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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources:  Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · 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: 60 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If  consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). United States: Asian Americans Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Asian Americans (assessed as Mid-importance). Transcendental Meditation movement Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transcendental Meditation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Transcendental Meditation movementWikipedia:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTemplate:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTranscendental Meditation movement articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Yoga Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga, Hatha yoga, Yoga as exercise and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YogaWikipedia:WikiProject YogaTemplate:WikiProject YogaYoga articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Spirituality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative Views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please read before starting Wikipedia policy notes for new editors: A common objection made by new arrivals is that the article presents Chopra's work in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of it is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) policy. The sections of the policy that apply directly to this article are: Neutral point of view: Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI) Neutral point of view: Due and undue weight (WP:UNDUE) Neutral point of view: Giving "equal validity" (WP:GEVAL) Also of particular relevance are: Tendentious editing: Righting Great Wrongs (WP:RGW) Verifiability: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (WP:REDFLAG) In short, there are certain topics and fringe viewpoints we should not be giving false balance to. See Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE) for more context on how Wikipedia deals with fringe views.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Deepak Chopra. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Deepak Chopra at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 22, 2017, October 22, 2021, and October 22, 2022.

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. Vivekachudamani ( talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. Littleolive oil ( talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. ( link) TimidGuy ( talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. ( disclosure)

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. SAS81 ( talk · contribs) has been paid by ISHAR on behalf of Chopra Media, Chopra Foundation, Deepak Chopra. Their editing has included contributions to this article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN. Blocked as a sockpuppet of Tumbleman and was Rome Viharo. Three COI disclosures: First this version, then this version, then this version. Askahrc ( talk · contribs) has been paid by ISHAR on behalf of Chopra Foundation, Deepak Chopra. Their editing has included contributions to this article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN. Also known as "The Cap'n". Disclosed here. Connected with Viharo per this self-disclosure in January 2014 and these statements in February 2014. Indefinitely topic-banned from everything Deepak Chopra here in March 2016 due to an arbitration enforcement sanction.

The articles introduction has a heavy negative bias. It should be reviewed to ensure it presents a balanced view. 2603:7000:8500:11D0:5503:BAAE:8623:432E ( talk) 09:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Thank you for pointing this out. I have reviewed the article, which imho describes Chopra and his life quite accurately according to the sources. I will not be recommending any changes, or making any. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Yes, the last sentence of the lede paragraph has all the editorial grace of Donald J. Trump. It is crappy writing, just the way Wikipedia likes it. WP is now a quasi-authoritarian power, pretending to offer balanced and comprehensive info, but in effect PASSING JUDGMENT on the SUBJECT, by policy. The reader is too stupid, apparently, to formulate their own opinion. -- Jack B108 ( talk) 18:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC) reply

um, let get this right. This article is poorly written, partly because it makes a desperate attempt to cram in as much materialistic criticism of Chopra's work from old-guard, scientific reduction adherents as it can. This is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's own stated policy on remaining neutral on controversial biographical entries. So what you're saying is basically if something is controversial, even if millions of people accept it, including scientists, if it's not 96% reductionist and materialistic, Wikipedia editors won't even allow any discussion of the editorial comment. I would say apart from the pure bias of this Chopra article, which I imagine even Albert Einstein would chuckle at, it's just got a lot of uneven writing. And relying on criticism saying "physicists" or" physics" agree Chopra is fluff is childish, as any reasonable observer of physics knows, as if you had to sign a dogmatic vow of materialism to do research at CERN or DOE Nat'l Labs. Many physicists [of which Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins are not] have no real problem with the ideas of Deepak Chopra, or at least would allow them to be given a fair shake in an encyclopedia. Jack B108 ( talk) 17:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

You misunderstand WP:NPOV. You should actually read it. Also, WP:FRINGE. There is no blatant violation of Wikipedia's own stated policy on remaining neutral because Chopra's ideas are far outside real science. If you asked Chopra to write down the Schrödinger equation, he would fail. His version of QM is just a layman's bad misunderstanding of bad explanations written by people who know physics only from heavily dumbed-down popular science. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

"Many physicists [of which Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins are not]" - yes, I do not believe you should shoot your mouth off about poor writing. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:20A8:B888:AFB9:D07 ( talk) 19:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

More importantly, we would need a reliable source for the names of those "many physicists" who have no problem with Chopra's pseudophysical bullshit. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

PseudoPsycical perhaps? - Roxy the dog 16:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

I am very much not a Chopra defender, but the last sentence of the lede paragraph, splicing quotes from several opinion pieces, seems like an attempt to get as close as possible to stating subjective views in Wikivoice. It also focuses onky on Quantum Healing, only one of many topics Chopra has discussed. I would suggest replacing that sentence with a more general “Chopra’s views have been characterized as pseudoscientific and devoid of substance” Mach61 ( talk) 04:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

It was also added by a banned editor (Roxy the Dog) Mach61 ( talk) 05:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Irrelevant. Check the reason for the ban. It is not his opposition to fringe ideas. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

only one of many topics Chopra has discussed By that reasoning, we would have to delete almost everything from almost all Wikipedia articles.

quotes from several opinion pieces Ask any scientist. Chopra's babble will infuriate pretty much all of them. The "have been characterized as" sentence is representative.

Having said that, you are right that they do not belong in the lede. The lede is supposed to summarize the body of the article, and those quotes are not there. They should be moved to the body and replaced in the lede by a moved-up sentence from the third paragraph The ideas Chopra promotes have regularly been criticized by medical and scientific professionals as pseudoscience, with "and devoid of substance" at the end. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

FYI: My problem was the fact the sentence spliced quotes without attribution, not that opinion pieces in RS were cited at all. I don’t mean to start an argument with someone who agrees with my proposed change, but please assume editors are familiar with basic rules unless definitively proven otherwise. Cheers. Mach61 ( talk) 15:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply