Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 13

Description of Chopra Center
Hi, the removal of the two sentences about the Chopra Center leaves that section making less sense. Baer offers his description of Ayurveda, but it's less clear why we're mentioning it, or what it consists of for Chopra. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree - I'll cut Baer's description of the humors now. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No, Baer needs to stay (a scholarly source), but we also need a brief description of Chopra's work just before it. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, so now the section makes no sense at all. Please revert yourself, . SlimVirgin (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've rephrased "these humors" to "the patient's humors" - hope that solves the problem.
 * The Baer citation for Chopra's opinion is still in there, no source was removed - but of course we need to have appropriate balance per WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT.
 * As you may have noticed, I've wikilinked 'humors' to the explanation at Ayurveda#Principles_and_terminology.
 * HTH!
 * Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You're decimating the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As it should be when primary sources are used improperly. --Ronz (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just for the sake of clarification, our policy for primary sources states, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." It goes on further to state, "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Policy further lists the criteria for using an article subject's self-published source for information about itself (or her/himself) and says it is allowed under these conditions:
 * The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
 * It does not involve claims about third parties.
 * It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source.
 * There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
 * The article is not based primarily on such sources.
 * Those are the restrictions that policy places on primary sources. As long as the usage does not violate those restrictions, the sources are acceptable, but sources that are used in violation of those restrictions should not be used. I suggest that any discussion regarding the usage of such sources should appeal to these principles stated in our No Original Research and Verifiability policies. Just so that we're clear when we're discussing whether or not primary sources are being used improperly. --  At am a  頭 19:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I would also point out that even in cases when primary sources are acceptable, it is almost always better to use secondaries. Likewise, there are different qualities of sources within these categories: for example, the quote being discussed in the above section appears to be sourced to a secondary, but it's a weak secondary because it's not independent (and a couple of other reasons). And in cases when no secondaries can be found, the content is likely to warrant very little weight. I mention this because it looks like discussion on this talk page has been especially focused on the minimum standards. For myself, I tend to follow the rule of avoiding primaries altogether, except for specialized situations like to verify that an article subject/original document/etc actually said the words that a secondary source reports them to have said.   Sunrise    (talk)  03:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources per our policies may be the best reliable source in some circumstances. For example, the best source for Chopra's ideas, philosophies. theories is Chopra himself, and in such instances a primary source may be the definitive source. A primary source written by X which explains X's theory is, as well, the most significant source on X's theory and is a base for secondary sources which may explain X and his theory. Without that base we cannot truly verify what X has to say.

I'm concerned about the peremptory deletion of significant amounts of content. A more collaborative action might be to ask for discussion and agreement of content removal. When an article falls under 2 arbitrations, actions which remove so much content with out prior discussion and agreement is not the best way to move forward.

(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC))
 * Seems multiple editors disagree with your personal viewpoints in this matter. Given BLP, it shouldn't be surprising to see editors favoring the removal of information that they find to be poorly sourced. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Ronz. You know there is an ongoing discussion on this - you took part in that discussion - on Fringe Theories talk page, so suggesting this is my opinion when I am referencing the understanding of the guideline by multiple experienced editors is  misleading.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC))


 * If you are referencing the arbitration, I'm not sure what the arbs meant but I'm willing to clarify.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC))


