User talk:SAS81

IF YOU'RE AN IP or a NON CONFIRMED EDITOR - PLEASE USE MY UNPROTECTED TALK PAGE HERE

kelapstick was nice enough to create this for me and it's found here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SAS81/Unprotected_talk_page

It's been created because there has been consistent vandalism to this talk page. SAS81 (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Best advice I've been given

		The Special Barnstar
		For your tireless attempts to work within the boundaries set by Wikipedia, with grace, andcivility despite the frustration and difficulties you've encountered. Just keep showing up. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you :) SAS81 (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

DS notification

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Hipocrite (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• "This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date."

SAS81, these notices are given to editors who work in this topical area, regardless of their point of view. Discretionary sanctions also exist in other subjects where debate can get heated like Eastern Europe and the Israel/Palestine conflict. I just wanted to put this notice into context. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Liz! I guess the editor who posted it did not realize that I already posted this notice on my own talk page. I'm aware of these sanctions and plan on sticking to the guidelines to the letter and spirit. SAS81 (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

to stick to them in letter and spirit you will need to stop engaging in WP:TE about the subject- such as repeatedly suggesting words and phrasing so completely at odds with the very simple to follow WP:PEACOCK that you are either making no attempt to read and follow the guidelines provided to you (again and again and again) or so completely lacking in WP:COMPETENCE as to make effort of communicating with you futile. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess you're not following the discussion, the term you're complaining about 'cheerleader' was originally suggested by JPS as an alternative to the pejorative 'New Age Guru' that the article is leading with but not supported by the body of the article. Making suggestions, especially when advised by another editor to offer 'proposals' in one section, while trying to focus on single issues per everyone else's suggestion is simply not WP:TE and TE does not reflect my intentions nor behaviors. SAS81 (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

no, i am not talking about the term "cheerleader" (thats a different issue). i am talking about the fact that in your proposed two paragraphs you gilded Chopra with " prominent"x2 "notable " and " leader" x2. We are talking basic identification of PR fluff here that you apparently still are completely oblivious to. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yet you're absolutely fine with calling him a 'New Age Guru'. You're fine with omitting facts that contradict your suspicions of him. It's just a 'fact' that Dr. Chopra is considered a thought leader and there are pristine sources which show that. That's how many notable people, including Bill Clinton, perceive him. You're trying to omit that. Do you actually believe it's PR fluff to simply say that Dr Chopra is notable? It's a fact that he is notable. And my proposal was to show my thinking on the issue and to open up dialogue. You're definition of neutrality means the article takes a critical voice. TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doomare you taking responsibility for the current state of the article? SAS81 (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe we've already told you more than once that Bill Clinton is not an expert on medicine. Worse, politicians have a nasty habit of tailoring their messages to suit the audience. You don't (or can't) seem to comprehend this. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

In fact the Clintons don't seem to have the best record in deciding on health issues. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, correct Barney the barney barney, you've told me that more than once. The problem is that it's a strawman, I was never arguing that Clinton is a source to verify Dr Chopra's medical credentials so repeating this argument again just tells me you're not making an effort to listen. Dr. Chopra has the AMA and his work with Chopra Center, UCSD support his medical credentials. Clinton's quote regarding Dr Chopra was to show that he is notable for being, what Clinton refers to as a 'pioneer'. Now you can call him pioneer, thought leader, cheerleader, it doesn't matter, what matters is that he is notable for playing that role and he has been recognized by world leaders as such. If he was a new age guru, I would expect him to be referred to as a new age guru by world leaders. the only sources that call him a new age guru are critics.

@Alexbrn - It doesn't matter what OR you do on the Clintons, the fact is when a sitting US president makes a statement to a foreign dignitary, that statement is based on the credibility of the US and surely you've heard of this. So to say that a US president is not qualified to make statements that he is not expert in is stretching the limits of common sense. US presidents have to make all sorts of statements beyond their expertise, that is why they have presidential commissions which are comprised of the leading academic experts in those fields to inform them. SAS81 (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, SAS81 (talk · contribs) my opinion was that you were not worth talking to, and I think you've just proven why. Don't shit me - Mr Clinton is not a medical expert. His opinion on medicine is entirely irrelevant. If there are *any* medical articles in which the opinion of any politician is prominently cited, I'll personally remove it. This isn't happening try moving on from this transparently pathetic argument. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Barney. I don't see here that SAS is suggesting Clinton is a medical expert. He suggests he is notable for another statement altogether. (Littleolive oil (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC))

Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) - given your previous statements inclined to be anti-Wikipedia and anti-WP:FRINGE, I cannot say that I am surprised. SAS81 (talk · contribs) wants to include, promintently in the lead, a statement from Mr William Clinton, a retired politician, praising Dr Chopra as a "pioneer of medicine". SAS81 (talk · contribs) apparently accepts that Mr Clinton is not an expert on medicine, but that describing someone as a "pioneer of medicine" isn't related to medicine. Do you see the slight contradiction here? Instead, Mr Clinton is touted as an expert on what constitutes a "pioneer", even though everyone else is not really sure what "pioneer" means beyond PR-bullshit. Furthermore, SAS81 (talk · contribs) wants this non-medical related medical statement to be prominently cited in the article, as apparently a summary of scholarly opinions on Dr Chropa's work. Do you know what the scholarly opinions of alternative medicine and Dr Chopra are? Do you think this quote accurately reflects them? Meanwhile, despite repeatedly told to stop flogging this dead horse, even though it's now maggot infested, giving off foul gases, and liable to explode, we go back to this inane statement. This is very good WP:ROPE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Gosh Barney, anti Wikipedia and anti Fringe. I guess a good laugh is always in order.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC))

Littleolive oil, you're in good company...Barney Barney called me anti-Wikipedia and anti-WP:FRINGE because I defended an editor I thought was being bullied. It's his "go-to" insult to folks when he is on the other side of a dispute. Meaningless. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, Liz (talk · contribs). In this bizarre world of yours, implementing Wikipedia policies is conflated with "bullying" editors (and of course bullies should be banned!)- because we're now at the point where the anti-Wikipedia editors don't have any arguments except whining how butthurt they're feeling because Wikipedia isn't more sympathetic to pseudo-scholarship, e.g. such as alternative "medicine". Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I've never argued about or over content, Barney. I've just asked that editors treated each other with civility and edit in line with WP:NPA and abide by WP:BLP guidelines. Yes, this bizarre world of mine, where editors try to follow the WP:FIVEPILLARS and don't attack each other. You should try it out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Be nice to each other isn't a suicide pact. Yes, you're right Liz (talk · contribs), you don't want to discuss content, which leaves me wondering just what you are doing here? Instead you talk incessantly about being nice to people, specifically "that's OK, we won't revert your edits that are clearly against policy, just in case you might feel a little butthurt. This is based on your complete misinterpretation of what WP:BLP is and complete ignorance of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:COI. All it does is create a little WP:DRAMA for no reason. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Barney you're speaking very rudely here and i don't appreciate my talk page being used to attack two editors whom have been kind, and rational enough to help out. Secondly, I'm not arguing clinton's statement go in the lead. I did offer it as a suggestion more than a month back, but that's yesterday's news. While your on my talk page being rude, other neutral WP editors are already cleaning up the article and have removed the offensive weasel language you apparently support. Biographical facts are not covered by Fringe, they are covered by BLP and I'm glad we have some editors here who know the difference. If someone is sore when they sit down, it's probably going to be you as the article now is correcting itself in a way I find satisfactory. SAS81 (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Liz, you're a class act, not least of which for being polite enough not to point out that you've got more edits and WP experience under your belt than 99% of the various folks accusing you of doing nothing on WP but drama. I respect your restraint, I wish I were as patient a person. The Cap'n (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That's kind of you, The Cap'n. And I'm sorry this argument broke out on your talk page, SAS81. You have the right to tell any of us that we are not welcome to post here, any time you want.

My philosophy is that it costs nothing to be polite, even when you disagree with someone. The words we choose show our character, flaws and all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Liz you're more than welcome here! I was referring to the very rude individual who was so abusive to you and Olive. You, the Capn, Atama, Slim Virgin and Olive are gems and if it was not for all of you, I would have quit by now :). I really appreciate your advice and I am looking into it more. IN the meantime, the article is improving and it's great to see Wikipedia work when it does. You all are good people! SAS81 (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Moved barnstar

Hi SAS81, I moved your ANI board post to the users talk page. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm wondering if this was put on my talk page by accident? Not sure what you're referencing exactly. Which ANI? What barnstar? SAS81 (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Precious

Thank you
For your calm and even manner even when under fire. This is Gerda Arendt's award which she suggested we pass on when we find someone who deserves it as you do (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC))

Thank you Olive :) I'll pass it on too, keep the cycle going. SAS81 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Image question

Hi SAS, do you think Chopra would consider releasing this image of himself (or some other) as a child? It would be nice to add it to the early life section.

Because we're a "free" encyclopaedia, almost all our images have to be released, rather than used with permission. One commonly used licence is a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike licence. I'll explain in more detail if and when you need it, but in brief Chopra would retain the copyright, but anyone could use the image for any purpose, including commercial purposes. That would mean that any news organization could use it without payment of a fee and without even asking him. So he might not want to do that, but I thought it worth checking with you anyway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, more pictures of Chopra (and of his centers) would be useful decoration for the article! In particular, could a recent picture of DC be made available? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes would love to oblige. We have not yet begun to archive images yet as we are just getting out the gate, but I will make this a priority and see what i can get you all in the next couple of days. Dr Chopra has numerous organizations so it may take a bit, but the child picture I can ask him directly. SAS81 (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I should put them so I will place them here for now. I was able to get these quick because they were personal. Chopra center photos and Chopra foundation photos next week, Thanks SlimVirgin SAS81 (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

These are great images, SAS, and thank you for being so fast about it. I've added the 2013 one and the baby one to the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

File:DC Youth with Sanjiv Ammu Sequira and her brother Prasanna Childhood Friends.jpg

Deepak Chopra with childhood friends

File:Deepak as Baby with Parents.JPG

Deepak Chopra as a young baby with parents Krishan Lal Chopra and Pushpa Chopra.

