Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Not minor

Oops my mistake. My previous edit to the main article was not minor. CSTAR 17:45, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Attribution

I'm wondering if we can dump the attribution to Stephen Barrett of the specifics of Chopra's training, and just state them as fact. If his critic is saying he trained at all these places, then those training details are probably just true, and if so the attribution to a critic in a sentence of neutral or positive factual details is an unneeded distraction. --Gary D 18:54, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I included the attribution to Stephen Barrett because I don't have an original source. CSTAR 19:15, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Understood. If I care enough to raise the point, I can get off my lazy butt sometime and go see if I can confirm those specifics. --Gary D 20:43, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Generally agree, but you can't take what someone stipulates in an argument as fact, necessarily. One of my favourite techniques in debating is to let the other dude tell me all about his argument, which I could refute but don't because none of it matters.142.36.61.243 (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I know this has been brought up in the past, but seriously, if we are going to illustrate this article, can we get an actual photo of the guy? I know the drawing is an "offical" likeness of Chopra, but isn't a free image anyway, and it might as well be Ray Romano. --buck 15:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Until a Free photo is available, I've replaced the drawing with a bookcover containing Chopra's photo (common and fair use on Wikipedia). I agree with you — a photo is more encyclopedic, even one a few years out of date. --216.232.199.171 07:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be a CURRENT photo. If someone can get one at a book signing or seminar (expensive, I know) we can see how old this guy really looks.

The current photo would be good if it wasn't squeezed - something happened when it moved from commons to wikipedia - seems like the change in dimensions hasn't been pulled across to Wikipedia. It's beyond my understanding to fix, unfortunately. Anyone? 118.107.146.194 (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think is a problem with the photo. The dimensions of the larger photo (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deepak_Chopra_MSPAC.jpg commons) is 504 pixels by 600 pixels. The smaller version as it appears in the article is 220 pixels x 262 pixels -- which is the same ratio and therefore not distorted ("squeezed" either horizontally or vertically). It is just reduced in size. There's nothing wrong with that. Every photo of people used in Wikipedia (and almost everywhere else) is reduced in size.

This photo appears to be fairly current and I think it is a good one for the article I've known Chopra since 1991 and have photos of him dating back to the late 1980s. It's remarkable how this famous authority on how to remain young forever has aged so remarkably naturally. This photo clearly shows it.Askolnick (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of the pov-check tag

User:59.177.18.184 tagged the artice with pov-check, claiming "to me it seems that this entire article exists only to bash him)". I have removed the tag on the basis that the only "bashing" that may be occurring is rightfully in the criticism section, which has sufficient references, so it is not POV. Please identify the "bashing" you're seeing if you choose to reinsert the pov-check tag. Thanks. --Ds13 20:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is slanted, but that seems to be because no readers of Chopra have contributed. Some non-negative material should be added. I can't help much; I've never read the guy. — goethean ॐ 21:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That said, there's no (legitimate) reason to remove the tag so quickly. — goethean ॐ 21:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If someone wants to put the tag back, that's fine, but please be more useful in criticism next time. The basis for the previous tagging was that "this entire article exists only to bash him" — this is clearly false. The intro, the Background section, and the Books section are non-bashing in nature, and, arguably, serve to promote the subject. --Ds13 21:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

A list of his book titles is promoting him? Or were you referring to the 2 sentences under "Writings"? — goethean ॐ 22:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the long list of his published books is without negative connotation and clearly serves to promote the popularity, accessibility, and finances of Chopra. I just added one more title and a bunch of ISBNs — this makes it easier to find, borrow, or buy the books. --Ds13 22:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting view. — goethean ॐ 22:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Heheh, well, my views aside, as long as the section content itself (and every section) is neutral, then we're moving in approximately the right direction!  ;-) --Ds13 23:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

For my part, I'd say the article does need some more content regarding the man's history and teachings (to balance out the increasing size of the "Criticism" section), but I don't think we need the pov-check tag. I think an "expand article" tag would be more appropriate because the problem is not that the article contains slanted phrases, but because it's lacking content typical of a biographical article. That said, I've never read Chopra's books or attended any of his teachings, so I don't have much to contribute. In my days of working in a bookstore, however, I remember Chopra's books were subject to quite a bit of criticism, mostly due to the questionable scientific validity of his teachings. --buck 13:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Currently ,the criticism section is slightly larger than the background introduction... which initially seems biased to me. The booklist is promoting his works, yes. Lots of articles to choose from in the external links. I am going to add an {{alt-med-stub}} (which asks to expand the article. and an 'expert' tag, asking for someone who has read Chopra in detail, or works with him. due to the fact that he is a fully qualified Endocrinologist, and Ayervedic practitioner, and President of an Ayervedic Association in America (the only association in the US?)... His bio, and a little more detail of the development of his work would be useful for the reader who visits this page. I have listened to a few of his lectures on Quantum Biology on audio, and he is very friendly with Wayne Dyer, among other inspirational speakers. Quitea complex character is Mr. Chopra. User talk:DrakoniconDrakonicon 16:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Vagueness

Quoting from the article:

In its May 22/29, 1991 issue, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a controversial article by Sharma, Triguna and Chopra: Maharishi Ayur-Veda: Modern Insights Into Ancient Medicine.[2] Discovering that there was a serious problem, in the August 14 edition of JAMA, the editors published a correction[3] which included a financial disclosure, followed, in October 2, by a six-page exposé.[4] The series of events was later reviewed by Andrew Skolnick, the author of the October 2 exposé.[5]

Neither the paragraph, its surrounding paragraphs, or the footnotes shed any light at all on what the "serious problem" was, the nature and content of the "financial disclosure", nor the subject of the "exposé". What is the meat of the matter here? siafu 21:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the criticism. I summarized information from Skolink's NASW article.

