Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:39, 27 April 2014

I am here to answer any questions and work with any editors on the page. ChopraMedia (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, ChopraMedia, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that you have edited the Talk page of a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Alexbrn 03:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Your username and our conflict of interest policy

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. I noticed that your username, "ChopraMedia", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Trammel Museum of Art". However, you are invited to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you personally, such as "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", and "WidgetFan87". Please also note that Misplaced Pages does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people, and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, or website, regardless of your username. Moreover, I recommend that you read our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Misplaced Pages in an unbiased manner, please create a new account or request a username change that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, to the best of my ability we are appropriately addressing our concerns about the article using this name but I don't mind changing it. I am requesting a user name change request. If you don't hear back from me in a few days I am just busy and will get to this as soon as I can. We want to do this the right way. ChopraMedia (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You're doing a great job. I just wanted to make sure you were aware and that others can easily see it. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Checking username signature. ChopraMedia (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Ronz I am not sure how to sign in as SAS81. It only let's me sign in as ChopraMedia. Please adviseChopraMedia (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Your sig not changing is strange. I'm not sure even where to begin on fixing it. Try {{Help me}} and they should at least point you in the right direction. --Ronz (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@ChopraMedia: If you are logged in as ChopraMedia, click on this link to log out: Log Out

Then, click this link to log back in: Log In

You should be prompted for a username and password when you log in; use the SAS81 username and password you've chosen for that account to log in. -- Atama頭 22:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thx! SAS81 (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE

I think you'll have much more success here if you take more time to understand WP:FRINGE and why it is an extension of WP:NPOV.

For example, you wrote, "Is the inherent contradiction between the application of BLP and Fringe based on a misunderstanding on my part?" and "My understanding of WP Fringe is that whatever defines fringe on Misplaced Pages (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."

If you work for Chopra, then I don't think it would be a stretch to assume you are so ingrained in the support of fringe beliefs that you don't see it as anything but mainstream. --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Ronz, thanks for the heads up. I would not be so quick to make assumptions about me. I have a very specific job with Dr. Chopra and his organizations and was hired based on my skill set, not on my own personal beliefs which they never asked and I never offered.SAS81 (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledging that this is controversial is the first step. Acknowledging that it isn't mainstream would be the second. How far are we stepping? Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I would not be here if it was not controversial. I'm not sure what you mean by 'mainstream' or in what context. Let's work it out on the page. SAS81 (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The two actually aren't that far apart. Generally we would consider evidence-based medicine to be mainstream, mostly because it's been shown to work. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution policy may be helpful

You seem to be having a hard time getting anyone to agree with your concerns. You might want to review our dispute resolution policy. --Ronz (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes thanks again Ronz for looking out for me. I am aware of dispute resolution but was hoping to see what kind of consensus can be made between current editors, I don't want to make things unnecessarily dramatic if they don't have to be. They may have to be :( SAS81 (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

A bit of advice, for what it's worth:

I strongly recommend new editors learn Misplaced Pages by editing articles that aren't controversial in any way, so they can learn the basics with very little risk of running into any disputes at all, much less complicated disputes. However, I realize you're here on behalf of your employer, so you likely don't have much time to learn your way around.

Neutrality is difficult to accomplish, and there's a huge amount of guidance in Misplaced Pages on how to go about it. When it comes to articles about living people, it's even more difficult because of the higher standards expected from such articles. In this case, you also have to negotiate WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS, as well as the related arbitration decisions.

At the risk of oversimplifying how to approach these problems, I suggest finding sources that are secondary/tertiary, independent, and reliable that demonstrate the information/event is important with respect to the person's entire life's work. Independently-written biographies and well-researched histories are ideal.

