Revision as of 03:41, 7 October 2014 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →guru: "As would be expected of a guru spreading false hope, Chopra's trustworthiness has been compromised."← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 22:10, 14 November 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,731,337 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 9 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages with redundant living parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{forum}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|acu}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBanners|blp=yes|1= |
|
|
|
{{COI editnotice}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography |living=yes |class=C |a&e-work-group=yes |a&e-priority=Mid |listas=Chopra, Deepak}} |
|
|
|
{{calm}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States |class=C |importance=low |AsianAmericans=yes |AsianAmericans-importance=Mid |listas=Chopra, Deepak}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement |class=C |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|class=C|listas=Chopra, Deepak|1= |
|
{{WikiProject India |class=C |importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography |a&e-work-group=yes |a&e-priority=Low |s&a-work-group=yes |s&a-priority=Low }} |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=C|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States |importance=low |AsianAmericans=yes |AsianAmericans-importance=Mid }} |
|
{{WikiProject Yoga |class=C |importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Spirituality |class=C |importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject India |importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views |class=C |importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Yoga |importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Spirituality |importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative views|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Medicine |importance=low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Talk header|noarchives=yes}} |
|
|
{{Talk fringe|Chopra's work}} |
|
{{Talk fringe|Chopra's work}} |
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{archivebox|auto=yes|search=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
{{OnThisDay|date1=2017-10-22|oldid1=806380596|date2=2021-10-22|oldid2=1050855080|date3=2022-10-22|oldid3=1117605724}} |
|
|
{{Connected contributor multi |
|
|
|User1=Vivekachudamani|U1-EH=yes|U1-declared=yes |
|
|
|User2=Littleolive oil|U2-EH=yes|U2-otherlinks= |
|
|
|User3=TimidGuy|U3-EH=yes|U3-otherlinks=] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Connected contributor (paid) |
|
|
|User1=SAS81|U1-employer=ISHAR|U1-client=Chopra Media, Chopra Foundation, Deepak Chopra|U1-EH=yes|U1-banned=yes|U1-otherlinks= as a ] of ] and was Rome Viharo. Three COI disclosures: First ], then ], then ]. |
|
|
|User2=Askahrc|U2-employer=ISHAR|U2-client=Chopra Foundation, Deepak Chopra|U2-EH=yes|U2-banned=yes|U2-otherlinks=Also known as "The Cap'n". Disclosed ]. Connected with Viharo per ] in January 2014 and ] in February 2014. Indefinitely topic-banned from everything Deepak Chopra ] in March 2016 due to an arbitration enforcement sanction.}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|
|archiveheader={{talk archive navigation}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 70K |
|
|maxarchivesize=150K |
|
|counter = 21 |
|
|counter=26 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft=3 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive=1 |
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|algo=old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive=Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=60|small=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Connected contributor multi |
|
|
| User1 = Vivekachudamani| U1-EH = yes | U1-declared = yes |
|
|
| User2 = SAS81 | U2-EH = no | U2-declared = yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
== Arbitration Enforcement == |
|
|
|
|
|
Notification: |
|
|
|
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
== Public speaking == |
|
|
|
|
|
From what I can tell, outside of the lead sentence, the only mention of public speaking is a brief mention of how much he makes per lecture. Should we have more on this, or should we remove it from the lead? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 00:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:It would seem that the public speaking is a major portion of his notability and so if we have sources it should be expanded. -- ] 00:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Negative description == |
|
==Indian sources== |
|
|
From what I understand, Chopra has a substantial following in India. Therefore, I would presume that there are more sources about his work published in India. If I understand correctly, many major Indian publishing companies do not distribute a great portion of their materials outside of India or South Asia. Could any of the editors here who reside, or have resided, in India confirm if this is true? ] (]) 00:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The articles introduction has a heavy negative bias. It should be reviewed to ensure it presents a balanced view. ] (]) 09:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
== Table Of Contents? == |
|
|
|
: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. -] ] 13:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Yes, the last sentence of the lede paragraph has all the editorial grace of Donald J. Trump. It is crappy writing, just the way Misplaced Pages 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. -- ] (]) 18:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:: 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 Misplaced Pages'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, Misplaced Pages 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 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. ] (]) 17:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
