Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Obvious BLP violation

This edit was original research. The word authority is also OR. QuackGuru (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

guru

OK, term has been called racist. Chopra objects to it. Its been removed. Please justify its retention per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Restoring_deleted_content. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

What source says he is a new age teacher? Your previous edit was original research. The source does not say he is a "controversial" Indian-American author. QuackGuru (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

TRY to reach consensus, QG. TRY. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I asked "What source says he is a new age teacher?" No specific answer to my question was given. Is the word guru disputed according the WP:V policy or is this a dispute with V policy? According to which reliable source the term is racist? The source does not say he is a "controversial" Indian-American author. I recently explained it in my edit summary and I previously explained it in my edit summary. Try to collaborate. QuackGuru (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You are arguing for the most insulting word possible. There are scads of sources that describe him in other ways. You are not trying to avoid the problematic term, but simply arguing for it. If you don't have other sources, and are unwilling to look, then you have said your piece; you are unwilling to be part of the solution. So be it. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• forbes: "Deepak Chopra ... is acknowledged as one of the master teachers of Eastern philosophy in the Western world. " That is Forbes, hardly a purveyor of woo. That is strict support for "teacher"
• skeptics dictionary does not even stoop to calling him a "guru": "Dr. Chopra has done more than any other single person to popularize the Maharishi's Ayurvedic medicine in America, including some New Age energy concepts" (one can argue without stretching that for adult education, teaching = popularizing.)

I am not advocating that we call him a "genius" or anything but "guru" is to me ... icky and racist. in this context. WP is better than that.

btw, have you seen the Chopra quote generator? funny. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC) (edit my comment to strike "racist" as anything other than my feeling at this point Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC))

I have previously argued for re-insertion of the word "guru" as it accurately pinpoints how Deepak is perceived. I have never seen it called a racist term before, and I am not persuaded it is. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 22:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, are you sure Chopra objects to the term, or is it a case of "modesty forbids"? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 22:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I've only now looked at the article, and I am not going to bang this drum for long, but I feel strongly that if the term guru is to be removed from the article there needs to be more than just a claim by a respected editor that the word is racist, but some justification by way of evidence, and a solid reason why the source which uses the words "new age guru" isn't acceptable. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 22:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

collins dictionary:

1. a Hindu or Sikh religious teacher or leader, giving personal spiritual guidance to his disciples
2. (often derogatory) a leader or chief theoretician of a movement, esp a spiritual or religious cult
3. (often facetious) a leading authority in a particular field "

He is not teaching hinduism or Sikhism... so... are we being derogatory or facetious? Neither is good. (and if you don't see the racism in pinning a hindu-derived honorific used in a derogatory way on an indian scientist-turned-new-age-teacher (who this article correctly portrays as making a mess of the boundary between science and religion), I don't know what to tell you. I have offered alternative sources for using "teacher"; that is all we need per BLP to remove this derogatory "guru" thing. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

it is NOT a BLP violation to follow the use of MANY MANY MANY reliably published mainstream sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• What label does Chopra use for himself? That's the label we should be using. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Search this page for the word "racist". (Hint, it isn't there) -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If Chopra doesn't like the label "guru" then we shouldn't be trying to use it. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not? Does Chopra have special authority over this page? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

As of September 17 2014, the Deepak Chopra website states "Chopra, who was accompanied by fellow New Age guru Gabrielle Bernstein and American singer India Arie, had aimed to bring together a “critical mass” of about 100,000 meditators to set the shared intention for peace."[1]

www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canada-posts-chopra-puts-survival-plan-into-action/article15941388/

http://www.americanbazaaronline.com/2014/07/22/indian-american-new-age-guru-deepak-chopra-attempt-guinness-record/

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/13/deepak_chopra_i_am_pissed_off_by_richard_dawkins_arrogance_and_his_pretense_of_being_a_really_good_scientist_he_is_not%E2%80%9D/

http://www.nj.com/independentpress/index.ssf/2014/02/new_age_guru_deepak_chopra_to.html

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/09/11/spiritual-guru-deepak-chopras-health-routine

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/deepak-chopra-narrated-short-film-702411

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/deepak-chopra-net-worth/

The term "new age guru" is confirmed per multiple sources. QuackGuru (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

(awaits self revert by respected editor.) -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

websters: 1 a personal religious teacher and spiritual guide in Hinduism
2
a : a teacher and especially intellectual guide in matters of fundamental concern
b : one who is an acknowledged leader or chief proponent
c : a person with knowledge or expertise : expert
oxford american dictionary
1: Hindu spiritual teacher or head of a religious sect
2a influential teacher
2b revered mentor
oxford dictionary of word origins
guru: [E17th] This is from Hindi and Punjabi, from Sanskit guru'weighty, grave, dignified'... this led to 'elder, teacher'
American Heritage Dictionary

an acknowledged and influential advocate, as of a movement or idea”.

Only Collins sees "facetious" or "derogatory" - and they are only "sometimes"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, i withdraw "racist" as I cannot find a independnt source I am happy enough with now. (i have seen that a few times but cannot find it now, so I have to withdraw it.) However, I am sticking with:

a) away back when chopra's representative showed up here in April he/she said: "Referencing him as simply a ‘guru’ is dismissive and disrespectful in some contexts, perhaps even a bit racist in some contexts, not just to Dr Chopra, but...". Dismissive, disrepsectul... perhaps racist. So denigrating to the subject of the article.

b) as mentioned, consistent with that, Chopra does not use that term for himself (sourced in the article with this

c) as mentioned above, dictionary definition has clear denigrating meanings

d) Roxy pointed to our guru article which is also makes it clear that the term as used in the West has derogatory connotations

e) So.. I think nobody can honestly deny that the derogatory connotations are there, and I reckon that the quack-fighters take certain delight in that, and I realize that it will be hard to swing consensus on this term, BUT

g) already presented above, there are sources for neutral terms like "teacher" that we can use, that are not derogatory. So let's use them, again per BLP, "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement."

h) if folks really insist on using the term "guru" i would be grudgingly OK with it being stated something like "commonly called a 'new age guru'" so it is not in Wikipedia's voice, at least.

i) very interested to hear from anybody supporting use of the term, that they consider to be a neutral or positive term. (and please don't hide behind "it doesn't matter if we think it is positive or negative, it is in the sources and that is all we need") Folks are choosing it here. thanks! this is my last statement on this. don't want to beat a dead horse. but please do consider the derogatory aspects. Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Chopra's paid agent found anything other short of deification "offensive" - and we most certainly do not pander to present Wikipedia articles as the subject desires. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

What source says "commonly called" a new age guru? As of September 17 2014, the Deepak Chopra website does refer to the term "New Age guru".[2]. A Chopra's representative does not represent NPOV or BLP policies. QuackGuru (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Does the skeptics dictionary call him a "guru"? "Of course, Chopra has a web site where he will be honored to take your money for one of his many books, tapes, or seminars. We should not be too harsh with our guru, however."[3] QuackGuru (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

as i wrote above, the skeptics dictionary does not call him a guru. your question shows you are not even reading my posts, QG. just pounding away on the dead horse. TRPoD - I am not calling for deification, and generally if something is insulting, and there is a different and supported thing to say, why not do it? it doesn't take a away from the substance. I get it that ya'all want to be clear his health ideas are not scientific (and i agree he is far too sloppy, far too often, and the article establishes this well) but the "guru" is just stooping low for an encyclopedia. you are not responding to that. Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"As would be expected of a guru spreading false hope, Chopra's trustworthiness has been compromised."[4] QuackGuru (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: you appear to be basing your position on the fact that we should be positioning our article as the Chopra's PR hack would have it. That you are not directly calling for deification is a distinction without a difference. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

as i wrote above, i figured that folks would be intransigent to changing this. it would have required persuading, since "guru" is well supported by sources. i failed. thanks for talking. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

that said the accusation of meatpuppeting is false and completely without proof. STRIKE IT. I mean that. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Sanctions have been applied to editors of longer standing who have not, in the opinion of Wikipedia's administrative bodies, consistently exercised independent judgement." Your entire basis is that the paid PR 's concerns should be our concerns and the basis for our discussions- ie not acting as any form independent of the paid PRs positions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

i am very far from a new user. My entire basis was not the PR rep's statement. Strike it. Last request.Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I too agree that the term "guru" as used is this article (and in the NY Times article!) smacks of bigotry. And it's not just that the term is sometimes defined in the dictionary as derogatory (although that's part of it). It's the choice to apply this word to a person who is Indian. If Chopra was Italian (but not Catholic) would it be okay to call him the "New Age Pope"? If he were Israeli (but not Jewish), would it be okay to call him the "New Age Rabbi"? We're applying a religious term to a person who is not of that faith but is from a place where that faith is popular. That's bigotry. Please rephrase with a non-bigoted synonym; this way the meaning will still be the same (unless you feel that bigotry is necessary for the meaning). SueDonem (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Are we using the term differently than the sources? If not, and we agree that the sources are reliable for the information, then I don't see any policy-based problems. --Ronz (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it possible that the source succumbed (even unwittingly) to bigotry? If so, should we perpetuate this? Rather, let's use a less loaded term which means the same thing. It's not a source violation to use a synonymous term. If we changed "man" to "male"... It we changed "physician" to "doctor"... it wouldn't be a problem. Let me ask you (and everyone else here) this question: What meaning do you think the word "guru" has in the context in which we are currently using it in the lead?

someone who has (to credulous Western sensibilities) an exotic mystical schtick? The word may be problematic in itself, but it gets us "in the zone" of meaning quite nicely, which is presumably why so many RS's (including academic pieces) use it. Is there some equivalent wording that does the same job? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think "New Age" covers "mystical" certainly... I'm not sure why "exotic" is all that important to convey. "Schtick" is another way of say what a person does. I think the word "guru" also implies some sense of mastery (like a sage, a teacher, a master, an authority, et cetera). Do you think that should be conveyed if we were to opt for equivalent wording? SueDonem (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oxford University Press (2013) "Gurus of quantum spirituality such as Deepak Chopra'"
• Southern Illinois University Press (2014) "Guru Style: Deepak Chopra"
• Princeton University Press (2006) Deepak Chopra, for instance, is a medically trained, highly successful, media-savvy guru"
• Routlage (2008) "even later-day gurus such as Deepak Chopra"

That such prestigious institutions along with the NYT are ALL so free with content "smacking of bigotry" will take quite a bit more evidence than your personal assessment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, especially in light of the ongoing problems this article has had, this looks like yet another attempt to ignore sources and policies to argue for changes that are personally pleasing to a few. --Ronz (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If the term truly was racist, I would advocate for removing it asap. Other editors above have pointed out how well "New Age Guru" fits Chopra -suedonem said "(like a sage, a teacher, a master, an authority, et cetera)" which fits, as does Alexbrn's "someone who has (to credulous Western sensibilities) an exotic mystical schtick?" and our article on Guru says " In the West some derogatory interpretations of the word have been noted, reflecting certain gurus who have allegedly exploited their followers' naiveté, due to the use of the term in certain new religious movements." Book sales to followers exploited by their naiveté have been lucrative. I agree with JD that the term is slightly derogatory, but mainstream scientific view and all that, if Chopra turns his back on the modern world to promote his magic, then so be it. If the cap fits. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

and yes, the Chopra quote generator is one of the funniest things on teh Internetz. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

If Chopra is so against the "offensive" use of "guru" , did he have a "come to Jesus" moment sometime between 2008 and now? [5] [6] [7] ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Qatar Airways, in association with ‘The Chopra Centre for Wellbeing’ and its founder, lifestyle guru Deepak Chopra"
• "says Deepak Chopra, the popular new age management guru. "
• Wellness guru Deepak Chopra,
• Sony has teamed up with Richard Branson and new age guru Deepak Chopra

If there were something innately offensive "most insulting word" "smacks of bigotry" " icky and racist" about the use of "guru" in a non Hindu/Sikh religious leader, The Hindu would not be so free to use it so repeatedly in such a manner in relation to Mr. Chopra. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I still find it racially objectionable, but it appears that I am overruled by the quality of sources presented here. No further protestation from me. SueDonem (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Your personal objection is noted and over-ruled by the preponderance of sources indicating otherwise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Thanks for restating it better than I did! SueDonem (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And thank you for being so very cooperative! --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

What this man preaches is clearly psuedoscience and harmful to the well being of the public. Can we please rewrite the article as an objective and neutral one and not pander to the will of this man's advertisers/legal department? 2.125.119.32 (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

This is "New Age Irony" isn't it? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Fallout from the Chopra representative and the implications on the article

I had planned to ignore this matter entirely, as nothing can really be done unless SAS81 becomes active again. However a point was recently made here about the current article being unsatisfactory as a result of the push by SAS81, Askahrc ("The Cap'n"), and others. Because of this lasting impact on Wikipedia, and because making claims without evidence is a bad thing, I have filed an SPI for SAS81, connecting him to indef blocked user Tumbleman. It is only a start, and plenty more evidence could be added if necessary.

