Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

A request

Balaenoptera musculus, would you please gain consensus for any further edits? You're adding material that is already in the article, inadvertently restoring BLP violations, and restoring material that was problematic for other reasons. Also, reception sections are standard, and it makes no sense to discuss reception before the ideas. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to take into account comments on specific parts of the article text. Please raise the issues you'd like to raise.

In the case of some of the material I'm restoring that was previously deleted from the article, I've searched the talk page archives to see if it had already been discussed - although possibly using the wrong keywords, so if you can point me to existing discussions on Talk (particularly re serious issues such as BLP violations) then please do.

Re the 'Reception' section, please see the discussion above, and WP:NOCRIT.

I won't be bound by your attempted prohibition on editing the article without your permission - per Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Balaenoptera musculus, This article falls under two arbitrations which means that collaboration and finding consensus for large scale changes is suggested in the strongest terms; deletion of content is especially a concern. While I respect the effort you've made I concur with SV here in that you have made extensive changes with out agreement to do so. If those changes have been contested, and they have, you should get agreement to both proceed further and to return your edits to the article. You don't need a single editor's permission to make changes and I don't see that SV is suggesting that, but do note the arbitrations (TM Arbitration. and Pseudoscience Arbitration) and that WP:BOLD is not be the best way forward. Contentious articles and those under arbitrations aren't edited in the way standard articles are edited. Collaboration and discussion are necessary.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC))

Collaboration means just that. I'm not seeing any problem that can't be addressed with normal WP:DR processes, that of course includes focusing on content. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I would much prefer to focus on content, rather than individual editors.

@Littleolive oil: What SlimVirgin seems to object to is me restoring deleted content which is critical of Chopra. That's not got anything to do with deletion of content - in fact I'm restoring deleted content - it's the opposite.

SV seems to be saying that a consensus discussion such as this one Talk:Deepak_Chopra#Separation_of_ideas_from_reception_violates_NPOV is not valid unless they say so. Looks like WP:OWNership behaviour to me.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Incidentally Littleolive oil, thanks for referring me to the arbitration cases. They make very interesting reading, particularly your own topic ban for tendentious editing (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Log_of_topic_bans_and_blocks) and your unsuccessful appeal. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

SV has never suggested that her version is preferred. In fact her versions have been edited and compromised versions created. She is asking for agreement on your changes which are major changes in the article structure. If you choose not to work that way, that is your choice. As for the arbitrations, do you think I would have deliberately linked you to them if I thought they really explained anything about my editing or were truthful in anyway, or if I thought you were the kind of editor who would muddy the waters of a discussion by dragging up the past. As for the appeal; the arbs missed some major issues which I later emailed a couple about, but I had no desire at that time to pursue the issues further, and did not ask for a further look at the case. And stick around, Wikipedia is interesting, and not so simple as it might seem, in the dark backwaters of contentious topic areas.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC))

"Dragging up the past"?

You (rather unwisely) brought up the topic yourself. Perhaps you thought I'd be intimidated; that's not the case.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Best not to assume. SV is, as am I, asking for discussion before you change days of work. Its clear from a comprehensive view SV edits that she has not edited per a positive to Chopra POV.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC))

What I was trying to point out was that for an editor who is not familiar with the arbitrations, and I did very deliberately link so that you would have the information, (I am not concerned about someone seeing what's in those arbitrations; they don't define me or the situations), editing on this article is not the usual. I thought it would be helpful for you to know why you are being asked to slow down and get consensus, that this isn't just some personal request; its a standard that is supposed to help us all on contentious articles. Intimidation? Sorry I don't see how the information is intimidating, and that wasn't meant in the least. Apologies if you felt intimidated.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC))

@Balaenoptera musculus, it's not about SlimVirgin trying to WP:OWN this article (she's been very reasonable about contentious issues), but rather that there are parts of this article that are very contentious and require consensus to shift without resulting in an edit war. There are plenty of parts of the article I'm frustrated with, but I'm trying to work them out here before charging ahead. Your contributions are appreciated, but also please respect the efforts of others on what's been a very touchy page. The Cap'n (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Roger. I'm ok with that.

