Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 3

Robert Todd Carroll
Robert Todd Carroll's book the Skeptic's Dictionary is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. Therefore I have removed these three items here.

1) Author Todd Carroll said Chopra left the TM organization when it “became too stressful” and was a “hindrance to his success”.[30]

These quotes suggest that Chopra said this in an interview. That is not the case. Carroll didn’t interview Chopra and didn’t attribute this to any source, therefore this should not be used as a quote. Here is the actual sentence along with the previous sentence.

Soon he was an international purveyor of herbs and tablets through MAPI. When association with TM itself became too stressful and a hindrance to his success, he left. Carroll speculated on the reason, but offers not source.

2) According to the book Skeptics Dictionary, Chopra's "mind-body claims get even murkier as he tries to connect Ayurveda with quantum physics.”[30]

This is a value statement on Chopra’s writing style, not a substantive critique of Ayurveda, quantum physics or anything. It offers the reader only Carroll’s point of view, no useful information.

3) Chopra acknowledges that his thought has been inspired by Jiddu Krishnamurti and others. [30] This text no longer exists in the Skeptics Dictionary. There is another reference for the same text, so only Carroll's reference is removed. Carroll’s work is full of biased and invented positions as well as demonstrably incorrect information such as where he says. “Chopra has no license to practice medicine in California.” Chopra has always retained his medical license in CA and MA. Regarding the Sapolsky lawsuit, that Deepak Chopra plagiarized by “lifting large chunks of his work” when in fact it was one stress endocrine chart from a textbook that was mistakenly included without attribution.

On his wikiquote page, Robert Todd Carroll says himself: “ The reader is forewarned that The Skeptics Dictionary does not try to present a balanced account of occult subjects.” Why should editors use this material if the author himself admits to bias, and has no regard for facts?

Five days ago I sent these points to editors  Littleolive oil and Alexbrn on their talk pages for consensus and I have not heard back. Since  last time there was an issue they communicated within hours, I take it they have no objections here or they would have said so. Vivekachudamani (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The material should stay (your edit summary also said the material you removed was not in the sources, which is not true). Carroll is an authoritatve skeptic, and while his writing is biased that does not rule him out as a source. Chopra's fringe view are identified as such by juxtaposing them with real science. Alexbrn talk 14:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I went to the trouble of checking this material and I've made my case. If you can demonstrate Carroll is a reliable source, on these three entries, then make your case and support it. Tell me what you want to keep and why. I'm actually curious how you would justify keeping a reference in that does not exist in his book, or quotes that are unattributed to any source. Don't just respond that "he's an authoritative skeptic" and think that you explained anything. I've shown he's not only biased, he's inaccurate,and often outright wrong. That does rule him out as an unreliable source. Furthermore, characterizing Chopra as "fringe" and apart from "real science" suggests you are unaware how mainstream complementary and alternative medicine is now(in 2007 NIH said 60% of Americans used it in last 12 months. And his view of an observer dependent measurement in quantum physics is not fringe and never has been since the theory's inception. A careful editor would know that. If the goal here is to give wiki readers useful information, don't you agree we can do better than Carroll? Vivekachudamani (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In this edit you said "This reference no longer exists in Carroll's book"; but if you read Carroll's book the material is right there on page 48. Carroll's widely-quoted work is published by a highly-respected published (Wiley) and Chopra's writings on quantum science are labelled by all experts on the topic as nonsense on toast; Wikipedia reflects the mainstream, and is quite properly doing so here. Alexbrn talk 15:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I inadvertently switched the explanatory comments for removal between the "too stressful" entry and the "Jiddu Krishnamurti" entry. But since I noted that, I think you realized that already. In my July 4 note it is all laid out in full.

In the online version of Carroll's book on www.skepdic.com the sentence "When association with TM itself became too stressful and a hindrance to his success, he left." is not there. At least it wasn't a few minutes ago. Thank you for finding it in the Google books version. And it is in the exact unsourced form that I brought to your attention earlier that was previously in skepdic.com. There is no source, no quotes, no attribution of any kind. Are you suggesting we keep in the bad reference just because you found the line again?

This imagined scenario in Carroll's mind is turned into a quote the reader assumes comes from Chopra. You write: Author Todd Carroll said Chopra left the TM organization when it “became too stressful” and was a “hindrance to his success”. Why did you use quotations, Carroll didn't. You use quotes if you are quoting someone. Carroll does not anywhere his book tell us who said this.

I honestly don't know if Chopra said this or not about leaving TM. It might well be true, but why are you trying to use this as if it was reliably sourced when it isn't?

The Jiddu Krishnamurti reference is not in the skepdic.com book, the google book, or the amazon book. Your entry: Chopra acknowledges that his thought has been inspired by Jiddu Krishnamurti and others. And then you cite The Skeptics Dictionary. But that line isn't in the book, anywhere. As I said before, the line is already additionally sourced by a Krishnamurti book, so the Carroll one isn't needed to keep the line in. All I am doing is removing the error of referencing the line to Carroll's book because it isn't in the book. Please explain in full why you felt is was so essential to immediately reinsert the wrong reference? And if there are any other editors out there who can explain why it is vital to insist on the placement of book references to passages that are not actually in any version of the book, please chime in, I'm open to learning new wiki policies.

And for those just joining us, the third Carroll reference that I removed that you reverted was:


 * According to the book Skeptics Dictionary, Chopra's "mind-body claims get even murkier as he tries to connect Ayurveda with quantum physics.”[30]

I point out that this is a value statement on Chopra’s writing style, not a substantive critique of Ayurveda, quantum physics or any of Chopra's ideas. It offers the reader only Carroll’s point of view about his ability to understand he doesn't agree with. It does not offer the reader any useful information about the ideas in question.

You mention that Carroll's book is published by Wiley, as if that had any bearing on the bias, and the factual errors in the book I brought to your attention earlier. And even the best publisher cannot prevent someone from referencing it poorly, but saying it contains sentences that it doesn't or implying a quoted conversation when it isn't.

