Talk:Deepak Chopra: Difference between revisions
→I'm listening and making compromises, how come you're not?: General advice for SAS81 as to how to approach dispute resolution. |
|||
| Line 1,332: | Line 1,332: | ||
:If it makes you feel better, I've done nothing but weigh in on your sources and I'm already being called far worse. For better or worse, anything associated with [[WP:FRINGE]] gets people's blood boiling, so there's going to be heated, intense reactions to most things you do. It's regrettable and I've been trying to keep it from dissuading me (I'm stubborn like that), but it does make working toward consensus hard. Just be patient and forthright, though, and things will work out. [[User:Askahrc|The Cap'n]] ([[User talk:Askahrc|talk]]) 15:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC) |
:If it makes you feel better, I've done nothing but weigh in on your sources and I'm already being called far worse. For better or worse, anything associated with [[WP:FRINGE]] gets people's blood boiling, so there's going to be heated, intense reactions to most things you do. It's regrettable and I've been trying to keep it from dissuading me (I'm stubborn like that), but it does make working toward consensus hard. Just be patient and forthright, though, and things will work out. [[User:Askahrc|The Cap'n]] ([[User talk:Askahrc|talk]]) 15:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
::{{replyto|SAS81}} Working through content dispute resolution is a difficult and time-consuming process. I was a mediator for years, but I haven't done it for a long time because, frankly, it's a time-sink. I've literally spent months trying to resolve a dispute between a few people at a single article before. I've moved on to more urgent matters that require someone with admin tools (mediation only requires social skills, not technical tools), lately it has involved trying to reduce the backlog at [[WP:SPI|sockpuppet investigations]]. But in my time as mediator I did learn a lot of tricks. |
|||
::My suggestion to you in this situation is to slow down. Pick one thing, just one thing in the article that you think needs to be changed. One single point. Express your concerns, express how you'd like it to be changed, and ask if there is a way to implement that change that satisfies Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Don't express it in terms that you want specific wording, but something a bit more general. Just to give you an idea, one term you advocated is "mainstream cheerleader" which a number of people considered to be a [[WP:PEACOCK|peacock]] term (that's Wikipedia-speech for verbiage that unnecessarily inflates an article subject). Maybe you can say what you ''meant'' by that phrase, offer something to support your claim, and then ask how to rephrase the term to reflect the concept you're trying to convey. I'm not saying you should start there but this is just an example of somewhere you ''could'' start. I recommend that you instead narrow down the one specific thing that you consider to be most troublesome about the article and work on a compromise. My experience in dispute resolution is that people become less overwhelmed when you just focus on one thing at a time. |
|||
::And finally, be prepared for rejection. This is something that ''everyone'' on Wikipedia faces now and then. It doesn't just have to do with your status as a paid individual with a conflict of interest, you will try to implement something that you just can't get consensus for. It happens to me too. Sometimes it can feel like you're being bullied, and sometimes people ''are'' bullied, but most of the time you're just in a position where your viewpoint is in the minority and you have to accept that your suggestion isn't going to be implemented. You can try to compromise, but even that won't always work. So just be prepared and don't take it personally when it happens, because it ''will''. -- '''[[User:Atama|<span style="color:#06F">At</span><span style="color:#03B">am</span><span style="color:#006">a</span>]]'''[[User talk:Atama|<span style="color:#000">頭</span>]] 16:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
=== Alternatively, "no." === |
=== Alternatively, "no." === |
||
Revision as of 16:39, 8 May 2014
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deepak Chopra article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Please read before starting
Wikipedia policy notes for new editors:
Also of particular relevance are:
|
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deepak Chopra article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 21 days  |
 | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Chopra Media Representative
In the interests of readability, the requestsa have been split out into separate sections below.
|
|---|
|
Deepak Chopra editors: Binksternet Mishash Bgwhite TheRedPenOfDoom Alexbrn, Lacolorstudio, Xanthis, Rjwilmsi, De-charlatan, Vzaak, Barney the barney barney, KiethBob, John of Reading, Roxy the dog, Afterwriting, Fcp, WikiDan61, Charhenderton, Anomalocaris, HMSSolent, QuackGuru, Philip Cross, Ajo102688, Feross, QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV, Nonnyme, Mastcell Hello. I am a representative from Chopra Media. We have genuine concerns about this article. This has been an issue for sometime and we were not sure of the best way to approach this problem as Wikipedia is very complex to new comers. We want to do this the right way. We apologize for any previous fumbles that may have occurred or will occur. please don’t bite the newbies :) I am here to address inaccuracies and the inappropriate misframing of Deepak Chopra’s biography on Wikipedia and seek the assistance of neutral and experienced Wikipedians to help. The article itself mentions that Dr. Chopra is a magnet for criticism but fails to mention that the entire article on Wikipedia is serving only this purpose. Most paragraphs support the framing of Dr Chopra from the point of view of skepticism and criticisms frame every section - and this is before we even get to the section called Skepticism. I want to make clear we do not find issue with the publications criticisms of Deepak Chopra as a matter of biographical record on Wikipedia. We also understand the balance between WP: BLP and WP:FRINGE. Our concern is the weight of these criticisms in relationship with other points of view and reputable sources. Dr Chopra is a world leader in mind body healing and represents view points of millions of people and many distinct cultures. We find the viewpoints expressed here and framed as factually neutral to be disrespectful to many other worldviews and cultures. For the purposes of human dignity and respect we request this article be reviewed and framed neutrally. We believe Wikipedia’s five pillars and general guidelines for a BLP already protect and cover what we request. We are not interested in nor are we requesting white-washing his biography for promotional or PR related purposes. We get it. We understand the issue of neutrality on Wikipedia and value many of the principles. For example, the lead sentence frames Dr. Chopra as a new age guru on one hand and simply a ‘practitioner’ of alternative medicine. Not only is this disrespectful (in some contexts this is a pejorative, and sometimes even a racist pejorative) - it also fails to inform the reader the full picture of who Dr Chopra is, what his ideas are and what his contributions are. Yet President Bill Clinton reference to Dr Chopra as a ‘pioneer of alternative medicine’ is a notable source. And it is indeed accurate to the role Dr. Chopra has played as a world leader in mind body healing. Why is that quote buried at the bottom of the article while the caricature using pejoratives is floating at the top? First and foremost, Dr. Chopra is a physician - licensed in We believe the nature of this article is to serve to the discredit not only of Dr. Chopra - but to discredit the philosophy and practices of world religions, worldviews, and millions of people of all different cultures. How would the community advise us proceeding to make the article better? ChopraMedia (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
|
To "Chopra Media Representative"
Advice presumably read and understood
|
|---|
|
You need to be aware that Wikipedia's rules require that we follow the neutral point of view. There are special rules which apply to biographies of living people, but they do not override the foundational policy on neutrality. No article subject has a right of veto over content in their article. The large number of Wikipedia editors you have named, is evidence that the article's content has been reviewed by numerous experienced editors, so broad statements of wholesale violation of policy are not going to be persuasive (see below). Wikipedia is not here to play any part in promoting Deepak Chopra. We are not part of your communications or social media strategy. Bluntly, if the article presents accurate material that, incidentally, cause people to question him or not to buy his products, we sympathise but it's not our problem. In respect of subjects which are within the purview of scientific inquiry, including all medical subjects, the neutral point of view is interpreted as following the scientific consensus. Neutrality is not some place between the scientific consensus and the advocates of fringe beliefs, because the scientific consensus inherently incorporates all significant viewpoints weighted according to their validity and evidential support. So, for example, where we discuss Chopra's ideas on quantum physics, we will necessarily do so on a way that makes it clear that his views are considered incorrect and even nonsensical by legitimate scientists. That will not change. Nor will Chopra's belief in bridging the gap between science and religion, in any way sway us, because in matters of science any compromise between a correct statement and an incorrect statement, is an incorrect statement, and religious views are inherently unscientific. If you want to make changes to the article, this is what you need to do:
This is to protect Chopra's own reputation. If it were perceived that he was, through his media office, trying to control the content of the Wikipedia article, there is likely to be a backlash and significant adverse commentary. For urgent issues of defamation, please post a short, specific request on WP:BLPN. By specific, I mean detailing exactly what text is a problem, and why. Keep all requests to the point and make them easy for independent reviewers to action. We absolutely will not promise to have an article that Chopra will like. That is implicit in the fact that he advocates alternative medicine and other pseudoscientific concepts rejected by proper scientific inquiry. What we can and will strive for, is fairness and accuracy. Poorly sourced material (positive or negative) can and will be removed. Well sourced material that Chopra does not like, will not. Nor will we undertake to balance every adverse fact with a "rebutal" or commentary from Chopra: it is very obvious that he rejects the scientific interpretation of his beliefs, that does not need to be stated at every line. Finally, under no circumstances should you use any language that gives the appearance of a legal threat. Wikipedia reserves the right to ban or otherwise exclude any editor who does this, or who violates our other policies. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC) |
Certain specific issues
Here is where we can deal with specific issues brought up by Chopra Media. I'm having something of a hard time identifying actionable points. jps (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Inaccuracies/misframing
No response from requester for any specifics. Requests cannot be actioned without specifics.
|
|---|
|
"The article itself mentions that Dr. Chopra is a magnet for criticism but fails to mention that the entire article on Wikipedia is serving only this purpose." -- I don't think it appropriate for the article to reference itself. jps (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
|
World leader in mind body healing
No response from requester for any specifics. Requests cannot be actioned without specifics.
|
|---|
|
"Dr Chopra is a world leader in mind body healing and represents view points of millions of people and many distinct cultures." -- Can you point to some sources for this claim?
|
Disrespect
"We find the viewpoints expressed here and framed as factually neutral to be disrespectful to many other worldviews and cultures." -- Highlighting specific instances of this would be helpful.
- I think this means that the article is disposed towards a specific form of Western philosophy, and that is scientific philosophy. In doing so, it apparently excludes various forms of Eastern philosophy, and Indian philosophy. While acknowledging my biases as a westerner, and without wandering too much off topic, one only has to point out the success of Western scientific philosophy in understanding the universe - especially evidence-based medicine - has far exceeded all other efforts by other cultures combined. WP:MAINSTREAM and WP:NPOV states that we do not take all viewpoints as equal. WP:MEDRS states we follow evidence-based medicine. I do not see these as negatives. There is clear WP:CONSENSUS on these issues. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think WP:UNDUE in particular is relevant here. -- Atama頭 22:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think it is true that Eastern philosophy precludes a disposition towards scientific philosophy. jps (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. This is the same as the conflict between creationism and evolution. Evolution is science, creationism is religion. Much Eastern "healing" is effectively a religious belief system with no empirical validity. Qi does not exist, meridians do not exist, to state this is not "disrespectful to other worldviews and cultures", Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of cherished but incorrect beliefs. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
"Practitioner"
No response from requester for any specifics. Requests cannot be actioned without specifics.
|
|---|
|
"For example, the lead sentence frames Dr. Chopra as a new age guru on one hand and simply a ‘practitioner’ of alternative medicine. Not only is this disrespectful (in some contexts this is a pejorative, and sometimes even a racist pejorative) - it also fails to inform the reader the full picture of who Dr Chopra is, what his ideas are and what his contributions are." -- Hard for me to understand this. The scare quotes seem to indicate that the major concern is over the word "practitioner" of alternative medicine. I don't understand why that is. Does Chopra media group dispute that he is a practitioner of alternative medicine? Does he prefer other terminology? If so, why?
|
"Pioneer"
No response from requester for any specifics. Requests cannot be actioned without specifics.
|
|---|
|
"Yet President Bill Clinton reference to Dr Chopra as a ‘pioneer of alternative medicine’ is a notable source." I'm not sure the word "pioneer" is neutral. Can an argument be made that it is? Certainly Chopra is on the vanguard of the movement. That might be a more neutral way to put it. What do you think?
|
"Physician"
"First and foremost, Dr. Chopra is a physician - licensed in both western medicine and alternative medicine." -- Physician is a technical term and a protected term. I think it is somewhat controversial to call a person who practices alternative medicine a "physician" of such. Do you disagree? Why?
