Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 26

This is an archive of past discussions about Deepak Chopra. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Jiyo smartphone app and partnership with Beverly Hills

Latest comment: 7 years ago21 comments7 people in discussion

User:Alexbrn has removed referenced information about Deepak Chopra's partnership with the City of Beverly Hills as "undue", and they suggest the mere mention of the app could be undue, too. I disagree. I think the content should be restored--we need to update the article with Chopra's current activities like this one.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Undue, yes. And smells spammy - this article has had trouble with promotional content before. I notice Jiyo has been redirected here too. Alexbrn (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I created the redirect so that anyone who looks for it can be redirected here, yes. When I looked for the app earlier today, there was nothing on Wikipedia and I had to google it. Problem fixed now. As for Beverly Hills, why would it be "spammy" or "promotional" to include that? It's not. We simply relay the facts based on reliable third-party sources. Is this a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies to deletion discussions. NPOV is a foundational pillar of Wikipedia and content must be due, reflecting accepted knowledge on a topic. It is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Going on at length about some app associated with Chopra would be undue. Alexbrn (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It's just one sentence (not "going on at length"). Chopra has launched a partnership with the city of Beverly Hills to promote the app. Yes, what he is doing is promoting/selling a product. No, relaying that fact is not promotion; it's just relevant to his biography. It is perfectly NPOV to relay that fact. It would be POV if we used positive qualifiers about the app, but that's not what the sentence is about, at all.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed the rest, which was sourced with a slightly-warmed-over press release. Without independent sources that demonstrate some encyclopedic value, it looks like WP:SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Here are two examples of reliable third-party sources about the app:

O'Brien, Sara Ashley (June 9, 2016). "Deepak Chopra launches a wellness app". CNN. Retrieved March 31, 2017.
Court, Emma (June 14, 2016). "Deepak Chopra's new app wants to show you how to live". MarketWatch. Retrieved March 31, 2017.

And The Beverly Hills Courier is also an RS--it's not Chopra's website. Shall we restore the content now?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the The Beverly Hills Courier article should be used for the reasons already given.

The two new sources above are better. Thanks. What do you propose to add as content? --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we should restore the content I added, but add these two references instead of TechCrunch. We may want to add a short description of the app as well, but that's up to you at this point--I am getting discouraged. I also do not understand why you won't restore the Beverly Hills-related content; it's encyclopedic/factual. He's taking an active role in the city by giving talks, leading walks, and letting residents use his app--it's not promotional to say that. He's taking part in the smart city movement.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The thought of Wikipedia promoting Chopra's app is deeply disturbing. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

That is not what we are doing. We are simply relaying the fact that he has an app, just like we have relayed the fact that he has books. Should we delete all his books because he sells them?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Two of the sources are fine. This is not spam and if worded carefully is no more promotional than noting books Chopra has written. Since use of the app has been paired with the city of Beverly Hills it is significant. Alone, that Chopra created an app might be undue.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC))

See WP:FART. This is an encyclopedia. Is anybody going to care about this app in three years? Don't know? Great then leave it out for now. Said another way, there are roughly 2.5 million apps in google play and also in itunes. Why is it worth talking about this one in WP? Other than WP:FANCRUFT? Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Because it's part of his career path, and we should relay facts based on reliable third-party sources. This article is about Chopra, so we won't mention 2.5 million apps, only his. By the same token, we don't mention every book ever published, only his. Will people remember every single one of his books in three years? Who knows? That's not for us to decide. There is relevant info in RS; we add it. It's only two sentences. I don't get the intense opposition to this.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes you have made it clear that this you believe this is encyclopedic and DUE. Others will weigh in with time. Are you trying to understand the objections? Jytdog (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Because it's part of his career path Says what independent source? All I see is he's lent his name to an app, and has done some initial marketing for it. Maybe he's done a bit more, but nothing that the sources indicate.

The Beverly Hills bit is and announcement by the mayor in a local paper, that's SOAP. If something comes of it, then we might have something that doesn't fit squarely in NOT. --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys. Any chance this discussion can be carried on without the usual, Chopra article escalation into toxic tone territory or without insertion of personal opinion on the article subject. You know. neutral. Just askin' (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC))

The text removed was:

In March 2017, the mayor of Beverly Hills, California, Lili Bosse, announced that the city residents would have access to the app, and that Chopra would give talks and lead walks in the city.