In addition, it turns out that Askahrc (anagram of "chakras") is employed by Tumbleman, or works directly with him. Indeed a connection (though perhaps not yet a financial connection) between them began just days before the shenanigans Askahrc orchestrated leading up to his arbitration request, for which he was formally admonished. (Evidence will be provided via email upon request.)

The attitude and activities of SAS81 were certainly disruptive, leading to the AE request on him, and the undisclosed connection with "The Cap'n" is troubling. Again, all of this could be ignored except for the lasting implications on the Chopra article itself, since the "summer push" did affect the article. For this reason I decided to let everyone know about the current situation. Manul 06:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that there's anything to do here. The article is fairly stable, free from large-scale revert wars, which it would not be if there was a serious imbalance. The SPI case should take its course separately, with no need to revisit this bio. Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The business connection between the Cap'n and Tumbleman (and Deepak Chopra) are only the tip of an Iceberg. "The Cap'n" was an active editor spearheading edits and suggestions and votes on the Chopra page while "SAS81" was touting the moral high ground.. influencing (some) editors to his aid while claiming full and open disclosure. That activity has as you say "lasting impact on Wikipedia" and "implications on the Chopra article itself"... That, along with the Capn's undisclosed identity is in part why the page should be revisited -eventually in full light- and rewritten more accurately and honestly as per the above suggestion concerning Chopra's overarching pseudoscience orientation. I hope administrators are aware of the full situation should the Cap'n and ISHAR attempt to interact with Wikipedia in the future. Ptarmigander (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Well done - Tumbleman (Rome Viharo) is indeed SAS81, a representative of ISHAR. He should be banned because he has already been blocked on many accounts. If you want further proof, please see [8] (second paragraph) :) And no this is not WP:OUTING. Please read Tumbleman's OWN post signing his comment with his real name [9], he did this on other occasions as well. Everyone knows who he is. He used his name on his Tumbleman account many times (check his talk-page history for more). Goblin Face (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything that points to SAS being Tumbleman or SAS being the Cap'n. Maybe I'm missing something. As for the article. I don't think it hurts to revisit an article; that's what editors do but a BLP is not pseudoscience; its about a human being not a science of any kind. Could there be aspects that are fringe to mainstream science or so called pseudoscience, sure, but let's not confuse the terms. What I see here are a lot of accusations with out any proof. Further, un less I remembering incorrectly no sanctions were placed on SAS, and anyone for any reason and they do, can take an editor to AE or arbitration so I think we can safely tuck that implied accusation away. I'd like to see a full scale check on these accounts and positive evidence there was socking before we toss arounds anymore accusations that assume connections.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC))

Regarding Tumbleman I would point out that Tumbleman/Viharo is the "Director of Operations of ISHAR". He is not the "Director of Archiving of ISHAR". These are two different people. This can be googled. SAS81 often touted his background as an archivist in cultural history and research. Anyone can do the math.

Craig Weiler of Weiler psi already settled this one year ago at Reality Sandwich. Ptarmigander (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying, Tumbleman has been quite public I believe. My concern is the linking of the three user names. I like my math to be very clear... no guessing in math. :O) If you're suggesting Tumbleman is Cap'n. No idea so far. If you're suggesting SAS and Tumblerman are different users, I'd agree. If you're suggesting SAS is the Cap'n, doesn't seem likely. If you're suggesting SAS was sanctioned at AE or Arb, Nope. If you're suggesting that SAS did anything but try to work here in as a productive way as he knew how, I'd agree. Was the environment easy to work in? Nope. I left And Slim Virgin left. In total let's wait for a check on the users and maybe not judge the other users on the page. If there's need to work on the article no reason not do it but it must be neutral not slanted in any direction. My thoughts.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC))

I suppose there are some concerns about outing here. Although Craig Weiler when discussing cyber-bullying already did that last year. But maybe he was wrong? Still, that would not change all the other information out there. So math .. homework... it all adds up to the same mastery of the subject at hand. As far as SAS81 trying "to work here in as a productive way as he knew how" I think that is humorous, nearly prescient and an absolutely correct assessment. And I too am in favor of a neutral un-slanted approach regarding the greatest pseudo-science oriented author of all time. I think Deepak deserves more credit in this area. No need to get negative about such an accomplishment.Ptarmigander (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As Manul has shown SAS and Tumbleman both have a very similar writing style, make the same little grammar habits and say the same stuff frequently accusing other editors of being biased etc. Likely at the minimum they are related or have been sharing accounts, this is something Tumbleman has been involved with before. But Tumbleman is a strange fellow even accusing other people of logging onto his account or using his IP in the past, can't be bothered to show diffs but they are there if you look on Sheldrake's talk-page from last year. But this is not a place to discuss this so I will not be further commenting. You can discuss that on the SPI if needed be. I have nothing against Tumbleman personally and neither does anyone else here, but his editing activities on SAS or association with this account are disrupting to Wikipedia both on and on the website. Goblin Face (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

"Greatest pseudoscience editor of all time".That's neutral? Best wishes here. I have nothing against anyone here either but this environment is not my cup of tea, so I'll leave you to it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)0

LOL! Well put, although there are others who vie for that position. Whatever the case, he's certainly been good at cashing in on his fame and fantasies. P. T. Barnum, D. D. Palmer, and especially B. J. Palmer would have been proud of him.

Littleolive oil, this is the talk page, where NPOV does not apply, so lighten up. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

BLP applies to talk pages. And I'm plenty light, but I tend not to find fun in trashing another human being whoever it is, so that's my position and why I feel its better to leave this article to others.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC))

But the article did wind up fairly imbalanced as a result of these persistent efforts. Reading it would give the impression that Chopra is a legitimate medical professional.—Kww(talk) 03:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Please compare a previous version back in May before the damage was done to this article. I spent a lot of time in the edit history checking a lot of different edits. I think this is probably the version we can start from. Maybe we can start a draft using the previous version and merge the current version into a draft. The current version does not tell the reader much. That was the WP:POINT. QuackGuru (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

i think that there have been quite a few good sources added since then that we should be careful to preserve. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• SAS81 has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Tumbleman. Manul 05:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been editing for a while for a number of off-wiki reasons, but I want to nip this in the bud. First off, Askahrc is not an anagram for "chakras," and the notion that I'm that cheesy is painful. I've had this account for over 6 years and this is the only article related to anything remotely vedic-related I've ever edited. Secondly, I made a total of 19 edits over several months to the article I supposedly spearheaded. Finally, I think it seems fair to share whatever evidence has been compiled regarding some malfeasance I supposedly did. I have email enabled and am curious to hear, Manul. The Cap'n (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The detailed comparisons made between SAS81 and Tumbleman in the sock puppet investigation are highly convincing. And a speedy resolution is commendable, Good work Manul.

I am shocked.. shocked I say that Dr. Chopra would employ Tumbleman who was indefinitely banned from Wikipedia as his representative and give him his blessing as ISHAR Director of Operations. That there would be such deceitfulness behind attempting to alter Deepak's page and also accepting thousands of dollars from not only Dr. Chopra.. but from donors like Rupert Sheldrake.. ACEP (The Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology) Author Graham Hancock plus many smaller donations from Yogis and Meditators and new Agers around the world. $22,846. in an Indiegogo campaign. Also ISHAR is made up of such stellar luminaries like Robert Thurman and William Bushell of Tibet House.. Dean Ornish .. and many others. Simply a shocking turn of events.

It seems like so much of what SAS81 was saying for months here is suspect now. And SAS81 was the main ISHAR Wikipedian. No wonder that ISHAR is now saying: "Please note that Wikipedia user SAS81 is not currently affiliated with ISHAR." Does that "not currently affiliated" mean "maybe later"? They did not say "no longer affiliated" I notice.

Now if The Cap'n /Askahrc would disavow any past or present connection with ISHAR that would clear more things up. Nip that right in the bud. right? Then if that is settled apologies can be made for what was an understandable mistake and editors can turn their attention back to the job of editing on the Chopra page in the light of honest disclosure.. without being duped or taken for a ride.Ptarmigander (talk) 09:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No, Ptarmigander, as is prominently posted on both my User & Talk Pages, I am affiliated with ISHAR and have been since I was approached with a job unrelated to WP in August (at which point I completely stopped editing WP articles out of concern over any possible COI). Since I need to comment here I've posted disclaimers on my user/talk pages to be transparent, but my employment with ISHAR quelled my WP activity, it didn't fund it. SAS81 was focused on WP, but that is not the focus of ISHAR itself.

If anyone suspects I was SAS81 myself, that I edited articles under a different account since August or otherwise engaged in inappropriate behavior, please use a CheckUser. As for whatever relates to SAS81, I am limited in what I can disclose, but I can definitively state that user SAS81 is not and will not be affiliated with ISHAR, nor do they represent ISHAR on WP. That decision was made long before this issue on Wikipedia arose, and the need to address it on WP was not apparent until now.

Anyone is free to discuss this on my Talk Page if they are so inclined, but this page is not the right venue for a discussion like this. The Cap'n (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

So Cap'n your job at ISHAR is precisely SAS81's job at ISHAR. Sas81 stated -during his AE and numerous other times- about his role at ISHAR: "I’m a researcher and representative to an archive and repository." and now you state "I work for ISHAR as an archivist." "advising and helping build the archive" "My role is limited to content that ISHAR is curating."

And you have just disclosed this on your user and talk page after the fact of SAS81 being investigated and blocked. How convenient for ISHAR to not lose their arhivist and researcher. Ptarmigander (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

At what point in the past was User:Askahrc aware that SAS81 either was or was not a colleague at ISHAR? At what point in the past was User:Askahrc aware that SAS81 was a sockpuppet of Tumbleman? When was User:Askahrc going to tell Wikipedia that their colleague at work is an active sock-puppeteer on the Wiki? I don't see how any of this can possibly be made to make sense. I'll be very interested in the real explanation when it eventually emerges. Actually, no I won't. Who cares. --Nigelj (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Ptarmigander, SAS81's job was to represent an archive on WP, my job is build that archive. There's no more similarity between our roles than between a real estate agent and a gardener working on the same house. And it's not "convenience" that I am posting this information now; I already said I had no business or activity on WP until it came to our attention that the relationship (or lack thereof) between SAS81 and ISHAR might need to be stated on WP. Lastly, you seem to be claiming that I am SAS81, a serious accusation which should necessitate an SPI & CheckUser if you truly believe it. In any case, this Talk Page is not a forum and not the place to discuss your personal concerns about someone who has not edited this page in months. The Cap'n (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Nigelj "At what point in the past was User:Askahrc aware that SAS81 either was or was not a colleague at ISHAR?" -I know that Tumbleman stated one year ago that "If I do ever get my case repealed it will be through the activities of The Cap." and "The Capn has reached out to me and many other editors involved with the Sheldrake article and is interested in taking the proper steps in Wikipedia to correct this problem." So they have been in contact well before SAS81 showed up here last spring. Ptarmigander (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@The Cap'n I guess SAS81 was Rome Viharo the Director of Operations for ISHAR. I am assuming your position is something like the Director of Archiving? I see absolutely no reason to believe the statements you make about ISHAR or trust your statements or ISHAR's activities regarding Wikipedia anymore than I or anyone else should have believed or trusted SAS81's. As always- the proof is in the pudding. As far as any continuing Arbitration concerning this fiasco I believe the proper course is to seek arbitration and sanctions against the so called ISHAR Wikipedians should ISHAR pursue any further activities aimed at Sock puppeting.. meatpuppeting.. or canvassing and organizing editors especially in pseudo-science and alt. med topics on Wikipedia. Ptarmigander (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Rollback and fold in new refs and selected content?