The discussion about this raged on the alt.meditation.transcendal newsgroup for some time. Things got quite heated at times. Here's the initial cover letter sent to JAMA by the authors. [Page 2 http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/mavletter2.jpg] has the only disclosure that Chopra, Sharma and Triguna made before the article was published. The authors signed blank financial disclosure forms and returned them.

The original Chopra and company article can be found [here http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/jama.htm].

[JAMA's response, curtesy of Andrew Skolnick http://web.archive.org/web/20000308180136/nasw.org/users/ASkolnick/mav.html]

Skolnick got into [heated discussions http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=&num=10&scoring=r&hl=en&as_epq=transcendental+meditation&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=skolnick&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=13&as_maxm=12&as_maxy=2006&safe=off] on this issue with various TM believers on the a.m.t. newsgroup. He was so upset with our responses, that he created a sub-website dedicated to us, entitled ["Judy Stein, Defender of the Faith website," under the directory "junkyarddog" http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/]. He even immortalized a few of our exchanges, calling me the AMT "resident dormouse" [1] [2].Sparaig 01:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced

Dreadlocke, if you think there is unsourced or poorly sourced material, then you should remove it and provide your reason. Putting the above label here without providing any evidence of a problem appears to be your way of criticizing by innuendo. If so, please remove this label. If not so, then identify examples of poorly sourced material. Askolnick 21:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand the purpose of the tag, it is to indicate that the article is the biography of a living person, not to claim there is evidence of a problem or poorly sourced material, please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Templates for details on the purpose of the tag. If I am not correct in my understanding, then please supply the evidence that the tag is for the purposes you claim and I'll be happy to remove it. Dreadlocke 21:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

O.K. Dreadlocke, I withdraw my complaint about the tag. Askolnick 11:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfair Criticism Slant in this Article

There seems to be a huge slant towards criticizing Deepak Chopra here. The entire article should be put into dispute and thoroughly gone over. I'm contacting the Chopra Center to see if they want to review and contribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abelinkoln (talk • contribs) 3:29, 13 November 2006 UTC

Man's a charlatan and a farce. If anything, the article is way too mild; probably even harmfully so. 62.48.171.17 14:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Too right. Just watching Dawkins on the telly, talking to Chopra. Chopra is claiming that "scientists have hijacked the term Quantum Mechanics", and that his interpretation of the science is as valid. He claims he's been victimised by "scientific fundamentalists". It seems Chopra is very ignorant of the scientific terms he misuses, and it's important the evidence for this is presented. --Dilaudid 19:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

this guy is a nut job!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.223.210 (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I believe you're talking about The God Delusion, which was a tv series by Richard Dawkins. I believe it's still available on google video if you type it in. Anyway, more cited criticism is needed.72.78.179.244 (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

When a person makes claims that are unfounded, personal revelations that go against modern science (while claiming to be scientific), and against historical religion (while claiming to be orthodox), he is going to generate a lot of criticism. He deserves that criticism and this article should reflect it.96.32.183.205 (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

He quite blatantly does not understand a lot of the terms and concepts that he talks about and the article should reflect the total lack of support he has in the scientific community. 210.1.209.40 (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Using terms like "clearly" and "quite blatantly" don't take a perspective and convert into an absolute. There is a strong bias at work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.249.21 (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Colbert Report

Was he scheduled to be on the Colbert Report tomorrow (18th) at one point? I don't see him listed anymore. Thanks.

ID/creationism

While not attempting to incite an edit war, I've altered the following paragraph of the "criticism" section by removing the boldface words:

In August 2005, Chopra posted a series of articles on the blog The Huffington Post (to which he is a frequent contributor) in which he offers his solution to the creation-evolution controversy. In doing so he expressed support for Intelligent Design without attachment to creationism or any religion, and offered a series of questions about evolution he believed could not be answered by science alone (thereby requiring an "intelligent designer").

My reasoning for removing this is not an attempt to disparage Mr. Chopra's stance on creation/evolution, but simply because the phrase "support for Intelligent Desgin without attachment to creationism or any religion" is a self-contradicting statement because, as designated in the wiki articles for both intelligent design and creationism, intelligent design is a form of creationism. One cannot remove the "creation" aspect from the ID philosophy without altering the philosophy altogether. With regard to the Huffington articles in question (here and here), Chopra does argue that the ID movement should distance itself from "religious politics" and texts, however, he does not actually say that ID is independent of or does not inolve creationism. In fact, he states the exact opposite in the last of his seven principles of intelligent design: "the creative principle is eternal." --buck 18:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You're not exactly edit warring, coming to the talk page and explaining yourself was an excellent move, and I applaud that - although you should give editors a chance to source or explain an article entry before just deleting it - especially a second time – unless the entry presents potential libel in the case of a WP:BLP. If you’ll pardon me, it does appear as though you are trying to disparage Mr. Chopra’s stance on creation/evolution. He is clearly attempting to separate out a concept of ID from both religion and creationism. Whether he is right, wrong, or even appears to be contradicting himself, you are expressing your own views on what he is saying and the concepts behind the terms he is using, which violates WP:NOR. I’m certainly not going to argue with you about potential differences between Intelligent Design and Creationism, or how both relate to anthropic principle. What I will argue are the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and how they relate to this matter.