If no one can offer a sound reason for keeping these references, they are coming off again. I've given good reasons for removing them, now burden of proof lies in keeping them, not with their removal. Vivekachudamani (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Krishnamurti claim is sourced to two publications; Carroll will do at least for the "other influences". I oppose these changes for the reasons I have given above. Carroll is an authoritative source; Chopra is a pseud according to mainstram sources. Wikipedia uses verifiable content from reliable sources to make this plain. Alexbrn talk 19:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll be looking at the content and sources under discussion in the next few days now that I have a better internet connection and would e happy to add comments to the points already made. (olive (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC))

Alexbrn,

I said the Krishnamurti line can stay since it is referenced properly elsewhere, just don't say it is in Carroll's book when it isn't. What is hard to understand about that? And what do you mean 'Carroll will do at least for the "other influences?"' The "other influences" in the quote are people and ideas who have influenced Chopra's thought. Carroll doesn't list Chopra's influences anywhere in his book, so what does it mean "Carroll will do at least for the "other influences?" Does anyone else understand this? Alex, take a moment and clearly explain yourself instead of dashing off incomprehensible thought fragments on why no one should touch your perfect entries. And give reasons, not bluster intending to shut down any discussion that doesn't cast Chopra as being "fringe" and "nonsense" as you put it.  You say, "Chopra is a pseud according to mainstram sources." You know 'pseud' is not a word, right? And I don't know what 'mainstram' sources you could be referring to, but I can only assume that if they truly existed they would be the first sources you would include in the article. Since you didn't, they don't exist. The extent of your argument consists of waving your arms and yelling "stop!"

You keep saying Carroll is an authoritative source, but I have clearly demonstrated he isn't, and places where he's absolutely lying. I even showed you where he admits he isn't reliable. Endlessly repeating that Carroll is authoritative without supporting it, tells me that you never did have good reason to include him. You think he's authoritative only because you share his opinions. Your responses suggest you haven't even considered my points. You oppose these changes not on their merits, but because you can't admit your contributions can be improved upon. This is your personal prejudice, do not try to mask it by pretending it is Wikipedia policy. Perhaps it is time for you to step away from this article, as you have lost all credibility, and let those who do not have an intransigent prejudice against Chopra oversee things.

The first thing editors are told on the Wikipedia introduction page it to be bold and not be afraid to go in there and make changes to improve an article. If you can't accept that principle of an evolving article, then let others step in who are more flexible and have open minds. It's in the reader's best interest. Vivekachudamani (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Skeptics Dictionary is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, so should be  used sparingly. Carroll clearly states the dictionary is a skeptical view and yes, it is full of mistakes which Carroll corrects and updates on occasion. His web page is the best place to find updated content. No source is de facto a reliable source in and of itself; its reliability depends on what content it is supporting. At the same time the fact that a source is taking a position does not mean we don't use it here. Many good sources take a position. Our neutrality standard refers to WP articles and not  to sources where editors should not attempt to slant an article in any particular  direction.


 * I personally would not use Skeptic's dictionary in a BLP and probably not anywhere else. It is by no means mainstream unless mainstream to pseudoskeptical views. Carroll's tone identifies the source as less than academic. However if used SD should be used sparingly and with inline attribution so the reader knows the source is from a proclaimed skeptical source whose mission is to debunk. (olive (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC))
 * Correcting mistakes is a strength not a weakness for a source. The source is not purely for debunking, as a reading of some of the articles shows. It is written from a skeptical point of view, but that is the mainstream position, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this clarification. In light of your position that you would not use SD in a BLP or anywhere else, and given that no other editor has come forward to support these SD entries,I think it's fair to remove them. I wanted to give Alexbrn a respectful amount of time to take them down himself, and to allow any other editors to weigh in,but now enough time has passed. We have as much consensus as we will get on this. I'll take care of it now. Vivekachudamani (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for the removal of this sourced content; please do not edit against consensus (I have reverted you accordingly). Alexbrn talk 19:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Skeptics dictionary is a reliable source, and RSN discussions have not disallowed its use, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

SD may be a reliable source in some areas, but it has been thoroughly demonstrated here that it is not in this instance. But more to the point, Littleolive oil said she would not use SD as a source and especially in a BLP Wikipedia article where the standards are much stricter.Vivekachudamani (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing has been demonstrated. It has not been shown why SD is unreliable for biographical details, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Alex , After Olive's decision about Skepdic, I have removed the content with explanation, it was reverted, I again removed it with explanation, again it has been reverted. Now Alex has threatened me on my talk page with being blocked for engaging in an editing war. He says, "instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors." He is pretending I haven't' been here on the talk page every day this week working on consensus. He's apparently forgotten he has even criticized me for discussing too much on the talk page. Here is my response:

Alex, Your recent edits show you are repeatedly violating WK:BLP policy. You have already been warned 3 times. BLP pages are judged in favor of removing contentious material. There is no mention of the 3 revert rule for BLP policies. I am following WP: BLP policy to immediately remove poorly sourced contentious material without discussion. You are violating policy by reverting it without consensus. You must read the BLP policy and abide by it. You need to understand the phrase "remove immediately without discussion." Furthermore Olive has already ruled against you on this material. Consensus by neutral editors was achieved even though it wasn't required here on a BLP. All the discussion on this is already there on the talk page. It is disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise. You are trying to game the system reverting it 3 times yourself but not having it technically count as a edit war by having "IRWolfie" revert one of those edits. But the 3 revert doesn't apply here anyway. That just makes you look pathetic and desperate.

