Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Recent addition about Sam Slovick removed

Cla68 has added "Sam Slovick reports that a number of Wikipedia administrators have expressed concerns about how Chopra's biography article has been treated by Wikipedia editors, including an effort to misrepresent his view on AIDS in order to discredit him", with a reference to Deepak Chopra and the Future of Wikipedia, to the section "Position on Wikipedia". Compare the thread above. I've removed it because it seems non-notable and undue. Also, User:Sam Slovick appears to be a somewhat biased source, as he has has his own beef with Wikipedia: check out the history of his article Sam Slovick, originally created as an autobiography. That may have something to do with the way he throws in "one of a number of admins" in a Huffington Post report which is about User:SlimVirgin's objections, exclusively:

A look behind the curtain at Wikipedia talk pages reveals that a highly decorated and respected Wikipedia editor, 'SlimVirgin,' recently became one of a number of admins who stepped up to defend Chopra. SV writes, "It's hard to disagree that there's a problem when you look through the [Chopra's] article and talk page.

Cla68 has slanted it further by removing Slim from the equation, writing simply that "Slovick reports that a number of Wikipedia administrators have expressed concerns". (I quite understand that we don't necessarily want to mention a particular user, Slim, in this article, so that's all right as such, but the way it's done has an unfortunate embiggening effect.) Anyway. The whole addition is undue, IMO. Bishonen | talk 08:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC).

I wonder if the whole "Chopra writes about his wiki page" coverage is undue, and if we need to mention it at all. If we do, then perhaps it should also be noted that Chopra has assigned a paid employee to monitor and influence his wiki page in his favour, a situation considered unethical by the vast majority of wiki editors. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think so, it was originally a bit smaller and integrated into a section on "Skepticism" so that the mention of Wikipedia was really only incidental in the long-running cross-talk there has been between Chopra and the skeptics. I think moving back to something like that would be more due until and unless this spat gets coverage in some reasonable secondary source. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to mention the latest Wikipedia controversies in the article. They are not nearly as WP:PROMINENT as, say, his involvement with Oprah. jps (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I caught sight of the addition and thought it should be reverted (my very first edit to this article, I think), but I really agree that the whole section is undue. Get rid of it. Bishonen | talk 11:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC).

That was my position as well when I reflagged the section in the article and started the section Talk:Deepak_Chopra#Chopra_on_Wikipedia_--_NPOV_issues_via_UNDUE_weight (which as most sections on the page got very verbose and very off topic). His Wikipedia efforts might be appropriate to include as an example if we had a section on his general promotion of woo, but currently we dont, so I support removal of the content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Allegations that a cabal of Wikipedia editors is seeking to undermine Chopra by discrediting him in his WP:BLP seems like it would be something that would be mentioned in his WP BLP, to me. Chopra is concerned enough about it that he has actually mentioned it in the media himself, if I understand correctly. Sam Slovick is sufficiently notable that he has his own WP BLP, and it doesn't mention anything about a beef with Wikipedia. Even so, that doesn't undermine the notability of the event. In the past, alleged attacks on WP BLPs have been mentioned in the media once they come to light. By the way, have any of you in this discussion participated in adding negative information to this bio as Slovick mentions? If so, you shouldn't be commenting on this discussion per WP:COI. Cla68 (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No, the fact that someone is unhappy that the Wikipedia page about them is not the purely promotional fooferla that they wish is not notable. If their interactions with wikipedia were widely covered by reliable sources, perhaps, but that aint the case here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

And your expansive interpretation of COI would quickly turn Wikipedia into Promopedia with the subject of every article simply needing to post a blog piece "calling out" any editor who is not filling the article with promotional spam to prevent NPOV from being applied. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You are aware, aren't you, that the Huffington Post has been awarded the Pulitzer Prize? I think they and their readers might find it curious that WP editors are judging it a source of inferior importance to use as a source in Wikipedia. Also, you didn't answer my question, have you participated in adding any kind of pejorative information to this article? If so, you shouldn't be participating in this discussion per WP:COI. I formally ask everyone here to detail their involvement with the article and recuse themselves as appropriate. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't have any means on Wikipedia to make this kind of formal request of anyone on an article talkpage. If you think something is awry, you might consider bringing up your concerns with administrators or arbitrators. Users are entitled to answer or not answer your questions as they see fit. jps (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

