Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 14

Approach to healing
Thanks for attempts to compromise. I did revert because new content is actually not accurate. To explain:


 * Integrative medicine is the combination of conventional or biomedical pracrtices with other modalities.
 * Ayurveda is not a belief system although as with any system for healing belief in the system may be involved. Ayur Veda is a system for healing that is thousands of years old, so we do have to say its a system rather than a belief.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC))
 * And of course it is necessary for us to mention prominently that ayurvedic treatments are ineffective; failure to do so would not be neutral. Alexbrn talk 19:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) More importantly, Ayurveda is pseudoscience based upon fringe beliefs. Integrative medicine is the combination of healing practices that are backed with evidence (conventional, evidence-based medicine) with other modalities that might sell well but are not demonstrated to have any positive healing properties. Chopra's "beliefs", "theories", "ideas", and "approaches" are difficult if not impossible to distinguish from simple marketing spin for his products and services. --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * My concern was that we not characterise as medical treatment (per WP:MEDRS), or as an equally valid alternative to medical treatment, the products and services which Chopra and his staff sell as 'integrative medicine' or 'Ayurveda'. I'd be happy with any form of words which avoids this characterisation.
 * I'll try a different formulation, revert if you don't like it...
 * Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work on the article. I did make a change. Ayurveda is a system for healing not a belief so I've adjusted that. Strictly speaking, this (below) is OR: The source doesn't mention Ayurveda in reference to Chopra, the subject of the article. The content added is "inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context." However, I have no problem using this content with agreement on the article talk page. (Littleolive oil (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC))

"there is, however, no scientific evidence to show that Ayurveda is effective in treating any disease."
 * Thanks Littleolive oil, I'm quite happy with your changes.
 * Re "there is, however, no scientific evidence to show that Ayurveda is effective in treating any disease - it's a comment on Ayurveda in general, rather than on Chopra, so I don't think it matters that Chopra isn't the subject of the source (because Ayurveda is).
 * The whole sentence in our article is "According to Ayurveda, illness is caused by an imbalance in the patient's doshas or humours, and is treated with diet, exercise and meditative practices[57] - there is, however, no scientific evidence to show that Ayurveda is effective in treating any disease.[58]"
 * The source (Cancer Research UK) says: "There is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer or any other disease."
 * I'm sure other editors will have comments on whether or not the proposed text is original research or is reasonable based on that source, I'm happy to wait for their comments.
 * Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We have to be careful in veering and developing areas that are auxiliary to the subject /topic of this article which is not Ayurveda. We should be defining Ayurveda as Chopra and those who comment on Chopra use it, otherwise we end up with WP:Coatrack content. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC))

I think this is a common source of confusion that's out there. Balaenoptera musculus - problem here is you are not defining what 'ayurveda' means. When we mention Ayurveda in assosciation with Dr Chopra and integrative medicine, specifically we are referencing meditation and Yoga - and there is LOTS of research there to support meditation and yoga integrated with western medical treatments. Ayurveda as a term refers to a large body of practices, rituals, and even some hokus pokus from ancient times, so it's not fair, nor accurate to lump Dr Chopra in with an entire body of practices when specifically his treatment is with yoga and meditation AND there is research to support that. Ayurveda, all by itself IS alternative medicine. 'Alternative' is not apart of Dr Chopra's work, his work is 'complimentary', i.e. complimenting chemotherapy with things like Yoga and meditation. The position inserted into this article is giving too much weight to integrative medicine from the orthodox point of view which is not supported by sources. SAS81 (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure - 'elements from Ayurveda'? Or we could not mention Ayurdeva and just say 'meditation and yoga'.
 * Re "LOTS of research": great! Please supply references which meet WP:MEDRS.
 * Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I've already supplied many sources in this thread already. I think you need to establish why those sources are not being acknowledged in your edits or why your edits are contradicting them. I'll also be posting another batch of these sources shortly but it's already established, Integrative Medicine IS mainstream so please review the source threads on this page. Additionally, you could also familiarize yourself with Dr. Chopra's actual views on integrative medicine and what he is claiming in some primary sources I've provided in TALK for consideration purposes and to balance secondary sources since many have been using misleading contexts from secondary sources. Additionally, if you have a specific question for Dr Chopra and want clarity on your choice of sources, let me know, we are here to help you make the page better. SAS81 (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Below are a few sources from reputable, peer-reviewed journals that discuss the acceptance of meditation and yoga as complements to biomedical treatments. Though there are serious problems with the impact factor system it's the most widely known, so I included them for each of these sources. SAS81 (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for closure, Integrative Medicine
Balaenoptera musculus (talk) Here are high quality peer reviewed evidence based medical journals that support Dr Chopra's claim of integrating meditation and yoga in conjunction with mainstream treatments. Claims that integrative medicine is 'pseudoscience or quakery' not supported by evidence is a false idea and factually incorrect and an outdated medical opinion from the 1990's. Please let's bring closure to this argument around integrative medicine.

