Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Reception

Hi my name is ptarmigander and I am a newbie and I could use some help.

I have a question about the Reception section. That section seems like it might be weighted toward the critical to me. I think it's best to have the criticism like Goldilock's porridge. Not to Hot not too Cold.

So what I am wondering is- It occurs to me that the Oprah thing was and still is a large part of the Chopra phenomenon. And that is clearly Reception. But the Oprah thing is covered in the West Coast Years section.

Now, is the Oprah thing more a West Coast years (Chronological) issue or is it a Reception issue?

I am not saying it should be mentioned in both sections.

Should it? But I do see Paul Offit is used in both sections. You know as kind of a backhand criticism of Chopra's excess/success.

Also there is the issue that while the "Oprah thing" is not mentioned in Reception Oprah is slammed there(with a sweeping generalization). Why is Oprah being slammed in a Chopra article? Could seem a bit fishy. Like trying to double dip.Ptarmigander (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Our goal is not to be "not too hot, not too cold" , our goal is to WP:NPOV accurately represent the mainstream academic view of the subject. the mainstream academic views of health claims are essentially unanimously that its at best pure bunk. On the other hand, the mainstream academic view of his cultivation of his celebrity is that of an expert class. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

So not to hot or not too cold.. but just right. Sure must take a while to learn that.Ptarmigander (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, more like Cold AND Hot. Cold reception of his medical claims, a warm reception of his media entrepreneurship. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright. And where does inspiration fit in? From a psychological standpoint Chopra gives many people inspiration. This is a form of psychological compensation. Like religion the compensatory ideas are not factual. In fact they usually involve super powers and imaginary worlds. Life after death, Wish fulfillment. Mind over matter, Heaven and reincarnation. etc. They are non-factual and that is part of their appeal as compensations. They offer an illusory and always lofty freedom. But aren't such inspirational fantasies considered by psychologists to serve an important purpose in society? Mr. Chopra is being an insightful businessman to tap into this. This may set off alarms of exploitation in people anxious to judge, but regardless, for many people believing these fantasies is a genuine and valid psychological need. Not everybody can drop their need to entertain fantasies that give them hope and give them a promise of super powers and higher realms. Some one has got to keep hope alive. Especially for unstable people. Isn't this a major complaint made by Chopra? That science is crushing inspiration? His answer- to have science accept the fantasy- is not a good solution granted, but spiritual fantasy serves an important function in society. Ptarmigander (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

But aren't such inspirational fantasies considered by psychologists to serve an important purpose in society? We would need a reliable source to support inclusion of something like this – preferably something written by a psychology expert and published with professional editorial review. 198.228.208.66 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Where is SAS81? He's pretty good at providing sources. I'll check too. That is a good idea, 198.228.208.66. Ptarmigander (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me quickly add before any Chopra reps take offense at my dismantling of Chopra's appeal. I do think Deepak Chopra is more than just a clever businessman. I feel he believes wholeheartedly that the unitive experience that some Yogis and Rishis may have experienced in meditation could be the key to all these fantasy powers and realms. -It may instead be the key to no longer needing such fantasy compensations- But either way I think Deepak believes this deep meditative state could be a perception (an experience) of the same source state or near source states that Quantum Physics tries to describe. I think this singular belief in the unitive experience is key to Deepak Chopra's spirituality and in turn to everything else he espouses. This mingling of the peak of Indian (Vedic) spirituality into all Chopra's other endeavors is why I believe the topic of Spirituality is central to Deepak Chopra's life and it deserves a wider coverage in his Bio. In the Spirituality and Religion section.

I will come up with some suggestions and look for some sources.Ptarmigander (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Be careful with this: as Chopra is an apparently intelligent and obviously well-educated man, we have no reason to assume that he actually believes anything he says. On the other hand, we have no reliable sources that indicate that he understands that most of his claims are false. Any discussion of this aspect of his life can't make an assumption one way or the other: he may be a fool, he may be a fraud, but we don't know which one is actually the case. Any material you add should not state what he believes, only what he says.—Kww(talk) 18:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Kww, reliable sources are necessary for expressing what Chopra believes or thinks about himself, and assumptions about even commonsense matters sometimes need to be sourced, as what's commonsense to some isn't to others. Ie., as an atheist I cannot comprehend an intelligent person believing in magical cloud people, but that incomprehension doesn't stop some of the most intelligent people in the world believing in some form of a deity. If something hasn't been adequately cited to a secondary source, it's problematic to state as a fact, whether it's complimentary or critical in nature. Once we get numerous secondaries, then we can weigh out the balance of NPOV to make sure the content is still factual without using disproportionate sourcing to weigh the article too heavily in one direction. "Hot AND Cold" is a good metaphor for that, as we need to be careful not to use NPOV to canonize one specific perspective that we call "neutral". Thus, the argument I've been pushing has not been that critical sources should be less valued, but that positive sources should be equally valued. I don't think that's happened yet, but WP is and always will be a work in progress. The Cap'n (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