This is going to look very bad for you when it is revealed you have staked your reputation on keeping in the SkepDic reference to the Jiddu Krishnamurti line when that line is not even in the book. It isn't there. It  isn't   there.     What could be a better example of unreliable source for the Jiddu Krishnamurti line than to send the readers to the SkepDic book where it doesn't exist? I'm honestly not trying to make you look bad, but you are not helping yourself here. I'm really trying to make this a better balanced article, stop posturing and bullying, let's stick to WP: BLP policy. Vivekachudamani (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just had a look at this talk page, and thought I'd try and weigh in on the talk page issues raised.
 * User:Littleolive oil said that they would "personally" not use a source, while User:IRWolfie- has said that there exist numerous reliable sources noticeboard discussions that have concluded that SkepDic is a reliable source. I may be a bit thick here, but concluding that you have consensus on your side on the basis of one editor saying they "personally" wouldn't use a source is a bit silly.
 * There are sources I personally wouldn't use—the Daily Mail, for instance—but which community consensus has found to be reliable, even reliable for use in BLPs. My response to this is to grumble quietly to myself and not add links to the Daily Mail. I don't go around removing other links.
 * Now, as for the substantive issues: the reason that the article contains quotes around "became too stressful" and "hindrance to his success" is because... that's what Carroll says in the source. If the reference checks out, it needs no qualificiation because the common sense assumption when reading the sentence in the Wikipedia article is that Carroll said it, not Chopra, or some third-party. If someone other than Carroll had said it, we'd attribute it to them rather than to Carroll. This is all pretty basic stuff.
 * User:Vivekachudamani claims that it cannot be found in the online version of SkepDic. Well, I found it no problem. And it has an interesting link: to a page on hindunet.org, which has an ASCII text copy of an article from 'New Age Journal' titled "What's Deepak Chopra's Secret". Funnily enough, despite the claim that Carroll is some bastion of evil manipulative "pseudo-skeptical" malevolence, this article backs up Carroll's claim as to the reason for Chopra leaving TM. Carroll says in the online version of SkepDic:
 * (Chopra had heard that Bill Moyers wouldn't include him in his PBS series Healing and the Mind because of Chopra's association with a "cult.")
 * And the article that is purportedly from 'New Age Journal' says:
 * "Right after the AMA thing, I left the movement," he relates during an interview. "I said, Who needs this?" A subsequent incident drove home the cost of his continuing involvement with TM--and how it was turning him into a permanent outsider. Researchers for Bill Moyers spent considerable time with Chopra as they were doing background work for what became Moyers's hugely popular PBS series and book, Healing and the Mind. But Chopra says he eventually heard secondhand that Moyers had decided not to interview him or mention his work: "Apparently he was a little fearful that if he had me on his show, he might run the risk of supporting a specific group. The word cult always crops up."
 * Chopra says that the JAMA and Moyers experiences coincided with his growing desire to reach a wider audience. "I wanted to mainstream the knowledge and not confine it to one group," he explains. "I didn't want to be restricted by being TM's representative. I felt that if I confined myself to just this, a whole body of knowledge that could find legitimacy would never do it."
 * You'll note that the New Age Journal article interviews Chopra. If we can confirm the accuracy of the New Age Journal, it neatly backs up Carroll's claim.
 * As for the sourcing for the claim about J. Krishnamurti. It's not currently sourced to SkepDic, so I don't see what the issue is. It's sourced to page 233 of 'Krishnamurti: 100 Years'. There is a brief biography of Chopra on page 233, but unfortunately the very limited preview on Google Books doesn't give me enough context to evaluate whether or not it said anything substantive.
 * To say that Chopra was influenced by J. Krishnamurti is hardly controversial. It should be better sourced. Finding such sources is hardly difficult. I hopped on to Google Books and typed in "chopra krishnamurti" and found that Chopra provides blurb for Krishnamurti's What Are You Doing With Your Life?:
 * In my own life Krishnamurti influenced me profoundly and helped me break through the confines of my own self-imposed restrictions to my freedom.
 * See here.
 * So... where does that leave us? There isn't consensus for removal of SkepDic links, despite what Vivekachudamani thinks. Carroll seems roughly right about Chopra's reasons for leaving TM, subject to confirming the veracity of the 'New Age Journal' reference.
 * That might be a bit difficult for me: WorldCat informs me that no British libraries hold any printed stock of New Age Journal (last published under the name Whole Living, but the ISSN for the relevant period is 0746-3618). I'll leave that as an open task for someone interested in pursuing it.
 * I'm not sure if there are any other issues in this talk page section that reach the point of being concerning. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this summarises things very well. Yours is a very well considered comment, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Robert Todd Carroll
Robert Todd Carroll's book the Skeptic's Dictionary is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. Therefore I have removed these three items here.

1) Author Todd Carroll said Chopra left the TM organization when it “became too stressful” and was a “hindrance to his success”.[30]

These quotes suggest that Chopra said this in an interview. That is not the case. Carroll didn’t interview Chopra and didn’t attribute this to any source, therefore this should not be used as a quote. Here is the actual sentence along with the previous sentence.

Soon he was an international purveyor of herbs and tablets through MAPI. When association with TM itself became too stressful and a hindrance to his success, he left. Carroll speculated on the reason, but offers not source.

2) According to the book Skeptics Dictionary, Chopra's "mind-body claims get even murkier as he tries to connect Ayurveda with quantum physics.”[30]

This is a value statement on Chopra’s writing style, not a substantive critique of Ayurveda, quantum physics or anything. It offers the reader only Carroll’s point of view, no useful information.

3) Chopra acknowledges that his thought has been inspired by Jiddu Krishnamurti and others. [30] This text no longer exists in the Skeptics Dictionary. There is another reference for the same text, so only Carroll's reference is removed. Carroll’s work is full of biased and invented positions as well as demonstrably incorrect information such as where he says. “Chopra has no license to practice medicine in California.” Chopra has always retained his medical license in CA and MA. Regarding the Sapolsky lawsuit, that Deepak Chopra plagiarized by “lifting large chunks of his work” when in fact it was one stress endocrine chart from a textbook that was mistakenly included without attribution.

On his wikiquote page, Robert Todd Carroll says himself: “ The reader is forewarned that The Skeptics Dictionary does not try to present a balanced account of occult subjects.” Why should editors use this material if the author himself admits to bias, and has no regard for facts?