So do editors agree that the next step should be a rollback, followed by folding in the new references and reviewing the new content for re-incusion? --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: No I don't. Part of that content was written by Slim Virgin who is according to Atama, a highly respected and neutral admin., not a supporter of anything that supports pseudoscience or fringe. So why is the content added by possibly the most experienced Wikipedian on this page going to be lost with this roll back. This looks like a move to control the content in a specific direction which I can't support. I doubt Slim Virgin will be back to rewrite that content given her less than positive experience here. So no. Leave the article as is and make changes as needed from that point. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC))

  So we include Slim Virgin's contributions in the ones we review for re-inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

  No. Rolling way back to some old version is not the way Wikipedia articles progress. If someone has an edit suggestion, with sources, and reasons why it is an improvement, then let's see it, or hear about it here. That's how we do things. --Nigelj (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

My objection is to a roll back to some subjectively defined place where neutrality is supposed to exist. That's not the way our articles develop. I used SV's edits as an example of what could be lost. If an editor wants to add or subtract content bring it here let it be discussed and agreed upon.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC))

Interference by sockpuppets can be addressed in a number of ways. complete reversion of their edits and discussions that were impacted by their presence is one. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• No - The article is in far better shape today than it was in the past. If editors have specific issues with article let them address those issues in discussion first. But I would remind editors who think that this article gives the impression that Chopra is a legitimate medical professional, that despite his foray into metaphysical foo, Chopra is a board certified medical doctor with an active California license and remains affiliated with Scripps Memorial Hospital. So in this sense, yes, according to the ABMS, the Medical Board of California, and Scripps, he is a legitimate medical professional and the article currently gives a fair account of that. And in the other sense, the article also gives a fair account of his less legitimate ideas – notions and potions and lotions and whatever other pseudoscience junk he's trying to sell. This article is in good shape currently. SueDonem (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • He is not notable for being a doctor and none of his fame is related to doctoring and none of his publishing has been at all accepted by medical publishers. He is notable for being an author/speaker and new age guru and that is how our article needs to portray him. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Notability defines why we have an article on Chopra.That he is a physician in the allopathic tradition is significant to the biography. Both are necessary in this article.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC))

WP:UNDUE says that we present the content of the article as reflective of how the subject is viewed - he is not viewed primarily or even significantly as a "doctor" (and by the experts in the medical field even less so)- rather as a promoter of "alternative medicine". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course he is primarily viewed as a doctor. He is widely referred to as "Dr. Deepak Chopra, Dr. Chopra, Deepak Chopra MD, and even Deepak Chopra MD FACP. His legitimate and (let's face it) impressive medical credentials are a large part of what gives him the illusion of credibility. SueDonem (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Becoming a qualified, certified and licensed medical doctor is a significant life-time achievement for anyone. You can't write an encyclopedia bio of someone and airbrush such a thing out of their life! That would be a misreading of UNDUE. --Nigelj (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Being a doctor is not encyclopedic in and of itself. As a "doctor" he would be non notable and not have an article at all. The relevance to this encyclopedia article of being a "doctor" is mere background at best or mere marketing gimmick at worst -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that he isn't licensed, only that presenting that information before noting that very little of anything he promotes is actually supported by facts is putting the cart before the horse.—Kww(talk) 04:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• The WP:EVASION policy says that editors "are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." There's a reason this policy exists -- Wikipedia can't reward the kind of deception that went on here. It seems the easiest way to implement this is to roll back and then restore cherry-picked edits for which the editor had independent reasons. (Verifiable/productive goes without saying.) Manul 07:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• I think this situation demands the strictest possible enforcement of COI editing restrictions. Such editors must not make anything other than minor edits, and should use the talk page. They do have information which can be useful. If they can convince other editors on the talk page to make an edit, then the other editors can do it for them. Their reasoning must be clear and stated very openly, with no shenanigans behind the scenes. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Well in this case we take the set of COI editing restrictions and intersect it with the set of blocked-proxy editing restrictions, which is necessarily smaller than either set. Manul 08:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• There is a problem here in that the operation of COIs has caused a bogus consensus which in turn affected the article. I think a rollback would be too crude a way to address this however; a sweep with NPOV antenna twitching should be enough to resolve any untoward editing that has taken place. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That may work, too. Policy-wise we may roll back, but instead of rolling back we consider the article tinged and without consensus. New edits cannot be challenged on the basis of prior consensus. Manul 08:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This latest incident reminds me of the "Vivekachudamani" episode, where one of Chopra's long time employees represented themselves on Wikipedia as an objective independent editor with no connection to Chopra (until caught). I suggest this article be frequently reviewed to help mitigate effects of ongoing COI lobbying efforts.- 14:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Considering that Ronz got reverted within minutes, I am leaning towards a roll back. In order for the non-rollback option to work, all editors must agree that the current article has no consensus and permit movement in the direction of the pre-COI state, which isn't going to happen. The result of this deception shouldn't be an uphill climb to fix the article. Manul 18:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Bull Rangifer: Perhaps you can appreciate the inconsistency that is being applied on this article in that a roll back which several editors opposed and which removed hours of work by multiple editors is OK while a revert that moves the article to a pre roll back position and saves much of that work is not. Just sayin', and sure looks like ownership. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC))

Draft

I started the draft. See Talk:Deepak Chopra Draft. QuackGuru (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a section for alternative medicine business. See Talk:Deepak Chopra_Draft#Alternative_medicine_business. The text is garbed in the Deepak_Chopra#Reception. All the text in the Deepak_Chopra#Reception section must be moved back to the appropriate sections where they were before. QuackGuru (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This is much better so far. You guys are awesome.

I am happy to see a broader Spirituality and Religion section evolving.

Along with Krishnamurti as influences please consider adding Carlos Castaneda.

"He’s (Carlos Castaneda) been acknowledged as an important influence by Deepak Chopra" from- THE DARK LEGACY OF CARLOS CASTANEDA By Robert Marshall Salon April 12, 2007.

And also "Deepak Chopra's first spiritual experience was with LSD"

"I've done LSD. At 17 it led me to my first spiritual awakening." from -Playboy March 2011, Vol. 58, Iss. 3, pg. 35-40, by: David Hochman, "Playboy Interview: Deepak Chopra"

Chopra claims "LSD set me on the path to become a world-renowned teacher".

and "Taking LSD Was Fantastic” ... If I had not had that experience, I would not be where I am today" -from- The Observer/Guardian Fionola Meredith -16 August 2008. Ptarmigander (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for helping move on with something concrete.

QG, could you please identify what version you started from and describe the subsequent changes? --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ptarmigander, please provide the full citation to understand your proposal.

User:Ronz, I started with this version. I am trying to fix the mess with the reception section. Text from other sections where moved to the inappropriate reception section. QuackGuru (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! That version is dated 22:49, 13 May 2014. The discussions and changes to the article had already been going on for over a month since the latest sockpuppet of Tumbleman, SAS81, had arrived and started pushing changes to the article. The version precedes the overhaul of the organization of the article. --Ronz (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The older version was littered with primary sources and was difficult to cleanup. QuackGuru (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it is important to get the Ptolomy Thompkins quote from Talk:Deepak Chopra Draft back into the lead as a good summary of the reception that actual "doctors" give to chopra's work. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know which quote you want to include. QuackGuru (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

oops you edited so fast and I misspelled the name! from this version [10]  : According to Ptolemy Tompkins, the medical and scientific communities' opinion of him ranges from dismissive to damning; criticism includes claims that his approach could lure sick people away from effective treatments. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone was tinkering with a lot of the sources. The source you provided was two different sources combined. I used one source. QuackGuru (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Update: See at the section Talk:Deepak Chopra Draft#Ideas and reception. The Talk:Deepak_Chopra_Draft#Approach_to_health_care section can be condensed. Also check the Talk:Deepak_Chopra_Draft#Alternative_medicine section. Not sure which text under the section Talk:Deepak Chopra Draft#Ideas and reception we should keep or delete. I merged the old version with the new version. QuackGuru (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Update. Please review the draft. I merged the old text along with the new text. Now there is more text than the previous and current version.. QuackGuru (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your hard work. Can we OK an entire draft in one vote or comment? Perhaps we could approach this bit by bit even one paragraph at a time.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC))

That would be a waste of time. There is a lot of problems with the current text. For example, the Deepak Chopra#Reception section was text from other sections. It should of never been moved from other sections and some of the text was rewritten. The rewrites greatly altered the meaning of the text. QuackGuru (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The rollback and merging the new refs and text is done. QuackGuru (talk) 08:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

There are active objections to roll back and also the exclusion of physician. Further that a sock was involved in discussion, a editor who declared his COI and never edited into the article is a thin argument at best for removing the edits made by good faith editors.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC))

author - speaker

I think the thing that might be most lacking in the current article is a significant discussion of the book generation and their history of jumping to the best seller list. Do we have sources for that other than the intro blurbs to his speaking gigs? (and do we have coverage of his speaking gigs, thats another important aspect) We cover many of the ideas from his books but as separate from the books in a way that may be too abstract. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

He has written 22 NY Times best sellers. That is a remarkable achievement regardless of what you think about what he writes about. This fact should be prominently displayed in the opening and given more than a brief mention in the body.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.194.250 (talk • contribs)

Okay that just go reverted by another editors who feels that stating that Chopra has published x amount of books with x amount of New York Times best sellers is UNDUE. Can someone please explain to me how being a best selling author is UNDUE in the lead but specific criticisms is not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.194.250 (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Being a best selling author is not WP:UNDUE, but listing how many books and "prominently displaying" it is UNDUE for the Lead plus a bit WP:PEACOCK and WP:PROMOTIONAL. Please sign your comments with "~~~~". --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not really talking about the lead, we introduce him as an author and a speaker which I think is good, but in the body we dont cover what that means and where how he has had impact peddling his snake oil to the worried wealthy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This sentence is in the lede: "His book The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success was on The New York Times Best Seller list[6] for 72 weeks.[7]" Is it appropriate for the lede to include "for 72 weeks."? QuackGuru (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

given trend for stacked purchasing to funnel sales to hit the list once so you can put a "NYT Bestseller" on the cover, the fact that it was on the list for over a year and a half is pretty remarkable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Lets keep in mind the WP:LEAD is used to establish the subject's notability. Factual statements about achievements are not only allowed, but encouraged to some extent. It just doesn't need to read like their PR person wrote it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Chopra is a practicing physician please see talk page archives. Has "been described as" is not weasel wording it is a convention used to introduce content. This has been discussed over and over. He is somethings like Indian-American. Then we can say he has been described in different ways by press, authors. (Littleolive oil (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC))

Chopra is currently a practicing physician according to which source? The term "has been" described suggests he no longer is described as. The part "has been" is past tense. QuackGuru (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

http://health.usnews.com/doctors/deepak-chopra-707300

https://www.breeze.ca.gov/datamart/detailsCADCA.do?selector=false&selectorType=&selectorReturnUrl=&anchor=1228309.0.0— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.194.250 (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

"On April 21, Deepak Chopra, former endocrinologist and author of books that have sold more than 10 million copies, packed B.C. Place Stadium in Vancouver, Canada, with people wanting to hear more."[11]

It might work by adding "described as".[12] Not sure about this. What do others think? QuackGuru (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Has "been described as" merely refers to the source which is always in our past unless we say something like "is described as in so and so's book". I don't mind either way(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC))

The source was recent. You don't use past tense in this case. QuackGuru (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Why have you changed physician to former endocrinologist and why former?(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC))

Has been is the present perfect tense which means something began in the past and continues into the present. This is the wording we need for this article. Chopra has been considered and still is considered a new a new age guru. The use of is, is not correct grammatically.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC))

The used of "considered" qualifies the usage to make us think the occasions (where such "consideration" took place) are in the past, this is different from a use of the tense qualified differently (e.g. "Deepak Chopra has been a New Age guru since the publication of his first book"). Olive's gloss "has been and still is considered" would be okay but wordier than just saying "is". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't suggested text. This was simply part of the discussion and a cmt about how "has been" is understood, and not a suggestion for text, "Chopra has been considered and still is considered a new age guru." Olive's gloss? No idea what that means. Grammatically, using "has been" is correct. "Considered" is another aspect of the sentence/ equation. That is, "new age guru" unless qualified by who considers ie, the source, suggests a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Chopra is for many not a new age guru, and for many more not even credible, while others think of him as a physician, healer, author. The use of is suggests a statement of fact while "new age guru" is an opinion not a fact held by the source and should not be included in the article as definitive or in Wikipedia's voice, but should be qualified by noting the source, or at the very least wording that indicates this is the opinion of a source. We are muddling together denotation and connotation here; what Chopra is and secondary characteristics as in how Chopra is viewed. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC))

The part "has been" is paste tense. This suggests he no longer is a new age guru. QuackGuru (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Purpose of the lede

The lede section should introduce and summarize the article. Given we've a sizeable article here, if the article doesn't contain entire sections on a subject, it probably doesn't deserve much mention in the lede. Otherwise we risk violating WP:NPOV (especially WP:DUE) and WP:NOT (especially WP:SOAP).

Granted, the lede should introduce the article as well, so some topics may be given more detail in the lede than otherwise warranted by NPOV, especially early historical aspects of a subject that led into areas of prominence. Hence, the second paragraph of the lede. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding new material to the lede that is not addressed anywhere at all in the article is inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I added the new information to the body instead rather than restoring it to the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

New sentence

Anyone else feel that this sentence is kind of a non-statement, was just a offhanded remark at the end of the source, and doesn't really add anything of value to this article?