SAS81 (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * How did you find these sources, exactly? Have you read WP:MEDRS? Hipocrite (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Sources are primarily from pubmed. Yup, have read WP:MEDRS. SAS81 (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * How did you find these sources, exactly? What search terms did you use? Why did you pick these specific sources? Do they follow the guidelines in MEDRS? Hipocrite (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * None of these sources deal with integrative medicine as a whole, they are a handful of articles about meditation/yoga. You can't synthesize out of this 8 articles that integrative medicine, whose definition is so vague it fits almost any possible treatment, is either mainstream or not alternative medicine. Not sure what else you were trying to get out of this. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  18:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Gaba - they are a handful of peer reviewed journals that, per WP:MEDRS, support the benefits of integrating yoga and mediation with western medical treatment specifically. That is the core message of Dr Chopra's work. What Dr Chopra claims IS supported by peer review research and study, and is referred to as integrative medicine and complimentary medicine. The reason you're not seeing a clear delineation between integrative medicine and mainstream medicine in the actual journal is because there is no delineation between integrative medicine and mainstream medicine. Remember, this is 2014 and much of the skeptic literature is outdated. SAS81 (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * These articles prove nothing. Hipocrite (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hipocrite The data you need to know to make a valued decision as an editor in accordance with WP is in each citation. I only share my search terms with the NSA. SAS81 (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * These sources are not MEDRS compatible. The deliberate obfuscation of search terms demonstrates the attempt to bias the search by the COI editor. I am done wasting my time with him. Hipocrite (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've removed the 'closed discussion' tag you put on this, please do not do that. This discussion is not closed it has been open for weeks, you have just not been participating in it. The sources I provided are WP MEDRS. If you are making a claim that they are not, or that somehow my search term may have corrupted the data found in a peer reviewed journal, then spell it out clearly without the blind aspersions. SAS81 (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Reveal your search terms. Hipocrite (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

