is an issue with him in this context. Have you read the article? The article literally concludes by describing Chopra as one of the "leading exemplars of the holistic health/New Age movements." The article does not mention nonsense, but rather critiques/laments how Chopra, as a successful capitalistic entrepreneur, caters to an elite clientele, effectively outpricing the working proletariat. That's hardly the equivalent of peddling "nonsense", but rather a common business practice among successful MDs. I have added a number of supporting excerpts from the article below.
Relevant excerpts from Baer, HA (June 2003). "The work of Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra--two holistic health/New Age gurus: a critique of the holistic health/New Age movements". Medical anthropology quarterly. 17 (2): 233–250. PMID 12846118.
|
---|
* Title: The Work of Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra: Two Holistic Health/New Age Gurus: A Critique of the Holistic Health/New Age Movements
|
I am not twisting "financially successful" into "successful." It is implied that if you are successful, that it is in the financial sense, although I would support a change to either "financially successful" or "successful." BlueStove (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- The issue is your misrepresenting the source to puff-up Chopra's reputation: when Baer says Chopra has failed at holistic health we can't use him to say Chopra has been a success. The only "success" Baer allows is that Chopra has enriched himself handsomely. We don't plagiarise texts so lifting phrases is discouraged. BTW, the amount of quotation you have above may amount to a copyright violation. I suggest redaction: people can read the article themselves. Alexbrn (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- The quotes are for commentary of the article which falls under fair use. If an admin feels otherwise, they may redact the material. The article is literally entitled "The Work of Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra: Two Holistic Health/New Age Gurus: A Critique of the Holistic Health/New Age Movements" and repeatedly refers to Chopra and Weil as leaders in holistic health: "views and writings of Weil and Chopra as the most visible proponents of the holistic health", "In addition to Weil and Chopra, various other MDs have emerged as leading proponents of the holistic health movement", "two leading proponents of the holistic health/New Age movements","two leading exemplars of the holistic health", etc. I'm not sure how you can be described as a leading proponent of a movement, and yet be considered unsuccessful within its context. BlueStove (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Then you haven't understood the article, sorry. Baer's conception of "holistic health" includes help for the poor and an emphasis on social equality of care. By his yardstick, Chopra falls short. Trying to use Baer to laud Chopra is a gross misrepresentation. Alexbrn (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Again there's this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that if someone suggests content that isn't explicitly negative, it's lauding/PR/promotional/misrepresentative, even when it's simply stating exactly what's in the source. This is not helpful for building any kind of consensus, especially when you're effectively establishing two standards for sourcing, one for sources you like and another for sources you don't. This isn't a matter of WP:FRINGE; no one is trying to prove any extraordinary claims other than biographical details.
- As far as WP:COITALK, A) I am not a paid editor, I am an editor who works for an organization with ties to Chopra's nonprofit foundation. I disclosed my COI publicly because it's the right thing to do, but I am no more paid to spend time on this Talk page than you. B) I am not refusing to accept consensus, I am arguing for it. You and Alexbrn have refused to compromise on a single point despite numerous objections from various editors, and have reverted virtually every edit that did not come from yourselves. That's not responsible WP behavior. the Cap'n Hail me! 17:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- "if someone suggests content that isn't explicitly negative..." You misrepresent other editors saying so, and by doing so demonstrate the mentality that you accuse others of taking. Please stop.
- "This isn't a matter of WP:FRINGE". Yes it most certainly is. If you're not going to provide evidence, don't expect that dismissals like this help your arguments in any way.
- Your relationship with Chopra is financial, so ignoring the recommendations of WP:COI certainly won't help you demonstrate that you're trying to work cooperatively with editors who do not share your biases.
- Sorry to focus on you like this, but at some point we need to start taking measures to get this disruption under control. How about we go back to focusing on the sources and policies? --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Then you haven't understood the article, sorry. Baer's conception of "holistic health" includes help for the poor and an emphasis on social equality of care. By his yardstick, Chopra falls short. Trying to use Baer to laud Chopra is a gross misrepresentation. Alexbrn (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- The quotes are for commentary of the article which falls under fair use. If an admin feels otherwise, they may redact the material. The article is literally entitled "The Work of Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra: Two Holistic Health/New Age Gurus: A Critique of the Holistic Health/New Age Movements" and repeatedly refers to Chopra and Weil as leaders in holistic health: "views and writings of Weil and Chopra as the most visible proponents of the holistic health", "In addition to Weil and Chopra, various other MDs have emerged as leading proponents of the holistic health movement", "two leading proponents of the holistic health/New Age movements","two leading exemplars of the holistic health", etc. I'm not sure how you can be described as a leading proponent of a movement, and yet be considered unsuccessful within its context. BlueStove (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- You're right that it's not appropriate for me to assume the motivations of other editors, Ronz, and I will try to restrain from that. I would encourage you to do the same, however, when you characterize edits as nothing but PR, promotion, or POV pushing.