Also, I have no objection to my changes being reverted, if the reasons are good (e.g. SV was entirely correct to revert the 'legal' section - I hadn't noticed the info had been incorporated elsewhere in the article). WP:BRD.

What's a little frustrating is being castigated by SV for not discussing on the talk page when the discussion is right there directly above.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Shermer quote

I've removed the Shermer quote from the lede. Adding such quotes to the lede section seems grossly undue, and introducing such a quote out of context makes it doubly so.

Some of the information from the source could fit with the related information already in the "Approach to healing" section. --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The quote was in the article until recently. I don't see any explanation as to why it, and quite a lot of other critical quotes, have been removed (if there is one somewhere on Talk then point me to it).

It could go in 'approach to healing' or elsewhere, doesn't have to be in the lead.

Relegating all criticism to the end of the lede doesn't feel like balance to me.

In past weeks many critical quotes have been removed and primary source quotes from Chopra introduced instead. The tone of the article has been substantially changed to favour Chopra.

Was there a consensus for this change of tone from neutral to cheerleading? Perhaps someone could point me to it.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Shermer is a professional skeptic - who is the 'we' he is referring to specifically? he can't speak for the scientific community, but he can speak for the skeptic community, that should be highlighted. SAS81 (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:SCEPTICISMisMAINSTREAM

SAS81, I'm unsurprised to find that you don't like Chopra being criticised, given you are his employee and representative on Wikipedia (SAS81: "I am an employee of Dr. Deepak Chopra and represent his direct interests on Wikipedia and elsewhere.").

The many other quotes from scientists about Chopra - lots of which have been deleted from the article recently - would seem to indicate that Shermer does speak for the scientific community when he makes that particular statement.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You need to read my updated COI. I don't mind Dr. Chopra being criticized actually, not at all. He puts himself out there and its expected he would be. It's not my job to defend him from a PR perspective, my job is to make sure that proper weight is being put to those criticisms and that the criticisms do not misrepresent Dr Chopra's actual ideas, work or research. So I have to deal with 'skeptic' organizations and literature quite often. Most skeptic literature is more like a kids 'telephone' game and spread very misleading information to the public. One does not have to dig through there sources much before a contradiction is found or usually something taken so far out of context it makes me wonder what they are actually criticizing. One of the most common is discrediting Dr. Chopra as a pseudoscientist. Most of these sources also completely confuse Dr. Chopra the physician with Deepak Chopra the celebrity or Deepak Chopra the spiritual thought leader. So yup - I'm going to be on the watch out for extreme orthodox perspectives on integrative medicine and Dr Chopra and make sure those points of view are not presented as a neutral point of view. SAS81 (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You're claiming that any sceptic's view is invalid purely by virtue of them being a declared sceptic, whereas your own view - bought and paid for by Dr Chopra - is entirely unbiased?

Absolutely hilarious.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Responding to Balaenoptera musculus concerns about the article:

As far as quotes go, the lede simply isn't a place for them, especially from critics, especially out of context.

The lede needs to both summarize and introduce the article. The second paragraph, "Chopra obtained his medical degree..." seems to have excessive detail that isn't warranted by the article and sources, and detail that simply doesn't belong in the lede at all such as the locations of past endeavors and names of non-notable people. --Ronz (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree I agree, quote doesn't have to be in the lede. I don't think all criticism should be deferred until the end of the final para, of course. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Thank you for being willing to compromise, it's appreciated. Also, just as a heads up, WP:SCEPTICISMisMAINSTREAM is probably not the best authority to rely on, it's a pet project that has no input or edits by anyone but its creator. It started out as their own user page, then they promoted it themselves to WP status. WP:FRINGE is a better authority, and says many similar things. The Cap'n (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Balaenoptera musculus - I agree that I would have a bias on the 'other' side of this argument as a matter of record - and I reveal that and am open about it and that's why I have to work harder at being more neutral than other editors because of my position. That's also why I know that WP can work, something great can happen when different viewpoints collaborate together and it's not rocket science. It's another thing however to say that a SPOV is somehow neutral and NOT an argument on one side of a debate but just a disinterested mainstream viewpoint spoken by the mainstream middle, as Barney_theBarney has written in his magnum opus referenced in this thread. So you have a bias and I have a bias. The idea is that you and I can collaborate to find a neutral way to frame a sentence that both of us could agree on. That's entirely possible, doable even. Shall we tango? SAS81 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"you have a bias." No. You have a bias toward Chopra. Please don't think your bias is similar to the viewpoints of anyone else here, or use such assumptions as a point from which to find neutrality. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Didn't say it was similar, I just said it's naive to assume that orthodox or skeptic viewpoints are neutral viewpoints in matters of a biography of a living person. SAS81 (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you don't think they are similar. Now stop talking about your assumptions of others' biases and we'll be fine.