File:Self Portrait - 14 years.jpg

Young Deepak Chopra, age 14 years

Dr Deepak Chopra in his California office.

Confused about your relationship to Chopra

Chopra writes, "A group of researchers and archivists approached me awhile back to explain how Wikipedia works and offered to mediate... This team of researchers and historians has now formed the 'Integrative Studies Historical Archive and Repository.'"

Is this referring to you and your team? Hipocrite (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes the full team specifically. SAS81 (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Something doesn't add up. You approached him to explain to him how Wikipedia worked, but on April 10, 2014, you wrote that "Wikipedia is very complex to new comers... please don’t bite the newbies." Were you referring to yourself? If you were, how is it possible that you "explain[ed] how Wikipedia works?" Hipocrite (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It could mean all sorts of things I guess. It could mean a 'newbie' account, or even new to "COI", or just flat out new to Wikipedia. Ish. I mean most people have a little Wikipedia experience, right? So what does it mean 'experience?' Hmmmmm. It could also mean that someone else on the team had a conversation with Dr Chopra that he is referring to, someone other than me. Maybe more than one too, other than me. Or it could mean that research had to be done to explain and that's all that means. Then there are the things that it could mean that you or I can't even think of. Oh the choices you have.

Question for you. What conspiracy am I about to be accused of? SAS81 (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

What, exactly, did it mean? You wrote it. You are being accused of attempting to deliberately obfuscate to drive away people who are a thorn in your attempts to make our articles non-neutral. Hipocrite (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It meant that I'm a little new to this, be nice, and don't bite me. ps - you're biting me. SAS81 (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Your question at Talk:Deepak Chopra

To answer your question, since you decided to ask on the article talk page as well [1]:

This is disruptive. I'd hoped the discussions here on your talk page back in April would have prevented anything like it.

If you could stick to non-controversial proposals as defined by WP:COI, or just follow WP:COI much more closely, or follow the advice you've been given here, the situation would be entirely different. --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Ronz - thanks for addressing this. I don't see how this is disruptive so maybe you can explain to me how this is so? Biographical facts are essential in a BLP. Not everyone shares your particular policy arguments. SlimVirgin, an incredibly experienced editor, actually made most of the changes to the problems I was talking about. If I was so disruptive - why do neutral editors make the same or similar positions as I do? I'm here to be apart of the Wikipedia community - I just can't edit an actual article about this subject, but I am allowed to address arguments in talk and raise issues to other editors. SAS81 (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

At some points the need for repetition (both from and to you) is a problem.

From your editing to date, I think you are here as a WP:SPA with a WP:COI intent only on promoting Chopra and whatever puts him in the best possible light.

You don't appear interested in cooperating with me here and now, or you wouldn't be grasping at rationalizations but rather be asking for details. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, before I saw you had asked at the article talk page, I had answered on my talk here, just focusing on the lack of general consensus for what should be done in such situations. Here, I've tried once again to give you suggestions, which you've chosen so far to ignore.

If you'd like to instead focus on exactly what you did wrong with the comment that I identified in the diff, we can do that too. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Ronz I understand you have an opinion about me - and I can see how your opinion about me is coloring your impressions of what I am doing, all I can tell you is what you're assuming about me does not reflect my intentions here on the encyclopedia. I don't think it's fair to say I ignore what you tell me, it may be that I consider it and don't agree it's appropriate in the same way you do.

If you want to focus on the diff, okay great let's have the policy discussion here. What's out of line with my point? A siting US president honors a living person in a speech to a foreign dignitary - my argument is that is as about as notable of a reception as they come. It makes sense to put that in the living person's biography. I'm not sure how me pointing this out is disruptive. Explain. SAS81 (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Your biases are a given. Don't assume biases of anyone else please. I'm simply looking at your behavior.

Why bring up Clinton after it was already discussed? Why bring it up in a manner that ignores the previous discussion? Why do you repeatedly focus on criticisms after all the discussion about them? Why do you repeat questions on the "guru" label that have already been addressed, again without acknowledging the previous discussions? Why end with, "Now we have created a drama that needs to be explained. Good luck with that one."? --Ronz (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Clinton was brought up again because Clinton was taken OUT of the article, so it's a different discussion than before, when it was being discussed for prominence in the lead sentence. Clinton was always in the article. Before, it was at the very bottom of the article, then SlimVirgin moved it to receptions. Then someone just took it out.

• In terms of Guru - there is no consensus on the article for using it, and a number of editors, many of them neutral also had a problem with it. On top of that, very vocal skeptics on the page were saying it's the most perfect word used to describe him (obviously it's a term that is discrediting) so I am citing BLP on that and still will. But did you notice I also thanked you for taking it out of WP's voice?

• I said 'good luck with that one' because the weight the skeptic editors are insisting keeping 'guru' in WP's voice creates unnecessary 'drama' in the article that the article has to explain. Although i accepted the compromise, it still makes for an awkward article. If he is described as a new age guru - why? What else is he described as? Why only give one description and not more? Those are all natural questions a discerning reader will have and if the article does not answer them, it just looks like a sloppy article. SlimVirgin herself said she is staying away because its too hard to get progress on the article. Why? because many skeptic editors are so heavy handed with WP FRINGE that they do not see they are actually getting in the way of creating a good article about an interesting person.

SAS81 (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

To repeat myself, "Why bring it up in a manner that ignores the previous discussion?" "Why do you repeatedly focus on criticisms after all the discussion about them?" "Why...without acknowledging the previous discussions?"

You continue to want to assume biases in others with your labels of "the skeptic editors" and then try to get article changes made based upon those assumptions. Again, you're the one with the bias. Assumptions that others have biases is disruptive. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Primarily; to repeat my answer above, because it was not the same discussion so therefore the foundation of your question doesn't make much sense to me. It may have been a discussion about the same source, but the context, application, argument and usage entirely different and entirely unrelated. Also the discussion had nothing to do with removing Clinton from the article. I'm sorry you feel this is disruptive, but I guess I could make the same accusation towards you if I took your position (which I don't).

Secondly; Even if it was the same discussion, it was not a closed discussion and all arguments that you and the other suspicious editors were giving me were not even in the context of what I was suggesting. I'm not sure why you are putting so much weight into those rebuttals, especially because they were, to me, straw man arguments that did not even address my inquiry. Additionally, and I think this is something that would be great if you are aware of - when there are 3 editors who are trying to slam me left and right, then give me some exaggerated policy application that does not even address my actual argument but the one they are imagining in their minds I am making - I'm not sure why I need to readdress those types of discussions in the first place.

Thirdly: Are you actually suggesting that those editors whom are avowed skeptics or whom have very strong suspicions about Dr Chopra are somehow NOT biased towards the subject matter? That seems like a stretch of the imagination. Maybe it's the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about - but talking about it and addressing it is not disruptive. I can see where my bias comes into the picture - why can't you? SAS81 (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you don't appear to understand my concerns. If you want to continue a discussion, start a related discussion, or dispute a past discussion, you should not ignore the previous discussions as you do. That is disruptive.

Yes, you've been grilled for your COI and related behavior. I've intervened and hopefully it will stop.

Your continued accusations and assumptions about other editors, combined with your acting upon those assumptions, is disruptive. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Ronz, you know after crying wolf more than once, claims like yours begin to lose a little credibility. I think that most neutral editors can see that I'm being called disruptive because I am questioning some assumptions of some of the editors. Focus more on content and the structure of your arguments - accusing me of being disruptive won't make arguments any more or less secure than they are. SAS81 (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Ronz. I am increasingly disturbed by your accusations which follow hard on the heels of the comments by others towards this editor which border on the vicious. I am concerned with the repeated use of the word disruptive when an editor tries to answer allegations against him. I notice the multiple times you mention Arbitration and sanction in reference to this editor, and that the expectation was that he would be sanctioned by now. I notice an experienced, uninvolved editor left this article based on the environment, and that deletions with out prior discussion, in her words, decimated the article. I don't see a biased editor. I see an editor new to this process who has maintained patience in the face of the self-named fringe warriors, and editor who is doing his best to understand and deal with the nuances of policy and guidelines which have been interpreted in several ways, none of which is necessarily right. You might read WP: POV RAILROAD.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC))

Thanks O :) SAS81 (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. I imagine that you're quite sensitive about these things given your involvement with related Arbitrations. I think it might be a good idea to review the findings again. Sorry you feel I'm harassing others. I'm always happy to clarify and refactor my comments. On the other hand, it might be best to avoid battleground assumptions completely. --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Ronz. What I learned from my own experience is that there are those on Wikipedia who do not have support often because others are afraid to help them. So I want to make sure that such as it is; I support others as honestly as I can. Everything I said to you concerns me. I believe you've misjudged the situation with SAS and I suggest reevaluation might be a good idea. I am not assuming anything. I am though noting events. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC))

I'm not afraid to help anyone, hence my helping SAS even while I think he's being disruptive.