if your looking for helpful hints on using pubmed search, try 'yoga' and 'meditation', that's worked for me in the past. I wouldn't confuse me giving you a citation to be accessed on Pubmed with how we come to discover the source itself - and however we come across valid WP MEDRS sources is irrelevant. It's either published or it isn't. I'm just here to show that it's published, not interpret the research of doctors. SAS81 (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of these are primary sources and so not WP:MEDRS, but they are not relevant to Chopra's offering in any case, unless it is directly mentioned. Alexbrn talk 19:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Reveal your search terms. The deliberate obfuscation is hiding something. When conducting a systematic review, which, you know, is the kind of thing professional archivists like yourself do, revealing the search terms is the basic first step - your failure to do so indicates that the terms themselves are nefarious - did you go with "positive result" AND yoga? NOT "not statistically significant" AND "statistically significant" AND "yoga"? The possibilities for biased search terms are endless. Hipocrite (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You're assuming I used search terms to begin with. We are an archive and also get advised directly by academics and doctors and many others. Don't confuse showing pubmed for access is the same as pubmed for our discovery of the paper. other than that, please FOC. SAS81 (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * So when I said "How did you find these sources, exactly," you felt that saying "Sources are primarily from pubmed," but when pressed, they are now "also get advised directly by academics and doctors and many others." Which of your statements are true? Hipocrite (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's simplify this. : what specific edit are you proposing based on the articles you've presented here? Regards. Gaba (talk)  20:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * @Hipocrite, you might be getting a little paranoid here ("nefarious?"). They're pubmed sources, the PMID tag right in there, and I was able to find a good number of these by just going with frequent search suggestions on pubmed itself.  Typing in "meditation" prompted "mindfulness meditation", and the first suggestion that popped up that seemed to relate to these sources was "mindfulness meditation anxiety".  I found a few there, and I'm guessing more common sense searches will do the same.  Also, the ones I checked out are not primary sources (ie. clinical trials) but rather secondary reviews and analyses of those findings, making them ideal for WP:MEDRS.  It's possible I missed something, but they seem to be fairly reputable.
 * More to the point, though, editors are not required to provide a paper trail for sources, only verifiability and reliability. The PMIDs allow verification and the fact that they're reputable peer reviewed journal pieces establishes reliability.  You can bark out demands to "reveal your search terms" over and over again, but it doesn't matter to WP whether SAS81 looked up this info themselves, had it in a library file somewhere or was referred to it by Beelzebub, the sources stand on their own.  Refute them with better sources if you like, but trying to play detective to determine whether you'll believe medical journal reviews is the height of WP:OR.
 * I agree with Gaba_p, lets focus on the specific changes that are under discussion. There's been so much back and forth about peripheral matters that it's not even clear what the proposed change is.  Is it to establish "integrative medicine" as the term in place of "alternative medicine" in the lede, or a broader push for an reassessment of sources on Chopra's views in Ideas? The Cap&#39;n (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Having gone through the list, exactly one of them is a secondary source - the first one. (When you've read enough papers you can be fairly sure just from reading titles, but I checked them individually anyways.)
 * The easiest way to make sure that you're getting secondary sources from a PubMed search is to set your filters to "Review," which you can do at the top left of any search page (instructions here). If the filter is on, it will be indicated by a checkmark.  Sunrise    (talk)  02:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the info, Sunrise, I've been trying to get used to pubmed in verifying these sources myself. So we've got a solid secondary source and some other primaries.  My question remains, what are we trying to evaluate here?  The first source is a RS for something, I could see a mention in the Approach to Healing section about the effects of meditation. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, capn thank you. There is lots of material to be found in PubMed to support the medical benefits of meditation and yoga, which would be good to have in the Approach to Healing entry - that's a good idea. Right now it simply says that there is no evidence supporting any benefits to Ayurveda, but as I've mentioned before, Dr Chopra's work focuses on meditation and yoga in particular. He also makes a point to say that there is a lot of 'superstitious' elements in Ayurveda so one has to be careful (should i provide sources for that?). There is plenty of evidence for the benefits of these approaches, which I welcome anyone else to provide to Wikipedia standards. But to some people, meditation and yoga and their benefits are just 'woo' and that's the party line. That's the reason why I keep bringing up Integrative Medicine, it's distinct from Alternative Medicine in that it's supportive of and supported by scientific evidence. I also bring this up to counter the 'wild claims' argument. It's unbalanced to say, in a source not directly connected to Dr Chopra, that there's no evidence of the benefits of Dr Chopra's work by focusing just on Ayurveda in general, his emphasis on meditation and yoga should be considered too and presented in the section. SAS81 (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * second request: please present the precise edit you are proposing be made to the article or I will be closing this thread as per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  19:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd like to try and clarify and maybe focus this thread. The issues concerning the entry, there is no evidence supporting benefits of Ayurveda, is probably OR and the source not a RS for an article on Deepak Chopra and Ayurveda simply because it is not a source that references Chopra. It is possible to use the content with agreement here making sure it represents the source which indicates there is no evidence from randomized control trials that suggest Ayurveda is effective in curing disease. The source makes mention of some potentially promising preliminary research on herbal treatments, and that Ayurveda can help alleviate cancer symptoms. The source also discusses the potential dangers of some aspects of Ayurvedic treatments. All of this represents the source while what we have in the article now does  not. I'd suggest removing all of the content from this source and look for comments on Ayurveda and its usefulness or lack thereof in a secondary source that specifically references Chopra. Whatever is added on Ayurveda's effectiveness in this article should come out of secondary sources, MEDRS compliant that discuss Chopra and Ayurveda. If we can't find something like that and if there is agreement to add content that discusses Ayurveda lets make sure we represent the source, and  keep it succinct so, we don't end up with coat rack load of content.