you are aware that the Huf Po also has an entire wing devoted to UFOs and Bigfoot? your ridiculous request that anyone who has posted content that is not promotional to the article recuse themselves is absurd and calls into question your WP:COMPETENCE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not a conflict of interest to "add... any kind of pejorative information to [an] article." Please control yourself. Hipocrite (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI. Cla68 has posted about this talkpage section and his editing to Wikipediocracy. jps (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of HuffPo etc, is there enough attention outside WP on this article to put a "This article have been mentioned by media" on this page? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want. There are not guidelines for when that is appropriate -- as long as it is an external link explicitly mentioning this article (and preferably linking to it). jps (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

While Cla68's suggestion about recusals based on COI is not particularly feasible, it's also not fair for people to insist on this dichotomy that any perspective is either deriding Chopra or promoting him. Covering significant parts of his life are what biographies do, but it feels like anytime someone proposes coverage of something that is not negative it's described as "promotional" or "advertising" with no explanation of exactly why. I do think that there is a growing prominence with Chopra's attention to this article that should be covered, and as far as I can tell Slovick is an independent secondary source (correct me if there's evidence to the contrary). Whether one thinks Huff Po's coverage of silly things like Bigfoot discredits them is OR, the important factors are A) Is the topic relevant, B) Is Slovick reliable, C) Is there somewhere this could fit into the article? I feel comfortable with the first two, the last I need to look into. The Cap'n (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that the topic may be relevant, but WP:RECENTISM needs to be considered as well as whether this is WP:DUE compared to other much more famous events in Chopra's life. jps (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It is the UNDUE weight that is the issue. This aspect of his life has been covered by two bloggers. If the article were book length biography, then fine throw in a paragraph, but to call out as important and relevant in this short of an article is silly Wikipedia navel gazing and considering anything to do with the encyclopedia as WAY more important than it actually is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I do think that WP:RECENTISM is a concern. I'm less convinced by the WP:UNDUE argument, as there are plenty of things represented on the page that have less material behind them than multiple videos and Huff Po postings. I'd suggest keeping an eye on this and seeing if it develops into a significant trend that should be represented. The Cap'n (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Chopra has appeared in Oprah Winfrey's media empire dozens if not hundreds of times in various forms. And yet, we have a paltry two sentences devoted to this relationship. Having an entire section devoted to Chopra's relationship with Wikipedia, then, seems rather undue to me. YMMV. jps (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