As for the rest, I think that I'm doing the very same. --Ronz (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Good; we are on the same page.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC))

• • What i see is someone hell bent on promoting his employer. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I see someone hell bent on ignoring good faith and civility and relying on wiki lawyering and harassment so they can justify their bias on a subject matter. One would think that if their positions were so strong, they could simply rely on the strength of their arguments. Since I can't do any editing, the strength of my arguments is all I have, and thanks to how Wikipedia works, all i need. SAS81 (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

"pro fringe warrior pushing" You've repeated your accusations enough and they're now well-documentd. Please stop.

I wrote, "If you want to continue a discussion, start a related discussion, or dispute a past discussion, you should not ignore the previous discussions as you do. That is disruptive." You ignored it. Why? --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Ronz, again, please stop accusing me of 'ignoring' you or 'ignoring' past discussions. It's disingenuous. If I were ignoring you, the size of this talk section would be cut by 80%. I simply disagree with you and stated how i come to the conclusions I do. Saying that editors are 'Fringe warriors' is hardly an accusation, it literally is what they claim to be doing and the policy that I constantly get told to 'go read'. The more I focus on content, the more this little troupe of WP editors make aspersions regarding my intentions and behaviors. Try putting yourself in my shoes, how would YOU respond in such a situation? I have been very calm and respectful - but I also don't like to feel I'm being harassed or treated like the enemy. If you treat me like the enemy - your just getting the enemy back of your own creation. I wish you could reflect a bit more to see how you are playing into that dynamic. SAS81 (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Provide a citation for any editor you have interacted with saying they are "Fringe warriors," or retract. Hipocrite (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's time to deescalate. Please provide diffs or retract. --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

no editor uses the phrase 'I AM A WP: FRINGE WARRIOR', however they do raise the FRINGE banner extensively and proudly even and seem to focus very heavily on editors who they believe view the subject matter differently. Are you denying that you do not Hipocrite? Are you denying that you do not enforce the WP FRINGE guideline? Are you denying that your only interest in 'fringe topics' is to enforce that guideline? Do you deny that your motivation here, even on my talk page - is to guard Wikipedia against what you believe to be a biased point of view? You deny that, and I will consider your retraction. SAS81 (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I am a NPOV warrior. I guard an encyclopedia from people who would hopelessly distort it through their biases. I suggest you focus on content, not editors, as you have frequently requested of others - calling people fringe warriors without them calling themselves such is dramatically offensive, coming from a paid PR operative such as yourself. Hipocrite (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Well if you follow you own advice hipocrite, we would never be having this conversation. I'm glad you agree that calling people names that they do not call themselves can be offensive. If you stay consistent with that logic, I assume you will join the chorus of NPOV editors who do not like to have Dr Chopra called a New Age Guru in WP's voice for the same reasons.

I'm just going to close this discussion out with a comment made by an admin on the COI noticeboard. If you cannot self reflect on your own behavior and continue to dance around policy to justify your harassment - perhaps the words of this admin will help you understand what's been happening from my perspective and help you all self reflect just a little bit more. It's copied below and the diff is here. SAS81 (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved editor (with no intention of involving himself) I have to say that there's a problem where SAS81 is up against a bunch of involved editors with clear bias against the subject, judging by the repeated use of pejoratives here and elsewhere. That is not to say I disagree with the systemic bias we have in this particular case - I also think that Dr. Chopra is a snake oil salesman on any good day. But that's exactly the reason I would never involve myself in editing his biography. But we need to come up with a better solution than having a user with a declared COI and valid intentions go up against a small army of vociferous skeptics and wiki warriors. This should be handled neutrally from both ends. We can't ask SAS81 to be "nice" to us when they are assailed at every turn because they have a COI (!), or because we don't like his boss. As to how to do that... I have no idea. Maybe there's a kind soul amongst our more experienced editors that doesn't think badly of Chopra and can help out SAS81. But this situation tends to reflect badly on us as a community. And MastCell has a point, but all that excessive posting and forum shopping might simply be a reflection of SAS81's frustration at running into the same walls over and over. FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:50, 29 April 2014

republished by SAS81 (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

What does it mean to you to be "without bias"?

(reposted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism) - please answer here.

I'm curious, how do you propose that you can represent this materiel without bias when Deepak himself argues that objective reality is nothing more than shared subjective experiences shaped by personal experience (i.e., reality is biased). Honestly, I'm not being factitious, this is an honest question. What does it mean to you to be "without bias" from a biased worldview? --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 07:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This is an absolutely fair question and I really appreciate you approaching me like this. I'm so thrilled with this question I've supplied a wall of text, sheesh! I also don't mind coming over to your noticeboard. As to what it means to be 'without bias' - I'm not sure that is possible for anyone to be without bias. However I do believe that where circumstances require, we can at least attempt to view issues without our personal bias and report on them the best we can and this is very possible and something journalists or researchers have to do quite often. It's just a matter of framing things so our own personal bias is removed from our language (and the encyclopedia's). For example, what you wrote above is actually does a pretty good job. You may not agree with Dr Chopra's assessment of consciousness - and you may agree with for example Dan Dennet's framework for consciousness so if you're writing an encyclopedia or building an archive, you would just report that x said this, y said that and you would attribute their voices, not the voice of the encyclopedia to their statements. Without bias therefore means INCLUDING all facts and attributing all points of view directly to their sources without being represented as a source for those views or facts. We also have to be careful not to mislead a reader by interpreting the work of an author through the lens of our own bias. This can be challenging. Imagine if you had to frame the point of view of say someone you don't like (if your a dem and you had to frame the viewpoint of the tea party for example). So this is where skeptic editors face a challenge too! I'm a little wonky nerdy type, so I actually enjoy this sort of work and challenge.

Also, I would not assume that I have the same bias that say Dr. Chopra would have regarding his views. Before I got this gig, I was not a 'follower' of Deepak Chopra and actually never read much of his work. I also did not have much an opinion on it either. Now that I dive into this work, I've actually been a little shocked to discover many things that I assumed were true about Dr Chopra were my own misperceptions (for example, I assumed he was an alternative medicine practitioner, he isn't) and I also was not aware of the high level of acceptance Dr Chopra has on the world stage. So unless someone is an extremist of some kind, I think most rational people can be aware of their own viewpoints and be aware of how those viewpoints are being represented and can take responsibility to represent those viewpoints without using biased language.

let's keep this discussion going, yes? I'm not the enemy, and believe it or not, I am fascinated by this 'problem' and I think we can work together to find a productive solution. I think this will speak well for the skeptic community and Wikipedia. Problem I have is that since skeptic groups or organizations have so committed themselves in a certain direction - if they reach out and work with an opposing viewpoint they get pressure from their own peers which prevents a solution from occurring since they have locked themselves into a debate and any resolution will cause them to lose respect or position. Very human problem that has nothing to do with the ideology behind it, it's just human nature getting in the way. SAS81 (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I erroneously started this discussion in two places and it has carried on at the other location so I am closing this out. If you are interested in joining, see the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism#Huffpo article by Deepak Chopra. Cheers, --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

User page

I have semiprotected your userpage, you seem to be a vandalism target these days. Let me know if you want it removed at some point before expiry. Cheers, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you sir! I was actually going to ask you if you could do that but you beat me too it. SAS81 (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

And now talk page. You sure made someone angry.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

yikes. thanks again. I don't take it personally, it's not me it's the subject I am representing who has indeed upset many people. I'm getting used to it. SAS81 (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Eh, don't take it personally, or even attribute it to the topic. I have seen this happen to editors from all strips, no matter the position taken, especially if they edit a contentious issue. There is no known way to predict which side of an issue the trolls will fall on, except extremely bizarre conspiracy theories, they always seem to come out to defend those. ;) Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your userpage: You're treading into WP:SOAP, WP:USERPAGE, and WP:COI problems. Best to keep the material on yourself and your work brief and relevant to your being part of Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Gee Ronz, you mean I'm wrong once again? SAS81 (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that it was worded in a manner that could be interpreted that way.

Best keep your user page focused on your being a part of Wikipedia, keeping any information about yourself and your work brief so it doesn't look promotional, per SOAP, USERPAGE, and COI. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

AE notification

I have filed a request for arbitration enforcement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SAS81 as a result of your bad-faith RFC. Hipocrite (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. SAS81 (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

If you commit to be bound by the 600 words / 3 posts restriction, I will endeavor to close the filing as the proposer. Hipocrite (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

To prevent your acceptance from being accidentally waylaid, I just went ahead and assumed it based on your comments in the AE request. Hipocrite (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Hipocrite - a remarkable and unexpected resolution. I apologize to you as well, I was not expecting you to be as resolving as you have been. I'm hoping we can bridge a gap - these are contentious issues and I am truly here to help diffuse the situation. I'm hoping we can both come to build a little more trust with each other. SAS81 (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi SAS, just to let you know that I was about to post a statement when Hipocrite withdrew the request. If there are other requests in future, please ping me in case I don't notice them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Sandstein has reopened the case. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC))

June 2014

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. MrOllie (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you be more specific please? Acting as a representative per WP:BIOSELF, I am allowed to ask editors for help and I pretty much have been asking neutral editors such as SlimVirgin and Capn. There has been no canvasing that I am aware of and the extend of my inquiries is asking for advice. Editors who I converse with also are on my talk page. SAS81 (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm just trying to let you know that 'asking for help' in this way is going to make it more likely that you will be topic banned at the AE, not less. - MrOllie (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the heads up. i'm just trying to stay afloat and work within the constraints I am allowed and was not aware I was overextending. Thank you. SAS81 (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, given the recent vandals on this page I asked for it to be semi-protected again, but the admin said that the decision should be left to you. So just ask an admin if you want it back.