In 1995 Chopra was not licensed to practice medicine in California where he had a clinic; however, he did not see patients at this clinic "as a doctor" during this time. 104.173.194.250 (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

No information there. I'm fine with removing it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC))

When the sources talk about his initial set up of the clinic/center in CA, they frequently identify that he was not a medically practicing doctor there. [13] [14] [15] And if it is so vitally important to mention that he IS a physician in the lead sentence, it seems very hypocritical to argue that his non-licensed status is then NOT relevant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Not hypocritical. He is a licensed and notable physician and the article does and should note that. But saying that he was not a licensed physician in a state where he was not even practicing medicine seems like a nonsensical statement that really says nothing when you think about it.104.173.194.250 (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, hypocritical. If his having a medical license is so damn important that it MUST be mentioned in the lead sentence as is being argued, then NOT having a medical license in CA must be at least important enough to mention in the body. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess you are not following the logic here. Because Chopra is a well-known doctor (health authority, medical expert, alternative medicine guru... your choice), presenting him as a physician in the lead follows WP:LEAD because it is definitional to the subject's notability. Not having a medical license in the state of CA during 1995 when he wasn't doing anything which would require him to have a medical license is a trivial point at best -- and likely just there as argumentative jab in an obvious editorial attempt to discredit the subject. When there is so much meaningful criticism out there discrediting Chopra, I should be surprised that a serious editor would be arguing to includes this meaningless bit of drivel. 104.173.194.250 (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Except that he is NOT known as a "physician" - he is known as new age guru/alt med pscyhobabbler/author / FOO (friend of Oprah). "Physicians" dont tell you you can hum your cancer away or not age by thinking positively. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like you have a strict definition of the term physician (and a strong opinion about the subject which may be clouding good editorial judgment). I see it like this: the subject is an accomplished medical doctor who then took that scientific knowledge and integrated it with some extremely woo concepts about health, and became wildly famous for those ideas. But he is still dealing with health. So he is still notable as a physician -- certainly not a physician who strictly follows mainstream medicine completely, but still a physician. This is not a trivial point. It is definitional to the subject notability. This other nonsense about Mario Andretti owning a car in California which he never drove but didn't have a California driver's license so he couldn't drive it anyways... that's just pure un-encyclopedic nonsense, possibly be strongly pushed by an editor with strong opinions against the subject. 104.173.194.250 (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

There are lots of people who "deal with health" - "physicians" do so with medical practice. woo-sters do it with woo. Where do you think humming your cancer away falls?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you want my personal opinion? That's not relevant. Chopra deals with health and does so with scientific medical practice mixed with all sorts of other non-scientific approaches. Remember, you keep pointing out the claim that his publishers insist on placing MD on his book covers. He has over 20 best-selling books. This means whether Chopra or you like it, his licensure is definitional to his notability. 104.173.194.250 (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Definitional AS COVER FOR THE WOO. If you arent going to include the second half, the first half at best meaningless and at worst deceptive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Shouting doesn't make your point any more clear. Chopra is a physician -- he has a current medical license. Therefore, describing him as a physician is not deceptive -- it is a fact. I am glad to know that you also agree that being a physician is definitional to Chopra's notability. Remember, this article is not promoting his magic cures as being anything but bunk; therefore, we are not using "physician" in a deceitful manner. This article already goes through great lengths - more than what is warranted - to let the reader know that the mainstream scientific opinion is that Chopra's ideas are bogus. 104.173.194.250 (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

That he drives a Mercedes is "decriptive" too. but it is not what he is noted for. (and no, i do not agree that his "being a physician" is definitional to him. "being a woomeister who uses the cover of a physician" is definitional. I agree that 2+2=4, I do not agree that 2=4 ) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are too prejudiced against the subject -- which is preventing you from editing/discussing this article objectively. I would highly encourage you to move on to work on articles where you are less emotionally invested. 104.173.194.250 (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for caring for my emotions. However, I will pass on accepting your diagnosis and even moreso your "cure". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I am concerned about good article writing. You are allowing your bias to create a conflict in accomplishing this task. Take a break for the holidays at least. Afterwards you may see that adding nonsensical statement -- like the one we are discussing -- isn't helpful to good article writing. 104.173.194.250 (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not a bias to represent what the sources have defined as notable about the subject as notable while not presenting half of what the sources have found notable without presenting the other half. THAT would be bias editing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

We are going in circles now. He is a physician. That's a fact. Some sources leave it at that. Some sources say that he is a physician and a new age guru. Some sources say he is a physician only to sell books. We can report on all of those sources, but none of those opinions distract us from the fact that he is a notable physician. By choosing one of those opinions -- the one which most closely matches your own bias -- and trying to shift the focus of the article to only present that opinion is biased editing. Thus, I am suggesting you have a conflict. 104.173.194.250 (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

If he were a notable physician, he would have done something notable physician-y. He hasnt. thats a fact. What he has done notably is woo. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Before you two take this infinitely recursive argument through the next dozen or so repetitions, you might pause to consider that you are arguing about something on which there is already a clear consensus (and unambiguous policy arguments): the fact that he is a licensed physician is well sourced and appropriate to treat in detail. Likewise, comments which evaluate his quality as a physician or an intellectual are also fair game, as are other judgements (supportive or critical) of his ideas and his scientific astuteness. With regard to the specific issue of the lead, the consensus is that mention of his role as a physician was not really appropriate to the very first sentence, but that it should be prominent information found in the first section of the lead. Considering those established bounds, what more do you need and why waste your energy going around in circles on this? Snow talk 09:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with removing that sentence. Cla68 (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This statement is verifiable to multiple sources and is noteworthy. The sources show he was seeing patients but not "as a doctor" back in the 1990s. He is licensed as of 2004 but he is not known for currently seeing patients as a doctor and I can't find sources that indicate that he is currently seeing patients as a doctor. QuackGuru (talk) 05:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So?104.173.194.250 (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

[16] Licensed and hospital affiliated with.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC))

I think the statement needs to be reworked and to better contextualized, but not necessarily removed altogether. In the sources, this fact is raised in the context of examining lawsuits and complaints filed against Mr. Chopra and whether A) it was appropriate for him to be engaged in medical-like consults and practices in California when he was not at the time licensed in that state and was not recommending treatment widely accepted by the scientific and medical communities as effective, and B) whether more broadly his status as a doctor has given credence to the views he espouses in his works and the products he endorses (basically the same issues editors are debating with regard to our sources and coverage here at present). As to the first class of details, it seems to me that an appropriate context could be the Legal actions section, since suits and complaints were filed, and discussing his status as a licensed physician (in general or in regard to specific locales/circumstances) is entirely appropriate in that context.

As to the broader issue of his status as a doctor instilling perceived value in the ideas, services and products he endorses or is directly involved with, things are a little more complicated, and I think we need to be mindful of sticking close to the sources. Some of those sources do directly speak to the fact that support for his advice derives at least partly from the fact that he is seen to be a physician (and especially was a factor in establishing his legitimacy at the beginning of his becoming a household name). But I'm not sure how much weight that deserves -- afterall, that's not a terribly surprising or incredibly informative detail to be adding, nor one particular to this subject. And we already have coverage of a significant number of sources that cast doubt on the medical and scientific value of Chopra's advice without going into the question of whether he is a "real" doctor. I wouldn't be surprised if he no longer sees patients as a physician -- why would he, when the only purpose it can serve is to distract from his main work, leave him vulnerable to lawsuits, and give potential fuel to his critics -- but we have no source really indicating either way with certainty. We do have sources that state that Chopra himself claims not to want the "Dr." to appear on/within his books, but his publishers insist otherwise. But the question of how the fact that he no longer practices (and the dubious scientific status of practices he endorses) influence his legitimacy as a physician is a highly subjective matter --- and, accordingly, we need to be cautious not to weigh in there with our own perspectives, but rather stick with what the sources say. But as we have the details as to when and where he was licensed, if there's context to discuss those facts, it's certainly reasonable to do so. Snow talk 18:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as context goes, it might be worth mentioning his repeated denials that he is/was a practicing physician. It might also be worth mentioning when he finally obtained a California license, if possible. --Ronz (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree it's worth mentioning, if he's on the record as saying as much. I've personally only seen some sources in which he's quoted as saying that he'd rather the title wasn't affixed to his books, but if he's repeatedly said outright that he is not a physician, that's pretty germane. Snow talk 23:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Mostly I think the sources are his spokesteam vociferously "clarifying" that when Chopra was seeing people in his California Clinic while he did not have his CA medical license, he was not seeing them as a "doctor". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Right -- the New York Magazine piece in particular goes into this in light of civil lawsuits, one of which involved a man who sought treatment for leukemia at the early clinics associated with Chopra and ayurveda healing, and who -- according to his wife, who filed the suite -- was told he was cured, only to die within the year. The wife also makes a point of claiming that their faith in Chopra derived in large part from his status as an M.D.; Chopra's direct involvement may have been limited to a single consult of some sort, but it's in light of this and similar practices at the center (prior to his California certification) that Chopra and his associates had to clarify through their publicist that "He sees patients, but not as a doctor." Snow talk 03:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, here is straight from the horses mouth in 1995 where he takes issue with a previous article identifying where he thinks the other article was incorrect " The insinuation that I practice medicine without a license in California. I have not practiced medicine in California or elsewhere for years. My principal occupation for the past several years has been as an author and a speaker. "-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The whole affair seems passingly notable enough to mention in brief in the legal actions section, provided Chopra's interpretation of events get summarized as well. But acceptable and strictly necessary are not the same thing of course. In any event, that would be the context in which discussion of his California certification would be most relevant. Snow talk 03:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

As recently as this year Chopra posted a video specifically for Wikipedia editors describing what he does which included information indicating he was a practicing physician, Quite frankly Its hard to understand the push here to discredit his allopathic medical background. The link to that video is in the talk page archives.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC))

Personally, I don't see any push to discredit his medical credentials. They are mentioned prominently in the lead and repeatedly throughout the rest of the article, and I haven't seen anyone indicating that information should be removed or even altered. This thread is merely about whether we note when he got his California licensing, which may very well be relevant in some context -- though I tend to agree that, as it was previously written and placed, the statement was without context, vague in meaning and perhaps unnecessary. But in any event, thank you for mentioning that video. I for one would like any additional information available on the nature of his current work -- though, unfortunately, as a primary source, it's use in terms of determining our content itself is negligible. Snow talk 23:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You're new here. Stick around!:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC))

Actually, I've been following the discussions here for quite a while, off and on. I just have the good sense to not commit to this particular talk page consistently! ;) Snow talk 00:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

What we know has happened here is that editors with a coi pushed to create undue emphasis on his credentials.

Who cares what Chopra says in his videos aimed specifically at Wikipedia editors? It's irrelevant to article content. --Ronz (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"undue emphasis on his credentials" -- Is this your opinion again? 104.173.194.250 (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Well we're not talking about what editors may or may not have done in the past. We're talking about what we, the currently active editors, do with regard the specific issues raised above, in a manner consistent with our sourcing and policies. As to the usefulness of that (or any similar) video, a major point in my mentioning it was to explicitly point out that as a primary source of that sort, it was not suitable for the purposes of sourcing. That being said, being incompatible with that purpose does not make any source automatically devoid of information that might prove relevant to editors working on a given subject; understanding the context of the information one is representing isn't a liability to objective and neutral editing, it's an obligation of same. And if you don't believe that how a man views himself and criticism of his work is in any significant sense relevant to understanding him as a subject you are editing about, I very much feel you are confusing two separate editorial processes and the reasons why we have WP:V and WP:N policies of the sort we do in the first place. So who cares? Well, I do, for one. Even as someone who has been displeased with the amount of interference from single-purpose editors with apparent serious conflicts of interest who seemed to be trying to instill his voice here. Especially in that context, actually. Did I find anything in it that was particularly inconsistent with what I expected? No. But in the circumstances of contributing on this space, it was worth taking the look and not altogether uninformative. Snow talk 02:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The lede requires a bit more balance

"Through his books and videos, he has become one of the best-known and wealthiest figures in the holistic-health movement.[6]" I think it can be balanced with " The Superstition 2008 book wrote that "The fact that Chopra’s pseudoscientific New Age blather sells at all is a sad commentary on reading tastes." QuackGuru (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's the difference between how we think:

I read the sentence "Through his books and videos, he has become one of the best-known and wealthiest figures in the holistic-health movement." and I see plain facts -- no opinions, just facts. I see what you would like to add, and I read total opinion. How is adding anything from that opinion going to help balance the neutrality of the facts? Somehow you believe it will (and I would love to know why) -- and that is the difference between how we think. 104.173.194.250 (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That would not be anything approaching an appropriate change for the lead, which is not the place to be directly quoting specific subjective opinions of the man at length, be they damning criticisms or gushingly adoring/defensive support. The lead is for objective overview of the subject which cleaves as closely as possible to the consensus of the sources, and represented in dispassionate and non-inflammatory prose. Specific quotes can be saved for later sections and even there WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:COPYVIO and a bevy of other policies advise us to reasonably limit how much of our content comes in the form of reproducing the exact wording of others, and to put reasonable limits on the number and reasonable effort into making sure they represent a good spread of perspectives, while also not distorting the consensus view, whether that be overwhelming praise, near-universal condemnation or (almost always) something in-between. In short, please see WP:SNOWBALL. Because frankly this tug-of-war between two sides who stake out extreme positions on every single little section and point -- and (increasingly) every sentence, phrase, and word within them -- is just getting to be a waste of everyone's time. Other than as a helpful display reminding us all of how two sides can be diametrically opposed on a given issue and still be missing due attention to policy in a nearly identical fashion. Anyone who wants to see the man referred to in language even remotely approaching either "a devoted healer" or, indeed, "a quack guru" in the lead (in the form of our own wording or a quote) should just give up now, because there are too many experienced editors involved now (attracted by the fuss of past arguments of these sorts) for that to happen. Snow talk 02:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The source is fine as far as I can tell. One way of dealing with such heavily biased language in a BLP is to paraphrase it. I'd also ask to see the the quote with some context. I can see part of the book online but not the page noted in the source. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC))

I have no problem with the quote per say. It's obviously struck out a very strong position on the man, but that doesn't necessarily preclude it's utility, so long as it's appropriately attributed and contextualized. But the lead is not the place to be presenting and discussing such personalized opinions. Snow talk 23:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I do have a problem with the quote. This is a BLP and we should abide by "do no harm". That means to me that while we can and must include content per weight that discusses criticism we don't have to use inflammatory, snide language to do so. Our job is information not creating emotional impact the way a second class rag would. How do we say what we need to say with out degrading ourselves, the subject, and the encyclopedia. One way of doing that is to paraphrase the quote so that we give the reader the information with out the bias.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC))

We are not allowed to censor criticism. We must preserve the spirit of the source, and when it's criticism, I think it's best that we stay out of it and just quote, with proper attribution. We have no responsibility to "do no harm" by preventing readers from reading what the critics have said. We don't write hagiographies here, and we don't engage in historical revisionism. We document what reliable sources have said, both fact and opinions. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

A couple of points here. First, I was responding to your own assertion that the source was solid. I'm not advocating for its inclusion one way or another; it might very well be appropriate, but as it's at the extreme end of dialogue on the subject, it would need significant discussion and a solid consensus to add -- and a great deal of careful attribution and contextualization if it was. My narrow purpose in responding to this thread was to state that it most definitely is not appropriate to the lead. However, I must strongly disagree with you that this is an example of a type of quote which is best handled by paraphrasing. The fact of the matter it is, the wording of the statement is so strong and damning that there is no way to restructure it in the dispassionate and neutral tone that our prose must have here without completely subverting the very meaning and intent of the quote. It's an absolutely non-neutral statement, so working it into our objective description of the man would actually be a serious departure from policy. In other words, the solution your propose to avoid bias is actually the one way in which one would guarantee bias. Because if we try to faithfully render that quote into the text using our own language, we would in essence be endorsing a strong position made by a single source, because we wouldn't be overtly noting the source. If, however, we provide a quote, making it clear that the point being made is that of one individual, juxtaposed against the context of our more factually-worded discussion on the man, the reader can contrast the two and we avoid inadvertently endorsing a specific position. And, ideally, if we do our job right, our more neutral framing content will give them some of the information and context necessary to decide for themselves what they think of that strongly worded criticism.

Again, very much ambivalent to that particular quote; it's hard to think of a criteria or policy that it fails with regard to being permissible for inclusion. On the other hand, as you say, just because you can add something does not mean you should and it's hard to classify that clip as anything short of severe. But then harshness is not in itself a reason for exclusion. The real issue, as I see it, is that we should have reasonable caps on the number of total direct quotes in a BLP, and indeed a reasonable limit to those which treat the subject in an overall disparaging manner. We already have a number of these in the article, and I'm not sure this one would add anything new. But, again, if it were added I think it would need to be in the form of a direct quote and, for this and other reasons, would certainly not be appropriate to the lead. Snow talk 07:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I should like to add, as a general point relevant to several currently running discussions here, something which I have never seen referenced on this talk page but which we could do with remembering: the correct way to balance a strong subjective position in a Wikipedia article is generally by providing sources with different perspectives, rather than trying to get the original statement/quote removed merely because you feel it's position is biased. It may very well be biased, but that doesn't mean we are being biased in mentioning it. WP:NPOV is very clear on this; sometimes it is our role to present some very one-sided and/or potent statements. Sometimes the voices on a given subject are so numerous (especially in the case of BLP) that we have to find a way to encapsulate them with a limited selection and use our best editorial discretion (combined with consensus) to decide which are the significant recurring opinions. But in general, it's almost always a more winning strategy (with regard to the benefits for our editors and our readers both) to add a counter example -- provided of course that you can find a reliable source! Are you in the camp that feels Chopra is being unflatteringly characterized here and concerned that the large number of quotes from scientists and journalists questioning the scientific or technical veracity of the ideas he presents might be "skewing" things? Well, instead of trying to counter an argument that we aren't here to debate in the first place (that is, whether what the source said was true or not), try to find something positive to add. The man has been a household name for a while now. Has he won any awards, been granted any honorary degrees, been involved in any professional committees or organization, been sited as an influence on another major figure. Awards are the best, because the people who support the awardee often see them as evidence of their high regard for them, while those who deadset against that same person often see the establishment granting the award in a similar light, so they see view it as evidence for their position ("Well of course those guys think he's the tits!"). Everyone goes away happy. Okay, maybe not so much happy as smug, but everything is a little less adversarial in any event...

Point is, some of this potential material surely exists, with sources covering it -- and to whatever extent it does not, well then, it's not really bias to show more of the sources that do exist relative those that do not. Whatever story is told by them collectively is what we ought to be striving to present, not a cherry-picked collection of facts which just happen to conform to how we feel about the guy. This applies to those on both sides of the gulf which divides many of the active editors here right now. So, similar to the above scenario, if you don't like that Chopra is regarded as a physician, bear in mind that he is a licensed practitioner and there is no shortage of sources that have regarded him as such, at various points in time, even in cases of sources which seem to regard him as a charlatan, this is often stipulated. Well rather than try to assault his formal background and certification, which seem to be an established matter of public record, try instead noting that Chopra himself has claimed that he is not altogether comfortable with his medical title being attached to at least some of his books. What I'm getting at is that we're meant to be taking ourselves out of the equation here as much as possible and my honest assessment of this page is that often that's been the major stumbling block here for a long while -- not just because of single-purpose contributors present here in the past who didn't share that core community value of editorial impartiality, but also more broadly because each side of the camps that have resulted are convinced that if they don't stay active in pushing in one direction that the other will skew the overall picture. That's why I think a more additive approach might break that cycle. Just make sure that you have a good source, that you keep everything in context, and, really, just leave the poor lead alone for a little while! Snow talk 08:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm nit sure who you are addressing, but you've misunderstood me so I'd like to clarify. I have no problem with biased sources/opinionated sources. Many sources are biased in nature. WP outlines ways to deal with that. As I said above the Park source for now looks reliable to me. "Do no harm" used to be a standard for BLPs. The spirit of that phrase still exists. We do not have the right to harm the reputation of the subject of a BLP. We harm when we make more of content than the sources do. Taking a quote from a single source out of context and isolating in an article may be "undue". Why? We are writing to summarize the sources on Chopra, to generalize in a way. That is encyclopedic. To take a quote that shows a highly biased view positive or negative from a single source weights that very specific view point. Better to add content, even more content than we have in this quote that gives more information and better context using multiple sources. This is bow we use sources and how we draw from the mainstream. Further adding content that is an opposing view to create balance is not how we create neutrality We create neutral articles and content by observing the mainstream view on the topic and creating content that reflects that mainstream. The back and forth that comes from adding first one side of a position than another creates choppy hard to read and understand articles. Finally I doubt its a good idea to cast editors as players two camps. This assumes a lot about what editors are doing and believing and can create a divisive environment on top of what might already exist. Thank you for your thoughtful comments. In the end I won't fight whatever the consensus is here whether I think its wrong or not. Life is too short.:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC))

In this case, "do no harm" isn't possible, Littleolive oil. The question is whether we mitigate the harm done to the gullible, ill, and unintelligent, or the harm done to the person attempting to take advantage of them. I know which I consider to be more important.—Kww(talk) 19:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Myself, I don't view it as a matter of making a choice to prioritize the needs of one individual or group over another (except insofar as our policies are all based on the core argument as to what best serves our readers). Rather, I see it as a matter of adhering to WP:V and WP:NPOV. We report what the sources say, regardless of what that means for the interests of one Deepak Chopra or the greater common good, either one. Snow talk 23:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Snow Rise, that's exactly what we do. We need to keep in mind that the overarching goal of Wikipedia is to document the sum total of human knowledge as it is found in RS. Notability is the minimum requirement for the creation of an article, but content of articles is determined by if a RS says something. We just need to frame and source the content properly. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the history of discussion here, including the currently active threads, I don't see how it could be considered a radical statement to say that a divisive environment does in fact exist here, one that reflects entrenched views and mindsets that run counter to consensus making strategies. Note that I didn't say all active editors fell cleanly into one camp or the other, only that this state of affairs has handicapped discussion and process here for a long while. I think that's self-evident and something you can't help but reference, if you're going to try to bring those sides together to find reasonable compromise solutions moving forward.

Anyway, as to the content itself, we're not far off in most respects. Note that your comments about the need to present a general summary when there's such a plurality of voices on a subject (BLP or otherwise) echoes my own. But I'm afraid I don't follow all of your arguments there. I don't see how examining additional perspectives leads to particularly "choppy" prose; rather I see it as a rather fundamental and unavoidable editorial process. I think you need to accept that there are going to be quite a few quotes in any BLP article, and that when the subject elicits such strong language in his critics (and indeed, for any public figure your going to find someone with strong opinions), most editors are most comfortable with letting those sources speak for themselves rather than trying to engineer their statements into our own prose and run the risk of veering from NP:NPOV. I agree that reasonable limits should be put on how many quotes are used -- for brevity's sake, if nothing else -- in principle. But in practical terms, if there's a particular quote that a significant number of editors wish to see added, and it's suitable under all of our content guidelines, good luck keeping it out. Because once it's passed policy, the only arguments you have left to bare it are matters of style and tone. And they may very well be spot on, but those matters are (rightfully) considered more subjective and have little influence here. Quotes and other new content are inevitable -- so yes, choppiness is inevitable in the sense that a large number of editors being active on a given page sometimes causes the original flow of prose to get broken up a little, but that's just a consequence of the Wikipedia additive process and the bumps that arise from new additions of useful perspectives and content can be smoothed out in successive passes.

The other point I just don't follow to the same conclusion as you is the "do no harm" principle. It's an admirable motivation, and something worth keeping in mind, but as nebulous personal principle, it has to take a back seat to actual policy on these matters. Fact is, as active editors in any area (and in BLP articles in particular) sometimes in the course of reporting what the sources say faithfully, we're going to be providing perspectives which are critical of people, sometimes even in a caustic manner. It's not really our job to avoid those sources. It's not our job to stoke the flames of existing debate either, of course, so we can decide how much is an appropriate amount to emphasize, but we do that to make sure our content is representative of the reality of the subject, not to protect the person involved. Any courtesy towards shielding their image from "undue" or "excessive" criticism that may result is merely incidental to our actual goal of keeping the tone of the article neutral for our readers. Snow talk 23:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Do no harm is far from a personal position. Until recently and for years the phrase was an integral part of the BLP policy and on an implied level still is. What that phrase suggests in terms of our editorialship is that while per reliable sources and per weight in the mainstream sources we include certain kinds of information, how we include that information is an editorial decision. We do not have to include the foulest language we can find to make a point. what we have to do is make sure the reader knows the point as been made in the source. If they want to see how that point was made they can go to the source. Creating a neutral article does not mean we have to present both sides of a position. What it means is that we have to represent per weight in the article what is in the sources per their weight in the sources. Further we have no obligation to repeat in the language of the source what that information is. Can we? Sure. Should we? Maybe. Maybe not. Sources often use language that is degrading. Is it our job to repeat that language or is out job to understand the point being made and its context and give our reader that information? Please don't confuse anything I have said with for example these phrases, "It's not really our job to avoid those sources.". I have never advised avoiding sources. "I don't see how examining additional perspectives leads to particularly 'choppy prose'." In a nutshell. we look at the sources on a topic. We examine anything we can find. Then, we add content not becuse it presents another view but because it represents some aspect of the mainstream on the topic.

Kww. I don't think that's a neutral position, to be honest. I don't think most WP editors are in the position to judge the life work of anyone and certainly I don't take on the responsibility of protecting the public from Chopra's alleged misdeeds by writing the article in a way that warns the public. Our job is to represent the multiple mainstream views per significant content we find in sources. Anything else and we stray into potentially, non neutral territory.

