Talk:Deepak Chopra

Salary

Unless I'm missing something the source for salary in the info box does not actually give the salary. Further, the Forbes source seems to be to another Deepak Chopra. Until the salary is accurately sourced it must be removed per BLP.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC))

Good catch! It looks like a different person entirely. I had checked the numbers, but didn't look closer. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I know. I must have checked the source three or four times convinced I was missing something and wondering how did we miss that this was another Chopra.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC))

Best Place to Reference Meditation Study?

Thank you for your valuable feedback. In my suggested version below, I have removed the "however" and changed the wording to maintain WP standards. The sources specifically describe the program as Chopra's own approach. The results of the study describe lasting biomedical improvements and potentially slowed aging.

We have numerous sources elsewhere on this page that reference Chopra claiming his approach results in biomedical improvements and slowed aging. This does not seem any more WP:SYN than statements elsewhere that extrapolate criticism from sources, but I'm open to suggestions on how to rephrase if you still think it's too close to OR. Even if we do not like the source's conclusions, I believe it is important we maintain NPOV with treatment to RS.

Concerning my placement of this information, this study relates to meditation which is an alternative medicine. I find that the "Alternative Medicine" section is the best place for mention of this study. Does anyone have another suggestion?

SUGGESTED VERSION A recent study published by Nature's Translational Psychiatry supports Chopra's argument for the biological benefits of meditation and relaxation. Nobel Laureate Elizabeth Blackburn and a team of Harvard Medical and ICAHN scientists compared Chopra's meditation program to vacationing. While both were beneficial, meditation provided greater benefits including an increase in telomerase activity.

User Talk:PollyStyrene 15:38, 7 September 2016 (PST)

Nowhere. You have registered an account, made the exact number of edits required for autoconfirmed status so you can edit the article, and then immediately promoted a study funded by Chopra that you state (amazingly!) vindicates his beliefs, but which actually doesn't, because there's nothing remotely alternative about this stuff.

WP:DUCK. Go back to your boss and tell him we weren't born yesterday. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:AGF is a serious part of WP. I am not working for Deepak. I have been editing for weeks before this study even came out in the news. This study has been covered in multiple venues, with scholarly resources. I cited the study, and I asked for help in making it fit the page. I provided RS. Making these types of assumptions are WP:OWN.

User Talk:PollyStyrene 17:08, 7 September 2016 (PST)

I don't see any RS on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

PolyStyrene. The study can't be used becasue it is a primary source. Research as sources for health related topics must be secondary sources per WP:MEDRS:

Ideal sources for biomedical material include literature reviews or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), recognized standard textbooks by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies.

and

...primary biomedical literature is exploratory and often not reliable, and any given primary source may be contradicted by another. The Wikipedia community relies on guidance of expert reviews, and statements by major medical and scientific bodies.

(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC))

NOTE - I have edited stray markup out of PollyStyrenes signature, and tidied Littleolive oils post above. I have not changed any content. -Roxy the dog™ bark 09:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I should never edit at night. ZZZZ.(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC))

For the record, your post was fine, my fixing made yours appear careless, and I couldn't have that;) -Roxy the dog™ bark 17:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Littleolive oil! I appreciate your advice, and assumption of good faith. The study itself is not included as a source, because I agree, this would indeed be a primary source. I included news coverage about the study, which are secondary sources. Thank you for reviewing the revision and sources below. What are your thoughts including terms like, "suggests that Chopra's meditation...?":

SUGGESTED REVISION:

A recent study published by Nature's Translational Psychiatry suggests that Chopra's meditation program has biological benefits. Nobel Laureate Elizabeth Blackburn and a team of Harvard Medical and ICAHN scientists compared Chopra's meditation program to vacationing. While both were beneficial, meditation provided greater benefits including an increase in telomerase activity.:

SOURCES:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160830091815.htm:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2016/09/06/new-clues-into-how-meditation-can-boost-the-immune-system/:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/ucsf-harvard-study-examines-meditation-and-9198243.php:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/de-stress/Meditation-or-vacation-Heres-what-is-better/articleshow/53945594.cms:

User Talk:PollyStyrene 12:17, 12 September 2016 (PST):

No thanks. You don't understand science well enough to realise that something published in a journal is not by that journal, Nature has in the past published some egregious nonsense and this is not Nature, it's one of its less notable satellite journals. Getting $MARKETNGCLAIM published sometimes rises to the level of importance, but not when the rest of the sources in the article are usually much stornger and certianly not when the finding is merely trying to claim credit for something that everybody already knew long before Chopra jumped on the bandwaggon. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@PollyStyrene: I apologize for my lack of care in replying to you before. You're right, there are secondary sources. I've been distracted and didn't register seeing them. I think the issue is whether those sources are reliable per Wikipedia and WP:MEDRS.