As far as policies/guidelines go, we will follow FRINGE, MEDRS, etc which all specifically highlight that we give special prominence to orthodox (science & medicine) and skeptic (identification of pseudoscience and the like) viewpoints. --Ronz (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, Ronz, that's not exactly correct. MEDRS never mentions the words orthodox, skeptic or fringe, and the only time it mentions alternative medicine is to mention that it's held to the same standards as other medicine: "This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article, including alternative medicine." There's a premium on scientific evidence, but resisting any changes to the status quo opinion (ie. orthodoxy) is not part of MEDRS.

FRINGE, meanwhile, does not give skeptical authors more weight, but rather sets a higher burden of proof for fringe authors. Being a self-described skeptic does not make an author more prominent. Small details, but they make a difference when discussing sources as carefully as we have been. The Cap'n (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"that's not exactly correct" Let's not Wikilawyer. Such details don't make a difference because we're not discussing any specific improvements to the article but rather repeated misunderstandings of even the very basics of FRINGE, MEDRS, NPOV, COI, etc.

"Orthodox" is used to misrepresent modern, evidence-based medicine and science by those who repeatedly try to sell pseudoscience. Likewise "skeptics" is used to label and attempt to undermine those who spend the time analyzing and rebutting pseudoscience and the like. Let's not play into such misrepresentations. --Ronz (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't wikilawyering, it was a polite way of saying "you're wrong." Leaving all other terms and definitions aside, you said that FRINGE and MEDRS give special prominence to orthodox and skeptic sources. Sorry, but that's false. MEDRS set a very high standard of quality for medical sources that has nothing to do with the sources' viewpoint, but rather its qualitative methodology. FRINGE sets a higher bar for pseudoscientific viewpoints, not a lower bar for skeptical ones.

As an aside to people on all sides of this discussion, skepticism and orthodoxy are not synonyms for each other; they are two, often contradictory, branches of thought. Skepticism embraces doubt, orthodoxy embraces truth. These details do matter because when people have different perspectives on these fundamental ideas, it's very hard to come to any kind of consensus. Take a look at the countless walls of text above for evidence of that. The Cap'n (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"Leaving all other terms and definitions aside" Why are you doing so? I tried to clarify my position. Please don't ignore it, nor by doing so misrepresent me. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't intend to misrepresent you and apologize if I did. I'm trying to explain my position as well, and am certainly not ignoring yours. The other terms and definitions I set aside were discussions on "NPOV, COI, etc" that were peripheral to our discussion on FRINGE and MEDRS. It's entirely possible I misunderstood your mentioning of those policies, I was simply trying to restrict my response to the topic at hand (ie. FRINGE/MEDRS and Orthodox/Skeptic). The Cap'n (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@SAS81: "You need to read my updated COI."

• Why - have you quit your job with Chopra?

I see that your updated user page is more equivocal and less honest about your financial relationship with Chopra - that is not to your credit.

@SAS81: "I agree that I would have a bias"

• We all have our biases.

The difference between your bias and mine is that you're paid to hold your opinion, and I'm not.

You're paid to promote Chopra.

@SAS81: "It's another thing however to say that a SPOV is somehow neutral and NOT an argument on one side of a debate but just a disinterested mainstream viewpoint spoken by the mainstream middle"

• "Another thing?"

Yes, an honest thing. Science is sceptical. It's built-in to the scientific method.

