Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 12

More pictures for Chopra center per request, question about sources for Chopra Foundation
I have more pictures that were requested by other WP editors regarding Chopra Center, but I don't want to clutter the talk page with them, should I just post them to my talk page like the others or in this section with a collapsable window? Also, I have lots of sources for Dr Chopra's work with his foundation which seems very unrepresented in this article and should have a focus. I'm not sure if this is a section in the article or just spread out across, but looking for advice on the best way to position these sources for all of you. SAS81 (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Are the pictures uploaded to the wiki commons? That's the place for images if you want them to be publicly accessible.  As far as the foundation, I'm not sure a BLP is the best place for an in-depth discussion of an organization, even if it was founded by the subject.  Let's see what references you have and we can figure out if it's a matter of a mention on the BLP or something more. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * thx capn. Yes I know to upload them to Wikimedia, however I just know how to link to the actual images which will insert them into the talk page taking up space. I'll see if there is an easier way to link through. Here are some sources to begin with on the Chopra Foundation and its partners, including primary and secondary source mentions as well as some tertiary source reports on finances, etc. In order to save space and address people's concern with different citation styles, I did my best to enter it into Wikipedia's reference system. Hope that's helpful.

The Foundation’s Website

Nonprofit Status

Programs and Partnerships

SAS81 (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a lot of info for a subsection under Career, and maybe too much even for a section in a BLP, since it looks like most of this stuff is related to the organization more than the individual. I'll look through the sources and see what's there, though. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Chopra Center Pix
Alexbrn Here are some Chopra Center photos per your request or anyone else that is interested in them for the article.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Isharonline&ilshowall=1 SAS81 (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced HIV content, edit warring
has restored some disputed content saying "this is important". However, the restored content is not supported by the cited secondary source, and the primary source is cherry-picked (Chopra says there that no drug is effective - surely more 'important'). What gives? Alexbrn talk 19:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec) It should be in the source, Chopra 2009, pp. 237, 239–241. If you're not seeing it there, please let me know in case I need to change the page numbers. The problem is that the text you've been restoring isn't correct as written. In fact what's there needs to be fleshed out a little more to make his position clear, if we're going to mention it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The key question here is#; what is "his position" and according to what authority (if not using secondary sources)? Why have you not mentioned the extraordinary thing that Chopra says no drugs can treat HIV/AIDS (when AZT existed)? or his heavy use of anecdote? Use of primary sources here requires substantial editorial analysis/discretion which neither you, nor I, are qualified to undertake. The text as inserted by you is very partial. To avoid POV/OR problems here we need to stick to the secondary. The text I have been restoring is in accord with the strong secondary source cited. Alexbrn talk 20:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The secondary source mentions this only in passing. That's a problem with quite a few of the secondary sources in the article; they're just brief mentions of Chopra. We have to get these things right, particularly per BLP. The way the version you restored was written made it sound as though he doesn't accept conventional views on AIDS, but he does. I'll read the primary sources again and make sure what we say there is accurate. I was intending to add a bit more anyway, as I said above, to flesh it out. (But I may not get to it today.) SlimVirgin (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "but he does" ← really???? According to whom? Alexbrn talk 20:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec) Re: AZT, he wrote in 1989: "No drug is capable of treating it [HIV/AIDS]: AZT, which helps postpone the active phase, is riddled with major side effects, making it impossible for some patients to take the drug." SlimVirgin (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @Alexbrn, With all due respect, SlimVirgin is not edit-warring, they're citing relevant content, and it's not cherry-picking, it's the very book the section is named after, with content directly relevant to the discussion. It's been introduced in various forms by various editors with pages of justification, and you're the only one disputing it.  I've explained the numerous ways in which WP policy permits the use of primary sources to cite that same primary source, pointed out there's no independent analysis attributed to the primary, and noted that quoting a book (in the section about that book's content) is not restricted to whatever argument is made by a secondary critic.  It's also been pointed out that the material being referenced is explaining what's in the book (through important contextual statements not covered in the secondary), not making an analysis of its legitimacy (that is what secondaries are necessary for), so the role of AZT and anecdotes has no relevance as to whether the primary can be cited.
 * All that, plus the fact that the secondary source is not being countered or questioned, makes your repeated disputes/reverts very hard to address, despite repeated attempts to negotiate or explain the validity of the edits. Mind you, while this has been somewhat contentious, it's just a content dispute and can be ironed out if we're all reasonable. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Right, so Chopra asserted "No drug is capable of treating it". When in fact even then, drugs were capable of treating it. As I say, this whole area requires analysis/interpretation. It is wrong for to be sloppily summarizing from primaries and reverting edits based on a personal assessment of what is "important". Serious matters are at hand here. Alexbrn talk 20:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that WP:BLP says: "We must get the article right." All this talk of primary, secondary, tertiary misses the point that the article has to be accurate and fair. If someone removes material citing BLP, it really ought to stay out until it's fixed. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute on that point. I see though - disappointingly - you have been adding material which is simply not right. And not properly sourced. Alexbrn talk 20:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This reliance on primary sources, backed by editors' personal opinions on what is and is not right, is going to lead to Arbcom enforcement otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Alex, you haven't said which parts are wrong or unsourced. The quotes attributed to Chopra in that section are in the secondary source too. Please say which part is unsourced/not properly sourced. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you Alex. Slim Virgin is a highly experienced editor and writer who is uninvolved in this topic, or in Fringe. Her edits have been neutral and accurate those that are pejorative to Chopra and those that aren't. This is first a BLP and I'd agree that if content is challenged it must be fixed.
 * All editors make decisions as to what content to include and how to summarize it. That is what editors do. The policies and guidelines in the encyclopedia are not ends in themselves they are means to help protect the integrity of the articles.
 * The way to fix any concerns is too explain exactly what they are with sources.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC))
 * I've seen SlimVirgin in action many, many times over the years, at articles, noticeboards, in mediation, etc. If anything, I'd expect her to be firmly on the other side of this issue, as she usually takes a strong stance against COI editors and fringe ideas, and so on (to the extent that she has been criticized for it in the past). So I think that in this situation she is very much not editing based on her personal opinions or beliefs, rather the opposite. I can only speak from personal opinion and my own anecdotal recollections, but I really did have to double-check that this was really SlimVirgin. This should give anyone pause who is familiar with her. --  At am a  頭 22:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, have you tried to find an independent source for what you want to add? I understand what you are trying to do, but I think you are going about it the wrong way. At least one reason for WP:FRIND to avoid the shell game I described. Another reason is that a primary source from a fringe proponent may be strawmanning the mainstream view. By consensus WP:FRIND has been there a while, and I don't think it will soon change. Just find an independent source for these additions, and it will be fine. vzaak 21:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * All of these arguments would be suitable if the content in question was furthering a controversial statement, or if it was bringing in some irrelevant primary to discuss the issue, but the fact is that this is reporting (in the Quantum Healing section) a statement (from Quantum Healing) that was not fringe, and in fact endorsed Chopra's acceptance of the medical definition of AIDS. I did this through a quote, Slim did it through paraphrase, but in both cases we established this content was necessary to provide context, since the sole Schneiderman citation implied Chopra did not endorse the medical definition.
 * No one has argued the quote is not from QH, nor that it's an incorrect interpretation of that part of the text. The idea that a quote from a book in its own section needs to be backed up by independent sourcing is not standard WP practice (WP:FRIND says Independents are important for arguing notability and prominence of Fringe theories, neither of which is being attempted here).  There seems to a conflation between arguing for accurate representation of Chopra's book and arguing for Chopra's legitimacy.  An encyclopedia can do one without the other. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Er, what? WP:FRIND begins, "The best sources to use when describing fringe theories..." You latched onto the second part of the sentence ("prominence", "notability") while seemingly missing the first part. vzaak 23:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have not reviewed the specific edits in question, but in principle user:SlimVirgin seems to be in the right here. Primary sources are often the best possible source to accurately describe the article-subject's point-of-view, as long as they are not used excessively to the point of advocating for it. Especially in this case where reliable sources will have a scoffing attitude towards his view and are therefore likely to mis-represent it. Though I would be very careful in this case not to describe them in a way that offers legitimacy. CorporateM (Talk) 00:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * uhhh, if sources misrepresent, they are not reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I gave two reasons for WP:FRIND, and those were just off the top of my head. Looking at the history of WP:FRINGE will surely give more insight. One would need very good reasons to toss aside the consensus for the principles embodied by the WP:FRIND section.


 * In one respect it doesn't make logical sense to grab material from a primary fringe-proponent source and then use an independent source as the rebuttal. The independent source is there to explain the relationship between the mainstream view and the fringe view. There is nothing explicitly connecting the independent source to whatever editors take from the primary source. We are talking about the essential WP:NPOV policy here (specifically WP:PSCI), not some guideline.


 * With respect to the Chopra article, I gather there is concern that Chopra is being misrepresented, and we are being offered a seemingly false choice between going against WP:FRIND or fairly representing Chopra. Bypassing WP:FRIND is the nuclear option, and I don't believe we're there yet. Is it really true that independent sources cannot provide what we need? That was my question to SlimVirgin.


 * For instance Baer says that Chopra has "attempted to integrate biomedicine and various alternative healing and metaphysical systems". That should put to rest the potential implication that Chopra is rejecting biomedicine, right? If that was even a concern in the first place. I would like to know very specifically the sought-after material which has not been found in independent sources. vzaak 01:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm about to go offline, so I'll post a reply tomorrow. Just wanted to say that I'm puzzled by this attempted ban on primary source-material written by the subject, which I don't think I've ever encountered before, especially not in a BLP. Chopra is the best source for something that Chopra said, and if we need analysis then we have to find a good secondary source, not someone who mentioned the issue in passing. Anyway, more tomorrow. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Baer's paper is titled "The Work of Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra". It's not "in passing". vzaak 03:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a different paper. Alexbrn talk 03:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's the thing. Schneiderman's piece is concerned with how unevidenced things are promoted as "medicine". All he has to say about Chopra is neatly contained in one passage: Now look at this, and look at our text: What Wikipedia says is simply not supported by the single source cited. There is no mention of "shruti" in Schneiderman for example (isn't it Om anyway?) - but more importantly Wikipedia is making it sound like Chopra has a science-based view of AIDS and is disinterestedly setting out an what the "ayurvedic point of view" is in relation to it. There is simply nothing in Schneiderman that allows Wikipedia to assert what Chopra does or does not "acknowledge", or to assert that Chopra is just setting out the "an ayurvedic point of view" as if that were not his own point of view (the source is explicit here: "According to Chopra ..."). If one were to go off-piste and draw on primary sources I think a more accurate summary would be to say that while Chopra pays lip-service to some commonplaces about HIV/AIDS, he incorectly downplays the effectiveness of drug treatment ("no drug can treat") leaving, in his description, the only option as being to buy his services. But the point is we should not go off piste but should stick to the high-quality source. It tells us the notable thing about Chopra's views on HIV/AIDS, and how that has led to an unevidenced proposed practices. Alexbrn talk 03:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Note there are actually two sources in the one citation (currently [53]): Chopra 2009 and then Schneiderman. (Incidentally, "Chopra 2009" is ambiguous here, though it obviously refers to a re-issue of Quantum Healing.)


 * The new text does have a WP:PROFRINGE spin, which can result from the use of primary sources without editors realizing it. vzaak 18:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing any convincing arguments that WP:FRIND or FRINGE overwrites BLP policy to get it right. This article isn't a fringe article, it is a biography. The reader is not here to learn about fringe topics, but to learn about Deepak Chopra, what his ideas and contributions have been, and what the reception is to those ideas. Integrative medicine is also NOT fringe, it's mainstream. It's important we 'get it right' first and foremost. I see nothing in FRINGE that says we have to omit facts from a person's biography, or contradict facts about a person's biography just so FRIND is satisfied. If we apply what vzaak is suggesting - it means we get the article wrong but FRINGE right. That does not seem like a reasonable position. SAS81 (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We get it right by following the sources and our policies/guidelines. FRINGE is simply a special case of NPOV, and it's in NPOV that's the problem: Trying to cherry pick "facts" to fit your job of putting Chopra in the best possible light. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that cherry-picking facts is a dangerous policy, which is why I think it's inappropriate to push for excluding facts that do not support a highly cherry-picked section of QH. How is it "profringe" to mention what was written in a book, in the section about that book?  We can't exclude all mentions of Chopra's ideas out of some intense fear that someone, somewhere will read them and believe them.
 * Primary sources are, according to WP policy, an ideal source for referencing factual statements, especially when written in the book being discussed. Primary sources are legitimate sources for factual statements, we have a primary source that says a fact that needs stating since a secondary implies (but does not argue) that this fact was never said.  Therefore we cite the primary source, the secondary provides the analysis, the reader is objectively informed, WP policy is upheld and we all can stop talking about this insanely lengthy contention.  Everyone's a winner! The Cap&#39;n (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey Ronz some clarity for you - My specific job is to represent information in the archive without bias, not to make Dr Chopra look good. I'm happy when this article is also without bias. And I've been extremely happy with the work that capn, slimvirgin, and a few others have made and the progress they have made is pretty much in tune with the progress I wanted to see, neutrality. I win when this article is neutral. So does Wikipedia. So does the reader of the article. So does Deepak Chopra. It's really not fair to keep spinning my participation here into something extreme. I'm not sure that focusing on this suspicious image of me as a closet PR or media marketer is helpful, it's casting aspersions on me as an editor as well as on my intentions. It's also not relevant to the content of the article. Can we put that aside and just focus on content? If you have a problem with an argument that I am making, or a source I am providing, then address that specifically and engage with me until you and I find resolution. SAS81 (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to believe you, but you've clearly demonstrated you don't understand our policies and are working against them. Drop pushing primary sources and the "facts" as you see them, then we won't be having these conversations. --Ronz (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Importance of fact-checking
When writing a BLP, unless the issue is very complex, "Smith wrote" is always better sourced to Smith. If the argument is that Smith's view of X isn't a notable feature of Smith's work, leave it out. But if you include it, and if it's fairly easy to find and summarize, source it to Smith. Only using and reading secondary sources is risky.