 * It seems like this topic keeps coming up, despite the majority of editors here agreeing that primary sources are appropriate when used to describe factual statements in proper context, and no clear examples given of how primaries are being abused. The push to limit/abolish primary sources as unreliable (even when used to describe what is in that primary source) is the minority opinion, despite vociferous protest from that minority. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No one is seeking to "push to limit/abolish primary sources as unreliable", so let's not waste time pretending otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this conversation has run in circles enough, but just to be clear, there's been extensive debate about limiting primary sources. Here's a few samples from above that refute the use of primary sources, quotes from primary sources, or the reputable nature of primary sources written by the subject themselves, as well as some other editors who have noticed the same issues I have. Note that these responses came despite repeated efforts at negotiating by putting primaries in context, in quotes, in paraphrase or simply citing them. As I said, I don't think there's any use in pursuing this debate in light of uncompromising positions, but we shouldn't pretend there hasn't been a debate at all about primary use. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) We are not meant to become a weird secondary source by relaying primary details from Chopra's books
 * 2) Using primary sources to counter better ones is a POV (and in this case a BLPPRIMARY) violation.
 * 3) We need to stop using primary sources and providing original summaries of them
 * 4) Drop pushing primary sources and the "facts" as you see them
 * 5) "equally reputable sources" How exactly are they equal? RE:Seriously? Whatever we may think of Chopra's scientific standing, he's a reliable, reputable source for reporting what he himself said. Accurately representing what's in a book is not endorsing it, for crying out loud, it's being an encyclopedia.
 * 6) This reliance on primary sources, backed by editors' personal opinions on what is and is not right, is going to lead to Arbcom enforcement
 * 7) it doesn't make logical sense to grab material from a primary fringe-proponent source and then use an independent source as the rebuttal.
 * 8) I'm puzzled by this attempted ban on primary source-material written by the subject
 * 9) The new text does have a WP:PROFRINGE spin, which can result from the use of primary sources
 * I'm sorry that you feel we're at an impasse. I hope that no one else feels the same. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope so too. There are certain things I love to be proven wrong about. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Guru
I see people are edit-warring over use of the word guru in the first sentence of the WP:LEDE, saying No consensus - widely discussed at Talk page. What I see above is a short discussion that ended in an acrimonious, unpleasant and unedifying display of people bandying their abilities with differential equations, against citation formatting know-how, in what appears to be an attempt to avoid discussing the use of the word guru at any cost. Wiktionary defines a guru as "A Hindu or Sikh spiritual teacher." We don't usually insert important Hindi or Sanskrit terms prominently into articles without explanation or link. Perhaps the editors in question are referring to the second Wiktionary definition, where it has been used humorously and ironically by some during the twentieth century? We have adequate citations above that the subject of this biography is not happy being thus described. I would like to see the term removed. --Nigelj (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support removal. There's seems to be no consensus for it given the amount of discussion it has generated. It means different things to different people, either an insult or compliment depending on your perspective. That serves to illustrate that it's more connotation than denotation in this context, and it's therefore not a good term for the lead, especially not in Wikipedia's voice. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support removal in lead. I agree that the term is connotative, and further (again) is in this context a label rather than denotative. I think its fine to have a place where we can make a short note on how Chopra has been labelled, but not in Wikipedia's voice, and clearly cited to whomever's opinion this is.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC))

Consensus should be based upon following policie/guidelines and sources, not personal opinions nor the inability of some people to put aside their personal opinions. Amidst all the discussion, there are some good points on both sides. Lets summarize those points fairly and be sure to indicate what policies/guidelines are relevant. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In case it's helpful, "guru" was first added on 7 December 2012 by Alexbrn. From 7–9 December it was removed by Alohamesamis, restored by Beyond My Ken, removed by Beyond My Ken, restored by Alexbrn, placed in quotation marks by Littleolive oil, quotation marks removed by Alexbrn, italics added by Littleolive oil. More recently: on 13 May 2014, it was removed by CorporateM, restored by Alexbrn (at the request of Roxy the dog, who used the words "pretty please"), and on 30 May removed by Balaenoptera musculus, restored by Roxy the dog. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support removal I removed it without realising it was already contentious (I'm new to this article). To me it appeared to be a WP:PEACOCK term, in that it is a very strong term of approbation (in British English at least). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "guru" is probably THE most widely used descriptor for Chopra, certainly more widely used than "licensed physician" . no one has presented anything for why we shouldnt be following the sources. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Strongly Support removal I'm having a hard time even understanding why this request is controversial. It's a label for someone, not a 'title'. As evidenced in this talk section, it is primarily used as either a pejorative or an affectionate term and therefore not proper to be in WP's voice. @TRPOD - oh we have said plenty why we should not follow *some* sources. Sources that refer to Dr Chopra as a guru are either pejorative (biased therefore) or affectionate (biased therefore) and since we cannot find ANY mainstream sources that reference Dr Chopra as a New Age Guru as a formal title, it should be removed. If this still does not make sense, let me explain it this way. Dr. Chopra has current positions in many mainstream institutions, such as the Clinton Global Initiative, Gallup, Devros Living, Kellogg's School of Management, etc etc - none of them refer to him as a New Age Guru. If this was a mainstream and accepted label for him, they would. Common sense. SAS81 (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * who said it was a "title"? it is a descriptor like "actor" "doctor" or "celebrity" which encompasses what he is most known for. He spouts out stuff that some people think is deeply insightful and follow him for and others think is complete nonsense. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Same difference, and it is NOT a descriptor in the way an actor or doctor is, primarily because actors and doctors identify THEMSELVES as such and there are actually credits or degrees which SHOW them to be as such. I wish the more suspicious minded editors would stop hiding their bias behind WP policy. You think he is a new age guru, i get it, it's WP:TRUE - it's just not a fact that he is and it's not appropriate for Wikipedia's voice. SAS81 (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with, "Guru" is decidedly what he is known for and many WP:RS refer to him as such. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  23:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