We had this thing called The Enlightenment (don't know if you've heard of it), since then the Dark Ages have come to an end and the use of magical thinking to separate others from their money is now frowned upon.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposals for Reception section

Someone took President Clinton's quote about Dr. Chopra out of receptions area, not sure why that's pretty notable. Also the reception section is comprised of 4 paragraphs and 3 of them are devoted to criticisms. He is a global celebrity, so we should have this section flushed out a bit more. I'm going to be adding some sources here in the next few days for editors to consider. I also think we should consider putting the whole 'guru' issue in this section too. the lede paragraph reads very awkward right now. If Chopra rejects the term, why is WP giving it to him? Now we have created a drama that needs to be explained. Good luck with that one. SAS81 (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

For fuck sake is your memory less than 2 hours long? We have been over and over and over Clinton. He has no valid background in declaring anything about medical practices. It is WP:UNDUE emphasis and an attempt to give inappropriate WP:WEIGHT to someone whose opinion on the subject is not a WP:VALID representation of the mainstream experts. If you have some quote from Clinton on a topic where Clinton is an actual expert- like how Chopra makes money on the talk circuit- then it might be appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom but I believe that sort of language is more for Reddit and less advised for Wikipedia, please withdraw. Not only withdraw the nasty word, but withdraw your entire comment, as it's out of line. Clinton's quote is not being used to support any medical claim, it's being used to show the level of reception Dr Chopra has for the reception section itself and your rebuttal is an aspersion and straw man. If a living person gets an accolade from a standing US president in an address to a foreign nation, even if it is an opinion, there is absolutely no WP policy that says we should omit that fact that Dr Chopra was acknowledged by a sitting US president. Your tone is disruptive to Wikipedia editing. SAS81 (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

First thing, TheRedPenOfDoom, your vulgarity is unwarranted and inappropriate. As someone who's been on the receiving end of more than a little profanity, I think a retraction is in order. Secondly, maybe you should review what this request is about. The reception section is not just about medical experts, but Chopra's popular reception. More than half of the figures cited in the Reception section as critical of Chopra have no weight as experts in medicine (journalists, English professors, sociologists, political activists). Also, if Robert Todd Carroll, who has no medical qualifications whatsoever, can be hailed as an authority on Chopra's medical validity, then the former leader of the free world's opinion on Chopra as a person should be valid! The Cap'n (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

No. I will not withdraw. vulgarities are the least SAS81 should expect for their tendentious editing. its absolutely offensive to me that volunteer wikipedia editors must waste their time because a paid hack is bringing up yet again a promotional piece that has been multiple demonstrated to be inappropriate. if PRarchivist withdraws their most recent attempt to glam onto inappropriate use of Clinton, then I will consider.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD - Discretionary sanctions govern you just as much as they govern me. This includes casting aspersions and I'm sure it also covers vulgar language. At least if you're going to do that, at least throw in an actual valid argument. You're argument is not a genuine one and you're veiling your bias on the subject matter with a WP Policy that is far from being applicable. This is not an article on alternative medicine - it's a BLP and once more you already know this. I challenge any neutral editor to explain the rationale of not allowing a public quote made in a public speech about a living person by a sitting US president is somehow not allowed because of MEDRS or FRINGE. Trying to omit facts about a biography because your afraid they give validity to the subject is the very definition of conflict of interest and biased editing and it's not working. Once more, these kind of tactics are pushing quality editors like Slim Virgin away from the article. SAS81 (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

No, TheRedPenOfDoom, profanity speaks to your conduct, not anyone else's, and on an article Talk Page is a direction violation of WP:IUC 1.A. Claiming extreme provocation is not an excuse here, especially since this is a perfectly fair issue to raise. You've provided no reason why the other 6 non-medical opinions in Reception are perfectly valid, but Clinton must meet MEDRS in order to express his personal (not "medical") opinion of Chopra. Chopra himself is not a medical claim, he's a person, and people besides doctors (and critics) are allowed to have their opinions about him represented if they're notable enough. From your reaction I understand this obviously strikes a cord with you, but it's a pretty standard request and your refusal to listen to reason amounts to WP:IDHT. The Cap'n (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree TheRedPenOfDoom's wording is inappropriate. I also agree that SAS81 is disruptive to this article and this talk page. An occasional outburst against a long disruption is to be expected. However, it might be best to put some restraint on the disruption. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

what am I doing specifically that is disruptive? SAS81 (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm responding on SAS81's talk page for the time being. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