Snow. We may be saying the same thing in different words. I've spent enough time on this issue so will be moving on. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC))

We also have to consider MEDRES to consider (and no, Chopra's MD does not qualify him under that requirement). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Responding to the original post, I think quoting should generally be avoided in most cases, as it is often used to add material that is not encyclopedic in tone; the quotes are used because we would never put something so POV-laden in Wikipedia's voice. I disagree that the Lede is not adequately negative, because the criticisms are well-documented in the final paragraph of the Lede in a much more neutral manner. However, I am wondering if anyone has more information about this source in order to establish whether it is actually reliable enough for such a bold claim as "wealthiest and most well-known". If it is reliable, it does belong in its present position as his main claim to notability, but either the first or last sentence (or both) of the final paragraph should be moved up after that one. CorporateM (Talk) 21:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that source is perfectly good for that purpose. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Physician

The prominence within the article of his being a physician has always been in dispute. This was pushed against a coi by editors that have since been blocked. If it should be placed more prominently than any mention of his new age and alt med advocacy, it needs to be discussed at length with some very convincing arguments based upon policies and sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• per [17] "physician" should NOT be in the lead sentence. The "doctor" is gimmick used and supported by his publishers to attempt to establish a false authority for his "hum your cancer away" non-medical nonsense that Wikipedia should NOT be a participant in. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

We already discussed that above; you already edit warred over it (This, as opposed to WP:BRD); and now you want to 'discuss' it again. I've had enough of you people again already. You go ahead, I'll eventually help tidy this up when a few more of you have been blocked or banned. --Nigelj (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

there was clearly no consensus in the above discussion for retention of "physician" in the lead. putting forth the false assertion that there was is pretty disruptive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• I can't say I've kept up with this talkpage, but Chopra is a physician, after all, and I think it's reasonable to mention that in the lead. MastCell ^Talk 22:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Apologies for deleting your comment. Not sure how that happened, but happy you caught the error and restored the cmt. I didn't notice the cmt or that I had somehow deleted it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC))

No worries. MastCell ^Talk 23:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"retention of 'physician'"? The word was discussed ad nauseum months ago and its addition came out of those discussions. Unless Ronz missed the discussions that indicate this is clearly a contentious word and issue this edit summary seems some what surprising and misleading "please don't revert because of personal opinion on possibility of edit being controversial" What personal opinion, and yes of course this is controversial; we all experienced that and above all this was still in discussion at the time of the revert. There seems to be some further confusion here on several issues:

• ..."pushed against a coi by editors that have since been blocked." An editor was blocked as an alleged sock. Where there others sanctioned. I may have missed that.
• The word physician has been heavily discussed in the past and there was agreement to add or at the least leave it in place once added. Consensus can change of course.
• The word physician was reverted after removal during what was an ongoing discussion.
• Who doubts that Chopra is a physician?
• What COI of editors are you talking about. the editor here with a COI declared that COI. He did not make a secret of it.
• This is a pretty substantial opinion. "The "doctor" is gimmick used and supported by his publishers to attempt to establish a false authority.: Are you suggesting he wasn't a chief of staff and isn't a licensed physician.
• I'm with Nigel on this article. I see multiple discrepancies between what happened and what is being alleged. Its hard to discuss in a productive way in those circumstances.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC))

ad nauseum discussions led by and including illegitimate sock puppets. consensus can change and after discovery that the previous "consensus" was tainted, revisiting is clearly appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede indicates he practiced as a physician. The infobox includes "physician". My concern is that of weight and prominence, as I've repeatedly indicated. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It is the combination of allopathic medical training, credentials, and experience along with alternative modalities that has created the notability around Chopra. There are many, many who practice alternative health modalities, but they are not notable. Noting a physician is a physician and who was clearly significant in his field is not undue weight. Infoboxes and leads have different functions/purposes and they can have the same information; there is no redundancy of information and so no undue weight.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC))

"Chopra obtained his medical degree in India...". He has a medical degree. That means he is a physician. Is he currently practicing medicine? I don't think he has the time. QuackGuru (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed he did. What are you suggesting? As well, he was a Chief of Staff at a major American hospital. "I don't think he has the time", a personal opinion and assumption, is not an argument for excluding so simple a fact that this man is a physician. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC))

He certainly was a physician. Aside from the health directory, do we have any corroborating sources that he still is a physician? I wouldn't have any objection to listing the profession in the past tense.—Kww(talk) 17:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Chopra's fame is not from his status as a physician. We can certainly tell the reader about his medical degree and the facts of his being a doctor, but we should not emphasize it since that is not what made him famous. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Kww, I am no fan of Chopra, but I think you've got that backwards. You need to find a source that says he is no longer a physician, not one that says he still is. I've worked with plenty of physicians who should have had their rights to practice taken away, but it is not so easy as you may think. Certainly advocating alternative medicine is no reason to remove the right to practice medicine. For the last few years I've been watching Wikipedia turn into a witch hunt for anything that is even remotely related to alt med that verges on hysteria. Gandydancer (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

We DO say he is a physician. The issue is how much weight and when to talk about that. As an encyclopedia, we cover the the subject is noted for, not what they may have done that has no impact or import. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Depends on what you call "hysterical". Alternative medicine is generally harmful, either actively through the application of dangerous treatment, or passively, through leading people to not seek effective treatment. While we shouldn't denigrate the tiny percentage of therapies that are both beneficial and founded in the alternative medicine movement, we need to be very careful not to let advocates use Wikipedia as a method for promoting harmful things.—Kww(talk) 18:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not an article about a Alternative Medicine therapy, This is a BLP about a famous doctor (yes, a doctor who - according to the article is still affiliated with Scripps Memorial Hospital) who prescribes Alternative Medicine as a therapy. This cartoon sums up exactly what is going on here. 104.34.169.198 (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No, he's a famous alt-med advocate. If editors aren't interested in addressing the WP:DUE concerns here, don't expect to make any headway in creating more emphasis in the article on his being a physician. --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

What I would like to keep out of this discussion is opinion on the value of either the man or his medicine which has no bearing on what should be added to this article. Second, as per the talk page archives Chopra is a prasctising physician. Third, we should not be removing that content while there is ongoing discussion as to whether that content remians in the article, Fourth, Chopra does not have to be famous for content to be added about the physician aspect of his career, but it must be significant information. Chopra as physician is significant information because this lent credibility to his health related claims and practices. Fourth, the revert also reverted a roll back which was also in discussion and for which there is strong opposition. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC))

While there may be flapping (even lots of it) , there is no policy or sourcing that supports the flapping. see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion and WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we should follow the relevant policies. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Flapping? What's that? What policy supports exclusion of significant content to the subject of the BLP? What is being discussed is not whether a policy supports including content. Policy clearly supports inclusion of significant content. What is being discussed is whether that content is significant. Per Bull Rangifer physician can be readded?(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC))

The policy, as has been pointed out, is WP:DUE. Please don't ask us to repeat it again. --Ronz (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Where do you see me asking you to repeat a policy? I did ask what flapping refers to? Undue does not allow for removal of significant content in a BLP. There is no undue weight in establishing what constitutes significance in a man's life. There may be undue in establishing criticism in a first paragraph before the reader knows much about the subject of the article, and excluding content that clearly defines a person because It somehow gives him credibility we don't want him to have in allopathic medicine. We do not get to exclude pertinent and or significant information. As I said above, the issue is what is significant.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC))

Time Magazine refers to Chopra as a "medical expert": http://content.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1858571,00.html. He is a renowned doctor. Whether or not you like his beliefs, that he is a notable physician is beyond question.

If you want to sway anyone here, should should attempt to follow WP:AGF and WP:CON. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. What do you think of the source supporting that he has been described as a medical expert?104.173.194.250 (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The article is an interview - a primary source with a brief introduction. He's not described as an expert. There's no description or any explanation of any sort. The introduction to the interview labels him an expert. It's unsubstantiated puffery. --Ronz (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

How are you determining that Time Magazine calling Chopra a medical expert is "unsubstantiated puffery"? 104.173.194.250 (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I actually read the article. --Ronz (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

So Time Magazine's claim that Chopra is a "medical expert" is "unsubstantiated puffery" according to Ronz's opinion. Okay. Thanks. 104.173.194.250 (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Is it based upon anything of concern to us that are trying to improve this encyclopedia? Again, you might want to WP:FOC, WP:AGF, and not treat this like a personal dispute. --Ronz (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I seems to me that you have not yet come up with a good reason to exclude this source to verify that Chopra has been described as a medical expert. Instead you are bombarding me with behavioral policies. So instead of continuing down this path, let me rephrase: What do you think about using this source to state something like: "Chopra has been described as a medical expert, Ayurvedic entrepreneur and New Age savant"? Time is an extremely popular magazine. This sort of introductory description leading into an interview could and should be taken as a factual depiction of how the subject is viewed by the population at large. 104.173.194.250 (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

14.5 million for condo

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/02/26/deepak_chopra_drops_145m_on_healthcentric_delos_condo.php Not sure if this source adds much to this article. It was recently deleted from the see also section. QuackGuru (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Wealthy celebrities routinely buy and sell expensive homes, and upscale real estate sources give routine coverage to such transactions. Unless we have more in-depth coverage, I don't see how this factoid adds much to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Tend to agree. A more general breakdown of his wealth might be appropriate if we had those sources, but this particular detail just seems too ancillary to justify inclusion. Snow talk 12:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but the ref was actually placed because someone had challenged his NYC residency. 'See also' is an innocuous section to allude to this tangential fact, sans burden of ref. Castncoot (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

He is not known for his ties to New York and New York is not known for his recent purchase of a home there. Irrelevant trivial non connections.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the see also section is appropriate, as it's usually reserved for significant connection to other topics. But there's nothing wrong with noting he is a resident of New York, nor with using the ref in question to validate that fact, if it's been challenged, without even referencing the matter of the condo. At present though, I see no reference to his being a resident of New York in the article; if anyone could point out any diffs in regard to where it previously stood, that would be helpful in deciding how to approach this fact. Snow talk 01:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment/ physician

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Result: Consensus is against including the word "physician" in the first sentence of the article.

14 editors were opposed to including the word "physician" in the first sentence of the article. 9 editors (including the proposer) supported including the word. The main reason for opposing inclusion was that (as was claimed) Chopra's qualifications as a doctor are not central to his notability. Provided that this claim is fair as a matter of fact, then it constitutes a fair argument, per WP:BLPLEAD. The main reason for supporting inclusion was that it is true and verifiable that Chopra is a physician. It appears to be beyond dispute that he is (even though doubts have been expressed as to whether he is a practicing physician). However, something being true is not, in itself, a strong reason for including it in the first sentence of an article (or else it might take a very long time to read to the second sentence). Some additional criterion needs to come into play. This can be taken into account in assigning weight to the "support" votes, in some cases.

It was suggested by one editor that this additional criteria could be "significance" as opposed to "notability". On this basis, we might be entitled to make a judgement that Chopra's academic background and early career, while not key to his notability, are significant to his biography, and so his status as a physician can be included in the first sentence. This is a reasonable and well-made argument, but I don't think it is supported by policy, because BLPLEAD talks clearly in terms of notability and not significance. What's more, applying a significance criterion is a similar way to other articles doesn't seem to give satisfactory results (Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States and a former community organizer.; Lech Walesa is a Polish politician and human rights activist, and a qualified electrician.).

So, the question of to what extent Chopra's notability stems from him being a doctor appears crucial. It was suggested that this might be considered notable Chopra has (or so it is said) used his academic background as a PR tool and has also been criticised for doing that. I don't think this is a strong argument, because, even if he has and they did, it is a very big stretch to say that this is a primary reason for his notability. Would the italicised part of the last-but-one sentence look right at the top of the article?

Supporters of the word "physician" in the first sentence have lost the argument, primarily because they have failed to adequately address the question of whether and how Chopra is notable as a physician. They have not produced convincing evidence or arguments that he is so notable, nor have they given any persuasive reasons why they should not have to.

For clarity, this RfC concerned only the first sentence of the article. It is clear that there is less opposition to describing Chopra as a physician later in the lead or in the body of the article.