Five days ago I sent these points to editors  Littleolive oil and Alexbrn on their talk pages for consensus and I have not heard back. Since  last time there was an issue they communicated within hours, I take it they have no objections here or they would have said so. Vivekachudamani (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The material should stay (your edit summary also said the material you removed was not in the sources, which is not true). Carroll is an authoritatve skeptic, and while his writing is biased that does not rule him out as a source. Chopra's fringe view are identified as such by juxtaposing them with real science. Alexbrn talk 14:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I went to the trouble of checking this material and I've made my case. If you can demonstrate Carroll is a reliable source, on these three entries, then make your case and support it. Tell me what you want to keep and why. I'm actually curious how you would justify keeping a reference in that does not exist in his book, or quotes that are unattributed to any source. Don't just respond that "he's an authoritative skeptic" and think that you explained anything. I've shown he's not only biased, he's inaccurate,and often outright wrong. That does rule him out as an unreliable source. Furthermore, characterizing Chopra as "fringe" and apart from "real science" suggests you are unaware how mainstream complementary and alternative medicine is now(in 2007 NIH said 60% of Americans used it in last 12 months. And his view of an observer dependent measurement in quantum physics is not fringe and never has been since the theory's inception. A careful editor would know that. If the goal here is to give wiki readers useful information, don't you agree we can do better than Carroll? Vivekachudamani (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In this edit you said "This reference no longer exists in Carroll's book"; but if you read Carroll's book the material is right there on page 48. Carroll's widely-quoted work is published by a highly-respected published (Wiley) and Chopra's writings on quantum science are labelled by all experts on the topic as nonsense on toast; Wikipedia reflects the mainstream, and is quite properly doing so here. Alexbrn talk 15:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I inadvertently switched the explanatory comments for removal between the "too stressful" entry and the "Jiddu Krishnamurti" entry. But since I noted that, I think you realized that already. In my July 4 note it is all laid out in full.

In the online version of Carroll's book on www.skepdic.com the sentence "When association with TM itself became too stressful and a hindrance to his success, he left." is not there. At least it wasn't a few minutes ago. Thank you for finding it in the Google books version. And it is in the exact unsourced form that I brought to your attention earlier that was previously in skepdic.com. There is no source, no quotes, no attribution of any kind. Are you suggesting we keep in the bad reference just because you found the line again?

This imagined scenario in Carroll's mind is turned into a quote the reader assumes comes from Chopra. You write: Author Todd Carroll said Chopra left the TM organization when it “became too stressful” and was a “hindrance to his success”. Why did you use quotations, Carroll didn't. You use quotes if you are quoting someone. Carroll does not anywhere his book tell us who said this.

I honestly don't know if Chopra said this or not about leaving TM. It might well be true, but why are you trying to use this as if it was reliably sourced when it isn't?

The Jiddu Krishnamurti reference is not in the skepdic.com book, the google book, or the amazon book. Your entry: Chopra acknowledges that his thought has been inspired by Jiddu Krishnamurti and others. And then you cite The Skeptics Dictionary. But that line isn't in the book, anywhere. As I said before, the line is already additionally sourced by a Krishnamurti book, so the Carroll one isn't needed to keep the line in. All I am doing is removing the error of referencing the line to Carroll's book because it isn't in the book. Please explain in full why you felt is was so essential to immediately reinsert the wrong reference? And if there are any other editors out there who can explain why it is vital to insist on the placement of book references to passages that are not actually in any version of the book, please chime in, I'm open to learning new wiki policies.

And for those just joining us, the third Carroll reference that I removed that you reverted was:


 * According to the book Skeptics Dictionary, Chopra's "mind-body claims get even murkier as he tries to connect Ayurveda with quantum physics.”[30]

I point out that this is a value statement on Chopra’s writing style, not a substantive critique of Ayurveda, quantum physics or any of Chopra's ideas. It offers the reader only Carroll’s point of view about his ability to understand he doesn't agree with. It does not offer the reader any useful information about the ideas in question.

You mention that Carroll's book is published by Wiley, as if that had any bearing on the bias, and the factual errors in the book I brought to your attention earlier. And even the best publisher cannot prevent someone from referencing it poorly, but saying it contains sentences that it doesn't or implying a quoted conversation when it isn't.

If no one can offer a sound reason for keeping these references, they are coming off again. I've given good reasons for removing them, now burden of proof lies in keeping them, not with their removal. Vivekachudamani (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Krishnamurti claim is sourced to two publications; Carroll will do at least for the "other influences". I oppose these changes for the reasons I have given above. Carroll is an authoritative source; Chopra is a pseud according to mainstram sources. Wikipedia uses verifiable content from reliable sources to make this plain. Alexbrn talk 19:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll be looking at the content and sources under discussion in the next few days now that I have a better internet connection and would e happy to add comments to the points already made. (olive (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC))

Alexbrn,

I said the Krishnamurti line can stay since it is referenced properly elsewhere, just don't say it is in Carroll's book when it isn't. What is hard to understand about that? And what do you mean 'Carroll will do at least for the "other influences?"' The "other influences" in the quote are people and ideas who have influenced Chopra's thought. Carroll doesn't list Chopra's influences anywhere in his book, so what does it mean "Carroll will do at least for the "other influences?" Does anyone else understand this? Alex, take a moment and clearly explain yourself instead of dashing off incomprehensible thought fragments on why no one should touch your perfect entries. And give reasons, not bluster intending to shut down any discussion that doesn't cast Chopra as being "fringe" and "nonsense" as you put it.  You say, "Chopra is a pseud according to mainstram sources." You know 'pseud' is not a word, right? And I don't know what 'mainstram' sources you could be referring to, but I can only assume that if they truly existed they would be the first sources you would include in the article. Since you didn't, they don't exist. The extent of your argument consists of waving your arms and yelling "stop!"