By the way I wouldn't take any of this very seriously. There's no telling what views the vandal has or what he/she is trying to accomplish. As you know, we've had trolls playing the role of their imagined "opposition" before. vzaak 17:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Vzaak - kelapstick has been helping the past week or so on this issue and we've already spoken about it. I agree there does appear to be lots of imagination happening on the encyclopedia and I remain vigilant. SAS81 (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I've filed an SPI ostensibly to check for sleepers. Checkuser will find technically matching accounts if they exist, so we might find an active troll as well. vzaak 04:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

A new start

Hello, we began on the wrong foot. Try again?

I initially asked about your pinging me because it appears that you almost certainly got my name from the Sheldrake homepage and/or the various conspiracy websites on Sheldrake and Wikipedia. I expected our conversation to be about that, but it took a different direction.

It is an interesting experience being the target of conspiracies, watching people make connections which reinforce their viewpoint but which aren't actually there. A while ago I wrote a response to Sheldrake's conspiracy post which was later referenced by Jerry Coyne in a wider debunking. It is amazing that Sheldrake makes claims that are readily contradicted by looking at the history of the Sheldrake article. It's as if he doesn't understand how wikis work: what article histories are, that they are available for anyone to inspect, etc.

However despite being thoroughly debunked, the conspiracy was eventually republished on Sheldrake's main site, sheldrake.org. This is puzzling because we know Sheldrake read Coyne's article, as Sheldrake complained to U of Chicago about it. Judging from Chopra's "militant atheists" blog posts, it would seem that Chopra has taken on these conspiracies.

I don't know to what extent you have bought into them, but if you are at all sympathetic then I can walk you through the refuting evidence. It should be a relief to know that there isn't a cabal or shadowy organization here, only editors that aim to meet NPOV and other policies. To some degree I think you have been shooting yourself in the foot by incorporating the battleground attitude that Chopra and Sheldrake posses.

One more thing -- you say that Chopra is committed to following Wikipedia's policies, but exhorting readers to join his article ("See you on the page!") is WP:MEATPUPPETRY. To his credit, at least Chopra has been public about things. Sheldrake, on the other hand, has privately contacted people in order to influence his article, and per their own admission at least four editors were in direct correspondence with him. vzaak 21:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Vzaak I love the fresh start idea and I'll double you up on it. We don't have to worry about what ever happened or who said what in the past. You don't have to prove or justify anything, I'll extend good faith your way there. Myself, and ISHAR in general is truly here to diffuse allot of the tensions and 'imaginations' as you call them. These subjects touch different kinds of nerves for different people and that's just human nature.

The only thing I would clear up is the 'meatpuppetry' idea you raise and what Dr Chopra chooses to say in the press about this issue. Dr. Chopra does not inform our directive on Wikipedia. The team and Dr Chopra along with a few others, we've had a frank discussion. There are boundaries. This is just as much an education for Dr Chopra, and other owners of databases that we are acquiring as it is for Wikipedia and ourselves. I don't think that was Dr. Chopra's intention either, he just is not sure how Wikipedia works. I'm hoping you can extend some good faith his way too. So if he says things in blogs tweets or press, of which I have absolutely zero control over, please know he does not speak for ISHAR, our directive or myself - he's just being Deepak and he loves to champion things. SAS81 (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I hope your discussion with him was very frank indeed. As it stands, Dr Chopra's attempt to drum up editors for his article has done his cause great harm, and will be cited against him for a long time into the future. It might help a little if he burst into print again showing some deepened understanding of the way things are done around here. Rumiton (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought you might want to respond to this. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User SAS81 - Deepak Chopra.27s employee. QuackGuru (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Offering my respect to a professional

First, let me say that my interests in what might broadly be called pseudoscience is primarily to debunk them, because I see how toxic certain beliefs are, and my own personal biases are to try to ensure that fringey stuff gets recognized as fringey stuff. And I am not exactly a Chopra follower - far from it. But I do acknowledge that the topic of Chopra and his work is an important one, and I have some access to some materials, although probably not as many as you of course, and once in a while I can try to help with copyediting and any attempts that might be made to ensure content is NPOV.

I also have to say that I respect you as a professional, even if you are an archivist/librarian type working for a library which may itself be perhaps more weighted to one side than another. A lot of what I do around here is in the broadly religious field, and that is because I have access to a few good libraries of theology schools, which, duh, tend to favor the theological perspective of the church they are affiliated with. I know a few of those who work at those libraries, and they have my profound respect as professionals, even when I disagree with the beliefs of the institution the library is affiliated with.

I tend to be active on an on-again, off-again basis around here lately, so I might not be really particularly active if you ever think I would be useful in a discussion. But then again I might be. Anyway, feel free to drop me a note if you ever think I might be useful, and, if I am around at the time, I am more than willing to offer what help I can. John Carter (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

What a pleasant post! Thank you sir. I'm not sure if you're saying you have some interesting materials for our archive - which would be appreciated. Our archive is covering cultural and scientific knowledge across a wide spectrum - much of it unsuitable for Wikipedia but much of it is. The focus is not as fringey as some would think - although I'm not sure if meditation, integrative medicine is considered fringe here on Wikipedia. We're going to feature any knowledge that is integrative in nature - so this is going to cover plenty of mainstream topics such as Jungian psychology, but some more obscure - like traditional and indigenous practices from all over the world. We will be covering biographies of notable individuals in the fields we cover, hence Dr. Chopra's article. We will be online by September, and we are acquiring a few archives that have never been digitized yet too, so regardless of anyone's particular belief or POV - our anthropological database is going to be very impressive. We have noticed allot of controversy around some of the topics we cover and there is plenty of contention on Wikipedia over these topics. I'm hoping we can build some trust so this kind of knowledge can be contributed without suspicion. Let's keep in touch! SAS81 (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I kind of doubt that there is much available around here in metro St Louis which might be useful to you beyond maybe some stuff in the (very good) Missouri Historical Society archives and library which I don't get too that often but I can certainly check. If you wind up getting a significant number of handwritten documents or other public domain items I might maybe be somewhat useful in that regard. The past few days I have finally gotten around to starting to put some of the proofread texts I've gone over on our sister wikisource website. There is already someone associated with the US National Archives as a wikimedian-in-residence there and one of the things that the site can be useful for is proofreading/transcribing handwritten archival material and putting transcriptions online. I think for a lot of topics they can be some of the best sources available on some historical subjects and very useful in developing content here on such historical topics. And the idea of any material on some of the now defunct or less active belief systems of some parts of the world sounds wonderful to me considering how little published material on some I can find even here in St Louis which has quite a few really good academic libraries. If any of the material relates to Hawaii in particular User:Viriditas and some others looking to make a concerted effort to help develop content related to Hawaiian historical culture later this year might find it very very useful. From at least my somewhat biased perspective as someone who spends a lot of time on religion/occult/pseudoscience content of all eras your archive honestly sounds like a potential goldmine of material. :) John Carter (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like some fantastic work you're involved in, and though we don't have many handwritten documents yet, the archiving of them is something I know is a laborious process that really benefits the archiving community as a whole, so thanks! I appreciate your understanding that archiving material is not the same thing as endorsing it, and hope you'll find once we get started that our efforts here are to see that the sources we've accumulated are represented fairly on Wikipedia, not to push a particular agenda.

Though growing rapidly, our archive is still in its infancy (we're counting our sources in the thousands, not tens or hundreds of thousands yet), and for now has primarily focused on integrative medicine treatments and reception, largely in journal articles. There is significant sourcing on media studies, monographs, clinical research and consciousness theories, but these are not quite as flushed out yet. We don't have a wide range of sources on religious/occult topics to start, as our focus is primarily evidenced based journals. However, we are going to be acquiring lots of cultural records - many of which could fall under the religions/occult tags, such as trantric yogas, Tibetan practices, indigenous practices from South America, etc. If you can give me a specific area you're looking for sources on or send over some tags, I'd be happy to see if we can help. Our archive wont be online until September - but we will be uploading to the Wikimedia commons before then. Send me over tags of what your most interested in, and I'll see what I can get over to you in the next month or two. SAS81 (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I just read the thread above with interest. SAS, please keep in mind that deep in Wikipedia's foundations is the policy that content should be based on secondary sources that are independent of their content. For anything health-related, this foundational idea is even more important, and "secondary sources" are defined in WP:MEDRS as reviews in the biomedical literature and statements by major scientific and medical bodies (like NIH, NHS, National Academies of Science, etc). If you don't understand why this policy is deep in the guts of Wikipedia and is essential for everything we do here, I would be happy to explain it. But what I wanted to say, is that any primary sources in your archive will not be useful for building Wikipedia content. Generally when people push for content to be included in WP based on a primary source, they have an ax to grind; it is a red flag. And that is the last thing you need. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

vsvx

All of our sources in the archive are tagged as either primary, secondary, or tertiary. Naturally not everything in our archive will be for Wikipedia. I'm well aware of Wikipedia policy regarding sources, including MEDRS, and our archive will feature many scientific, academic, and medical journals and ranked by impact factor. SAS81 (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Great, I am glad you aware of those policies - independent secondary sources are so, so important to WP. Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Page protection

Due to persistent vandalism, I have semiprotected this page (again) this time for one month, I have also created User talk:SAS81/Unprotected talk page, an unprotected talk page where non-registered or non-confirmed editors can contact you. Can you please make a note of it somewhere at the top of this page, and put it on your watchlist (see Wikipedia:Protection_policy#User_talk_pages)? If you think the persistent vandalism is finished, you can leave a note for me to unprotect it sooner than the one month.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Donzo. Thank you sir! SAS81 (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, SAS81. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Some advice