There's no good reason not to have Bill Clinton's quote there, it's a RS, it's relevant to the section (Reception) and there's other, less significant opinions already listed. Not to mention the Clinton quote is already included in the citation that's still there. I honestly don't see why Clinton was removed in the first place but foreign leaders, English professors and activists' opinions were left alone. Let's see if an edit can go unreverted for more than an hour.... The Cap'n (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

there are plenty of reasons why the clinton quote is unacceptable WP;UNDUE / WP:VALID / WP:RS - Clinton is not anywhere near a reliable source for identifying what "pioneering medicine" looks like. giving his promotional spiel space is WP:UNDUE weight from an opinion that is not a WP:VALID assessor. That Chopra has bedazzled celebrities into treating him as a guru may be a valid point to include, but we would treat that as "celebrities like X, Y, and Clinton, treat Chopra as a guru" (third party source) and not via WP:OR inclusion of gushy promotional quotes from the said bedazzled celebrity followers ( "it's being used to show the level of reception Dr Chopra has " )-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was discussed. It's simple flattery. It's suitable for marketing and public relations material, but not an encyclopedia article. --Ronz (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

So why are Gorbachev and Landesman RS? It does seem like POTUS should be considered as more than just a celebrity who is "bedazzled" by Chopra (how is that linked to "guru"). Also, we can't have it both ways, if we say that the President of the US is not a valid source to to determine a figure's place in alternative medicine, we can't have a philosopher (Robert Todd Carroll) telling us what are medically valid positions. Clinton is at least as valid a source as Carroll, and saying we can keep Carroll's far more specific but unsupported MEDRS claim but must exclude Clinton's comment is as clear a double standard as I've seen. TRPoD's comments make it clear that the issue is not the source, but rather the fact that it was a compliment as opposed to a criticism. I've tried to find middle ground throughout these discussions, but this kind of double standard bias is disturbing and inappropriate. The Cap'n (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Gorbachev and Landesman shouldn't be there either. I know that Clinton does not have the appropriate background to be making claims about "medical pioneers" - therefore he was removed. Gorby may or may not have the background to be making assessments about philosophy. If you wish to make the case that he doesnt. I am all ears. Carroll is not making a MEDRS claim, Carroll is an expert in the area of quackery. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is an implied endorsement of Chopra's methods? I can see that as being problematic, Clinton is just another layman consumer of medical products, same as all of us. OTOH, the fact that Clinton has seen fit to use the word "pioneer" is significant to a BLP. If he said that about me, I would want it included in my biography. Maybe a more noncommittal, neutral wording might work? Rumiton (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"If he said that about me" Everyone likes flattery, especially when it can be used for self-promotion. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Flattery is a loaded, nasty kind of word, which gets us nowhere. Recognition might be a better and more neutral choice. Rumiton (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

President Clinton was flattering the Indian people in a State Dinner speech in New Delhi. As is the custom he heaped it on. Deepak is named as a "pioneer". That says little if you think of it. Alfred Packer the cannibal prospector, who is surely notable, could have been called "a pioneer" of Colorado gold mining. It would not automatically make him an effective gold-miner. Anyway, the text of the speech makes it clear that President Clinton is using Deepak as an example of a notable Indian American. Although it should be mentioned that there are many Indian people that do not feel Deepak is such a good example because of his whitewashing and selling of Hindu practices. . ie: Dr. Aseem Shukla co-founder of the Hindu American Foundation - who called Chopra an exponent of the art of "How to Deconstruct, Repackage and Sell Hindu Philosophy Without Calling it Hindu!". This is in Chopra's page isn't it?

