Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 23

Huffpo
I don't see anything about this on the page, so I note http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-castle/wikipedia-deepak-chopra-o_b_8449394.html William M. Connolley (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WOOT I be famous!
 * The ISHAR-based editors attempting to fawn themselves off as "neutral" was a pretty pathetic point in the history of this talk page. It is good to see that they have been able to convince Chopra into paying them full time salaries. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The HufPo opinion piece does not rise to the level of being notable enough to include a reference in the article, it looks like. Basically the HufPo article is a complaint about scientists rejecting Chopra's unscientific notions, first off, and a continued complaint that Wikipedia editors who understand science, reality, and how science works are refusing to allow Chopra's fanboyz to add unfounded, unscientific, indeed anti-science notions to sully the article.
 * Wikipedia attempts to be encyclopedic, reporting the facts while also working to avoid opinions, utilizing science as the core technology to determine whether something is real or not. Editors who want the current article to be packed with the "woo woo" nonsense that Chopra sells to the gullible, the ignorant, and the wishful thinking must provide testable, falsifiable, legitimate text improvments backed by testable, verifiable references and citations. Lacking any of that (and they are lacking any of that) editors must ensure that all such nonsense is rejected. If Chopra fanboyz can get away with it, who's to say that Scientology's fanboyz can't do likewise? TrainsOnTime (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I examine the extant article and I find that there is nothing wrong with it, allof the references and citations are correct and there is no WP:NPOV problems or, for that matter, any advocacy or promotion. Nothing that the Huffington Post opinion states is even remotely accurate. Damotclese (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend to use it in our article; it was just for general interest. FWIW, I added it to Press coverage 2015 too William M. Connolley (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. :) The link to the HuffPo complaint crossed my RSS feed which consolidates medical science journal pages covering False memory syndrome (an area I worked within during the McMartin Preschool fiasco) otherwise I would not have noticed the opinion piece.
 * Looking at the opinion piece, the complaint appears to me to boil down to the desire for Wikipedia to be used for promotion and advocacy of untestable religious ideologies, in my opinion, apparently not for any desire to actually improve the accuracy of the extant biography (which is WP:NOTHERE) coupled to a dose of complaining about how real science and real medicine rejects untestable claims. Since such religious beliefs can not be published in peer-reviewed medical journals, Wikipedia is the next best thing. :)
 * If believers in this sort of thing are reading this right now, you might try to get your desired biography of the extant WP:BLP posted to Conservapedia where the academic standards enjoyed here at Wikipedia do not constrain articles to mere reality. Damotclese (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you're getting the "promotion" or "advocacy" elements, the piece (and I agree it's an opinion piece, no one ever said otherwise) focuses on how the current coverage is overly negative in comparison to predominant media coverage, not that Chopra (or anyone) deserves an advertising space. A lack of negative bias does not necessitate positive bias.  Also, when and where were religious ideologies promoted in the article?  Science and scientists were never condemned in favor of some quasi-religious agenda, and I'm curious where you got that impression. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The HuffPost complaint is that Wikipedia policy guidelines do not allow editors to add uncontrolled advocacy of their religious beliefs to articles, offering said complaint in the guise of Wikipedia editors (rather than Wikipedia guidelines) being unfair. Believers in religious ideologies create their own web sites containing their own biographies, and while external links to those religious web sites is suitable from Wikipedia, uncritical advocacy updates fall short of legitimate, historic encyclopedias -- which is why Wikipedia has guidelines. Which is also why Scientology was banned from making updates. Damotclese (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not what the Huffpo piece says, even by implication (also, Huffpo contributors cannot delete comments on their own blogs, they can only flag abuse). The blog pushes for neutral, impartial coverage, not promotional advocacy.  Saying that a religious person is being mistreated is not an argument for their religion, it's an argument against the mistreatment.  None of the bias endemic to Chopra's page is a result of policies or guidelines.  Which WP policy requires bringing up Chopra's criticisms 14 times more often than the obviously more controversial Jack Kevorkian?  And which manual of style suggests repeating the same criticisms verbatim in numerous sections of a BLP?  Then there's the section that reads:
 * In 1995 Chopra was not licensed to practice medicine in California where he had a clinic; however, he did not see patients at this clinic "as a doctor" during this time.[45] 
 * This is a direct, almost perfect violation of Manual_of_Style, and as you can imagine, did not come from a Chopra supporter. The issue is not that critics of Chopra understand Wikipedia and everyone else doesn't, but that there is a real problem with biased sourcing and blatant POV editing. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Fourth paragraph of lede unbalanced and WP:UNDUE
A cursory look at this article reveals the fourth and final paragraph to be comprised entirely of various hostile unattributed positions by detractors of Chopra. This is undue weight, in my view. I have never edited this article before, but I suggest as an uninvolved editor that the fourth paragraph be deleted or at least balanced with views by supporters or Chopra himself. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for Chopra's detractors, and those who appear to be pushing a negative POV of Chopra. Jus da  fax   21:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It summarizes the reception of his works, with an eye to WP:FRINGE. The section and summary in the lede have been discussed in great detail. --Ronz (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and many, many people have contended that it is exceptionally imbalanced. It does not summarize the reception of his work, it summarizes the negative perceptions of his critics, while any positive commentary has been listed as "promotional" or "advocacy."  I agree with Jusdafax's interpretation of this lede as belonging to a forum, not an encyclopedia. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The choices are delete and discuss, or tag and discuss. Either way, action is called for. Jus  da  fax   02:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * we dont create artificial balances we cite his popularity among the gullible new age masses, and his complete disregard among the academics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say your characterization of Chopra's readers as "gullible new age masses" is clear proof of your POV-pushing, Red Pen. If it is not, what would you call it? By the way, this article was pointed out to me, in which you are named. I find the reasoning that this article is slanted against its subject to be quite compelling. In short, an active breach of Wikipedia policy per WP:BLP. This won't do. Jus  da  fax   03:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The question is not a BLP violation and I will ask it again: what IS Chopra known for other than the pseudo science he promotes in his books, the pseudoscientific chemicals he sells and the pseudoscience he preaches in his talks? It is not history. It is not art. It is not politics. It is not presented as "fiction". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jusdafax that the 4th paragraph needs to be removed or written in a more balanced way. Cla68 (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've yet to see any arguments against the content based upon a knowledge of past discussions, though that's not required. What is required is an understanding of the sources and applicable policies, which has yet to be offered. The HufPo article just demonstrates that some editors here, especially whoever wrote it, don't understand our policies and are trying to circumvent them. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

One problem with the last paragraph is that it is stating definitives in WP's voice. Especially in a BLP such statements should be inline attributed. What the Huff post article implies is that some editors here may have concerns about this article. Looking at those concerns in a open and neutral way is what we do on Wikipedia, and must do. We 're all human here and capable of errors in judgement. We only discover those errors with careful and unbiased scrutiny.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC))
 * Indeed, all editors who believe that Wikipedia guidelines are not being met may discuss the issue in the Talk: pages and a Third Party or an IRC may be created to draw in other editors' opinions. The HuffPo article was written because the author likely knew that following Wikipedia's higher quality guidelines for proposed updates discussion and third-party review would not fall in his favor, ergo he "took it to the people" and, while the HuffPo article got favorable comments and negative comments were deleted, Wikipedia guidelines seek to have higher quality requirements than blogs. Damotclese (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "The HuffPo article was written because the author likely knew that following Wikipedia's higher quality guidelines for proposed updates discussion and third-party review would not fall in his favor, ergo he "took it to the people"
 * This is an assumption and opinion. While we all have opinions, and while opinions are legitimate we cannot base editing practices on those opinions. Distinguishing opinion from fact is tricky so until then open mindedness  might create more forward momentum. We can't be afraid to scrutinize. If we are it might be worth asking why.
 * I don't see a suggestion to use the Huff Post as a source. I agree; it is not a reliable source. I do see some agreement here with what the HP article is saying which suggests we might want to take another look at the Chopra article itself. Some very good editors did a lot of work on this article, had much of their work reverted, had no discernible agendas, and eventually left this article. Slim Virgin was one for example, so we might again ask, why.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC))
 * The suggestion that there are problems in the article appear to be in response to the HufPo article, while ignoring our policies, the sources, the past discussions, etc. If someone wants to actually scrutinize something, they need to get started. --Ronz (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The suggestion that there are problems in the article predate the Huff Post article as you know. Editors who attempted to fix those problems were not encouraged to continue working on this articles given the climate here No one has ignored policies, past discussions were dismantled with an POV that was driven by editors with a strong so-called skeptical POV. No one is suggesting there should be no criticism, but I am suggesting that questions like, "what IS Chopra known for other than the pseudo science he promotes in his books, the pseudoscientific chemicals he sells and the pseudoscience he preaches in his talks?" are so obviously biased as to be shocking. There are many more such comments on this talk page equal or worse. Slim Virgin was driven away and she  was neutral. You have a uninvolved editor who has concerns about the article but still editors here cling to the myth that this article   creates a neutral view of another human being. I suggest that the guard dogs on this article seriously consider their position and scrutinize the article to see if maybe, just maybe they have gone a little overboard in defining Chopra. There is no doubt what many here think of Chopra; they have repeated insults over and over again. Insults to the subject of any BLP in a supposedly neutral encyclopedia indicates one thing and that is bias. That's why those editors need to scrutinize this article and if possible sort out the legitimate criticism from the bias tone and weight of the article. I'll leave you all to it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC))
 * "what IS Chopra known for other than the pseudo science he promotes in his books, the pseudoscientific chemicals he sells and the pseudoscience he preaches in his talks?" i will keep asking until someone can provide an answer. And until someone can provide an answer then there is certainly no need to even attempt to discuss how we can address claimed "bias" in presenting Chopra as someone whose pseudoscientific ideas are dismissed by the mainstream- because thats all there is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Again with the justification that Chopra is uniformly disregarded by academia. It's not an issue of WP:FALSEBALANCE to state that these types of extraordinary claims (everyone who supports Chopra is a gullible New-Ager, everyone in academia rejects him) require impeccable sourcing. We don't have that.  We have a Lifestyle piece that casually mentions controversy, with no citations, references or reason to believe it's authoritative.  Then we have a fist-full of heavily opinionated commentary from skeptic writers and blogs who should not be within 30 yards of a BLP.  The claim that there is an agreed-upon popular perception that Chopra is "only notable for pseudoscience" is completely unsupported.  He's notable as an author, a speaker, a public health figure, a spirituality figure, and these are backed up by virtually every impartial news article that he's featured in.  There are thousands of these sources, but they're rejected out-of-hand for being "promotional", while unbacked assertions by openly biased sources are presented as proof-positive.  That's a huge part of the problem here, there's been so much insistence upon a negative narrative that we've lost sight of the fact the narrative isn't in line with reality.  Whether or not it's cited here, the HP article makes that point clear and can be easily verified.
 * Shall I go through the effort of listing the refs that give lie to the statements that academia rejects him and that he's primarily covered as a controversial pseudoscientist, etc? I'm asking because I've seen endless excuses given for why any positive-leaning source/study/affiliation can't be listed, even when they far exceed the credentials of the skeptic refs that are already cited here. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "what IS Chopra known for other than the pseudo science he promotes in his books, the pseudoscientific chemicals he sells and the pseudoscience he preaches in his talks?" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Opinions appear to be fairly polarized here on whether to keep the paragraph or not. So, I'm not sure that discussion will be very productive.  Should we just take a straw poll as to the paragraphs's removal? Cla68 (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt that any poll is needed, the text is accurate but it lacks suitable references and citations. The text should be kept however it should be updated with references. Various "cite needed" seem appropriate, or editors can find suitable links and add the references as needed. At issue is the things that he's known for, and yes, his non-reality-based religious beliefs are what he's most known for, so the text seems fine, what's missing are citations to news articles and skeptics journals which publish. Damotclese (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The weight is okay. Don't forget, Chopra is *not* respected among medical people, outside of a minor and obscure cult following he is not known for anything except his religious beliefs, so the WEIGHT appears to be fitting in the encyclopedia. (1) He does not publish in scientific medical journals. (2) He does no research. (3) He diverted from science-based medicine literally decades ago. The paragraph covering his occult beliefs appears to be weighted according to his lack of standing in the real world. If he did research in to his occult beliefs and published in science-based, peer-reviewed journals, if he enjoyed the respect of actual medical people, then we would want to look at the paragraph.
 * Also check out the biographies for Uri Geller and L. Ron Hubbard and you will find the same weight for their equally anti-science-based lives. Chopra should not be afforded any special waiver for accurate, informative, properly-weighted BLP than Geller or any other unscientific believer selling nonsense to gullible people. BiologistBabe (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, these are again just unbacked assertions. We've discussed on this very Talk page that Chopra has been published in peer-reviewed journals, his AMA records confirm he is actively conducting logged research, and his media coverage includes as much/more content on healthy living than religion, let alone the minority about controversy.  There is significant, impartial evidence to debunk your statements, and no serious evidence to support it (that I've seen).  WP:CHERRYPICKING references to fit a predetermined narrative (and excluding any contradictory info) is the opposite of how WP is supposed to work. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 07:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * when his hum your cancer away "research" gets published, then we can talk. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a gross misrepresentation of both that theory and Chopra's discussion of it. What it is representative of is the biased OR on this page.  Primordial sound is presented as one approach to health, but Chopra directly states in a number of places that when a patient comes to him with cancer, he sends them to get chemo and radiation therapy.  It is disingenuous at best, unethical at worst, to take theories and statements out of context and make up your own interpretation.  It is the worst kind of WP:OR to cut out context:
 *  By targeting specific mutations, doctors who treat childhood cancer have raised their success rate from 20% to 80% in the past forty years. Children with cancer must undergo severe regimens of chemotherapy and radiation, but it’s no longer a case, as it once was, of killing the tumor before the treatment killed the patient. For a vast majority of oncologists, targeting a malignant cell with chemo and radiation, along with surgery to remove the tumor, remains the mainstream approach. The track of prevention is all but unknown to them. (https://www.deepakchopra.com/blog/article/3502)