- Your comments on my disrupting discussions of evidence and policy are bizarre, to say the least. Every one of my content suggestions have been supported with sources, quotes, links, and WP policy justifications. When I do so, the evidence presented is either dismissed out of hand or (more often) not responded to at all. I have worked hard to work ethically within my own CoI and POV, but it does not seem you are willing to address your own POV issues. I hope you will and we can all come to consensus, but I have my concerns. I am beginning to wonder if there's any source you could accept that contradicted your personal views? the Cap'n Hail me! 20:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Likewise Ronz. One can't help but see the level of absurdity in this statement as well as in the implied threats per disruption made by another editor. This page is meant for discussion, and that's what is going on here. I'm not sure why the discussion derailed into accusations instead of dealing with legitimate concerns for and against sources, the legitimate purview of a talk page. I've been watching this discussion for awhile and see no reason to charge anyone with disruption or anything else. Just saying'.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC))
- Ronz, I understood the article as my earlier comment matches your explanation.
- I've filed an RfC below Talk:Deepak_Chopra#RfC:_Is_the_lead.2C_among_other_parts_of_the_article.2C_reflective_of_the_sources_and_a_NPOV.3F.BlueStove (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Likewise Ronz. One can't help but see the level of absurdity in this statement as well as in the implied threats per disruption made by another editor. This page is meant for discussion, and that's what is going on here. I'm not sure why the discussion derailed into accusations instead of dealing with legitimate concerns for and against sources, the legitimate purview of a talk page. I've been watching this discussion for awhile and see no reason to charge anyone with disruption or anything else. Just saying'.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC))
- Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Inapplicable revert due to "WP:UNDUE" and Fringe
There's a revertof an edit by Orthopedicfootwear that is justified as "Rv. undue, especially with fringe payload." This seemed odd to me for a number of reasons, though I welcome Orthopedicfootwear or Alexbrn to correct me if I'm missing something they discussed off this page. WP:UNDUE is supposed to prevent minority opinions from being presented as equal to the vast majority, with the Flat Earth believers being used as an example. WP:FRINGE is related, saying that fringe theories should not be misrepresented as having more support than they actually do. The source is the San Diego Union Tribune, a Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper, reporting on a widely publicized project by the U.S. Navy to incorporate integrative medicine into their treatment of soldiers and veterans. Deepak Chopra was highlighted as the main speaker at the Navy summit, and both Naval medical officers and the Rand Corporation were referenced as supporting the evidence behind integrative medicine. That's what the source said, and as far as I can tell, that's what Orthopedicfootwear wrote here. What's the objection?
WP policies on UNDUE and FRINGE are not carte blanche to reject any source that reports on research or implementation, as these are factual statements of events, not assertions of support. If the ref was used to argue "all of Deepak Chopra's positions have been shown to be effective by the Navy", that would be UNDUE and possibly FRINGE. But that's not what happened. Reporting a major event put on by a massive gov't institution while covering the person headlining it and the stated positions of medical officers & one of the largest R&D companies in the US, all sourced to one of the most reliable possible sources; that's what WP is supposed to do.
I don't see that this is an UNDUE or FRINGE issue so much as a personal opinion issue. Disagreeing with what the Navy did doesn't change the fact that they did it, and it's applicable to the topic. It's a WP:RS that specifically references the reception to Chopra's Approach to Healthcare, which is more applicable than many of the websites or commentaries that are cited elsewhere in that same section. Thoughts from everyone? The Cap'n (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not venue for promotion. Articles should focus around topics of historical significance, and so should not duplicate the trivia and promotion found in news sources. --Ronz (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- I would like to hear the justification for calling it "fringe." It's the US Navy we're talking about here Alexbrn, you have made quite a few assertions but have not explained any of them appropriately. And Ronz -- this page is CLEARLY FAR from being a venue for promotion. But also-- can you explain to me why you consider the addition in question "promotion?" It is stating an event that occurred, and sharing a science-driven perspective from a noteworthy source on the subject.