Here is the Clinton speech excerpt for anyone that has not read it: "My country has been enriched by the contributions of more than a million Indian-Americans, from Vinod Dahm, the father of the Pentium chip, to Deepak Chopra, pioneer of alternative medicine, to Sabeer Bhatia, creator of the free-mail system Hotmail, the free E-mail system." "So we have gotten a lot from India." Clinton did not say pioneer of "integrative" medicine by the way he said alternative medicine. Kevin Trudeau is also a pioneer of alternative medicine.Ptarmigander (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Since this is in a proposals for the reception section I think Dr. Aseem Shukla of the Hindu American Foundation and a leader in the Hindu American community speaks for many: "The contention that yoga's foundation is "in consciousness alone," thereby preceding Hinduism, is a sad demonstration of the extent Chopra and other Hindu philosophical profiteers will go to disassociate themselves from Hinduism." It seems to me that according to the Hindu American Foundation Deepak Chopra is a profiteer sanitizing Hinduism to make a profit on the New Age market. That is reception.Ptarmigander (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

When you say he "whitewashed" and "sanitized" Hinduism, you are implying that Hinduism in itself is a somehow dark or dirty thing. I am seeing quite a lot of very POV terminology on both sides of this debate. I think some more effort towards neutrality would be helpful. Rumiton (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you are reacting to the idea of the words and have no concept of the actual cultural problem. How dare you claim I am implying that Hinduism is something dirty? That is much closer to Deepak's position and it is well documented. Whitewash and sanitize are not my words. They are commonly used to describe prejudicial treatment of Hindus and Hindu culture. ie

“They’re completely whitewashing history and sanitizing Hinduism,” said Anu Mandavilli, a volunteer for the Bay Area-based group Friends of South Asia."

These terms are regularly used regarding exchanges between Deepak Chopra and Aseem Shukla of the Hindu American Foundation. example:"Aseem Shukla last month tangled with Chopra over the whitewashing of yoga."-Newsweek Since it appears Deepak himself has admitted it. “The reason I sanitized it is there's a lot of junk in [Hinduism],” -"explains Deepak Chopra"- and the quote given above by dr. Shukla explains Deepak's business practices so well (accurately not negatively)I think it should definitely be included in Reception. The Hindu American Foundation represents a lot of people.Ptarmigander (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom, Ptarmigander, so let me get this straight:

• President Clinton referring to Chopra as a "pioneer in alternative medicine" requires MEDRS, but philosopher Robert Todd Carroll's description of Chopra's position on the conditions affecting aging as "a false hope based on an unscientific imagination" is in no way related to medical or scientific arguments and does not need to meet MEDRS.
• Positive (or even non-critical) statements from RS about Chopra are "flattery" and "promotion" that should be removed (Gorbachev, Landesman). Arguments that we need a more balanced Reception section leads to suggestions for even more critical statements in Reception, despite there already being 3X as many critical statements as positive or neutral statements. One would think Chopra was almost universally hated from glancing at his Reception section, rather than being a popular celebrity and best-selling author (not suggesting we include "best-selling" at this time).
• Critical sources, even those with no qualifications other than selling books on skepticism (Carroll) are considered neutral, reliable sources on medical validity, while President Clinton is unreliable due to the (extremely OR) idea that he was only complimenting Chopra in order to pander to an Indian crowd.
• The article can make statements that Ayurveda (one aspect of Chopra's approach) has no medical utility, but cannot say that meditation may have some benefits (another aspect of Chopra's approach, and one that is well supported even on WP).
• When I argued that Pres. Clinton has at least an equivalent significance as the other sources speaking well of Chopra, the response was that I could either exclude Clinton specifically or remove the other positive statements. This is a prime example of the "You lose/I win" style of negotiation.

In summary, it's becoming very clear that there is a significant and unjustifiable double standard on this page, particularly regarding Reception. Critical statements on specific medical positions are exempt from MEDRS because they're focused on medical "quackery" (which is apparently something people with no background in medicine or science are able to officially designate, despite there being nothing in MEDRS or FRINGE to support that position), but broad statements of a high reputation are subject to such tight restrictions that the POTUS does not qualify. Positive remarks are unacceptable and suggested for deletion, but negative remarks are encouraged in greater numbers. Descriptions of Chopra's work in negative tones is NPOV, but including contextual material that offers any legitimacy whatsoever is decried as violating NPOV, FRINGE, UNDUE and so on. Protests that these practices themselves violate WP:BLP have been summarily dismissed.

