Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 10

For the record: Concerns per extensive changes on a highly contentious article which falls under two arbitrations
I am concerned that a highly contentious BLP which falls under both the TM arbitration and possibly pseudoscience arbitration in which a preliminary DR strategy have been sought here and in which  further  DR strategies, such as the DR NoticeBoard,  have been discussed here has undergone extensive changes with out prior discussion including extensive peremptory deletion of sourced content here. Primary sources are in some cases as here, RS for content and even definitive. Further the removal of accurate and obvious content from the lead that Chopra is an Indian- American and a physician  is another red flag. I'd add that in my opinion the article is heavily weighted, especially now and especially given the lead, to discredit another human being and is unacceptable per our BLP policy. Further the article is not even remotely stable given the ongoing contentious discussions, so GA status is premature. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC))
 * I don't know how the changes violate BLP, much less "discredit" Chopra, but I share the concerns about rewriting the lede while the article is under such scrutiny. It seems overly bold and inappropriate given all the recent discussion on the very information that was changed. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think these concerns are ill thought out, premature and inaccurate. The article is improved from what it was, most of the edits have been copy/edit improvements, and despite Olive's claims, the lead retains Chopra's Indian American connections, and has considerable detail on his career as a physician. I'm not sure that Olive has read the same lead as me. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The changes in emphasis and style are rather startling: The first paragraph is very tight, summarizing his notability. The second paragraph loosely introduces him and his career. The third (last) paragraph of two sentences tells of his transition to his current business. I expect that the first paragraph is of most concern. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This attempt to filibuster improvements to the article by pointing to irrelevent discussions elsewhere that most parties were wholly unaware of is highly problematic. Hipocrite (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, while due care must be taken for any BLP, and Wikipedia's policies guidelines and policies should guide and police as always, the thought that somehow extra caution is warranted here could be seen as a victory for those that would bring external pressure to disrupt the normal course of Wikipedia editing. Alexbrn talk 16:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Awards and memberships section it looks to be made up entirely of primary sources, but the nature of the information is such that its significance needs to be verified through secondary sources. You can see my views on these types of sections here. Regarding BLP, it does not prevent us from including well-sourced criticisms, but it does encourage us to "write conservatively" which is why I toned down a lot of editorialized quotes from the media and more work along those lines needs to be done in the body. Like any professional journalist, we should consider it our ethical obligation to give the article-subject a voice against their accusers. Therefore, there needs to be a sentence in the Lead that features his defense and/or the viewpoint of his followers. Chopra himself or his representative(s) are the best suited to provide this particular aspect of the article with the best available source. CorporateM (Talk) 17:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Given how much concern there was over the COI's interest in the lead, I think it reasonable to expect the same level of caution be exercised by all parties regarding it. From what I can see there is a lot of contention over what the lead does/doesn't summarize, and a clearer body would help provide a better narrative for the lead to summarize.  Despite the (rather absolutist) collapsing of the proposed changes section, I think we could do some significant work ironing out the body of the article, where changes do not risk misrepresenting the whole work.  I agree that while folks can (and violently do) defend individual pieces of the BLP, the overall feel of it has often not been very objective.  The Cap&#39;n (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you were going to be mediating. It's got to be a new mediation tactic where the mediator expresses their own personal viewpoints and takes sides. I guess you're not mediating? Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is established best practice to work on the body of the article first and do the Lead last, so you can make sure the Lead is representative of a quality article. Though it shouldn't prevent incremental improvement, it's good advice as far as saving any nit-picking for later. I don't really care what the COI does or doesn't want - my interest is in improving articles. I previously bumped into something TM-related and have been having an itch to work on a topic with a negative reception. Editors should chip in in article-space, not the drama boards. And keep in mind, this is suppose to be fun :-p  CorporateM (Talk) 20:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

CorporateM when an editor makes changes this fast with out input as to their suitability, its almost impossible to keep up, input, or even know where to start That you perceive this as an article you want to edit because it has a  negative reception instead of what this is, a BLP, does not engender confidence in the neutrality of what you are doing. You are being supported by self declared skeptics which I expected given the way the lead first paragraph, especially now, reads. My point in posting was for the record, and to make clear this article is contentious. This resulting thread proves my point as I thought it would. Such highly contentious articles should remain stable for a fair period of time to be considered for GA status. Clearly this article is not stable. However, I do believe you are acting in good faith even though your edits seem to ignore the extensive preceding discussions on some of the content you added. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC))


 * @Hipocrite, I came here because of a BLP notice for help with sourcing, which I'm in the process of doing, and since then I've been working toward a NPOV article. --- ...if you think my saying there have been issues with objectivity is "taking sides", I recommend reviewing WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. I'm assuming this is a simple misunderstanding and not a misrepresentation of my statements.  Again, I urge folks to temper their passions; this is an encyclopedia, not war. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a bald faced lie. Retract it now. Hipocrite (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you consider a lie? ---  You told Barney he should be "waiting for him (me) to make a mistake large enough (like sockpuppeting again) that you can civilly report his completely disruptive actions." and posted a fake AE to my Talk page as a "warning."  Or are you saying that it's a lie that this is an encyclopedia, not a war?  That would explain some of your hostility here, at least. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You can report someone for disruptive actions, or warn a person about arbitration, without actively campaigning for a block. I would also like to see a concrete example of Hipocrite advocating that you be indefinitely blocked or site-banned, or retract your statement, as otherwise it appears to be a violation of WP:NPA. --  At am a  頭 20:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * @Atama, I will grant that he has never said he wanted me indefinitely blocked, and I did not intend to imply he had said those words. I will retract that portion of text.  I was basing my assumption that he did not welcome my presence on the statements he'd made in AE (that, aside from the quote above, reiterated the dismissed SPI/death threat issue) and the posting of a mock-up AE on my Talk page.  No falsehood or personal attack was intended. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thank you for clarifying. --  At am a  頭 21:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Characterizing that SPI as "dismissed" is not quite accurate. There was ample evidence to warrant a checkuser, and a checkuser was performed. I am responding because you had previously tried to discredit other SPIs on this talk page, and I can't help but see the above comment as a continuation of that. It would be best to avoid the topic altogether, of course, but if I feel something is being misrepresented then I will step in. vzaak 06:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

TM connectedness
Should members of the TM collective participating here be declared on this talk page? vzaak 05:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What is a TM collective exactly?(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC))
 * I was referring to the people listed here. Call it what you wish. vzaak 05:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have something to say about an old CU and arbitration case you should say it. If you have concerns about editors here, please be straightforward with out dragging up past case which obscures the issues at hand.(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC))

Vzaak - you obviously don't know the rule. You do not discuss the failure of editors in or around Fairfield, Iowa to desire to maintain NPOV on any articles. You do not accuse them of having any conflict of interest at all. This is verboten - everyone knows about the conduct and the COI, but it's an open secret - we don't talk about it in public. Hipocrite (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Arbcom at WP:ARBTM. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This does bring up a good point. This article should fall under the purview of TM (it is associated with the TM WikiProject after all) so discretionary sanctions are applicable. Fortunately, things seem to be surprisingly constructive here so I don't see that enforcement (or even formal notification) is needed at this point. --  At am a  頭 15:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits to lead
I've used an inclusive approach to include both the edits of an experienced uninvolved editor and the edits which were made recently to the lead. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC))
 * I have boldly replaced the word "state" with "claim" in the lead, deliberately to indicate that there is no evidence for Deepak's assertions, per wp:claim. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * which claims specifically? the effects on physical health from yoga and meditation are well documented. Integrative Medicine is mainstream.The lead still does not capture Dr Chopra's actual ideas, but at least they are closer than before. Dr Chopra does not claim that's a mental process over the physical, but rather an holistic process, meaning 'physical emotional mental spiritual & environmental' all contribute to the well being of the individual. That's not an unsupported claim, that is integrative medicine.  SAS81 (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As had been discussed, practically no source concentrates on the "physician" aspect of Chopra, no having it as the first thing we mention about him is completely undue, and out of alignment with the sources. Alexbrn talk 04:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Multiple sources on Chopra's life begin by saying he is a physician. That he was a physician is critical to an understanding of why he veered off into integrative medicine so I would disagree that mentioning this as a base line point for his life's work is undue.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC))

New Age guru
I'd like to remove this from the lead, but I see there has been discussion before, so I'm checking here first. Whenever I read it, it jars slightly because it jumps out as either a compliment or insult, depending on your perspective, but not a factual description. That is, it has more connotation than denotation (in this context). SlimVirgin (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Option: "is a advocate for alternative medicine who has a large following in the New Age community."  --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * He has a large following outside the New Age community too. I was thinking of simply: "is an Indian-American alternative-medicine practitioner." The next sentence makes clear that he's a prolific author too, and that he has a large following. So:


 * "Deepak Chopra (born October 22, 1947) is an Indian-American alternative-medicine practitioner. He is the author of several dozen books and over 100 audio or video products on complementary medicine, and has become one of the best-known and wealthiest figures in the holistic health movement."