COI recusals

We're not doing this

In the discussions above, a Huntington Post article alleges that Wikipedia editor critics of Chopra have been defaming him here in this Wikipedia article by, among other things, misrepresenting his stance on AIDS. Therefore, any discussion on whether to include mention of these allegations in WP needs to be free from COI taint. This means, any editor who has added or advocated the adding of any kind of pejorative or prejudicial text to this article needs to recuse from this discussion. If you have advocated or actually added any negative information on Chopra, I formally ask that you list your name below. I will post a notice of this discussion at AN so it can be monitored by WP's administration. Thank you: Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC) What utter utter nonsense from Cla68. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Agreed. Please withdraw this. --Ronz (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC) If either one of you, or anyone else, has advocated or added pejorative information to this article, please do the right and ethical thing and sign your names below: Cla68 (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC) [name here] Please stop. This seems an attempt at rather extreme ownership. --Ronz (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Apparently, this article is now being watched by mainstream media journalists. It's unfortunate when outside attention of this sort becomes necessary in order to stop potential abuse of a subject matter or BLP in WP. If that is the case here, then I hope you all have learned something from this episode. Judging from the extreme defensiveness I observed in the response to this section in which I asked editors to recuse themselves from the discussion about the HP article, I suspect that there may be something to the article's allegations. If so, I'm embarrassed to have been a part of a project that would treat someone this way. Hopefully, there won't be any more problems with this article as we go forward. Cla68 (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Hewlett-Packard? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC) I am embarrassed that someone would even think of suggesting that only editors who absolutely support the subject of the article should edit the article or even discuss the edits. What shameful nonsense. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Thanks Cla68 that "ridiculous proposal" is funny. And I will confess. I have requested adding a few things. A section on Dr. Chopra's litigiousness for one. Which has been quite notable -and once that notability has been established then a listing of all his cases potentially become part of that. But I would not say that proposal is a negative proposal or critical of Chopra because Chopra has been victorious in some instances. Also I proposed adding the HAF/ Hindu American Foundation response to Deepak Chopra (in Reception) that claims he is making his fortune off sanitizing Hindu sacred practices and beliefs. This is actually very notable because it was widely reported nationally and internationally and also it is the origin of the "take back Yoga" campaign which points out that Hindus have the same right to ask that their sacred practices not be exploited as Native Americans have when they ask people not to play pretend Indian and sanitize and sell Native ceremonies. This also however is not strictly a negative since Dr. Chopra according to what I read online seems to have admitted that he sanitized Hinduism. (“The reason I sanitized it is there's a lot of junk in [Hinduism],”) So that can not really be an anti Chopra criticism if Dr. Chopra has admitted to doing it. I also made a proposal to add mention of Deepak hiring a paid public relations advocate for his Wikipedia website and Founding ISHAR. ISHAR has been claimed by the representative to be a completely unbiased academic repository. This claim gives a very positive slant to the PR representatives image, but more and more it is looking like ISHAR could be a pseudoscience Trojan Horse and public relations advocacy vehicle for people that are employed in what Wikipedia would call the fringe and pseudoscience fields. (Which if true in any way.. that will mean that SAS81 has broken Wikipedia terms of use by being a COI misrepresenting his/her affiliations. I have discussed this more on the COI noticeboard discussion on SAS81). Regarding the mentioning in the Chopra article of hiring the paid PR rep and founding of ISHAR, I currently agree with TRPOD that no mention on Deepak's page is warranted. But I think that may change soon as the latest episode unfolds and gains wider coverage. And just so you, Cla68, don't think I am one sided, I also see some areas where imbalanced criticism of dr, Chopra does exist on the page and I think that it should be changed. I have considered contacting and talking with Dr. Chopra's representative about it. The reason I have not so far is I have some concerns about the representative's forthrightness regarding his/her affiliations ..and framing of them. That has given me some hesitancy in extending more in that direction.Ptarmigander (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC) But sure Cla68 I am jerking your chain some. Lucky I am in this convenient little drop down. Out of the way. ---I would have been happy to work with SAS81 if concerns did not arise. Call me cynical. Call me an ex day trader and business researcher. But the nose knows. You can't risk the farm on a pig in a poke. But once this COI affiliation truthfulness question gets cleared up. Maybe before. I would be interested in discussing why the "Spirituality and Religion" section links to a picture of what looks like a Ham sandwich. (salami) That is amusing. I can still look at that and laugh. Like to tears. That IS a joke right? Core ideas from Hindu Vedic spirituality are central to all of Dr. Chopra's works. From inspiration and healing to consciousness and meditation. The highest Indian Spirituality inspires all areas of Deepak's message. So why is the total of his spirituality section a description of Deepak's spirituality as a Salami sandwich? -wipes another tear- I just wonder if this is rather playing into the hands of people who are primed and ready to see Wikipedia as over-run with militant skeptics? Maybe if the so called "criticisms" could be less ham-fisted it would serve everyone better. Ptarmigander (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Mind if I enter the tent? The source we quote identifies the "reality sandwich" as being the basis of Chopra's conception of the universe. Looking at index in Chopra's book this seems likely correct. As Chopra himself writes (p. 10) "I keep coming back to the transitional zone in our 'reality sandwich'". There seem to be precious few mentions of DC's spiritual/religious/philosophical views in high-quality sources, that I can find. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC) And the link to the picture of a Ham sandwich? Who put that there? I mean why is that there? It isn't a joke? Ptarmigander (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Do you mean the picture at the sandwich article? That's just at the other end of the wikilinked word; any humour is purely incidental. But, OTOH, maybe DC intends his bold sandwich image to be kind of amusing - who knows? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit did not match edit summary