 * How and why Dr Chopra uses Ayurveda is a separate issue, and should be represented in the article. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC))
 * "simply because it is not a source that references Chopra" In this case we'd expect it not to reference him since the reason for it being there is to give a basic summary of the medical evidence per FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Its OR. Fringe is not a reason to ignore OR and can't trump a policy. IAR to include this with agreement from editors here is a possibility as long as the source is represented accurately. I personally have no problem with the content under those conditions. What do others say?(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC))
 * It's not OR, nor are we ignoring OR, nor are we using FRINGE to trump OR or any other policies. No need to ignore any rules, just follow them. --Ronz (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with you. As does the WP:OR policy "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article,...In this case Deepak Chopra. Ayurveda is not the subject of the article. To suggest that we can go to any source and add content from that source to support and advance a  Fringe allegation has no basis in any of our policies or guidelines and has extensive repercussions. I'm suggestion the editors here can IAR and with consensus add the content with some slight adjustment per the source which would follow our policies. If no one wants to do that, no problem.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC))


 * Are you suggesting that Ayurveda is not absolutely central to the topic, Deepak C? C'mon Olive, Ronz is correct. WP:FRINGE is very important here. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with and, this "look for comments on Ayurveda and its usefulness or lack thereof in a secondary source that specifically references Chopra" is not a reasonable request by WP guidelines. Ayurveda is a topic in itself, independent of Chopra, so we are of course allowed to use sources that reference that topic when discussing that topic within an article about another topic (such as this one). Regards.  Gaba  (talk)  21:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you realize what you are suggesting, all of you. If I decide as an editor that some aspect of a topic, beyond what the article is actually about, is central to an article, I can then go to any source and add content pretty much, as much as I want to that article. We define that as coatrack content and the synthesizing of content from non-specific, to the subject - of - the - article sources with the content of the topic of the article as  OR. I could do or say pretty much anything by combining content that way. However what I see here is that you all are adamant  about using the source and content this way, and that this is allowable because Ayurveda is fringe. Fringe to what I wonder. Anyway, I've made my point, and see that you three are not interested in pursuing this. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC))
 * I shall not be able to pay attention here for a few hours, as I suddenly realised I have to remove all references to "Morphic Resonance" from the Rupert Sheldrake BLP. seeya. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well at least you have a sense of humour.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC))
 * "Do you realize..." What we're doing isn't coatracking or off-topic tangents. Providing proper context with due weight is essential to creating good articles. Sometimes sources for such context will not actually mention the direct subject of the article. We are addressing a topic that is extremely prominent in Chopra's life, so there's no problem. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This conversation is really getting de-railed. If some editors here are saying they want to use sources on Ayurveda (sans Dr. Chopra) as valid sources of critiques about Dr. Chopra's work then they have to accept peer reviewed journals, also sans Dr Chopra, that meditation and yoga are beneficial when integrated with western medical practice and supervision. See the problem? Now sources conflict. If sources are conflicting, and they are both peer reviewed sources...what's next guys? SAS81 (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@ Gaba As to the specific edit I am requesting being changed it's  more the specific questions I have been asked, I think it was BM who asked for sources - specifically that addressed the 'wild claim' scenario. Additionally, Roxy and a few other editors, you included, keep making the inference that integrative medicine is in the fringe category (to put it nicely) and is not mainstream. Well it's mainstream, and as long as editors keep arguing otherwise, I'm going to continue to post facts to the talk page. SAS81 (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, here's a specific edit suggestion. We include some indication of the nuanced positions in the Healing section.