- If Dr Chopra is a physician then we should mention this. However, we also need to be careful when explaining why he's notable, particularly in the WP:LEAD. If he's not made any major contributions to conventional evidence-based medicine, then he isn't notable as a physician and we shouldn't pretend that he is. It is quite clear that other people involved in advocating WP:FRINGE views often try to trade on credentials. We're however generally unimpressed by such efforts. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think credentialism may be what is going on, but that may be enough to ensure notability. A more fuller discussion of this could be had in the body. That he is a licensed physician is probably what gives him cache. We have sources to that effect. jps (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Discrediting
"We believe the nature of this article is to serve to the discredit not only of Dr. Chopra - but to discredit the philosophy and practices of world religions, worldviews, and millions of people of all different cultures." -- How so? Can you give specific examples?
response from Chopra representative
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Thank you all for your responses. I was afraid I was going to get crickets, so very happy all of you have decided to participate despite what my nerves were telling me. I also want to thank you for the suggestions for next steps I should take, such as the BLPN or WP:OTRS. First I would like to see if I can work this out with the editors on this particular article - I have no reason to believe none of you are not neutral but if I believe that we will not be able to come to productive dialogue then I will explore those options. I hope this is not too long or formatted the wrong way. I thought it best to post one response to all parties addressing the particulars first so at least we can understand the points of view involved here quickly. I’m also creating a new section that is going to address the lead - per your suggestions. I also spent the day writing and formatting this only to discover new sections popping up around my first post. For time reasons, this is the format I request we continue on (mainly because I dont have time to reformat this entire post - apologies) @The Red Pen of Doom, @Guy, @JPS I would like to understand how you define 'neutrality'. I'm having a hard time understanding how Wikipedia works here regarding the crossover of NPOV, BLP, and WP:Fringe. By definition ‘neutral’ means taking neither one side nor the other side in a matter of contention, does it not mean this on Wikipedia? Genuine question. Is the inherent contradiction between the application of BLP and Fringe based on a misunderstanding on my part? My understanding of WP Fringe is that whatever defines fringe on Wikipedia (and I accept mind body healing is under that umbrella) then the mainstream scientific point of view must also be listed on that article. Yet it's very vague how this applied to a BLP, especially when it implies that mainstream scientist's opinions about Dr Chopra the person become the voice of the article, which contradicts neutrality in any definition of the term. Its also probably a good idea for me to be transparent with you regarding what I mean by ‘framing’ or misframing. This is an issue that we deal with often in media, and framing and misframing are terms in the social or political sciences, including media studies. Sorry if my terminology is too wonky, but that is what is informing my perspective. My concern is not just with sources but how those sources are (currently, and from my point of view) framing Dr Chopra to fit the narrative of his detractors. That's how it looks to us and that’s what I would call a ‘misframing’. We get that lots. Since we work with both mainstream publishers and journalists from all over the world, we know a misframed article from a neutral article when we read one. I’m extending good faith that this misframing is unintentional on Wikipedia. I imagine your concern is that we want to frame Dr. Chopra from the point of view of his supporters or for marketing. That’s not why I am here. I have no such intention and I have only been authorized to clarify the article so it is more neutral. I'm also not an attorney, have not been advised of any legal notices, nor am I here to issue any legal warnings. Please extend good faith to me in return. I can accept that the article may not be changed to how I would prefer it or Dr. Chopra, but equally that means that the article may be changed in a way that will also not satisfy Dr. Chopra's critics or skeptics on Wikipedia as well. If all of us walk away unsatisfied it may mean we will have a neutral article and that would be something I could live with. @Alexbrn. It means I am an employee of Chopra LLC and I am authorized to respond or reply to any media concerns that may affect Dr Chopra or any of his concerns on Wikipedia or elsewhere. I am working directly in the offices of Chopra LLC and this is just one of many responsibilities I have. Chopra Media is a reference for the media division and is not a brand entity in and of itself. Yes I am revealing my COI as an employee with the specific authorization to address Wikipedia directly. I am aware of Wikipedia policies regarding BLP, Fringe, COI (among others). I am also authorized not to post any of my personal information, past experience, job duties or responsibilities other than those directly related to this issue. If there is another step I need to take regarding this COI please advise. Additionally, this account will not be editing this article nor any other articles on Wikipedia, I am only authorized to participate in consensus building or talk on this page or any noticeboard that it may require. Dr. Chopra has also recently become fascinated by Wikipedia and has expressed interest in editing articles directly himself. He does now have a Wikipedia account Deepak Chopra,MD but will not be participating in his biography or any articles directly related to any of his projects or work. @Binkersternet - I believe its consistent with the principles of an encyclopedia to list, in the first sentence, their professional titles based on secondary sources while consulting primary sources when necessary. I believe that a physicians concerns are health and Dr Chopra’s point of view on mind body healing is informed by his knowledge and career in both western medicine and alternative medicine, indeed its why he is notable. He is a licensed physician. Therefore it seems to be to be significant. That’s my opinion and I believe a reasonable one - please correct me where you believe I am mistaken. To Olive’s point and yours, yes I will be addressing problems specifically with the entire lead section of the article, both the sources and the framing. @LittleOlive oil thank you for the heads up and your help here! Thank you Roxy the dog (i like your username). Yes I agree sources are helpful - but once we agree on what an appropriate source is, we still have to frame that source neutrally and one of my biggest problems with the article is the framing of the sources rather than just the sources themselves. Can I personally turn to you for support in framing sources more neutrally in this article? Thank you Barney the barney barney - and I agree. I’m here to be civil and polite, even though I assume my point of view of Dr Chopra may be radically different than yours and we may have strong disagreements on these matters. I look forward to a productive and polite discussion. I am familiar with WP:ORTS but wanted to address the actual editors on this article first before I make any assumptions about the problems. Who says that all of you can’t be neutral ;) ChopraMedia (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Problems with lead section, first sentenceOkay I want to start off with just one sentence - if we can find consensus here we can find it anywhere. Deepak Chopra born October 22, 1947 is an Indian-American author, holistic health/New Age guru, and alternative medicine practitioner. my notes: contains weasel words (new age guru). Misframed first sentence. source and framing comes from a critic. contains bias. not neutral. Words like ‘new age’ and ‘guru’ while sometimes may be affectionate terms, they can also be perjoratives used to mis frame Dr Chopras contributions and level of respect, unbecoming of a formal and neutral description. Please see Guru. Dr Chopra is a prolific philosopher, and represents the philosophical world views of millions of people, including major world religions such as Hindu and Buddhism. 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 legitimate viewpoints and cultures around health and consciousness that are predominant in the world. President Bill Clinton referred to Dr. Chopra as the ‘pioneer of alternative medicine’, making him somewhat more distinguishable than just a ‘practitioner of alternative medicine’, yet President Clinton’s quote about Dr Chopra is at the bottom of the article, while the weasel word descriptions frame Dr Chopra in the first sentence, misleading the reader as to the relevance of Dr Chopra. Additionally and most importantly, Dr. Chopra is not a practitioner of 'alternative medicine', has no license to practice alternative medicine so it's also misleading to inform readers that he is a practitioner of alternative medicine. Dr. Chopra is, first and foremost - a physician, licensed in the state of California and Massachusetts. It is common sense and respectful to refer to him by his professional title, especially since it defines his entire career in mind body healing. Chopra’s medical training is in internal medicine and endocrinology. He is a Fellow of the American College of Physicians, a member of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. Assistant Clinical Professor, in the Family and Preventive Medicine Department at the University of California, San Diego, Health Sciences, Doctor of Science, Hartwick College, Doctor Honoris Causa, The Giordano Brunio University. Dr. Chopra is a notable entrepreneur who is highly prolific by any reasonable definition of the term. The article’s voice appears to frame Dr Chopra as nothing more than a 'wealthy businessman' who is more than likely exploiting the gullible, making him indistinguishable from any tycoon who exploits resource for personal gain, confirming the 'guru' perjorative. I don't like that. While we understand this may be an opinion of Dr Chopra held by his many detractors - we do not believe that he should be framed this way as a neutral point of view. Not only does this paint a picture of Dr Chopra that is misleading by framing him that way, it also does not reflect what most neutral non opinion based sources suggest either. While all entrepreneurs are business men, not all businessmen are entrepreneurs. It's important to make that distinction because its intrinsically who Dr. Chopra is, intrinsically what makes him notable, and what all reasonable sources suggest. I recommend: Deepak Chopra is an Indian American physician, author, entrepreneur, and ‘the pioneer of alternative medicine.’ This sentence does not change any of the facts, nor does it whitewash his biography, nor does it suggest that mainstream science either rejects nor confirms Dr. Chopra’s ideas. the phrase ‘pioneer of alternative medicine’ implies not only his role as a world leader in the matters of mind body healing, but is a more respectful way to mention his role rather than ‘guru’ and ‘new age’ in the voice of Wikipedia itself. Plus - the source is the president of the united states, that's notable by any fair standard of the term. That makes sense, yes? I’m fine with someone mentioning that a notable author says “Deepak Chopra is a new age guru” as long as their voice is quoted in the article and not the voice of Wikipedia/neutrality. ChopraMedia (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe the best approach here is to try out multiple first sentences until we get something that gets to the root of his notability. We may need to use more than few words to do that. I'm fine with that if others are, too. I had planned to stay out of this discussion but reasonable Atama's response to my concerns and the mature discussion taking place here makes me think this discussion could be worth involvement.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC))