 * To then state: "Chopra claims he can prevent all cancer, luring patients away from chemotherapy."
 * This is the equivalent of what you're doing. I previously announced I will not edit the page because of the possibility of a CoI causing a bias.  Can you honestly state that you have no strong POV about this article? The Cap&#39;n (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Has anybody got a concrete proposal for improving this article (which is what this Talk page is meant for)? If not I suggest we halt this thread as non-productive. Alexbrn (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 4th lede paragraph proposal:
 * Some of the ideas he promotes have been criticized by scientists and medical professionals[14] who say that his treatments rely on the placebo effect,[8] that he misuses terms and ideas from quantum physics (quantum mysticism), and that his approaches could obscure the possibility of effective medical treatment.[15] For these reasons Chopra is viewed as a controversial figure in the medical and scientific communities.[14]
 * Removing the presentation of a hypothetical that has never been documented (we have no indication Chopra actually convinced anyone to avoid medical treatment, even his books don't recommend that), shifting the universal claim that all medical and scientific professionals dismiss Chopra (demonstrably false, 10 PhD's & MD's went on record specifically to refute this) to a more nuanced declaration of his controversial position. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "some" is pretty deceptive considering the range of items he promotes the the almost universal dismissal they receive. Please outline the major concepts he promotes and then the major concepts that he promotes that have received anything other than criticism. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Rather than my proving a negative (ie. show everything Chopra has said that hasn't been denounced), the burden is on you to prove a positive (ie. present sources that show everything he's said has been denounced). This is not a self-evident truth on the order of heliocentrism, so you need to show something more significant than blogs and Lifestyle pieces. In the spirit of cooperation, though, I'll start working up lists of his scientific positions that are accepted by some or most scientists. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:REDFLAG extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. if you are going to state that his promotion of "hum your cancer away" or any of the other equally extravegant nonsense that he promotes and for which he is famous have any level of measurable support in mainstream academia/medicine/sciences, it is YOUR responsibility to provide such sourcing. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * BiologistBabe is correct, Chopra has no scientific medical journal publications, and no, he does not do any scientific research. Cult in-house publications do not count, any more than Creationist in-house publications count, or why Scientology's "humanitarian awards" they give each other count. She is correct also that the individual is not respected by any medical professional of any renown, which is why the sentence WIGHT is accurate. The science-based medical arena has spoken, and the sentence in the extant article reflects that reality. Damotclese (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I like your rewrite Askahrc. Some is not the best word, a bit general, but not sure how to say some but not all ideas.....(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC))
 * Which ideas haven't been? and where do these non discredited ideas fit in comparison to the plethora of discredited ideas he promotes? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Littleolive oil, thank you for continuing a productive discussion, and perhaps the specification of "his positions on complementary/alternative medicine" instead of "some" might resolve the ambiguity.
 * Damotclese & TheRedPenOfDoom, you are not the science-based medical arena, and as many times as you repeat your opinions, that does not make them a reliable source. TRPoD, you seem to dramatically misunderstand WP:REDFLAG.  Presenting an extraordinary statement as fact does require extraordinary evidence.  However, no one is trying to present Chopra's research as factually true, we are simply reporting on what it is in a neutral tone, while still conveying its controversial nature.  Accurate coverage is not advocacy.
 * Your position, however, is that all scientists dismiss Chopra, that all his positions are false and/or debunked, etc. Those are extraordinary claims that encompass tens of thousands of professionals, many of whom have worked directly with Chopra.  You haven't presented even moderate evidence for your position, let alone extraordinary evidence.  WP:REDFLAG is not a blank check to say whatever you want about anyone you consider WP:FRINGE. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are attempting to present that only "some" of the mainstream has issues with Chopra's ideas. That is a REDFLAG claim that must be demonstrated in some manner, because, No, Virginia, there is not any measurable level of support for humming away cancer and before we misrepresent that there is or might be, you will need to demonstrate otherwise. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You still have nothing to support your position, and aside from your preoccupation with primordial sound, most of Chopra's positions are not particularly controversial, all of which have received major coverage: Meditation diminishes stress and improves quality of life Lifestyle choices affect health as much as acute medical treatments Diet, exercise and mental health are all intertwined Ayurveda has numerous health benefits (Nature) The suppression of the divine feminine has correlations with the mistreatment of the environment Breath control and yoga can decrease cortisol levels These are major, well-known positions of Chopra that are not particularly controversial and there are many sources for each, and I would wager far more mainstream coverage than has been given to primordial sound. We can't WP:CHERRYPICK the positions that are easily cast as controversial as the only ones that count. No matter how many times you reference "humming away cancer," that doesn't change the facts. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "think yourself young forever" ; Ayurveda ; TM ; He is not particularly notable for Yoga, and his Yoga claims go far beyond the accepted "it helps relax." .... as per my still unanswered question: "NAME ONE THING THAT HE IS NOTABLE FOR THAT IS NOT PSUEDOSCIENCE? --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Red Pen. Your dislike of Chopra and his ideas is clear, and we are all entitled to opinions, but at this point your repetition of the same cmt over and over becomes disruptive. (Littleolive oil (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC))
 * If someone would provide an answer, I would not have to keep repeating the question. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It has been answered, you just don't like the answers. You dismiss any of the positions and sources provided that aren't in line with your preconceived opinions.  I agree that your repetitive demands and unreasonable positions are becoming disruptive. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Where has it been answered? -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

A few of Chopra's other notably covered positions are above, though admittedly the formatting went awry: I'd argue that all of these positions have been covered more extensively by the mainstream than Chopra's supposed pariah status in the scientific community. If this is a matter of refs, I'll put them together (though if they're going to be dismissed offhand I'd rather not go through the effort). The Cap&#39;n (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Meditation diminishes stress and improves quality of life
 * Lifestyle choices affect health as much as acute medical treatments
 * Diet, exercise and mental health are all intertwined
 * Ayurveda has numerous health benefits (Nature)
 * The suppression of the divine feminine has correlations with the mistreatment of the environment
 * Breath control and yoga can decrease cortisol levels
 * AGAI - N Ayurveda as promoted by Chopra is the pseudoscience aspects of Ayurveda , not the vaguely potentially medically testable and potentially helpful. His promotion of meditation/yoga benefits goes WAY beyond the tested and accepted into pseudoscience claims.  and "he suppression of the divine feminine has correlations with the mistreatment of the environment"  as something that is supposed to demonstrate non-pseudoscience? Are you fucking kidding???? --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please calm down, cursing and exclaiming is not productive, see WP:IUC. As for the claim that Chopra only expresses the pseudoscientific aspects of all topics he discusses is an extraordinary claim that needs extremely strong evidence... which I'm guessing you still don't have.  As for claiming a belief in the divine feminine and opposing objectification is "pseudoscience," I'm afraid you're incorrect.  Those are spiritual and ideological belief, and last I checked those can be reported on WP.  Again, your efforts to narrowly define as "pseudoscientific" every aspect of a BLP about someone who has published (extremely widely!) on health, spirituality, politics and more is a gross oversimplification. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The article said to be in "Nature" is in fact in Scientific Reports, a - rather less prestigious - OA journal which is one of the many things that happens to be published by Nature Publishing Group. Alexbrn (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Good note, thank you! Scientific Reports is still a peer-reviewed academic journal with an impact factor of 5.578, and disproves the claim of "no scientific evidence to show that Ayurveda is effective in treating any disease." (emphasis added).  This is why universal statements are so problematic, wherever they arise in the article. 98.119.221.109 (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a reliable source per WP:MEDRS and using it to support an assertion that ayurveda has "numerous health benefits" would be a highly problematic edit, of course since it is using a weak primary source to undercut strong secondary ones - very naughty indeed. Alexbrn (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Alex could you outline for the IP why this is not a good source per MEDRS.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC))
 * It's a (weak) primary source. We don't use those for claims of treatment efficacy because they're unreliable. (There are also other reasons: such as the fact that ayurvedic research by ayurvedic researchers runs afoul of WP:FRIND). More generally, when there is a solid scientific consensus that ayurveda is bunkum one can't dredge up a single source and overturn it per WP:REDFLAG. Alexbrn (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