Chopra practices integrative medicine, mixing conventional approaches with mantra meditation, yoga, advice about nutrition, etc. See here where he discusses HIV/AIDS: "Our patients are taking the cocktails and doing the Ayurvedic treatment, which includes nutrition, exercise, supplements, meditation, herbs, yoga, etc." If we focus only on one aspect, the article will be misleading. The previous text almost gave the impression that he was some kind of HIV/AIDS denialist.

One thing that would help is to collect up all the higher quality secondary sources. The article currently relies too much on people discussing him in passing or journalists doing book reviews. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK:
 * (This piece describes Chopra, in its lead sentence, as a "guru", which is apparently forbidden here).
 * Just a start. MastCell Talk 23:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @MastCell, it's obviously not currently forbidden to call Chopra a guru, since it's in the first sentence of the lede. But speaking of which, hasn't Chopra stated outright that he doesn't identify as a guru and dislikes being called that?  There's two sources above for it (Chopra, Deepak. Brotherhood: Dharma, Destiny, and the American Dream. (New Harvest, 2013) p. 15 and Bhaduri Jha, Nilanjana. India Economic Times, 6/22/2004. Employee loyalty comes first, the rest will follow' ); I don't know if there are others, but that seems to pretty clearly fall under BLP/Public Figures.  If Chopra himself is disputing the term, we cannot apply it to him as a factual statement, regardless of secondary sources, though if anyone here feel strongly about it they can say that "he has been called a guru", or that "some consider him a guru".  The word doesn't seem to add much to the lede anyway, IMHO. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear: we use the terms found in reliable sources, whether or not the article subject dislikes them. I can't believe you've actually read the policy you're linking, because it states exactly that: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article&mdash;even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. In light of that policy, how can you argue that we can't use the term "guru" simply because Chopra dislikes it? MastCell Talk 21:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad you asked. I can argue it because I kept reading that same entry:
 * Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe were divorced."
 * Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.
 * Even if you could argue that "guru" is noteworthy and important to the article (which I find doubtful, given the lack of consensus with the term here in Talk), the fact remains that it is a term that the subject has refuted. If you feel it can be established as particularly important to the article, then by all means propose the term "guru", but according to WP policy Chopra's refutation of that term also has to be included.  Given the lack of consensus and these qualifications, it seems a simpler choice to replace it with a less contentious term like "thinker" or "spokesperson" that conveys the same thing. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.
 * Even if you could argue that "guru" is noteworthy and important to the article (which I find doubtful, given the lack of consensus with the term here in Talk), the fact remains that it is a term that the subject has refuted. If you feel it can be established as particularly important to the article, then by all means propose the term "guru", but according to WP policy Chopra's refutation of that term also has to be included.  Given the lack of consensus and these qualifications, it seems a simpler choice to replace it with a less contentious term like "thinker" or "spokesperson" that conveys the same thing. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Can we now assume that User:Askahrc has now relinquished his self imposed role as mediator on this page, or has that happened already and I missed the announcement? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Mastcell, to me it appears like you suggesting that 'New Age Guru' is a title that is now a judgement from society - like referring to Charles Manson as a serial killer even if Charles Manson would not prefer that term be used - and that is simply NOT the issue with this BLP and even more reason not to put it in WP's voice! 'Guru' has a very specific meaning, 'teacher' in India, and is a revered and affectionate title and implies a relationship with the guru and his followers. Only a 'guru' can declare themselves to be a 'guru' and all the responsibility that entails. That is specifically what Dr Chopra has rejected and NO authority or secondary source has the ability to 'relabel' people in such as way, not only does it show a cultural bias that is misinformed, it's arrogant to assume that's what makes someone a new age guru, simply being called one by a few sources! It's a bastardization of a term and I think this is what Capn' was suggesting.SAS81 (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * English is not a language encased in cement - in English, words and their meanings change and grow. "guru" has grown to have meaning(s) other than what "very specific meaning" it may have had at one time or in its native language. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Enlighten me then, please, what does it mean? SAS81 (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * as it is clear from the link, " Only a 'guru' can declare themselves to be a 'guru' " it clearly is NOT part of the standard definition/usage. (and yes, you may call me your English Language Guru for having enlightened you.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: try to look at it this way. Let's say Dr Chopra has been criticized for 'giving things away and then taking them back' and there were tons of secondary sources that referred to him as an Indian Giver. I'm sure millions of americans have used that term without realizing it's a misinformed pejorative infused with cultural bias. Please try to consider this from this angle, although my example is a little more extreme, it is the same issue. There are other ways to refer to Dr Chopra in a NPOV manner that can get across what ever point you want to make. SAS81 (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If it quacks like a duck ... -Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the lead of our own article "Guru" reads as follows ...