That Deepak Chopra is a physician has been added and removed multiple times over the past months. Despite ongoing discussion no consensus has been reached as to whether "physician" should be added/ removed from the opening sentence of the article. (Chopra is a practicing physician and is licensed in the state of California.) Outside input is requested. Thanks.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC))

(Note: I had added physician just before posting this RfC, but after deciding to post this RfC had removed the word pending the outcome of this RfC. However, the revert of my edit occurred simultaneously with a revert by TheRedPenofDoom.)(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC))

• Do not include in the lead sentence. "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject". being a physician is not even why he is notable- as a physician he is non-notable. He is notable for his new-agey non-physician ideas. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• I think it should be mentioned in the opening sentence. Or at least the opening paragraph. Whatever you think about his theories, you must agree that a large part of what Chopra is notable for are ideas for promoting, maintaining or restoring human health. This is the definition of physician. Plus, add in the fact that he is a licensed MD, that he is affiliated with Scripps Hospital, and that sources often regard him as a doctor, an MD, physician (http://time.com/3606692/deepak-chopra-gratitude-wellbeing/) or even a medical expert (http://content.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1858571,00.html), I can see no doubt that Chopra is a physician and a notable one at that.104.173.194.250 (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

the only manner in which it is relevant to his notability is that his publishers use it to masquerade the fact that he is selling snake oil. If we are going to include it in the lead sentence, it needs to be presented in that context. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Red Pen, I believe your comment violates WP:BLP. Cla68 (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I dont believe it does, as it is clearly reflective of the source linked and many others. [18] [19] [20] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Include in lead sentence. Time (magazine) is clearly a reliable source and it clearly calls Chopra a "physician." Also, the sources (and this article) makes clear that he has a medical degree and previously worked as a licensed doctor. No doubt about this one. I'm surprised this is being edit-warred over. Cla68 (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Weil was on the cover of Time magazine twice. He is a Harvard graduate MD. But he is not listed as a physician.Ptarmigander (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Time Magazine didn't list him as a physician? Throughout their publication they refer to him as "Andrew Weil, M.D." ([21]).And the Andrew Weil article opens by describing him as a medical doctor in the very first sentence. (I just repaired a typo there which left medical doctor misspelled.)104.173.194.250 (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Heh. Got me on that one- mr. (or ms.) IP. David Perlmutter (Dr. David Perlmutter the expert on brain health of HuffPost fame) is listed as "author". (Wikipedia)

Anyway.. You forced my hand. I Vote NO because TRP's notability argument seems sound to me. Not placing physician in the lead sentence does not mean Chopra is not a physician. It only reflects that he is not notable for that activity. "Activity" is the key word for me.Ptarmigander (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Not trying to "get you". But I'll take it! :-P I think the question at the root of this is: Is a physician who prescribe alternative, non-science based therapies still a physician? Or maybe: Is "physician" a term reserved only for people practicing evidence based medicine. One of the TIME references regards Chopra as a "holistic medicine physician". Does that mean that despite prescribing holistic medicine (Ayurveda, meditation, et cetera), Chopra was and is still acting as a physician with such prescriptions? 104.173.194.250 (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• I tend to agree that including the term in the first sentence is neither necessary nor desirable in terms of weight. The lead already references his medical experience, starting with the third sentence. A significant amount of effort has already gone into balancing this section so as to appropriately note the man's credentials while still accurately summarizing the work and practices for which he is primarily notable, in terms consistent with how our sources weight his professional activities. And yet inevitably editors here have to revisit the minutest elements of the lead over and over, even though the consensus always comes to roughly the same conclusions and few, if any, substantial changes are made. I really wish we could all agree that, failing substantial changes in the sources themselves, these nitpicky discussions mostly concern WP:SNOW issues and just let the lead stand. It may not be perfectly balanced in reflecting the positions of Chopra's detractors and proponents, but that's not the purpose it should ultimately serve. It should first and foremost reflect the information found in our sources in light of WP:V and WP:WEIGHT and I feel it does that quite capably. Few other BLP articles on the entirety of Wikipedia have been subject to as much influence in terms of personal advocacy for the subject as has at times been found here, and the current balance reflects as much of a compromise with those voices as can be made without violating our standards on verifiability and accurate portrayal of our sources. The gist of which comes down to this, in the context of this particular discussion: when a source discusses Chopra, it's rarely in the context of his experience as an endocrinologist utilizing conventional treatments, but rather instead tends to be based upon his association with various alternative medicine practices. We should reflect this reality in how we prioritize our own description of his professional identity. All parties should please note that, as he seems to remain a licensed physician, I see no reason not to include that information; I simply don't see it as beneficial in the first sentence and I feel sentence three denotes his medical credentials clearly, whether the specific term "physician" is utilized or not. Snow talk 06:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Against including "physician" in the first sentence, where we would normally include the article-subject's claim to notability. Pro putting it further down in the Lede next to degrees-earned where we might normally put more logistical types of basic information. Also support Snow Rise's point above, that the point is awfully trivial to warrant this level of debate and other articles need this attention much more direly. CorporateM (Talk) 15:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• What CorporateM said. He is a physician (verifiably), or at least was once, but he is known for woo. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The first sentence is for telling the reader why Chopra is famous. He's not famous for being a physician. We can tell the reader about his medical degree and medical experience in some other place that is not the first sentence. And we should describe how he continues to leverage his medical degree despite not practicing as a physician. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yeah, "physician" somewhere down in the lede would be okay; but in the first sentence it'd be undue as the majority of sources don't do it this way. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support use of Physician in first sentence. His entire notoriety is built upon the fact that he is a physician. This is verifiable in about a dozen sources. For anyone else who was a doctor (and did not have detractors) there would be no issue such as this one. I think the push to de-emphasize the fact that he is a doctor by random IP addresses and editors such as "Quack Guru" illustrate this. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

His notability is most certainly not "as a doctor" - at best it is "as someone using the 'dr' to attempt to establish credentials for some very NON-doctorly precepts and conjectures and proposals" and would need to be framed as such. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I can understand the dispute, but he if is a doctor, he is a doctor. e.g. Rand Paul was an ophthalmologist, and that fact is in the lede, despite of the fact that his notability is totally unrelated to that. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but actually we do mention the fact that Mr. Chopra is a doctor in the lead, and most everyone seems to agree that is appropriate. This discussion is specifically on the much narrower issue of whether we emphasize the fact in the very first sentence. Of note, this information is not found in the first sentence of the lead for the cited article on Rand Paul, either. Snow talk 23:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Perfect logic.104.173.194.250 (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose additional emphasis on info already in the article - The fact that he's a physician is already mentioned in multiple locations in the article. It also mentions that he's licensed in California. --Ronz (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. As of 2004 Chopra obtained a licensed in the state of California but I could not find a source that says Chopra is a practicing physician. Which source says he is currently seeing patents as a doctor? What is the purpose of getting a license in CA if he is not seeing patents as a doctor? This question could only be answered if a reporter asked Chopra about this. It is not notable to say he is a physician in the first sentence. He became famous because of Oprah. The lede says "He gained a following after his interview on the The Oprah Winfrey Show regarding his books in the 1990s.[8][9]". Later in the lede we do let the reader know about his medical degree however. Please read in the lede: "Chopra obtained a medical degree..." QuackGuru (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support As a general rule, a person who has a current valid license for a major profession is logically a member of that profession - we do not remove "lawyer" from a politician just because we do not personally think he is still "practicing law" as his profession: we do not say a person is no longer a "professional engineer" because we think that is not his current primary source of income. Lindbergh did not cease being an aviator when he stopped flying for a living: we still note Hoover was a "mining engineer" etc. Collect (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: This is a compelling argument against having "physician" in the first sentence. The Hoover article does not mention "mining engineer" in the first sentence. It would be unbalanced for the article to begin, "Herbert Clark Hoover was a mining engineer and the 31st President of the United States."

There are two problems with your change:

• Adding "M.D." is directly against WP:CREDENTIAL: "Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name in the first line".
• There is no consensus for adding "physician", indeed the majority opposes the change, and a greater majority opposes after discounting those who incorrectly thought this was about "physician" in the lead.

Please self-revert. Manul ~ talk 17:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Collect is right. Once a physician, a nurse, a mother, always such, regardless of licensure status. Even a retired physician is still a physician, just a retired, and possibly unlicensed, one. This whole discussion is beyond absurd. State it and be done with all this disruption. Sure, Chopra is a quack and flake, but he graduated from med school, and that makes him a doctor. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

except when you are vehemently denying it " Chopra: I have not practiced medicine in California or elsewhere for years. My principal occupation for the past several years has been as an author and a speaker. " (physicians who tell people they can hum their cancer away tend to get sued for malpractice.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Should not be in the lead sentence, because it's not what he's known for. I'm not convinced it should be in the lead paragraph, but it should be somewhere in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

06:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Badly drafted RFC. The fact that Chopra is a doctor is already in the lead (1st sentence, second para) I oppose further elevation of this to the first paragraph, or further to the first sentence. Compare and contrast Harry Hill and Jonathan Miller. - Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Wording of the RfC does not ask whether the word physician should be in the lead, but asks whether physician "should be added/ removed from the opening sentence of the article."(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose mentioning that he is a physician in the first sentence, as that is not why he is notable. Support, of course, mentioning it in the lead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose mentioning that he is a physician in the lead. Acceptable to mention in Biography if required. Op47 (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support (Drafter RfC) As Physician and chief of staff at major US hospital. If he has any credibiloty it is in part because of his allopathic training and positions combined with alternative health- care modalities. Further, that he is Indian American is not notable but is in the opening sentence as should any information that is denotative - nationality, date of birth, education and training. This is significant information and content to a BLP. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC))
• Comment I think Olive should strike the personal attack against the subject of this BLP. I also missed the bit referencing his "Chief of Staff" position - could you clarify please. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually I refer to the numerous attacks against Chopra on this page and while I could list them, it would take a while, I doubt an RfC is the place for that. A chief of staff must be a physician I would think and a well respected physician at that. If Chopra was a chief of staff we can also assume he was a physician. so we can certainly include physician. As per my denotation comments which refer to where we add physician; necessary to a BLP are those aspects of the person that are significant, not notable which is what determines the existence of the article itself, but significant, and can include date of birth, nationality, and education. This notes (denotes) what the person is. We have date of birth, nationality; we lack education/ training in that first line. I hope this clears up the confusion. I won't rebut comments here; and RfC is not the place IMO, but since my cmts seemd confusing I did want to clarify.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC))

• Oppose mentioning physician in the first sentence. The first sentence is about notability -- "Why does this person have a Wikipedia article?" Manul ~ talk 19:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment This RfC is confusingly worded, suggesting in the first sentence that "physician" was added/removed from the entire article or from the lead. It's not clear what some votes in support of "physician" actually mean. Indeed some voters think this is about "physician" being in the lead, not in the first sentence. The RfC should probably be disqualified on these grounds. Manul ~ talk 19:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Clarify first sentence per WP:BEGIN: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is."
• Clarify that this is the wording of the RfC as to whether " 'physician' should be added/ removed from the opening sentence of the article."(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC))

• Support - Include in the lead sentence- Physician / MD subject may have gained recognition from being a writer / speaker , it should be kept in mind that eventually subject is a certified MD and subject himself use MD credentials. second reason - Deepak chopra is a very common Indian name and the subject should be easily differentiated from the title . Third reason I checked up some of his official introductions including the official website everywhere its clearly mentioned as MD / physician . Its a simple issue and I strongly suggest using physician / MD in the title itself.One life to live (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Summoned here by bot. I agree with all those in support of including "physician" in the lead sentence. If the subject is a licensed and certified MD and doctor, then it should be included in the lead. I don't see a problem with it at all. Best, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 18:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment, informed of this RfC via Wikipedia:WikiProject Asian Americans/Article alerts‎. While it is verified that the subject is a licensed physician, the guiding question should be based on MOS:BLPLEAD. Per the MOS, the subject is entitled to the use of Doctor or post nominals of M.D., as the subject is a licensed physician. Therefore, per the MOS those can be included, but the primary statement that needs to be addressed in the lead sentence is "Why the person is notable." I am not aware of the subject being notable as a physician, as Ben Carson was previous to his increased notability in the political realm, but more for the subjects "new-agey" (as described by TRPoD) writing. Therefore, that is what should be emphasized in the lead sentence. It can be mentioned later in the lead paragraph that the subject is a licensed physician, and per the MOS the post nominals should be included, but his status as a licensed physicial IMHO need not be in the lead sentence as it is not why the subject is notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This is just wrong -- the relevant link is WP:CREDENTIAL, which flatly states that "Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name in the first line". Manul ~ talk 17:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - While it may be true, placing it in the first sentence is highly inappropriate and misleading given the rest of the article.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  18:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Additional problems with this RfC.

• As mentioned previously, some voters thought this is about "physician" being in the lead, not the first sentence. Collect went ahead and added "physician" to the first sentence of the article despite a majority opposing the change, and with a greater majority opposing after discounting those who incorrectly thought this was about "physician" in the lead.
• Equivocation on "practicing physician". Being licensed constitutes one meaning of "practicing physician", while what people usually think when they hear "practicing physician" does not apply to Chopra.
• Non-neutral presentation. Since the beginning, the RfC has said, in bold, "Chopra is a practicing physician and is licensed in the state of California." The bolding seems to prejudice the reader towards the pro-physician argument, specifically the first part of the equivocation described above. There isn't any valid reason for the bolding that I can see.