A google search is not a RS. You've ignored the editors here who agree the word should be removed at the least in the lead. Discussion here is determining not just whether the word has been used in sources but how. (Littleolive oil (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC))


 * No, the WP:RS revealed by the Google search are WP:RS. The word has been used widely in WP:RS specifically to describe this person (or at least one facet of his), which means we must do it too. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  00:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No it does not mean 'we must do it too'. Wikipedia's policies are not programmatic like that. Let's use some common sense. He is also described as a thought leader by some very mainstream institutions, yet none of you accept that. Describing him as a New Age Guru is more than often a pejorative used by those suspicious of him and those suspicious of him here are the strongest supporters of using this word. SAS81 (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll repeat a Google search is not a RS. Second. you've ignored discussion and agreement here. The discussion is more nuanced than "we have to use it". We are trying to decide how to use the word  and where it best fits in the article, if it does. (Littleolive oil (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC))
 * And I'll repeat too then: the WP:RS revealed by the Google search are WP:RS. There's no "agreement" here by any stretch of the word. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  03:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Those are all usages from within the past 4 weeks - from reliable sources all around the world, general news to genre publishers. Do you really want to press the ludicrous claim that the term "guru" is NOT widely applied to chopra by reliable sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * During his myriad reporting assignments, Harris comes across several self-help gurus, including Deepak Chopra. Roanoke Times
 * Duality, an upcoming short film featuring narration by New Age guru Deepak Chopra The Hollywood Reporter
 * inspired by mindfulness guru Deepak Chopra. WA Today - website of Sydney Morning Herald news conglomorate
 * Deepak Chopra: perfil del gurú de la medicina alternativa (Deepak Chopra: profile of a guru of alternative medicine El Pais
 * “Karma is experience, and experience creates memory, and memory creates imagination and desire,” said new-age guru Deepak Chopra. Golf Week
 * including alternative medicine guru Deepak Chopra Huffingtong Post


 * I have never made that claim, so please, do not suggest that I have, or that am supporting the claim. Let me repeat what I am saying. There is agreement here to either remove guru, or remove it from the lead. The discussion is nuanced in terms of the kind of word guru is. Its not  a matter of, its in the source so use it. Its a matter of how to use it, what it means, and the kind of descriptor it is.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC))


