Winged Blades of Godric (talk | contribs) →RfC 2: RFC closure.... Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
No edit summary |
||
Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
:::Answer: The source used to verify the claim uses the supported weasel word "some". The other sources in this section are not being used to verify the claim. The other sources in this section are being used to show this type of claim is common. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="vermillion">'''QuackGuru'''</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<font color="burntorange">talk</font>]]) 16:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC) |
:::Answer: The source used to verify the claim uses the supported weasel word "some". The other sources in this section are not being used to verify the claim. The other sources in this section are being used to show this type of claim is common. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="vermillion">'''QuackGuru'''</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<font color="burntorange">talk</font>]]) 16:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
{{archive bottom}} |
{{archive bottom}} |
||
== Absolutely original research? == |
|||
"The ideas Chopra promotes have been regularly criticized by medical and scientific professionals as pseudoscience.[17][18][19][20]" After reading the sources I was unable to verify the entire sentence. Something needs to change. Wikipedia seeks verification not truth. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="vermillion">'''QuackGuru'''</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<font color="burntorange">talk</font>]]) 21:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:55, 7 January 2017
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
‘Luring the sick’ statement needs work
This page always seems like a quagmire, but I decided to make a change anyway and hope for the best. I
adjusted the language and added a ref to focus on the controversy about efficacy rather than a
hypothetical about him possibly ‘luring’ the sick into avoiding medicine. It’s one thing to say Deepak
Chopra’s treatments may be ineffective, but claiming he may be discouraging people from necessary
medical treatments seems irresponsible. That’s actually a crime in California, where Chopra operates, so
it feels like a pretty big deal to imply he’s doing so without any evidence. Also, the Tompkins source only
vaguely mentions it as a secondhand complaint by unnamed people at some point in time, while Chopra
has directly clarified he endorses mainstream treatments when medically indicated. It seems an
uncontroversial decision to adjust a poorly supported hypothetical implying a BLP subject is committing a
crime.
PollyStyrene (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)(PollyStyrene(talk) 02:21, 09 December 2016 (UTC))
Parked content
- per my edit summary please wait for other editors to weigh in on this contentious article. I'd like to see the editors experienced on this article weight in on this. Thanks. I prefer not to add more and hope this content can be dealt with, whether added or not, with agreement from multiple editors. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC))
"He is placed by David Gorski among the "quacks", "cranks" and "purveyors of woo", and described as "arrogantly obstinate".[1] Richard Dawkins publicly exposed Chopra, accusing him to use "quantum jargon as plausible-sounding hocus pocus"."
- ^ David Gorski. "Deepak Chopra tries his hand at a clinical trial. Woo ensues". Retrieved 20 December 2016.
These are my concerns. Given this is a blog and given these points have already been made in the article; this seems to be an undue weight violation. As well, as a blog this is not what I would consider a RS for a BLP. The article already clearly positions itself in terms of Chopra's detractors; this addition is less encylcopedic and adds weight to an already well weighted aspect of the article. I'm not going to revert but please discuss this and reach agreement one way or the other. (Add. I did revert once to give others a chance to cmt here.)(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC))
- Yeah, it's probably a bit much. Alexbrn (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Meh, seems legit to me, as a critique of his quantum flapdoodle. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
RfC about “Luring the sick”
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should this BLP exclude the statement that this practicing physician "can lure sick people away from medical treatments?" At issue is that an M.D. discouraging necessary medical treatment constitutes malpractice and criminal negligence in his home of California, it clearly seems an exceptional claim to imply he may be doing so. WP:EXCEPTIONAL requires any exceptional claim to have multiple high-quality sources, especially when relating to a BLP. There is only one source for "lure sick people away" and it's neither from a medical professional nor provides any evidence for the statement. Here, here, and here are sources that reference Deepak Chopra endorsing mainstream medical treatment in addition to his approaches, so "luring" is both an exceptional and contested statement. Potential replacement: "-his claims for the effectiveness of alternative medicine are widely debated," which addresses the controversy but avoids possibly libelous implications. PollyStyrene (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- yes of course it should. This is a commonly cited danger of altmed woo and applies to Chopra as it does to any purveyor of such woo; the specific application for him is well sourced in the article already. Even the US chief purveyor of woo, the NCCIH, warns people not to forgo medical care in favor of altmed (ref). They provide that warning, because people actually do that. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- this practicing physician "can lure sick people away from medical treatments - no opinion only and attacking a living person. This whole BLP is an attack location, I am sure Chopra cares less and it matters to the real world even less, woo, lol, seems like there is a lot of anti woo here. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
RfC 2
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should this article include or exclude the statement that "some argue that his claims for the effectiveness of alternative medicine can lure sick people away from medical treatments?". If it should be included, should it be in the lede? Guy (Help!) 23:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- include of course it should. This is a commonly cited danger of altmed woo and applies to Chopra as it does to any purveyor of such woo; the specific application for him is well sourced in the article already. Even the US chief purveyor of woo, the NCCIH, warns people not to forgo medical care in favor of altmed (ref). They provide that warning, because people actually do that. Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes include - obvious, well-sourced, and necessary to say per WP:PSCI policy. Alexbrn (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Include - this is an important aspect of all non-evidence-based approaches to medicine ("alternative medicine"), and it should be included whenever there are reliable sources for it. It could be in the lede but does not necessarily need to be. Please do not forget to comment on the last part of the RfC, even if you do not have an opinion on it (like me). --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I do think does need to be in the lead. He's a very controversial figure and that needs to be reflected in the lead for NPOV. If anything, I'd say the lead leans more towards puffery, but for a BLP on a controversial figure, it's pretty close to balanced. —PermStrump(talk) 11:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Include in lede. See "Comments on RfC2" to verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Include. Compared to what a number of reliable sources have said over the years (I'll link to some additional sources below), this is
a euphemismin the spirit of Biographies of living persons § Tone, i.e., "written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement". —PermStrump(talk) 11:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC) - Include - The sentence is cited and supported by information in the article body. ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Comments on RfC2
The current text in the lede is "and some argue that his claims for the effectiveness of alternative medicine can lure sick people away from medical treatments.[16]" The web archived source says "Chopra is just another huckster purveying watered-down Eastern wisdom mixed with pseudo science and pop psychology — to the outright damning. 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."[1] There was a previous RfC. See Talk:Deepak_Chopra/Archive_25#RfC:_Is_the_lead.2C_among_other_parts_of_the_article.2C_reflective_of_the_sources_and_a_NPOV.3F. I and others did improve the wording in the lede during the previous RfC. See Talk:Deepak_Chopra/Archive_25#Comments_on_updated_lede. QuackGuru (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Last time we had this discussion (see QuackGuru's link), I pulled quotes of common ways Chopra has been described in the media over the years and dumped a bunch of sources on a subpage: Talk:Deepak Chopra/Source dump. Some are cited in other parts of article, but others weren't used, because all of the critical statements about him are well sourced so it would be redundant. Here's some quotes from additional sources that support keeping the full sentence and in the lead.
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Even in Chopra's own words in 2014, he said this is a common criticism he gets: "Most of the skeptic editors on my article believe me to be a very dangerous man..." And how apropos is the rest of that quote... "[they] believe that it is Wikipedia's responsibility to warn the world of how dangerous my ideas are. –Deepak Chopra[2]
- —PermStrump(talk) 13:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Question: What justifies the word "some"? I read only 1 source in the 1st paragraph in this section arguing people may be lured away. The other sources in this section do not explain luring people away.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely original research?
"The ideas Chopra promotes have been regularly criticized by medical and scientific professionals as pseudoscience.[17][18][19][20]" After reading the sources I was unable to verify the entire sentence. Something needs to change. Wikipedia seeks verification not truth. QuackGuru (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)