sourcesI would like to provide some sources that support what I write above as well as additional sources that may be useful. These sources are located in my sandbox here. I'm able to dig up more so don't be shy about telling me something is missing or unsupported. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChopraMedia/sandbox ChopraMedia (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Guru as a descriptive title, Clinton as a source, distinctions in pop cultureI’m trying to continue the formatting that JPS suggested, at least I hope I am. Either way this makes sense to me thanks for doing all that work JPS, I would not have mind beginning that way if I was prepared for it. I hope this will suffice? ChopraMedia (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC) I see your point Alexbrn - and sure - there are many sources that are going to reference Deepak Chopra as a guru - far more than you listed actually. But is that who Deepak Chopra is - or is that how Deepak Chopra is perceived through the lens of popular culture? Dr. Chopra is apart of the zeitgeist, love him or hate him - surely that cannot be contested about him as an intrinsic quality. So yes, as I mentioned, ‘guru’ can be an affectionate term - it can also be a pejorative, and either way its an opinion about him not something intrinsic to who he is. There are plenty of sources too, mainstream ones that have referenced President Bill Clinton as ‘America’s first black president’. Its a sign of affection when Chris Rock says it, and a pejorative when Rush Limbaugh says it, and absolutely an awkward first sentence if his bio on Wikipedia started off that way. Speaking of US Presidents - surely you’re not suggesting that any US president does not have a large team of some of the most qualified academics in the world scouring through every speech he gives before a foreign dignitary and vetting everything he mentions? Naturally, a US president is going to have to speak about a number of topics that he may not have personal expertise in - but when a US president says something, its assumed it has the weight of the credibility of the United States behind it and the peer review of his staff. Or any world leader actually, right? “A renowned physician and author, Deepak Chopra is undoubtedly one of the most lucid and inspired philosophers of our time.” – Mikhail Gorbachev, Citation of the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic awarded by the Pio Manzu International Scientific Committee Source: http://www.mythicjourneys.org/guest_chopra.html I’m not suggesting we call him a philosopher either - nor a ‘world leader’ in mind body healing, inspite of the fact that’s a very reasonable assessment of Dr. Chopra. He is known and honored all over the world, by sitting presidents, world leaders, dignitaries, CEO’s, etc etc Dr. Chopra is going to have many caricatures of him floating around in the mass media because, intrinsic to who he is, like President Bill Clinton he is also a product of pop culture. I’m here to help all of you see the difference. Let’s make this article more neutral and therefore more respectable. ChopraMedia (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I’m not saying the source for referring to Dr. Chopra is not a proper source, I am saying that its probably not the proper source specifically used for framing Dr. Chopra as a ‘new age guru’. The first problem with the source is that it defines itself as a critique of Dr. Chopra’s work and ideas. Although I haven’t read the paper - if it criticizes Dr. Chopra’s ideas, then perhaps it should be moved to the ‘receptions’ section. It does not seem reasonable to use a work of critique to define the basic biographical information of the lead section. ChopraMedia (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Alex, cherrypicked mainstream sources that fit an image of Dr Chopra as a guru is not exactly what I was referring to. I am asking you to work with me to make sure we 'get it right' per BLP. I am asking you to respect the dignity of a living person, regardless of your view point of him. I am willing to work with you to find a balance with WP Fringe. A BLP is not an article for people to discover 'how people view Dr. Chopra'. That is not the intention of BLP I'm sure you know that. The intention of a BLP article is to discover WHO that person is, WHAT their ideas are , WHAT their contributions are and HOW they have been received (positive and negative). HOW we determine that is derived from mainstream sources. Big difference. SAS81 (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this an appropriate question to ask?I’m hoping this question is either common or appropriate to ask. I’ve been doing a little more digging around the activity of this board. I’m in the weeds in a lot of ways trying to understand points of view expressed here. I also want to be transparent myself and wondering if requesting editor transparency is a fair request. Would the editors here mind being transparent about their own bias on the subject matter (skeptic/agnostic/supporter) with me so I can clarify points to the right point of view? I’m hoping to find common ground with all of you and I underestimated how complex this discussion has been on this article. ChopraMedia (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
While I can understand opinion on this subject, Mind Body Medicine or Integrative Medicine has taken its place in conventional wisdom. Examples are numerous. Here are a few:
(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC))
ChopraMedia representative name change SAS81Wikipedia advised me on my talk page to change User name and I did. Just a heads up. Same person. Same Computer. ChopraMedia (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Physician intrinsic to who Dr. Chopra is@JPS, @Barney the barney barney, Littleolive oil, Guy, Guy Dr. Chopra is notable for being a physician (specifically an MD, Endocrinology) who embraced meditation and other mind body practices for restoring self regulation and self repair mechanisms otherwise known as homeostasis in the physical body (re:mind body healing definition). What he is known for, or ‘pioneering’ specifically is the value of subjective experience and well being on the measurable physical health of an individual. By ‘pioneering’ we certainly mean getting a lot of attention for an holistic approach to medicine and creating a wider adoption of this practice. It’s not bragging to say that Dr. Chopra has genuinely accomplished that. He did not ‘leave’ medical practice, rather he pioneered (along with a few others) implementing western medicine with mind/body practices (yoga, meditation for example) for the purposes of physical (body) health and emotional/psychological (mind) health. Along the way, he became a celebrity and a prolific writer on spirituality and consciousness (which falls under the purview of philosophy, not medicine), and a entrepreneur. Not only is being a physician fundamental to who Deepak Chopra is, what he is notable for would be impossible without it. At the moment Chopra center is involved in collaborative studies with Harvard Medical school, UCSF Medical School, UCSD medical school, Mount Sinai medical school NYC and Scripps Translational Science Institute in SD to assess gene expression, telomeres length, telomeric length and other aspects of cell biology including markers such as cytokines inflammatory response at the cellular level. I could use some advice on what are the best sources to show things like his medical licensing, boards or honors that would qualify him both as a current physician and historically as well. tldr; Without ‘physician’ in the title - it would be the same as referring to William Jefferson Clinton simply as a US ‘politician’ rather than a governor and president. While factually correct - it’s incomplete enough to also be factually misleading. ChopraMedia (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
JPS thank you for working for a compromise. I see your point on one hand, and I agree that calling him an advocate could be a compromise for the word 'pioneer' but not if it means we are removing the word physician from his title. For one, I have not seen any argument, or sources, that suggest Dr. Chopra is NOT known for being a physician rather that Dr. Chopra is not known perhaps to a few editors here who are not familiar with his work or only read critical sources of Dr. Chopra. This seems like a controversial statement and requires a bit more of a burden of proof. First, it is something intrinsic to who he is, so it is factually correct, like him being an Indian American. This is not controversial. Simple Wikipedia also refers to him that way - French Wikipedia - Spanish Wikipedia. I'm not suggesting those are sources we can use, but surely it supports my argument that he is known for being a medical doctor. Secondly it is fundamental to why he is notable, without his medical practice, Dr. Chopra would have absolutely no credibility to even say 'hey let's combine western medicine with various mind body practices (some of them could be spiritual, but 'spiritual' itself can be very subjective and is not a clinical term Dr. Chopra uses medically - although in popular literature he may, big difference). I'm sure you know - there is plenty of unqualified people screaming from tree tops about meditation, yoga - yet Dr. Chopra is considered relevant here. Dr. Chopra (note I refer to him as his official title of Doctor) is just famous, period. His fame and the levels of interpretations, deconstructions, etc etc around what he is famous for are going to be numerous and require original research to identify. I don't think anyone here can make some sort of critical theory argument to determine why this man is famous or what for in the millions of peoples minds that know him. I'm also going to work on getting perfect archived sources for you for all of this, bare with me I'm running around with my head cut off trying to keep track of this very complex issue here on WP. thanks for trying to work this out with me, truly. SAS81 (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
compromise?Speaking of US Presidents (again) - if a US president mentions someone, regardless of the political reasons for doing so - that president is going to mention them in the context of their notability - otherwise there would be no reason to have that President’s attention. I’m open to compromising ‘pioneer’ for something else, as long as it’s not practioner and it is something respectful (rather than promoter or advertiser, which i consider ‘weasel -esque’ in this context). Consider; What contributions must Dr. Chopra have made to get the attention of two world leaders? I think common sense + sources here must also apply. I’m hoping we have enough consensus so far to at least remove the disrespectful ‘new age guru’ from the lead sentence. Can we make that change right away? ChopraMedia (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
@JPS - i think 'champion' would be an agreeable compromise to pioneer, you get a thumbs up from me on that one, as long as we still refer to him as a physician. As for being a 'practitioner' technically that IS something that requires a license (Chinese medical doctor, homeopath, etc etc) so he is NOT licensed as an alternative medicine practioner so that would just be misleading. Thanks for working this out. SAS81 (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Re, "champion": Instead of making something up, how about we properly summarize sources or at least find and include a source that justifies the label? --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the issues is that we are addressing the cart before the horse. The lead sentence is supposed to encapsulate what is important about the subject as addressed in the article; which is supposed to address the various aspects of the subject as covered by reliable sources. So.... Does the current article content appropriately reflect what reliable sources say about the subject? If so, then what is an appropriate way to capture the most important parts of the article in a single sentence? If the article doesnt appropriately cover the subject, then we are probably wasting time focusing on a single sentence in the lead (and a particular word in that sentence!) until there is a better understanding and development of what that lead sentence is supposed to be summarizing.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC) NPOV, WP:Impartial, WP:DUE, WP:Fringe, BLP stuff@The Red Pen of Doom, Guy, Ronz I’ve scoured, studied and absorbed WP:NPOV, including WP:DUE and WP:IMPARTIAL, with an emphasis on WP:Fringe and BLP. Although mainstream and reliable sources and the necessity of them is pretty clear, I don’t see the emphasis on mainstream academic views of the subject the way you’re phrasing it. I’m here to make sure the biography of a living person is neutral and respectful and to help make sure we distinguish Dr. Chopra the physician, Dr. Chopra the author on spirituality/philosophy/consciousness, Dr. Chopra the celebrity, and Dr. Chopra the entrepreneur and the criticisms therien. Plus - I get that ‘mind body healing’ maybe qualifies for WP:fringe - but that’s just one component of Dr. Chopra’s work. WP:Fringe does not cover philosophy, consciousness, media or business ventures Dr. Chopra engages in. Right now the article just looks like a ‘Chopra salad’ all mixed up. @Roxy the dog apparently you don’t have to be a vegetarian to eat a Chopra salad :) ChopraMedia (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey @TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom the contradiction I’m finding with NPOV, to your point - is that the only sources that say Dr. Chopra is an advocate for fringe ideas and pseudoscience are all skeptic/critic sources whereas other sources that say he is notable, a pioneer, a medical doctor, a physician, etc etc do not seem to be represented. Again - US Presidents who mention US citizens in speeches to foreign dignitaries are going to mention what they are notable for. By definition. Clinton is also not a physicist, but he sure is qualified to introduce Stephen Hawking for what he is notable for. I’m asking that you work with me here. You may disagree with me, but my arguments are not themselves unreasonable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SAS81 (talk • contribs)
I gave a straightforward statement explaining WHY a president's mention of someone's contributions MEANS those contributions are notable IRRESPECTIVE if that president himself is qualified to assess. If your going to disagree with me, fine, then disagree with the actual logic of my argument and show me the value of yours. You're not explaining to me why a sitting US presidents mention of someone contributions is not evidence of notability - you're just assessing Bill Clinton as a candidate for med school and that's not what I am arguing for. Do you actually believe that when a sitting US president makes a statement to a foreign dignitary that he is conveying simply his 'personal assessment' or the assessment of the United States of which he is the leader? Do you actually think that Bill Clinton himself sat down and typed into