 * Perhaps you haven't noticed but there is clearly not agreement here to remove it. Not from the article and not from the lead. If the term is used by WP:RS (as it most definitely is) then we are obliged to use it here, WP is based on WP:RS no matter what the term actually means or "the kind of descriptor it is". If WP:RS use it broadly (as they most definitely do) then so do we. Regards.  Gaba  (talk)  03:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Gaba, please be straight with us. There is also no agreement to keep it either. And there are plenty of options to choose from to find better language, and none of the suspicious minded editors have explored them, there is this insistance on using a pejorative in WP's voice just so the 'SPOV' comes across in the lede. This is not a battleground, please don't turn it into one. SAS81 (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean, I am being straight. There's no agreement to remove it which obviously means that there is no agreement to keep it either. But since the term is widely used in WP:RS we abide by them. There's no getting around this fact. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  19:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is no agreement to keep it, then there is no consensus for it in the first place and therefore a collaboration to find a better term or better way to phrase it makes sense. SAS81 (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There will be no "collaboration to find a better term" since that would be WP:OR and WP:SYN. We abide by what the WP:RS use. If they use guru we use guru. It is really that simple. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  22:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

if it was that simple, you would hardly have 4 or 5 Wikipedia editors trying to take it out. Who is 'they' and why do 'they' have so much authority on calling him a guru? What do you mean if 'they' use the term so must we? Which WP policy says that specifically? What if 'they' use many different terms to describe Dr Chopra, which ones should we choose? Why 'guru' and not pioneer? why 'guru' and not thought leader? Why a known skeptic pejorative and not a known mainstream descriptor used by reputable institutions or organizations? SAS81 (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Support Removal, I haven't seen a single, solid example how this belongs in a BLP when the subject disputes the term and there's no strong need for that specific term. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How about the fact that many many WP:RS use the term? That should give you an idea of why the term does in fact belong here. This is WP and we are bounded by what WP:RS say. People seem to keep forgetting this. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  19:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum: The BLP issues come with including a term ("guru") that Chopra has refuted without mentioning he has refuted it. BLP allows the use of the disputed terms in accordance with the WP:RS, but requires the dispute be noted.  How often the term is applied doesn't matter; there are hundreds (if not thousands) of responses that come up on Google claiming Barack Obama was born in Kenya, but that doesn't mean it belongs in his BLP lede without strong qualifiers.  Likewise Chopra shouldn't be identified as a guru against his will without at least a notation that it is, in fact, against his will. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If you can provide WP:RS of him refuting the term, we could add it in the article somewhere I'm sure. Regards.  Gaba  (talk)  20:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I've already supplied this - but consider, then the lead sentence contradicts what the body of the article states. Then we have to raise a whole other issue and support 'why' people call him a guru when in fact he actually isn't. It's much much easier to say 'To some he is a new age guru'. Please understand my argument. I'm not saying 'New Age Guru' should not be used, I'm saying it should not be used in Wikipedia's voice as a main descriptor in the lede. SAS81 (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you've supplied this, care to paste the link again here? There will be no discussion about "'why' people call him a guru" unless you can come up with WP:RS where this discussion appears. The descriptor guru should indeed be used in WP's voice both in the lead and in the body of the article if that is what many many WP:RS use. Since this is in fact the case, this is what we do. I feel like a broken record by now. Have I mentioned we are bounded by WP:RS? Regards. Gaba  (talk)  22:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)w

While I dont necessarily agree that the term "guru" MUST be used, those arguing against its use WP:BURDEN must at least provide some type of evidence that there is any other terminology is is used with anything near the frequency of "guru". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia effect - re: guru
the Wikipedia factor - TRPOD and other editors who want 'guru'. You have sources that show Deepak Chopra being called a New Age Guru - have you thought that those sources are actually getting their descriptor from Wikipedia and then republishing?  Even Dr Chopra's own media team made the same mistake and just pulled in whatever Wikipedia says. Paul Offlit's financial info probably even came from him tracking down the Skeptic's Dictionary source. I think this is the reason for the phrase 'it's very important we get it right.' SAS81 (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I feel like you are engaging in a constantly changing thread of arguments - when one gets shot down, you just switch it up (and eventually go back to the first). This is a waste of our time, but I'll refute this once and for all. You were already informed "In case it's helpful, "guru" was first added on 7 December 2012 by Alexbrn." Here are sources predating that that you were already given - - 1997  - 2001,  - 2000. Hipocrite (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, without evidence to back your claims this discussion is utterly pointless. Regards.  Gaba  (talk)  18:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Hipocrite - this is a contentious article, naturally there is disagreement. IF an editor disagrees with what I am saying, it's just that - a disagreement, its not as you put it a 'shot down' unless that editor was logically showing me an inconsistency, which there has not been. Sure there are sources that call him a new age guru from the past, and there will be more of them because of the Wikipedia effect. However, the FACT is that he is NOT a New Age guru, despite if those who love him or hate him think he is.