You keep saying Carroll is an authoritative source, but I have clearly demonstrated he isn't, and places where he's absolutely lying. I even showed you where he admits he isn't reliable. Endlessly repeating that Carroll is authoritative without supporting it, tells me that you never did have good reason to include him. You think he's authoritative only because you share his opinions. Your responses suggest you haven't even considered my points. You oppose these changes not on their merits, but because you can't admit your contributions can be improved upon. This is your personal prejudice, do not try to mask it by pretending it is Wikipedia policy. Perhaps it is time for you to step away from this article, as you have lost all credibility, and let those who do not have an intransigent prejudice against Chopra oversee things.

The first thing editors are told on the Wikipedia introduction page it to be bold and not be afraid to go in there and make changes to improve an article. If you can't accept that principle of an evolving article, then let others step in who are more flexible and have open minds. It's in the reader's best interest. Vivekachudamani (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Skeptics Dictionary is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, so should be  used sparingly. Carroll clearly states the dictionary is a skeptical view and yes, it is full of mistakes which Carroll corrects and updates on occasion. His web page is the best place to find updated content. No source is de facto a reliable source in and of itself; its reliability depends on what content it is supporting. At the same time the fact that a source is taking a position does not mean we don't use it here. Many good sources take a position. Our neutrality standard refers to WP articles and not  to sources where editors should not attempt to slant an article in any particular  direction.


 * I personally would not use Skeptic's dictionary in a BLP and probably not anywhere else. It is by no means mainstream unless mainstream to pseudoskeptical views. Carroll's tone identifies the source as less than academic. However if used SD should be used sparingly and with inline attribution so the reader knows the source is from a proclaimed skeptical source whose mission is to debunk. (olive (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC))
 * Correcting mistakes is a strength not a weakness for a source. The source is not purely for debunking, as a reading of some of the articles shows. It is written from a skeptical point of view, but that is the mainstream position, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this clarification. In light of your position that you would not use SD in a BLP or anywhere else, and given that no other editor has come forward to support these SD entries,I think it's fair to remove them. I wanted to give Alexbrn a respectful amount of time to take them down himself, and to allow any other editors to weigh in,but now enough time has passed. We have as much consensus as we will get on this. I'll take care of it now. Vivekachudamani (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for the removal of this sourced content; please do not edit against consensus (I have reverted you accordingly). Alexbrn talk 19:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Skeptics dictionary is a reliable source, and RSN discussions have not disallowed its use, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

SD may be a reliable source in some areas, but it has been thoroughly demonstrated here that it is not in this instance. But more to the point, Littleolive oil said she would not use SD as a source and especially in a BLP Wikipedia article where the standards are much stricter.Vivekachudamani (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing has been demonstrated. It has not been shown why SD is unreliable for biographical details, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Alex , After Olive's decision about Skepdic, I have removed the content with explanation, it was reverted, I again removed it with explanation, again it has been reverted. Now Alex has threatened me on my talk page with being blocked for engaging in an editing war. He says, "instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors." He is pretending I haven't' been here on the talk page every day this week working on consensus. He's apparently forgotten he has even criticized me for discussing too much on the talk page. Here is my response:

Alex, Your recent edits show you are repeatedly violating WK:BLP policy. You have already been warned 3 times. BLP pages are judged in favor of removing contentious material. There is no mention of the 3 revert rule for BLP policies. I am following WP: BLP policy to immediately remove poorly sourced contentious material without discussion. You are violating policy by reverting it without consensus. You must read the BLP policy and abide by it. You need to understand the phrase "remove immediately without discussion." Furthermore Olive has already ruled against you on this material. Consensus by neutral editors was achieved even though it wasn't required here on a BLP. All the discussion on this is already there on the talk page. It is disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise. You are trying to game the system reverting it 3 times yourself but not having it technically count as a edit war by having "IRWolfie" revert one of those edits. But the 3 revert doesn't apply here anyway. That just makes you look pathetic and desperate.