JPS and I already found a compromise with 'pioneer of alternative medicine' to 'champion of alternative medicine'. The source supports Dr. Chopra's notability around alternative medicine while he also is not a practitioner. This seems like a great compromise so we can drop this issue. SAS81 (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC) More Guru Stew, first sentence framing@JPS thanks for opening up the discussion around ‘guru’. I have a number of problems with it and I will list all of them. I'm hoping the community can join in too and share their viewpoints. 1. ‘Guru’ (as mentioned in the article) can be a pejorative label as you can see already mentioned in the Guru article. You suggest this is only a cultural bias. I’m saying any usage of the term is cultural bias, positive or negative - and for that reason alone not proper for a first sentence which frames the entire BLP. That's the first argument, secondly is it is genuinely offensive in many contexts this way and thats probably not the best way to start an article. I understand you may not get that because culturally it is out of your peripheral so harder to relate to. Contextually this is interesting to consider, encyclopedia.com's phrasing of their first sentence shows how they dealt with the problem actually highlights the answer to your question. "Deepak Chopra (born 1946) is an alternative medicine expert to some, and a money-making guru to others. " 2. ‘Guru’ as used in a manner of affection for various religious practices, most commonly found in India, implies a *very * very* specific relationship between the ‘guru’ or teacher, and the student or disciple, take Bhakti yoga for example. That relationship does not exist with Dr. Chopra and those who work with him, so he is neither a guru in the eastern sense of the word, nor is he intrinsically a guru in the western pejorative sense of the word. 3. I get that people label him guru, and people label steve jobs a guru too. The word guru has various cultural meanings. It’s not an official achievement or an award hard earned or anything like that. There is no official way to measure if someone really is a New Age Guru either, its just a label and by definition inherently not neutral. 4. Dr. Chopra has gone on record as saying he also does not consider himself a guru, so primary sources are not matching. I think that’s relevant to also consider. 5. I think I can find a compromise around the label ‘new age’ or spiritual in the lead section somewhere, just not in the first sentence. I agree that someone of Dr. Chopra’s level of fame, the fact that he is both loved and hated is also intrinsic to who he is. Neutral means showing that he is both loved and hated, yes? So I am not trying to dis associate Dr Chopra from New Age criticisms or Spiritual by any means, I just want to see the framing more neutral so the reader can get a clear picture of who Dr Chopra is, what his ideas are, and what is the reception around those ideas. Also ‘New Age’ seems like a flakey term to describe Dr. Chopra’s spiritual philosophy in a lead sentence (even if that may not bother him, I'm saying that just from an encyclopedic perspective it seems flakey). I am just trying to distinguish a respectful and neutral framing of who he is so the reader can see the context of the various labels or reactions Dr. Chopra has received. 6. Or, we can just drop it all together in the first sentence. Let me run this by you and you tell me what you think, or feel free to tweak it a bit too. We have some consensus and some agreement, let’s see if we can expand on it some more. I think we can shorten holistic health guru and ‘champion of alternative medicine’ into one sentence. Technically the term ‘holistic health’ is more appropriate in relationship to the actual body of work, since Dr. Chopra claims that both mainstream medicine & mind body healing practices such as meditation and yoga should work together for greater measurable physical and emotional health, thus 'holistic' health. The focus on alternative medicine only gives the reader the wrong impression of Dr. Chopra's ideas. “Deepak Chopra is an Indian American endocrinologist, author, entrepreneur, and champion of holistic health.” I think we are getting closer. I would love to understand your concerns with the above phrasing too. Thanks everyone. SAS81 (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I think this is fine with me. I would like to interrogate further the complaints about the word "guru" which is, as far as I can tell, a basic synonym for "teacher" in Sanskrit. Seeing as how Chopra began his notorious campaigns with an acceptance of Ayurveda, this seems to me to be an appropriate word in spite of the connotations that come along for the ride. Chopra says, "I am neither motivational, nor am I a guru...." but I don't understand why he says that. He doesn't think he motivates people? Why not? I don't really understand where he is coming from. My current guess is that he is just being humble much the same way a teacher might say, "I'm not a teacher, the students teach themselves..." On the other hand, if there is a word that is better than "guru", I'd be thrilled to replace it. So far, I haven't seen one, but I'm hopeful. jps (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Compromising on 'guru' spiritual teacher or leaderThe genuine problem we all have to solve is that Dr. Chopra is *both* loved *and* hated and there are probably few people anywhere that don't have some kind of opinion on him. I get what side of the fence many of you are on, and I'm fine with that position guys, I'm not trying to sell you on him. Dr Chopra is notable and so are these reactions to him. But we have to get the facts distinguished from the opinions. Question for JPS or anyone: What do you want the article to say in the first sentence exactly regarding Dr Chopra role in mainstream society? Perhaps that would help. Guru is still a pejorative and I have going to have a lot of genuine BLP issues if a pejorative is used in the framing of Dr Chopra in Wikipedia's voice in the first sentence. Work with me to satisfy what you would like to see. The awkward issue is 'guru' is how others see Deepak - it does not surprise me that it has so many hits. But consider say Haile Selassie. He too was seen as a spiritual leader, indeed even the messiah of the Rastafari. Yet he never looked at himself that way, it was a label put on him by others. I think the article needs to show that yes, Dr. Chopra is considered a spiritual leader of New Age philosophy. How about we just take this out of the first sentence and create a second sentence which says something to the affect of "Deepak Chopra is considered a spiritual leader in the New Age movement." I'm not speaking as Dr. Chopra's rep when I say we should want a pristinely neutral and respectable first sentence, I am speaking as an archivist and historian for an encyclopedia. I think this is where the term 'uncompromising neutrality' comes in. Dr. Chopra is a best selling New Age author and philosopher, endocrinologist, entrepreneur and champion of integrative medicine. SAS81 (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Micros w/JPS, 'spiritual leader' guru
This is good progress, I think we are genuinely both seeing the same problem wearing our encyclopedia hats. And guru,spiritual leader or any similar reference is still fraught with all of the same problems from a BLP opening sentence perspective. Here is what I recommend. I am going to suggest the first two sentences which I think may address the problem. I know we dont have consensus in other things in the sentence yet, but just tell me what you think about the contexts around the 'teacher/leader/guru'. Another genuine problem is that Dr Chopra, love him or hate him, is a genuinely prolific individual, so he is also admittedly not easily capsulized yet since he is so notable still needs to be contained in the lead. I think all of these things can be addressed neutrally, in accordance with BLP and Fringe to boot, with framing closer to this:
Deepak Chopra is an Indian American endocrinologist, best selling New Age author, motivational speaker and 'wellness' entrepreneur. Chopra is a polarizing figure, functioning as a spiritual leader to some and a promoter of dangerous ideas to others. I think just referring to him as a 'best selling' New Age author gives you what you want, combined with 'motivational' which is more neutral and can imply guru, teacher, leader and all sorts of things without telling the reader which to interpret. I could compromise on 'wellness' as a replacement for integrative or alternative medicine (I dont want to have to get into a long derailed convo about that sort of stuff just yet) and its broad enough to include Dr Chopra's actual contributions. I think Dr Chopra's ideas on 'wellness' are central to his life work and should be simply defined in the article so the reader understands the article is referencing Dr Chopra's ideas on wellness and acknowledging that some consider these ideas dangerous too. Are we getting closer? SAS81 (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Stating facts is not ‘whitewashing’ - like i mentioned earlier, it aint braggin if it’s a notable fact. I'm going to address the 'endocrinologist' in another section as this areas was designated to discuss specifically a second sentence. But before we get much deeper into this collaboration - I think we all need to be on the same page about what neutrality means first. SAS81 (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC) what neutrality means: is there consensus here for this interpretation?@Alex - admittedly I’m having serious difficulty fusing ‘neutrality’ with ‘emphasizing’ the voice of one particular group or voice, especially a voice that you mention ‘berates’ him. I appreciate you being honest about your editing POV, but to me this flies in the face of what neutrality means, especially on a BLP. But if this is the understanding used by this forum here, then it makes sense why the article reads like simple a criticism of Deepak Chopra masquerading as a neutral article to me. I do not see one policy rule or guideline that supports the editing voice that critics of a living person frame that person in an encyclopedia. That is not what I see WP:Fringe ‘guiding’ us to do - and it completely cancels out what neutrality means in a BLP. Consider what you’re saying there - that the voice and framing of the article needs to reflect the particular group of people that criticize and berate him? I would like to take a vote below to see what sort of consensus this framing has on this article. Does this unique interpretation of ‘neutrality’ ‘BLP’, and ‘Fringe’ have the full support of all the other editors here as WP policy and guideline which needs to be enforced on this article? SAS81 (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Your choice.And this has nothing to do with my so-called happiness; it has to do with respect for another human being and how I discuss him in a public forum whether I like what he does or not. It also has nothing to do with making sure to determine what the reader will take away which is a non-neutral POV. It doesn't effect me and I doubt it affects Chopra. It affects this talk page, and that's fine, if that's what the encyclopedia supports. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC))
It's not helping clarify your thinking to keep referencing broad WP policies that not only am I familiar with at this point but could give a dissertation on. I am reading the same policy and following the same policy that you mention. I just can't find any evidence that the policy, or the sources you are using, support these extreme interpretations that your suggesting, mainly because you keep supporting nuanced applications of policy with broad guideline references that do nothing to explain exactly how you are coming to these conclusions. These sources you link to above as evidence of 'mainstream' academic support of a pejorative label against Dr Chopra, justifying your own position are extremely problematic and sourced way out of context. It's flat out misleading to any archivist or researcher or encyclopedia to reference these sources they way that is mentioned here. If one just looks at the sources your using - it's easy to see the sources also... a) Prominently mention him as a physician, describe his mainstream reception as overwhelmingly positive, then described a criticism that used the term "snake-oil" as isolated and unusual or under the umbrella of suspicion around him by Dr Chopra's scoffers. b) Prominently mention him as a physician, describe his mainstream reception as overwhelmingly positive, then characterize Dawkins' attack on him as excessive for using the term "snake oil." c) Denounce him as a fraud, spread lies (that he has no valid medical license nor sees any patients), then mock both his ethnicity and the tragic deaths of his personal acquaintances (Princess Diana). Are these the sources you all are signing off on to support neutrality on a BLP? SAS81 (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Micros on 'philosopher' eastern philosophy, notability
Your question was not ignored Roxy the dog - its just not a question I can answer for you because that's OR and not the purpose the source was introduced. The source was introduced to show notability. The citation I gave you shows where you can go research and find your answer - but those kind of things is not what we even need to do to edit Wikipedia. We are not here to peer review proper sources. SAS81 (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Micros response for JPS, Gorby, eastern philosophy, academia, worldviews etcWearing my encyclopedia hat - I’m not going to look at popular labels of any kind to frame a neutral first few sentences. I’m going to have to study a bit WP policy on the boundaries of what is acceptable ‘philosophy’ - however my point is epistemological and from that perspective, of course it is eastern philosophy and of course ‘philosophy’ since it is a world view and central arguments are the same and its pretty easy to trace Chopra’s epistemological roots back to Eastern Philosophy. You’ve included a rather harsh assessment re: false dichotomy. You say ‘take a step back’ and look at ‘how these academics’ view his work - lots of problems with this but I am only going to list two for now :) 1. First problem: I’m defining Dr Chopra’s clear notability discussing one world view (broadly called ‘spiritual’ but consistent with eastern philosophy, some but not all new age thinking) with another world view (science, physicalism, materialism, etc). This is clearly what facts and sources support. Dr. Chopra engages thought leaders in science, medicine, business and politics. 2. If you say academics say he is not qualified for this, then I would like to see the exact sources and summary for that but also, I’m not sure what you’re suggesting, that we don’t mention something that is clearly notable because some academics don’t believe he is qualified? I think if we keep the focus on notability this problem goes away and its just a matter of making sure that voice, which is one of many when it comes to Dr Chopra, is represented in his article but does not frame his article. SAS81 (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