- Additionally, to your point that WP shouldn't duplicate the trivia and promotion found in news sources, can you explain why you argued that the Tompkins piece is "noteworthy and most definitely should be included," but detailing the relationship between Chopra and the US Navy doesn't belong? It's not up to your personal preference to determine what is and what is not noteworthy. Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's fringey using the words of some random US navy guy to say "the evidence is there for a lot of the underlying science" when that (which doesn't really make sense anyway) doesn't really tell the whole story: that there's a boatload of nonsense in these areas too. Predominantly though the problem is that the proposed edit is UNDUE. Please also be aware of our WP:SOCK policy. Alexbrn (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Additionally, to your point that WP shouldn't duplicate the trivia and promotion found in news sources, can you explain why you argued that the Tompkins piece is "noteworthy and most definitely should be included," but detailing the relationship between Chopra and the US Navy doesn't belong? It's not up to your personal preference to determine what is and what is not noteworthy. Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- By definition this is not WP:PROMOTION nor trivia, it's a statement of historical fact by a reliable source. It's a misunderstanding of WP:PROMOTE to imply any news article that is not negative in coverage is promotional. WP is also not a venue for This piece does not promote Chopra in any way, it reports that he was there in an important role as part of its thorough coverage of the event. As far as WP:TRIVIA, this is a program put on by the United States Navy, supported by evidence from the Rand Corp, that incorporates part of Deepak's Chopra's approach to healthcare... in the section titled "Approach to Healthcare." There are random quotes already in that section speculating on how much he charges for lectures, individuals calling him names, a variety of highly POV books, and criticisms on his use of physics terms... in a section about his Approach to Healthcare. Are you really arguing that these are of greater historical significance than the U.S. military working with Chopra and one of the biggest research companies presenting supporting evidence? In addition to all this, WP:BLP mandates that we provide NPOV coverage of significant events, and it'd be a gross violation to claim criticisms by bloggers are more acceptable than affiliations with the U.S. Navy.
- As far as fringe goes, how on earth does that apply here? It's a reliable source talking about the Navy pursuing meditation, yoga, etc. That's nowhere near WP:FRINGE. The "random US navy guy" is a medical officer and the organizer of the entire summit, and he's backed up by the Rand Corp, or is that "some random guys in a lab?". Not to mention the fact that FRINGE and UNDUE don't apply since the statement is about Chopra's work with the Navy, not whether or not meditation truly works. Please stop using buzzwords in place of reasoned argument, and explain what exactly about this source is fringe?
- Finally, Alexbrn, are you talking to me or Orthopedicfootwear about WP:SOCK? I've seen mentions of WP:SPI used to push people off of pages on numerous occasions (and have been threatened with them countless times), and want to be sure that's not what's happening. The Cap'n (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Alexbrn I am aware of WP:SPI. I assume that your mentioning that was intended to imply that I am a sock puppet. I'm sure your aware that the existence of an opinion that is contrary to yours doesn't mean that sock puppetry is occurring.
- In the spirit of WP, I welcome open and informed discussion. But baselessly trying to discredit someone who disagrees with you is not in the spirit of WP. It also makes it seem like you would rather focus on personal attacks rather than content, which is what we should be talking about. in every exchange I have provided refs and policy links to try to reason my way to consensus, and the only "violations" I’ve committed are respectfully disagreeing with a couple of the editors. In most of our interactions you have been needlessly hostile toward, aiming your rebuttals more at my character than the content, and still failing to move the discussion forward.
- See WP:GF. You might also want to check out WP:POINT Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think already regret getting involved, but here I go… I thought I’d chime in to be a more neutral voice since I have almost no background knowledge or opinions on Deepak Chopra, his beliefs and/or his practices. From my perspective, which is probably similar to a lot of other people unfamiliar with Chopra’s work, this article is really, really hard to follow and the Approach to health care subsection was a pretty good representation of the recurring issues that I found as I skimmed the whole article.