We may still disagree. I don't think there is a reliable source as to what Choprah believes. If he believes it, he would say so. If he doesn't believe it but is only saying it to make money, he would still say so. Therefore, what he says doesn't provide any information about what he believes. No one else can possibly know, so they can only report on what he says. That means we can only report on what he says, and never on what he believes.—Kww(talk) 02:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we change the title of this section to "Chopra and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" please? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 03:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll be bringing in some sources to this shortly, please standby everyone thank you. SAS81 (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't entirely leave out the excluded middle. The middle between Kww's options is a bit constrictive. "he may be a fool, he may be a fraud, but we don't know which one is actually the case." Ptarmigander (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

There's no middle ground supported by reliable sources. He's either unaware that his statements are false or aware that his statements are false and makes them anyway. That his statements are true isn't under consideration, because all reliable sources on medicine and quantum physics say that they are not.—Kww(talk) 19:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why we are discussing Chopra's actual motivation, in a discussion of the Reception section of the article. Chopra's actual motivation is irrelevant to how others perceive him (to his Reception). Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog, we got sidetracked by a question about establishing beliefs versus statements that, I grant, isn't really appropriate for Reception, but is a conversation worth having. I'd be fine with either continuing the conversation in this thread or someone starting a new one to discuss statements of belief more thoroughly (maybe a better solution). The Cap'n (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

respectfully, the only thing that matters is what content we can generate based on the most reliable secondary sources say. much of the Talk above is unsourced speculation that has no place here - this is not a forum.... Jytdog (talk) 200:00, 27 June 2014‎ (UTC)

I absolutely agree with the importance of sourcing anything that's stated in the article, though I would point out that primary sources are also acceptable (if less ideal than secondary) sources for determining viewpoints (not analysis of them), especially in a BLP. Also, please be sure to sign off on your posts. I'm assuming this is Jytdog but am not sure. The Cap'n (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Everything that Wikipedia says about sources urges us to rely on secondary sources -- there are many many good things that come from that and many many many bad things that are avoided. Anywhere on Wikipedia, you generally need a very good reason to use a primary source and then, you use it with great care. On a contested article like this, everybody should raise that bar even higher and only bring a primary source with a very very good reason, and everybody should keep content based on a primary source very very constricted and narrow. In my experience, when people push for content based on primary sources in a contested article, they are generally POV-pushing - it is a red flag. There is some bit of content the party really wants in the article and he/she cannot find it in reliable secondary sources. Very backward from how we operate. ugh. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Chopra Spiritual views

per the request of this community - Dr Chopra embraces the perennial philosophy of universal truths, much like Aldous Huxley and Henry David Thoreau, with that truth being informed by Vedanta's position that the universe and consciousness are inextricable - or that everything exists inside of consciousness. Alan Watts is an ideal example of a philosopher who explained this holistic nature of sentient organisms in a nondual, nonreductionist manner. Consciousness is the unifying element behind this perspective, as Dr Chopra has said, 'In the real world – the world of consciousness – there are not objects. Objects exist through perception. Another way of putting it is to say, “there are no nouns, only verbs." The universe is a verb. It’s an activity. It never stops.' It's a broader concept than I can discuss here, but it's a long-established philosophy that deserves a mention.

Here are a collection of sources, both primary and secondary, which establish Dr Chopra as a follower of Vedanta. All of his spiritual views are just a modernization of Vedanta. There's been a lot of discussion over primary sources, but I think it's pretty obvious and accepted in Wikipedia policies to allow primary sources as reliable information on what the subject says they believe. I've put them on my talk page out of concern I've been taking up too much talk page space.

Link to Chopra Vedanta sources.