JPS, Roxy, sources, holistic health, integrative medicineHey JPS, my apologies if you feel insulted by my description of holistic health in context to how terms are being used in this immediate discussion - that was not my intention and I think its because both of us are conflating terms across the board. Holistic health should not be confused with philosophical holism and holistic health as a specific definition that itself does not apply to Dr Chopra either. Some call it integrative medicine. Some call it holistic health. Some say mind body medicine. Some even confuse it and just label it ‘alternative medicine’. I’m sure a few here have some labels for it to. For me, it makes sense to follow the labels the encyclopedia is currently using. Secondly, Dr. Chopra himself does not practice alternative medicine (as its properly defined) either. He practices (and writes, lectures about) endocrinology specifically in context to integrative medicine. Yes he writes best selling new age books too, but we have to note the difference. His specific contribution in endocrinology are integrative medicine as defined in the encyclopedia. Integrative medicine looks at the subjective contributions to measurable physical health by evaluating personal lifestyle (which includes any ‘spiritual’ practice, emotional well being from family, community as well as financial well being as all contributing to measurable physical health). That’s what holistic health refers to in this context. The value of subjective experience along side western medicine. SAS81 (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
|
Sources for Dr. Chopra in the field of endocrinology and integrative medicine
Extended content
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Chopra’s medical training is in internal medicine and endocrinology. He is a Fellow of the American College of Physicians, a member of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, possessing a medical license in Massachusetts and California. “My Practice Details,” HealthGrades Inc., accessed April 20, 2014, http://www.healthgrades.com/physician/dr-deepak-chopra-28dr8/background-check Medium: Website Category: Medical/Scientific WP ref: “My Practice Details,” HealthGrades Inc., accessed April 20, 2014, http://www.healthgrades.com/physician/dr-deepak-chopra-28dr8/background-check
“Profile: Deepak Chopra.” Forbes, accessed April 20, 2014, http://www.forbes.com/profile/deepak-chopra-2/ Medium: News, Website Category: Medical/Scientific, News/Commentary, Biography WP ref: “Profile: Deepak Chopra.” ‘’Forbes’’, accessed April 20, 2014, http://www.forbes.com/profile/deepak-chopra-2/ SAS81 (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Dr. Chopra is listed as a doctor of internal medicine with an office practice in good standing with the American Medical Association, specifically stating that he actively practices internal medicine (with a specialization in diabetes) out of his Carlsbad office. “DoctorFinder: Chopra, Deepak, MD.” American Medical Association website, accessed April 23, 2014. https://apps.ama-assn.org/doctorfinder/member.do?id=1398279052768&index=0&page=1 SAS81 (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Integrative Medicine is mainstream I'm a little surprised that what little sources you're using they are also misinformed. I will be compiling medium to high impact journals and sources shortly. I do not believe your understanding of integrative medicine reflects mainstream consensus and all sources and knowledge on my end here contradict directly what you are implying. Secondly, if integrative medicine is not 'respected' as you state it, then that should be in the reception section on the article on Integrative Medicine and it should not somehow be summarized to frame the medical career of Dr. Chopra in a way that discredits him. SAS81 (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Dr Chopra notability for integrative medicine without rejecting medical or scientific facts0. Dr. Chopra is a Senior Scientist @Gallup listing Deepak Chopra as one of a body of “leading experts who advise and consult with Gallup researchers and select clients. “Gallup Senior Scientists/Senior Advisors”, Gallup Inc., last updated April 20, 2014, 2:00AM, http://www.gallup.com/corporate/19318/gallup-senior-scientists.aspx 1. “A renowned physician and author, Deepak Chopra is undoubtedly one of the most lucid and inspired philosophers of our time.” – Mikhail Gorbachev, Citation of the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic awarded by the Pio Manzu International Scientific Committee WP ref: Deepak Chopra, M.D. - 15th Annual Scientific Meeting Featured Speaker, accessed April 18, 2014, http://hfsa.org/deepak_chopra.asp. WP ref: Books LLC, ed. ‘’Recipients of the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic: Richard Dawkins, Deepak Chopra, Michael Albert.’’ (Books LLC, 2010) ISBN 1155583027, 9781155583020 2. “Chopra admits that it would be misleading to suggest that all drugs provide only symptomatic relief. Although he uses ayurvedic techniques in his practice he is still a practicing endocrinologist.” WP: Goldman, Brian, PhD. Ayurvedism, Eastern medicine moves west. ‘’CMAJ.’’ Jan 15, 1991; 144(2): 218–221. Accessed April 20, 2014. PMCID: PMC1452998, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1452998/ 3. WP ref: Chopra, Deepak. Reality and consciousness: A view from the East: Comment on “Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory” by Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose. ‘’Physics of Life Reviews’’, Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2014, Pages 81–82. Accessed April 20, 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.001 SAS81 (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
mainstream medical research sources for integrative medicine practicesI'm not sure how to make this list collapse, and I would prefer to put this in the sources but I am not sure if I am allowed to do that with my COI.
SAS81 (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
requesting process for collaboration and editing
Guy1.) Why bother to stop short calling him a 'lunatic charlatan'? From what I can tell - it's what you believe to be true, it's what you believe proper mainstream sources support, and its what you believe Wikipedia's responsibility is as an encyclopedia to therefore properly note. What's stoping you from doing this? 2.)Acting more as an archivist - I'm not here to argue if Dr. Chopra's ideas and thoughts are true or false and nothing I have published here would even come close to suggesting otherwise. I am here to present sources and correct what I believe to be very clear and strong biases that have framed the entire BLP of Dr Chopra simply by applying Wikipedia's own neutrality and BLP policies. 3.)Wikipedia's neutrality policy would suggest that the article should be neither like Center of Inquiry nor Wellness Center, but rather a voice of neutrality that shows the relevancy of both of those points of view directly in relationship to the subject of the article properly sourced and weighted. 4.)I'm wondering if you can confirm consensus on your end regarding this particular viewpoint of neutrality that many here appear to operate from. This I believe is where our real disagreement is. You and I ping ponging back and forth like this on sources is just functioning as a cold war comprised of nothing but straw men. 5.)We really need to find and build a consensus here on what 'neutrality' actually means and find a definition that all editors on this board can get behind and comprehend. SAS81 (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
|
Criticism section
Extended content
|
|---|
|
I think "Criticism" is more appropriate than "Writing and ideas", as the section is mostly about others' responses. I've seen better wording, but can't recall nor find the alternatives atm - maybe "Reception"? --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning this. You’re correct, the entire section looks like a ‘criticism’ section but its called ‘writings and ideas’. Such undue. very weight. wow. :) I think reception is a good way to frame the section, but we need to add a section so readers can learn about his major contributions. It’s entirely appropriate for a section of a biography to have a list of the subjects contributions, right? People want to learn who Dr.Chopra is, what his ideas are and the article should present those ideas and contributions as they are. Dr. Chopra is prolific, and we don’t expect the encyclopedia to cover all of them. I would expect at least major contributions or ideas to be listed in an encyclopedia. I propose some sort of framework for presenting his major notable contributions (including books, major ideas or themes, and businesses) and then a section for ‘reception’ which should merge with the section called ‘skepticism’. thoughts? ChopraMedia (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Alexbrn. I am not a new user. ChopraMedia seems to be. Comments like, "its silly" or "its fine the way it is" is not particularly helpful to them nor does it explain what you are talking about. I suggest you explain yourself in terms that can be understood by other editors here. I am familiar with Jimbo's comments and am sorry that Wikipedia's leadership could not express an opinion whatever that opinion is, with out name calling. I wonder what kind of example that sets, and how that behaviour underpins our own civility policy. An appeal to authority has very little impact here. We have policies and we have guidelines which stand alone, with out an appeal to authority or suggesting name calling is acceptable. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC))
If your solely viewing mainstreams sources that are criticisms of Dr. Chopra, chances are your going to come to an unfavorable conclusion. I'm not sure we are going to make it through this successfully if the only argument or explanation I am given is that I'm not familiar with some broad policy. I am extremely familiar by this point with neutrality and fringe. It's why I'm here. We just disagree about how those WP guidelines are being applied. SAS81 (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@TRPOD - perhaps my argument was not as clear to you as I assumed - establishing Dr. Chopra as a pioneer (or champion even) of alternative medicine does not require Bill Clinton's quote and that was never what I was arguing, there are plenty of sources we can use to establish that. bill clinton's quote only shows that's what Dr. Chopra is notable for regarding AM and more importantly the clarification that he is NOT an alternative medicine practitioner. There's a distinction there. I'm suggesting the latter - you're assuming the former. plus, it's resolved now and it looks like we have a consensus forming anyway. Let's move on? SAS81 (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC) @Alexbrn - well we will have a review of many more proper sources to add to your list so that confusion never happens again. SAS81 (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC) |
Categorizing Chopra? / New source?
Extended content
|
|---|
I notice the the eminent professor Chris Miller[17] has recently spoken on the topic of the "epistemology of scientific crackpottery" and offered a view on Chopra. Miller breaks down the "different outlier scientific phenotypes" into four: "the mountebank, the con man, and two types of heretics". Miller categorizes Chopra specifically in the "mountebank" category and is quoted as saying:I am wondering how/if this might be usefully included in our article. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Alex gotta encourage you straight up here - let's work towards compromise, not battleground. SAS81 (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm requesting that Alex specifically to work with me - that is all. SAS81 (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
This source is a good one for criticizing Chopra's quantum physics claims. Other than that, it's basically polemical. Useful for notable criticism, but we have other sources that do this job well too. Add it to the pile, I guess. jps (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@JPS pretty much agree with that assessment. Thanks for helping to build consensus. SAS81 (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC) |
Category:Alternative diagnoses
ResolvedI find it a bit odd that Deepak Chopra would be listed as an alternative diagnosis. Sure he is involved in alternative medicine but he isn't a diagnosis in of himself. I could be wrong about that though Clr324 (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
WTF does "Micros" mean?
If somebody could please explain the three section headings beginning with the word "Micros" it would make my day. As it is, I have no understanding of those three sections. Help please. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure, but I don't think it is a problem. You could remove the words from the section titles and they would work just as well. Sometimes Wikipedians use "arbitrary break". I'm not much a fan of that, though. jps (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah I'm sorry if that is a little sloppy - on my end it just means a 'micro' discussion happening on a specific point (say 'guru') under the bigger 'macro' discussion (like the whole first sentence). I can swap it for whatever you want - I'm just trying to keep track of the full discussion since I have to do diligence on each comment. SAS81 (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Moving forward
Extended content
|
|---|
|
The questions that we should be addressing are 1) Does the body of the article appropriately represent the mainstream academic view of the subject?
If yes, 3)Does the lead section appropriately summarize the body?