- As to the topic at hand… Was Orthopedicfootwear’s new Navy/RAND paragraph an appropriate addition? My "vote" is no, because…
- WP:IINFO and WP:NOTNEWS: Sure, the Navy/RAND paragraph technically relates to Chopra’s approach to healthcare, but it doesn't explain it and its superfluity detracts from the comprehensibility of an already abstruse subsection (not to mention the rest of the article). I just want to understand what Chopra does, for crying out loud!! I don't want to read about what each new person had to say about a loosely related topic if it doesn't bring me any closer to understanding what he does. I'm not sure which policy Ronz's had in mind when he/she used the term "trivia," but maybe the wording of WP:NOTNEWS is a little bit more relevant than WP:TRIVIA, but they're pretty similar, so let's not split hairs. The takeaway is that the Navy/RAND sources are hot off the presses (Feb 2016) and only tangentially relate to the intention of the subsection, so the fact that they’re in WP:RS is irrelevant. There are other areas where this article appropriately acknowledges professionals who support Chopra’s work. We certainly shouldn't reference every single one of his supporters and detractors. Rushing to add every new statement published about him does more harm than good to the article’s overall integrity, which is already suffering from poor flow and readability.
- See also essays WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:TLDR: The bottom line is that for someone like me coming to this article to learn about something new, the Navy/RAND paragraph (and the 1st paragraph in the subsection) is clutter that's just distracting. It makes it more difficult to find the information that concretely explains what Chopra’s approach to healthcare is actually all about. The first paragraph that directly addresses it is the one that starts, “Chopra and physicians at the Chopra Center practise integrative medicine…” (IMHO there’s a good bit that should be trimmed even after that sentence, but that discussion is probably better left for another time…)
- FWIW. Permstrump (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- just want to be clear that the OP mischaracterizes the source when they write "a widely publicized project by the U.S. Navy to incorporate integrative medicine into their treatment of soldiers and veterans". Nothing in the source provided says that the Navy is actually planning any such thing. It does talk about what "savvy advocates " within and outside the military are arguing for. Big difference. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'll add that I agree very much with the WP:NOTNEWS thing. This article is not a blog that tracks what Chopra does. it is an encyclopedia article about him. It's a typical newbie mistake to make edits like this, NBD. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Permstrump, the outside perspective is very helpful. I understand your concerns about the jumbled mess of many parts of the article, and agree Approach to Healthcare is particularly messy. I appreciate your reasoning, I think there's room for consensus here.
- WP:IINFO / WP:NOTNEWS: The reason I feel the source is relevant to the page overall is that it has been argued many, many times on this Talk Page (and has manifested in the tone of the article) that Chopra is almost universally dismissed by medical professionals, has no evidence for any of his approaches, and is only notable for his negative coverage. It seems noteworthy that a RS factually stated A) Chopra's approach to healthcare includes meditation, yoga, & therapy, B) The Navy shares these approaches & asked Chopra to discuss them, and C) medical officers and the notable Rand Corp. both endorsed the evidence behind his approaches. I'll grant that, as phrased, this is not conveyed efficiently (see below for suggested text), but given that there are 8 refs of negative reception v.0 of any other kind of reception (generally rejected as "WP:PROMOTION"), we need to keep WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BALANCE in mind.
- WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:TLDR: No argument on the TLDR, this subsection (and much of the article) is a redundant, non-sequitur nightmare. That said, this ref seems to deal with the reception of his approach to healthcare in Section: Ideas & Reception, Subsection: Approach to Healthcare. Much of the clutter is random descriptions of his theories and their detractors, while "healthcare" seems to imply his approach to the whole medical system, not discrete positions. This source specifically references broad healthcare views that Chopra & the Navy share, so it seems topical to me. If we start cutting RS that (even indirectly) deal with his approach to healthcare, we ought to trim mediocre sources that have nothing to do with it, like guesses on lecture fees, denigrating awards, and discussions of physics. I'd suggest either moving this source to Teaching and Other Roles (along with a general cleanup of any other sources that don't directly deal with Chopra's approach to healthcare, most of which could be shunted into the next subsection of Alternative Medicine), or include this ref as topical to Chopra's healthcare positions.
- Suggested text to make news relevancy and topicality clear: "In February 2016 Deepak Chopra led a "resiliency medicine" summit at the request of the United States Navy, in which he discussed how his views on holistic healthcare echoed the military's planned implementation of meditation, yoga, and compassionate therapy. Navy psychiatrist and summit organizer Commander Jeff Milligan stated he was confident in the evidence behind these practices, a position supported by research into meditation for PTSD and depression at the Rand Corporation. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/feb/26/navy-alternative-medicine-chopra/
- What are your thoughts on the above? I see plenty of room to compromise and address both sets of concerns. The Cap'n (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm just responding to the proposed edit. It's just news. It is not information of enduring encyclopedic interest about the man. He gives lots of talks. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you want to talk about a more general re-organization please do that in a new section so it can be discussed clearly and carefully. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- And you again misrepresent the source as though it makes statements about "The Navy", which is a) not true per the source, and b) a big old WP:COATRACK. This article is about Chopra, not about the acceptance of alt med. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Permstrump, the outside perspective is very helpful. I understand your concerns about the jumbled mess of many parts of the article, and agree Approach to Healthcare is particularly messy. I appreciate your reasoning, I think there's room for consensus here.