Every time I try to skip the cruft at the top of this page via the handy skip link up there, ''nothing happens'', probably because Deepychops sabotaged the page to annoy me (For clarity, that was an innocent joke, not a personal attack on Dr. C.) |
|
|
|
:::You misunderstand ]. You should actually read it. Also, ]. There is no {{tq|blatant violation of Misplaced Pages's own stated policy on remaining neutral}} because Chopra's ideas are far outside real science. If you asked Chopra to write down the ], 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. --] (]) 06:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
I have no idea of how to fix this depressing issue. Could a maven help? Pretty please? -] (]) 09:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::"Many physicists " - yes, I do not believe you should shoot your mouth off about poor writing. ] (]) 19:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
:try it again. i think you fixed it by adding a 4th section which forced the actual creation of a table of contents so the "jump to TOC " has a place to jump to. -- ] 11:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hooray. -] (]) 11:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
::::More importantly, we would need a reliable source for the names of those "many physicists" who have no problem with Chopra's pseudophysical bullshit. --] (]) 16:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::PseudoPsycical perhaps? - ]the ] 16:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
:::I've added in code to force a TOC. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> |
|
|
::::Again, hooray. -] (]) 13:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Obvious BLP violation == |
|
== Lede == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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” ] (]) 04:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
was original research. The word is also OR. ] (]) 21:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:It was also added by a banned editor (Roxy the Dog) ] (]) 05:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
===guru=== |
|
|
|
::Irrelevant. Check the reason for the ban. It is not his opposition to fringe ideas. --] (]) 06:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{tq|only one of many topics Chopra has discussed}} By that reasoning, we would have to delete almost everything from almost all Misplaced Pages articles. |
|
|
:{{tq|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 {{tq|The ideas Chopra promotes have regularly been criticized by medical and scientific professionals as pseudoscience}}, with "and devoid of substance" at the end. --] (]) 06:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::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. ] (]) 15:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Agree that, this last sentence "His discussions of ] have been characterized as ] – "incoherent babbling strewn with scientific terms" derided by those proficient in physics." |
|
|
:::does not belong in the lede, as per several valid reasons given above. The lede needs to factual and neutral and avoid subjective opinions, which can be mentioned latter in the body. ] (]) 12:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Further, as per WP:BLP such ] about living persons that is Subjective & probably ] ''must be removed'', especially if potentially ], and especially be removed from the lede. ] (]) 12:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Lede needs to mention the more factual information from sources such as : "the Indian-born, Western-educated endocrinologist who veered from conventional medicine in search of answers from the ancient Indian folk wisdom of ayurveda (from the Sanskrit words for knowledge and life), a holistic approach to well-being that stresses yoga, meditation, nutrition, herbs" |
|
|
:::https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-sep-07-tm-29576-story.html |
|
|
:::] (]) 12:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::We have no use for babble like "ancient Indian folk wisdom", a blatantly promotional ] violation. --] | ] 13:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Okay, yes, we don't need to include that.. it was the whole quote from the source. I meant the more factual and neutral information from the sources. ] (]) 13:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Again, the Lede must adhere to the WP:BLP ''']''', and ] '' should be removed'', especially if potentially ]. Thanks ] (]) 05:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It's not libel if it is true, and it is true. "Quantum medicine" is really garbage. Beware ]. |
|
|
:::::: Well, it was not any threat. It was the standard message about WP: BLP and WP:BLP noticeboard that appears whenever we edit a biographical article but often overlook. So, it was just a reminder. Anyway, I removed the noticeboard part. I am all for healthy discussions without any threats. ] |
|
|
::::::I moved stuff around within the lede, but there is some redundancy there. --] (]) 06:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: I'm fine with your move in the later paragraphs of the Lede. It's more important to keep the Lede first paragraph factual and neutral information per WP:BLP and WP: First paragraph. Thanks. ] (]) 18:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC). |
|
|
::::::::His quantum bullshit is factually bullshit. My edit only accidentally fits your preconceptions that it is not. --] (]) 05:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I am no Chopra defender. While I agree that many people consider his ideas as techno babble, some scientists have co-authored these "abstract ideas" such as "Quantum Body", which is co-authored by Dr. Jack Tuszynski, PhD (a quantum physicist and professor of oncology in the Department of Physics at University of Alberta). |