That is WP:UNDUE. Tracking who-said-what about each item in a person's life is not the point of an encyclopedic article. Put another way, if the reference was in the external links, it would be removed per WP:EL because the link does not provide any analysis or insight into the life or career of Chopra. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact that he launched an app was also removed though. I find that strange, especially since we've found RS on CNN and MarketWatch. As for BH, will this be accepted once he has led walks/talks?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Whether to add content or not about the app is simply based on opinion rather than clear policy. That Chopra created an app is like the books he wrote and writes, ongoing information about Chopra's life. The question is whether the app content is undue or not, that is, significant enough in terms of the man's life as a " healer" to be included. Biographies contain lots of content that may be less or more significant but all of it helps to describe a life. Since we have two reliable sources about the app we can assume the sources find the information at least somewhat significant, and frankly its the sources that may indicate what our position could be. I'd say as a summary statement and again my opinion, that while this content is not critical, and lots of WP content isn't, it is of interest in Chopra's ongoing attempts to reach the public. I am not judging why he does this, just that he does. I don't see why this content shouldn't be included without the big fuss generated, but I also don't think the article will be damaged if its left out. Since there seems to be a difference of opinion on this we might just wait and see if this step towards using technology is repeated and noted in RS, and if so then I'd suggest to even the critics that we include that kind of content.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC))

makes sense to wait and see what kind of impact this app makes as discussed in RS beyond the initial burst of hype on its release. yes. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Deepak Chopra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding category Criticism and moving that part from main article

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Move this section from top and create a subsection at 2.9 called 'Criticism':

The ideas Chopra promotes have been regularly criticized by medical and scientific professionals as pseudoscience.[17][18][19][20] This criticism has been described as ranging "from dismissive [to] damning".[17] For example, Robert Carroll states Chopra attempts to integrate Ayurveda with quantum mechanics to justify his teachings.[21] Chopra argues that what he calls "quantum healing" cures any manner of ailments, including cancer, through effects that he claims are literally based on the same principles as quantum mechanics.[15] This has led physicists to object to his use of the term quantum in reference to medical conditions and the human body.[15] His treatments generally elicit nothing but a placebo response,[6] and have drawn criticism that the unwarranted claims made for them may raise "false hope" and lure sick people away from legitimate medical treatments.[17] He is placed by David Gorski among the "quacks", "cranks" and "purveyors of woo", and described as "arrogantly obstinate".[22] Richard Dawkins has said that Chopra uses "quantum jargon as plausible-sounding hocus pocus".[23] Omkar khalipe (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your proposal is inappropriate on many levels, violating WP:LEDE and WP:STRUCTURE to start. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Funnily enough that very change was later made, and edit warred over, by another new account,[1] which had put in some exceedingly trivial edits, seemingly to achieve autoconfirmed status. I have inquired of a CU. Bishonen | talk 17:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC).

On a closer look, never mind bothering a CU. Sock and master blocked per WP:DUCK. Bishonen | talk 18:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC).

Well the top part is pretty bloated, could use an update if you ask me. EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest reviewing past discussions and making a new proposal based on a good understanding of applicable policies and the concerns previously brought up on how to best trim the lede. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

After reviewing the references in the criticism section I removed one as blogs should not be used for living persons. Added dubious tags to two others as they don't seem to align with what's stated. EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I've restored it, because I believe this has been discussed at length. Have you figured out how to use the search functionality of this page to find previous discussions? --Ronz (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Dubious

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The criticism does not fit with neutrality standards.
- Removed reference to blogger. Read the about him page @ https://respectfulinsolence.com/who-is-orac/. Hardly a valid source for a living person.
- Added Dubious tags on two references that don't match up with their claim, let's discuss. EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"Neutrality standards" probably don't mean what you think they do. It's a reliable source for skeptical viewpoints, especially when it comes to questionable medical claims outside regular evidence-based medicine.

Have you reviewed the past discussions yet? --Ronz (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Criticism summary in lede

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I noticed that my edits were reverted due to desire for more discussion and consensus. I had read over some previous discussions before making them, but I apologize if I missed anything important as there was a lot to comb through. Please allow me to explain my reasoning for my edits.

