Talk:Deepak Chopra

Negative description
The articles introduction has a heavy negative bias. It should be reviewed to ensure it presents a balanced view. 2603:7000:8500:11D0:5503:BAAE:8623:432E (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this out. I have reviewed the article, which imho describes Chopra and his life quite accurately according to the sources. I will not be recommending any changes, or making any. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 13:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the last sentence of the lede paragraph has all the editorial grace of Donald J. Trump. It is crappy writing, just the way Wikipedia likes it. WP is now a quasi-authoritarian power, pretending to offer balanced and comprehensive info, but in effect PASSING JUDGMENT on the SUBJECT, by policy. The reader is too stupid, apparently, to formulate their own opinion. -- Jack B108 (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * um, let get this right. This article is poorly written, partly because it makes a desperate attempt to cram in as much materialistic criticism of Chopra's work from old-guard, scientific reduction adherents as it can. This is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's own stated policy on remaining neutral on controversial biographical entries. So what you're saying is basically if something is controversial, even if millions of people accept it, including scientists, if it's not 96% reductionist and materialistic, Wikipedia editors won't even allow any discussion of the editorial comment. I would say apart from the pure bias of this Chopra article, which I imagine even Albert Einstein would chuckle at, it's just got a lot of uneven writing. And relying on criticism saying "physicists" or" physics" agree Chopra is fluff is childish, as any reasonable observer of physics knows, as if you had to sign a dogmatic vow of materialism to do research at CERN or DOE Nat'l Labs. Many physicists [of which Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins are not] have no real problem with the ideas of Deepak Chopra, or at least would allow them to be given a fair shake in an encyclopedia. Jack B108 (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand WP:NPOV. You should actually read it. Also, WP:FRINGE. There is no blatant violation of Wikipedia's own stated policy on remaining neutral because Chopra's ideas are far outside real science. If you asked Chopra to write down the Schrödinger equation, he would fail. His version of QM is just a layman's bad misunderstanding of bad explanations written by people who know physics only from heavily dumbed-down popular science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Many physicists [of which Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins are not]" - yes, I do not believe you should shoot your mouth off about poor writing. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:20A8:B888:AFB9:D07 (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * More importantly, we would need a reliable source for the names of those "many physicists" who have no problem with Chopra's pseudophysical bullshit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * PseudoPsycical perhaps? - Roxy the dog 16:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Lede
I am very much not a Chopra defender, but the last sentence of the lede paragraph, splicing quotes from several opinion pieces, seems like an attempt to get as close as possible to stating subjective views in Wikivoice. It also focuses onky on Quantum Healing, only one of many topics Chopra has discussed. I would suggest replacing that sentence with a more general “Chopra’s views have been characterized as pseudoscientific and devoid of substance” Mach61 (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It was also added by a banned editor (Roxy the Dog) Mach61 (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Check the reason for the ban. It is not his opposition to fringe ideas. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * only one of many topics Chopra has discussed By that reasoning, we would have to delete almost everything from almost all Wikipedia articles.
 * quotes from several opinion pieces Ask any scientist. Chopra's babble will infuriate pretty much all of them. The "have been characterized as" sentence is representative.
 * Having said that, you are right that they do not belong in the lede. The lede is supposed to summarize the body of the article, and those quotes are not there. They should be moved to the body and replaced in the lede by a moved-up sentence from the third paragraph The ideas Chopra promotes have regularly been criticized by medical and scientific professionals as pseudoscience, with "and devoid of substance" at the end. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI: My problem was the fact the sentence spliced quotes without attribution, not that opinion pieces in RS were cited at all. I don’t mean to start an argument with someone who agrees with my proposed change, but please assume editors are familiar with basic rules unless definitively proven otherwise. Cheers. Mach61 (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree that, this last sentence "His discussions of quantum healing have been characterized as technobabble – "incoherent babbling strewn with scientific terms" derided by those proficient in physics."
 * does not belong in the lede, as per several valid reasons given above. The lede needs to factual and neutral and avoid subjective opinions, which can be mentioned latter in the body. RogerYg (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Further, as per WP:BLP such Contentious material about living persons that is Subjective & probably poorly sourced must be removed, especially if potentially libellous, and especially be removed from the lede. RogerYg (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Lede needs to mention the more factual information from sources such as : "the Indian-born, Western-educated endocrinologist who veered from conventional medicine in search of answers from the ancient Indian folk wisdom of ayurveda (from the Sanskrit words for knowledge and life), a holistic approach to well-being that stresses yoga, meditation, nutrition, herbs"
 * https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-sep-07-tm-29576-story.html
 * RogerYg (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We have no use for babble like "ancient Indian folk wisdom", a blatantly promotional NPOV violation. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  13:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, yes, we don't need to include that.. it was the whole quote from the source. I meant the more factual and neutral information from the sources. RogerYg (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, the Lede must adhere to the WP:BLP biographies of living persons policy, and Contentious material  should be removed, especially if potentially libelous. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not libel if it is true, and it is true. "Quantum medicine" is really garbage. Beware WP:NLT.
 * Well, it was not any threat. It was the standard message about WP: BLP and WP:BLP noticeboard that appears whenever we edit a biographical article but often overlook. So, it was just a reminder. Anyway, I removed the noticeboard part. I am all for healthy discussions without any threats. RogerYg
 * I moved stuff around within the lede, but there is some redundancy there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with your move in the later paragraphs of the Lede. It's more important to keep the Lede first paragraph factual and neutral information per WP:BLP and WP: First paragraph. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC).
 * His quantum bullshit is factually bullshit. My edit only accidentally fits your preconceptions that it is not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am no Chopra defender. While I agree that many people consider his ideas as techno babble, some scientists have co-authored these "abstract ideas" such as "Quantum Body", which is co-authored by Dr. Jack Tuszynski, PhD (a quantum physicist and professor of oncology in the Department of Physics at University of Alberta).
 * https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/719494/quantum-body-by-deepak-chopra-md-jack-tuszynski-phd-and-brian-fertig-md/
 * I think all "mind-science" or meta-physical ideas and claims are open to healthy criticism. I was just reminding to keep the lede voice factual & neutral per WP:BLP, WP:RS, & WP:NPOV. Thanks again for your kind inputs. RogerYg (talk) 10:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Does he have an MD?
He was trained under the British system, which doesn't hand out MDs to every medical doctor, but only those who do advanced research in medicine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Medicine

He may have accumulated one along the way, and his practicing in the USA means his use of the term simplifies the confusion in American minds, but the latter doesn't prove he has the right to it. Ender&#39;s Shadow Snr (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)