|
|
:::::::::<nowiki>https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/719494/quantum-body-by-deepak-chopra-md-jack-tuszynski-phd-and-brian-fertig-md/</nowiki> |
|
|
:::::::::I think all "mind-science" or meta-physical ideas and claims are open to healthy criticism. I was just reminding to keep the lede voice factual & neutral per WP:BLP, WP:RS, & WP:NPOV. Thanks again for your kind inputs. ] (]) 10:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Does he have an MD? == |
|
<s>OK, term has been called racist.</s> Chopra objects to it. Its been removed. Please justify its retention per ]. thanks. ] (]) 21:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:What source says he is a new age teacher? Your was original research. The source does not say he is a "controversial" Indian-American author. ] (]) 21:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:: '''TRY''' to reach consensus, QG. '''TRY'''. ] (]) 21:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I asked "What source says he is a new age teacher?" No specific answer to my question was given. Is the word guru disputed according the ] policy or is this a dispute with V policy? According to which reliable source the term is ? The source does not say he is a "controversial" Indian-American author. I recently explained it in my and I . Try to collaborate. ] (]) 21:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You are arguing for the most insulting word possible. There are scads of sources that describe him in other ways. You are not trying to avoid the problematic term, but simply arguing for it. If you don't have other sources, and are unwilling to look, then you have said your piece; you are unwilling to be part of the solution. So be it. ] (]) 22:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::* : "Deepak Chopra ... is acknowledged as one of the master teachers of Eastern philosophy in the Western world. " That is Forbes, hardly a purveyor of woo. That is strict support for "teacher" |
|
|
::::* does not even stoop to calling him a "guru": "Dr. Chopra has done more than any other single person to popularize the Maharishi's Ayurvedic medicine in America, including some New Age energy concepts" (one can argue without stretching that for adult education, teaching = popularizing.) |
|
|
::::I am not advocating that we call him a "genius" or anything but "guru" is <u>to me</u> ... icky and racist. in this context. WP is better than that. |
|
|
:::: btw, have you seen ? funny. ] (]) 22:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC) (edit my comment to strike "racist" as anything other than my feeling at this point ] (]) 00:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He was trained under the British system, which doesn't hand out MDs to every medical doctor, but only those who do advanced research in medicine. |
|
:::::I have previously argued for re-insertion of the word "guru" as it accurately pinpoints how Deepak is perceived. I have never seen it called a racist term before, and I am not persuaded it is. -] (]) 22:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Also, are you sure Chopra objects to the term, or is it a case of "modesty forbids"? -] (]) 22:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I've only now looked at the article, and I am not going to bang this drum for long, but I feel strongly that if the term guru is to be removed from the article there needs to be more than just a claim by a respected editor that the word is racist, but some justification by way of evidence, and a solid reason why the source which uses the words "new age guru" isn't acceptable. -] (]) 22:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} : |
|
|
# a Hindu or Sikh religious teacher or leader, giving personal spiritual guidance to his disciples |
|
|
# (often derogatory) a leader or chief theoretician of a movement, esp a spiritual or religious cult |
|
|
#(often facetious) a leading authority in a particular field " |
|
|
He is not teaching hinduism or Sikhism... so... are we being derogatory or facetious? Neither is good. (and if you don't see the racism in pinning a hindu-derived honorific used in a derogatory way on an indian scientist-turned-new-age-teacher (who this article correctly portrays as making a mess of the boundary between science and religion), I don't know what to tell you. I have offered alternative sources for using "teacher"; that is all we need per BLP to remove this derogatory "guru" thing. ] (]) 23:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::it is NOT a BLP violation to follow the use of MANY MANY MANY reliably published mainstream sources. -- ] 23:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*What label does Chopra use for himself? That's the label we should be using. ] (]) 23:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Search ] for the word "racist". (Hint, it isn't there) -] (]) 23:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If Chopra doesn't like the label "guru" then we shouldn't be trying to use it. ] (]) 23:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Why not? Does Chopra have special authority over this page? -] (]) 23:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::As of September 17 2014, the Deepak Chopra website states "Chopra, who was accompanied by fellow '''New Age guru''' Gabrielle Bernstein and American singer India Arie, had aimed to bring together a “critical mass” of about 100,000 meditators to set the shared intention for peace." |
|
|
::::www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canada-posts-chopra-puts-survival-plan-into-action/article15941388/ |
|
|
::::http://www.americanbazaaronline.com/2014/07/22/indian-american-new-age-guru-deepak-chopra-attempt-guinness-record/ |
|
|
::::http://www.salon.com/2014/09/13/deepak_chopra_i_am_pissed_off_by_richard_dawkins_arrogance_and_his_pretense_of_being_a_really_good_scientist_he_is_not%E2%80%9D/ |