First, you cannot use Wikipedia articles as references, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, specifically Wikipedia articles may not cite Wikipedia articles as a source. And to be honest, considering the editors who “own” and jealously guard the contents of the Wikipedia article on ID, I don’t trust it at all – regardless of policy.

Second, according to WP:V, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth., this means that whether or not what Mr. Chopra is saying is true (that ID is separate from creationism/religion), his statement as such can be included in Wikipedia. The presumed contradiction you point out is original research as far as Mr. Chopra’s statements and article contents.

But, instead of adding the same sentence that was there before, and to clarify and expand on what Mr. Chopra states, I have modified the removed statement as follows:

In August 2005, Chopra posted a series of articles on the blog The Huffington Post (to which he is a frequent contributor) in which he offers his solution to the creation-evolution controversy. In doing so he expressed support for Intelligent Design without the bible or the politics of religion, instead saying that Nature displays intelligence, as stated by Einstein and in a theory called the anthropic principle which has been seriously considered by Stephen Hawking. Chopra states that “it’s time to rescue "intelligent design" from the politics of religion. There are too many riddles not yet answered by either biology or the Bible, and by asking them honestly, without foregone conclusions, science could take a huge leap forward.”

Chopra also offers a series of questions about evolution he believes cannot be answered by science alone (thereby requiring an "intelligent designer"). Science writer Michael Shermer, founder of The Skeptics Society and long-time critic of Chopra, posted a response. [3]

Dreadlocke ☥ 02:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Your latest revision looks OK to me, with the exception of "...which has been seriously considered by Stephen Hawking", since it is phrased in a way that suggests Hawking is a supporter of the anthropic principle (he's not). Now if you'll pardon me, I'd like to take a moment to verify that my intentions were not as malicious, slanderous, or ill-informed as you may think--I removed the phrase in question for one reason only: it made no sense. If that's somehow disparaging Chopra--well, another editor's poor word choice is hardly my fault. Nor do I claim to even begin to understand Chorpa's philosophies. Simply reading the sources from which the article is citing information is not a violation of NOR! I'm done. --buck 06:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say and do. I've retracted my "disparaging" comment above. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent design and religion

The entire section titled Intelligent design and religion is cited, sourced with references, and atrributed from a WP:RS. 19:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it really isn't. The section concerned reads:

In August 2005, Chopra posted a series of articles on the blog The Huffington Post (to which he is a frequent contributor) in which he offers his solution to the creation-evolution controversy. In doing so he expressed support for Intelligent Design without the Bible or the politics of religion, instead saying that Nature displays intelligence, as stated by Einstein and in a theory called the anthropic principle which has been seriously considered by Stephen Hawking.").[2] Chopra states that

The first problem is that the provided citation to [4] is not an acceptable source for this paragraph. At best it would be an acceptable source if the paragraph read: "In doing so he expressed support for Intelligent Design without the Bible or the politics of religion, instead saying that Nature displays intelligence, as Chopra claims Einstein stated and claims Stephen Hawking's anthropic principle supports."

To imply, as the existing paragraph does, that Hawkings and Einstein support anything close to the views of Chopra is very misleading. To support the first claim we need a reliable source other than Chopra which says that Einstein stated that "Nature displays intelligence". The version of the anthropic principle that Hawkings supports is about as far from Chopra's world view as is possible to image; to claim that Hawkings supports any version of intelligent design is deeply misleading. Gwernol 19:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. My opinion is that it already does clearly say, in several different ways, that Chopra is making all those statements, without having to add such convoluted, complex and hard to read verbiage as indicated above. If you feel the Einsten and Hawking comments by Chopra need further sourcing - fine, put in a {{fact}} tag and give a chance for other editors to either find an stronger source, or then just reword the section to make it clearer. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

See the top of this talk page: "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately". {{fact}} tags are not acceptable on biographies of living people. The paragraph currently says that "Nature displays intelligence" is a view stated by Einstein. It isn't. It also states that the Hawkings' version of the Anthropic Principle supports Intelligent Design. In fact Hawking's version of the anthropic principle was specifically formulated as an argument against ID - see [5]. The current wording is highly misleading as it appears to bring two eminent physicists on to Chopra's side when at least one of them is arguing against his views. I have no qualms in removing this misleading language again; if you want it in there, please cite sources other than Chopra to support the claims made. Gwernol 20:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I know what's at the top of the talk page, I put it there: [6] Most importantly, that tag (policy) is really talking about potential libelous material about the subject of the article, but there is no libel in repeating what Chopra himself said in his article; and contrary to your apparent assertion that the BLP policy on sourcing can be applied to justify your reversions, Chopra's comments about Einstein and Hawking are not poorly sourced, at most it just needs a tweak on the wording to make certain the source of the quote is clear. Further, If you revert again today, you will be in violation of WP:3RR and I will report you - it will be interesting to see if BLP applies. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've re-worded the portion under dispute so there is absolutely no doubt as to it being a direct quote by Chopra about Einstein and Hawking, from a cited, reliable source; and therefore absolutely no reason to revert it again. If you still feel it violates WP:BLP, and if a fact tag doesn't fit the situation, then by all means report it to the BLP Noticeboard. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of a non-NPOV way to express it but there needs to be a note about his 'criticisms' of evolution to point out that they display an astonishing ignorance of actual evolutionary theory and. I can't write what's wrong with them and still sound NPOV because so much of what he is saying about evolution is based on misinformation and his apparent lack of understanding of the topic. Maybe link to the wikipedia article on evolution explaining common misconceptions about evolution, like that evolution occurs "purely at random". 210.1.209.40 (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Pronounciation please