This is going to look very bad for you when it is revealed you have staked your reputation on keeping in the SkepDic reference to the Jiddu Krishnamurti line when that line is not even in the book. It isn't there. It  isn't   there.     What could be a better example of unreliable source for the Jiddu Krishnamurti line than to send the readers to the SkepDic book where it doesn't exist? I'm honestly not trying to make you look bad, but you are not helping yourself here. I'm really trying to make this a better balanced article, stop posturing and bullying, let's stick to WP: BLP policy. Vivekachudamani (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just had a look at this talk page, and thought I'd try and weigh in on the talk page issues raised.
 * User:Littleolive oil said that they would "personally" not use a source, while User:IRWolfie- has said that there exist numerous reliable sources noticeboard discussions that have concluded that SkepDic is a reliable source. I may be a bit thick here, but concluding that you have consensus on your side on the basis of one editor saying they "personally" wouldn't use a source is a bit silly.
 * There are sources I personally wouldn't use—the Daily Mail, for instance—but which community consensus has found to be reliable, even reliable for use in BLPs. My response to this is to grumble quietly to myself and not add links to the Daily Mail. I don't go around removing other links.
 * Now, as for the substantive issues: the reason that the article contains quotes around "became too stressful" and "hindrance to his success" is because... that's what Carroll says in the source. If the reference checks out, it needs no qualificiation because the common sense assumption when reading the sentence in the Wikipedia article is that Carroll said it, not Chopra, or some third-party. If someone other than Carroll had said it, we'd attribute it to them rather than to Carroll. This is all pretty basic stuff.
 * User:Vivekachudamani claims that it cannot be found in the online version of SkepDic. Well, I found it no problem. And it has an interesting link: to a page on hindunet.org, which has an ASCII text copy of an article from 'New Age Journal' titled "What's Deepak Chopra's Secret". Funnily enough, despite the claim that Carroll is some bastion of evil manipulative "pseudo-skeptical" malevolence, this article backs up Carroll's claim as to the reason for Chopra leaving TM. Carroll says in the online version of SkepDic:
 * (Chopra had heard that Bill Moyers wouldn't include him in his PBS series Healing and the Mind because of Chopra's association with a "cult.")
 * And the article that is purportedly from 'New Age Journal' says:
 * "Right after the AMA thing, I left the movement," he relates during an interview. "I said, Who needs this?" A subsequent incident drove home the cost of his continuing involvement with TM--and how it was turning him into a permanent outsider. Researchers for Bill Moyers spent considerable time with Chopra as they were doing background work for what became Moyers's hugely popular PBS series and book, Healing and the Mind. But Chopra says he eventually heard secondhand that Moyers had decided not to interview him or mention his work: "Apparently he was a little fearful that if he had me on his show, he might run the risk of supporting a specific group. The word cult always crops up."
 * Chopra says that the JAMA and Moyers experiences coincided with his growing desire to reach a wider audience. "I wanted to mainstream the knowledge and not confine it to one group," he explains. "I didn't want to be restricted by being TM's representative. I felt that if I confined myself to just this, a whole body of knowledge that could find legitimacy would never do it."
 * You'll note that the New Age Journal article interviews Chopra. If we can confirm the accuracy of the New Age Journal, it neatly backs up Carroll's claim.
 * As for the sourcing for the claim about J. Krishnamurti. It's not currently sourced to SkepDic, so I don't see what the issue is. It's sourced to page 233 of 'Krishnamurti: 100 Years'. There is a brief biography of Chopra on page 233, but unfortunately the very limited preview on Google Books doesn't give me enough context to evaluate whether or not it said anything substantive.
 * To say that Chopra was influenced by J. Krishnamurti is hardly controversial. It should be better sourced. Finding such sources is hardly difficult. I hopped on to Google Books and typed in "chopra krishnamurti" and found that Chopra provides blurb for Krishnamurti's What Are You Doing With Your Life?:
 * In my own life Krishnamurti influenced me profoundly and helped me break through the confines of my own self-imposed restrictions to my freedom.
 * See here.
 * So... where does that leave us? There isn't consensus for removal of SkepDic links, despite what Vivekachudamani thinks. Carroll seems roughly right about Chopra's reasons for leaving TM, subject to confirming the veracity of the 'New Age Journal' reference.
 * That might be a bit difficult for me: WorldCat informs me that no British libraries hold any printed stock of New Age Journal (last published under the name Whole Living, but the ISSN for the relevant period is 0746-3618). I'll leave that as an open task for someone interested in pursuing it.
 * I'm not sure if there are any other issues in this talk page section that reach the point of being concerning. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this summarises things very well. Yours is a very well considered comment, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Chopra 's religion
First whatever Chopra's religion is must be sourced or removed per BLP. Second sources do not indicate that  Chopra's notability as a physician even in alternative medicine comes out of his religion. Per WP:BLP this must be sourced.(olive (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC))
 * Chopra is not notable as a physician. He's notable for the Guru aspect. I suggest you do a quick search, it's not that unusual for sources to introduce him as "the Hindu ..." IRWolfie- (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * From the first line of the article: Deepak Chopra (/ˈdiːpɑːk ˈtʃoʊprə/; born October 22, 1947) is an Indian-American physician,[1] a holistic health/New Age guru,[2][3] and alternative medicine practitioner.[4] (olive (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC))
 * Well done! you can quote the article. Perhaps it has not occurred to you but Chopra's career as a Physician gets bugger all weight in our article because he didn't much of anything of note as a physician. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The first line and its sources refer to  repeated references which describe Chopra as a physician and most notably as  a new age physician. And Is there a reason you have introduced a belligerent tone into what should be a civil mature discussion. (olive (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC))

Blanket revert, bringing here for WP:BRD
Per WP:BRD, I'm bringing the changes I made at for a wider consensus. I received a ticket at OTRS, 2013071510009944, sent by the subject of the article and asking that the article be deleted and salted. I spoke with the subject, and he agreed that if I made some changes, he wouldn't ask for the article to be deleted. Since I was unilaterally reverted within 3 minutes (ignoring my edit summary, BTW...), I'm bringing the reasoning for each change here for wider consensus.


 * Removal of the quote from the lead: Per WP:QUOTE (an essay, IK, but it's point is valid), you should only have one copy of a quote in an article. This was a little short-sighted, as I made further changes to the quote further down.


 * "Chopra acknowledges that his thought has been inspired by Jiddu Krishnamurti and others." Moved from a section later in the article.


 * "In 2010 the Chopra Foundation sponsored the first Sages and Scientists Symposium, attended by a number of scientists, social scientists and artists from around the world, with a second symposium hosted in February 2011." Ditto.


 * Ig Nobel Prize This is a satirical award, cited only to the orginization's own website. WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here, as we appear to be listing every award Dr. Chopra earned.  The statements after that were only cited to YouTube...


 * Alford's quote I adjusted the quote to cover the conclusion a little more fully.


 * Time article quote This quote is huge! I tried to trim it, problem is; Time is subscription only, and I have no access to the original quote.  So I removed it entirely - this my be temporary depending on if I can get access to this issue of Time.  Either way, it should be shorter.


 * Yoga paragraph Trimmed, as it seems to be sufficient to only mention the differences of opinion. Anything more can go into one of our articles on yoga.


 * Business Week should actually be Business Wire.


 * The Kanye paragraph WP:INDISCRIMINATE


 * The two changes after that were movements to earlier spots in the article.

I hope this makes things clearer. I ask the community to re-conciser the blanket revert with no discussion, because after all; this is a WP:BLP. ~ Matthewrbowker  Make a comment! 04:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As you note, the convention is BRD, not BDR. What stood out immediately in this edit was the removal (which you don't mention?) of some of the reception "from skeptics" including the Carroll material that was the subject of a discussion here fairly recently (see above), and so which runs counter to the prevailing consensus; also by cutting the Occam mention from Alford's quote it is left hanging rather, making it harder to see what his point was. Alexbrn talk 05:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the intent of my edit summary was that I was informed of a revert. I forgot the stupid echo system already did that.


 * I am very unclear which section you're talking about, the only sections I trimmed were the giant TIME quote, the section on the yoga, and the Ig Nobel Prize. Unless you're referring to the single sentence after that that? ~  Matthewrbowker  Make a comment! 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the remainder of that paragraph - two sentences which report Carroll's and Dawkins' skeptical reaction to DC's treatment of quantum theory. That was cut wasn't it? Alexbrn talk 05:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, we are talking about the same thing, excellent! Considering the consensus above, I agree that that removal wasn't valid, I only saw the YouTube citation at the end.  My bad.