It seems to me that you are in the same boat as CorporateM, who been around a long time and has done some deep and coherent thinking about how to be a paid advocate and a productive member of the community. You might do well to chat with him. Also, there are a couple of essays with very good advice. See:

• Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations and
• Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

Both of them emphasize taking your time, not pushing too hard when others disagree with you, and avoiding any kind of wikilawyering or anything that looks like you don't understand Wikipedia's mission (it is not just about following the rules!). Even the presence of paid advocates makes some Wikipedians very very uncomfortable and the more you take a battleground stance the more hellish your time will be here.Jytdog (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog! I've actually reached out to CorporateM for the same reasons but was not aware of those essays. I shall give them a good study. SAS81 (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I just buckled down and read the Chopra talk page and article. Some more advice - it is blunt - but it is meant with good intentions. You can take it or leave it:

• stop talking about what Chopra wants or likes or doesn't want or doesn't like. Just stop. It is beyond irrelevant to what we do here, and every time you do it, you not only lose credibility in the sense that you actually think it is relevant, but you enrage your opponents, who are insulted that you would even think they would care. And any claims you make to put WP first or that you understand WP go out the window (why? b/c what chopra told you he thinks is not a valid source for any content in the article - and what we do in Wikipedia Talk is discuss article content and sources, so why in the world would you bring it up at all or answer questions about it?) Really bad strategy. You dig your hole deeper every time you do it
• absolutely stop talking about other editors' behavior. Focus like a laser on content, not contributors. Do not take bait to personalize anything. When you start talking about other editors' behavior, you look petty and most importantly, you are not working toward whatever goal you have about content. Other editors have limited time and attention. Don't waste it.
• make brief statements on Talk. No wall of text, ever. Clear, concise. Grounded in policy and guideline. The rest of us have jobs and your writing endless notes on Talk shows a lack of self-awareness of how strange your status is - that you are paid to work on the article and none of us are. Respect that difference with brevity.
• stop treating every discussion like a life-or-death battle. I cannot believe what a long, drawn out battle you have put in over Clinton's endorsement. Is that really the most important thing in the article? Pick your battles more carefully, and only go to the mat if the content and source you want are absolutely solidly grounded on policy or guideline and the arguments of the people who disagree are not -- are really not - based on policy or guideline. Those times are not frequent, especially when you are dealing with experienced editors. If there is honest disagreement about how policy or guideline apply, acknowledge that! Keep the discussion grounded on policy and guidelines, always. Do not start drifting off into what Chopra thinks or what you think, for pete's sake. Where there is honest disagreement about how policy or guidelines apply - or where the disagreement is purely preference - acknowledge that there are good arguments all around and work toward compromise. That is absolutely the Wikipedia way. Deeper than any specific wording of policy or guideline.
• Repeating: acknowledge valid points raised by others, and actually try to work toward consensus. Always. Always. Always. Unless you have an absolutely solid policy/guideline based argument and those differing with you do not, in which case you can say "no" and you can explain that - but even then the goal is to persuade others and reach consensus.
• you will not get what you want sometimes. Allow discussion to play out, and if you lose, give up and move on. Do not beat a dead horse.
• Avoid wikilawyering like the plague. Always work from the deepest principles of wikipedia. if you do not understand them, learn them (I offered to teach you some of that above)
• when you suggest content and supporting sources, be rigorous in choosing sources that are unimpeachable under our highest standards and that you know people with differing views will find credible (VERY IMPORTANT! do not sing to the choir, ever), and be extremely careful to use NPOV wording clearly supported by the source you bring. Edit to the highest standards of excellence. Never ever bring puffery and weak sources. Ask (don't demand) the same of others. But if you don't do it, you cannot call others to do it.
• Really read those essays above, and read WP:TENDENTIOUS too - read them all once a week. Ask yourself if you are doing the behaviors described in TENDENTIOUS -- really ask yourself - and if you are, apologize and stop doing it. Keep your nose very clean. Be very self aware.

I am blown away at how hard you are making this for yourself. From my perspective, you barely know what you are doing and you are editing in a combative way on a very very controversial article. What I usually advise editors in your position, is to walk away from the article and learn how things work here, and return to the article when your understanding is deeper, with many many apologies. You are screwing up and making a really bad reputation for yourself - and it will make things harder and harder for you as time goes by if you keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper. Reputation matters a lot around here, like it does in any community. That is my advice. Do with it as you will. Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

by the way, I realize the irony of me saying "don't write a wall of text" and then writing a wall of text. I am taking some time here because in my eyes you are in a very hard place and there is a big roil all around you. Helping you helps a lot of people. Like I said you can do with any of this whatever you will. Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy?

Hi SAS this comment of your is still sticking in my craw. I realize you were wound up by QuackGuru, who frustrates me too, but it was still very unwise. I also want to make sure you are aware of the recent change to the terms of use for all of Wikimedia, including English Wikipedia - see here. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure the sore point exactly - you mean when I said 'the debunker crowd can have at it'? It was a comment meant specifically to those editors who were attempting to 'debunk' ISHAR or my role here. Was that taken as a pejorative? I'm a human being on the other end here, and I've been continually accused, vandalized, defamed, and harassed since the moment I arrived and have made an honest effort to reach out to most editors who had issues with me. I apologize if I made a comment that made you personally upset, but after having the same accusation mentioned a number of times in a row after I have gone overboard with transparency and compliancy, I might read a bit cranky on occasion. I should start meditating :) SAS81 (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

no, where you said "Anything we are revealing now we are doing as a courtesy to the Wikipedia community". As a paid editor, you are now obligated to disclose under the Terms of Use or you will be thrown out of here. And even before then, the community has clamored for transparency. I don't think you understand how badly the statement I quoted comes off - how arrogant it appears, and how completely wrong-headed it is. I keep saying that I am guessing you said that in frustration (I do acknowledge that you are human), but if there is anything of that in how you really think, squash it like a bug. Are you aware of the Wiki-PR paid editing scandal that rocked WP last winter, and all the anger that caused? And the four or five policy proposals to ban paid advocates (like you) that arose from that, and the very very intense discussions that consumed hours and hours and zillions of bytes? That is part of the background here - that is some of what other editors have in their minds when they consider you and what you are doing here. I suggest you carefully read the article Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia and see the failed policy proposals at the bottom, and read the Talk pages of those proposals, to get a very recent sense of the community's range and intensity of feelings on paid advocacy, to understand where some of the editors working on the Chopra article are coming from. It was such a huge foment that after all the policy proposals failed, the Board of Trustees of the WMF took the dramatic step of changing the Terms of Use - something they very very rarely do.Jytdog (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

oh yes. and you did actually have on your user page something like "I am an employee of Deepak Chopra", before you changed it. Every time that is brought up, you say something dodgey. Again, I don't think you understand how people are reacting to your dodging of questions about that - how bad that looks. You wrote it in plain, simple English. It is not ambiguous. You wrote it. Until you tell a story that makes sense about that, a lot of people are going to have zero trust in you. And add to that your constant descriptions of what Chopra thinks and wants.... it just ~looks~ like you are not acknowledging a relationship that is very close and it looks like you are maybe even trying to hide it behind the cloak of ISHAR. But even on your current User page you say "I've been requested by Dr. Chopra to directly represent his interests on Wikipedia." "Directly represent"... is conflicted out the wazoo at worst and WP:ADVOCACY at best, and neither is great. But sometimes and elsewhere, you claim to put WP first and that you are just a scholarly archivist. I look at all that, and all I see is an incoherent mess that doesn't make sense. To many this makes it ~look like~ you are not being honest or are not telling the whole story. I don't know what to think, except "this makes no sense." I came back and mentioned this, because these clashing statements that don't add up, make up a big part of the hole you are in. The best thing by far would be to tell the whole story and tell it straight - be transparent. Help us understand you. Again I say all this with the best of intentions. To try to help you. Jytdog (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh - okay i see the confusion. I wasn't referring to what I am required to reveal as a COI, i've been pretty transparent. I'm talking about details about ISHAR specifically being made available to Wikipedia BEFORE ISHAR has been announced or even launched. Any information that has been released, including the website and our list of advisors, has been released solely for the Wikipedia community as a courtesy, not as a requirement of my COI. Hope this clears that up.