What is the correct pronounciation of his name? Carlas11 02:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)carlas11

"Quantum Quackery" - Long in the tooth and wrong...?

This critique within the article called "Quantum Quackery" that's linked to here in the article is pretty old stuff (from 1997) and it makes an assertion that has been pretty much proven wrong since it was written so long ago:

"... This surely violates Einstein's assertion that no signals can move faster than the speed of light. ..."

Forward to 2007 and we now strongly suspect the speed of light barrier has, indeed, been broken. Einstein was wrong and this breaks one of the major foundations within the linked, 10 year-old "Quantum Quackery" critique. Therefore, I think the link should be removed. It's fairly useless, long in the tooth and flawed nowadays, don't you think? I'll wait for a response before I remove it. Maybe I'm the one who is wrong here? Cowicide 22:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the article you linked state that light has been observed to travel faster than 'c', rather than anything has been observed to travel faster than light? Light can't travel faster than light. MFNickster 15:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Einstein was wrong" alone buys you 10 points on the crackpot index. dab (𒁳) 15:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Er, um. isn't the picture of Chjopra actually an advertisement for his audio book?

Very slick, Deepak. You've only gotten more subtle with age. ;-/ -Sparaig 14:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The photo has been discussed here (see above). I guess any pic is better than no pic. Just curious, why are you leaving messages for Deepak here? Pgc512 16:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Intro Bias?

I include the question mark because I am not exactly an expert on how an encyclopedia should be laid out, but the intro seems to have an odd inclusion. It mentions rather matter of factly that he won the ignoble prize in 1998. Later this is explained and it is clear from the awards and the explaination that this 'prize' was meant to mock him. The awards in question sound a lot like the golden rasberry awards for movies. While it is true that he was given this 'award,' does it really need to be in the intro? The intro makes it sound like he actually won something, when really it's a faux prize meant to criticize him. The sentence is misleading and has an ironic tone that is slanted and subtly judgemental, when I strongly believe that an encylopedia should be as neutral as possible. Putting that sentence in the intro just makes him look like a joke before the article even begins. There isn't even an explaination in the intro that the ignoble prize was apart of criticism lodged against him. I've never read his work, and I honestly have no opinion on his beliefs, but it just seems like the inclusion of the so-called award, as well as the way it is mentioned, in the intro sets off the article as being heavily slanted from the beginning. I just think that the later inclusion in the criticism section is more than enough and that it really has no place in the intro. It doesn't matter what people around here think about him, the article should just present the facts with the criticism and responses to said criticsm given equal and neutral weight. Let people make up their own minds. Wikipedia should not be in the business of arguing any side of an argument, no matter how clear cut some people find that argument to be.

You're right. I didn't notice that it had been slipped into the introduction; otherwise I would have reverted the edit. Anyway, I've removed the mention from the intro. It remains in the Criticism section, appropriately. Thanks for catching that. --buck 22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

according to the best of my understanding, Chopra is, in fact, considered little more than a joke. The article should of course reflect this: Wikipedia articles do not take a "sympathetic point of view" towards their subjects, they attempt to fairly represent mainstream opinion. In this sense you are wrong: if some opinion is held by an overwhelming majority, the overwhelming majority of the corresponding Wikipedia article will report on that opinion, and not on fringy refutations. dab (𒁳) 15:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann, I don't have much time, but let me just say that I do not agree with what you wrote above. Pgc512 (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Other Criticism Not Mentioned?

There has been other criticism of Chopra that is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Why not? (See http://www.answers.com/topic/deepak-chopra?cat=health)

Add it. As long as it's verifiable and properly sourced, have a blast.72.78.179.244 (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it significant that Chopra has said he tried LSD when he was 17 and it was a transformative experience that (partly) encouraged him down the spiritual path. I can find the source if needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.100.36 (talk) 09:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Criticism" section is unfair. Chopra only appears here because of the large number of people who are interested in what he says, so what if someone disagrees. Having a separate section for "Criticsim" gives undue weight to critics. It should be removed and any salvageable material incorporated into the article.Momento (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The crisicism section as it is now is very useful and it follows a standard practice in Wikipedia. It is now targeted specifically at him. Many much more reliable articles have a "Criticism" section; see, for example, "Agile Software Development". --Daniel D.L. (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Blogs and podcast as sources

I deleted some material sourced to blogs (including an anonymous blogger) and to a podcast, per WP:V: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." TimidGuy (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Merging criticism into the article

Thanks for adding the template. I had had the same thought. Seems like a good idea. TimidGuy (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wavering in criticism section.