What part of
There is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer or any other disease. is difficult to understand? I'm curious. -Roxy the dog™ woof 09:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that your statement is untrue. There are plenty of studies in which the efficacy of Ayurvedic medicines has been demonstrated. Even a cursory glance at the conclusions in medical research literature reveals that some, although not all, Ayurvedic treatments are efficacious.
 * Peaceray (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Lots of unreliable results in that search result. Best to let the experts synthesize the primary evidence, and then let Wikipedia reflect that expertise honestly & neutrally. Alexbrn (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I noted in my previous statement, "some, although not all" demonstrate efficacy. I may note that this is also often the case with modern pharmacology.
 * , in your statement that there are "lots of unreliable results," are you questioning the methods of the research, or the sources? What about the ones that are reliable?
 * If you are looking for reviews of the literature concerning Ayurvedic treatments, here is an adjusted search yielding "About 19,800 results":
 * An open mind will find various conclusions. The reviews will indicate that some Ayurvedic treatments for diseases are efficacious & that many are not. Most seem to say that further study, including randomized control trials, are needed.
 * I stand by my earlier statement. A blanket rejection of Ayurveda as totally ineffective is simply untrue & not a reasonable statement based on a thorough review of the available medical literature. As is the case with any medical modality, rigorous examination of a treatment's efficacy & safety should prevail.
 * Let's not cherry-pick either way, folks.
 * Peaceray (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your view is of no consequence for our content; here, we reflect good WP:MEDRS not editors' personal takes on topics. Alexbrn (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , please stay on topic & address my previous question. I always strive for WP:NPOV & citing my edits from reliable sources. Are you saying that there are no reviews of the literature indicating efficacy of at least some Ayurvedic treatments that meet WP:MEDRS? Peaceray (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am saying neutrality dictates we reflect the best sources faithfully. We're doing just that. Alexbrn (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's stop with the original research to further a pov not in the reliable sources. Get some consensus at Ayurveda, then we can incorporate what applies here. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My work is done. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's stop with the original research to further a pov not in the reliable sources. Get some consensus at Ayurveda, then we can incorporate what applies here. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My work is done. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate claim: no evidence supports Ayurveda
In this edit a revert is made which introduces a false claim based on http://www.cancerresearchuk.org. From the US National Institutes of Health, we see that there is, in fact, some evidence: https://nccih.nih.gov/health/ayurveda/introduction.htm#hed5   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Howso? Nothing false about it that I see. Do explain. Maybe quote exactly what you think demonstrates an inaccuracy? --Ronz (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I can see there is some ambiguity here. Strictly while there is evidence, it's just that none of it has passed the threshold where medicine would consider any treatment as "effective": hence the use of the word "prove" in the CRUK source. I've tweaked the text to reflect this, and also to avoid any whiff of plagiarism - the original wording was rather maybe too close to the source. Alexbrn (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you've made the change solely to avoid plagiarism, Alex, I'm certain that 'fair use' would cover extracting a sentence from the CRUK description of Ayurveda and its effectiveness. I do appreciate that the relevant PAG are particularly heavy handed in this area though. It was merely a very small chunk of their text, albeit the most salient. However, I do think that "New-Age Guru" could go back in, unnatributed? That would be an improvement. -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This new version is also inaccurate.
 * "based on the medical evidence there is, however, nothing in Ayurvedic medicine that is known to be effective."

A more encyclopedic version would be something along these lines:
 * According to Cancer Research UK, there is nothing in Ayurvedic medicine that is known to be effective, while the US National Institutes of Health [summarize findings below]"

NIH:

What the Science Says About the Effectiveness of Ayurvedic Medicine Research

Most clinical trials of Ayurvedic approaches have been small, had problems with research designs, or lacked appropriate control groups, potentially affecting research results.

At the very least, I think it's clearly problematic to base the claim nothing in Ayurvedic medicine that is known to be effective (in WP's voice) on a single source, especially given that it conflicts with another equally reliable one (per MEDRS). In general, the more encyclopedic route would be to add more, not fewer, sources.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Researchers have studied Ayurvedic approaches for schizophrenia and for diabetes; however, scientific evidence for its effectiveness for these diseases is inconclusive.
 * A preliminary clinical trial in 2011, funded in part by NCCIH, found that conventional and Ayurvedic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis had similar effectiveness. The conventional drug tested was methotrexate and the Ayurvedic treatment included 40 herbal compounds.
 * Ayurvedic practitioners use turmeric for inflammatory conditions, among other disorders. Evidence from clinical trials show that turmeric may help with certain digestive disorders and arthritis, but the research is limited.
 * Varieties of boswellia (Boswellia serrata, Boswellia carterii, also known as frankincense) produce a resin that has shown anti-inflammatory and immune system effects in laboratory studies. A 2011 preliminary clinical trial found that osteoarthritis patients receiving a compound derived from B. serrata gum resin had greater decreases in pain compared to patients receiving a placebo.
 * Live Science has links to other studies that conflict with WP's claim. PBS has some potentially helpful links too.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * From UofM Medical Center:
 * A number of Ayurvedic herbal remedies have been examined, though high-quality studies are lacking. For example, guggul (Commiphora mukul), a traditional Ayurvedic medication used to treat high cholesterol, is widely used in India. It appears to block production of cholesterol in the liver, lowering cholesterol levels. Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum graecum) seeds can lower LDL "bad" cholesterol and triglycerides (fats in the blood), and raise HDL "good" cholesterol levels. Its effects seem to come from its ability to lower the absorption of cholesterol in the intestine, and may be related to the high fiber content of the seed. The high fiber content of fenugreek seeds may also help control blood sugar if you have diabetes.
 * To claim that Ayruveda has no beneficial effects is to falsely imply that none of the herbs used in the practice have any healing effects. I suggest at the very least, we remove the false claim from the article for now, in the interest of integrity.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You have produced no reliable sources in support of your view though. I was really hoping we'd got beyond the point where individual medical centres, opinion pieces by advocates, and news broadcasts were being touted for supporting major medical claims. (And even so, the quotation about fenugreek remedies lacking high-quality studies confirms, rather than contradicts, what we say). Alexbrn (talk) 05:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This looks to me like editors are misreading or misinterpreting sources. First, "there is, however, no scientific evidence to show that Ayurveda is effective in treating any disease" is more specific and doesn't appear to be inaccurate, hence my (unanswered) questions about it being an inaccurate claim. Second, the rewrite to "based on the medical evidence there is, however, nothing in Ayurvedic medicine that is known to be effective" is much more general and does indeed create problems of accuracy. How about we change it back, and see if anyone will follow up on finding inaccuracies in the use of Ayurveda (techniques and treatments) that have been demonstrated as effective in treating some disease, rather than looking for some components of Ayurveda that might have some health benefits. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think CRUK's wording is careful as always: "There is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer or any other disease" [my bold]. By changing "prove" to "show" I think we're being less careful. There is evidence of all kinds of ayurvedic medicine working - it's just that the evidence isn't very good and so it proves nothing. Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been quiet here the last week. I think the accurate statement would be there is some evidence that some herbs recommended by Ayurvedic medicine have some effectiveness at treating some disease.  All of those "some"s are required to make it an accurate statement.  There are a lot of herbs recommended by Ayurvedic medicine.  It doesn't seem correct to indicate that Ayurvedic medicine is effective.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that qualifiers are better than universal statements on either side, so I support the insertion of "somes" where applicable, and take out the absolutes. There are hundreds of studies (link shows both supporting and refuting studies) which show strong evidence of benefits from ayurvedic treatments, while there are also many aspects of ayurveda that have not seen significant scientific support.  It is demonstrably false to claim there is no evidence to support any claims by ayurveda.  Further, the source being cited does not support that claim, as it states:
 * Research has found that some aspects of Ayurvedic medicine can help to relieve cancer related symptoms and improve quality of life...
 * More than 200 herbs and plants are used in Ayurvedic medicine. Some early laboratory and animal research suggests that compounds taken from traditional Ayurvedic medicines may be able to slow the growth of cancer in animals. Although this early research looks promising, there is no evidence that Ayurvedic herbal medicines can prevent, treat or cure cancer in humans. We won't really know whether Ayurvedic medicine is helpful in treating cancer until large randomised clinical trials have been carried out.
 * Twisting a ref that states "research has found benefits and further cancer research is warranted" into a claim that "there is no evidence for anything ayurvedic" is inaccurate to the point of misleading. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, there is (as our sources tell us) nothing in Ayurvedic medicine that is known to be an effective medicine. That is what matters clinically & in the context of the topic of this article. Alexbrn (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Which sources are those? The CRUK says the exact opposite in referencing the efficacy of ayurveda in relieving symptoms and quality of life.  Also, how do we get from specific claims regarding efficacy in treating cancer in humans to a universal dismissal of all aspects of ayurvedic treatments?  Saying it has not been proven to be effective against cancer could be argued, but dismissing all other forms of treatment is not only unsupported, but directly contradicted by the source (as quoted above).  Please include the in-context quotation that authoritatively dismisses all ayurvedic treatments, or we need to take that claim out. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:MEDRS and probably read WP:WHYMEDRS. That some stuff may show activity in a laboratory setting in no way means it is a useful medicine. Hence our sources say there is no known medicinal value to ayurvedic medicine. We faithfully reflect that, to be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with MEDRS, and there is no violation here. I'm not citing primary studies, I'm citing the same CRUK review that you are, which directly states ayurveda has practical benefits.  Choosing to assume they meant to imply ayurveda is worthless (while saying the opposite) would obviously be WP:OR. I'm asking if you are referencing some content there that I do not see, because the source you're citing does not support what you're saying, or do you have different sources that you're referencing?  Please be specific, this is not a procedural misunderstanding but a disagreement in what the reference supports. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been several days with no response, and while direct quotes have been provided to prove the source does not support what it is being referenced for (quite the opposite), no evidence has been provided to justify keeping it. I'm not counting the WP:OR assertions that "it's just true, because I said so!"
 * In the face of no supporting evidence and the fact that the very ref being cited directly refutes the statement, I move that we delete the sentence "based on the medical evidence there is, however, nothing in Ayurvedic medicine that is known to be effective at treating disease, and some preparations may be actively harmful..." The Cap&#39;n (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Our current text is well sourced and verifiable, and neutrality requires that we include it. Alexbrn (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, that's another unbacked assertion that is demonstrably false. The current text's source includes a lengthy list of the evidenced ayurvedic treatments, but you're claiming it says there are none.  How is it POV to report the objective facts of what the source says, or at least not wildly distort it?  I agree the source is verifiable, and it is easily verified that it contradicts the current text.  WP text needs to accurately reflect the sources, that is neutrality.  No matter how strongly one's opinions are, they are not neutral or "true."
 * The current text is WP:OR at best, and deceptive at worst. (Begin the race to find a source that confirms the chosen text) The Cap&#39;n (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're simply wrong. The thing about a COI is then when you get pushback from multiple editors, you need to listen rather then assuming bad faith and trying to up the dramah. If you disagree why not ping WP:FTN for further feedback? Alexbrn (talk) 07:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually no, he's not wrong. It is wrong to take single sources and use them to characterize research as a definitive without inline attributing  the content and source so that the position and voice of the single source become Wikipedia's. Its also wrong to use a source in an  limited or incomplete way to support a position. (Littleolive oil (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC))
 * The CRUK piece considers multiple sources of information, and is strong WP:MEDRS. To quote its opening "There is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer or any other disease". Saying anything against the grain of this would misrepresent the source. Since there is no serious dispute over this statement we should simply WP:ASSERT it; doing otherwise would give the false impression it was just a pov. Alexbrn (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