Chopra and the perennial philosophy - sources. SAS81 (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I support including Dr. Chopra's Vedanta orientation in the Spirituality and religion section.(I am working on it) One thing though, in Vedanta isn't the source of all things (Brahma) beyond all things? Chopra says: "There's a transcendent, space-less, timeless, dimensionless order of being that orchestrates all the energy and information in the universe. " Isn't the view of Vedanta that the primary reality is beyond all relativity. All dualities. So this would be also be beyond consciousness and not-consciousness. Where in Vedanta does it say that the non-relative absolute is Consciousness? Understandably, science hasn't found evidence that everything is conscious or is made of consciousness. But where exactly does that conclusion arise from Vedanta?

Do you have a more direct Vedanta source for that idea SAS81? That might help explain where Dr. Chopra came up with it and then it could be more properly contextualized as Spiritual/Religious. Ptarmigander (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly possible to use them as sources for what he says he believes, so long as the article doesn't imply genuine belief. There is also the question as to how important the details of his claims actually are.—Kww(talk) 18:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Kww in regards to being careful to describe statements, not assumptions, but we also have to be careful not to go too far and assume bad faith by inserting weasel words like "claims", "insists", etc. As to the importance, this is a BLP, and the personal beliefs of someone who's known for being a spiritual leader seem pretty vital. The Cap'n (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That he misleads people as to the medical effectiveness of things that have no medicinal value seems important. The precise nature of exactly what those things are is pretty much beside the point.—Kww(talk) 23:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the evidence or the sources that support your statements Kww, Dr. Chopra's claims that meditation, yoga can be beneficial to health and integrated into Western medical practice are claims that are supported by evidence. While those views may have been more controversial 30 years ago, now they are the mainstream. I believe if you're operating under the assumption that Dr. Chopra makes false or misleading claims and I'm worried that is guiding you to edit the article towards a slanted point of view.

Excellent question, Ptarmigander

It is important to note that he does not identify as an orthodox adherent to any religious outlook, but rather uses both perennial philosophy and Vedanta to inform his understanding of each other as well as other issues. He explained part of this premise as '...full comprehension of the universe will be connecting the consciousness, which is the ground of the cosmos, to our individual experience of consciousness. Our ground of existence is the same as the ground state of the universe. This is the message of Vedanta: Atman is Brahman. Individual consciousness fully awakened is the same as the essential nature of the entire cosmos. Somehow our consciousness participates and is integral to the creation of the universe. Sadly, by the time we realize our true creative role, our ignorant actions might have already destroyed our planetary home.' (1)

Also, Dr. Chopra's spiritual views may have evolved from Vedanta - but they also were directly obtained from meditation experiences - i.e. the experience of non duality is what informs the perennial or vedanta philosophy. Many of the early quantum physicists were also perennial philosophers, such as schrodinger and bohm. While this view is a minority one, many other distinguished minds of science and philosophy have shared the same or identical viewpoint.

Here are a few sources that explore the Vedantic views on consciousness, reality and awareness. As I said, for a longer discussion, please see me on my Talk Page.

• Chaudhuri, Haridas (1962-04-01). "Existentialism and VedÄ nta". Philosophy East and West. 12 (1): 3–17. doi:10.2307/1397242. JSTOR 1397242. Retrieved 2014-06-26.
• Vivekananda, Swami (1896). The Ideal of a Universal Religion: Address on Vedanta Philosophy Delivered at Hardman Hall, New York, Sunday, January 12, 1896.
• Arjunwadkar, Krishna S. (1996-01-01). "A RATIONAL APPROACH TO VEDÄ€NTA". Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 77 (1/4): 223–234. JSTOR 41702172. Retrieved 2014-06-26.
• Radhakrishnan, S. (1916-04-01). "THE VEDANTIC APPROACH TO REALITY". The Monist. 26 (2): 200–231. JSTOR 27900585. Retrieved 2014-06-26.

SAS81 (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Those sources are irrelevant for the topic. What we need are reliable secondary sources that explicitly discuss the evolution of Chopra's thought or that explicitly state or investigate his claims. Using the sources you suggest would absolutely be WP:OR which is forbidden here. If there are no reliable secondary sources on a subject, then we should say nothing.Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

If you are claiming that sources haven't been presented that show that his views on quantum healing and aging are unequivocally false, SAS81, its hard to take your contributions to this discussion seriously.—Kww(talk) 03:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying sources presented show opinions regarding Dr. Chopra's views and those opinions should not be considered as evidence that Dr. Chopra makes misleading claims. I have way more sources that show Dr. Chopra's claims are within the boundaries of modern medical science and most opinions of Dr. Chopra are usually misrepresenting his claims out of context. We can discuss this on my talk page if you want, I dont want to take up too much space I think I'm already at my limit. SAS81 (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not see that those sources are validating Chopras claims about meditation et al, and I have seen no evidence that the specific claims (or rather the wildly general claims) that Chopra makes about meditation et al are specifically citing reliably published journal studies. In fact it is quite evident that Chopra is studiously avoiding any actual clinical trials that would potentially validate his claims. The results, I expect, and I believe Chopra is intelligent enough to expect, would be seriously bad for future book sales. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@SAS81 regarding where Dr, Chopra came up with the concept that the timeless non-relative Absolute (Brahma) The source of everything is consciousness and that everything (including photons) is conscious.