Chopra has been criticized for his frequent references to the relationship of quantum mechanics to healing processes, a connection that has drawn skepticism from physicists who say it can be considered as possibly contributing to the general confusion in the popular press regarding quantum measurement, decoherence and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.[17]

I was under the impression that physicists criticize him primarily because they feel he is a crank who peddles pseudoscience, rather than because what he says is confusing for the general public. It's a small difference, but it's the difference between "most physicists feel his theories are quackery" and "most physicists feel his theories create confusion in the general public". The latter does not imply the derision of his theories that the former does.
Additionally, the phrase "...who say it can be considered as possibly contributing to the general confusion..." seems needlessly wishy-washy. 66.183.187.253 (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Mumbai Terror Attacks

I think Chopra's recent comments baselessly blaming America for the Mumbai attacks should be mentioned in the article. Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122809544395968075.html?mod=rss_opinion_main Esahr (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving problematic section here for discussion

Underlying Philosophy

Chopra's teachings are deeply rooted in the Indian spiritual tradition of Vedanta. In essence, if one moves one's reference to a deeper poise within, through meditation, concentration, prayer and other methods, we raise our consciousness and open ourselves to a more universal (i.e. non-local) realm of existence where we more readily experience intuitions of knowledge, creativity, life synchronicities, love, and joy of being. In comparison, our normal life is too much oriented towards its opposite – to locality, finiteness, ignorance, division, pain, suffering, and death.

This section feels more like a personal observation than sourced information. If he explicitly states this in his books, then that needs to be cited. Stylistically, it's inappropriate to use first person (e.g., "we"). It's probably an apt observation, but the information needs to be properly sourced and properly written. TimidGuy (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll tag it-if it isn't adequately sourced in the next week, it should be removed. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Second thought, it should come out now. The text is confusingly worded and doesn't distinguish what ideas are Vedanta and what ideas are Chopras. Without a source it's not possible to straighten it up. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thanks so much. That was my feeling too. TimidGuy (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Birth year

Via OTRS (2008122710014237) someone noticed that the Dutch and English Wikipedia state different birth years for Chopra (October 22 of 1946 and/or 1947). Sources quoted in the English article also suggest both 1946 (via webindia123) and 1947 (via nndb). Is there someone who actually knows for sure? Other sources on the internet (see google) seem to be unclear too, although 1947 seems to outnumber 1946. Thanks in advance, Mwpnl (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

OSI Systems

Is this the same Deepak Chopra listed as the CEO of OSI Systems? - Calmypal (T) 22:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Doubtful. TimidGuy (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No. That Deepak Chopra's personal information is found here:http://people.forbes.com/profile/deepak-chopra/61002, and does not match that of the author of the same name.IceCreamEmpress (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Pitney Bowes Canadian President

The Deepak Chopra who is the President of Pitney Bowes Canada is also a different individual. http://www.pitneybowes.ca/pressroom/releases/pressreleases-may16_2006.asp http://www.pitneybowes.ca/ourcompany/executiveView.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Board Certification

The record of the California and Massachusetts medical licensing boards (footnotes added to article) show that Chopra is board-certified in internal medicine only. Neither list him as being board certified in endocrinology, although Mass shows him as specializing in it, and Cal as specializing in diabetes. Fladrif (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The citation for Deepak Chopra's board certification is a website...a "Woopidoo!" page. Woopidoo is a motovational business portal, and is, as such, a promotional site related to Deepak Chopra's line of work. It is not a verifiable resource of board-certified medical professionals. Also, the link happens to be broken. -Jim M. 10:40, 30 Nov 2009 (EDT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.215.112.109 (talk)

Chopra Center Zrii Drink endorsement

His endorsement of the Zrii drink should be included here. It also lends to the discussion on his credibility as people can easily read the ingredients on the bottle of a Zrii drink and decide for themselves if they think apple juice will cure their diabetes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.84.95 (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how to include it, but the Zrii website makes much hay about his endorsement. It's a legitimate criticism of Chopra, IMO. --Geofferic (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The Lede

I notice that the lede for this article was taken word for word from this website. [7] I have therefore begun to edit it.-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Kbob. Its very likely that the "freebase" definition/article is a mirror of Wikipedia rather than the other way around. Notice the bottom of the freebase article suggests going to the Wikipedia article for more information. For example, check the TM article on freebase.[8] Looks familiar. :o) olive (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

I see Wiki articles on lots of web sites. Aren't their certain instances where it is allowed?-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif, good edits on the lede.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Clean Up

I've spent some time doing a good bit of general clean up here. Mainly I have spent time reorganizing the content into appropriate sections. Next some editing needs to be done as the writing is somewhat disjointed. Most importantly though, there needs to be some research done to provide good sources to the existing content and to fill in the gaps where content is missing, particularly in the Career section, which is incoherent and incomplete.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Settlement

Fladrif, I just don't see how you can delete what was in the article. This is essentially what the judge's order says, but in layman's terms. Newsweek says no MONETARY settlement. But there was indeed an agreement related to a settlement. Here's the entirety of what the judge's order says: "The cause of action is hereby dismissed without prejudice and with leave to reinstate if settlement is not effectuated. All pending motions are hereby moot." If you were to get a copy of the motion for dismissal you'd get more detail. The fact is, there was an agreement which if fulfilled would have effectuated a settlement. What you deleted was perfectly accurate. TimidGuy (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And regarding the citation, it was written for me by a friend who's an attorney, so I don't know why you suggest it's incorrect. TimidGuy (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Which part of no original research don't you understand? There is no reliable, secondary source saying that there was any settlement of any kind, other than the Newsweek article that was retracted because it was false. Verifiability, not truth. And since you apparantly have the inside dope on the settlement, what were the precise terms?