This change makes no sense. A lot of the article is now disorganised and text is missing. Some of the sections names have also been deleted. See the previous version with the section names organised text. QuackGuru (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Guru lead

Ronz. I like your change a lot! It seems a fair compromise.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC))

Thanks! I hope others agree. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ronz, I agree with Littleolive oil that this seems like a reasonable compromise and doesn't disrupt the flow of the article. The Cap'n (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I too concur Ronz - I think taking it out of Wikipedia's voice was all it ever needed. Thanks for taking that bold step. SAS81 (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think a step back has been taken. Pity. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 03:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but consensus often means that everyone comes away with a little less than they'd hoped for, yet the product as a whole succeeds. Hooray for consensus! The Cap'n (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

"Deepak Chopra: An 'Inner Stillness,' Even On The Subway", The New York Times The part "has been described" is original research and the source to verify the claim "New-Age guru" was deleted from the article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru, this was an established lede that had been worked out through lengthy consensus, please do not arbitrarily change such a contested phrase without gaining consensus for it. I put it back, though I included the Kaufman reference and some of your verbiage.

"Has been described" is not unusual for WP, is not OR/ASSERT (there are at least two sources by Chopra specifically refuting the term, thus it's a contested descriptor) and is a phrase agreed upon by numerous editors. Stating "New Age Guru" as an uncontested fact violates WP:BLP:WELLKNOWN, is not an quantifiable, observable fact and whitewashes a contested term.

In short, the revert was because your edit went against recent consensus, violated WP guidelines and misrepresents a common opinion as an objective fact. The Cap'n (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem, Askahrc, is that Chopra's "refutation" is completely irrelevant. Nothing in our policies requires us to avoid using commonly used descriptors for people, and the word "guru" is commonly used to describe Chopra. In this particular case, I tend to agree that "described" is appropriate, but that's more because while Chopra is commonly described as a "guru", I tend to find it split between "New Age guru", "spiritual guru", "self-help guru", and even "guru to the stars", making the definitive statement "New Age guru" a bit of a stretch to state objectively.

As for describing the lead as "worked out by lengthy consensus", it appears more to me that it has been worked on by people that are under the misapprehension that Chopra's opinion of his Wikipedia article and what people say about him matter. It doesn't.—Kww(talk) 20:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

According to Wiktionary and most other English dictionaries, guru has two meanings, first it refers to the well-established and highly respected role in the Hindu or Sikh traditions, of spiritual teacher. If Chopra says he is not one of these, he is best placed to know. Being a guru in this sense is somewhere related to being a priest or vicar in the Christian tradition: if you are one, you would certainly know that you are, and so would those in your spiritual community. The second meaning originates in the West, is much more recent in origin, and is meant humorously or in an ironical or derogative sense. This, to me, when applied to someone like Chopra, seems like calling someone a 'witch-doctor' just because they are of African descent, or calling a Native American a 'squaw' or a 'brave'. Any of these show a gross lack of respect for, or understanding of, the subject's own culture and its richness, and a blatant disregard for their personal integrity within it. This may be acceptable among the sub-eds who write headlines in the trashy end of the newspaper market, and for bloggers with little regard for the world around them, but it is not encyclopedic, and such dubious 'humour' should not appear in the first few sentences of any serious biography. --Nigelj (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nigelj, Agreed, and that's almost verbatim the issue with this term and Chopra. It's literal, original meaning of "guru" is something very specific religiously, and if someone refutes that religious connection we cannot apply it as a fact, any more than we could say "John Doe is a Christian preacher, despite numerous declarations that he's not." As for the second meaning (and one Chopra has also specifically addressed as derogatory), it carries heavy overtones of either tongue-in-cheek or implications of charlatanism, either of which are too charged of terms to be used as an objective descriptor.