As you say- that is an excellent question. It is pretty much THE question at the root of a lot of troubling stuff going on.

I see that you walked us around the block a few times but did not answer it. Why don't you point us to where Chauduri or Vivekananda or Radhakrishnan etc. emphasize that Brahman is consciousness -any more than they emphasize it is absolute Being, or absolute Bliss, or is beyond all qualities and distinctions. I'm thinking it is not really one of their main points.

I don't see this panpsychism with Aldous Huxely or with Alan Watts either.

So are you saying that Dr. Chopra has personally had this absolute experience in meditation -and has verified that everything is consciousness and is therefor conscious?

I would think since this idea of Dr, Chopra's is currently at the root of so much dissension it should be well explored.

Furthermore, I can not integrate it knowledgeably into my outline for adding to the Spirituality and Religion section if it has no particular source. So, respectfully, where specifically did Dr. Chopra come up with it? Surely it is more than a hunch or a personal interpretation or fascination. There must be some solid basis for it? Ptarmigander (talk) 07:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I cannot say strongly enough, that WP in general calls on us to reach for reliable secondary sources and to use primary sources only with great care. On a contested article like this, there is no way in hell that anybody on any "side" of any issue here should be reaching for primary sources. Please remember to write, and use sources, for the opposition. Contribute content and sources with the highest chance of being accepted by everybody involved. Remember that if you open the door to primary sources for your "side", you open the door for the other "side" to bring a slew of cherry-picked primary sources of their own to contest that. And we end up with a pile of crap article. We are not authors here - we do not weave primary sources into a narrative; that is WP:OR. What it means to be an editor on WP, is that we read reliable secondary sources and edit what they say, into WP content. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

And in addition, it doesn't matter what Chopra actually thinks. This is not a forum for discussing the subject of the article as it says in boldface at the top of this and every Talk page in Wikipedia. Please stop pursuing those questions here -- please feel free to chat and speculate about that on user Talk pages or on a blog somewhere. What matters in Wikipedia is what reliable secondary sources say.Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

These are mostly your off topic speculations about what you think I or others might do Jytdog. I appreciate your advice and no need to worry, I will not be doing what you are warning against. So try to relax about it and let SAS81 come over and explain where exactly Dr. Chopra came up with the idea that everything is consciousness and is conscious. As I am having a bear of a time sourcing it.

It is not well sourced to Vedanta or the Perennial Philosophy.

The idea that everything is conscious is prominent to Chopra's work. A lot could be cleared up by establishing it's origination. ::In particular right now, where in Chopra's Bio it should be placed.

Dr. Chopra is very involved with advocating for consciousness research. Perhaps it should go there. Which places it in the science-y realm. If it could be well sourced spiritually that would make a big difference.

SAS81 can clear up a lot with just a few sentences. (also it will reveal quite a lot if he avoids answering or can not answer.)

So I am asking you, Dog, please just step back a min. and not scroll this topic with protestations, repeated advice and over-assumptions. Meaning, just let the guy (SAS81) answer - or avoid answering.