 * Guru (Devanagari गुरु) is a Sanskrit term for "teacher" or "master", especially in Indian religions. The Hindu guru-shishya tradition is the oral tradition or religious doctrine or experiential wisdom transmitted from teacher to student. In the United States, the word guru is a newer term, most often used to describe a teacher from the Hindu tradition. In the west some derogatory interpretations of the word have been noted, reflecting certain gurus who have allegedly exploited their followers' naiveté, due to the use of the term in new religious movements.


 * As I have said before, the term frames Chopra very well. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The term frames him very well to you, and that's your opinion. It's not an argument to include in Wikipedia's voice and since you have continuously have voiced your bias towards the subject matter, I'm not sure your opinion here is what we should be leaning on to determine a lead sentence from a NPOV on a BLP and if anything, your comment supports why it should be changed citing BLP. SAS81 (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Chopra quote in Consciousness section
I removed that quote on the basis that it serves no purpose whatsoever, even reading like an advertisement in the back of a book, and today restored it. What is the rationale for including/restoring this quote please? Regards. Gaba (talk)  16:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I do that a lot in articles I write, Gaba. It highlights key thoughts and breaks up the text for the reader. For the same thing in a recent FA I collaborated on, see Ezra Pound, where we did it for his poetry. I also used it in Christian Science, a GA, highlighting thoughts of the founder or people who knew her. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It may be okay when the quotation is uncontested as representative, but here it is unfortunate in lending a certain editorial ... flavour to the article. Entering "famous deepak chopra quotes" into Google soon yields "People who feel loved live longer; have fewer colds, lower blood pressure and lower cancer rates; and have fewer heart attacks". This is the sort of stuff that tends to attract (critical) attention from respected commentators, and so might be more worthy of being "up in lights" as a representative pronouncement. But a better idea yet is to stick to building the article out of secondary sources, rather than taking it in the direction of being a naive paean justified with a "this is what I do" argument. Alexbrn talk 17:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding but I have to agree with, doing it in other articles does not mean it should be done (or anywhere actually). As I said, I find that quote serves absolutely no purpose, it reads like an advertisement and being a hand picked quote its addition verges on WP:OR. I won't remove it again since you reverted me, but I'll back any other editor doing so. Regards.  Gaba  (talk)  19:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It is his metaphysical position on the self, a philosophical view. It has nothing to do with advertising. Also, re "claims," it's a word that's best avoided; see WP:W2W. It's also not clear to me what the wild claims are (he offers advice about diet, exercise, sleep, meditation and visualization techniques). I think you may be responding to a parody of Chopra created by hostile editors who haven't read his work and/or hostile secondary sources who may also not have read him. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It really is of absolutely no importance at all what the quote is about (I personally couldn't care less about his metaphysical views on anything) It reads exactly like the advertising done in the back of cheap self-help books and it has no reason to be in the article whatsoever. If it would improve the section in any way we could perhaps quote it within the appropriate context, as it stands it does not and it's nothing more than filling. It has no place in an encyclopedia and since you have presented no valid reasons as to why I should stay, I exhort any editor reading this to go ahead and remove it.
 * Re: "claims". We can discuss this in a separate section if you'd like but the wild claims are clearly saying "his practices can extend the human lifespan and treat chronic disease". That is a claim as wild as they come. There's no "arguing" going on here because he has no scientific evidence to back his position. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  20:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Keep. I think it helps contribute to the making of a 'good article', Slim Virgin also added some photos too. She takes great care in creating a good article so I hope she can have some support here. The quote helps break up the page and makes it look like a cohesive work. Sure, it could look like a promotion on a back of a book, but it looks more like something mainstream magazines and newspapers do out of respect for the audience. It's for the benefit of the reader. Regardless of the content of the quote - it's a strong add to any Wikipedia page. I say keep it in and let's find a better quote that the community feels comfortable with. People come to an article because they want to learn about a subject. I hardly think any reader would be offended by an easy to find quote that summarizes a subject's core thesis. I can see how critics of Dr Chopra would be offended by any presentation of his ideas as they are, but we should not let that interfere with Slim Virgin and others creating a good page. SAS81 (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@ Gaba Can you be specific about what claim exactly? When I hear this, it's usually because someone either has misinterpreted Dr Chopra's words or are just going off what they read on a skeptic site somewhere. I can provide sources for statements around Dr Chopra's words and what research he may or may not be referring to. If you have a false idea about his work and are basing your editing decision on that, it might be helpful to clear up now before you go any further. Fyi - I dont mind either your or SV's choice of words, I'm not challenging your edit on that word. SAS81 (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I usually prefer "says" as the most neutral way to describe someone's opinion.