Here are the sources of Dr Chopra refuting the term guru.


 * '(Interviewer) Motivational guru, poet, prophet, pioneer of alternative medicine, inspired philosopher — which epithet would Deepak Chopra use to define himself?
 * (Chopra) I am neither motivational, nor am I a guru, the rest are labels. I am an explorer of a domain of awareness people call consciousness. Just like people climb mountains, I explore the mind. Then I report my findings. My background is in neuro-endocrinology — the study of brain chemicals. I am a physician by training. So I have a great interest in how consciousness differentiates cognition, moods and emotions, perceptions and behaviour, biological functions, social interaction, personal relations, environmental situations and even our interaction with nature.'


 * 'Other people look favorably on me and smilingly tell me that I am a guru (a label I would never apply to myself, not because of its odor of charlatanism in the West, but because the title is revered in India).' SAS81 (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There are several problems with "guru" that cause unnecessary difficulties on this BLP. First, Chopra refutes the term, so it cannot be applied to him without an accompanying mention of his refutation, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and the default position per WP:BLPREMOVE is to remove the contested term until it's proven necessary, not preserve it until proven unacceptable. Secondly, "guru" is a loaded term, as even Wikipedia refers to it in Guru's lede as "In the west some derogatory interpretations of the word have been noted, reflecting certain gurus who have allegedly exploited their followers' naiveté..."  Thirdly, if we are bound by WP:RS to report whatever term is used most frequently, then "spiritual guide" comes up 5,460,000 times in Google, vs. "Guru" with 1,950,000 times.


 * So we have serious BLP concerns with "guru", it's a biased term according to WP itself, the subject has refuted it, and there are more widely used terms that reflect the exact same description and aren't refuted by the subject. I think any reasonable person would agree that's meeting the burden to contest the term.  There's more reasons to remove "guru" than to keep it. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * While there are reasoned arguments for and against "guru", it is not a BLP issue. Wikipedia is full of editors who misuse WP:BLP as a cudgel without the foggiest understanding of the actual policy, so let's not further that trend here. Secondly, Chopra clearly acknowledges that he is frequently referred to as a "guru" by others, although he personally dislikes the term. If he is frequently described (by independent observers) as a "guru", then it is at least reasonable to consider using that descriptor here. Finally, the Google-hits argument is completely fallacious here - we don't base our coverage or naming conventions on raw Google-hit counts, for reasons that I would hope are obvious to you. MastCell Talk 04:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that Chopra himself dislikes the term is in no way a deterrent for using it here. At most, as I've said already, it could warrant a mention of this somewhere in the article.
 * As says crying BLP is not an argument in itself. There is absolutely no WP:BLP violation going on here.
 * See WP:GNUM.
 * Regards. Gaba  (talk)  05:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand WP:GNUM, and that's why it wasn't a sole justification for the suggestion, just a example that claims that "guru" is the only option due to overwhelming prevalence are not accurate. I could look up the dozens of "spiritual guide" references and have an RS showdown, but that seems like an unnecessary amount of work.