In-line attribute. The information is not definitive. I always wonder why editors refuse to in-line attribute. What do they gain? In-line attributing means there is more information to consider. If content is not inline attributed  the implication is that there is nothing more and in this case that is  not quite accurate.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC))
 * It is better not to inline attribute for things which can be WP:ASSERTed as it avoids cluttering the article up and hinting at disagreements that aren't there. Your personal view about what is or is not "to be said" on this question doesn't matter: we reflect strong WP:MEDRS. If you have strong WP:MEDRS saying that ayurvedic remedies are considered effective treatments for disease, then produce them. Alexbrn (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The source is not definitive about Ayurveda's lack of effectiveness as  is argued here, and is more nuanced and complex. The source must be represented faithfully in the text of this article. I don't have to repeat or quote the source again. right? We don't have to find sources to prove Ayurveda is effective; that's a red herring and  not the discussion we're having at this point although maybe that's a discussion for later. We have to add content that accurately represents the source. If we use the opening line, "There is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer or any other disease" (which actually I don't see anymore although, I remember it from a few years ago) and which really does not accurately  cover what the rest of source says, we must attribute, and also clarify the source. We cannot cherry pick the information we want to include and exclude the rest. We must, again, represent sources faithfully.(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC))
 * What!? CRUK's summary ("There is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer or any other disease") does properly summarize their own article (as one would expect from an organization that is expert in medical communication). What could you possibly be seeing in the rest of the article that contradicts that? Where is the ayurvedic treatment proved to be an effective disease treatment? You are just arguing from a personal POV, it seems to me, unless you can quote me some actual text that supports your argument. Alexbrn (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Just noting the correctness of Alex' comments regarding this source, which included "There is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer or any other disease" on the 19th Nov 2015, when I last checked, for the talk page section above. -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Come on guys same old red herring, same old sidestep, two step. Personal POV? In fact you are assuming my position on Ayurveda, and assumptive reasoning is sure to be inaccurate and simplistic. Let's stick to the discussion at hand and post again what the article says which means that the source itself is not definitive on Ayurveda:

Most clinical trials of Ayurvedic approaches have been small, had problems with research designs, or lacked appropriate control groups, potentially affecting research results.

Researchers have studied Ayurvedic approaches for schizophrenia and for diabetes; however, scientific evidence for its effectiveness for these diseases is inconclusive. A preliminary clinical trial in 2011, funded in part by NCCIH, found that conventional and Ayurvedic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis had similar effectiveness. The conventional drug tested was methotrexate and the Ayurvedic treatment included 40 herbal compounds. Ayurvedic practitioners use turmeric for inflammatory conditions, among other disorders. Evidence from clinical trials show that turmeric may help with certain digestive disorders and arthritis, but the research is limited. Varieties of boswellia (Boswellia serrata, Boswellia carterii, also known as frankincense) produce a resin that has shown anti-inflammatory and immune system effects in laboratory studies. A 2011 preliminary clinical trial found that osteoarthritis patients receiving a compound derived from B. serrata gum resin had greater decreases in pain compared to patients receiving a placebo.'''

We cannot selectively choose parts of the source and not others; doing so is not a faithful representation of any source. What do you suggest we do with the above material from the source? Ignore it? And if you ignore it why, and what does that suggest about us. We cannot look at a source and decide to chose content that suits us, but not the rest. This is so simple. Accurately represent the text of the source in its entirety even if short, concise and to the point. Represent it all, not just some of it. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC))
 * Everything you quote confirms (no surprise) that CRUK accurately summarizes the current scientific consensus. If research is only at the lab stage, or if it is "limited", "prelimary", "inconclusive" etc then it falls below the threshold where in evidence-based medicine it is considered "effective". For the purposes of this article, where we are required by policy to point-out the fringe nature of the treatments Chopra is selling, then yes we should ignore research that does not show that treatments are effective, as it is irrelevant. The research might be discussed in (e.g.) our Clinical trials on Ayurvedic drugs article. Alexbrn (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What we are obliged to do is represent this source fairly and accurately-this source. For starters, this is an article about Deepak Chopra, not Ayurveda. This source does not reference Chopra in any way, yet there is a push to use this source in this article. This edges on misuse of a source. I actually have no problem with including a little bit of information about Ayurveda and using this source as long as the source is fairly represented. Second, we are citing this source. If you want to add content about research on Ayurveda besides this source, reviews for example,  that's another issue. Third, suggesting that this source be used beyond its own content  by connecting this source to other sources is a you know OR and is not a compliant use of sources. Fourth, This source should be inline attributed. Why? It is on the edge of contentious because it does  not  for starters even reference Chopra. But basic to all of this is that you are interpreting a source by selectively using content that : point[s]-out the fringe nature of the treatments Chopra is selling", a POV, non-neutral, selection criteria. We are summarizing this source  not selective parts of it, all of it. I'm sure we can come up with something short and succicnt which does that.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC))


 * I've read this source through multiple times and I don't see this anymore: "There is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer or any other disease". Could someone point it out. I know it was there at one time, but it seems to have been removed?(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC))
 * It's there. Follow the link. If you're not even reading the source that would explain a lot. Alexbrn (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I have been looking at the NIH link and source. So the sentence I have been looking for is in the UK source. D'oh. That said I'm afraid both sources point to less than definitive positions on Ayurveda and the research, and both sources may be useful in creating content. I am busy for the rest of today, but I'll put together something tomorrow using both to see if we can reach consensus on wording.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC))
 * Before wasting more time, don't confuse NIH in general with NCCIH in particular. The latter is not likely to be acceptable. Alexbrn (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, I will put together something based on the sources. Whether a source is reliable or not is something I will consider. I am aware of the prevailing attitude here on NCCIH. Alternately, since the source in question does not reference Chopra we can leave it out of the article which is probably a stricter use of RSs, and perhaps the simplest path.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC))
 * I addressed that point directly above. Your failure to engage with comments here, as well as our actual sources, is a big time sink. Please review both more carefully. Alexbrn (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Rubbish and you know it. I have engaged with arguments and positions which pertain to the source and sentence in question. You have attempted to discredit me from the first comment I made with barbed comments and now attempting to discredit my comments here. I'm used to this, Alex, and at this point in my WP career I can only shake my head. They do you no credit. Many of my comments were general and refer to both sources, stand, and will continue to stand. For example, why not remove the source, either one, since their use constitutes OR. I don't see anyone concerned about OR when the issue is to discredit Chopra. I'd like to try and put together something that will satisfy all here. If I don't succeed no worries. I hope you and others will look with with an unbiased view.  (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC))
 * If you were referring to "both sources" it seems strange you couldn't see the text that was prominent in one of them. This is not WP:OR but is required by WP:PSCI as I explained above. Please read what I wrote before making more of a wall of text. Alexbrn (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn. Nothing in WP:PSCI allows OR. OR is OR whether we are employing OR to explain "fringe " or not. What we can do is agree to utilize OR on a very small scale here. I don't see any reason to include a source that does not directly or even remotely refer to Chopra in this article since Ayurveda is linked to the main Ayurveda article. However, if there is agreement to use OR here I'd suggest the following:  Use both the NIH-NCCIH and UK sources. The NIH-NCCIH source is used in our Clinical trials on Ayurvedic drugs article. Critical to what we say here is the context "there is no scientific evidence" as referenced to the UK source, and  "to date" as sourced to the NIH-NCCIH" which indicates research that suggests Ayurveda cures disease at this time is very weak  for multiple reasons. It is tricky writing this without being close to the source as you mention but we could try something like, Currently there is little to no scientific evidence that indicates Ayurveda cures disease. (Littleolive oil (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC))

It's not WP:OR as it's solidy grounded in the sources - there's nothing "original" about it. We can't just mention a fringe practice without comment - that is the point of WP:PSCI: the mainstream counterview must be prominent. You proposal is problematic since scientific (/medical) evidence is the only kind that counts (it's a fringe view often found in altmed that there's some mysterious other type of evidence); putting "to date"/"currently" is a sort of nudge-wink that something might be discovered in future, which is a bit of a pov-push and we are not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. The view here does not devolve around the nature of the evidence in any case but around effectiveness. In real medicine things ought not to be used unless there's good evidence. We need to make plain that Ayurvedic stuff being sold as treatment is a WP:FRINGE practice outside the mainstream. Your argument has shifted from saying the source was misrepresented (it isn't) to saying it should be removed (it shouldn't) and now you'd have us shift the focus away from the point at issue (while also downplaying the possible general well-being benefits of meditation, and the possible harms, which we mention too). What we have is good, true, well-sourced, succinct and in line with the WP:PAGs: I suggest we're done here. Alexbrn (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The source does not directly reference the topic of the article = WP:OR


 * We need to cite the sources not add our own take on them which you are doing. I attempted to use the sources in a succinct accurate way, not "nudge" anything which is an assumption of bad faith.