 * On quotes: the problem is that the article currently implies that this one quote is more significant than pretty much every other quote by Dr. Chopra that the article includes. Making an argument for giving it that amount of WP:WEIGHT requires pretty strong sourcing. It might be "representative," but he's been quoted directly by numerous independent media outlets, so why can't we find something representative among the quotes that the better sources have seen fit to republish? There have to be good examples of this - can anyone supply some? If we can't find such quotes, then (speaking as someone who doesn't actually know Chopra's work here) that implies that they may not be representative after all.
 * (As an aside to SAS81: this edges into BLP territory as well. Plenty of people, especially "skeptics" as you call them, may think less of Dr. Chopra if they read that quote - in other words, there is a large group of people for whom the quote may qualify as negative content - and we don't have the sourcing required to justify giving it prominence.)  Sunrise    (talk)  03:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not an WP:RfC and WP is not a democracy. We add/remove content based on policy and guidelines, not on personal styling preference. In this case you need to explain why this particular quote is notable enough (out of possibly hundreds) to be included in this particular section and you need to do so based on as many reliable sources as possible and or needed. As I explained above and reiterated, there is currently no explanation as to why this one quote is so significant and relevant that it should be included in that section. If no valid reason is given it will have to be removed.
 * I already explained and even quoted in full what Chopra's wild claims are. If you want to discuss this edit further, please open a new section so this one doesn't get derailed. Other than that, I have precisely zero interest in this fellow's work with the exception of what we might use to improve the article. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  04:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * thx for response Gaba_p, sorry maybe I did misunderstand the nature of what you are raising. I'm not commenting on the content of the quote, just having *some* quote, any quote, being formatted as a highlight on the page seems to make the page itself better. If this section is looking for what 'quotes' to put it - I'm leaving that up to the community of editors to determine and I can provide resources if anyone needs. Will do on the new section. SAS81 (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * @sunrise - let me do a little digging around and see if there are any quotes that are notable - I see your point. SAS81 (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * pull out quotes are non standard. there should be no reason to "go looking " for them. if he had a quote that was worthy of being promoted in such a fashion, it would be obvious, a la "Mr. G, tear down this wall" or "Ask not what your country can do for you" and have third party commentary that would be covered in the article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't feel strongly either way about whether a quote would improve the article or not in this case. But yes, the ideal case would be a quote that is both reported and analyzed in multiple high-quality sources.  Sunrise    (talk)  18:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Separation of ideas from reception violates NPOV
It violates WP:STRUCTURE by separating the points of view, and WP:UNDUE by giving more weight to primary and non-independent sources than secondary and independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * True, that. I've already started merging the 'Reception' section into the body of the text, i.e. integrating as described in WP:NOCRIT. More work needs to be done on this still... Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * support the integration. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Still needs tweaking. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Wild claims by Chopra
In the lead of the article it says: I replaced "has written" with the much more appropriate "claims" since having absolutely no scientific evidence to back what he assures his practices achieve, that is a claim and nothing more. This was substituted with "argues" by with no rationale given in a very large edit. I switched it back to "claims" explaining that this is in fact a wild claim rather than an argumentation (for which you'd need some evidence, which of course Chopra does not have) and today SlimVirgin restored the original "has written" claiming (as far as I can tell) WP:W2W. In that page I assume he refers to WP:CLAIM which states: which is precisely what we should be doing. The credibility of such a wild statement should most definitely be called into question by stating clearly that he is claiming those things, since the scientific community calls them into question. Saying the he "has written" or that he "argues" gives them undue WP:WEIGHT and it's not acceptable. Regards. Gaba (talk)  16:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "He has written that his practices can extend the human lifespan and treat chronic disease, a position criticized by scientists"..
 * To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence.