The fact that study conclusions are consistent with previous research in meditation is not a reason to exclude it. We would want the know that what WP uses in terms of references has been replicated or at least supported by other studies, The study authors are reliable. I too, have found egregious errors in Nature, in my case the mother journal, but my concerns in the past have been overridden. The Mount Sinai Health Care System source seems more of a news source rather than having the reliability of a review. I also saw the conflict of interest noted in the study itself, but that too seems fine given what is described as a rigorous study, and given the multiple universities involved, although any research can be biased. The wording you used initially was slanted towards OR, but has been rewritten. Guy is right, Nature didn't publish the study but includes it so a simple change from by to in would correct the issue. What remains is that this is a single study and there may be a legitimate argument for excluding it because it has not been replicated and so cannot been vetted as it would be if in a review for example. I think inclusion is on the edge of maybe OK maybe not. Consensus would be the deciding factor, I guess. To be honest, although I believe the study supports Chopra's position, I am not sure the secondary sources come up to WP standards and so I would probably exclude it. Just needs more research.

I'm supposed to be taking a Wikibreak to work in my studio so will push off; I just saw my error here though, and felt because I had made a mistake in my analysis of the source I owed you a reply. Again I apologize.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC))

It is very typical of a SCAM study in that it sets out to prmote a commercial agenda and actually reveals nothing new about the world, since the practices are entirely mainstream (at least when stripped of the veneer of woo). Guy (Help!) 21:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• yes we don't cite results of this paper per MEDRS.

the marketing here is hilarious - like this Huffpo piece - the big picture of Blackburn wearing her Nobel medal, the other two big pictures, the content about "Not long ago the very idea that behavior could have lasting effects on genetic expressions was nearly heretical in scientific circles....Today science agrees that genes can be influenced, while meditation could potentially be one of the most powerful methods of doing so." oh yes, influence those genes so we can see their expressions. word salad for pete's sake. What else.. The paper is PMID 27576169 and is open access, so it's here, with supplementary information here. Ok, so Blackburn and Tanzi are middle authors. Blood draws were day 1 and day 5 so any claims about long term changes in gene expression based on this paper are baloney. Jytdog (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Moving forward after past disruptions

In the past few years this article has accumulated a rather sordid history that includes an off-wiki component, as outlined recently. At one time there were no less than three COI editors pushing on the article.

Comparing the current version to earlier versions predating the commotion, say this one, a number of issues pop out. The current version's lead goes through Chopra's history and views before mentioning the controversial nature of his claims. However the lead paragraph should summarize why the subject is notable, and Chopra is notable for controversy. That's what independent sources point to. The detour into history seems like a distraction; I'm not saying it should be removed, just given less prominence.

The lead in the current version also summarizes Chopra's views by citing a primary reference (his own book). While an individual editor might be confident about what Chopra's views entail and might appropriately summarize them using a primary reference, on Wikipedia we look to secondary, independent sources for such information (WP:SOURCES, WP:FRIND).