5) Does the initial sentence appropriately encapsulate what a reader coming to the article should know about the subject as identified by the body and the lead paragraphs? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your thinking on the specifics. Now I'm a bit clearer on your thinking. This is something I can work with. I'm going to address these with massive sources. Standby. SAS81 (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Update on TRPoD's breakdownThe last suggestion I made for compromise was: Deepak Chopra is an Indian American endocrinologist, best selling New Age author, motivational speaker and 'wellness' entrepreneur. Chopra is a polarizing figure, functioning as a spiritual leader to some and a promoter of dangerous ideas to others. Let's work it out? Dr. Chopra most certainly is a thought leader and that is what I now propose as a solution and compromise. Even if you disagree with his thoughts. I think this is a more appropriate and neutral way to frame him rather than guru or spiritual leader (since technically speaking he is neither of those things although he is those things to some people) Here is my third suggestion (in which I am trying to work in your 'Fringe' concerns while still being respectful and neutral, referring only to facts) Deepak Chopra is an Indian American endocrinologist, author, thought leader and 'wellness' entrepreneur. Chopra is a controversial figure, functioning as a New Age spiritual leader to some and a promoter of dangerous ideas to others. sources for endocrinologist: 1 " DoctorFinder: Chopra, Deepak, MD. (Agree to terms, then search for Chopra, Deepak in California) 2, 3, 4 Notability as such: major doctors and scientists such as Candace Pert and Rudolph E. Tanzi have both mentioned him extensively as such 5 6 , in addition to it being a major component of his many best selling books. Sources for 'thought leader' - which I am offering as a compromise to replace guru and spiritual leader in the lead sentence only. I dont see how 'new age guru' applies to any of the below. other than it being a pejorative - it's also not a fair mainstream representation of who Dr. Chopra is.
I'm open to finding a better phrase for 'wellness' entrepreneur - but the article is missing this key component to Dr. Chopra's as an entrepreneur and thought leader. SAS81 (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
None of these sources I've listed in this section are primary sources, they are all mainstream independent sources. I have more too I just don't want to clutter the board. SAS81 (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
No no confusion. Lets call it what is is. A mistake on my part and I should have known better given that although I do not have the experience in human medicine the same systems are in place in animal medicine where I have a little more information. I don't agree that sites which list licensing and board-certification are primary sources since they must have oversight. I do agree that these sources are usable as verification. I don't see a commitment to using primary sources. Primary sources can be definitive for some kinds of information.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)) Askahrc. Thanks for your input here. Notable is not generally a term used in reference to sources, so I'm not sure what you mean here when you say notable. What we have to determine is first, if a source is verifiable and then whether that verifiable source is a reliable source for the content we want to add. Sources that are either pejorative or positive to the topic are sources that can be used. We expect to find both kinds of sources. The quality of the source, the weight that source has per the RS sources determine if and how much of that source we can use in an article. The AMA is a reliable source for determining if Chopra is an licensed endocrinologist. It is not a primary source and has oversight. If we want to expand on that information we would need other sources. In terms of support for health claim content peer reviewed papers are not generally used unless they have been reviewed or part of a meta-analysis for example. See WP:MEDRS. Sources are only reliable per the content we want to add. While this article has content that deals with health claims it also has content that does not. The article is now full of possible reliable sources. They are worth looking at for new content.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC))
No problem. I can agree on this. Editorial oversight in this case is not meaningful, and one assumes the person ( possible meaningful aspect) entering the data is not going to be entering false information and is not expert in any way, but a technician. In discussing court documents with a lawyer, I've been told some court documents do have meaningful oversight, apparently, but that's another discussion and one I am not knowledgable enough to discuss(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC))
Much of the above is abusing "secondary does not mean independent". What that means is that independent does not automatically imply secondary. It doesn't work the other way around--you can't use it to say that something can be secondary even though it's not independent. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
@Ronz, thank you for the clarification, I'd missed the other diff. Sorry for my delay in replying, I agree that this thread is becoming monstrous and suggest we create a new one with a boiled down summary. Feel free to do so, or I can in the next day or so. The Cap'n (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC) Best practices, primary secondary in contextAppreciate everyone's input. From an archiving perspective, I agree (almost) with Capn's input considering the context of what I was establishing and all sources at this stage are for discussion and 'common sense' assessments. If you need 'better' sources to establish what common sense shows as a mainstream label towards Dr. Chopra, let me know. These sources I am providing at this stage are for discussion and consideration only in terms of establishing facts regarding labels applied to Dr. Chopra. I am using them as secondary sources to establish facts about how Dr Chopra is labeled and perceived. Sure, some of those sources could be primary or secondary, depending on the context they are applied. It's a fact that Dr Chopra is labeled as a thought leader in the mainstream, among other labels assigned to him. That's all these sources show. The phrase 'thought leader' is no more or less meaningful than the label 'guru'. Any phrase or label that is applied to Chopra is going to be just as meaningful or meaningless as any other phrase. I believe the article requires showing mainstream labels and perspectives around this controversial figure - i believe it's the only way it can be neutral. Tech Crunch, sure, by itself that's a weak source if my argument was solely resting on that source, but the point was that even briefly mentioned in passing in an unrelated article that is NOT promoting Dr Chopra, he is still referred to as a 'thought leader'. Kellog's is a notable institution that trains 'thought leaders' and are synonymous with 'leadership' in their sector with global credibility as such. Therefore, they act as a secondary source to support the argument that Dr. Chopra is labeled as a 'thought leader' and teachers courses in business leadership (dr chopra is prominent in the 'conscious capitalism' movement). I don't think it's genuine to disqualify a global institution as biased because they are in it for the money. They have credibility producing leaders and offering leadership and Dr. Chopra is prominently apart of their institution because he is notable for thought leadership. Gallup is unusually high quality institution that actually defines mainstream. There is absolutely no reason to put suspicions on Gallup for having Dr Chopra as a Senior Scientist on wellness and reference him as a thought leader in that sector. If Guru was the accepted mainstream term, then I would expect Gallup and Kellog's to be listing Dr Chopra as a New Age Guru for their New Age course and Gallup's Astrology section. (sarcasm) The AMA source was to establish not Dr. Chopra as an endocrinologist, but rather as maintaining an office practice (I think it was JPS who asked for evidence he maintains an actual practice, instead of just a vanity license). Now that we have established Dr Chopra both as a practicing physician and an endocrinologist, prominently mentioned as such in books by notable scientists specifically for his contributions to endocrinology and in mainstream media I believe these sources are satisfied but please advise what source would work better. I'm signing off for today and just wanted to leave these thoughts. If the Capn is willing, I look forward to participating in his suggestion for best practices for reviewing and assigning sources. Appreciate everyone's time. SAS81 (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with some points TRPoD, but would clarify that as far I understand notability is the baseline, what determines if an article can be included in Wikipedia in the first place. The lead must summarize the body of the article, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects" so the body will be much more than what has been considered notable about Chopra. "The lead should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Maybe we could substitute significant for notable in the context of what is most important in the article. Important for all editors to have the same understanding seems to me which might head off potential conflict later(Littleolive oil (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC))
Academic sources are obviously the best to use in any context on Wikipedia. That's not to say we can't use other sources, only that we shouldn't be using them as a counter/rejoinder/balance/replacement for academic sources. There are subareas of Wikipedia (Pokemon comes to mind) where this best-practice is eschewed largely because academia has ignored the subject, but we don't have that problem for this topic where many academic sources have commented on Chopra. The best thing to do is find acknowledged experts in medical, scientific, and media studies who have analyzed the larger context of Chopra and base our article on those sources. Where appropriate, we can add the commentary of believers in alternative medicine, quantum quackery, and New Age religion as long as we are clear that this is what they believe. Uncontroversial biographical details can be sourced more easily (e.g. the fact that Chopra has a medical license), while controversial details will need to be properly weighted according to the context (e.g. the claim that Chopra is practicing medicine is not found in the best sources about Chopra because of his advocacy of alternative medicine and pseudoscience so either leave out this altogether or follow the sources that are most reliable in discussing this issue which would be sources that evaluate the claims of medical practices, e.g., quackwatch). jps (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Trying to decide in advance which publications might make good sources is perhaps not the best use of our time: it will always depend on what is being sourced. Baer's article (it is Baer not Boer, there is a fault in some of the publisher's metadata) is already well used in the article; so is Time; Quackwatch is nearly always a top source on altmed topics. All are potentially very good sources, though if Time had advanced (say) some claims of medical effectiveness, then it would not be a good, WP:MEDRS source for that. In general, this Talk page is getting very bloated to little point. I'd like to see some concrete proposals for textual changes - I think that may move things in a more productive direction. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
|
BLP Noticeboard
Template:BLP noticeboard SAS81 (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Brought back here
Not all of this is relevant to all of you so I've created a quick read menu if you want to get to certain things quickly. Sorry its long. I know :/ SAS81 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Introduction, why I am hereI am here as a representative of both Dr. Chopra and the archive project he has contributed to in order to address concerns regarding what we believe to be a genuinely misleading and biased article on Deepak Chopra, M.D. This is my job and it’s important to do everything possible to address these problems in accordance with BLP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIOSELF#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself I also want to thank user JPS particularly in this regard and I believe he and I have set a good standard for how a [dialogue can happen.] SAS81 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC) see extended content 1 for more
RequestI am hoping to encourage some savvy neutral editors to come in and help, listen to our concerns, share theirs and find a neutral consensus. SAS81 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC) ConcernsMy concern here is that a majority of the current editors on the article have stated very strong, diverse suspicions regarding Dr. Chopra and there is a great deal of ambiguity expressed amongst them on how neutrality policies get applied to the article. See extended content 2 for more
Making things easier for comment and participationWe have plenty more sources coming (I could also use a little help in terms of the best practices of how I can easily list and supply the community with them. I do have my sandbox but any suggestions also helpful) but here are the key topics that could use some help in talk. Here is my suggestion for further compromise, and satisfying both BLP and Fringe while stating nothing but sourced facts. Deepak Chopra is an Indian American endocrinologist, author, thought leader, and 'wellness' entrepreneur. Chopra is a controversial figure, acting as a New Age spiritual leader to some, and a promoter of dangerous ideas to others. This is being discussed on the talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepak_Chopra#Update_on_TRPoD.27s_breakdown Would love to listen to any concerns on this. Thanks in advance. SAS81 (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Well you could do something notable, get an article written about you, find serious problems with it, then follow the steps laid on BLP to address these issues and find yourself here too. I'm not getting any treatment here that is not offered to anyone else. Also, let's have a productive conversation. Thank you. SAS81 (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Sending me a link to a policy page over and over is not what I call answering a question. Threatening me with an AE, then filing a COI noticeboard is also not answering questions. SAS81 (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for participating. I'm arguing specifically that the article does not reflect the full mainstream view of Dr. Chopra with too much UNDUE on criticisms (the entire article is a criticism even before we get to the section called 'skepticism'). I'm extremely concerned by the amount of weasel words in the article and the eagerness to frame Dr Chopra as a charlatan as much as possible without coming right out and saying it. I'm not arguing that his approach is medically proven, that's not my job, but I am arguing that his approach in medicine has mainstream acceptance and that he is known for that. Additionally, since Dr. Chopra is an unusually prolific individual who is incredibly famous, his work as a physician is just one part of what he does. Even many of his books are based on historical or mythic fiction (outside of medicine) and he is a notable (philosopher, new age guru, motivational speaker dont know how best to frame it) individual who represents and articulates a view point on consciousness that also is outside of his medical career. He also is quite a notable entrepreneur (which is different than just 'enjoying business success') It looks like editors on the page want to apply Fringe to ALL of his biography, and to be honest I'm still having a hard time seeing actually 'where' it applies to his biography. As for sources, yes I have too many of them! Problem I am having is making these sources available in context to the discussion. When I put sources in the discussion to show notability, the sources seem to get discounted for reasons that do not appear to be factually correct (clinton, gorbachev, gallup not notable or credible, etc) . In my sandbox they seem to get ignored. How do I solve this? SAS81 (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think anyone who knows the subject can say he is not notable for being an endocrinologist or a physician, as major doctors and scientists such as Candace Pert and Rudolph E. Tanzi have both mentioned him extensively as such 5 6, in addition to it being a major component of his many best selling books. Additionally, the sources I have already provided show him squarely in the mainstream POV. He is a senior scientist for gallup, which is determines what the mainstream view actually is. One US president as mentioned his contributions as a 'pioneer' of alternative medicine (which is technically an incorrect title, Dr. Chopra does not practice alternative medicine) and Gorby mentions he is a notable physician and philosopher. Additionally and to his direct notability - Dr. Chopra was an official attendee at the Clinton Global Initiative, alongside some of the most notable global and thought leaders in the world. This is an essential fact to Dr. Chopra's biography. Please explain how Fringe requires us to omit notable facts from notable sources regarding a BLP, I'm literally stumped on that one. This article completely fails to show why and how Dr. Chopra is popular and why he is considered a global thought leader. It leans solely on criticisms that are solely published as 'suspicions' and not facts. Are you suggesting that Fringe guides us to make the reader suspicious regarding a BLP? Are you denying that he is notable and prominent as anything other than a quack or are you saying that's what WP Fringe directly and specifically guides the editor to assume? SAS81 (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I think otherwise.