1) I trimmed the criticism section in the lead to focus on the issues that most in the medical field have with Chopra's work. Namely: his use of the language of quantum mechanics, his reliance on the placebo effect, and the concern that his treatments may lure sick people away from better treatments that would be helpful to them. I think these are all notable criticisms that are widely held, and thus should be discussed in the lead.

2) I moved the personal opinions of Robert Carroll, Richard Dawkins, and David Gorski to other parts of the article related to their exact criticisms. This is because it makes the most sense to include these quotes in the context of a larger exposition of those criticisms. In the lede, it is more appropriate to summarize the substance of those criticisms.

3) Although I did not remove it from the article, I feel that Gorski's criticism as quoted really does not contribute much to the article. It consists mostly of epithets and emotionally charged characterizations of Chopra's personal characteristics. This is not very encyclopedic. Gorski is certainly an important critic and notable authority, but I think it would make more sense to quote the substance of his criticism, rather than his personal feelings about Chopra as an individual.

Thanks for taking the time to consider my perspective. I look forward to a fruitful discussion. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I found all those issues secondary to why I reverted they edits: They substantially changed the pov of the article, including aspects of notability, without introducing any new sources or demonstrating the current sources are being misused in some manner.

A review of past discussions on the impacted content would be of great help so we don't waste time repeating past arguments. --Ronz (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I have reviewed the past discussions, but they do not fully address my concerns. Chief among them, why are the personal feelings of various skeptics, absent any substantive criticism, important enough to be in the lede? I don't know a lede of any other BLP which includes epithets such as "crank," "quack" or "arrogantly obstinate." There is really no justification for including such a quote in the lede. Per WP:BLP, "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects." This does not seem to be non-partisan, nor dispassionate. Gorski may be a reliable source, but again, these are his personal feelings. They are not substantive criticisms of Chopra's work.

In addition, MOS:LEADBIO states "When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves. These concerns are especially pressing at biographies of living persons" HappyWanderer15 (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It appears you've completely ignored my concerns, again. WP:FRINGE and all the related discussions should address yours. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Ronz, unfortunately, it is you who has failed to address my concerns. I am perfectly aware of FRINGE but it does not justify quoting the personal feelings and epithets of critics absent any real substance. I’ll be removing Gorski’s quote, as “ reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.”HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you aware of the past discussion on this very topic? Since there's no consensus for it's inclusion as required of BLP, it should be removed.

Are we done with your concerns now? --Ronz (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Ronz. I appreciate your patience with the discussion. The only other concern I have is the flow of the criticism section. It states that "medical and scientific professionals" criticize Chopra's work as pseudoscience. This is surely true. Robert Carroll, however, is neither a medical or scientific professional. You objected to my use of the term "author and skeptic" to describe Carroll. Could we agree on "author and philosopher Robert Carroll"? An alternative would be to find a different relevant source quoting a medical or scientific professional. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

He most certainly is an expert when it comes to the identification of pseudoscience. I can see how the philosophy of science might not be seen as "science" by some.

Since "skeptic" is a pejorative in alt-med, and Chopra uses it as such, I think we need to be careful not to use it where it can be interpreted as such. It's commonly removed from FRINGE articles because of this, especially phrases like "skeptics say...". --Ronz (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Understood, Ronz. It is reasonable then that we not use the word “skeptic.” I’ve used the word “philosopher” instead given his prominence in the field of philosophy of science. Thanks for a good discussion. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Born in

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Yesterday I accepted this IP-edit [2], now reverted. I don't know if this has been up for discussion before or if there is some MOS-advice on this, but it seemed reasonable since the years matched and Gandhi. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

To make another WP:OSE comparison, see the infobox in Miloš Zeman. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Per the guidance at

Template:Infobox person: "Use the name of the birthplace at the time of birth"

and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters (you take what you can find): "If a different name is appropriate in a given historical or other context, then that may be used instead, although it is normal to follow the first occurrence of such a name with the standard modern name in parentheses.", I think "British India (present-day India)" is preferable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Misrepresenting sources

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User:RunnyAmiga wrote "you absolutely must get a source for this".[3] The sources do not verify the claim. I would add you must get a source that also verifies the claim.