There are other issues I could mention, but my main point here that, due to the aforementioned sordid history, the current state of the article is the outcome of a false consensus. Practically speaking, this just means that when arguing for or against a given change, reasons should be given that don't involve citing previous consensus, because that's been invalidated. I'm not looking to introduce any monumental changes to the article; I'd just like to ensure that everyone is on the same page with respect to the history here. Manul ~ talk 17:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Correction: two sources were melded into the single citation [11] in that version, one of which was not primary. However it wasn't clear how to correlate the sources and article text, especially the mention of teleology which probably requires a direct reference, yet that word wasn't present in either source. In any case Baer is certainly higher quality, so I've used that. Manul ~ talk 17:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The text in the lede should follow the same order in the body. This edit does not follow the body. QuackGuru (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I took this version which existed before the COI shenanigans as a guide. That version places controversies earlier in the lead, but you say it violates some rule about matching the order of body sections. I have three points in response: (a) you haven't responded to the above reason I gave for this ordering; (b) I haven't found a reference to such a rule in WP:LEAD or anywhere else; (c) no editor objected to the ordering before, including but not limited to you and the last person to edit that version, Alexbrn. Manul ~ talk 22:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• In general, per Quack Guru, its a good idea to sync the lead with the article and we do that by ordering the lead and the article in the same way. This makes for ease and a logical read.
• Chopra is not notable for controversy; he is notable for having written a multitude of best sellers and for leading the so-called, alternative medicine movement. He is also notable as a chief of staff at a major American hospital. Whether any of us likes what he represents and has written, denying his notability is both illogical and non - neutral. Controversy follows notability, arises because there is notability in the first place. no one cares if someone with no notability is controversial; we'd never even hear about it.
• The definitive information on what Chopra's positions are, what he believes in and puts forward and describes, is Chopra. In this case the primary source is not only acceptable but desired if we want an accurate view of Chopra. Secondary sources do not automatically trump primary sources. Sources are reliable per the content they support. There is no better way to understand Chopra than to read Chopra. Then, we can look at the analysis and criticisms of his work . This is common sense and does not in any way violate our policies and guidelines but reflects them.
• I have zero connection to Chopra and once again your eagerness in identifying what you think is a COI had led you astray.
• I don't have the time or inclination to argue this further, but please think about what I've written here. You are I think, misinterpreting policy and guideline which I believe leads to a rather biased lead. (Littleolive oil (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC))

WP:SECONDARY sources are always preferred to primary sources. We report what independent third party observers have said about Chopra's writings, not what we think is interesting about Chopra's writings.

I can't believe that anyone would argue that Chopra is not famous for controversy. In any case, argument of this sort is overwhelmed by actual secondary sources:

• "the controversial New Age guru" New York Times 2013
• a vocal advocate for alternative medicine and a sometimes controversial New Age guru". Houston Chronicle 2015
• "Controversial Author Deepak Chopra Waxes Spiritual, Answers Critics". San Antonio Current 2015
• "Controversial but captivating". India New England 2013
• "Chopra is a best-selling author, and a controversial figure". San Diego Union Tribune 2016

Even the acknowledged Chopra employee Ryan Castle admits that Chopra is controversial, complaining "how do people find information about controversial or cutting edge ideas and figures?" We must continue to describe Chopra as controversial. Binksternet (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's clarify what I said:

No one suggested Chopra is not controversial and no one suggested the lead should not describe the controversy which it certainly does. I did say his notability is not the controversy but that the controversy followed his notability. Notability should not be confused with fame.

Sources are appropriate per the content they support and not independently of that content. No one suggested we choose something we think is interesting. I did suggest that Chopra is the expert on Chopra and we can appropriately describe his positions from his own writings- the definitive source for that information. We can also go on to use secondary sources to describe the response to those positions.

I don't agree with Manul's analysis and I think its necessary to register that disagreement even if I don't have the time or inclination to deal with this further. For the record,(Littleolive oil (talk) 06:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC))

"Chopra is the expert on Chopra" is a profoundly unWikipedian statement and has nothing to do with how we operate here. The best sources are WP:INDY of their subject. Jytdog (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

No. If we want to include content that describes Chopra's position accurately per Chopra we can and probably should use Chopra. If we want to use content that describes how Chopra is viewed by others we use sources which give us that information. The mistaken idea that we cannot use primary sources in narrow but appropriate circumstances is just that, a mistaken view of how we write articles and apply policy.(Littleolive oil (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)(

Chopra can never be the expert on Chopra. Our WP:SECONDARY guideline ensures that. Other people get to be the experts on Chopra. Binksternet (talk) 07:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Chopra's own words may be usefully reflected if also quoted by secondary sources, but otherwise we should use those secondary sources' commentary as a basis for ours, since we are writing an encyclopedia - a tertiary work. "For the record" is, incidentally, also an unwikipedian statement: this is not a legal battle. Alexbrn (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Also agree. Chopra maks his living by blurring the distinction between fantasy and reality, and his belief in his own insights into areas such as quantum physics is, to put it charitably, not shared by most who understand the actual science. We should not rely on Chopra even when describing Chopra - and there is no need to do so as we have independent sources. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

But this is just the point. However Chopra makes his living and however he sees his work is important to the biography of the man, to understanding who he is. We should have content that notes how Chopra writes about his own ideas. His work is published in reputable source ; this is good primary sourcing. The idea that we think the guy is living in fantasy is fine but using that judgement to ignore how the man has written about his own work is a POV selection of content. Ideally we should have content in which Chopra describes his work and then content which describes how that work is viewed by others. We do not censor because we don't like what the guy writes. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC))

I do not think this is right. Chopra clearly believes his own PR, and to cover that uncritically is a failure of WP:NPOV. We should describe his beliefs as described by reliable independent sources, which will establish for us which are significant and what (if any) empirical validity they may have. Guy (Help!) 06:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Olive, nobody suggested that you were connected to Chopra himself. However this article does fall under Transcendental Meditation.