- The Cap'n I'm open to the possibility that those sources could potentially add value somewhere else in this article, but I think this particular section should focus exclusively on explaining Chopra's approach to healthcare as clearly and succinctly as possible. Knowing that the Navy and RAND also use some of the same methods doesn’t further my understanding of what Chopra does, so it feels like a red herring and that’s probably part of the reason some people said it seems promotional. I’m pretty sure that even the world’s most impeccably articulated explanation of Chopra’s approach to healthcare will still be pretty dense, so WP:LESSISMORE. (I can't believe that's not a thing.)
- As far as the other areas of the article you mentioned that also have extraneous details, I haven’t gone back yet to look at the specific parts you were referring to, but I will. I'm trying really hard not to derail this thread. I started working on a pared down draft of this section though and I’ll post on the talkpage for comments when I’m done. Permstrump (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- I can see your point, Permstrump, let's agree it doesn't belong in Approach to Healthcare. What about Teaching and Other Roles? Given that it's a lecture at a summit, it seems to fit there (even if "Other roles" isn't enough of a catch-all).
- I look forward to seeing a pared down version, and thank you for spending the time to do housekeeping! The Cap'n (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- The Cap'n: If we step back to look at the article as a whole, I honestly don’t think there’s anywhere you can put those 2 citations that would improve the article as it currently stands and I think anywhere you’d put them would exacerbate all of its existing issues and drag out arguments on the talkpage that will ultimately end with that stuff not getting added in. They don’t provide anything that’s essential and unique about the big-picture of Deepak Chopra. If it ever gets to a point where the extraneous crap has been edited out and it’s a really crisp and neutral article, then, hypothetically, with a strong argument for how it would contribute something essential that isn’t already reflected through another source, it might not be out of the realm of possibilities to hope that you could edit in those sources and have it stick.
- There’s no urgent need for them though (hence WP:NOTNEWS), so I think you should choose your battles. I don’t think it’s realistic to expect you’ll be able to add it in and leave it in as the article stands now. Several editors have already spent a decent chunk of time just talking about it on this talkpage and probably more time has been wasted arguing about issues only tangentially related to those 2 sources.
- If your ultimate goal is to improve this article, I think a better use of time would be to start weeding out the extraneous details, tightening up a lot of the sentence structure, and tagging citations with dead links (which there are plenty of). I'll post my draft of this one section any time now. Swearsies. I keep getting sidetracked. Permstrump (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- You make a solid point, Permstrump. Trying to add what I think are good refs to this jumbled page is like trying to tell a story in a rock concert; it just adds to the noise. I would love to see a more tidy version of this page, and given all the contentiousness and WP:BLP's position on contentious=removal, I think short and abbreviated would be better than long, rambling, and POV. I'll start playing with the ref list in my sandbox and see if there are any areas of pure duplication, complete non-sequiturs, etc. I look forward to seeing your draft, but trust me, I know what it's like to get overwhelmed! the Cap'n Hail me! 20:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- If your ultimate goal is to improve this article, I think a better use of time would be to start weeding out the extraneous details, tightening up a lot of the sentence structure, and tagging citations with dead links (which there are plenty of). I'll post my draft of this one section any time now. Swearsies. I keep getting sidetracked. Permstrump (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
RfC: Is the lead, among other parts of the article, reflective of the sources and a NPOV?