The attorney who wrote this for you should be disbarred if he or she actually thinks that is how you cite an order. Fladrif (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is this original research? What's wrong with the source? This is, after all, the judge's order. You yourself cited and quoted a judge's order in Malnak. There is no more definitive information about the outcome than this order. And what's wrong with the citation? My friend is a retired trail lawyer who's published at least 10 law-related books. I think he knows how to write a citation. (And it's odd that you criticize the citation that I give but you yourself give none to support that the suit was dismissed without prejudice.) I don't have any inside dope on the settlement. TimidGuy (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I quoted published opinions in Malnak by both the District and Circuit Courts, not an unpublished order, as well as secondary sources describing those opinions. I suggest you ask your retired lawyer friend what is is that is wrong with a citation to an unpublished order that doesn't even provide the date of the order. Fladrif (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You quoted a court document. So you're saying that it's okay for you to do so but not me? What's the difference between a published court document and one that's not? My impression is that the Malnak opinions you cited are simply court documents that have since been added to an online database. Thanks for noting the lack of a date. TimidGuy (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you seriously expect me to believe that you do not understand the difference between a published and a unpublished source? Let me put this in as plain as terms as possible. You cannot use an unpublished source on Wikipedia. Period. There is no room for discussion on this question. None. Fladrif (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

And, to your question - the decisons in Malnak are not merely in some online database (though they are in several different online databases) They are published by an independent publisher in real live books whose pages you can touch and turn. The District Court decision is published in Volume 440 of the Federal Supplement, beginning at page 1284. The Court of Appeals decision in Malnak is published in Volume 592 of the Federal Reporter, Second Edition, beginning at page 197. Routine orders of District Courts like the one you want to reference here are not published. The Opinion and Order denying the preliminary injunction in that case, on the other hand, is published (Volume 21 of the Media Law Reporter, published by BNA, beginning at page 1021). One more thing - and here is something that is admittedly original research on my part and not based on a reliable, verifiable source that can be cited in Wikipedia: JAMA's counsel in that case said that, after the court denied the motion for preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs "walked away".Fladrif (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused about this published court document thing. Isn't any official court document that's available to the public considered to be published? It doesn't have to be printed in Newsweek to be valid right? Any court document that can be obtained by Joe Public would be considered a valid source yes? What am I missing here? Just trying to understand the discussion.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No, there is a huge distinction between published and unpublished court decisions. Unpublished court decisions have no precedential value, and may not be relied upon as authority in other cases. The court itself decides if the decision is significant enough to be published. Fladrif (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of "picket line" content per WP:BLP

I have removed this content first, because the sources are weak. The first source is a blog, and the second source is a very small newspaper. Second, the information itself is probably trivia. Criteria for inclusion of content for WP:BLP is much more stringent than for an ordinary article . I won't revert again. If the content is re added I'll see if we can find another outside opinion to take a look at things here.(olive (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC))

On-line References

In the course of the rather extensive re-write over the weekend, heavy reliance is being placed on some sources that are be questionable. The "bookrags" link is to a partial page in the Thomson-Gale "Encyclopedia of World Biography." That is certainly a reliable source, but it is a tertiary source, and Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be relying on other tertiary sources like encyclopedias other than for overview. WP:PSTS I'd say that the use of this source is probably OK in this article so far, but we have reached the limit of how much reliance can be put on it.

The "Biography Online" link is to what appears to be a self-published web page. The author of the article appears to be the person who runs the web site. This does not appear to be a reliable source, and should not be used in a BLP. That really should be deleted and resourced

I have no idea what Woopidoo! is, and can't really tell from the website itself. The Bios appear to be promotional profiles of "motivational speakers" which may or may not be part of a speakers bureau. There is no way of knowing where these bios come from, by whom they are written or by whom they are edited. Very heavy reliance is being placed on this website, but it appears to be a very shaky source. Frankly, the Berkeley Dailey that Olive calls a "weak" source is a far stronger source than this. I realize that KBob put a lot of work over the weekend to find these sources and extensively revise the article, but I believe that these references need to be replaced and if not, the unreferenced material removed.Fladrif (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fladrif, thanks for your vigilance on the sources. I agree they need improvement. I was shocked at how little bio data there is for Chopra on the web. I used what ever I found going to the third page on a Google search. I would strongly support you or any other editor that has access to more reliable sources to cite them and amend/add to the content accordingly. Since there is not anything in the current content that is contentious I would think it a bit rash to remove anything at this point. I am trying to clean up the article. Any help you would like to give is welcomed. The section on Philosophy is almost completely un-sourced and potentially OR. If you are in a mood to remove or challenge content that would be the place to start I think. Thanks again for the comments, suggestions and assistance in getting the article up to speed.-- — Kbob • Talk • 15:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not like I'm being vigilant; it's just that suddenly seeing "Woopidoo!" nine times in the footnotes piqued my curiosity. I agree that the material from these sources is more or less non-controversial, and I wouldn't take any rash action about deleting content at this point of the material that you reworked over the weekend. But, I do think that some better sources need to be found. I have no problem at all, however, in removing the unreferenced "philosophy" material. It's been tagged for some time and no-one has provided any references. Maybe copy it into Talk in case anybody wants to put it back in later with appropriate sources. Fladrif (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP if its not sourced or poorly sourced we don't tag it, we just remove it. Better to have a short well sourced article than than have one with poorly sourced content or unsourced as I understand BLP. (olive (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC))