As for BLP, I have not been crying BLP and don't appreciate the statement. I've been citing very specific portions of the policy (particularly WP:WELLKNOWN), explaining why it applies and discussing various possible options on how to address them. I have not threatened edit war, insisted material must be removed completely or otherwise acted unreasonably. As it is, my BLP concerns are mostly satisfied with the mention in the lede of Chopra's refutation, though for smooth reading the refutation should either be moved up next to New Age Guru, or Guru moved down next to the refutation. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm at a loss as to how the policies you point out, especially WP:WELLKNOWN, relate to your concerns, points, and proposals. Could you start with WP:WELLKNOWN and explain in more detail? --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I've explained this in other sections above, but I know this talk page is massive.  WP:WELLKNOWN states that if we allege something about a BLP subject that they refute, there are 2 scenarios:
 * A) We cannot find multiple RS confirming the alleged description, so we must remove it (obviously not the case with "guru").
 * B) We find multiple sources confirming the description despite the subject's refutation, so we include the alleged description, but; "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported."
 * Though there's still some work that could be done, the current version satisfies those requirements for me. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So you think that the label is an allegation. I don't agree, but at least can see your point now.
 * I'm glad we've found a solution. However, a disclaimer in the lede is undue and disrupts what should be a succinct summary and introduction. How about the disclaimer as a note in the lede and a developed discussion in the article body with the full disclaimer there? --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @Alexbrn, out of curiosity, what was your justification for reverting my edit? Rather than using language implying an understanding of likes/dislikes, I put in a straight factual summation, "he has refuted applying the term "guru" to himself."  That's more in line with WP's fact-first language than a statement that he "does not like to be identified..."  All you said in your summary was "better sense."  Why is "does not like" better than "refute"? The Cap&#39;n (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This qualification shouldn't be here anyway, but at least let it be in sensible English. The primary meaning of "refute" is disprove, and he has not disproved "applying the term ... to himself" since it is applied to him, as the source notes. Are you a native English speaker? Alexbrn talk 18:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly civil there. Yes, I am a native speaker, and also understand that one of the other most common definitions of "refute" includes to deny (a claim, charge, allegation, etc). You can bring in the 1964 linguistic disputation of the deny application, but that doesn't change the fact that it's in dictionaries as a usage of the word. In any case, "deny" itself is just as applicable, and still a far better word than "like" in an encyclopedia. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No insult intended - there's nothing wrong with being a non-native English speaker!! But anyway, this is all wrong in the lede. Alexbrn talk 18:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification, I appreciate it. I understand there are concerns with this being in the lede at all, but that's where the consensus is at right now.  While it's there, we should try to make it as fitting as possible.  Changed the wording to address your concerns with "refute" and retain an encyclopedic tone. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that a lot of work has gone into this part of the lede now. Taking away the other words, what we are left with in the first two sentences says that he 'is a ... guru ... although he rejects identification as a "guru".' The problem is that we are stating something that is not true about the man in Wikipedia's voice in the first sentence, then trying to mitigate having said it in the second. By the sensible definition of the word, someone who clearly says he rejects the title cannot actually be a guru ('A Hindu or Sikh spiritual teacher'). If we are using the word in the humorous, flippant, disrespectful and faintly racist sense, that is something that we should never do in Wikipedia's own voice. --Nigelj (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I gave it a shot, qualifying that he is characterized as a guru, and moving his rejection into the article body. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I adjusted slightly; it read a tiny bit awkward. I like the change you made. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC))

Article development
I'm being prevented from explaining, even briefly, what Ayurveda principles are based on, with the result that Chopra's ideas make less sense. This is the disputed paragraph (everything before "Chopra recommended in his early work" is being removed):

Without the preamble, Chopra's view of body types is unexplained. It's also important to say something about Ayurveda and mantras, because later on we mention the Ayurvedic idea of vibration again. In fact I would like to make it clearer still. There really is no legitimate reason (within policy) to remove this. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Policies which (in my view) support removal are WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV as a whole. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * How does explaining what Chopra actually does, that is, supplying background per the sources violate any of WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV? Could you explain?(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC))