 * There is no "real medicine" there is just medicine.


 * I have said multiple times the use of a source that does not reference Chopra directly is OR and should not be used without agreement. and I have said it was misrepresented.


 * You refuse to use the sources faithfully. Your comment above is a red herring which side steps (again) the discussion here. We are referencing a very specific couple of sources here and what those sources say.


 * We need to cite the sources accurately and not make sure our own POV's are inserted.


 * We are not done here. You are done here. You don't speak for all of the editors who have commented here. I offered a clear and succinct text which faithfully references the sources, That's all I can do.   I care that the article represent fairly the sources, treats the subject of the BLP honestly and fairly and in doing so credits  something that purports to be an encyclopedia and not a biased treatise on  the POV of a few editors. Because you have sidestepped the issue once again in  efforts to control the POV of the article; I also am done here, thankfully. (Littleolive oil (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC))
 * Glad we're done, but for future reference you're wrong about OR, which I would deplore. WP:OR says "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Since what we include is based on such sources it is not OR. You might argue it is something else, but OR it ain't. Alexbrn (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is a form of OR. We are using content which makes no mention of Chopra, including it an article on Chopra thus implying a connection to Chopra which actually isn't there in that source. WP:OR also says,"This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. 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, and directly support the material being presented." The addition of the Ayurvedic content on poor or lacking research implies Chopra is connected to research and health care that is poor. If we want to say this in the article we should by rights find a source directly related to the topic of Chopra and research.  Adding content on Ayurveda  which does not mention Chopra is  not the best way to  do it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC))
 * No OR vio. Chopra is a major influence in the popularization of Ayurveda to the West. Even if Chopra had no fringe beliefs of any sort, the fringe nature of Ayurveda should be noted. Given Chopra's other beliefs, it's an outright NPOV violation not to mention it. --Ronz (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)::::

This is very specific comment to Alex pertaining to OR. This is not about what we use in this article so everyone can just relax ... sheesh....  but how we use sources. No one is suggesting not mentioning Chopra's connection to Ayurveda and I even suggested that this use might be fine with consensus. I am saying per WP we can do better by using a source that specifically and directly mentions the connection. Ack.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC))
 * I just checked the medical dictionaries for the current body of scientific evidence for the existence of prana. Oddly, it's not even listed in the index., No objective tests are listed for its detection or measurement. Has anyone here read David Wootton's "Bad Medicine"? It explains very nicely why pre-scientific medical beliefs are nonsense, even when some individual treatments are accidentally correct. Giving someone a herb to balance their life energy is still bullshit, even when the herb has a pharmacologically active substance which happens to affect the condition that causes the symptom which is misdiagnosed as imbalance of life energy. All this is explained in our article on ayurveda, and the same applies to all pre-scientific medical systems, including the medicine of Hippocrates and Galen. The correct scientific term to describe all pre-scientific theories of disease and cure is: wrong. Guy (Help!) 00:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As much as you might like Wooten, it does not relate to this discussion, nor does the fact you did not find prana in medical dictionaries. Prana is commonly explored on PubMed in various reviews, but that's also not the issue.  The problem is that the source does not support the statement.  Citing one section that references a lack of evidence and excluding the sections that list evidence is selective editing and OR.  This is a specific instance of source applicability that we're discussing, not everyone's personal opinions of the "truth" behind ayurveda.
 * Also, Guy, in the midst of a minor disagreement on sourcing, it's pretty poor form to go to the CoI Noticeboard, call me a "cultist" and ask others to investigate me. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The source does support the text. It's a question of reading comprehension. A simple test for people who believe otherwise: where in the CRUK piece is it mentioned that any ayurvedic treatment is effective for treating disease? Alexbrn (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No. You have refused to include text in this article which reflects the source. The source says, "No scientific evidence..."; it does not say, "no evidence". Your interpretation of what this means is not of interest when adding content. We must be specific and we must cite the sources accurately. Further the article is  not on Ayurveda so extra care must be taken when linking the subject of the article to content which does  not directly reference the article.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC))
 * The idea that in medicine there is some kind of "evidence" other than the scientific, is ... interesting. Positively Chopra-esque one might even say. You personally might follow the ways of unscientific evidence (whatever that is), but that is irrelevant for our article: here we need to stick a respectable, mainstream reality. Alexbrn (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I have asked you to cite the source accurately. You refuse to do so attempting to deflect discussion on to my motives and views - red herrings. Cite the source which says. :"no scientific evidence..." (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC))
 * The fact that ayrurveda is part of the pre-scientific medical practice, and not based on any sound scientific or evidential footing, is entirely uncontroversial, and our article on ayurveda makes this entirely plain. I commented on COIN because you deny you have a COI, and I strongly believe that you have one, as a member of the Chopra cult. There's no reason not to do that when someone with a COI is making numerous comments on a Talk page. If there's nothing wrong then nothing will come of it and you have nothing to worry about. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did not mean me when you said Chopra cult. I am going to suggest you stop calling anyone else here names, too. I am going to assume you as an admin have more awareness of the position you hold than to begin  name calling when  another editor asks that a source that says, no scientific evidence,  be scrupulously cited. I assume you see that asking that this content be cited is in itself a  request for neutral content and that deliberately leaving out part of a source for reasons that are based on your own views of Ayurveda is  not so neutral . Finally I have no idea what you are arguing above except some view of your own, but I ask again, cite the source, and if you can't or won't don't use that to attack other editors(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC))
 * This is turning into another surreal argument from Olive. We already say "based on the medical evidence ..." ! Alexbrn (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Alex your cmts and their impetus are somewhat transparent and pretty funny. More digs? You are deliberately mis citing a source by leaving out scientific. I'm not sure what reader gives a rat's behind about the subtlety of that statement, but all I am asking is that you cite the source accurately. You won't. In addition you and now Guy seem to think  you the  right to make jabs and digs at the other people here. In the end I don't care enough  about what you add to continue with a discussion that can't go anywhere; its just unpleasant, and is a fight with no end, because you will not address the concern.  I've  walked away many times on this article when it turns into something one would see in a school yard. What I find unfortunate is that you and Guy  think its fine to attack other people here, and that I find deserves comment.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC))
 * Huh!? We say "medical evidence". Are you saying that's somehow different from "scientific evidence"? (clue: in this context it isn't) The two things are synonymous - so much so that I'd not object to changing it ... except that would take us a notch closer to WP:PLAGIARISM and lose us the nice hyperlink which explains how scientific evidence in medicine works. That you're now talking about "rats" and "fights" taken this discussion beyond the surreal ... Alexbrn (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

No, medical evidence whatever that is, is not scientific evidence and we don't use the context of the article to attribute meaning. But you know, its a small point and not worth going on about. Too bad my colourful analogies fell on deaf ears, or blind eyes, or ... oops more of that surreal stuff.... Try Dali if you want surreal. This doesn't quite make the mark.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC))
 * We link to evidence-based medicine where it explains simply: "In its broadest form, evidence-based medicine is the application of the scientific method into healthcare decision-making". So it would seem you are unambiguously wrong. In fact I see above your argument is based on railing against the supposed fact the article says "no evidence" (at 14:35 today) when in fact it said no such thing. So yet again, a failure to actually read the text has led to a huge time sink. This is beginning to become a real problem. Alexbrn (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The Chopra article says, "based on the medical evidence there is, however, nothing in Ayurvedic medicine that is known to be effective at treating disease." The source says in one place, "There is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer or any other disease." Medical evidence is a phrase with no meaning. It is linked to medicine-based evidence which emphasizes "the use of evidence from well designed and conducted research". I do not agree that this is the same as medical evidence or that the so called medical evidence equals scientific research, and I assert that the use of "scientific" in the article is critical. This is simple to understand and does not require dancing around the issues or personal attacks both of which cloud the issues  I was and am willing to walk away from the content discussion. However, Alex, both you and Guy have contributed to these discussion with personal attacks. I was not willing to let that slide. I also have concerns about abuse of admin tools. This is all truly disruptive, but Its in your hands. I see this a simple, you clearly do not. I am sorry this article, a BLP, is not neutral. Even as I wrote this an inflammatory statement was unilaterally readded to the lede with out agreement. That is also disruptive. Nothing I can do about any of this so, that's all she wrote.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC))
 * Lots of smoke, but at 14:35 you wrote:
 * So what were you quoting in arguing against the wording "no evidence" - you know, the words you put quotation marks round. THE ARTICLE DID NOT SAY THAT. You were just mirroring what User:Askahrc said without reading our actual article. Alexbrn (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