Olive is right, the language in BLP is rather strong:

• "We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." With this in mind and in accordance with Faldrifs suggestion above I am going to remove some text today and paste here on the talk page in case we find sources later.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reinforced some of the weaker refs. If anyone has other sources please add them.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Un-Sourced Text

Per the discussion above I have removed the following un-sourced text:

• Many of Chopra's themes and beliefs are stated in his first book Creating Health. He launched himself as a staunch advocate of the connection between mind and body, advocating meditation and self-awareness as primary factors in both illness and healing. He deepened these themes in Quantum Healing (1989), where he examined the mysterious phenomenon of spontaneous healing of cancer.

Chopra in his 2001 book Grow Younger, Live Longer, makes reference to a "friend of ours who was diagnosed with AIDS fifteen years ago" made a miraculous turn around and now has undetectable level of the HIV antibodies in his blood. Here he introduced quantum physics as a means of understanding the mind-body connection, arguing—as he would in many other books—that consciousness is the basic foundation of nature and the universe. In How to Know God (2000) and The Book of Secrets (2004), an argument is made for an all-pervasive intelligence that unites every living thing, rather than the traditional Western concept of God as a person, "a venerable white male sitting on a throne in the sky". In 2005, Chopra became an advocate for disarmament and international peace in Peace Is the Way, where he argues that a "critical mass" of people of like mind can defeat the global "addiction to war". He became president of an organization called Alliance of a New Humanity, that sought to form "peace cells" around the world and to foster environmental healing and sustainable economies in developing nations In his book Life After Death: The Burden of Proof (2006), he extends personal consciousness beyond the "artificial boundary that separates the living from the departed".

• Chopra participated in the 2006 documentary film ONE: The Movie and made a cameo appearance in the 2008 comedy film The Love Guru and, in 2008, appeared in a series of Microsoft Windows advertisements entitled "I'm a PC".
• Chopra teaches an annual update in Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, a teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School.
• On 14 December 2008 Chopra's memorial to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was published in the magazine section of The Observer.
• Chopra received the Citation of the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic which was awarded by the Pio Manzu International Scientific Committee.

These items can be added back in if anyone finds sources for them-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Date of Birth

Some sources say 1946 [9] some say 1947.[10][11] One source says Oct 22, 1946. [12] For now I have removed info on DOB. Any other suggestions?-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't found anything definitive either in checking around . Sometimes a publisher includes the birthdate of the author, but I don't see that in any of the books I'm checking. Even an Amazon biography gives two different dates in the same biography . Since its a BLP probably the best for now is to remove it.(olive (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC))

Undue Weight

Chopra has written a few hundred articles for Huffington Post over the past 5 years. Its seems therefore to be POV and undue weight to have several sentences including two sentences of quotations about the topic of Intelligent Design which is one of more than a hundred topics that Chopra has discussed in his Huffington blog. I have removed the quotes below from the article pending discussion:

"To say that Nature displays intelligence doesn't make you a Christian fundamentalist. Einstein said as much, and a fascinating theory called the anthropic principle has been seriously considered by Stephen Hawking, among others."

"It’s time to rescue 'intelligent design' from the politics of religion. There are too many riddles not yet answered by either biology or the Bible, and by asking them honestly, without foregone conclusions, science could take a huge leap forward."-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs?

LA Times only says one plaintiff, right? And simply says it was dismissed, right? I tagged it because there wasn't a source for the wording that was there, which doesn't seem to reflect what the sources say. TimidGuy (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Question refs

I'm not sure these are particularly reliable sources and or refs for a BLP. Anybody else want to have a look.(olive (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC))

• Deepak Chopra' (Hindi: दीपक चोपड़ा; ) is an endocrinologist, lecturer, celebrity and author of books on spirituality and mind-body medicine. Chopra began his career as a medical doctor and later worked in mind-body medicine and ayurveda.

This is the second time that these citations have been criticized. When I came to this article a few weeks ago there were no citations for this sentence. Now there are two. I also spent hours editing and organizing the article and adding what other sources I could find. I agree these sources are not the best but they are what I found. If other editors feel the sources are weak (and I agree they are) than why not spend some time finding betters ones rather than continuing to criticize them on the talk page? Its easy to criticize but if other editors are concerned about the article than please do some research and add some text and citations. It would make me soooooo happy! :-) -- — Kbob • Talk • 01:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Kbob I also spent a fair amount of time trying to find sources, and found what you did This is the concern. This is a BLP and the policy is very clear about what to do if the sources are weak, These are weak sources, no reflection on you. What I am asking for here is input as to whether we as a group are in compliance with Wikipedia Policy. This is a very real discussion about what to do when we have a notable subject but for some reasons the sources are not great... I don't know if we should do anything, but I think we have to ask this kind of question.(olive (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

As I noted above, Encyclopedia of World Biography is a reliable, tertiary source. KBob's use of it here appears to be consistent with Wiki policy and guidelines on the appropriate use of tertiary sources. Fladrif (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I am reluctant to use an encyclopedia to write and encyclopedia. For starters several I've seen are using Wikipedia's content, so we end up creating a loop of possible misinformation. I've also seen there isn't much else available on Chopra, and this encyclopedia seems fine. If others are OK with the sources then I'll go with that.(olive (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

Hi Olive, Thanks for looking for sources. I added one last night to the lead. So far I have only searched in Google. Has anyone tried Google Books?-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the criticism section?