 * SlimVirgin (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The thing about "guru", awkward as it is, is that it captures a lot of meaning compactly. "Practitioner" is not quite right. Perhaps sometime like "celebrity advocate of New Age ideas" would work, so long as the next sentence mentioned "alternative medicine". (We shouldn't use "holistic health" as we are now, it's a loaded term here). Alexbrn talk 03:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with Alex about "holistic health" and I have stated my preference for "new age guru" when it was previously removed. Also I'm not convinced that he is a practitioner of Alt-Med as much as an advocate, as I doubt he spends much time over a mortar and pestle grinding ayurvedic remedies, more likely hunched over a Mac keyboard in a plush office, grinding out his next HuffPo article. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 06:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a loaded term and I'd say it should be avoided. "celebrity advocate of New Age ideas" is even worse in my opinion. We should use the language or terms most often found in secondary sources like these:
 * Author and "pioneer in mind-body medicine" Deepak Chopra—LA Times, March 26, 2014
 * Chopra is considered one of the pre-eminent leaders of the mind-body-spirit movement.-- Journal of India February 16, 2010
 * Deepak Chopra, the best-selling author and speaker on wellness and spirituality—Rocky Mountain News, Oct 11, 2005
 * Deepak Chopra, holistic health guru, best-selling author and founder of the Chopra Center in Carlsbad, Calif. –LA Times, Dec 11, 2013
 * Physician, educator and best-selling author Dr. Deepak Chopra—CNBC, Sharon Epperson, 1 Apr 2014
 * spiritual leader, licensed physician and best-selling author Deepak Chopra.—Reuters, May 9, 2014
 * -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * except that most of those ( "pioneer", "pre-eminent", " best-selling") are specifically called out as terminology that we do not use. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Are there sources other than critics who call him a New Age guru, or it is a term that's confined to criticism of him? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think your presentation of the sources is misleading in the extreme. To take only the final source ("Reuters"), I assume you're citing this press release (you haven't provided actual hyperlinks, so please correct me if I'm wrong). That source is a press release promoting a meeting featuring Chopra. It is not a news article from Reuters. That should be immediately clear, since the source says at the very top: Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release. To reiterate what should be obvious: news articles from Reuters are reliable sources. Promotional press releases reposted on the Reuters website with a disclaimer are not reliable sources. Can you (Keithbob) please clarify whether the other cited sources are in fact objective news pieces, as opposed to promotional material reposted on various news websites? MastCell Talk 22:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I checked the second-to-last and found this article on CNBC's web site, where it looks like that language came from Sharon Epperson who is a financial correspondent for the news channel.
 * The next one up looks to be from this article at the LA Times, and was written by Betty Hallock (who is a "deputy food editor" for the paper), but it's just a notification of a book signing so it is probably just repeating info provided by Chopra's people.
 * The next one up I found at this page (you need to log in to HighBeam to see the whole thing) and it doesn't have any indication of being a press release, it looks like an article written by John Rebchook, who is the Real Estate Editor for Rocky Mountain News. I don't find it repeated anywhere else, so it's probably not from a press release.
 * It looks like the next one up is from a press release. I can't find the Journal of India article, but I found that exact same language here and repeated at other pages online, which clearly stem from a press release.
 * The next one up also seems to be a press release. The LA Times article itself doesn't say that it is, but I found this press release which is the same language, so clearly it came from a press release generated by OWN.
 * Bottom line, most of those above are from press releases, but a couple of them aren't. --  At am a  頭 18:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Atama, thanks for doing that legwork - it's very helpful. I guess the bottom line from my perspective is that it would be helpful for experienced editors to set a good example in terms of approaching sources scrupulously (as Atama has). It's pretty disappointing to see obviously promotional press releases presented as if they were "secondary sources" suitable to base an encyclopedic biography upon. Thanks again to Atama for helping to clarify. MastCell Talk 22:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

some sources and clarifications re: New Age Guru
This article has really come along way and the work speaks to Wikipedia's process. I want to add some clarifications regarding the above discussion with facts, acting as Dr Chopra's archivist. Some of the confusion here is around common misperceptions (some of them so common even Dr Chopra accepts them quite often)

Fact 1: Dr Chopra is not an alternative medicine practitioner. A alternative medicine practitioner implies a license or a practice that Dr Chopra does not have. What is factually correct is that Dr Chopra has been a 'champion' (for lack of a better word) of integrating western medicine with yoga and meditation. Dr. Chopra runs a medically licensed clinic (1A), the Mind Body medical group/Chopra Center is all comprised of licensed medical doctors but there is a very strong emphasis on yoga, meditation and various ‘wellness’ practices. Additionally Dr. Chopra’s clinic teaches AMA certified CME courses on Integrative (not alternative) Medicine under the aegis of UCSD medical school (1B). Integrative (or "complementary" in NIH documents) is the recognized approach for Dr. Chopra (1D).