So if notable prominent mainstream academics or leaders mention his work specifically in endocrinology, AND he mentions it in numerous best selling books AND a medical journals AND he teaches courses at the university level, AND maintains an office practice, AND is a notable board member, advisor, consultant to major mainstream institutions (such as gallup) AND have mainstream news coverage mentioning him as an endocrinologist for the past 20+ years how can you honestly determine that he is not notable for being a physician? Just a heads up - I'm not saying that he is 'only' a physician. He also does tons of other stuff which makes this challenging. Please explain your thinking without relying on original research or personal peer review, but based on sources only. SAS81 (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
|
suggestion
I'm all for archiving the majority of this talk page, and keeping everything from number 10 "Moving Forward" posted by TPRoD on. This is getting cluttered and I see how I may have participated in that unwillingly. I think we can pick up the BLP noticeboard and everything else easily by following TPRoD's lead and taking it from there. I dont know how to archive these and I assume I probably shouldn't, but all for if someone else does. SAS81 (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- There is an automatic archiving system that should kick in if no one decides to do it in the meantime. jps (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Deaths from Ayurvedic Medication
the discussion has wavered far off from the subject of the initial post, for which there is wide consensus that there is not appropriate sourcing to include in this article at this time
|
|---|
|
There have been deaths attributed to Ayurvedic Medications from the highly reputable source Center for Disease Control. "Although approximately 95% of lead poisoning among U.S. adults results from occupational exposure (1), lead poisoning also can occur from use of traditional or folk remedies (2--5). Ayurveda is a traditional form of medicine practiced in India and other South Asian countries. Ayurvedic medications can contain herbs, minerals, metals, or animal products and are made in standardized and nonstandardized formulations (2). During 2000--2003, a total of 12 cases of lead poisoning among adults in five states associated with ayurvedic medications or remedies were reported to CDC (Table). This report summarizes these 12 cases. Culturally appropriate educational efforts are needed to inform persons in populations using traditional or folk medications of the potential health risks posed by these remedies. The first three cases described in this report were reported to CDC by staff at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center at Dartmouth Medical School, New Hampshire; the California Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program; and the California Department of Health Services. To ascertain whether other lead poisoning cases associated with ayurvedic medicines had occurred, an alert was posted on the Epidemic Information Exchange (Epi-X), and findings from the cases in California were posted on the Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance (ABLES) listserv. Nine additional cases were reported by state health departments in Massachusetts, New York, and Texas (Table)." http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5326a3.htm Skinnytony1 (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Sorry it wasn't loading Skinnytony1 (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd repeat, that unless the source specifically refers to Chopra, including such information is WP:OR and something we do not do in Wikipedia articles. As another example; we also could not say that because some people die from use of a prescribed medication of some sort; my local GP is at fault for prescribing that medication. The source must say specifically that my GP prescribed a medication that is implicated in a death(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC))
The lawsuit mentioned at Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health#Flint may be pertinent here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I suggest the comment be removed. BLP refers to talk pages as well as articles which is easy to forget when in discussion mode.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC))
While I do appreciate the sense of humour, I don't appreciate the libelous statement so I'll give it few hours then either delete or see if I can get an admin to do so.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC))
My comment was not in reference to anything you said It was directed at another editor's comment.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)) |
Proposed Changes
This section is intended list out specific changes to the article with a justification of the sources used to justify that change. This is not intended to be a section to propose new sources and examine their quality indefinitely (we can do that in the many sections above), this is for clear, concise arguments of changes backed up by sources. The Cap'n (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- I would like to propose a further compromise. I am going to withdraw my request for listing Dr. Chopra as an endocrinologist specifically in the lead sentence. We've already formed a consensus over him as a physician with evidence to show he is practicing. He does run an all medical group, and I will provide further sources here as well. I'm going to have continual BLP problems with the reference to him as a 'New Age Guru' in the lead section, and I've proposed some alternatives that are mainstream terms that infer the role Dr Chopra plays in the eyes of millions. So I say we make this easier and here is a full lead section proposal. This is only to show my thinking on the lead and for consideration. I believe it matches BLP, neutrality, WP Fringe. SAS81 (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Proposal for lead - my version of neutrality and fringe
Deepak Chopra is an Indian American physician, prominent author and speaker. Representing what he calls the ‘wellness’ lifestyle, Deepak Chopra functions as a mainstream cheerleader for integrating western medicine with alternative mind body practices such as yoga and meditation. A notable entrepreneur and business leader, Deepak Chopra has become a prominent voice in the conscious capitalism movement and promotes ‘wellness’ as including a successful financial lifestyle.
A polarizing figure - Deepak Chopra acts as a thought leader to some and a promoter of dangerous ideas to others. Time Magazine called him a ‘magnet for criticism’ and Richard Dawkins has criticized his usage of ‘quantum physics’ in his explanations of consciousness. Hans Baer referred to him as a ‘New Age Guru’ and others have been suspicious of his blend of capitalism and alternative medicine.
thoughts appreciated. SAS81 (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- A watering-down. My advice: if you're to contribute anything useful here (which seems increasingly in doubt) leave the lede alone, work on the body and THEN we can ensure the lede reflects the body (as it does now) in accord with WP's policies and guidelines. See WP:LEDE, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE particularly. The essay WP:FLAT may also provide useful background. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Please be specific. The only thing I see watered down is the bias. What does my proposal specifically fail to mention? SAS81 (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sigh. Can you really not see? You assert the apparently positive with some peacock wording: "mainstream cheerleader", "notable entrepenaur", "thought leader", "prominent voice in the conscious capitalism movement" (WTF is that anyway!? we don't mention it elsewhere). The negative things are all attributed: "Dawkins has criticized", "others have been suspicious", etc. This gives the impression that his virtues are fact, his bad points mere opinion. And where has the well-sourced criticism of Chopra's harmful altmed advocacy gone? This is the guy who - sickeningly - thinks AIDS can be treated with "primordial sound", right?
- If you are consciously doing this, it is likely just a cynical attempt to spin Wikimedia according to your employer's wish; if not, allow me to suggest you're so hopelessly riddled with POV that it renders you incapable of neutral editing. Either way, it is - yet again - a disappointing waste of other editors' valuable time. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've observed SAS81 at this talk page, at COIN, and now on my own user talk page. I do not think they are trolling or an attempt at cynical spin. This editor seems to be sincere and cooperative, between the self-disclosure, restricting themselves to the discussion page as our COI guideline suggests, and changing usernames when prompted to. I think your latter suggestion is closer to the mark. People who work in public relations often have difficulty writing in an encyclopedic manner, it's anathema to that industry. That's one of the reasons why we have a COI guideline in the first place. I understand that this makes working with SAS81 frustrating, but I still don't see a reason to attribute bad faith to their efforts. -- Atama頭 22:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Please be specific. The only thing I see watered down is the bias. What does my proposal specifically fail to mention? SAS81 (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Atama:, SAS81 has stated numerous times that he is not a PR professional, but rather an archivist. 17:41, 24 April 2014 - "I'm not a PR or a press agent and I feel awkward when I am referred to that way." 23:00, 21 April 2014 - "I'm not speaking as Dr. Chopra's rep when I say we should want a pristinely neutral and respectable first sentence, I am speaking as an archivist and historian for an encyclopedia." 14:36, 25 April 2014 - "Acting more as an archivist - I'm not here to argue if Dr. Chopra's ideas and thoughts are true or false and nothing I have published here would even come close to suggesting otherwise." 21:59, 27 April 2014 - "I feel it relevant to explain that none of us are alternative medicine practitioners and hold our positions as researchers and historians due to accredited skill sets, with the consultation of university professors and medical doctors." 01:04, 28 April 2014 - "Admittedly I have an inherent bias because of my responsibilities of archiving and my direct relationship with the subject."
- Are you calling him a liar, and not being a "researcher and historian due to accredited skill sets," but rather a base PR professional? You could ask him I guess, but he's already said that he's not permitted to tell you what his credentials are - see 01:42, 11 April 2014 - " I am also authorized not to post any of my personal information, past experience, job duties or responsibilities other than those directly related to this issue." Hipocrite (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Bloke walks into a pub and says "What's the difference between a PR professional and a Troll?" -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Hipocrite: "
Are you calling him a liar, and not being a "researcher and historian due to accredited skill sets," but rather a base PR professional?