No Alex. I was noting the comments I had made here over and over and that is that the source's "no scientific evidence" is not, "no evidence". (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC))
 * Quoting your own fictitious text to argue against then. With that, I suggest we are done. Alexbrn (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Too involved
Guy, you are too involved in this to be protecting the article.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC))
 * In what way? I have never edited this article before and all I did was add sourced content which I expected already to be there, given its widespread reporting in mainstream newspapers, but which wasn't. You removed it:
 * A 2015 paper examining "the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit" used Chopra's Twitter feed as the canonical example, and compared this with fake Chopra quotes generated by a spoof website.
 * That unambiguously belongs in the article, as a widely reported example (two cited, plenty of others) of his writing being used as a canonical example of pseudo-profound bullshit in an academic paper, specifically focusing on readers' inability to reliably distinguish between his writing and random collections of new-age buzzwords. The only legitimate dispute is where it should go. I think it should go right where I put it: in the lede, but I am not religious about it.
 * Askahrc is more of an issue. He has a clear COI. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Askahrc is more of an issue. He has a clear COI. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You protected an article immediately after making an edit to that article and made a contentious edit immediately after you protected. Yes, I removed content per the contentious nature of both this article and its subject matter and asked for discussion. What an editor expects to see is best dealt with on an article with discussion, not unilateral changes based on your own POV. I suggest you be careful about how you use your tools, and second get agreement for inclusion of the content. While I agree to including content that indictaes  there is disagreement about Chopra, inflammatory language especially given there is lots of content indicating the disagreement is not needed and is not needed in the lede. The content and language violets weight.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC))
 * Editors with perceived or declared COIs are permitted to discuss on a talk page.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC))
 * But editors who are WP:NOTHERE should be indef'd. Alexbrn (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Guy: It should probably go in the body and be briefly mention in the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I find I was wrong: it is in, but bowdlerised. The paper uses the word "bullshit", so should we. And Littleolive oil, they are allowed ot comment, but not to engage in advocacy (e.g. pushing fringe views) and even then it is legitimate to scrutinise their proposed edits. That applies especially where someone is primarily known for promoting pseudoscientific nonsense. I semi protected the article because of edit-warring and off-wiki solicitation. That's uncontroversial on a WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 15:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't support inclusion of this content per WP:Weight/BLP in an article that in numerous places includes criticism of Chopra. Given the recent Arbitrations, Guy, I think you have overstepped and might want to consider your action.. There was no danger to the BLP at the point you intervened and you were and are involved. Even if the edit was minimal, its POV weight was not. And no, we don't have to include quoted, inflammatory language to make a point. We do have to tread carefully on BLPs no matter our perceptions of the person involved. I agree actually that this article is slanted in a non-neutral way and I agreed with the edits made by Slim Virgin and which improved the article and its neutrality,  and which were reverted wholesale. I don't agree with the name calling - "cultists" per the COI post you made, Guy. I also do  not agree to remove editors because we don't like their POV. I could point to several editors who have declared their POVs openly and repeatedly on numerous articles. Should we indef them also?(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC))
 * It certainly doesn't belong in the lede as sourced, and I'd doubt we could ever source it well enough to do so.
 * I'm not sure how many reliable sources we'd need to add something about Chopra's words being used as a measure for bullshit. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the other mention of the research as coatracking, and moved the content quoted above to the "Use of scientific terminology" section. --Ronz (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that the best place for it? I read the study, and the focus was specifically on "inspirational" and "profound"-sounding statements, not on any of his scientific positions or statements.  Even the study's definitions and goals limited their analysis to inspirational and "pseudo-profound" language, not the validity of his scientific positions.  Placing the ref there strongly implies that the study was about his scientific language, when it was not. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Recruitment to right great wrongs on Chopra page.

 * It doesn't seem like there is a big uptick so far from the latest Ishar editing recruitment article posted on 12/8/15 : "Wikipedia and Deepak Chopra- 5 most inaccurate claims II". The second of it's type in the last two months.
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-castle/wikipedia-deepak-chopra-i_b_8726130.html?utm_hp_ref=media&ir=Media
 * Maybe since The Cap&#39;n states (above) that "my position does not entail promoting Deepak Chopra, but managing an online reference library"
 * Perhaps he would like to inform us about his relationship to this article and it's recruitment strategy?
 * I would remind that "Wikipedia is in the real world" and therefor less than good faith tricky business and double dealing are a reflection on the people that are related to it. I know I am less trusting of Deepak and Huffpost now because..well.. because this whole thing doesn't look like good faith to me. You don't suppose that by blaming Wikipedia editors of all manner of bad actions.. that excuses The Cap&#39;n and before him SAS81 to act equal to the purported mis-treatment of Dr. Chopra? You know.. all is fair in war?
 * I am not well versed in any Wikipedia policies but it sure looks like a recruitment to correct great wrongs and edit war on the Chopra page disguised as an appeal to "be bold" and be good Wikipedians. Does The Cap&#39;n know anything about this article and would he comment on whether it is good behavior or not? Sir Barkselot (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not what a BLP Talk Page is for. Feel free to discuss this on my Talk Page or yours, but kindly remove this section. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Bringing this Huffington Post article to the attention of the Chopra talk page is good because the article solicits editing with an off-Wiki call to take action and likely explains current edit warring actions on the Chopra page.
 * The formula is simple and we see a lot of it now days in the wider social arena. A primary actor with an agenda sets up and/or encourages a crusading organization. The organization - in this case a purported online reference library disseminates inflammatory rhetoric about great wrongs and evil acts being done, then lone wolf individuals take up the cause and act out in order to right the great wrongs. (usually there is a spiritual or religious imperative involved) The Primary is then able to maintain deniability and avoid direct responsibility for the actions of the lone wolf individuals.
 * As far as asking you, The Cap&#39;n for clarification of your involvement with the soliciting article I probably would not have done so if you had not previously on this talk page stated your non involvement as a promoter of Deepak Chopra while asserting that you are simply a "manager of an online reference library". So I asked you if you would be willing to clarify your statement - which you had already made here- in relation to the soliciting that was in the HuffPost article which seems to have originated from a Chopra supported online reference library. Sir Barkselot (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sir Barkselot, I again state that this discussion has no place on this page and you should take them to my page or yours. If you feel my behavior in relation to this page is somehow inappropriate, take it to a Noticeboard.  Please do not, however, use a BLP talk page to air conspiracy theories and accusations against another editor.  Whether or not you personally think I am a lying, inflammatory lone wolf, article pages are not the place to hash that out, especially since you have not referenced any edits I've made to this page, positions I've taken on this page or refs I've proposed for this page.
 * I'm not sure how experienced you are with WP (you've only ever contributed to the Deepak Chopra Talk Page), or I would be inclined to cite WP:ASPERSIONS. In case this is just a misunderstanding, my response to your various concerns are on your Talk Page, and I again request you do not clutter up this page. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Contrary to your assertion that I have not "referenced any positions" you've "taken on this page" I repeat: You stated here on this page "my position does not entail promoting Deepak Chopra, but managing an online reference library". In response to that statement I asked if "Perhaps" you "would like to inform us about" your "relationship to this article and it's recruitment strategy?" That was a polite request. You don't choose to do it. Everyone sees it is so.
 * That being said I believe you are the one defensively cluttering here. And casting WP:ASPERSIONS on my talk page. I have addressed it. So hopefully you are done here. With all due respect, Sir Barkselot (talk) 07:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

To lighten the mood
This from SMBC. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * and here it thought the dog poo cmt was lightening the mood... maybe you have to have a dog and all that entails... play on words intended. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC))
 * e/c with olive, responding to Guy ... In response, Duty Calls from xkcd. -Roxy the dog™ woof 20:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Never not funny. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a polite way of saying "I've seen this so many times, it's boring" isn't it? -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Gratitude is the Music of the Heart and our Soul's longing is the instrument that plays it. Thankyou. @Littleolive oil. Sir Barkselot (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that from wisdomofchopra.com? I can never tell. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Bull-shit study at BLP/N
I asked for input at the BLP Notice board here on the recent use of this content (below). Although I think Ronz made a good effort to reduce the contentious and inflammatory quality of the content, I would agree the content is coatrack, adds no useful information to this article and is a BLP violation.

"A 2015 paper examining "the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit" used Chopra's Twitter feed as the canonical example, and compared this with fake Chopra quotes generated by a spoof website." 

I will be off Wikipedia for a few days so leave this discussion to others.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC))
 * Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of people's cherished delusions. Chopra undoubtedly believes that his comments are profound. Science undoubtedly shows that his audience is unable to distinguish between these statements and fake ones, which strongly suggests that his statements are, as the news commentary points out, pseudo-profound bullshit. That's not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually what the study points out is that Chopra's Tweets were used because, "we focus on Chopra here merely because others have claimed that some of the things that he has written seem like “woo-woo nonsense." "Bullshit is not only common; it is popular. Chopra is, of course, just one example among many." "We emphasize that we deliberately selected tweets that seemed vague and, therefore, the se- lected statements should not be taken as representative of Chopra’s tweet history or body of work."