Nobody suggested that we cannot use primary sources. In fact my change does use primary sources: the quotes you see are from primary sources, which is just what you want: Chopra telling us what he believes. However I did not just sit down and decide, based on my own knowledge, the quotes from Chopra that I think are important. I used a high quality secondary source for that task (Baer), and to that end the article cites both the secondary and primary sources. Without a secondary source to pull from, we would indeed be choosing something we think is interesting. Manul ~ talk 12:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I will disagree and prefer to and will align myself both with Slim Virgin's input and versions, for example, [1] given she is not someone who is a regular at so called alternative medicine articles, who for that reason I believe to be completely neutral, and who is a highly experienced writer with excellent knowledge of policy and who wrote several. I believe her input to have been neutral and her versions to be better than what we have now both per neutrality and in just making sense. Just my opinion. As for the legal term, of course we have adopted and adapted many legal terms from law and this is one of them. If you all don't like the term I can use instead something like, I wanted to make my opinion known based on both my own experience and knowledge, Slim Virgin's excellent input into this article which I considered to be neutral, and which was for the most part reverted. That's my opinion. The accurate use of primary and secondary sources is not cut and dried as the multiple and seemingly ongoing discussions on Notice Boards indicates. What we have here are just opinions as to how policy can be implemented so lets keep that in mind when commenting. Nothing here is the "correct" understanding, just opinion.

Manul, I'll repeat I have no more personal opinion or connection to Chopra than any other editor here maybe less so have not even a remote possibility of COI.(Littleolive oil (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC))

You are misrepesenting RS, one of the fundamental guidelines here, the first line of the body of which is "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." dif and dif and dif. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

In fact Jytdog you have neglected to include the second part of that sentence which reads, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.. If you read my comments above you'll see that I suggested primary sources can be used "in narrow but appropriate circumstances."(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC))

you are now misrepresenting what you yourself wrote above: "No. If we want to include content that describes Chopra's position accurately per Chopra we can and probably should use Chopra." now there is yet another dif of a misrepresentation from you. Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Olive, you say you disagree, but what are you disagreeing with? My comment to which you replied consists of pretty mundane, uncontroversial statements. I guess you are disagreeing with the last sentence, "Without a secondary source to pull from, we would indeed be choosing something we think is interesting", because it rebuts your earlier comment, "No one suggested we choose something we think is interesting." On the one hand you want to summarize primary sources without a secondary source, but on the other hand you claim that doing so does not entail choosing material you think is interesting from the primary sources. How is that even possible? How do you summarize primary sources without picking and choosing what you think is important from those sources? Whatever argument is being presented here, we're not going to abandon WP:SOURCES and WP:SECONDARY. You say that you're with SlimVirgin, but she's not with you; she did include a secondary source, as I mentioned in the follow-up. Manul ~ talk 22:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

You must not mischaracterize what I've said above and if you want to understand what I've said please read carefully. If I'm not clear enough for you, I'm sorry. I am suggesting primary sources are acceptable as the policy states, in some circumstances. That's very simple.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC))

as above, you are now misrepresenting what you yourself wrote above: "No. If we want to include content that describes Chopra's position accurately per Chopra we can and probably should use Chopra." now there is yet another dif of a misrepresentation from you. Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Olive, you said that you disagreed.[2] I asked what you disagreed with. You have now clarified, "I am suggesting primary sources are acceptable as the policy states, in some circumstances." But your disagreement was in response to a comment in which I said, "Nobody suggested that we cannot use primary sources. In fact my change does use primary sources..."[3] I don't know what's going on here, but it's time-wasting and disruptive. I tried my best to understand your perspective. Manul ~ talk 04:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Manuel if you ask me what I am suggesting you force me to reiterate what I've said. I made many comments here in attempts to indicate a good faith editor perspective. Please be careful about calling another good-faith editor disruptive after citing that editor falsely for COI and when an article is under discretionary sanctions. Jytdog might want to be careful too. As I've said below, whether I agree or not with the way the article is written I leave it to consensus. (Littleolive oil (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC))