 * Current: ''Chopra and physicians at the Chopra Center practise integrative medicine, combining the medical model of conventional Western medicine with alternative therapies such as Ayurveda.[73] According to Ayurveda, illness is caused by an imbalance in the patient's doshas or humours, and is treated with diet, exercise and meditative practices[74] - there is, however, no scientific evidence to show that Ayurveda is effective in treating any disease.[75]
 * Proposed: Chopra and physicians at the Chopra Center practise integrative medicine, combining the medical model of conventional Western medicine with alternative therapies such as Ayurveda.[73] According to Ayurveda, illness is caused by an imbalance in the patient's doshas or humours, and is treated with diet, exercise and meditative practices[74]. While there are studies that support some benefits from meditation[new RS], there is, however, no scientific evidence to show that Ayurveda in general is effective for treatment of disease.[75]
 * It's a start. I think it would reflect the position of both Chopra and science accurately.  That is the goal, after all. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, violates WP:MEDRS. Hipocrite (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How? Editors on all sides agree the source (Goyal M, Singh S, Sibinga EM, Gould NF, Rowland-Seymour A, Sharma R, Berger Z, Sleicher D, Maron DD, Shihab HM, Ranasinghe PD, Linn S, Saha S, Bass EB, Haythornthwaite JA. Meditation programs for psychological stress and well-being: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Mar;174(3):357-68. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13018. Review. .) is a secondary source review from a peer-reviewed medical journal with a reputable impact level.  Don't just make assertions, say how that violates MEDRS. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It violates OR and V as well. The source simply doesn't verify the information. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, how? The source concludes "Clinicians should be aware that meditation programs can result in small to moderate reductions of multiple negative dimensions of psychological stress. Thus, clinicians should be prepared to talk with their patients about the role that a meditation program could have in addressing psychological stress." That is paraphrased without OR by the pretty moderate "some benefits" verbiage, and is easily and directly verified in the source. Which part of the source or the proposed edit do you find objectionable and why? The Cap&#39;n (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * in case you haven't noticed there's a cn tag on the first sentence now (which I added since it as sourced to a book apparently) To say this " While there are studies that support some benefits from meditation", you'd need a secondary WP:RS that stated as much. You can't lump toghether a couple of articles from Pubmed and come to that conclusion yourself, that's WP:OR and WP:SYN. Regards.  Gaba  (talk)  17:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand that, Gaba_p, and that's why I'm not proposing "lumping together a couple of articles," I'm proposing citing a secondary WP:RS (the one listed in my previous posts) that describes meditation as possessing some benefits. I'm not inserting any OR or SYN, just citing a medical review that meets MEDRS.  This is the exact procedure we're supposed to follow, what is the hang up?  It's not my OR, it's the conclusion of the review; it's not SYN, it's one article; it's not violating MEDRS, it's a secondary peer-reviewed journal in good standing.  It's not even a controversial statement, WP's own articles on meditation say far more about the attributes of meditation than "support some benefits."  This is a moderate, reasonable reference that balances out a paragraph that is otherwise more than a little slanted. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This thread has become a tangled mess, it's almost impossible to follow what's being discussed anymore. what WP:RS are you proposing we use? Do I understand correctly that you want to use this source (not sure which one) to reference this "While there are studies that support some benefits from meditation[new RS]"? Regards.  Gaba  (talk)  19:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's still an OR, NPOV, MEDRS, and FRINGE violation. Plus, the techniques from meditation that actually work have been incorporated into evidence-based medicine - it's just that they are not as effective as other medical treatments. The study cited mentions this last part as well about other treatments being more effective. --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @Gaba_p, I completely understand your point about this hellscape of a Talk Page, it takes me 5 minutes just to find responses. To answer your question, the source I'm referencing is (Goyal M, Singh S, Sibinga EM, Gould NF, Rowland-Seymour A, Sharma R, Berger Z, Sleicher D, Maron DD, Shihab HM, Ranasinghe PD, Linn S, Saha S, Bass EB, Haythornthwaite JA. Meditation programs for psychological stress and well-being: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Mar;174(3):357-68. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13018. Review. .), a secondary peer-reviewed journal study that found some benefits to meditation.  I proposed to make a statement that certain studies had found some benefits to meditation.  This is somehow controversial.
 * @Ronz, I have a couple of basic rejoinders. First, I've provided very specific explanations as to how this source is not a violation of OR, NPOV, MEDRS or FRINGE (namely, I'm citing almost exactly what the study found, reporting a secondary source's analysis is not POV, the journal meets all standards of MEDRS, and I'm not giving undue weight to any Fringe position by saying meditation might have some benefits).  Please explain with equal specificity why, despite all these points, this source violates all those policies and guidelines.  Secondly, in referencing the article's conclusion that such meditation practices were medically mainstream (and yet still violating WP:Fringe?), you seem to be supporting SAS81's point about integrative medicine.  I see no contradiction in the fact that the study said other treatments were at least as effective; I'm certainly not proposing we say meditation will cure diseases.  Example, even if there are better ways to treat a migraine, an article on Tylenol can still list its benefits.  Lastly, before we attach to much almighty weight to this discussion, please bear in mind that there's already WP articles on meditation that speak more extensively of its benefits.  This isn't uncharted ground, or even controversial, and the proposed edit simply addresses the issue that a source debunking traditional Ayurveda is not representative of Chopra's focus on yoga and meditation.
 * I'm not trying to be obstreperous here, but this is getting frustrating. I keep explaining my reasoning in greater and greater depth, and keep receiving responses that drop policy names with no specific justifications.  At least meet me halfway on your reasoning, folks. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best just to drop it, but WP:DR has other options.
 * According to meditation, "The term meditation refers to a broad variety of practices (much like the term sports)..." So to provide sources without knowing what applies and how is most certainly original research specifically to promote a point of view that violates FRINGE and MEDRS.
 * This isn't an accident that we're having such a conversation, it's a feature of alternative medicine and its pseudoscience aspects: cherry pick whatever research that sounds like it might apply (or at least makes the presentation seem more scientific), without understanding the research, it's application, and context. While Chopra and his employees are free to do so, it has no bearing on this article beyond the attention (usually negative) it causes. --Ronz (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