|
|
::::http://www.nj.com/independentpress/index.ssf/2014/02/new_age_guru_deepak_chopra_to.html |
|
|
::::http://www.torontosun.com/2014/09/11/spiritual-guru-deepak-chopras-health-routine |
|
|
::::http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/deepak-chopra-narrated-short-film-702411 |
|
|
::::http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/deepak-chopra-net-worth/ |
|
|
::::The term "new age guru" is confirmed per multiple sources. ] (]) 23:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::<strike>(awaits self revert by respected editor.)</strike> -] (]) 00:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
websters: |
|
|
1 a personal religious teacher and spiritual guide in Hinduism<br> |
|
|
2<br> |
|
|
a : a teacher and especially intellectual guide in matters of fundamental concern<br> |
|
|
b : one who is an acknowledged leader or chief proponent<br> |
|
|
c : a person with knowledge or expertise : expert <br> |
|
|
oxford american dictionary<br> |
|
|
1: Hindu spiritual teacher or head of a religious sect<br> |
|
|
2a influential teacher<br> |
|
|
2b revered mentor<br> |
|
|
oxford dictionary of word origins<br> |
|
|
guru: This is from Hindi and Punjabi, from Sanskit guru'weighty, grave, dignified'... this led to 'elder, teacher'<br> |
|
|
American Heritage Dictionary <br> |
|
|
:an acknowledged and influential advocate, as of a movement or idea”. <br> |
|
|
::Only Collins sees "facetious" or "derogatory" - and they are only "sometimes"-- ] 00:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/Doctor_of_Medicine |
|
:::::OK, i withdraw "racist" as I cannot find a independnt source I am happy enough with now. (i have seen that a few times but cannot find it now, so I have to withdraw it.) However, I am sticking with: |
|
|
:::::a) away back when chopra's representative showed up here in April ]: "Referencing him as simply a ‘guru’ is dismissive and disrespectful in some contexts, perhaps even a bit racist in some contexts, not just to Dr Chopra, but...". Dismissive, disrepsectul... perhaps racist. So denigrating ''to the subject'' of the article. |
|
|
:::::b) as mentioned, consistent with that, Chopra does not use that term for himself (sourced in the article with |
|
|
:::::c) as mentioned above, dictionary definition has clear denigrating meanings |
|
|
:::::d) Roxy pointed to our ] article which is also makes it clear that the term as used in the West has derogatory connotations |
|
|
:::::e) So.. I think nobody can honestly deny that the derogatory connotations are there, and I reckon that the quack-fighters take certain delight in that, and I realize that it will be hard to swing consensus on this term, BUT |
|
|
:::::g) already presented above, there are sources for neutral terms like "teacher" that we can use, that are not derogatory. So let's use them, again per BLP, "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." |
|
|
:::::h) if folks really insist on using the term "guru" i would be grudgingly OK with it being stated something like "commonly called a 'new age guru'" so it is not in Misplaced Pages's voice, at least. |
|
|
:::::i) very interested to hear from anybody supporting use of the term, that they consider to be a neutral or positive term. (and please don't hide behind "it doesn't matter if we think it is positive or negative, it is in the sources and that is all we need") Folks are ''choosing'' it here. thanks! this is my last statement on this. don't want to beat a dead horse. but please do consider the derogatory aspects. ] (]) 00:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Chopra's paid agent found anything other short of deification "offensive" - and we most certainly do not pander to present Misplaced Pages articles as the subject desires. -- ] 01:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::What source says "commonly called" a new age guru? As of September 17 2014, the Deepak Chopra website does refer to the term "New Age guru".. A Chopra's representative does not represent NPOV or BLP policies. ] (]) 00:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Does the skeptics dictionary call him a "guru"? "Of course, Chopra has a web site where he will be honored to take your money for one of his many books, tapes, or seminars. We should not be too harsh with our guru, however." ] (]) 00:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He may have accumulated one along the way, and his practicing in the USA means his use of the term simplifies the confusion in American minds, but the latter doesn't prove he has the right to it. ] (]) 11:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{od}} as i wrote above, the skeptics dictionary does '''not''' call him a guru. your question shows you are not even reading my posts, QG. just pounding away on the dead horse. TRPoD - '''I''' am not calling for deification, and generally if something is insulting, and there is a different and supported thing to say, why not do it? it doesn't take a away from the ''substance.'' I get it that ya'all want to be clear his health ideas are not scientific (and i agree he is far too sloppy, far too often, and the article establishes this well) but the "guru" is just stooping low ''for an encyclopedia''. you are not responding to that. ] (]) 03:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:"As would be expected of '''a guru''' spreading false hope, Chopra's trustworthiness has been compromised. ] (]) 03:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
He was trained under the British system, which doesn't hand out MDs to every medical doctor, but only those who do advanced research in medicine.
He may have accumulated one along the way, and his practicing in the USA means his use of the term simplifies the confusion in American minds, but the latter doesn't prove he has the right to it. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)