 * Hi Gaba, I asked you this above yesterday, but it probably got lost in the rest of the discussion. Which wild claims are you thinking of? He offers advice about diet, exercise (yoga), stress relief (meditation), and the sleep-wake cycle so that his patients are sleeping, eating and relaxing well. He uses modern Western medicine and blends in ideas from traditional Hindu medicine. The difficulty with that part of the lead is that it's not well-written and it's not clear what it's referring to. Adding "claims" makes the writing worse and doesn't tell us what's being discussed. A rewrite would make more sense. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And I clearly said above (and now in this section again) what the wild claims are, there's no possibility for confusion since the sentence is quoted in full on the first comment of this section. The sentence states he claims "his practices can extend the human lifespan and treat chronic disease". That is a wild claim with no scientific evidence to support it (this must be the third time at least I repeat this) and we should make this fact crystal clear instead of whitewashing it with argues or has written.
 * How does using claim "makes the writing worse and doesn't tell us what's being discussed"? The first part is not valid (worse how? worse to whom?) and the second part doesn't make sense. What's being discussed? Nothing is being discussed. We are stating some of this person's claims, as simple as that.
 * Once again, personal preference is not a valid way to edit WP, we do so under policies and guidelines. I've explained why claim should be used as per WP:CLAIM and WP:UNDUE. If you have no other reasons than what you stated above, then I'd ask you to please self-revert. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  17:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There is plenty of evidence that eating and sleeping well, and avoiding stress, help people to avoid chronic diseases. Chopra is an endocrinologist and posted an interesting video, for our benefit, explaining what he does; did you see it? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "deep sound" is also well proven i am assuming? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * or maybe it is anti-proven --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's here, posted in response to questions on this page. It will give you some background on his ideas. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is he wearing diamond studded glasses? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Gaba is entirely correct in my view. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Gaba I'm going to track down the research Dr Chopra relies on for statements like you are referring to. I can say that as a matter of principle, Dr Chopra is pretty careful NOT to claim something that is not supported by some form of scientific research and more than likely, he is basing his statement on the research of Andrew Weil. Therefore your claim that his 'claims' are 'wild' need to be fact checked and that is what I am doing, and will be posting some sources for you all tomorrow. Since integrative medicine relies on third party data (science) as well as first person data (the effects of wellbeing, feeling 'blissful', etc etc) on health, this has historically caused some confusion. SAS81 (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Do the sources meet the criteria laid out in Identifying reliable sources (medicine)? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I note two things: Therefore I'm going to do two things: first I'll restore again the correct word (claim) and second I'll add a citation needed tag to what the lead currently says Chopra said/wrote. If no source can be provided, then the last sentence of the lead will at least need a re-write to comply with sources. Regards. Gaba (talk)  21:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) No reason was presented as to why these supposed (see below) Chopra's wild claims in the lead should not be stated as such.
 * 2)  apparently argues that Chopra did not in fact make those wild claims currently in the lead.
 * Claim is a word per Wikipedia we do not use whatever our opinions are as to Chopra's claims.
 * The phrase "wild claims" is a personal pov and aligning an article per that pov is not something any editor should be doing. This has nothing to do with Chopra and whatever the claims are. We can't add content that reflects our opinions because it reflects our opinions. (Littleolive oil (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC))
 * Read WP:CLAIM:
 * To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence.
 * As I stated above, with absolutely no scientific evidence for such wild claims (if in fact he made them, which is why I also added the cn tag) and even more knowing that those wild claims have been criticized by the scientific community, we must state them as such. In short: if you have no scientific validation for what you state your magic potion can do --> it's a claim. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  00:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If you don't know if he made the statements then the content must be removed now per BLP. We don't add citation tags in BLPs. Second you are quoting WP:CLAIM inaccurately to support your edit. The guideline is advising why not to use claim. It suggests we do not have the right to write in a way that calls " their statement's credibility into question." You are reverting the guideline's meaning.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC))