It does, a bit. It helps me understand what you meant more. But your story still isn't adding up (as I write more below where I responded to you) and neither is ISHAR's... and to the extent those questions are before the community it is still a wrong-headed thing to say... Jytdog (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

As to me stating 'I am an employee of Dr Chopra' I'm not sure why this is still such a source of confusion. I said I was an employee because I was required to state my connection to Dr. Chopra, and technically he was paying me. Why is that controversial? At the time of my statement, the details of the relationship between Dr. Chopra and the ISHAR team was not defined and could have gone in a number of directions, many of them not up to me. for example, we were not sure how we would approach the archiving (university affiliation, direct acquisition by Dr Chopra, separate organization, etc) and it was simply unknown at the time I wrote that. It's also possible I could have become an employee. I suppose I could choose my words carefully, but honestly I was not expecting so much scrutiny either and to be honest, it's really a mind maze trying to second guess the community here and predict how they are going to react if I choose one word instead of another. Rather, I'm hoping you can see my intentions and what ISHAR wants to be in terms of service back to Wikipedia. SAS81 (talk) 06:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You are asking for good faith but you are not telling a story that makes any sense. What does "technically paying you" even mean? In the first part of what I wrote above I described the hell that the community recently went through on the issue of paid advocacy. (if that phrase is meaningless to you, what it means is that X pays Y to improve wikipedia's article about X) The "issue" last year was a PR company called Wiki-PR that marketed itself to companies and individuals who wanted better, shinier WP articles, and the community discovered something like 250 wikipedia accounts that were being used by Wiki-PR and its agents, many of whom overtly lied about what they were doing and who used multiple accounts ("sock puppets"). Hundreds of articles were affected. That is the background here. 90% of what you are saying about yourself and 100% of what you are doing says "paid advocate" - that the reason you are here is to improve wikipedia's article on Chopra - so that he likes it better. From most everything you have said, that is why you are here and that is why ISHAR exists. You are "directly representing him" The 10% where you are claiming to put WP first and to be "just an archivist" are out of sync with the rest and have set alarm bells ringing. Maybe you didn't understand that background, but you should be able to see how jarring it is when you say you put WP first and that you are "just an archivist" in light of the other statements you have made and what you have done here to date ... and how alarming that is in light of the background? I am willing to help you try to see it, but you need to be willing to look.... (simple first step -- hold these two statements together in your mind: "I have been asked by Deepak Chopra to directly represent his interests." "I am just an archivist". How do those fit together in a way that makes sense? Blammo. head exploding. ) Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I am going to hazard a guess at a story. This may be wrong, but it is a story that makes sense. "I am a librarian by training and a friend of Deepak Chopra. When Dr. Chopra became upset about his Wikipedia article in 2014, I approached him about working to improve it. As our discussions evolved, we decided to do two things: 1) directly work on improving the Wikipedia article; and 2) set up a free online archive of sources related to topics in which Dr. Chopra is interested, which we decided to call Integrative Studies Historical Archive & Repository (ISHAR), in order to provide sources for content in Wikipedia articles and as a resource for anyone interested in these topics. ISHAR is housed in an eponymous foundation and Dr. Chopra provided seed funding and sits on its board, and is likely to have a continuing strong influence on its direction and funding. As of June 2014 our next round of funding is uncertain, but we will disclose funding and the board structure as it emerges in the interest of being transparent and in light of the community's concerns about undisclosed paid advocacy. I am an employee of ISHAR and am working on building the archive. Part of my job is also working to improve the article on Dr. Chopra - I am a paid advocate. I am fairly new on Wikipedia and am still learning about its mission and policies and guidelines; my intention is to learn them very well and to follow them. I am aware of Wikipedia's Terms of Use and of its Conflicts of Interest guideline, the essay on Advocacy, and the several useful essays on managing conflicts of interest and will do my best to follow them. I am aware that the article on Dr. Chopra is under discretionary sanctions from Arbcom's ruling on pseudoscience. I will not directly edit the article on Dr. Chopra or related matters, but am and will be a frequent contributor on Talk. While I am here as a paid advocate for Dr. Chopra and his interests, I do intend to help the community as well, especially by making reliable sources available through ISHAR. Final note: on the first version of my user page, I wrote "I am an employee of Dr. Deepak Chopra and represent his direct interests on Wikipedia and elsewhere." I wrote that when ISHAR was first being formed. I was actually paid by X in those days. I am now paid by ISHAR. It was sloppy of me to write that I was his employee - I have never been directly employed by him personally and he has never paid me from his personal funds." Again, that is assuming that the story goes something like that, which may be wrong - I am especially unclear about what the actual financial relationship was when you wrote that you were an "employee of Deepak Chopra" so I am really guessing there. As I mentioned, a lot of Wikipedians are very uncomfortable with allowing paid advocates to be members of the community in any way, and some of them are strident, and you will probably catch flack from those folks and they will be watching you closely. I strongly advise that you always be very consistent when you work in Wikipedia, in describing yourself as "a paid advocate for Dr. Chopra" - don't confuse the issue by sometimes describing yourself primarily as an archivist - that is what you do in the RW but here you are primarily a paid advocate. What I just said there, is really important and is one of the key reasons why people are upset with you, and is the primary driver of the current COIN thread on you - when you talk about yourself primarily as an archivist some people think you are trying to make them forget why you are here. (I don't think you are trying to misdirect people; I think you are new and trying to figure things out here) But you really need to be consistent here in WP. I hope you understand that. I've belabored that enough. Moving on... there are also a lot of Wikipedians who are comfortable enough with paid advocates who follow our COI guideline (it is indeed our guideline), and a smaller segment that would be comfortable with paid advocates directly editing articles and who would change our guideline to allow that (never gonna happen) But almost everyone appreciates transparency and a story that makes sense, like the story I told above. It would calm some of the roil around you. Added to all that, of course, is the additional controversy and passion around alternative medicine/FRINGE here on Wikipedia. You are smack dab in the center of not one, but two, of the most controversial issues on Wikipedia, around each of which passions can be very high! Each issue (paid advocacy and altmed/FRINGE has different sets of editors who are concerned about them, and they have converged around you and the issues your presence raises. Neither group is particularly experienced in dealing with issues of concern to the other so there are all kinds of strange things happening as members of each group come to grapple with issues germane to the other group. That is another reason it is so important that you be clear and consistent. Jytdog (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Part two

• You are asking for good faith but you are not telling a story that makes any sense. What does "technically paying you" even mean?

I would not say that I am ‘asking for good faith’, because good faith is something I expect, as a part of WP:Civility. ‘Technically paying me’ means that I have a financial relationship with Dr. Chopra. “employee” technically, was a poor choice for words to use when I began, as my intention was to be transparent about a financial relationship. “Employee” means something very specific in the state of California. It means you are on a payroll. Using that definition of employee, I’ve never been an employee of Dr. Chopra, Chopra LLC, Chopra Center, etc. The specific financial involvement at the time was Dr. Chopra donated $5000.00 to the work that we were doing - and then later he asked our advice about his Wikipedia problem, which we offered as a courtesy in the beginning. I also never met Dr. Chopra before this project and Dr. Chopra initially came to us with interest in our project, not representing him on Wikipedia.

yes, everyone is entitled to GF, until they do things that start to cause them to lose it. You continue to cite it and ask for it - I am trying to tell you that things you are saying are giving people evidence to stop granting you GF.Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I continue to ask for it or not - but I do continue to extend it, even to editors who are openly hostile or suspicious. SAS81 (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• 90% of what you are saying about yourself and 100% of what you are doing says "paid advocate" - that the reason you are here is to improve wikipedia's article on Chopra - so that he likes it better.

ad·vo·cat·ing: to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly: He advocated highersalaries for teachers.

I’m technically NOT a paid advocate, and unless you want to use a broad interpretation of advocacy that does not describe why I am here. Dr. Chopra’s interests = Dr. Chopra’s concerns about his article. You seem to be assuming that Dr. Chopra cannot be having genuine concerns about his article and any concern he has must be suspicious. Dr. Chopra’s article on Wikipedia has been used as an attack piece on him by editors with an agenda- so that is very unfair not only to me but to him or any living person to say that the request of a ‘fair’ or neutral article is an advocacy stance or an attempt at promotion. I mean, that’s almost abusive to mention to a living person who is the victim here. I’m not saying that’s your intention, but I don’t think you’re coming from what the problem with Wikipedia is like on the ‘other’ side. You seem to underestimate Wikipedia’s power - it’s one of, if not the most powerful publishers in the world. I have some news for you. People don’t like being misframed or having their work misrepresented and their contributions discredited, especially when an encylopedia claims to be neutral and trustworthy but it’s just acting like an OP/Ed for a living person’s critics. You seem to think that ‘advocacy’ begins ONLY when a ‘paycheck’ is issued. Activism, or any editor with an ideological agenda on Wikipedia is also advocating. Getting ‘paid’ is just a strawman. There are organizations of an ideological nature who promote editing Wikipedia articles and Dr. Chopra is, and has been a ‘person of interest’ to many of them. So I agree with you that advocacy is an extreme problem on the encyclopedia. It’s how I came to be here.

"Paid advocacy" has a technical meaning in our policies and guidelines. Citing the dictionary definition of "advocacy" (in such a condescending way) is just foolish of you and displays an unwillingness to learn that is not promising. As far as I can see, 100% of what you are actually doing here and almost everything you are saying, defines you in Wikipedia as a "paid advocate." This is the most important thing we are discussing. If you continue to brush this off, I will be done here. You will have exhausted my good faith toward you. There is much else in what you have written to be discussed, but if we cannot resolve this key issue there is no point discussing the rest. Focus is essential. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Even better. the definition of WP:advocacy on Wikipedia is exactly NOT what I am doing. I'm open to working this out with you, but you're accusing me of something that I do not personally accept. Where is the evidence of this advocacy you're speaking of? If that's what I am doing, why am I in perfect agreement with SlimVirgin and a few other neutral editors on the article? If you see me as advocating, I need you to be specific, because if I am advocating - I am in violation of ISHAR's own ethics and I want to correct that. If it's based on a misunderstanding, it can only be cleared up by you being specific. SAS81 (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• I am going to hazard a guess at a story. This may be wrong, but it is a story that makes sense.

Wikipedia ISHAR crossed over because one or two people on the team also happened to be Wikipedia idealists, i.e. familiar with the platform and it’s scope of work. So at first, I was just personally asked to represent him on Wikipedia, and initially, it was going to be to ask to have his article deleted because of the problem. So he asked me to research his problem and advise - at first I was just doing this as a courtesy to him since he was interested in championing our work and research. It became pretty clear pretty quickly that the archive should be responsible for representing material in our archive directly on Wikipedia. The material in our archive (dr. Chopra’s biographical material represents less than .5% of the current archive) is going to be very beneficial to Wikipedia and Wikimedia.

Additionally, we completely changed Dr. Chopra’s outlook on Wikipedia. He had no idea how it worked - and the problems in the past year were do to him getting advice from people who were not sure either. Do you realize how complex Wikipedia is to the outside world? It’s not fair to expect the outside world to just ‘know’ how to fix problems that the platform is not self correcting.