Olive, earlier you said you disagreed with a comment I made, and when asked to explain why, you offered a reason that directly agreed with the comment that you said you disagreed with. So 'round and 'round we go -- that's disruption, even though that is not what you intended, presumably. It doesn't appear as though you are fulling reading and understanding the comments to which you respond, here and throughout the thread. Re COI, again, this article falls under TM; nobody is saying that you are connected to Chopra himself. Manul ~ talk 16:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I suspect you are confusing DS with COI. You must show the editor has a connection to the COI topic. DS "umbrellas" connected topic areas. As I've said before you are pushing your view of COI on me and I don't really appreciate the mistake. I have no connection with Chopra, none, nada so you can stop with the COI accusation. Further, I am not paid to edit TM when I do and I seldom do these days and have never despite the efforts of some editors been shown to have edited in a way that indicates COI despite arbitrations and judgements by editors on the COI noticeboard who are neutral with no connection either to TM or the alternative medicine articles. You have as well failed to tell me why you are using a link and can see a link that is hidden from all eyes except admins, and you are a non admin, and a link that had to have been created by an admin. So please stop with the COI stuff. I was willing to walk away from your allegations but I am starting to feel a little annoyed.Drop the stick, please. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC))

• The lede has been restored to follow the same order as the body. It was confusing to read the lede the way it was before. The lede order for this article should be the same as other BLPs. QuackGuru (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Move controversy higher in the lead?

• Support. Chopra is notable for his controversial views, as Binksternet has well explained (with sources) above.[4] As such, they deserve more prominence in the lead. Note this is not some new idea, since earlier versions did this, e.g.. Current arguments against and my answers to them:

• WP:Consensus. No, the article has undergone a WP:false consensus in recent years as a result sockpuppetry / meatpuppetry / COI / off-wiki recruiting -- see here for more information.
• WP:LEDE says that the order of the lead must match the order of the body. No, it says no such thing.
• Other BLPs match lead/body order. Such ordering would be appropriate for BLPs where the subject is most notable for his or her early history, but BLPs don't follow this as a rule. Just randomly looking at John F. Kennedy, the first two paragraphs cover his presidency. Not coincidentally, he is most notable for his presidency. Only in the third paragraph does the earlier history begin. He's less notable for being a member of the United States Naval Reserve in 1941, and it would be odd to give that higher prominence.

Manul ~ talk 17:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Consensus has in fact been controlled by the very editors who are weighing in here and not by the socks so there was no false consensus unless Alexbrn, Guy and other skeptic editors are to be discounted.

The lead is more logical when it synchronizes order with the body content but I at least did not cite this as a policy. I and Quack Guru seem to agree this logical format is superior, and believe me Quack and I do not often agree.:O).The issues for me is not what is where but that there is synchrony which produces a nicely, flowing article. Either the body or the lead or both can be moved around until that flow is achieved.

....and nah, write about notability and explain the man completely before you start to attack, How can you add criticism of the guy until we tell the reader who he is. This is just logical, (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC))

It's not skeptics, it's the reality-based community. Chopra makes his living by obscuring the distinction between nonsense and truth. He's a thought leader among those who promote the false idea of "other ways of knowing". Guy (Help!) 06:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That is of course one definition of what a skeptic is and seems to me strong thinkers can be skeptical and rightly so. We all have our own realities so I'd be cautious about defining a whole community as a single, reality-based community. (Littleolive oil (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC))

• Cautious support as it's a major part of why he's notable. He is a byword for confabulation and a benchmark of pseudo-profound bullshit, hence the Wisdom of Chopra experiment, so we really can't look the other way on that. Guy (Help!) 06:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I have little more to say and will bow out of this discussion leaving the article to consensus. Neutrality is of course paramount. I think the sources on him show two strong mainstream views and the article must indicate that.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC))

• Oppose. It is completely irrelevant whether Chopra is notable for his controversial views. Full stop. Things like early life and education are higher in the WP:LEDE. This article should be reality-based. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

You've cited WP:LEDE and WP:BLPSTYLE, neither of which support your argument. You haven't addressed the rebuttals I made above. As I said, there is simply no rule that early life and education are higher in the lead, and this isn't done in practice. See the above point about John F. Kennedy. Manul ~ talk 17:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It is most logical for early life and education to be higher in the lede. See Jimmy Wales. QuackGuru (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with the premise that he's highly notable for his controversial views. However, I think the solution is to reduce the lede substantially. The mini-biography (second paragraph), especially, has far too much detail. --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)