 * I had no idea we couldn't add cn tags to a BLP article, would you mind posting me to the policy that states this please?
 * I am actually not quoting WP:CLAIM inaccurately, in fact it is a verbatim quote (please do check it out). And we definitely should call "their statement's credibility into question" when the WP:RS used do so. Again, keyword: WP:RS. We do not create our own content here, we report on what WP:RS have stated. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  03:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Unsourced content in a BLP should be removed immediately, so the content should be removed rather than a tag  added.
 * Yes, you quoted correctly... sorry about my wording. You are interpreting it incorrectly as far as I understand the guideline The guideline is saying we don't use the word claim because it colours the content we are adding,  implies the statement is  not true, and the questions the credibility of the speaker. As editors we don't have the right to do that; its POV editing. If the source is using the word claim we can too but we should quote or inline cite or both.
 * RS is only the base line for adding content. There are multiple other considerations. Those considerations have been discussed by multiple editors and multiple editors do not support inclusion of the word guru. Since this concern was still under discussion and since the majority of editors who responded on this thread did not support inclusion you as one editor stepped over many, and even with support of TRPOD, jumped the gun a little on this. You might have been better to wait and see how consensus would play out.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC))


 * We don't color the content by using such a word, the sources do. When a statement is ludicrous and the WP:RS agree on that, we use the word claim to make it clear that this isn't a leveled "debate" between this one person and the scientific community (which would be WP:UNDUE) and this isn't a case of "I say this, others say that and it's all valid" (which would be a violation of WP:FRINGE). If you want to see an example of this, head on over to Ken Ham where the word claim is used in the context of one of his most ridiculous claims (age of the Earth, right in the lead). Since the scientific community agrees that those claims are ridiculous, saying "Ham has written that the Earth is 6000 yrs old" has no effect other than to whitewash the fact that he has absolutely no evidence to support what he is claiming. Same deal here. We are not required to use sources that contain the word claim explicitly, otherwise WP would be a carbon copy of WP:RS. We use our better judgment based on what WP:RS say as I just explained above.
 * Re: guru. There is no agreement to remove the word and, as has been explained, its use is backed by many WP:RS. This is content for another thread though, so I won't dwell further into this. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  17:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gaba, a statement's ridiculousness is a matter of significant subjectivity and invites profound POV concerns. Moreover, the comparison with Ken Ham is not accurate, as there as significant differences between claims that are unproven by science (Chopra) and claims that are definitively disproven by science (Ham). That's an important distinction, but not the biggest issue with "claim." The biggest problem with WP:CLAIM is that the very section advises against its use in favor of what SV wrote: ''Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms.'' I don' think the "extra care" has been established here, and there's no compelling argument that saying Chopra said something that he actually said is somehow legitimizing that statement. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How many of Ham's claims about the age of the earth have been proven? zero
 * How many of Chopra's claims about "deep sound" healing have been proven? zero
 * How many of Chopra's claims about "dont call that cancer you have been diagnosed with 'cancer' and that will help you be cured" have been proven? zero
 * How many of Chopra's claims about quantum healing have been proven? zero.
 * The batting averages are exactly equal, Chopra has just spread his nonsense around in areas that directly put people's health at risk -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Digging into this issue is producing the same results as other claims about what Dr Chopra's ideas are about - it seems like more confusion or misrepresentation. When you boil it down, many of Dr Chopra's positions are really not that radical but only if you know what those positions are and are familiar with his work. I think most of the criticisms of Dr Chopra are really just from a very orthodox perspective. This is why skeptic sources are incredibly problematic to rely on for the majority weight on the article. Skeptics play a kids game of 'telephone' with Dr Chopra's ideas - so by the time they get to the reader of this article, what Dr Chopra actually says and what they say he says are wildly different.


 * The sources on aging, which are almost exclusively taken from sources that identify themselves as openly hostile to Dr Chopra, paraphrase in the most radical way an idea that is not all that pseudoscientific: the way we live our lives affects our aging process. Below are a few sources that establish this as a pretty mainstream position.


 * These sources are from peer-reviewed journals that have concluded that meditation and/or yoga had a discernible beneficial effect on the elderly.


 * Below are more journals concluding that stress, anxiety and depression (mental states that complementary medicine focuses on) have an effect on aging.

SAS81 (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you think you accomplish by pasting a handful of articles dealing with yoga/meditation.
 * I've removed the citation needed tag from the lead seeing that references where up there not two weeks ago and first replaced them with a book by Chopra which he then moved into one giant reference to finally remove it completely. Regards.  Gaba  (talk)  19:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)