There have been several suggestions made towards rewriting the lead (among other parts of the article) to more accurately portray the individual and to reflect a more NPOV as per WP:BLP. Among others, at issue is "An article in Time described the medical and scientific communities' opinion of him as ranging from dismissive to damning; criticism includes statements that his approach could lure sick people away from effective treatments." One argument is this does not accurately reflect the source and that any positive portions of the article have been rejected. The other is that the positive proposed edits are not supported, that the Time source is essential and the article is fine as it is. Do the sources support the changes? Is the lead balanced/representative of a NPOV? Relevant sections : Talk:Deepak_Chopra#Lead_Section and Talk:Deepak_Chopra#Lead_issues.2Frevisions. BlueStove (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment- As the OP, my concern is the stonewalling of changes/clarifications within the lead (and the rest of the article) of any non-critical changes. Even when the title of a source used within the article explicitly explores Chopra as a one of "Two Holistic Health/New Age Gurus" as it's topic, somehow Chopra cannot be linked to holistic health. Chopra is a controversial figure, a fact that is duly noted throughout this article. However, many of the sources used in this article mention other non-critical qualities/ventures/approaches of Chopra that are actively ignored. BlueStove (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- yes lede is reflective of the sources and a NPOV...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- no lede is not NPOV and sources should be changed. A) RS policy states popular press is NOT an RS for positions of the medical establishment. B) Tompkins citation misrepresents the source by a blatant logical fallacy. The ref states that Chopra has critics, most of whom are members of the medical or scientific fields v. the WP statement that most members of the medical/scientific fields are critics of Chopra. That's obviously a big difference. C) The POV issue results from reverts of nearly any source that isn't negative (history); i.e. the insistence that Tompkins critiques be included, but none of his positive analysis about Chopra. the Cap'n Hail me! 01:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Response: A) I second QuackGuru that WP:MEDRS does not apply to the overall subject or to the statement in question. WP:MEDRS is specifically for biomedical information, not a blanket rule for “positions of the medical establishment.” B) & C) See my own response below. Permstrump (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, lede accurately reflects the sources. Chopra spins his advice as profound philosophy, medical advice and such. It's pretty clear that much of it is wacky and indistinguishable from new age word salad. That's not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, lede accurately reflects the sources, except there is no need to attribute "New Age Guru" as currently, it only needs to be stated in wiki voice. Other than that, and the constant pov pushing from true believers and employees, as a BLP it is OK. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, the lead section represents accurately the lack of respect that Chopra receives from the scientific community. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- May be undue As I mentioned [2], "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". We'd have a better article is we could agree upon wording for the lede that could be presented in Wikipedia's voice. --Ronz (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes and No. I think the weight given to controversies is fair and proportional, but the Times reference (“medical and scientific communities' opinion of him as rang[es] from dismissive to damning”) should be replaced with a better-worded quote that expresses a similar sentiment. This has been brought on the talkpage before as some editors felt it was cherrypicking. IMHO that's not the issue, but I agree with Ronz that it's not in Wikipedia's voice. There numerous sources that comment on how Chopra is perceived by the larger medical and scientific community, so I think it's possible for us to reach consensus about a different quote. I'll make a list of sources in the comment section.
- I think Chopra’s medical credentials should be clarified, because the wording is awkward and some important information is omitted. He’s currently a licensed physician in the State of California (breeze.ca.gov) and board certified in internal medicine and endocrinology (ABIM). He's also still licensed in MA, but I don't know if that's essential for the lead. We don't necessarily need to specify a state, but we should include his current status as a licensed physician. Also, he’s affiliated with a lot medical schools in the US for his residencies, etc. I don’t think we should name all of them, but it seems like we should name more than just one foreign medical school. Permstrump (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- P.S. I realize my response here might make it seem like I was being disingenuous the other day when I said I didn't know anything about Chopra, so I want to clarify that since then, I've read a lot about him as I've been checking the sources in this article and looking for more. Permstrump (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- No The actual statement for citation #11 in the lead is not in the document cited. In fact, this should be edited out as Chopra does not actually say this in the cited document. Hardly NPOV. Agree with Permastrump about cherrypicking and Wikipedia voice. Para 4 in the lead needs a bit of a rewrite to more NPOV. Whiteguru (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I said I didn't think cherrypicking was the issue. Permstrump (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- No the sentence in the lead does not accurately reflect the source and that any positive portions of the article have been rejected. Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- No -- I do not see the current text as a neutral representation of the source or the BLP subject.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Weak no My main issue is with putting these statement in Wikipedia's voice: His treatments rely on the placebo effect. He misuses terms and ideas from quantum physics (quantum mysticism) and provides people with false hope which obscures the possibility of effective medical treatment. While likely all factual, the sources of these declarative statements should be attributed in the text so we know the "according to whom" of it all. Incidentally, this is done in the following sentence: A Time articled stated...). SueDonem (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Are you saying the material just needs to be clearly sourced, or that it shouldn't be in Wikipedia's voice? If the latter, I don't see how it would meet FRINGE and POV. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Both. I read the TIME article, for instance and see that the "false hope" citation reads: Chopra's extravagant claims for Ayurveda and other traditional healing techniques can, some have argued, create false hope in genuinely ill people and dissuade them from seeking medical care and guidance. I have bolded to point out that this statement is not declarative of fact but of an opinion of "some". In general, the references for the sentences in question are all commentary which don't appear to be representational enough to declaratively write a fact (in Wikipedia's voice). Therefore, we either need attribution for these sentences or better sources. SueDonem (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Are you saying the material just needs to be clearly sourced, or that it shouldn't be in Wikipedia's voice? If the latter, I don't see how it would meet FRINGE and POV. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Comments on RfC
The argument that the "A) RS policy states popular press is NOT an RS for positions of the medical establishment." is not applicable to this page. This is not a medical-related topic. The threshold for inclusion is not a MEDRS compliant review. QuackGuru (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Is this RFC only for weighing in on whether we think the lead is NPOV or is it for discussing all issues people have with the lead? Permstrump (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Permstrump, given the open nature of the initial question (NPOV to sourcing) I'd say other issues are fair game.