→→→→→→→ Two things: first of all, your citation is wrong on several points. The author, Brian Goldman, is an M.D., not a Ph.D. He is not affiliated with the "National Institute of Health" [sic], but rather is a practicing ER doc in Toronto. (Both facts should be obvious to anyone perusing the first page of the article, let alone an archivist). Secondly, and more importantly, your selected excerpt doesn't really convey the tone of the source. Goldman writes: "In building his case against western medicine, Chopra cloaks himself carefully in the mantle of 'rational Western physician'." Thus, the author expresses significant skepticism about Chopra's commitment to Western medicine, instead framing it as a pose adopted by Chopra to advocate more successfully for alternative approaches. I realize that you are trying very hard to avoid conveying anything of the sort here on Wikipedia, but since you cited this source, the least you can do is accurately represent its content. MastCell Talk 22:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC) my response is at the bottom where it is appropriate, please avoid splitting other editor's comments. SAS81 (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you keep posting massive text dumps full of inaccuracies. I haven't even gotten past "1A" yet and I already see significant errors of both fact and interpretation. It would be helpful if you could be a bit more patient - recognizing that while you are paid to edit this article as your job, the rest of us are volunteers. Try breaking your posts into smaller, more easily discussed segments, and focus on one issue until it's resolved before moving on. These text dumps are not really conducive to any kind of collaborative editing, and instead leave the sense that you're trying to beat down any concerns or dissenting voices with the sheer volume of your posts. MastCell Talk 03:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am going to ask you to retract this statement "' but you keep posting massive text dumps full of inaccuracies." that is an aspersion and if you find an inaccuracy, I will retract it. please stop trying to discredit me. I can't please everyone here. I am posting less than once a week, am compiling sources which take up space, and my own comments are hardly that long. I'm just not popular here because of my position. I request you afford me the same respect you would anyone else. SAS81 (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your massive text dump - just the first one - was filled with inaccuracies. You wrote "Goldman, Brian, PhD" - inaccurate. You wrote "National Institute of Health" - inaccurate. Then, you use a bunch of blurbs. Are you sure you're a trained archivist? Hipocrite (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If you are not going to list this great waterfall of inaccuracies please retract your statement. If my inaccuracies are inputting PhD for MD are all you have, kindly be patient with me, I have fat fingers and drink too much coffee. 'NIH' is where the source was retrieved, thus why it's listed that way. Send over your best practices for citations, I'll give it a review. SAS81 (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Fact 2: Dr Chopra is not a New Age Guru. His own statements contradict this directly and Dr Chopra has always rejected the ‘guru’ title (2A), while many sources avoid the term, even when referring to others who do identify as gurus (2H, 2J). It’s also primarily used as a pejorative against him by his many critics. Case in point one editor in this discussion who has been vocal of their low opinion about Dr Chopra specifically said ‘If all this article consisted of the sentence ... "Deepak Chopra is a New Age Guru" it wouldn't have actually lost much’. While concise descriptions are difficult to articulate, it is factual to say that Dr Chopra is a known advocate, champion, thought leader or some kind of spokesperson promoting the integration of practices such as yoga and meditation with western medicine along with his views on consciousness. The problem is what term do we use? This is challenging - but here are some sources that reference his ‘position’ using other language that is more mainstream and neutral than 'New Age Guru'. It's likely some editors will attempt to dismiss several of these sources, but I hope you will give these fair weight against the sources being used for 'New Age Guru'.

*Corrected Link: www.mediaupdate.co.za/?idstory=65004

One possible consideration maybe to just refer to Dr Chopra the way the Clinton Global Initiative refers to him - as an Indian American author, speaker, and founder of the Chopra Center for Wellness.