 * This study itself was not about proving Chopra is creating bullshit, the authors are quite clear on that. This was a study concerned with analyzing how people respond to what the authors considered to be vague and meaningless phrases while the vaguest phrases and "mashed" up versions of words Chopra had tweeted were used. However I sent this to a NB because i feel this content and source are in a no man's land and perhaps or perhaps not should be included in an article about Chopra where it casts a certain light on Chopra's work which was not the intention of the study, given the author's statements. Whatever comes back form the NB should determine inclusion or not. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC))
 * I share your concerns about the study. I think if we include it we should focus on the reporting about the study that directly relates to Chopra, rather than on the study itself. --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. The study is a WP:PRIMARY source. The commentary around it is what's interesting and relevant. I do not agree that the study is not about the sense of what Chopra says. Much of the commentary clearly sees that the underlying message very much is that "Chopralalia" is nonsense, and that is only putting his spiritual messages in the same basket as his use of scientific terminology, as noted by Leonard Mlodinow in the legendary video clip. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ronz and Littleolive oil, I suggest letting the anti-Chopra editors have their way with this article because when people see an edit as openly biased as putting "bullshit" in the lede of a BLP, it hurts WP in general and helps hasten the day of WP's demise or, at least, further erodes WP's credibility with the general public. Why fight it? Cla68 (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. This sort of trash-talking, which is increasingly common in these articles, removes any pretense of NPOV and is an obvious signal to the reader that the article expresses a particular point of view. TimidGuy (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Just as a general observation, there's nothing inherently wrong with the word "bullshit", and in fact the study of bullshit (taurascatics) is enjoying some currency in the academic literature right now (which is probably why this study appeared) ... see e.g. here. Our own article on On Bullshit also sets some of this out. It's really rather a fascinating concept. Alexbrn (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So we have a primary study that uses Chopra's words in a "mashed" up way to generate phrases for the study while Chopra and his work is  not the subject of the study. We have a secondary source that while verifiable is probably  not a reliable source for research.  I don't think we can rely on underlying messages since they tend to be subjective and are not explicit in the study.  We don't have much left.(Littleolive oil (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC))
 * Those are valid concerns. I just wanted to point out that us using the word "bullshit" is not a problem per se. As observed, it's a rare case where WP:NOTCENSORED actually applies! Alexbrn (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If I was looking for a fair and neutral presentation of Chopra's views, and saw a "bullshit" reference in the lede, I would stop reading the article and look elsewhere for the information I was looking for. So, that's why it's probably better to let the anti-Chopra WP admins have their way with the article, because it actually does their cause more harm than good. Cla68 (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a good job there is no bullshit in the lead then, isn't it? -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In general and this is not a reference to this article except as an example; I just try to look at the sources both in particular and in general and edit from that point. While you make a good point; if I ever started to feel personally responsible for the outcome of an article which is collaboratively edited; I'd have a hard time staying around at all. There is onus on editors to leave their biases at the door; sometimes that is successful and sometimes not. I do have grave concerns with this article given the outspoken position of some editing here. BLPs are about real people and their lives and WP has the power to damage those people so it seems to me our first priority is to be scrupulous about the neutral quality of the articles. Slim Virgin did some extensive and strong work on this article but I suspect the environment and the fact that most of what she did was reverted is telling. She is so highly experienced and has very little involvement in science based articles so I believe we can consider her input neutral, but that input was ignored in a fundamental way. She left the article finally. All I'm saying is we do the best we can and leave the rest to the gods and sure, if and when WP starts to look like it has biases the encyclopedia will be damaged. We have to care about the people we edit about in BLPs not because we agree with their lives but because they are human beings and no one gave us or can give us the right to damage in pursuit of our own ideologies. If we edit that way WP will fail eventually. Climbs off soapbox. Runs into the night.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC))
 * Up to a point. Where a subject represents a collision between belief and reality, as with, for example, bogus cancer "cures", creationism, ESP and such, it is perfectly fine to be biased in favour of empirically established reality. See WP:RANDY. We're not obliged to give the time of day to nonsense within articles. If it's notable nonsense then we can describe it as such, we're not obliged to pursue false balance. We would not, for example, bend over backwards to respectfully accommodate the views of antivaxers ion articles on autism, because the science is absolutely clear, vaccines do not cause autism. We describe their views but we describe them in the terms used by reliable independent mainstream sources.
 * The issue with Chopra is that he does not properly delineate between mystical and medical statements. Religious leaders always talk metaphysical concepts with no empirical foundation, that's the definition of a religious leader. Chopra freely intermingles the metaphysical with what sounds like actual physics, at least to anyone who does not understand physics. Pi equates to infinity, according to Deepak. As Mlodinow put it, we know what each of those words means, but in that order?...
 * I think it is legitimate to want Wikipedia to clearly delineate between fact, religious "truth" and nonsense. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Instead of reacting to one's personal opinion and moralistic conditioning about the use of the word "bullshit", or defending the indefensible with repetitive contortionism, it might be good to understand the study and the way it so accurately applies to Deepak Chopra who is certainly a subject of the study - and the main reason the study has received so much coverage. Here is one of the study authors explaining.
 * I was tending to be against it because it may appear as over negging, and I get that point. But then I thought about all comments, studied the issue, researched it and ended up thinking it is appropriate to use it. Sir Barkselot (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anyone suggesting they are offended by the word bullshit here. Let's reiterate what the issues per WP are. Primary study. Poor secondary sources. Chopra's words were tools/ materials not the point of the study. There is no suggestion that I see from anyone that we use bullshit in this article to refer to Chopra's words. My personal opinion on use of the word 200 times in an academic study is that It gets attention about as much attention as using the words dog poo. I would prefer an expansion of vocabulary, but the words do not offend me and aIl. By the way I thought this was a good discussion and all the points made were useful seems to me.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC))
 * I did not see anyone saying they were "offended" but I think there is evidence of over-reactivity and misunderstanding of the study's well explained use of the word. Excuse me if when you said it was "inflammatory language" "contentious and inflammatory" that it "casts a certain light" was "openly biased" (and then compared it to "dog poo") I thought that showed a reactiveness and a misunderstanding of the word as it was used and explained in the study. Maybe you meant something else entirely. In any case it was also called "trash talking". And that it's use was a content killer that would hasten the day.Sir Barkselot (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Everything I said was in context of a total comment. I did offer my personal opinion on the use of the word after you posted. I didn't suggest the word was ofeensive. I did suggest its meaning is comparable to other such phrases. I do think strongly the word has no place in academia especially used 200 times where academics are supposed to have an extensive vocabulary. I didn't suggest my opinions had anything to do with whether the content is a RS. Those are the issues we have to deal with seems to me although I can understand the misunderstanding.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC))
 * Given the dozen or so times primary sources that support Chopra's positions have been rejected on the sole premise that we should not reference primary research studies, only reviews, it would be hypocritical in the extreme to include this study. We can't include a source that has the same academic qualifications as previously rejected sources just because you like the message better. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we have to understand that this is the bottom line. Its a primary source with poor secondary sources. Chopra is not the subject of the study while his" rearranged" words are tools implemented in the study but are not the focus of the study. The outcomes are not about Chopra but about how human beings in general react to certain kinds of phrases and what that might mean about them to put it simply. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC))
 * Olive may have not understood how the study was conducted, and I may have misunderstood too, but in it, researchers compared real Chopraisms taken from his twitter feed, with made up stuff (bullshit) from a website using Chopras actual words but computer generated to appear as if they were real. The study appears to suggest that few people can tell Chopra's bullshit from real bullshit - something quite central to this article. -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest reading the study a little closer. Chopra was not the center of the study, but incidental to it, and the point of the study was not to determine Chopra's BS from real BS, but to gauge the analytical capabilities of people who find any sayings (random, inspirational, jumbled) to be profound.  The study openly states that Chopra's quotes were either jumbled up from a parody site OR actual Tweets specifically selected out of context to maximize their vagueness.  The study has nothing to do with Chopra's work or scientific credentials, but focuses on openess to spirituality or inspiration, as discussed in the study's definitions and methodology, which categorizes anyone who believes in god as being susceptible to BS.
 * All that aside, it's a primary source and a rather poor scientific study. If peer-reviewed medical studies are being rejected for being primary, this one certainly should not qualify.  I'd also think carefully before insisting on referencing secondary coverage, as those that aren't simply repeating the study's abstract include many that consider it sensationalist and demonstrating terrible methodology. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I might agree here. I think that Chopra may be a subject for Bullshit, but "bullshit" probably isn't a subject for this article the way the sources are. Use of this study would be best made with secondary coverage of it. Alexbrn (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hm. Several points. I'm the original poster who added:

"In 2015, a team of University of Waterloo researchers used randomly generated strings and quotes from Chopra's twitter feed, to study receptivity to pseudo-profound statements. They concluded that lack of receptivity to such statements is "not merely a matter of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagueness in otherwise impressive sounding claims". [116] They correlated the inability to discriminate pseudo-profound from actual profound statements with cognitive styles and supernatural beliefs, and found "that a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an important component"[116] of considering Chopra's tweets to be profound."¬

to the section on skepticism.

I carefully avoided the profanity in the study title, because even if named WP editors think profanity is completely ok if you are quoting someone, I think it's completely ok to avoid gratuitously offending people, even when quoting others who don't mind being offensive. I was quite annoyed that someone locked the article in order to quote the profanity.... and seems to think nobody should be offended by the profanity. Surprise! I think the profanity is offensive and instantly not NPOV, but clearly my opinion isn't shared by named editors on either side of the Chopra controversies.

I had never heard of Chopra before I read the study, and came to Wikipedia to find out why anyone would use his twitter feed content as source material for a study. I thought that if someone I'd never heard of was notable enough to use in a study, then the article on them should mention the study, especially since it explored why people would consider Chopra's tweets as profound, and why people wouldn't. In the absence of a section on "Research about Chopra" or "Controversies about Chopra", I thought the section on skepticism was the best fit, since the Waterloo study authors were clearly skeptical of Chopra. Maybe I should have created a new section, but I'm not even bold enough to create a userid. 108.63.192.106 (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no need to avoid the "profanity" in the title because Wikipedia is not censored. We do not Bowdlerise. The study uses the term "bullshit", and uses it in its classical sense of statements where the person making them does not actually care if they are true or not. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement
There is an arbitration enforcement request related to this page at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Manul ~ talk 03:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Your arbitration request is relating to our personal interactions, not the Deepak Chopra page as a whole. This is inappropriate, please WP:FOC. the Cap'n   Hail me!  11:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement
Notification:


 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive151

Inapplicable revert due to "WP:UNDUE" and Fringe
There's a revertof an edit by Orthopedicfootwear that is justified as "Rv. undue, especially with fringe payload." This seemed odd to me for a number of reasons, though I welcome Orthopedicfootwear or Alexbrn to correct me if I'm missing something they discussed off this page. WP:UNDUE is supposed to prevent minority opinions from being presented as equal to the vast majority, with the Flat Earth believers being used as an example. WP:FRINGE is related, saying that fringe theories should not be misrepresented as having more support than they actually do. The source is the San Diego Union Tribune, a Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper, reporting on a widely publicized project by the U.S. Navy to incorporate integrative medicine into their treatment of soldiers and veterans. Deepak Chopra was highlighted as the main speaker at the Navy summit, and both Naval medical officers and the Rand Corporation were referenced as supporting the evidence behind integrative medicine. That's what the source said, and as far as I can tell, that's what Orthopedicfootwear wrote here. What's the objection?

WP policies on UNDUE and FRINGE are not carte blanche to reject any source that reports on research or implementation, as these are factual statements of events, not assertions of support. If the ref was used to argue "all of Deepak Chopra's positions have been shown to be effective by the Navy", that would be UNDUE and possibly FRINGE. But that's not what happened. Reporting a major event put on by a massive gov't institution while covering the person headlining it and the stated positions of medical officers & one of the largest R&D companies in the US, all sourced to one of the most reliable possible sources; that's what WP is supposed to do.

I don't see that this is an UNDUE or FRINGE issue so much as a personal opinion issue. Disagreeing with what the Navy did doesn't change the fact that they did it, and it's applicable to the topic. It's a WP:RS that specifically references the reception to Chopra's Approach to Healthcare, which is more applicable than many of the websites or commentaries that are cited elsewhere in that same section. Thoughts from everyone? The Cap&#39;n (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not venue for promotion. Articles should focus around topics of historical significance, and so should not duplicate the trivia and promotion found in news sources. --Ronz (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Enough with the pro-fringe PR already. Alexbrn (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I would like to hear the justification for calling it "fringe." It's the US Navy we're talking about here  Alexbrn, you have made quite a few assertions but have not explained any of them appropriately. And Ronz -- this page is CLEARLY FAR from being a venue for promotion. But also-- can you explain to me why you consider the addition in question "promotion?" It is stating an event that occurred, and sharing a science-driven perspective from a noteworthy source on the subject.