- @QuackGuru, Deepak Chopra is not a medical topic, but making a claim about the position of the whole medical establishment (they all dismiss or damn Chopra) is. Not to mention that's not what the source says (it references the demographics of all Chopra critics, not the demographics of all scientists). the Cap'n Hail me! 09:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't have a copy of the source and you did not provide a quote from the source in this thread or explained what exactly is the problem. No uninvolved editor can agree or disagree whether the text is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Good point, thank you. Here is the original source (1), which says:
- "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."
- Here's what the article says (2):
- "An article in Time described the medical and scientific communities' opinion of him as ranging from dismissive to damning..."
- The big problem with this is that the source is describing the makeup of Chopra critics, while the way it's written in the article is describing the makeup of the entire scientific/medical establishment. It's like a ref saying "all oranges are fruit", then the article saying "all fruit are oranges." It's a logical fallacy and a pretty serious citation error. That's my biggest concern. the Cap'n Hail me! 22:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ignore the part of my response
abovebelow where I said I thought you might be conflating 2 sources, because I just realized that was looking at the Times reference in the preceding sentence. Permstrump (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC) - I deleted this from the main conversation, so it wouldn't take up space, but this is what I had said for transparency (still ignore it b/c I realized my mistake):
From the lead: “The ideas he promotes have been criticized by scientists and medical professionals Tompkins...” From Tomkins: “Chopra has been a magnet for criticism — most of it from the medical and scientific communities.” I don’t think the current paraphrasing misrepresents the source and it’s not a logical fallacy. I think you’re conflating 2 different references. The WP source that's cited earlier in the lead does have a comment that's worded very similarly to Tompkins, but WP was only used to support Chopra’s rejection* of the label “controversial new age guru.” *Note: That’s not the label Chopra was rejecting, but I’ll go into that more in the comment section.Permstrump (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ignore the part of my response
- I don't have a copy of the source and you did not provide a quote from the source in this thread or explained what exactly is the problem. No uninvolved editor can agree or disagree whether the text is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
3RR is not subject to clear BLP violations. QuackGuru (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think there was a miscommunication and possibly the wrong reference to Tompkins was removed. The Tompkins piece in Time was cited twice in the lead and some people are calling it the Tompkins source, others are calling it the Time source and I accidentally referred to in separate comments by different names as if they were 2 entirely different sources (my bad)... Before QuackGuru's recent edit, the first Time/Tompkins reference said, "The ideas he promotes have been criticized by scientists and medical professionals" and the second one said, "An article in Time described the medical and scientific communities' opinion of him as ranging from dismissive to damning..." I'm pretty sure it's the 2nd time (bolded) that The Cap'n took issue with and Ronz called "contentious" and not in Wikipedia's voice. At least that's what I was thinking... IMHO the "dismissive to damning" bit sounds snarky and not the right tone. Permstrump (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
User:SueDonem, there could be a much bigger problem. "His treatments rely on the placebo effect. He misuses terms and ideas from quantum physics (quantum mysticism) and provides people with false hope which obscures the possibility of effective medical treatment." I am having a very difficult time trying to verify these statements. It may be WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)