I hope this has been somewhat helpful, thank you everyone for improving this article, I'm hoping we can make it a great one. SAS81 (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * MastCell- yes sorry about the MD, PhD, thanks for pointing out that citation error. That he lives in Toronto has no relevance to the citation.His article is preserved at NIH and that is where it was retrieved from, nothing out of form there, retrieval from databases need to be cited. In terms of the ‘tone’ of the article, the author comments on many sides of an argument around Dr Chopra - and one of the things he comments on is one of the facts that I am using him as a source for, primarily a fact that Dr Chopra integrates western medicine with meditation and yoga. His tone is irrelevant when we are discussing facts.  SAS81 (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, the article is not "preserved at NIH". That's akin to saying that bigfootexists.com is "preserved at Google". The article is indexed on MEDLINE, a service of the National Library of Medicine, which is in turn part of NIH. It's a searchable database of the medical literature, but the article is not hosted or otherwise endorsed by NIH, any more than the millions or billions of other articles indexed by MEDLINE. I'm not telling you how to do your job as an archivist, but this is a really, really basic aspect of the medical literature and if it's unclear then I would strongly suggest seeking assistance from a reputable medical librarian. Secondly, we do actually have a responsibility to preserve an author's tone and not merely quote-mine his work for the most sympathetic passages. The tone of Goldman's article is quite skeptical of Chopra in places, but you've ignored these aspects of the source and instead used it to promote the official party line. This is the kind of thing that gives paid editing a justifiably bad name. MastCell Talk 02:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * SAS is using a quote from the source to underpin the term and idea integrative medicine. He is not selecting content to paint a picture either positive or negative about Chopra.


 * I disagree with your analysis of the source and its tone. Certainly there is some skepticism but the tone overall is quite neutral and mild, and in some places even interested. You are accusing SAS of ignoring the skeptical aspects of the article even though those aspects have nothing to do with what he's discussing. And you are implying your reading of the article's tone is the accurate one. I think you have a valid opinion,  but  nor more valid than anyone else's.