 * Would it be appropriate to leave those two sentences in and remove the one before that (The Ig Nobel Prize)? Would you (and everyone, please!) agree that this is an acceptable change? ~  Matthewrbowker  Make a comment! 05:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Considering the article as a whole, surely removing the mention of the satirical Ig Nobel Prize, while leaving in a mention of the half-dozen-or-so non-satirical awards, will give us non-neutral coverage of the subject. Why does this need to be removed? You mention WP:INDISCRIMINATE above, but if that applies here (I don't think it does) then would that not apply even more to his other awards since they have an entire subsection devoted to listing them? Alexbrn talk 05:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Dr. Chopra singled this one out in his email, citing WP:UNDUE, he felt a satirical award doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. I disagree with the UNDUE assessment, but I removed it on the grounds I stated above.  I agree that the awards section is too long - maybe I can spend some time and trim it further?


 * At the very least, I can cite it better and move it to a better location. Would that work? ~  Matthewrbowker  Make a comment! 06:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to confess I am struggling with the policy implications here. How does Wikipedia handle requests from the subjects of BLPs to make changes to their page? I'd appreciate a pointer to the relevant policy. Strictly in the context of "usual" policy/guidance I can't see a good reason for the removal of the Ig Nobel mention. Looking at the changes overall the removal of criticism from the lede is also a fairly substantial shift in the article's POV, away from neutral I'd say. Alexbrn talk 06:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * And I confess this is the first time I've done this, I'm still learning as I go.


 * The policy I was looking at when I made the changes was WP:BLPEDIT. My thinking is that I would be a representative, as an OTRS agent, of Dr. Chopra.  Does that make sense, or is my thought train wrong?


 * There probably isn't a policy-based reason for removing the Ig Nobel mention. I've been re-reading the policies, and the devil is in the details here.  So, let's keep it, no complaints here.


 * The doctor asked the last paragraph of the leade to be removed because he felt it set a negative tone to the article, violating NPOV. I'm not sure, as we do not mention he's controversial at any other place in the leade, so maybe the best NPOV move would be to keep it?  At this point, I'm trying to figure this out as I go.


 * Thanks for your continued patience! ~ Matthewrbowker  Make a comment! 06:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting issue (which I'm sure must have come up before), and while it could be seen to make perfect sense for you to be an "advocate" for the subject, this also raises the spectre of COI, since in doing so you could be said to be advancing an outside interest (that of the subject in having their article reflect well on them), rather than exclusively representing your own judgement in good faith - which is how WP operates fundamentally. It might be prudent to post a general query about this case to WP:BLPN, which will get more eyes on it, if nothing else. (Also because this Talk page is not really appropriate for general policy discussion). Alexbrn talk 07:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. I will raise this on BLPN when I'm a little bit more awake.  Thank you for your help and patience! ~  Matthewrbowker  Make a comment! 07:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

LEDE
The lede should be basic biographical information, and that should be based on the body. This duplicate quote fragment is not basic biographical material for a lede. Matthewbowker a Help editor removed this previously on Sept 2 explaining: Per WP:QUOTE you should only have one copy of a quote in an article. Vivekachudamani (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * When consulting WP:LEDE I think you missed: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." (my bold) The single paragraph given to this is completely proportionate (soft even), and using the quoted words directly is apt given their original turn of phrase. Removing this paragraph would turn the lead into a criticsm-free zone which misrepresented the article as a whole; and that would not be neutral would it? Alexbrn talk 17:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The lead section should include the criticism of Chopra. Vivekachudamani should not have removed such criticism hidden under a concern for not repeating a quote. If the quote itself had been the only problem, Vivekachudamani would have removed the quote alone, not the whole criticism paragraph. Failure to include criticism in the lead section would be a violation of WP:Neutral point of view, a hard policy of Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be neutral to mention criticisms in the lede that are developed by the body, but the mention of false hope is not supported in the body and there is no claim that he has given anyone false hope. So that wouldn't be a prominent controversy. My concerns for improving this article are not hidden. I took the whole para out because 1. it is a duplicate quote, 2. it give undue weight to "false hope" an unsupported claim, and 3. overall it doesn't meet the WK:BLP requirement of insisting on getting it right because it's better to have less material than to have extra mediocre material. btw, regarding NPOV, I'm not the one editing here with the conflict of interest. Vivekachudamani (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You have a conflict of interest? If others do, they should declare them ... BTW, you are edit-warring and POV-pushing. This is likely to get you blocked. Alexbrn talk 19:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (Add) There is however a good point buried in Vivekachudamani's edit: the body did not carry more detail on the Time magazine article mentioned in the lede, and was not sourced to it. I have accordingly inserted a new sourced paragraph that describes it, so the lede and body are now properly in sync. A useful improvement! Alexbrn talk 20:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (Add more) Actually, it was more complicated than that, with the Time material appearing into two places, unsourced and sourced to a different reference. I have consolidated all this into a single new paragraph in the popular media section (if Time can be so categorized). Alexbrn talk 21:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Potentially Libelous wording
Here are the 2 sentences from Time article "New Age Supersage" 14N08 : "Chopra's extravagant claims for Ayurveda and other traditional healing techniques can, some have argued, create false hope in genuinely ill people and dissuade them from seeking medical care and guidance. Chopra has weathered all such claims, either with smiling equanimity or, on occasion, a call from his lawyers." Time is careful to not say "critics accuse Chopra of creating false hope," which could be considered defamatory and libelous, but rather  says, some argue his claims can create false hope. The present line in Wikipedia states: "His critics accuse him of creating a false sense of hope in sick individuals which may keep them away from effective medical care.[12]" This  suggests critics are accusing Dr. Chopra of unethical medical practice keeping patients from effective medical care. Wikipedia should either convey the accurate meaning of the source or use the wording of the source itself. According to WP:BLP policy of immediately removing potentially libelous material, I have inserted the actual quote and ask for a 3RR exemption.Vivekachudamani (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I see no need for the full quote, especially no need for "weathered all such claims" as a counter to criticism. The paragraph is about criticism and should be kept clearly so. Binksternet (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Your reedit reinserts the potentially libelous statement. " His critics say his advice may bring "false hope" to people who are sick." The article does not mention Dr. Chopra's medical advice. This reedit asserts critics are saying his medical advice may bring false hope, when no advice is mentioned in the article. In his 40+ years as a physician Dr. Chopra has never given medical advice that anyone has claimed led to a false sense of hope and thereby a poor outcome. To claim that here on wikipedia when that is clearly not the Time article's statement is potentially defamatory and libelous. And the "weathered all such claims" is the conclusion to the criticism, not a counter. To remove it takes away the author's point. I can trim the quote down a bit, but what's a few extra words here or there to avoid potentially libelous statements?Vivekachudamani (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The Time piece tells us that most of the crticism comes from the "medical and scientific communities" and ranges from the dismissive ("just another huckster...") to the the damning ("[his] extravagant claims for Ayurveda and other traditional healing techniques can, some have argued, create false hope in genuinely ill people and dissuade them from seeking medical care and guidance"). That is the plain reading of the passage which Time prints: Alexbrn talk 05:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (Add), and by the way, the version of this content in the lead as it stands is WP:PLAGIARISM. If you're touchy about the word "advice" just change it to "claims", but please stop trying to make big POV edits on the pretext of addressing a minor point. Alexbrn talk 05:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I would also have accepted a simple thank you for fixing this problem.Vivekachudamani (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Controversial Editing by Conflict of Interest Editor
Alexbrn has declared a conflict of interest on this page and according to WP:COI should not make controversial edits himself. He can discuss them but should not make them. He can make general edits. This is the second time his COI editing has been mentioned, but his controversial editing persists, and even increased. It is disruptive and needs to end. Vivekachudamani (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Vivekachudamani, you have not shown what makes you think Alexbrn has a conflict of interest in this topic. My impression is that you have one. You are very promotional of Chopra and you have repeatedly accused others of having a conflict of interest. The net result is that it looks like you are defensive about your own interest in Chopra. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I added template:Talk fringe to this article. You'd do well to read both that and WP:FRINGE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that needed collection of links. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Vivekachudamani has posted the claim that Alexbrn has declared a conflict of interest in at least three places. I have asked her on her page to either substantiate it or withdraw it. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC).