Manul ~ talk 17:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Chopra is a physician and we should say so in the lead. It's not at all clear to me to what extent he is a "practicing" physician, as the term is generally used (and admittedly, it is a vague term). I asked some specific questions in this regard a while ago, and got lengthy but largely opaque answers, including one in the form of a YouTube video uploaded by Chopra himself. (To his credit, he offered me a free consultation at his Wellness Center, which I have yet to redeem). Likewise, while I have no doubt Chopra is licensed, we do not typically mention physicians' licensure statuses in the leads of their biographies, or for that matter at all. Thus I think we should say in the lead that he is a physician, but leave out the "practicing" part and his licensure status for the reasons I've described. MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • We do say so in the lead section. The question is whether it belongs in the lead sentence as the primary descriptor of why he is notable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
    • My bad... I'll admit that this issue reached tl;dr territory for me a long time ago, so I probably shouldn't have bothered restating my opinion since I can't be bothered to read through all of this. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
      • But this is useful for driving home the point that this RfC is confusing. It's not just you. Manul ~ talk 18:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Being a physician is intrinsically tangled up into Chopra's notability. From popular media outlets (improperly?) lauding his medical expertise to the exploitation of his MD suffix on all of his books, like it or not Chopra's notability is partially derived from his status (not necessarily his career) as a physician. SueDonem (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • as per your note, the "physician" is NOT as a "physician" and IF included prominently in the lead, the use of it as a pimping credential would need to be included as well, else it would be misrepresenting WP:NPOV -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I disagree that a qualification is warranted in the lead. Take, for instance, Michael Crichton. I'd say he is even a less notable physician than Chopra, however, I recognize that despite never being licensed to practice medicine, that Chricton's impressive training as a physician and in the medical sciences gave him the insight (and public credibility) to write the books and screenplays he is famous for creating. SueDonem (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Chopra is not a practicing physician but he did get a license in the state of California after he was criticized for not being a doctor in California. See: In 1995 Chopra was not licensed to practice medicine in California where he had a clinic; however, he did not see patients at this clinic "as a doctor" during this time.[43] He only has a license but there in no evidence he is currently seeing patients as a doctor. See also: His publishers have used his medical degree on the covers of his books as a way to "buttress" the spiritual claims for Western clients.[43] QuackGuru (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
        • These seem to support my point that being a physician is indeed intrinsically tangled up into Chopra's notability. His medical degree is part of what makes him notable ~~ even notorious! That we are saying he is a physician is not the same thing as saying that he is a "good" physician. SueDonem (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
          • The key is "tangled up" - you cannot present an untangled "physician" without misrepresenting why it is relevant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
            • Of course you can. See Michael Crichton. Why is it relevant that Chricton was a physican? The article explains why its relevant once you get into the body of the article. Same thing here. SueDonem (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
              • I dont see that such a view is valid under WP:NPOV or WP:LEAD -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
              • The thing is, we already have a stable, balanced compromise solution to the issue that has achieved and maintained consensus; we mention his medical credentials in the lead but we don't lead with his status as a physician in the very first sentence. That seems like a perfectly reasonable solution to me and, indeed, even the small minority who have formally !voted "support" in this RfC seem to have misread and misinterpreted the basis of this discussion, because with one exception they all argued that his status as a doctor should be mentioned in the lead, apparently without doing due diligence to actually observe that such mention already exists and that this RfC asks specifically to elevate the mention to the very first sentence. Given past and current consensus on this matter, the fact that a stable compromise solution already exists and the degree of confusion that has arisen due to fly-by comments made without apparent proper understanding of the issues at hand -- Littleolive oil's wording of the RfC has been blamed for this, but the wording seems perfectly clear to me and I'd say rather that some have simply not properly looked into the issue and followed the existing discussion before commenting, as in the case of MastCell, the only one to own up to this (ultimately trivial) mistake -- I think this thread is probably overdue for closure, with the consensus to keep the stable compromise solution. Snow talk 02:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appears in Film Thrive

there was film called thrive in which he speaks. No mention of that film, the producer nor that Deepak does not repudiate that film is found in wikipedia. I think it is notable and should be added. I do not add it personally as I have not time to waste with the kind of people that worry about the word physician to the extent that they seem to - inevitable the same process would be occur with which ever phrasing I choose, so some more hardy folks can source and add this, though I do think it important to challenge the conflated aspects of different peopels beliefs that are being bundeled togethr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.28.124 (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Sources

The Time reference being used in the lead can't be easily read by anonymous users, its content is hidden behind a log in wall. The would be assasin (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

That is unfortunate, but this fact does not in and of itself disqualify it as a source for supporting content, as per our WP:Reliable sources policy. Even so, if you or any other editor can find any additional sourcing which supports these same details but does not suffer from the drawback of being behind a paywall, it would still be to the benefit of the article. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

If you search for the quote included in the ref, you can find full copies online. For instance on this blog. – SJ + 06:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Duplicated refs

There are some messy refs here - multiple sources in a single ref, sometimes duplicated, and different ways of listing the same source more than once (e.g., Schneiderman). I fixed one in the lede; still more to do. – SJ + 06:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing a citation needed

WP:LEADCITE says that there doesn't need to be a or a citation at the start of the second paragraph, "Chopra obtained a medical degree in India before emigrating in 1970 to the United States." The first part is sourced in the body of the article, in the sentence "He spent his first months as a doctor working in rural India, including, he writes, six months in a village where the lights went out whenever it rained." If he hadn't gotten his medical degree, he wouldn't have been a doctor there. The second part is sourced in the body of the article, in the sentence "He married in India in 1970 before emigrating with his wife that year to the United States (the couple have two children and three grandchildren as of 2014)." 192.12.149.16 (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

As the note in the lead says, it is the quality of the source that is at question. The source in the body is the subject claiming a medical license under our policies about content where the subjects are making claims about themselves, this claim is borderline and a request for better cite is completely appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Then it's not a case of "citation needed," but "better citation needed." Please change it to a better tag. maybe. 192.12.149.16 (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about the graduation date (68 or 69?).

• Professor's bio, Kellogg School says 1969
• NNDB and the Chopra Center for Wellbeing bio says 1968

It might be worth finding a most-official source if only to clear that up.

Better to avoid a cn in the lede if possible, I edited slightly to leave the uncertain details to the body. – SJ + 07:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Lede

Why the attempts to change the last paragraph of the lede? The first attempt was outright blanking. The second de-emphasizes the FRINGE issues with his ideas and practice. --Ronz (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see blanking. I see a merge of content. Perhaps I'm missing something.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC))

Blanking is a serious accusation which as far asI can tell isn't appropriate here. Its nice to have new set of eyes so would like him to treated well and fairly.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC))

[22] Blanking. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not blanking.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC))_

Ronz. I'm going walk away from this, but I believe this is a mistake on your part. This is such a highly contentious article that I think we have to be very careful about how we characterize other editors, and your "blanking" statement seems highly inaccurate.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC))

Blanking or whitewashing is arguable depending on how you interpret these things, but there is no doubt that those edits are unacceptable, removing a neat summary from the body of the scientific perspective. Solid work Ronz, no mistake there. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 11:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The latest attempt is an improvement over the previous. I tried to massage it a bit, but decided the original was best. Presenting the scientific and medical community as "critics" undermines the FRINGE and MEDRS issues, placing him in the roll of underdog and hero when he's someone promoting nonsense for great profit to himself while endangering the health of those who believe him. --Ronz (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Michael Shermer Quote

There was a deletion and revert regarding a quote by Michael Shermer about Deepak Chopra. The quote was removed by Shermer himself, who says it is inaccurate. I know the two of them have been conversing and Shermer has been expressing frustration that he is being misrepresented about his views of Chopra, but that is in private emails and thus cannot be cited. I can try to see if he will make a public statement to that effect. He's been purposefully tweeting what he describes as his actual perceptions of Chopra (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), but I wanted to explore what type of statement Shermer could make to justify his claim that this quote is inaccurate and does not reflect his views. While the subject of a quote doesn't have any special authority to remove it (hence I agree with the revert), it seems reasonable that a public statement of refutation should suffice to remove it. Thoughts? The Cap'n (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

How do you know it is really Shermer who edited the article? All I know is that the user name is "Shermermichael". And Shermer's tweets do not actually contradict the quote. A pseudoscientist does not have to be aware of his own pseudoscientist-ness. Probably most of them believe what they say, they are just not competent enough to tell real science from what they are doing. Shermer wrote a book on the subject (Why People Believe Weird Things) where he makes that point. So he should know that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I know it's Shermer who edited the page because I'm on the email thread where he's discussing it, though as I mentioned before, I recognize that's an uncitable source. While he certainly (and strongly) disagrees with Chopra on many issues, in this email conversation he expressed that he did not feel the quote was an accurate representation of his views, and he would not say that now (again, uncitable from an email, I know). I understand he hasn't yet contradicted the statement on his Twitter page, I wanted to see if other editors would consider removing or amending the quote if he did make a statement to that effect. In the meantime I know he's tried to remove it a few times himself, which is obviously problematic. He asked if someone would be willing to see what can be done to get it removed in accordance with WP policies, so I'm here doing so as a courtesy. The Cap'n (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

OK. Then there are two possibilities:

• He can publish a retraction and explain the reasons for it. He has a journal, so it should be easy. Then we can quote him retracting it, or simply remove the quote.
• We are not forced to quote anything - we have to choose anyway, from a large set of quotable text, those few bits we think should be in the article. We could just agree that the quote is not needed. The rules do not demand a reliable source for removing anything. Who is against this? Please say why. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Hob Gadling, I appreciate it. I'm personally in favor of the latter option; the point that Shermer is skeptical of Chopra is cited in several other places, and the term pseudoscience is cited elsewhere in another context, so there seems no need to include a quote that the speaker doesn't endorse. As mentioned, I've had off-wiki conversations with both Chopra and Shermer, so there's a COI with me removing it myself, but I'd encourage someone else to do so, assuming there's no compelling arguments to keep it. The Cap'n (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen any reasons to keep it and several reasons to remove it. Hob Gadling, would you be willing to make the edit? It seems uncontroversial, but I don't want to give the appearance of COI editing by doing so myself. The Cap'n (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Park's commentary on popularity of Chopra's books

It seems to provide due context for the section. Maybe a bit to much meta-info? I've changed it slightly. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

After finding a copy of the source, I'd prefer if we worked from a better source, if one can be found. --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• It gives the appearance, rightly or wrongly, of wanting the last word to be a hatchet job. In my book, that's unencyclopedic. Jusdafax 20:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Accurate per source

Chopra says he had no money. I'm not going to start edit warring on the penniless content, but denying the content of the source seems a poor way to deal with an article. (Littleolive oil (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC))

Chopra said, did he? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Aw come on. View the source which is a video of Chopra speaking in a public forum. If the source is not reliable discuss it. Good grief!(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC))

It is wonderful that Chopra has speaking engagements where he can recite his story about going from penniless to wealthy. Good for him! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You think the pennilessness was meant to be literal or figurative? Is it simply a matter of American currency or all currencies? jps (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems likely to be figurative, but interpretation would be OR. I haven't seen any arguments against Littleolive oil's logic (TRPoD's comments are not exactly productive here), so I'd argue for its inclusion. Quotes from Deepak Chopra are a reliable source for determining what Deepak Chopra said, after all... The Cap'n (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Might be better if "The Cap'n" was listed above along with his other name- Askahrc- as a conflict of interest. Isn't he a paid employee of Chopra Foundation and Chopra advocate? Since it does not list The Cap'n as a COI people responding to him or following his suggestions about edits etc. or even coming here to assess the complaints about Wikipedia and Chopra might not fully realize that fact. Bedblug (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)bedblug

I'd be happy to clarify that, though I don't know how to adjust the COI template to show an AKA. I do not wish to give any false impressions. I work for a non-profit that receives funding from the Chopra Foundation (though I would clarify I am not an employee of the Foundation and my position does not entail promoting Deepak Chopra, but managing an online reference library). Therefore I have announced on my Talk page and elsewhere that I do not consider myself uninvolved enough to edit his article directly. I do think there are serious issues on this page, and have long before I became involved with the Chopra Foundation, but I acknowledge I have a potential conflict of interest now. The Cap'n (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Criteria for bibliography selection

In what sense is the bibliography "select". Selected by who, on the basis of what? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Check the talk archives for discussion? I'd hope all the best-sellers are listed, especially any that had long-standing as a best seller. --Ronz (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

He has cranked out 80 books or so, and we only list 20, so it is a "selected" portion of the 80. Whether there was any specific criteria or thought given to the 20 in the "selection" - i am pretty sure, "No". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I've had no luck finding any discussions about the biblio selection at all.

Anyone know what the general consensus is for WP:GA-quality selection criteria for a bibliography? --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ronz, I did not see anything in general for Bibliographies. However, under the WikiProject Bibliographies subpages, I did find Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies/Science task force/Assessment, which might be of some use to you. Peaceray (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)