There is a double standard that has developed where sources that are critical to Chopra are held to a far lower standard than sources that are positive about him. The justification for this seems to be a highly OR opinion that if the mainstream opinion is that Chopra is a quack, anything that doesn't describe him negatively is not mainstream and thus UNDUE. There's little I can do to negotiate with that kind of position. I'm starting to think we need some outside, neutral help here. The Cap'n (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

No double standard. Just application of FRINGE and SOAP in an effort to write an encyclopedia article rather than promoting Chopra, his fringe theories, and alternative medicine. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure why I am blanketed in with TRPOD on this issue. I feel immediately branded as a negatory. I believe things are very negotiable. I think that President Clinton mentioned Deepak as a notable Indian American. He is notable because of the volume of alternative medicine and pop spirituality products that he generates. Profiteering is not negative per se. It is often considered the American way. Deepak says that he is proud of it.

My concern since this is a section on proposals for reception is that the reception of Deepak Chopra by the Hindu American community as voiced by the Hindu American Foundation is that Dr. Chopra is profiting by sanitizing Hinduism. Chopra seems to have admitted to this sanitization and he has stated repeatedly that he is not ashamed of how he gets his money so where is the negative exactly? This seems a very good addition to the reception section. I have nothing to do with other already existing parts of the reception section and I support an accurate portrayal of the subject.Ptarmigander (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ptarmigander, I'm not trying to brand anyone as negative themselves, you or TRPoD. I may disagree with each of you on a few approaches, but I respect everyone here for volunteering their time (except SAS81 for obvious reasons) to try to improve WP. I tagged you in the message because I had read your post carefully and part of my own was in response to it. I absolutely believe and trust that everyone here is willing to negotiate, otherwise WP wouldn't grow. I do feel that a double standard has evolved despite everyone's best intentions, but this is a matter I'm eager to work with people to address, certainly including you. Thank you for discussing your thoughts and I apologize if I accidentally misrepresented you at any point. The Cap'n (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

List of Straw man arguments on Clinton

• Clinton is promoting Deepak Chopra, therefore , if Wikipedia mentions the quote, Wikipedia will be promoting Deepak Chopra.

strawman. This is factually incorrect and original research The statement was NOT a personal statement made by Bill Clinton, it was a statement made by POTUS speaking to a foreign dignitary. Sitting presidents do not make personal statements in speeches and do not ‘promote’ US citizens or their books.

• Clinton is not qualified to make a claim that he is a pioneer of alternative medicine.

strawman. POTUS is qualified to make ANY statement because POTUS has executive teams of the most impressive academics in the country who must vet every single thing POTUS says so POTUS has credibility when he speaks on numerous issues he may personally have no expertise in. Common sense. POTUS also mentions the mapping of the human genome and the landing of the Mars Rover..why? because they are NOTABLE and that’s his job, to address what is notable in society in speeches. This is POTUS, not OPRAH.

Additionally, the claim is that he is a ‘pioneer of alternative medicine’....is that far off the mark? If Deepak Chopra was not notable in the way Clinton claims, POTUS by definition never would have bothered to make the comment.

• Only criticisms should go in the receptions section, and any favorable comment should be disregarded as promotional. SAS81 is only interested in promoting Dr Chopra.

POTUS statement is probably a hallmark of any biography. To omit a POTUS statement from a biography has no historical or literary merit whatsoever as an argument. It only serves one purpose, to decrease the amount of credibility the article gives to Dr. Chopra. POTUS does give Dr Chopra credibility, yes. That credibility is a fact and yes I want that represented in the article. I believe it is very misleading for any editor to continue to claim ad nauseaum that I have an agenda and a bias and they fail to see that their own personal viewpoints are twisting a WP policy torturously towards their own agenda and viewpoint. I would support bringing in some more opinions. What makes it difficult is quality editors like SlimVirgin are turned off of this level of Fringe warrior pushback logic so it may be hard to bring them in. Capn and Olive you are saints for sticking with this like you are. SAS81 (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Bill Clinton's comment is worth including in the article body, not the lede (and attributed, of course) provided it is covered in some reasonable published source. What is the source being proposed for this? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

(Add) Hunting around, it seems from this source that both Bill and Hillary are fans, and that Chopra has even slept at the White House. The source also says Chopra thinks the magic of Merlin is real, which is something I've not seen mentioned before. Really? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@SAS81: "I believe it is very misleading for any editor to continue to claim ad nauseaum that I have an agenda and a bias and they fail to see that their own personal viewpoints are twisting a WP policy torturously towards their own agenda and viewpoint."