in the approach to healing section, there is a quote from Sam Harris from the 'Future of God' debate regarding Dr Chopra's usage of QM. Why is that in this section? This section is about Dr Chopra's approach to healing. The Sam Harris quote is in response to Dr Chopra talking about consciousness and 'God', a philosophical issue so the critique is out of place in this section. SAS81 (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * you changed the focus of the thread again. If you want to discuss a new issue, open a separate thread and be clear and concise about which specific edit you are proposing. I will not be commenting here anymore, I consider this issue closed as no clear edit was proposed. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  17:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The article should adhere to WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE
It is not true that WP:NPOV must be suspended in order to adhere to WP:BLP. In particular, the WP:PSCI section of WP:NPOV must not be suspended, and in particular WP:PSCI's explanatory guideline WP:FRINGE must not be suspended. I don't believe the claim that any part of any policy or guideline must be suspended in order to have an accurate article. I have asked for specifics behind this claim, but none have been forthcoming.

Wikipedia does not serve as a platform to promote fringe views. Fringe proponents cannot use their Wikipedia page to further their interests. Sorry. The WP:PSCI policy ensures that fringe proponents probably won't like the WP articles on them. Sorry. Deepak Chopra imagines that cunning "militant skeptics" are at work at Wikipedia, but really it is just WP policies that are at work.

It is not my job to explain WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE, but nonetheless I've offered a few illustrations on this talk page. However nobody should be in the position of having to convince editors to follow policies and guidelines. Those who aim to openly violate them have the burden of convincing others to do so. Since this article is under discretionary sanctions, I invite readers to review the expected behavior of editors, which includes following policies and guidelines. vzaak 04:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I find the article, for the first time in quite some time, IS actually supporting NPOV, BLP, and WP FRINGE and this concern seems a little of of left field. There seems to be some confusion that NPOV IS a 'skeptical point of view' which means or implies that a BLP has to be written from the perspective of those who criticize the subject of the biography (hence NPOV being suspended). WP: FRINGE does not require us to omit facts about a persons biography or facts about their views simply because their critics view them differently. That seems a little draconian and you can't have both. Stating facts is not 'promoting'. And BLP is a rule, not a guideline like FRINGE. The first rule is that it is important we get it right, by any means necessary. If we get the BLP right, then by default it should automatically comply with Fringe and NPOV. I say we continue to focus on getting it right. This article has come a long way and has made good progress. Most importantly, it's actually turning into a good read. FRINGE warriors tend to make an article read awkward, mainly because FRINGE has nothing to do with creating a good article, while BLP and NPOV do. SAS81 (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As far as Wikipedia is concerned, there is no such thing as the "skeptical point of view". There is only the mainstream view and the fringe view. WP:PSCI, which is a policy, says that the mainstream reception of a fringe view must be prominently included.


 * Again, I don't accept that violating any policy or guideline is necessary for the article to be accurate. I even gave an example of how using the Baer paper addressed a particular concern, but that seems to have gone unnoticed. Please present your case -- with specifics -- on why you need to violate a policy or guideline in order to get the article "right". I find it alarming that an editor is even claiming this. The burden is on you.


 * Fringe proponents have argued before that WP:FRINGE can be suspended on a BLP, giving rise to the relatively recent WP:BLPFRINGE section. As it says, the consensus is that both WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE should be followed. If you wish to argue against that then here is not the place -- go to WT:FRINGE for that.


 * I understand it is off-putting to receive a suggestion to "actually read" something, but may I ask that everyone please actually read these: WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE? I often get the feeling that people aren't very familiar with the policies and guidelines to which they refer. (I also wonder if a scientific background is needed to fully understand WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE, but that is another matter.)