His signature has COI at the end of it "Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI" I assume that means he has declared a conflict of interest.Vivekachudamani (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Funny how assumptions work (or don't). Alexbrn doesn't modify his/her signature just for this Talk page. That link in Alexbrn's signature points to a section of their Talk page where they enumerate (currently one) certain pages for which they declare COI, but this doesn't happen to be one of them. You might have clicked on it first. Dwpaul (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Funny indeed. The COI issue was first raised by Alex on Sept 2 when he suggested it might be a COI that Matthewbowker was helping the subject with some edits. (Through WM discussion it was unanimously determined Matthew wasn't.) I saw the COI at the end of Alex’s name, and I assumed he challenged the Help editor about a COI because of his own COI. I figured his own COI derived from this declaration on the Chopra talk page:
 * We don't give Chopra's views weight here but instead follow the guidance in WP:FRINGE and place them firmly in the context of the mainstream. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

This goes beyond bias and asserts an agenda to frame the subject of a BLP according to WP:Fringe guidance instead of WP:BLP policy. I presumed Alex was owning up to that COI. Apparently I was mistaken. He has not, nor has he declared his violation of NPOV in these personal comments and opinions on the Talk page:
 * Chopra's fringe view are identified as such by juxtaposing them with real science. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Chopra's writings on quantum science are labelled by all experts on the topic as nonsense on toast;. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Chopra is a pseud according to mainstram sources. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI19:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Alex's strong prejudicial views about Chopra and his stated aims to edit according to them, seems to fit the basic idea of COI.
 * A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.

In fact, Chopra’s views on Complementary and Alternative Medicine as well as his views of Quantum Theory are well within the mainstream discussion in those areas. This is supported by the many books and articles he has co-authored with eminent scientists and physicians, as well as by sociological trends in medicine and research on quantum effects in biological systems over the past 30 years. Quantum effects in macroscopic biological systems is well-established now even if it is not yet fully understood. Alex Brown’s insistence that this BLP should be edited without regard to the subjects’ views and instead guided by WP:FRINGE could well be considered a conflict of interest. I could be mistaken, it might only be a violation of NPOV. I'll leave it to Alex to affirm for the record he does not have a conflict of interest, of any kind, on this article and that he is editing with a neutral POV. In the meantime I’ll send this to WP:BLPN to get a outside perspective.Vivekachudamani (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for quoting some of my past words on this topic: they showcase my scrupulously neutral, policy-based approach nicely. As to COI, I have plainly told you my position already. Sorry, but your raising it again looks to me like disruptive trolling. Alexbrn talk 17:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The multiple postings is a courtesy and policy requirement. You raised the COI issue with Matthewbowker at the WM Help site, and he didn't just assert he didn't have a COI, he put the matter before a group of impartial Wikimedia editors and after a couple of weeks they made a decision. That would seem to be the fair approach here as well.Goose:GanderVivekachudamani (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, that doesn't sound like a retraction. The place to raise COI concerns is WP:COI/N. Alexbrn talk 19:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

webindia123.com
This article leans rather heavily, with 10 citations, on a page at this web site, which describes itself as offering "integrated solutions for enterprises/professionals desiring to market their products and services through the Internet". Chopra's page there ("Deepak Chopra: Physician, Author, Philosopher") appears to be a submitted promotional piece. So, not a good source, really. I'll try and fillet the article of it. Alexbrn talk 15:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Update - Done: most of the material could simply be cited by an existing better source (Baer). Alexbrn talk 04:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)