I was just reviewing this Deepak page and I noticed there is no criticism section. I've reviewed the discussion and it would appear that there used to be but there is no mention as to why it was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.5.223.122 (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It was renamed. TimidGuy (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've moved all of the contents of the "reception" section (formerly the "criticism" section) into the main body of the article so that the various assertions or incidents now appear in chronological order. Nothing was deleted in the process.   Will Beback  talk  09:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced URL's

These URL's were placed in the Reflist. If anyone can use them for inline citations please do so. thanks, New Keralawebsite Connect.in.com -- — Kbob • Talk • 03:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

POV

The article is horribly biased and reads like an advertisement by Chopra. Criticism of Chopra should be added so that readers can understand Chopra is a pseudoscientist. --Defender of torch (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Defender, I have made many edits to this article and there has been no intention to create a POV. I think you will find that the text is based on reliable secondary sources. However, I must say that when I looked for bio sources I was surprised that there was not more on the life of Chopra. If you have good sources that express other significant viewpoints about his life/career, please feel free to propose or insert text. Just keep in mind the Wiki's guidelines for reliable sources WP:RS and criticism in a bio of living person WP:BLP. Best Wishes,-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just moved the criticism material into the main chronological progression of the article, rather than leaving it in a section at the end. It's poor editing practice to discuss an event in one section, and then discuss other views of it later. Better to say "X did Y. W liked it. V didn't." instead of "X did Y. ...[section] W applauded Y . [section]... V complained about Y." I suggest that even without changing the text the article could be improved with further re-organization.   Will Beback  talk  09:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe the article as it stands is strongly POV in favour of Chopra. The word "pseudoscience" should be prominently included, not as a weasel word but as an adjective that has been repeatedly used regarding this person. Schicchi (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What particular pseudoscientific claim is this article making that you think needs to be labelled as such? --Ludwigs2 16:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If its mentioned in a secondary, reliable source, we can include it. But otherwise its just personal opinion and not appropriate per WP guidelines. See WP:V for more info.-- — Kbob • Talk • 04:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Defender: Simply stating that "people need to understand he is a pseudoscientist" is itself a biased point of view. Readers are not here to get your bias, they are here to gather information. Cranky criticism like saying he's a pseudoscientist is different from legitimate criticism. This page should not be a forum for angry skeptics to push their POV.Vivekachudamani (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Themes and Philosophy

This section seems like a random collection of unrelated tidbits from various books, interviews, articles etc. and I question its value in the article. The article would be better served if it had a few summaries of his philosophy as reported by a few secondary sources.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Since no one has objected or commented on the above post I removed the following text from the article.

• Chopra also believes Jesus was a fully enlightened teacher who possessed esoteric wisdom and may have studied Kabbalah. In March 2008, Deepak and his daughter Mallika Chopra discussed his book The Third Jesus in their first Christian radio interview with host Drew Marshall.
• Chopra claims that the cause of allergy is poor digestion, that cataracts can be prevented and cured by washing the eyes with a mixture which is made by spitting into a cup of water after brushing teeth and scraping the tongue, that aging can be prevented by using what he calls "quantum healing" and that every human being is a "localized field of energy and information with cybernetic feedback loops interacting within a nonlocal field of energy and information".-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it not have been better to rewrite the material rather than just delete it? --BwB (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've parked it here so that it would be accessible for discussion and possible re-write. That said, in my opinion, the above deleted content is a random collection of content from a few of Chopra's books. He has written about 50 books. Should we have a randomly chosen point or theme or philosophy from each one? That would create undue weight and I think even the 2-3 above would give undue to weight to those points and those books. What I think would be much better is to cite some sources that give a total overview of Chopras work and summarize or encapsulate what his major themes and philosophies are. But that is just my opinion and I am open to hearing the suggestions of other editors and working together to improve the article. What do others think?-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles should be based on secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If you like you can post the URL here or if its a PDF, no need to send it to me, you can just look at it and add something to the article if you want. thanks.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's in a non-public Proquest archive, so I can't post its URL. It's a long article and it discusses Chopra's themes and philosophy. Anyway, if anyone is interested I'd be happy to share it.   Will Beback  talk  18:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

BWB and Will, both of your suggestions are good. Since the deleted text does contain secondary sources I am going to go through them and see how they can be used in the article. The Skeptics Dictionary for example does give an overview of Chopras work in Ayurveda.-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post link doesn't work and I can't find the article in a search, if anyone else has some luck, let me know, and we can look at as a potential source.-- — Kbob • Talk • 14:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I found a copy of the J. Post article. I can send it to you if you send me an email first.   Will Beback  talk  08:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)