So instead of accusing us, or him, of advocating like Scientologists or something - is it possible that there was a very contentious situation, and the idea that the problem could be solved by contributing responsibly (NOT ADVOCATING) to the encyclopedia instead of trying to attack the encyclopedia is a sound one?

I hope you can consider. We now have a number of research organizations, universities, and institutions willing to make a considerable donation in terms of knowledge to Wikimedia via ISHAR. Not only are they donating genuine cultural or scientific knowledge, but they are also paying to have this knowledge digitized, archived, and formatted for Wikipedia, giving a vast treasure trove of resource Wikipedia would otherwise never have.

So yes, when I and my team have made such a strong effort to make this happen, not just for ISHAR but for Wikipedia itself get treated like we’re one step away from scientologists and advocating bizarre viewpoints I do personally find that insulting and inconsiderate. Yes, part of my job requirement, as well as the entire ISHAR team, WILL be to upload to Wikipedia and help build the encyclopedia. We literally are an organization that is raising money for the specific purpose of doing so. SAS81 (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, you are persisting, and even arguing, about the word "advocacy" when you do not understand the term on Wikipedia. I do understand that WP is complex. I am trying to teach you about it. Instead of being open and learning, you are taking a closed stance and actually arguing with me, and you don't know what you are talking about. Again, you can choose to listen or not. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sir, I fully understand the term and yes, I deny that I am advocating as either Wikipedia or the dictionary describes. If it is perceived that way, then cite a specific example from Dr. Chopra's article that is evidence of that advocacy and let's work to together to clear it up. ISHAR's agenda on Wikipedia is NPOV. Advocating for neutrality is not advocating for belief or promoting a belief and I find such a stance or assumption ill considering. SAS81 (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Citing the dictionary definition and then sticking to that is so wrong-headed that I don't know what to say. Again you are fighting me instead of learning, and stating things instead of asking real questions like "Would you explain what you understand "paid advocacy" on Wikipedia is, and why you see what I doing here as falling under that defintion?" I understand that others have interacted with you in a battleground-y way -- I was trying to teach you. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't advocate information on ISHAR. I don't even meditate (although the thought has become quite appealing), I have no experience in Ayurveda and previously to working with Dr. Chopra never even read his books. So not only am I not an advocate by Wikipedia's definition here, I'm also not an advocate on ISHAR. I work hard to try not to have an opinion about much of the subject matter. Although admittedly it is challenging when I am exposed to so much information. Additionally, WP:Advocacy also specifically states that:

• Editors are not expected to have no opinions about a subject. The Community encourages editors with experience or expertise in particular topics to edit the relevant articles. Expertise alone is not advocacy, but if an expert consistently gives undue weight to a particular point of view, that can be a problem.

That statement alone not only clarifies my position here, but it opens with an expectation of ALL editors on the encyclopedia and you will clearly find many editors on Dr Chopra's article to have very strong opinions about him. I don't mind having to operate at a higher standard than other editors - but I also believe that setting a high bar for one set of editors and a low bar for another set of editors is contributing to the problem that ISHAR is attempting to diffuse. SAS81 (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You are taking a closed stance and arguing instead of taking an open stance and learning. Unwise. Really - it is very clear that you barely understand how this place operates or what role you are playing here. You have asked me no questions to clarify what I meant! Not one. (rhetorical questions are not real questions) Beginnings are very important times. As the pioneer for ISHAR you are establishing a foundation now. If you get clarity and build a strong foundation your project could possibly endure. As it is, you are building a flawed foundation, and that does not bode well for the future. If you come back to me in a more open way I will be glad to continue trying to teach you. I don't expect that to happen, but I love to be surprised. Unwatching your page. Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay I guess I'm wrong once again. I'm clear on my intentions and I'm clear on my contributions. I asked you for specific examples to explain what you mean. Twice. I took time to explain to you what I mean. Lots. and I even took your advice on one issue where you thanked me. If you want to leave because you have to be right and I have to be wrong so be it.SAS81 (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: Actually Jytdog I do owe you an apology. I realized I misread this comment of yours " I understand that others have interacted with you in a battleground-y way -- I was trying to teach you.""

So - I do see how I was coming off with a 'hard stance' after you wrote that, and yes, I did take much of what you write as a battleground stance, which I have been dealing with for almost 2 months on a daily basis.

So, I will politely ask you - what am I doing that is 'paid advocacy' specifically? Can you give me an example? Can you explain the difference between Paid Advocacy, advocacy, and Wikipedia GLAM projects? What do I have wrong? I can only clarify my intentions, and have read WP Policy extensively and work really hard to stay within them. If you believe I am missing something, kindly advise. SAS81 (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I can try that. If we got GLAM contributions from, say, the Creation Museum, it could (and would) be argued that those are very different in terms of encyclopedic value from contributions from the American Museum of Natural History. Without casting aspersions about your archive, you can, I assume, see your oppositions view that it is possible your archive, which has yet to do anything but argue on the talk page of its principal founder, is both A. slightly less altruistic than the GLAM standard and B. slightly less encyclopedic (if you accept their belief that "Integrative" medicine is a shit sandwich) than, say, the United States National Library of Medicine. Hipocrite (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay - that comparison does not surprise me to read considering the source. I get that there are suspicions. Until ISHAR is launched online, I guess that those editors who are suspicious are worried we are taking an ‘anti science!’ stance don’t have the benefit of actually knowing much about ISHAR and are filling in the blanks with their own ideas. Our board of advisors are all academics and scientists, many of them very prominent at you can see our confirmed list here.

Using your comparison, however - perhaps this could help. Surely no one would be suspicious if there was a museum of creation myths from around the world, or a museum of world religions. What is inaccurate about The Creation Museum comparison IS they are an advocate of a singular position. They inform a story they believe is true and present along those lines. (I’ve actually been to a creation museum - it was kind of creepy because I took my child there and we just thought it was a dinosaur museum until I read the by lines on each display). So if I was in your shoes, and that was what I assumed, I would be concerned too. ISHAR is a collection from different world views, not a singular view - and our ethics dictate that we do not endorse, advocate, promote, or advertise. Some of our advisors are advocates of certain positions - yes, and we may present their perspectives but it will be in their individual voice, not the voice of ISHAR.

From my position however, the comparison is a little cartoonish but at least helps me to see that is how integrative studies in general is perceived and how much work we have cut out for us. SAS81 (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I had already reviewed your Board of Advisors. Again, if you were to imagine how people who believe that "integrative medicine" is a shit sandwich (and I use that term in the clinical sense - the shit of alternative medicine sandwiched by the efficacy of real medicine), I can imagine that you believe they would find the list provided on your website to be seriously deficient in skeptical voices (in that there are none), no? Were any leading skeptics of alternative medicine approached to offer advice? Hipocrite (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Our list of advisors is growing and will continue to grow so you never know. For now, the advisors we are working with are advisors who have access to large archives of knowledge, have a purview over other knowledge, and have an enthusiasm for the project. I've barely had the time to reach out to the very short list we have so far, much less a broader one. Other than that - I'm not sure of your overall question. yes, I get that certain viewpoints of an extreme skeptical nature may be cynical or suspicious about the intentions of ISHAR. But ISHAR is not presenting perspectives to Wikipedia, we are just presenting sources so it doesn't really matter. SAS81 (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

speaking of being suspicious

Speaking of sandwiches I realized I could come over here and ask sarge a question. Hey, SAS, I have some concerns about the Spirituality and Religion section on Doctor Chopra's page. Maybe you can help. I'm taking a kind of bottom up approach here. And when I mentioned my concerns over on Deepak's talk page it looked like it was going nowhere without tangling.

I should probably state right out (again) that I am not anti-Chopra. I actually am concerned about Dr. Chopra. And for starters..I was just shocked that there is a prominent wikilink to a meat sandwich at the beginning of his exceedingly minimal Spirituality section.

I believe Spirituality may be central to all of Dr. Chopra's endeavors. The height of Vedic spirituality inspires and informs nearly every aspect of dr, Chopra's work.

So I thought I would ask you, SAS* what do you think about that section?

In my opinion any time that a criticism seems wedged in or forced or potentially inappropriate or insulting, it is better for everyone to simply find another way.

Do you think the sandwich link is potentially insulting?

I recently revisited the Sheldrake page. I think it is quite an accomplishment. By Deepak's standards it might seem overly critical but the criticisms are not awkward or insulting. It works, and it covers Rupert widely and well. I sure would like to at least see that quality emerge here.Ptarmigander (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It occurred to me that you might be able to come up with some sources regarding Chopra's Spirituality that could add to that section. Alexbrn pointed out that it is difficult to find high-quality sources for DC's spiritual/religious/philosophical views.

Another area where I sympathize with your position is with the term "Guru". I noticed that you are aware of the racist connotations regarding the use of this word. I think a non-Indian new age author and personality that behaved pretty much like Deepak would not so often be referred to as being a Guru. By the quacks like a duck rule- Deepak is not a guru. But he may be called one in many instances mostly because he is Indian.Ptarmigander (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Spirituality section is already improved by removing the link to a picture of a salami sandwich. I was afraid we would see that picture on some blogger's piece at the Huffpost with the caption: Is THIS what Wikipedia thinks of Deepak Chopra?"

Another area where I am empathetic to your position SAS81 is the reception section. It seems over-weighted with criticism to me. I do not know if that is justified. I think it is important for criticisms not to appear jabbed in or piled on.. for criticism's sake.