Other types of sources can be helpful, but the impact they have on the overall article will only go as far as how well they provide well-researched context and history. --Ronz (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ronz I'm trying to find the related ARB decisions, is there one in particular? I'm just aware of the Fringe ARB com from I think 2006. I also instructed the team here to start compiling sources with proper citations broken down by primary, secondary and tertiary. It's probably going to take a few more days though for that to be finished. SAS81 (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

" also instructed the team here ... " ← wait, so the input from this account will be resourced by a group of people acting under instruction? Isn't that a problem?—"Any user account should represent an individual and not a group". Alexbrn 05:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Alex - as a professional, I have a team that works under me for what ever purposes I may need. If I instruct them to perform research or gather sources with proper citations it's because I don't have time to do it. Y'all have me busier than a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. SAS81 (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Politeness and WP:IDONTHERETHAT.

We understand your motives here, and we're appreciate that you've been up-front about them, and have generally been polite. That's great.

We can make certain allowances for not understanding policies, and not having the experience to understand them.

One way to learn a little more about policy would be to contribute in other, less controversial areas. Iranian Embassy Siege, for example is quite complete but there may be related articles that need attention.

What would be not so great is if, once something has been explained to you multiple times by multiple editors as best they can, you still bring up the issues involved, which would count as WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. WP:IDONTHEARTHAT is disruptive, whether it's intentional or not. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've been watching the Chopra discussion closely, Barney. Perhaps you could be more specific especially if you are warning this editor about possible sanctions. I see an editor who has gone out of his way to work with other editors on this article, who goes way beyond being polite and is working carefully within the confines of his declared COI. And who is the "we" you are referring to. Could you explain.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC))

Thank you Olive, I appreciate your clarity of question. Barney - not only is it the position of good wikipedia editing to be uncompromisingly neutral, it's my job. I'm not sure what it is you do not think I am hearing and I do need you to be specific and not some broad policy stroke and some general assumption thrown my way. It would be great if you could participate in talk and respond to specific requests that I make, that way we could participate in consensus building. Confusing my requests for consensus building as my failure to understand policy seems more like WP:DISRUPTSIGNS to me so let's help keep each other in check as this article is governed under discretionary sanctions for all editors, not just COI. SAS81 (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Imaginary scenario - a thought experiment

There are 7 editors on the Barack Obama article. All of them well intentioned. Six of them are passionate Red State Republicans with a keen eye for Sarah Palin and a love of country and values they believe to be true. The seventh is a lonely progressive with a voting preference for Democrat who works of the US Archives for US Presidents and is responsible for correcting misleading sources on Misplaced Pages articles. The lead section in the article attempts to frame Barack Obama as a socialist in ideology and although they are referencing sources, it's clear the article is leaning towards the weight of Obama's detractors

How does this scenario play out on Misplaced Pages?

SAS81 (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The article would reflect consensus. Fortunately in reality, the number of editors involved and the groundedness of Misplaced Pages's policies means Barry's article is rather good & neutral; same as with Deepak Chopra's. Remember, WP:TINC. Alexbrn 19:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey alex - the question is 'how' would that scenario play out. We would hope the outcome is in compliance with WP, I'm trying to understand 'how' it plays out. I dont want to have to go to the BLP noticeboard to seek neutral editors in the dispute. I genuinely want to see what kind of consensus can happen, what steps to take given this particular dynamic. The point of the exercise is not to show collusion or conspiracy, rather the balance in points of view that can be achieved with there is a minority editing voice. Since WP is not a democracy - 6 editors with one bias should not hold weight based on vote against 1 editor with another bias. So since there is no voting and everyone has sources - what happens? SAS81 (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is driven by consensus at all levels: consensus of the editors editing and (more widely) the consensus that informs the community's policies that govern editing activities. If Obama's article really had 6 editors and was violating policy then the consensus would need to be widened. Chopra's article has had 933 distinct contributors and is on the WP:WATCHLIST of over 200. In my recollection it has been raised at multiple noticeboards: WP:BLP/N, WP:FT/N, WP:COI/N and WP:AN/I just within the last year. So it doesn't lack for scrutiny or consensus. I don't think the "there is a nasty majority overruling the work of the plucky single hero" gambit has much chance of working here. Alexbrn 19:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Alex - yeah that's just it I wanted to get a sense of how that plays out. I'm getting there is not a specific methodology for mediation on the encyclopedia and I guess that's what I was looking for. SAS81 (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

There are the mechanisms described in WP:DR, if Talk page discussion and Noticeboard discussion isn't enough ... Alexbrn 00:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Updated COI

I was unable to reveal this earlier for logistical reasons but now I am able to inform the Misplaced Pages community of the context of my relationship with Dr Chopra and my intentions for participating here on Misplaced Pages with this material.

I lead a research and archiving team and we have been given a grant from the Chopra Foundation to build the 'integrative studies historical archive'. The archive contains a world collection of cultural and scientific knowledge, research and discussion around integrative medicine and consciousness, including notable subjects, events and biographies.

Our responsibilities will be representing this archived knowledge on Misplaced Pages in addition to assisting media, universities, journalists, researchers or libraries.

I speak personally with Dr. Chopra daily around the creation of the archive as well as consulting him directly regarding Misplaced Pages's principles, which I can say he is growing quite fond of and he is genuinely taking an interest in this encyclopedia. I've informed him that the ethics of archiving inform us to work within Misplaced Pages policies and support them and he agrees.

This is NOT the official announcement for the archive - just a courtesy heads up to the community here so my focus is more properly understood. I'm not a PR or a press agent and I feel awkward when I am referred to that way :/ SAS81 (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.

This gives you a good opportunity to put Chopra's article aside and work on articles far less controversial. Otherwise, I'm afraid that you're going to find yourself blocked/banned before you have a chance to learn how to work within the policies/guidelines you are up against. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Help

If I can help you SAS, let me know. I am saddened by what is going on here. I should add that doesn't involve the specifics on the discussion on the Chopra article talk page. I just don't want to sink in that quagmire (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC))

Ha! Caveat was very important :) Thank you Olive - you are someone I feel comfortable going to for advice. SAS81 (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Chopra

Of course we are not getting anywhere- because you refuse to accept that WP:NPOV means the absolute starting ground for any discussion is the mainstream academic view of the topic which is that he is out in the ocean with one paddle. And your refusal to come to that starting point is a evidence of that issue and it is clearly part of the behaviors outlined by the Arb Com Pseudoscience ruling that are subject to topic bans and blocks directly precisely because they lead to discussions on fringe topics leading no where. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom That's quite a claim your making about my behaviors and intentions. Do you have any clear and direct evidence you could provide? SAS81 (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the entire talk page where you are attempting to claim we need to determine what NPOV is or somehow negotiate about it.

We do clearly know what it means and there is no negotiating exceptions.

Your endless insistences that we place endocrinologist in the lead

this despite having been told again and again that the lead is to cover what he is notable for and being an endocrinologist is not one of the things he is notable for.

those are just the disruptive walls of repeated text that i have been following and which make up only about a third of gazillions of pixels that have been added to the talk page since you showed up just a few weeks ago. I havent been following the rest of the tl;dr -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm uncompromising when it comes to neutral framing. That's the only thing I see evidence of in TALK pages. Casting aspersions is not a productive way to engage with me - it just makes me feel harassed regardless of what your intentions are. SAS81 (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

But, Rather than continuing down the rabbit hole of specifics in the lead, I have offered a different perspective for approaching the articles at Talk:Deepak_Chopra#Moving_forward. It is based upon WP:LEAD so that you have a framework. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll check it out. SAS81 (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

re: "I'm uncompromising when it comes to neutral framing. " It appears to me that you are stuck on a definition of "neutral framing" which is "Chopra ends up being presented in a neutral light" - however, see particularly WP:BALASP / WP:VALID subsections of WP:UNDUE. Within Misplaced Pages "neutral framing" means that our article frames the subject "as the reliable mainstream academics frame and view the subject. " The sooner you come to that and make your proposals from that assumption the sooner you might have some positive effect.

but as someone who has such a conflict of interest in maintaining a positive relationship with Chopra to continue your work it is highly unlikely that you will be able to effectively take and maintain such a view. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)