 * vzaak 05:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's a stretch to assume we haven't read BLP, NPOV and FRINGE. Speaking for myself, it's actually my job to read them, re read them, read them again, question everything I think I know about them, and then read them once more and follow them to the best of my ability. I read the BLP/FRINGE section too, that was written by Barney Barney Barney a few months back. I would not call that a strong historical consensus and time will tell if that will hold up. I don't think it will if it was ever taken to AR, specifically because it exposes Wikipedia and puts it in a very awkward and vulnerable place regarding biography. FRINGE/BLP gives absolutely no guideline as to 'how' this magical union of BLP/FRINGE must happen, just says it 'should' happen and fails to notice that you can't have both a neutral point of view AND viewpoint of a critic of a biography be one and the same, it's just not possible in any reasonable sense of the word. It's just a vague heuristic that leads to contradictions, not resolutions. BLP on the other hand, as well as NPOV is pretty darn clear, and has had consensus since the dawn of Wikipedia and is also just plain ol common sense best practices very close to something researchers and journalists have to follow as well i.e. it's also a modern and mainstream professional standard that any rational person can easily pick up and adapt. Also unclear how integrative medicine is fringe, meditation is fringe, yoga is fringe, and consciousness/philosophy or spirituality is fringe. SAS81 (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * BLP is a policy and as such take precedent over guidelines. BLP is one of the policies that is most stringently adhered to because if its not the repercussions can be devastating for a living person. A BLP is not fringe because human beings are not fringe topics, although the may advocate fringe views. BLPs should not be written as fringe topics, but BLPs may contain content on fringe topics. NPOV refers to the quality of the article itself not the sources. Sources may be critical or positive to the subject and these are included per their weight in the mainstream, and per their weight to the article as a whole. Opinions either positive or negative in nature can be inline cited so that those positions are clearly not stated in Wikipedia's voice. First and foremost the BLP must do no harm which means  no more harm than is already in the sources. Trivial content, gossip even sourced are generally  not good additions to BLPs.(Littleolive oil (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC))


 * @Vzaak, this is unwarranted and unhelpful input. No one is trying to "suspend NPOV or WP:Fringe."  The claim that anyone here is doing so is bizarre and unfounded.  The arguments among various editors have been fairly intellectual ones about where Fringe concerns intersect with good BLP work and NPOV language, as well as the nature of sources.  That's far from "suspending" WP:FRINGE (which has not even been the cause of major sticking points), and is typical of the type of discussion that is pretty standard in any reasonable consensus.  Everyone here has been focused on verifying solid sources, while the claim that we're somehow pushing Fringe is not supported by the work of any of the major editors on the page.  Whatever your take on it, WP:FRINGE is not at issue here.
 * Your tone is also pretty condescending, particularly given that you've barely contributed to this discussion before implying that the editors here are too lazy or uneducated to "actually read". You keep referencing everyone else's failure to offer specifics, then failed to list any of the supposedly egregious violations of WP:FRINGE that you see here.
 * People are honestly working hard to improve this page and establish consensus, please remember to keep your contributions civil, helpful, and content-based. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the third time I have asked in this thread: please present your case, with specifics, for violating a Wikipedia policy or guideline. You have made a lot of assertions, but I still haven't seen a practical case for it. In the Chopra article, show the before-violation text and sources, the after-violation text and sources, and the reason that we should accept the after-violation state. Assertions in the abstract are not very illuminating; let's see the details here. vzaak 11:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled by this question/non sequitor - I've been accused of a number of things, but never not being specific and not making a case. Why do I have to give you specifics on something you're claiming? If you view my history here on the talk page, you will see I've made my case very clear. I've also made my point pretty clear, this article is getting pretty darn good - and other than the awkward 'New Age Guru' in WP's voice, I'm not making any claims of violations in the article. I'm going to get back to getting sources together for everyone and focusing on content, in addition to my morning cup o joe now. SAS81 (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In this thread you claimed that BLP and FRINGE cannot both be upheld. Earlier you alluded to the same, "...it means we get the article wrong but FRINGE right". This is an amazing claim. It is your claim. Could you please describe specifically -- i.e., practically, tangibly with regard to the Chopra article -- what you are talking about? Fourth time asking.


 * You said, "FRINGE/BLP gives absolutely no guideline as to 'how' this magical union of BLP/FRINGE must happen, just says it 'should' happen and fails to notice that you can't have both a neutral point of view AND viewpoint of a critic of a biography be one and the same, it's just not possible in any reasonable sense of the word." But prominent criticism of Chopra in the article is the neutral point of view, according to the WP:NPOV policy, in particular WP:PSCI. It's not optional. That's why I keep linking to the WP:PSCI policy. WP:FRINGE is the explanatory guideline for that policy. vzaak 14:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Vzaak. Seems to me we all slightly differing views on how policies read. SAS is welcome to his as well as any of us. This is his Wikipedia too. He says he is happy with the progress in the article, progress that is being made by an uninvolved editor. Perhaps it would be better to take this to your talk page, but right now it seems to have nothing to do with the immediate writing of the article.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC))


 * No, this bears directly on the article. The fuller context of what I quoted from SAS81 is, "If we apply what vzaak is suggesting - it means we get the article wrong but FRINGE right." My "suggestion" is the expected practice on Wikipedia, which is to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (as stated on the discretionary sanctions page). We apparently agree that the current article does not comply with FRINGE. Before the article is brought back into compliance, it might be illuminating to find out what the heck is going on with people who think that a Wikipedia guideline can be shooed aside. Specifics are needed. Hammering this out now will potentially avoid edit warring. vzaak 17:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Vzaak, we don't agree that the current article does not comply with FRINGE, and you've provided no evidence for thinking the article is "out of compliance." We've had no suspension of FRINGE, we've had no edit wars, we've had no content disputes based on challenges to any policy/guideline, and there's growing consensus for the page.  Please do not imply problems where they do not exist.
 * The reason no one has answered your repeated question of "why we feel we can violate WP policies/guidelines" is that we don't and aren't. You're offering a false dichotomy that the editors here either support FRINGE or BLP, when in fact we all support both, and you haven't shown any edits where we don't.  SAS81 is the only one who's said anything about BLP trumping FRINGE, but A) they don't edit the article at all, B) FRINGE has not been a factor in the edits on the article, and C) editors are allowed to have personal opinions on policy/guideline interactions.  SAS81 can think that your interpretation of FRINGE is detrimental to a neutral BLP, and you can think that FRINGE can only be upheld in a BLP by focusing on criticism, that's nobody's business but your own.  You don't need to police other editors' thoughts on BLP and FRINGE, so long as they're not actively disrupting the article with them.  This seems like a lot of fuss for nothing. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe all editors are trying to work within the boundaries of expected practice. How expected practice is interpreted is not uniform. I spent a lot of time on the verifiability mediation and I can tell you that multiple good and experienced editors read that policy in different ways, none of it wrong, just interpreted differently.
 * I believe the article was overly weighted towards criticism, but I am happy to leave the article in the hands of an uninvolved editor with Slim Virgin's experience in policy, and in her writing abilities. Add: Just rereading the article, it seems fine in terms of weight of criticism and with out the back and forth bits and pieces of content that characterize articles where content has been cherry picked to make points.
 * SAS has yet to make a single edit to the article so I don't see him edit warring.
 * When it comes to making controversial changes, I suspect those changes will have to be discussed specifically. Seldom in my experience has establishing an overriding position or interpretation been useful when it comes to individual changes.
 * I didn't read SAS's comment as putting aside Fringe but rather that Fringe is not the dominating guide either in a discussion about how guidelines and policy apply or in a discussion on BLPs.
 * If an editor has something to hammer out, they should but I'm not sure focusing on SAS in particular is the way to do it, might be more productive to wait until you have content to add.
 * A note on SAS: In my opinion, such as it is, an editor couldn't do more to try to comply and to understand how Wikipedia functions. I don't see him attacking Chopra but that doesn't mean he isn't attempting to be neutral. I do assume good faith and suggest that those who are attacking Chopra here are also doing their best to create the right tone in this article. That there is disagreement is a given.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC))


 * Thx Capn and Olive once again for your support. @Vzaak, I'm not sure what this is about, but if you want to have a wonky nerdy WP Guideline discussion with my on my talk page they are probably right that's the place for it. I'll engage with you there as long as it's a genuine and respectful discussion. SAS81 (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I began this thread to continue the WP:FRIND issue discussed on this page with SlimVirgin and others. It is directly related to the article and not merely an abstract point about policy. One respondent in this thread actually tried to change WP:FRINGE in order to resolve the issue in their favor. Another respondent here edited WP:FRINGE to weaken its stance regarding BLP/FRINGE, changing "must" to "should". My initial post was not addressed to SAS81 in particular; I just replied to SAS81's response.

As I said to SlimVirgin, I understand what people are trying to do in good faith, but there are strong principles here which cannot be shooed away. For illustration I pointed to the Baer paper, as I did in this thread.

Since SlimVirgin has stopped participating, at this point I would prefer leave the matter until it comes up in the context of particular edits. In order to prevent confusion and/or warring I had hoped to get people on the same page first, but that is evidently very far from happening. vzaak 18:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)