• Nonsense.

The fact is that you are paid to promote Chopra.

Other editors (on both sides of this dispute) are holding their opinions in good faith - you are paid to hold yours. Your dishonesty in pretending that you are no more biased than any other editor is contemptible.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn, the source I found that was already in the article's reference list was Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton, 2000-2001, January 1 to June 26, 2000, Government Printing Office, 2001, p. 508. It seems like a pretty solid RS. While the source you mentioned has certainly got a lot of interesting statements, "Makers and Takers: How Conservatives Do All the Work While Liberals Whine..." doesn't seem like the most neutral or reliable source for the information. It only references Chopra in order to deride the Clintons for being foolish, alongside accusations that they read the novel the Celestine Prophecy (a work of fiction Schweiser denounces for being, well, fictional). I'm open to using Schweiser to support other statements, but feel that using him as a sole source is unwise. That said, I too would love to hear more about Merlin! The Cap'n (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a primary source. Sorry, I thought this was covered in secondaries. Isn't it? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Balaenoptera musculus - that's incorrect, I'm not paid to hold an opinion about Dr. Chopra, I'm paid to be a researcher on an archive. I'm paid to input data, research and represent what we store. I'm serving the concerns Dr Chopra has about his article, specifically the BLP and NPOV violations that he and I, as well as Slimvirgin and Capn and other editors see occurring. Dr Chopra does not inform me what to edit - I'm not a paid advocate and continually positioning me this way is misleading other editors. Kindly stop it. thanks SAS81 (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

SAS81, you've said "I am an employee of Dr. Deepak Chopra and represent his direct interests on Wikipedia and elsewhere.

And here you are, cheerleading for him.

That makes you a paid advocate.

'Positioning' yourself as an independent researcher is profoundly dishonest.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Move criticism up lede - we're not here to advertise Chopra

OK, so right now the lede defers all criticism until the second half of the final para.

Hidden away nicely, despite the medical/scientific consensus on Dr Chopra, which is very clear.

I think that we should move some of the criticism up, so that the start of the lede reflects Wikipedia policies on WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT.

The job of this article is not to advertise Chopra or his businesses.

Right now it reads as though it were - perhaps because of the changes which have taken place in the past few weeks due to Dr Chopra's exhortations to his supporters to come to Wikipedia and bias the article in his favour ("See you on the page!"), and to the influence of Dr Chopra's employee User:SAS81 here on the talk page ("I am an employee of Dr. Deepak Chopra and represent his direct interests on Wikipedia and elsewhere").

I don't believe these pro-Chopra changes have the consensus of the wider Wikipedia community behind them.

JW's response to a recent petition on Change.org concerning 'holistic approaches to healing' may be relevant:

No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful.

Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

"Hidden away nicely" in the "final" paragraph? There are only 3 paragraphs in the lede, 1/6 of all content in the lede is critique, "New Age guru" has been established as a critique, and none of it promotes Chopra's work as scientifically accepted or pushes his business (it's a pretty big statement to say that folks here are trying to advertise on WP).

Exactly which phrases in the lede are promotional, in your opinion? The vast majority of the info there is biographical in nature, which is appropriate given that this is a biography and not a polemic against pseudoscience. There's precisely one sentence about what Chopra believes, and it's presented as his ideas, not scientific consensus. I'm more than a little confused by this sudden fuss over the "promotional" nature of the lede, which seems to consist of demands for more critical statements to balance out unspecified promotions. The Cap'n (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Basically, yes.

• 1/6 versus 5/6 isn't balance, in my opinion.

• I do think there's a need for more critical statements to balance out the lede's depiction of him as a mainstream doctor. He may have been that earlier in his career, but he's not any longer.

• 'Guru' isn't a critical term (in British English at least) - I work in software and I'd be pleased to be described as a "software guru".

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)