 * Additionally, to your point that WP shouldn't duplicate the trivia and promotion found in news sources, can you explain why you argued that the Tompkins piece is "noteworthy and most definitely should be included," but detailing the relationship between Chopra and the US Navy doesn't belong? It's not up to your personal preference to determine what is and what is not noteworthy. Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's fringey using the words of some random US navy guy to say "the evidence is there for a lot of the underlying science" when that (which doesn't really make sense anyway) doesn't really tell the whole story: that there's a boatload of nonsense in these areas too. Predominantly though the problem is that the proposed edit is UNDUE. Please also be aware of our WP:SOCK policy. Alexbrn (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * By definition this is not WP:PROMOTION nor trivia, it's a statement of historical fact by a reliable source. It's a misunderstanding of WP:PROMOTE to imply any news article that is not negative in coverage is promotional.  WP is also not a venue for   This piece does not promote Chopra in any way, it reports that he was there in an important role as part of its thorough coverage of the event.  As far as WP:TRIVIA, this is a program put on by the United States Navy, supported by evidence from the Rand Corp, that incorporates part of Deepak's Chopra's approach to healthcare... in the section titled "Approach to Healthcare."  There are random quotes already in that section speculating on how much he charges for lectures, individuals calling him names, a variety of highly POV books, and criticisms on his use of physics terms... in a section about his Approach to Healthcare.  Are you really arguing that these are of greater historical significance than the U.S. military working with Chopra and one of the biggest research companies presenting supporting evidence?  In addition to all this, WP:BLP mandates that we provide NPOV coverage of significant events, and it'd be a gross violation to claim criticisms by bloggers are more acceptable than affiliations with the U.S. Navy.
 * As far as fringe goes, how on earth does that apply here? It's a reliable source talking about the Navy pursuing meditation, yoga, etc.  That's nowhere near WP:FRINGE.  The "random US navy guy" is a medical officer and the organizer of the entire summit, and he's backed up by the Rand Corp, or is that "some random guys in a lab?".  Not to mention the fact that FRINGE and UNDUE don't apply since the statement is about Chopra's work with the Navy, not whether or not meditation truly works.  Please stop using buzzwords in place of reasoned argument, and explain what exactly about this source is fringe?


 * Finally, Alexbrn, are you talking to me or Orthopedicfootwear about WP:SOCK? I've seen mentions of WP:SPI used to push people off of pages on numerous occasions (and have been threatened with them countless times), and want to be sure that's not what's happening. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Alexbrn I am aware of WP:SPI. I assume that your mentioning that was intended to imply that I am a sock puppet. I'm sure your aware that the existence of an opinion that is contrary to yours doesn't mean that sock puppetry is occurring.
 * In the spirit of WP, I welcome open and informed discussion. But baselessly trying to discredit someone who disagrees with you is not in the spirit of WP. It also makes it seem like you would rather focus on personal attacks rather than content, which is what we should be talking about. in every exchange I have provided refs and policy links to try to reason my way to consensus, and the only "violations" I’ve committed are respectfully disagreeing with a couple of the editors. In most of our interactions you have been needlessly hostile toward, aiming your rebuttals more at my character than the content, and still failing to move the discussion forward.
 * See WP:GF. You might also want to check out WP:POINT Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think already regret getting involved, but here I go… I thought I’d chime in to be a more neutral voice since I have almost no background knowledge or opinions on Deepak Chopra, his beliefs and/or his practices. From my perspective, which is probably similar to a lot of other people unfamiliar with Chopra’s work, this article is really, really hard to follow and the Approach to health care subsection was a pretty good representation of the recurring issues that I found as I skimmed the whole article.


 * As to the topic at hand… Was new Navy/RAND paragraph an appropriate addition? My "vote" is no, because…


 * WP:IINFO and WP:NOTNEWS: Sure, the Navy/RAND paragraph technically relates to Chopra’s approach to healthcare, but it doesn't explain it and its superfluity detracts from the comprehensibility of an already abstruse subsection (not to mention the rest of the article). I just want to understand what Chopra does, for crying out loud!! I don't want to read about what each new person had to say about a loosely related topic if it doesn't bring me any closer to understanding what he does. I'm not sure which policy  had in mind when he/she used the term "trivia," but maybe the wording of WP:NOTNEWS is a little bit more relevant than WP:TRIVIA, but they're pretty similar, so let's not split hairs. The takeaway is that the Navy/RAND sources are hot off the presses (Feb 2016) and only tangentially relate to the intention of the subsection, so the fact that they’re in WP:RS is irrelevant. There are other areas where this article appropriately acknowledges professionals who support Chopra’s work. We certainly shouldn't reference every single one of his supporters and detractors. Rushing to add every new statement published about him does more harm than good to the article’s overall integrity, which is already suffering from poor flow and readability.


 * See also essays WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:TLDR: The bottom line is that for someone like me coming to this article to learn about something new, the Navy/RAND paragraph (and the 1st paragraph in the subsection) is clutter that's just distracting. It makes it more difficult to find the information that concretely explains what Chopra’s approach to healthcare is actually all about. The first paragraph that directly addresses it is the one that starts, “Chopra and physicians at the Chopra Center practise integrative medicine…” (IMHO there’s a good bit that should be trimmed even after that sentence, but that discussion is probably better left for another time…)


 * FWIW. Permstrump (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I should have linked NOTNEWS in my reply. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * just want to be clear that the OP mischaracterizes the source when they write "a widely publicized project by the U.S. Navy to incorporate integrative medicine into their treatment of soldiers and veterans". Nothing in the source provided says that the Navy is actually planning any such thing.  It does talk about what "savvy advocates " within and outside the military are arguing for.  Big difference. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll add that I agree very much with the WP:NOTNEWS thing. This article is not a blog that tracks what Chopra does.  it is an encyclopedia article about him. It's a typical newbie mistake to make edits like this, NBD. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Permstrump, the outside perspective is very helpful. I understand your concerns about the jumbled mess of many parts of the article, and agree Approach to Healthcare is particularly messy.  I appreciate your reasoning, I think there's room for consensus here.
 * WP:IINFO / WP:NOTNEWS: The reason I feel the source is relevant to the page overall is that it has been argued many, many times on this Talk Page (and has manifested in the tone of the article) that Chopra is almost universally dismissed by medical professionals, has no evidence for any of his approaches, and is only notable for his negative coverage. It seems noteworthy that a RS factually stated A) Chopra's approach to healthcare includes meditation, yoga, & therapy, B) The Navy shares these approaches & asked Chopra to discuss them, and C) medical officers and the notable Rand Corp. both endorsed the evidence behind his approaches.  I'll grant that, as phrased, this is not conveyed efficiently (see below for suggested text), but given that there are 8 refs of negative reception v.0 of any other kind of reception (generally rejected as "WP:PROMOTION"), we need to keep WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BALANCE in mind.
 * WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:TLDR: No argument on the TLDR, this subsection (and much of the article) is a redundant, non-sequitur nightmare.  That said, this ref seems to deal with the reception of his approach to healthcare in Section: Ideas & Reception, Subsection: Approach to Healthcare.  Much of the clutter is random descriptions of his theories and their detractors, while ''"healthcare" seems to imply his approach to the whole medical system, not discrete positions.  This source specifically references broad healthcare views that Chopra & the Navy share, so it seems topical to me.  If we start cutting RS that (even indirectly) deal with his approach to healthcare, we ought to trim mediocre sources that have nothing to do with it, like guesses on lecture fees, denigrating awards, and discussions of physics.  I'd suggest either moving this source to Teaching and Other Roles (along with a general cleanup of any other sources that don't directly deal with Chopra's approach to healthcare, most of which could be shunted into the next subsection of Alternative Medicine), or include this ref as topical to Chopra's healthcare positions.
 * Suggested text to make news relevancy and topicality clear: "In February 2016 Deepak Chopra led a "resiliency medicine" summit at the request of the United States Navy, in which he discussed how his views on holistic healthcare echoed the military's planned implementation of meditation, yoga, and compassionate therapy. Navy psychiatrist and summit organizer Commander Jeff Milligan stated he was confident in the evidence behind these practices, a position supported by research into meditation for PTSD and depression at the Rand Corporation. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/feb/26/navy-alternative-medicine-chopra/ 
 * What are your thoughts on the above? I see plenty of room to compromise and address both sets of concerns. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm just responding to the proposed edit. It's just news.  It is not information of enduring encyclopedic interest about the man.  He gives lots of talks.   Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to talk about a more general re-organization please do that in a new section so it can be discussed clearly and carefully. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And you again misrepresent the source as though it makes statements about "The Navy", which is a) not true per the source, and b) a big old WP:COATRACK. This article is about Chopra, not about the acceptance of alt med. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm open to the possibility that those sources could potentially add value somewhere else in this article, but I think this particular section should focus exclusively on explaining Chopra's approach to healthcare as clearly and succinctly as possible. Knowing that the Navy and RAND also use some of the same methods doesn’t further my understanding of what Chopra does, so it feels like a red herring and that’s probably part of the reason some people said it seems promotional. I’m pretty sure that even the world’s most impeccably articulated explanation of Chopra’s approach to healthcare will still be pretty dense, so WP:LESSISMORE. (I can't believe that's not a thing.)


 * As far as the other areas of the article you mentioned that also have extraneous details, I haven’t gone back yet to look at the specific parts you were referring to, but I will. I'm trying really hard not to derail this thread. I started working on a pared down draft of this section though and I’ll post on the talkpage for comments when I’m done. Permstrump (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see your point, Permstrump, let's agree it doesn't belong in Approach to Healthcare. What about Teaching and Other Roles?  Given that it's a lecture at a summit, it seems to fit there (even if "Other roles" isn't enough of a catch-all).
 * I look forward to seeing a pared down version, and thank you for spending the time to do housekeeping! The Cap&#39;n (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If we step back to look at the article as a whole, I honestly don’t think there’s anywhere you can put those 2 citations that would improve the article as it currently stands and I think anywhere you’d put them would exacerbate all of its existing issues and drag out arguments on the talkpage that will ultimately end with that stuff not getting added in. They don’t provide anything that’s essential and unique about the big-picture of Deepak Chopra. If it ever gets to a point where the extraneous crap has been edited out and it’s a really crisp and neutral article, then, hypothetically, with a strong argument for how it would contribute something essential that isn’t already reflected through another source, it might not be out of the realm of possibilities to hope that you could edit in those sources and have it stick.


 * There’s no urgent need for them though (hence WP:NOTNEWS), so I think you should choose your battles. I don’t think it’s realistic to expect you’ll be able to add it in and leave it in as the article stands now. Several editors have already spent a decent chunk of time just talking about it on this talkpage and probably more time has been wasted arguing about issues only tangentially related to those 2 sources.


 * If your ultimate goal is to improve this article, I think a better use of time would be to start weeding out the extraneous details, tightening up a lot of the sentence structure, and tagging citations with dead links (which there are plenty of). I'll post my draft of this one section any time now. Swearsies. I keep getting sidetracked. Permstrump (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You make a solid point, Permstrump. Trying to add what I think are good refs to this jumbled page is like trying to tell a story in a rock concert; it just adds to the noise.  I would love to see a more tidy version of this page, and given all the contentiousness and WP:BLP's position on contentious=removal, I think short and abbreviated would be better than long, rambling, and POV.  I'll start playing with the ref list in my sandbox and see if there are any areas of pure duplication, complete non-sequiturs, etc.  I look forward to seeing your draft, but trust me, I know what it's like to get overwhelmed!  the Cap'n   Hail me!  20:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)