" I wasn't aware of those claims. To be perfectly honest, SAS81 does write like a PR professional. I'm sorry SAS81, but I've dealt with PR people many times over the years and your proposals don't look like the writing of a researcher and historian, it's the kind of writing I've seen from professional promoters multiple times. Not that I'm calling you a liar, because I have no way of knowing either way, but judging by your submissions this really does not look like a scholarly contribution. I'm not sure if it's due to pressure from your employer(s), or if you're drawing from talking points that you're compelled to include, or this is a skewed point of view based on your close work with the organization and/or Deepak Chopra himself, but the tone of what you've written above looks very promotional. You know I haven't taken sides in this debate and I still don't plan to get directly involved in the development of this article, but I have to confirm the opinion of others about how your suggestion appears. -- Atama頭 15:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Hipocrite: "
- Bloke walks into a pub and says "What's the difference between a PR professional and a Troll?" -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Atama: on his userpage, SAS81 does indeed say "I'm not a PR or a press agent and I feel awkward when I am referred to that way." But he also says he's leading a research and archiving team working (and perhaps set up? that's not clear) on the basis of a grant from the Chopra Foundation. And that he speaks personally, daily, with Chopra and consults him "directly" (hmm? as opposed to what?) regarding Wikipedia's principles. Please read it for yourself, as I have quoted slightly loosely and added italics. @SAS81: I believe every word you say, and I get it that your function is not that of "PR or press agent" or, at least, your title/job description isn't that of PR or press agent. But from your own words, it doesn't look to me as if your actual function is removed from that of PR guy by more than a scintilla. Indeed, from the 'speaking daily' and 'consulting directly' phrasing, wouldn't it be fair to call you Chopra's mouthpiece? That's merely from what you say yourself on your userpage. (And indeed, you do call yourself "Chopra representative" higher up on this page.) From your proposed lead here, I agree with Atama that you speak PR-speak, not ordinary or neutral or encyclopedic English.
- Another point, that Alexbrn and Hipocrite (in his inimitably rude way) have raised above,[29][30] is that editors don't get paid to do this, while it appears that you are. The other people on this page are volunteers, they have day jobs, and I think you may be expecting too much of them when you ask them to chew over every proposed sentence before you will, reluctantly, concede the possibility of changing anything. Please read the comments you do get closely, value them more (if I may say so), and consider them, rather than merely treating them as debating points for you to bat aside. For instance, I thought Alex's comment here was (even if a little impatient) quite enlightening. Did you give it due weight, did you consider it? It's quite easy to wear out volunteers. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC).
- No. This writing is not encyclopedic. Waste of time to discuss. Hipocrite (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
If we are going to collaborate, just saying 'no' without making a contribution or sharing your thinking is not helpful. @Alex explain me your thinking, why is 'new age guru' okay to be attributed in Wikipedia's voice but not 'mainstream cheerleader', 'notable entrepreneur', 'prominent voice' ? Those are all labels that describe facts about Dr. Chopra in a respectable way. He is world famous, you can't take his fame and his notability of him away when they are intrinsic to who he is. It's simply a fact that he is accomplished, love him or hate him. This entire article fails to mention many facts and contexts regarding Dr. Chopra. Yes of course the negative things are attributed, those are opinions of Dr. Chopra, and not 'facts'. It is not my opinion that Dr. Chopra is a 'thought leader' and I even attributed that as well (a thought leader to some, a promoter of dangerous ideas to others..) right now, the article serves the reader to discover only what Dr. Chopra's critics think of him and how they interpret his ideas. Again, what does my proposal leave out? SAS81 (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- You are being paid to fillibuster. I'm not. Will you pay me for my time to help you learn to write for wikipedia? Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- You say it is an assertable "fact" that Chopra is a "mainstream cheerleader"!? Best just leave it there, I think. This just looks like trolling. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- This suggestion from the Chopra Vanity Archive Project is a joke, and a waste of time. WP:IDHT all over the place, no concept of why the current article frames Chopra as it does, no concept of the policies of how wikipedia is supposed to be written, a huge time sink for volunteer editors. Based on the article as it is written, SAS81 has presented no sustainable argument for any substantial changes, and proposing changes to the lead without first making substantial changes to the body text which it summarises will not wash. Nothing I see on this page has come close to improving Chopra's WP:BLP. Meh. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this is so difficult for all of you. If I make a suggestion - it's to show you my thinking. I'm not saying "hey someone go copy and paste my edit into the article!" so telling me 'NO!' when I'm asking you all to collaborate is not helpful. It's meant to be something to build upon. Don't like a word? then take it out and explain why. None of you are acknowledging the compromises I am making and words like 'cheerleader' have also been suggested by JPS in terms of finding a better label for Dr. Chopra. You're informing me that my statement is biased, and I accept that liklihood of my position, but that does not remove your bias as skeptics - so I'm willing to work on a compromise.
@Roxy - it's a fact that Dr Chopra is famous and is known for 'encouraging' something. You're all fine with calling him a 'new age guru' to account for that. I'm trying to come up with a better label that is not a pejorative that is used by his critics.
@all of you - what would be helpful is if you could be specific. If you're not specific, then it just looks like you want me out of here because your skeptics and don't believe any other POV should be on the page. SAS81 (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- SAS81, I can see how the lede above is an attempt to compromise, but the main difficulty editors have (from what I can tell) is that some of the material you posted is not prominently mentioned in the body of the article (conscious capitalism, cheerleader). The lede is not just a summary of Chopra, it's a summary of the Chopra article and the statements in it should be almost a thesis statement of the main points of the article. To that end, do you have materials to suggest adding some of the statements you made into the body of the article? If the sources pan out we can add material to the appropriate section of the body, then eventually adjust the lede to reflect a new content summary. The Cap'n (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Alexbrn that SAS81 should concentrate on specific facts in the article body before tackling the lead section. The text suggested by SAS81 is too promotional (cheerleader? mainstream??) so we should ignore it and move on. Since there is solid consensus against the suggested text, it is high time to close out this discussion. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Deepak Chopra is an Indian American physician, prominent author and speaker.
Please tell me the problems with this, explain your thinking about this sentence. these are facts. I am offering the word 'prominent' as a compromise so as to account for his fame in a way that is acceptable. I've also offered to shorten it and I retracted my previous requests! SAS81 (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Representing what he calls the ‘wellness’ lifestyle, Deepak Chopra functions as a mainstream cheerleader for integrating western medicine with alternative mind body practices such as yoga and meditation.
This sentence is comprised of facts. by 'mainstream' it just means 'famous'. Don't like the word? take it out. 'wellness' i am too offering as a compromise. Technically the term is 'integrative medicine' but there is no consensus around that term here so I found a word and attributed the meaning to Dr Chopra, as a compromise. the remainder of the sentence is still factual and tells us facts about Dr. Chopra. What is the problem with this sentence specifically?SAS81 (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Cheerleader" doesn't sound terribly encyclopedic, what about "spokesperson" or "figurehead"? Also, please see above for a summary of my views on adding this to the body of the article first. I think a piece on Chopra's role as the popular face of his movement would not be out of order. The Cap'n (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
A notable entrepreneur and business leader, Deepak Chopra has become a prominent voice in the conscious capitalism movement and promotes ‘wellness’ as including a successful financial lifestyle.
I can understand some problems with this sentence because I introduced 'conscious capitalism' into it. but this is a simple discussion, you can ask me questions but it's also a fact! Dr. Chopra simply IS a business leader and prominent business leaders and institutions refer to him that way. Currently the article just stops short of calling him a charlatan out to make a buck. This misleads the reader. SAS81 (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Again, reference the section above about inserting material into the body, but more significantly, what is Conscious Capitalism? It's not a common term that I'm aware of, in connection to Chopra or not, and thus should definitely be in the body of the article. Do you have specific sources on this? The Cap'n (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
A polarizing figure - Deepak Chopra acts as a thought leader to some and a promoter of dangerous ideas to others.
This is a FACT. are editors here suggesting that we do not inform the reader that to some people Dr Chopra is a thought leader? Am I not including WPFringe by saying that to others he promotes dangerous ideas? Please don't tell me what voice an encyclopedia should have when none of you seem to be aware of what voice a neutral statement should take. SAS81 (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm listening and making compromises, how come you're not?
Please post your comments about that HERE and keep the FOC above. thanks SAS81 (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Specifically - if I ask "What are the problems with this sentence" I dont mean 'Why arn't you posting this?' I just mean explain your thinking so I can work with you. SAS81 (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
@Atama: I appreciate your advice and fair judgement. I seem to be in a position to lose no matter what I do to compromise. First they ask me to focus on a sentence and I do and then they have problems because the body does not reflect the request. Then they ask me to focus on a section and I do and then I get accused of writing a PR journal and accused of being a troll?? SAS81 (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- If it makes you feel better, I've done nothing but weigh in on your sources and I'm already being called far worse. For better or worse, anything associated with WP:FRINGE gets people's blood boiling, so there's going to be heated, intense reactions to most things you do. It's regrettable and I've been trying to keep it from dissuading me (I'm stubborn like that), but it does make working toward consensus hard. Just be patient and forthright, though, and things will work out. The Cap'n (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- @SAS81: Working through content dispute resolution is a difficult and time-consuming process. I was a mediator for years, but I haven't done it for a long time because, frankly, it's a time-sink. I've literally spent months trying to resolve a dispute between a few people at a single article before. I've moved on to more urgent matters that require someone with admin tools (mediation only requires social skills, not technical tools), lately it has involved trying to reduce the backlog at sockpuppet investigations. But in my time as mediator I did learn a lot of tricks.
- My suggestion to you in this situation is to slow down. Pick one thing, just one thing in the article that you think needs to be changed. One single point. Express your concerns, express how you'd like it to be changed, and ask if there is a way to implement that change that satisfies Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Don't express it in terms that you want specific wording, but something a bit more general. Just to give you an idea, one term you advocated is "mainstream cheerleader" which a number of people considered to be a peacock term (that's Wikipedia-speech for verbiage that unnecessarily inflates an article subject). Maybe you can say what you meant by that phrase, offer something to support your claim, and then ask how to rephrase the term to reflect the concept you're trying to convey. I'm not saying you should start there but this is just an example of somewhere you could start. I recommend that you instead narrow down the one specific thing that you consider to be most troublesome about the article and work on a compromise. My experience in dispute resolution is that people become less overwhelmed when you just focus on one thing at a time.
- And finally, be prepared for rejection. This is something that everyone on Wikipedia faces now and then. It doesn't just have to do with your status as a paid individual with a conflict of interest, you will try to implement something that you just can't get consensus for. It happens to me too. Sometimes it can feel like you're being bullied, and sometimes people are bullied, but most of the time you're just in a position where your viewpoint is in the minority and you have to accept that your suggestion isn't going to be implemented. You can try to compromise, but even that won't always work. So just be prepared and don't take it personally when it happens, because it will. -- Atama頭 16:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Alternatively, "no."
To keep up with the spew of promotional material coming from the paid PR representative would require hours of work. I, unlike the paid editor, am not being compensated for my time. I'm not wasting it any more. Pay me or stop pushing the same points. Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- High-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- C-Class Asian Americans articles
- Low-importance Asian Americans articles
- WikiProject Asian Americans articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class Transcendental Meditation movement articles
- Low-importance Transcendental Meditation movement articles
- C-Class India articles
- Low-importance India articles
- C-Class India articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject India articles
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- High-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- C-Class Comics articles
- Low-importance Comics articles
- C-Class Comics articles of Low-importance
- C-Class Comics creators articles
- Comics creators work group articles
- WikiProject Comics articles
- C-Class Religion articles
- Low-importance Religion articles
- C-Class New religious movements articles
- Mid-importance New religious movements articles
- New religious movements articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- C-Class Yoga articles
- Unknown-importance Yoga articles
- WikiProject Yoga articles
- C-Class Spirituality articles
- Unknown-importance Spirituality articles
- C-Class Alternative Views articles
- Unknown-importance Alternative Views articles
- WikiProject Alternative Views articles
- Articles edited by connected contributors