 * There's been a lot of recent tossing around of WP:FRINGE as an excuse for censoring content, which is neither ethical nor what WP:FRINGE is about. Explaining that Chopra believes in Ayurveda no more promotes fringe than a page on any given spiritual/religious practice is promoting faith.  It's our job to inform and explain, not limit access to information we disagree with. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Nobody's censoring. Ayurveda is covered in depth at Ayurveda, and we absolutely should say that he believes in it (assuming we have reliable sources to confirm that he does).
 * "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)." (WP:WEIGHT)
 * As a biography, the article should describe the subject's life, not promote his views or advertise his business.
 * Where the article discusses medicine and health, Identifying reliable sources (medicine) also applies, of course.
 * So that's why I wikilinked 'humors' to the article we already have which explains the Ayurveda theory of humors - rather than allowing this article to discuss them as though they were a mainstream medical theory.
 * --Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The "Ayurvedic idea of vibration" is a Maharishi/Chopra/new age idea, it is not a part of actual Ayurveda. It would be misleading to imply otherwise. Also the statement that Chopra or Chopra center "Physicians" offer the: "bliss technique, which is when a patient learns how to experience herself as "pure awareness," and primordial sound or vibration, known as'Shruti', which involves repeating a mantra." This description sounds like complete commercial hype and is very misleading. There is no correlation between "pure awareness" and mantra meditation except as a sales gimmick. Also there is no correlation between "primordial sound" and anything at all. Primordial Sound Meditation is a trademarked product. Beyond that it is a purely imaginative term. And what is this about a "patient"? I think that is stretching it. A look at Chopra centers gives me the idea that people are being sold stuff like spa treatments, yoga classes, "Vedic" astrology, supplements, books and CD's by mostly (if not entirely)non-physicians. They are not "patients" they are customers and to say otherwise buys into the hype that this is so very medical. It is the Chopra business plan to use a "medical" and "science" veneer to add bonus validity to the selling of numerous new age products-- in case anyone here is unaware or deliberately trying to avoid that.Ptarmigander (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @Balaenoptera musculus, I completely agree that the article should focus predominately on discussing his life, but I think it's inaccurate to describe any of the edits proposed as intended to "promote his views or advertise his business." Stating what someone has said about their own beliefs is not an endorsement, and including non-critical information is not promotional or advertisement, it's informative.  If we remove all the discussion of Chopra's ideas, we need to remove all mention of the criticism of those ideas.  I don't think anyone really thinks either scenario will result in a better encyclopedia.
 * @Ptarmigander I understand your frustration, but the vast majority of what you're saying sounds like OR. That said, if you have reliable sources to back up meditation as a sales gimmick, or that Chopra is lying about employing physicians, or that vibrations/sounds/whatever is not part of traditional Hindu beliefs, please share them. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A quick check of the staff and offerings at the Chopra Center reveals a veneer of medical practice. I think SAS81- in order to show good intent- should provide a full staff/ services breakdown of the Chopra Center. Looks to me like the staff consists of primarily "Vedic Masters", wellness facilitators, massage therapists, aromatherapists and yoga instructors and a couple of added in physicians (and how many of those couple of listed physicians are in daily residence?) Someone wants to describe the customers of the Chopra center as specifically "patients" and the staff as "physicians"?  That is an exaggeration that favors The Chopra Center business model but may not accurately reflect what happens for the majority of attendees at the Chopra Center. Ptarmigander (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Primordial Sound meditation is a trademarked product so of course "Primordial Sound Meditation" is a sales gimmick. That is exactly what it is. There is no mention in any historical Hindu, "Vedic" or Yogic texts about "Primordial Sound Meditation "TM" So where is it's documented non commercial validity? I don't see any. Furthermore, as an aside, where is a reputable reference that says that this trademarked Chopra center meditation has anything to do with primordial sound? What the heck in the real world is "primordial sound"? Where is there one reputable science paper on primordial sound? Without that.. you only have "Primordial Sound" as a product label. No actual substance described by this label.

Regarding "vibrations" in Ayurveda, There is no "Ayurvedic idea of vibrations" in any historical Hindu or Vedic sources. Maybe you have some? No you don't. Ptarmigander (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

skepdic-web ref fixed
I'm having a hard time tracking it down. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Found it! --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)