 * I think its fair to ask an editor to slow down because one's editing time is limited. However, many editors on Wikipedia are highly productive for reasons other than that they paid. Selecting paid editing as reason to attach blame seems a little selective, and a red herring.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC))
 * Details about citation style aside, I just finished reading the source in question. I know I've caught more than a few sources that were quoted as being highly critical of Chopra, then have actually read the source to discover it was actually a defense of Chopra, with all the accusations but the defense left out.  That's misrepresentation.  This isn't.  The author is, in my opinion, admirably well balanced.  He examined Chopra's history, qualifications and criticisms neutrally and without rancor.  There were critiques of Chopra in there,  but there was also praise, and the author's intent was clearly to be objective.  I think we venture into dangerous waters when we ask editors to judge what the opinion of the author was and only include material that reflects that opinion.  In a good, objective source there should be numerous points, any of which should be able to be quoted on their own.  One would be able to find material in this source to argue that Chopra is an intelligent man, a highly controversial figure, a licensed physician, a practitioner of ayurveda, a successful businessman or a lightning rod for the medical community.  And, lo and behold, all of those might be correct.  Just sayin'.  The Cap&#39;n (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@ mastcell - This is being discussed ad nauseum, so a couple clarifications. Yes, I am aware of PubMed, and no I never stated the NIH endorsed that article. The article was archived with PubMed under the NIH where it was retrieved. We cited the NIH as the broader entity, with the PubMed Central designation in the link itself. If anyone has issues with our citation style, feel free to alter it when added to Wikipedia. First there were issues with the author's degree, which we acknowledged. Then there complaints that the reference is cited improperly because the doctor is from Toronto, which made no sense and were dropped, and now there are complaints that we cited the NIH rather than its hosting subsidiaries. This obsession over the minutia of a single reference's formatting seems bizarre and unproductive. Secondly I am asking you to retract your statement that I post a bunch of inaccuracies. if you find an inaccuracy, I will retract it. So far my only inaccuracy is listing him as a PhD and not an MD. Doesn't change the context or validity of the source and what it's being used to support. SAS81 (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought you were a trained archivist. Wouldn't basic citation styles be part of that? What kind of citation style is it that goes "Author, search engine owner, article, date, article, journal, page?" Isn't it typically "Author, institution, article, journal, date, page?" Perhaps you thought the author worked for the NIH? Hipocrite (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Tell you what Hipocrite, if you provide me the exact citation and source types you would prefer to see me post I'll reformat them for you. Until then, try to focus on the actual content in the sources as provided. SAS81 (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem here should be obvious. When you cite a source as Goldman, Brian, PhD. National Institute of Health, 1/15/1991, you are obviously implying that its author works for the NIH and that the source is produced by and endorsed by NIH. None of these things are true. Presumably none of us want to imply things that aren't true. The issue has very little to do with formatting per se, or with Toronto, although you keep miscasting it in those terms. It's a simple matter of being sure we honestly convey source content. I don't want Hipocrite to spoon-feed you a proper citation; I want you to understand why proper citations are important, before you continue posting massive tracts here. MastCell Talk 00:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm confused. When you wrote "hold our positions as researchers and historians due to accredited skill sets," you imply that you were trained as either a researcher or historian, and that that training is relevant to your current profession. Admittedly, my training as a researcher ended when I left the academic world some 15 years ago, and my training in citation styles is even LESS relent to what I do than the partial differential equations that led me to give up on the whole "researcher" bit, but I do recollect there being a number of different citation styles. In fact, I remember there being exactly 5 - APA, Turabin, Chicago, APA and MLA. I went to look each of them up, to find out which one includes "owner of the search engine used to find the document," as the second item to list. Shockingly, it wasn't in any of the 4! Perhaps there's a 5th citation style out there. Could you please show me what citation style has "search engine owner" as the second, or even any, of the things you're supposed to include as a citation? I guess I'm being a bit over the top now, but you are having a really hard time with the honesty here - you didn't have the first clue what PUBMED was, did you? Hipocrite (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Source request
I'm looking for a source for the final part of the last sentence in the lead: "His views have led to criticism from medical professionals, who say … that he provides patients with false hope that may prevent them from seeking medical assistance." An earlier version sourced it to Time magazine, but I can't see that article. Could someone post here what it says, or do we have an alternative source? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This?
 * Alexbrn talk 05:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I wonder if that's a strong-enough source for this claim in a BLP. We say that medical professionals say he may be preventing patients from seeking medical assistance, a serious claim for physicians to make of another physician. But it's unattributed – "some have argued" – so perhaps we ought to make it invisible until we find a better source (and preferably more than one). SlimVirgin (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's fine for reporting on the views of "the medical and scientific communities" I think. This was raised before at WP:BLP/N. For a reinforcing source, we had Park on the "cruel" nature of giving false promise, but - I think you removed this? Alexbrn talk 06:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should use Time magazine for this, unless perhaps it were reporting what a named physician said. It doesn't even say that physicians are saying it. "Some have argued" could refer to other scientists, or even someone else entirely. Park is a physicist, so it would be odd to use him as a source for this. The point is: if this really is a criticism that physicians make, we should be able to find them making it in high-quality sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not the view of "a physician" commenting on "a physician", but what the "medical and scientific communities" think of Chopra's views at large as expressed in his wide-ranging writings. Perhaps the problem was the way this community was not best summarized as "medical professionals", which I've changed to the more generic "scientists" (which Park is, if we want to use him). Alexbrn talk 07:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Time magazine is a reliable source for unnamed criticism. WP:BLP does not require that critics be name, rather that the statements be verifiable. The statement is verifiable. Hipocrite (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So we're good with TIME? Great to know, there had been some talk awhile back that TIME wasn't hard enough journalism to be cited prominently. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll assume good faith that you're not preparing some "AHA, GOTYA" moment or something, but Time is generally reliable unless other more reliable sources disagree with it. Hipocrite (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And of course it would not be reliable for some things. It is not WP:MEDRS for example. Alexbrn talk 17:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @Alexbrn, I agree, it's reasonable and in line with MEDRS policy to preclude TIME from being a reliable source for establishing the professional validity of Chopra or other medical/scientific figures or positions.
 * @Hipocrite it somewhat diminishes the assumption of good faith when you promptly imply that you suspect me of plotting some "AHA, GOTYA" moment, but thanks nonetheless. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The statement that Chopra has been widely criticized is not a biomedical one. Alexbrn talk 05:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, not in general, and there should definitely be material about him being criticized/controversial, etc. That said, TIME probably shouldn't be used a source to determine the position of the scientific community as a whole, especially when that wasn't the focus of the article and they cited no large studies. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Time is fine for how its used. Large studies of quantum healing?! Are you kidding! Alexbrn talk 16:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Quantum healing is just a label Dr. Chopra put on it - but the thesis itself is just integrative medicine, combining western medicine with things like meditation and yoga. Plenty of studies on that, and many medical universities now teach and train in complimentary and integrative medicine - so Capn's comment isnt far off and there are plenty others that talk about integrative medicine, Dr Chopra is not the only voice by any means. Integrative medicine is mainstream or at worst a minority voice in the medical community. It's not fringe and it's misinformed to refer to it as such. I do think it's important for the lead to show that Dr Chopra has his critiques, don't get me wrong, but there are better and more accurate sources that communicate a clearer context. By resting on Time magazine to create a broad rejection of Dr Chopra's ideas on medicine, there is a miscommunication then to the reader since there actually is a much wider acceptance than most are commonly aware of. SAS81 (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Alexbrn, of course not large studies of Quantum Healing. Large studies of what the scientific or medical community feels about Chopra.  They made sweeping, common-sense statements about the views of the community, but there were no statistics, surveys or research in the piece to reliably report on what the scientific community thinks, not even a "51% of scientists disagree with Chopra."  That's fine for a news piece, but not for determining the position of the medical or scientific community.
 * I'll simplify this. If the TIME piece had said that many scientists felt Chopra was on the right track, would you think that was suitable under MEDRS?  No, of course not.  And it's not suitable under the reverse condition.  That's why popular press is specifically mentioned in MEDRS for being a bad source for referencing what scientists/doctors think professionally. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Concerns about primary source use, misrepresentation
Using Chopra as a primary source, the article now says: I am concerned that this is a rather over-neat, and somewhat apologetic, account of Chopra's views, and this is an example of the danger of editorializing from primary sources. If we look at Chad Orzel's account of Chopra's views in Then Orzel quotes this passage from Chopra as pertinent:

Later, Orzell tells us, Chopra invokes "physicists" in writing of "quantum soup". So what Wikipedia is saying is out-of-alignment with how a secondary source sees it (Orzel's views were in the article before, but have been deleted) and more importantly, it is just wrong. Chopra is dabbling in non-metaphoric usages and using terminology from physics to create a "word salad". We are making him out to be more coherent than he is by saying he is just metaphorical. We need to stop using primary sources and providing original summaries of them, as WP:FRIND has it: "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles". Alexbrn talk 07:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, the criticism about the misuse of physics terminology needs to be restored in the lead. That is perhaps the "most prominently wrong" thing that scientists see about Chopra. The lead currently introduces the idea that quantum mechanics is somehow involved but without a mainstream rebuttal, amounting to a violation of WP:NPOV, in particular WP:PSCI. vzaak 07:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Chopra is a salesperson. Trying to find consistency and logic across sales pitches are usually a waste of time. We simply shouldn't expect any, hence the need to follow the independent and secondary sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The criticisms about usage of quantum physics should be referenced in the article, as that's a concern that's been raised in a few places. As far as using Orzel, it's ideal to cite secondary sources for interpretation or analysis, but they are not necessary to cite what the subject of a BLP has directly said about their own beliefs.  A primary source can be as or more appropriate to determine the factual details about the subject's stated positions.  The Cap&#39;n (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Just noting that primary sources are allowed, per WP:NOR (section WP:PSTS), which is policy, though of course they have to be used carefully. Self-published sources are not allowed in BLPs unless written by the subject, per WP:BLPSPS, which is why I removed Orzel's blog post. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Orzel is not a reliable source for details about Chopra as a subject in terms of the biography, but in terms of the incidental material, this is one of the better sources. A physicist is an expert in physics and those are the sources that should be used when describing claims about physics. Whether the source was used in this fashion or not is another discussion, but WP:BLPSPS should only be invoked when removing material about the person as a subject, not the ideas they are advocating. jps (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Placebo effect
I've restored "consciousness creates reality" to the lead, because that's a central concept of his. In that regard, the next sentence isn't correct as written: "has led to criticism from scientists, who say his treatments rely on the placebo effect ..." Chopra embraces the placebo effect, calling it "real medicine." To call it criticism that his treatments rely on the placeco effect somewhat misses the point. So we should find a way to reword that or remove it (move it to a later section where we can explain it). SlimVirgin (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "To call it criticism that his treatments rely on the placeco effect somewhat misses the point." Howso? --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe "has led to criticism from scientists, who say his treatments misrepresent the placebo effect ..."? That addresses Chopra's embrace of the effect AND the scientific community's problem with that position.  Not sure if he actually does embrace it, I'm just taking SlimVirgin at their word.  The Cap&#39;n (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * He writes about the effect of consciousness (thoughts, subjectivity, inner experience, expectations, desires) on the healing process. Beliefs can heal, in his view. Article of his here: "The placebo effect is real medicine, because it triggers the body's healing system." SlimVirgin (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * He's trying to redefine placebo to his gain. That's not what the criticism is about. --Ronz (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

edit conflict:


 * Chopra sees the so called placebo affect as an legitimate result of mind body integration, and so potential healing. So while scientists might criticize that kind of medicine or deny that it is medicine Chopra believes placebo is actually effective medicine because it can heal. This deserves explanation seems to me both from the side of the critical and from Chopra's view which would give the reader a more complete understanding of where Chopra tends to veer off from more conventional medicine at least in terms of how he views healing. I guess I 'd move and expand. And,  I think the term that describes Chopra's approach might be integrative medicine rather than alternative medicine. Chopra's approach does include allopathic medicine/western medicine as well as other methods for healing.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC))


 * per Ronz. He's redefining how placebo is viewed; he's saying mind can heal body, ie placebo, and that is a legitimate aspect of healing and medicine. Within western medicine placebo is seen as a kind of accidental healing. Its the view of what placebo is and its value that Chopra's views challenge. This dichotomy is worth expanding and exploring. (Littleolive oil (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC))
 * That's still not what the criticism is about. --Ronz (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the problem is that there are different definitions of the term placebo effect, but the lead obviously isn't the place to discuss that. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get the point here, but is it being claimed that Park is misrepresenting Chopra? Park discusses the placebo effect in the source cited, After the Science Wars. That text borrows from Voodoo Science, which has an entire chapter dedicated to the placebo effect. It seems pretty certain that Park understands Chopra and the placebo effect. vzaak 04:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Gamel is the source for this in the lead, rather than Park. Vzaak, I'm not sure which point you're referring to, but if it's mine, it's that the term placebo effect is used in different ways. This is a good account if anyone is interested: Fabrizio Benedetti, Placebo effects, Oxford University Press, 2009; summary here. To say that Chopra's treatments have been criticized for relying on the placebo effect, without saying what we mean and without pointing out his own view, is misleading – but we can't explain it all in the lead. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, [this piece] on Chopra and placebo effects, by David Gorski is pertinent to these discussions. This is a source we should probably be using. The thing is, I'm not sure Chopra is that "focussed" on power-of-the-mind stuff. A large part of his altmed business today derives from the sale of very physical products (creams, supplements, etc.) So, I'm just not sure this lede is accurate in playing this mental aspect up as so central. Alexbrn talk 05:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The sources clearly indicate Chopra's mind-body approach and integrative medicine approach is what has made him notable. He is not notable for selling supplements or twigs and berries:O) Rather those supplements have grown out of his mind body approach to medicine. Why is Gorski an authority on Chopra?(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC))
 * Well actually, these days, his altmed business has made him notable (according to our Offit source). I don't know what the "mind" aspect of diet pills is! Gorski is an oncologist, a professor, and an authority on alternative medicine - pretty much on-song for many topics around Chopra's "medicine" views. Alexbrn talk 16:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that Gorski is an authority on real medicine too. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The criticisms of Chopra's treatments being ineffective and relying upon the placebo effect mean that the treatments don't work. That belongs in the lede. Sorry there's confusion about what that means. Perhaps we should explain it further in the body of the article.

Chopra spins the criticism by redefining placebo effect. If there are independent sources that talk about this spin, then that could be included in the body as well. Let's just not conflate his spin from the criticisms. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a personal interpretation of the sources. I don't see any evidence of Dr Chopra 'spinning' the placebo effect as a criticism, he mentions placebo effect extensively in QH as an example of the mind healing the body and is hardly the first or only person to do that. As to 'criticisms' that Dr Chopra's treatments are ineffective - this is old hat. There are plenty of studies on integrative medicine and the benefits of adding things like yoga or meditation to medical treatment. Additionally, the placebo effect has been shown to have a measurable effect on the brain. Should I post sources of studies in peer reviewed journals for editors to consider?


 * If the article is informing the reader that Dr Chopra's treatments don't work that would be factually incorrect. If the article is informing the reader that orthodox doctors are suspicious of adding meditation to things like chemotherapy treatments to help improve a patient's sense of well being is dangerous - that would be factual too. But let's be clear about what Dr Chopra is talking about. Adding, not subtracting western medicine. And yes some western doctors dont think anyone should bother 'adding' things to their treatments. But there is a minority voice in medicine called integrative medicine and that is now established. SAS81 (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)