And I will vow to heed your advice on primaries.Ptarmigander (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Ptarmigander That is great on primaries. However, using a Talk page in this way, to get SAS to explain the evolution of Chopra's thought, is an abuse of this space and an abuse of your privileges as a Wikipedia editor. It would be reasonable to ask SAS if he can provide a reliable secondary source for the evolution of Chopra's thought, which you could then actually use in the article. But that is not the question you are asking. And if SAS doesn't answer your original questions, it says nothing about him, except that he follows the Talk page guidelines. If you continue to pursue information on this Talk page from SAS that cannot be used in the article, in violation of Talk Page guidelines, I will need to seek administrative or Arbcom Enforcement action against you. The remark that "(also it will reveal quite a lot if he avoids answering or can not answer.)" is especially ugly and has no place here. If you do not understand what you are doing wrong, feel free to ask me on my Talk page. But you must stop. And to the extent that SAS has been offering himself as some kind of pipeline to Chopra's mind, that too is 100% inappropriate and has no place in Wikipedia and if he doesn't stop, I will be pursuing admin/AE action against him as well. Everything in WP articles must be reliably sourced as per WP:RS. The kind of information you seek and that SAS has been offering in these Talk page is not reliably sourced and cannot be used in any article. It doesn't belong anywhere in WP. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of your advice JYT. And at this time I am not going to accept it. It sounds hysterical, exaggerated and includes threats. I think you should lay off dogging on SAS81 about his contributions. You have voiced your opinion. Shrilly even. You continue acting as if you own the talk page. You do not. File an AE if you don't like SAS81's attempts at contributions and suggestions. In the last AE against SAS81 the acknowledgement by numerous editors that SAS81 had been very helpful in providing sources probably was part of what kept him from a topic ban. SAS81 is continually polite and aware of what is going on the board so I am pretty sure SAS81 has heard you and thought about your requests. So maybe, have some faith. Don't fret so much is my suggestion.

Regarding my inquiry for guidance on sourcing Chopra's "everything is conscious" claim. Of course it tells me a lot if SAS81 avoids or can not answer- or throws out a snipe hunt. There is nothing ugly about realizations that come from witnessing that. It is very informative.

As guidance- it tells me I probably needn't look too hard for any respectable sources (primary or secondary) placing that claim in foundational Spirituality and Religion. Too bad that -for many reasons. Ptarmigander (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not mistake what I said as a "threat". It is a warning - you are walking on very thin ice and are actually through it. You are fairly new here and don't seem to understand that so I am warning you as clearly as I can. It is your behavior that is problematic and you whom I will need to bring to AE if you continue; SAS is also new and is going astray responding to you. Please stop asking for information direct from Chopra via SAS or from SAS, none of which can be used in the article. It is fine to ask for reliable sources and it is indeed entirely appropriate for SAS to suggest reliable sources but that is not what you have been asking for. (Asking for the "source" of some idea that Chopra has in this or that philosophy or religion or text, is not what we mean in Wikipedia by "reliable sources". Asking SAS for reliable sources where the evolution of Chopra's thought is documented (i.e. for reliable sources on that) is fine; asking directly how Chopra's ideas evolved - asking Chopra to tell us if got them from a meditation session or from this or that ancient text or something - is not fine.) Talk pages are for discussing article content and reliable sources to support that content. Jytdog (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

SAS81 is welcome to bring some reliable sources regarding the issue. I would appreciate it- but things have already moved on. This is a discussion about things in the rear view mirror.

As far as this "pipelining" phenomenon goes. I can't not see potential problems with that. Especially when the COI is so eager to position their client that they risk falling into quantum pipelining.

I think there is a mantra for that. It's called the "live and learn" mantra. Ptarmigander (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Reading this, I was reminded of the Wikipedia:Competence is required essay. If there are people here who are not competent in the basic tenets of Hindu Vedanta or the modern literature on panpsychism for example, it's going to be hard for them to understand some of the stuff that deserves to be in an encyclopedic article about someone like this. It would be a bit like someone completely unfamiliar with the Bible and the life of Jesus trying to write an biography for a pope or archbishop. While we can't use this page to teach these things to those who are completely unfamiliar with them, I see no harm in briefly discussing the overall context with those who know more than some of us. --Nigelj (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

...which is an entirely different thing than what was going on here, which was trying to get information straight from Chopra (via SAS) about Chopra. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

From a historical perspective (of the Chopra talk page) I think Jytdogs's repeated threatenings/warnings are excessive. And I will show you why.

It was just weeks ago that SAS81 was sending questions from editors directly to Deepak Chopra. Dr. Chopra was making video replies.

Deepak ended up offering MastCell a free personal consultation. Along with that Dr. Chopra told us all "that he is willing to address any other questions anyone has".

"willing to address any other questions anyone has" -I repeat that- just for irony's sake.

As you might imagine this pipelining arched a few eyebrows. It was agreed all around the free gift was a bit much but when SAS81 asked -right here on the Chopra talk page- "Is this a problem if editors have questions and Dr Chopra responds directly to those questions via video?"

We received some interesting responses-

"It's unconventional, but I don't see why that would be a big problem. It's actually helpful in some ways" -by Atama

"I don't see a problem, and it might help editors to get a better feel for the subject." -by Rumiton

"Yeah, I don't see a problem, especially with it just being addressed on the Talk page. Though it still must be weighed as a primary source, we shouldn't criticize subjects of BLP's for trying to answer the questions of those writing their pages." -by Askahrc

To this SAS81 replied:

"I think it could help too and thank you for clarifying the boundaries."