@Kww, I think we agree on methodology, if not the end product, and I also agree with your assessment of "has been described" to delineate between the numerous implications of the term. I assure you, I am not motivated by concern over Chopra's opinion of this article. It'd be nice if a person liked their own BLP, but that's not our job. I'm concerned with accurately representing a BLP according to WP guidelines, and an important part of any BLP is assuring that the subject's own statements about themselves are given proper weight. More specifically, WP:WELLKNOWN gives an example stating that when describing aspects about a person that they contest, even when they're aspects everyone else agrees upon, the refutation must be noted. It's not about whether Chopra likes it, it's about the weight that his refutations have in determining what he identifies as. Finally, this consensus was by no means made by just people who sympathize with Chopra. Ronz, Littleolive oil, SlimVirgin and myself represent extremely diverse, frequently polar opposite, views on matters of WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE, and WP:PSTS. Along with numerous others, we all came to this decision for very different reasons. The Cap'n (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

To me, the misapplication of this term to Chopra's smacks of racism and ignorance. I have no idea why someone would argue to put a description such as that in the voice of Wikipedia. 166.137.216.178 (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

An excellent question, 166.137.216.178. Can anyone explain why it's so vital to use the word "guru"? Sure, there are RS's that use the term, but there are RS's that use other terms that we don't put such emphasis on. The only definitional distinction between "guru" and the more generalized "spiritual leader" is the secondary connotation of charlatanism. That's the only distinct aspect of "guru" that I can detect, especially since Chopra refutes identifying with the Hindu meaning. I'm open to other explanations as to why "guru" is uniquely ideal despite all this contention. The Cap'n (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as someone with actual experience of oriental gurus, and as someone with Hindu friends who talk naturally and respectfully about their actual gurus, our usage here seems cheap and trashy. I agree, it "smacks of racism and ignorance," as IP 166 put it. --Nigelj (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Quackwatch article

Stephen Barrett. "A Few Thoughts on Ayurvedic Mumbo-Jumbo". This Quackwatch article can be used in this page and the Ayurveda page. QuackGuru (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, to the extent that it makes comments about Chopra, himself, it cannot be used. To the extent it makes comments about his statements, it's possible. Please read WP:BLPSPS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Are photons conscious, or is Wikipedia controlled by militant skeptics?

I have reverted a rather strong statement in the article on BLP grounds, but not worrying about Chopra's rights, rather those of Jerry Coyne not to be misrepresented in print by Wikipedia. The paragraph was cited to Forbes, and sure enough if you look there, you see Steven Salzberg quoting something from Chopra about whether photons are conscious, immediately followed by a quote from Coyne about woo and psychobabble. The problem is that Salzberg gives us a link to the Coyne article. If you follow this link you find an article not about photons, but about the alleged band of 'militant skeptics' that Rupert Sheldrake and Chopra say have taken control of their Wikipedia's articles. After a long quote from Chopra about Sheldrake’s Wikipedia entry, Coyne does indeed give us the quote about woo and psychobabble. The problem is that he is not talking about Chopra's views on the possible consciousness of photons by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore by saying in Wikipedia's voice that he does, we are misrepresenting him. If we want to make a point about Chopra and photon consciousness, then the attribution would have to go to Salzberg not Coyne, but really should not ignore the misattribution of the sourcing in Salzberg's piece.

Personally, I don't think there is anything to be gained by following this tortured path. It seems to me a good example of 'more heat than light' where muddled strong words end up not showing anything up clearly, except the muddle. There must be better written criticisms of Chopra's published work on consciousness than this, to lead us toward an actual encyclopedia article, rather than a collection of disconnected polemic remarks. --Nigelj (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Are photons conscious, or is Wikipedia controlled by militant skeptics? Obviously neither, but if I had to choose, the correct answer is obviously the photons. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll point out that the article by Salzberg is an opinion piece (which should be evident by the writing style of the article), and it even states on the page, "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." The policy covering the use of such a source is WP:RSOPINION. -- Atama頭 19:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

My point was that if the use this opinion piece, we should attribute the opinion to Salzberg not to Coyne, as the latter has said no such thing, that we know of. On the other hand, what real use is Salzberg's opinion once we know that it's based on a misquote? --Nigelj (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)