Wikipedia seeks verifiable, not truth. If any editor seriously thinks it is supported by the sources please provide verification here on the talk page. It is better to eliminate guesswork and stick to verifiable content. Thank you. QuackGuru (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The Future of God

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Should "The Future of God" be included in Deepak Chopra's list of books? Vorbee (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Woo versus Wikipedia

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

David Gorski on this article, for the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

That article states "I would argue that the above criticisms are pretty mild compared to the damage that Dr. Chopra has done to medicine through his promotion of quantum nonsense and the “integration” of alternative medicine into medicine."[4] See Talk:Deepak_Chopra#Misrepresenting_sources. The above criticisms are not pretty mild. I explained above some of the content cited fails verification. QuackGuru (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Update needed

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Having been metaphorically dragged to Waterbury, Connecticut, I'm currently at one of his talks. His talk is about how the physical world is not real. Article should probably reflect this more imo. I'll upload the pictures I have been taking to Commons, and others can decide if their usable. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

On the flip side, he said that people still die. That quote of him can probably be written in the past tense. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

An update would only be due if there were more usable sources available, which - for this article - probably means independent, respectable, secondary ones. Are there such? Alexbrn (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Here's and good source for the past tense thing.
As for the first claim I made, there's a pretty good New Yorker interview that came out recently. Though, that isn't secondary (of course). The New Statesman has a peice somewhat about it, but it doesn't say what I am saying he said exactly. This Guardian article does, but that's pretty old. There has not been a lot of scholarly reviews of his latest book, sadly. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The article makes quite clear that he is an idealist, which is what the aforementioned view amounts to. Daedalus 96 (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Aging and reality

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

About aging being "fluid": I am reading Jack Raso's ([5]) "Alternative Healthcare. A Comprehensive Guide", and on page 69, in the chapter "The Mystical Medic of Never-Never Land" about Chopra, Raso quotes him saying this at the Newlife Expo 1993: "One thing that [Mark Becker] didn't do when he was introducing me is tell you that I'm a hundred and fifty years old". I guess that is an application of what he said in a quote on page 68: "You are your own reality. You create it".

I am not sure if and how that can be used in the article. I seem to remember that the article used to say that Chopra claimed he himself did not age, which was refuted by several images of him, but I could not find it in older versions, but I only went back to 2016. Did I remember that wrong? The article has said Chopra believes that "ageing is simply learned behaviour" that can be slowed or prevented. Chopra has said that he expects "to live way beyond 100". for quite a while though. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Lioness

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I plan to add the following paragraph to the page, in the "Legal actions" section. Given the delicate and recent matter, I'm first doing it here for anybody to discuss/object. In particular, the website is one that has been considered a valid source by important outlets such as the New York Times, but I don't know if there are precedents in Wikipedia about how/when to mention allegations of this kind. Lecciosauro (talk) 7:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

In September 2021, an article was published by website Lioness in which a former patient of Chopra recounted how she had been allegedly sexually exploited by him in around 1998.^[1] Chopra's legal team replied to an anticipation of the article by denying all allegations, in a "cease and desist" letter which threatened legal action and was published alongside the article.

I would say that "Lioness" is not reliable as a source for wikipedia, so the above para should not be added. Please sign your posts using four tildes, like this ~~~~ -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 12:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I won't add anything unless better sources come out. Thanks for reminding me of the signature, added now. Lecciosauro (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

References

^ "Recovering from addiction, I told Deepak Chopra how men had exploited me. Then, he did the same". Lioness. September 16, 2021.

Commingled criticisms

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The reader may be left with the impression that a few scientists are upset because he abuses physical terminology. Now it is true that he peddles nonsense about quantum this and that, but he does so only because of the perceived prestige of modern physics. If the general public held French Lit in high esteem, his prattle would be shrouded in words borrowed (badly) from French Lit. In this sense, debunking his pseudo quantum theory is of minor importance. Indeed, there is so little there (nothing really) that ironically the lay reader may rather overestimate the importance physicists attach to his fringe ideas. If we take away the pseudoscientific jargon, what is left? Besides the usual guru variety of self-help and self-actualisation, there is medical quackery, which hinges on the familiar notion that a mind-that-is-one-with-the-cosmos can create a reality, notably one in which the sick punter is not really sick (or ageing or losing his hair...). Now, medical quackery is dangerous, and by being drawn into the idea that the quackery can only be addressed by repudiating the quantum woo, the debate drifts into a smokescreen that can only benefit him. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:20A8:B888:AFB9:D07 (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

[1] "Recovering from addiction, I told Deepak Chopra how men had exploited me. Then, he did the same". Lioness. September 16, 2021.

[1]