It should go without saying that all questions would be placed with SAS81.

Jytdog, you must not have been around then? Because no one objected. No one disagreed when SAS81 thanked everyone for "clarifying the boundaries" So please, work this out first and someplace other than with me, before you keep going on. OK? Ptarmigander (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

thank you for pointing all that out. i was indeed unaware of it. I went to the archives and found the discussion, which is here. Several things. First, I understand why the community wouldn't say "no" to Chopra's offer to directly respond to some questions that had been raised. That would be bizarre and simply rude. Second, warnings are clear that the answers would be received as context only and at best as primary sources. Not usable in the article. Third, some editors were very uncomfortable with this, which you don't mention - and indeed it is not true that "no one disagreed" - TheRedPenOfDoom directly disagreed and said the same thing I have been saying. Fourth, I don't see anyone there giving license to make demands like you were making, especially with the claims about what it would "mean" if SAS didn't answer. Fifth, if I had been around when MastCell, whom I respect a lot, was asking questions like this, which are what prompted Chopra's response, I would have said at that time, that the questions were inappropriate as their answers are useless for the article. (I reckon that happened when Chopra was pounding on WP in the media and I can see people not thinking clearly in such a pressured context) As I wrote above, the appropriate questions would be along the lines of, "can you please provide references for reliable sources that describe Chopra's medical practice." The questions that prompted the response should not have been posed. The "pipelining" from editors here through SAS to Chopra and back was a very bad road to go down. A mistake that should not be perpetuated. Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. I disagree with things you are saying, Jytdog. TRPOD said nothing after SAS81 asked the question if pipelining was OK. TRPOD's voiced concern at that time, before the question, was only about the free gift and Chopra's hiring of "the paid media "archivist". So you are seriously misrepresenting the history when you say TRPOD "directly disagreed and said the same thing I have been saying."

For my part, I think that pipelining is problematic. I have witnessed that. I am sure many other editors agree.

But I am not interested in taking endless flak from you Jytdog, because SAS81 did not answer a question -and that was a bigger answer than answering. It happened and it's passed. They talked about Tunguska too. - After it was over.

Anyway, you certainly seem tendentious. (strongly favoring a particular point of view in a way that may cause argument). I'm going to politely suggest that being a talk page nanny is not helping.

Have a good rest of your week. Perhaps we will cross paths again if I get to the alt. med. areas of Dr. Chopra's page. As a strong supporter of the benefits of a "healthy lifestyle" I am not opposed to many of Dr. Chopra's suggestions in that area. Plus I have not found any specific herbs, vitamins or aminos sold by Dr. Chopra that have caused serious problems or led to a person dying from taking them instead of seeking standard medical treatment. But I remember now, this is a section on Chopra's spiritual views isn't it? Ptarmigander (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I am having trouble following this conversation to understand what it is that I am supposed to have agreed or disagreed with. I will say that I agree that secondary sources are where we should be focusing and that direct line to Chopra via video blogs is a bad idea and indirect line to Chopra via his agent is worse, and making any assumptions based on the agent's actions or lack thereof are probably really bad ideas. However, as an archivist, being able to lead us to some third party sources about particular topics could be helpful, although given the archive's focus on non mainstream views, probably not very helpful WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

are you closing the conversation, or do you want to keep going? Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope he'll end the conversation, or I think we're going to be having another arbcom enforcement discussion. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

with you there.Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I asked to wind it down earlier when I said "have some faith. Don't fret so much."

Being aware of the TALK Page history, I knew where this was going then. But I don't really have the time for it.

Next. after pointing out the TALK history I said: "please, work this out first, and someplace other than with me." Which was plenty clear. Please work out this WP policy with someone other than me. - ps. Hey Ronz, Like for Jyt, I hope your 4th of July is a blast. Ptarmigander (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

you continue to make arguments. done, or not done? Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This conversation seems done (correct me if not, Ptarmigander), with the resolution that spiritual beliefs and systems are valid content for the article, given reliable sourcing, preferably secondary (though as a personal aside, I'd remind the crowd again that primaries can be acceptable sources for evincing the subject's own opinions). Until we have sources and/or arguments for new sections, I think we're good here. The Cap'n (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

What's done is done.

Hi, Cap'n I was only here to witness the Tunguska Event. Ptarmigander (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)