Here is a quick example, It has probably been discussed many times but I think that the Oprah thing is a large part of reception. And it could be construed as a bit fishy that instead Oprah is slammed in that section. I mean.. I just think in the long run the critics should try to avoid that fishy smell. Sure it may be inadvertent but it does not always look that way. Ptarmigander (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Ptarmigander I'm having a very difficult time considering your question in good faith and hoping you can clear up any misunderstanding that I may have. As you know, I've been the victim of vandalism on my pages and this clever little hooligan appears to hold a position similar towards your that you have expressed to me continuously in the COIN. I also note that you joined Wikipedia around the time of this vandalism. That in and of itself is not so concerning, if it were not for the fact that your contribution history shows you to be an SPA designed to argue or attack me and the subject matter of the article. Additionally, this post clearly shows your intention to create a parody account of my account.

I believe the standard advice in this situation to you would be just put this issue aside and go edit some other articles. I'm sure that's what an admin would advise to say the least. SAS81 (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. here we go again. I have been civil and helpful here on your talk page. I found out about these Wikipedia Talk pages from the link provided by Dr, Chopra at the end of one of his articles. I have the same rights here as you do SAS81. YOU are a single purpose account. I am not a single purpose account. I am a New account. I admit I buried that "Quester Tapes" message on my user page so it could be found by suspicious people. Of course that is not my purpose here. It is not displayed as such. Don't be desperate.

You asked me to clear some things up and much as I would prefer to just do positive work here on your talk page and not disagree or risk seeming disagreeable- I will try and do my best to make things clearer. And thank you for the opportunity.

First off I am not going to whine about the indignity of being accused of vandalism. Maybe this gives you justification to view me as an attacker instead of a fellow Wikipedian. Then you can justify attacking me back. Behind the scenes even, right?

Perhaps that is why you accuse with no evidence. You want to find the enemy and fix him. Well ok. But it is simply wrong to portray me as the enemy. You are jumping the gun. I oppose any vandalism and I am sorry if you thought it was me. That would be a false lead. I saw the notice about vandalism and some discussion here on your page but never saw any vandalism. Since I followed Deepak's link here everyone has been being pretty civil as far as I can tell. So I can not help you much beyond that. I am a gentleman not a juvenile. So I hope you will retract your accusation. Which does feel a bit of a violation of something.

Now, so there is not any misunderstanding. I am concerned with being helpful. I will be the first to admit that I went off with wild speculations and conspiracy theories. I was probably afraid that you could be a group of public or media relations people that saw in all this an opportunity- an entry point- and wooed Deepak with a chance to correct his WikiPage, fight back against malicious skeptics and gain a peacock position as the benevolent founder of a world class Integrative/Alternative archive.(Which he would pay to set up).

Or maybe it was some religious or parapsychological group that wanted to get it's studies and papers shoe-horned into Wikipedia. Or maybe even it was both. I mean you got to laugh at the paranoid and preposterous things the mind can conjure up.

But I do have to consider that this is primarily your fault for beginning operations prematurely on a wink and a lofty promise. That might be OK for pitching a start-up to a wealthy investor but it is not very respectful to try and carry on the actual business from that position. Understanding that is just following good business practices and having a good business plan from the onset.

But hey, no need to go by wild extreme supposition. Right? You say it is a great gift to Wikipedia. Some skeptical editors might feel it is a Trojan Horse. Who's fault is that? really?

I just wanted to point out that if those wilder scenarios were true. If any sneakiness were afoot. That would definitely not be helping Dr. Chopra. If there was any misrepresentation. That would be very unfortunate. And I think so far your actions here have been a bit irresponsible. You were playing a bit loose with your employer's reputation to leave that gap so gaping and not simply be in a position to be transparent from the start of your PR activities. No good excuse for it really.

I have mentioned the latest thinking by major Public Relations firms. Good business practices are part of the new Wikipedia deal. Good Business practices means be prepared. Be respectable (not just polite). Be truthful and checkable, from the onset and throughout.

Respect, for one thing, means not asking people to act without proper knowledge and guidance.

A promise that there is nothing to worry about -that you can trust us, is not good enough. Frankly it is kind of an insult.

Since you are representing Dr. Chopra your truthfulness and proper management are going to reflect on him. I was worried about Dr. Chopra. Sincerely. I hope you are looking after his interests competently. And since I have voiced that I feel any sneakiness or misrepresentation on your part would reflect poorly maybe even scandalously on Dr. Chopra - I gave a warning. And I won't feel so guilty if things go badly.

Now I would like to work to make the Chopra page better. Help with that, if you feel it to do so.Ptarmigander (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I have made a few pretty good suggestions for the Chopra page here (you can reread them above) regarding Spirituality, Reception, and even a revisit to the "Guru" issue. Plus the picture of a Ham sandwich is already gone. So add anything, ideas, agreement, sources that you want to contribute in these areas. Then I am going to take it over to Talk and hope for the best. Ptarmigander (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

New terms of disclosure

On the 16th of this month this change was implemented in the foundation's disclosure requirements. In light of those changes, I think clearly acknowledging that you part of your employment is to represent Chopra's interests here on your user page seems to me like a good idea. We have had some occasional questions in the past about I think a librarian at a library affiliated with a Lutheran college and his editing of artices relating to Lutheran history. And that was a long time ago before these recent changes. I know that once the archive is up and running your status as a liason will be a bit more clearly defined, because the archive will itself be a more transparently functioning entity. But at least until then, and maybe thereafter, having a comparatively unambiguous statement like maybe "I acknowledge that my editing here in the broad topic area of Deepak Chopra and related topics may qualify as paid editing as per the newly defined terms, and am indicating my status here in the interests of full disclosure. I am also agreeing to conduct myself in accord with a relevant guidelines and policies."

Now I acknowledge that this might seem excessive, including even to me. But one of the problems we unfortunately do see fairly regularly is people who (being polite here) may not have either the capacity to really understand such guidelines in general, or are perhaps just unable to see how it might apply to them in particular. And, unfortunately, at least sometimes, that can raise concerns in the eyes of others rightly or wrongly. Also, again unfortunately, people who can't see how their behavior might at least at times justify such concerns tend to be the ones who really need watching and sometimes get blocked or banned because of that. People who seem to acknowledge such potential problems tend to in general get more trust by making such statements.

I've been a self-described Catholic for some time now, as per my user page, and I try to make a point of not making any changes to related artices without concensus. I think at least in part my statement makes it a bit harder for others to come to unwarranted conclusions about how I might have prejudicial motivations. Basically, I am telling people I know I have to be purer than Caesar's wife, and by my saying that people are less likely to think I might be trying to "pull a fast one" or wikilawyer. So, maybe, even if a broader statement is less accurate, making a broader, less accurate, statement might be much less likely to raise eyebrows and suspicions. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John that's not bad advice at all. Cat's already out of the bag though, and now I'm concerned if I change my COI, it will raise even more suspicions. My first COI I revealed that i was a paid employee (technically not true, but I thought that was the appropriate and broad way to reveal financial connection) and it came back to bite me in the bottom when I updated my COI to be more specific. Oye! Interesting challenges though, no doubt. SAS81 (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Chopra and Vedanta - Sources

Chopra, Deepak (2009-04). The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success: A Practical Guide to the Fulfillment of Your Dreams. ReadHowYouWant.com. ISBN 9781442973589. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Chopra, Deepak (2009-11-03). Power, Freedom, and Grace: Living from the Source of Lasting Happiness. Amber-Allen Publishing. ISBN 9781934408148.

"Vedanta and Kabbalah: Nonduality East and West". Reality Sandwich. Retrieved 2014-06-27.

"Deepak Chopra & Eckhart Tolle Talk Consciousness & the Present Moment Part 2: Elevated Existence". Retrieved 2014-06-27.

"According to Deepak Chopra our true nature, Spirit, is a field of pure consciousness -". adishakti.org. 2014-05-13.

Chopra, Deepak (2010-06-25). "Will the "God Particle" Replace God?". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2014-06-27.

Chopra, Deepak (2006-10-10). "Deepak Chopra: Interview with Dave of Powell's Books" (Transcription).

Melwani, Lawina (2000-08). "Deepak Chopra: Vedantic Evangelist". Hinduism Today. New York. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

O, T. P. (2011-05-16). "The Patient Ox: Vedanta - by Deepak Chopra". The Patient Ox. Retrieved 2014-06-27.

SAS81 (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Chopra and the perennial philosophy - sources

Carrano, M. A. Asleep in the Helix: Survival & the Science of Self Realization. Lulu.com. ISBN 9780557377220.

Horgan, John (2004-03-22). Rational Mysticism: Spirituality Meets Science in the Search for Enlightenment. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN 0547347804.

Smith, Huston (2012-02-25). The Huston Smith Reader: Edited, with an Introduction, by Jeffery Paine. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520952355.

Chopra, Deepak (2006-10-17). Life After Death: The Burden of Proof. Random House LLC. ISBN 9780307352279.

Sotillos, Samuel Bendeck (2013). Psychology and the Perennial Philosophy: Studies in Comparative Religion. World Wisdom, Inc. ISBN 9781936597208.

SAS81 (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Scientists who agree with Deepak Chopra, sources

Aging

Meditative practices appear to improve the endocrine balance toward positive arousal (high DHEA, lower cortisol) and decrease oxidative stress. Thus, meditation practices may promote mitotic cell longevity both through decreasing stress hormones and oxidative stress and increasing hormones that may protect the telomere. There is much evidence of neuroendocrine and physical health benefits from TM, which has a longer history of study than MBSR. The newer studies of mindfulness meditation are promising, and offer insight into specific cognitive processes of how it may serve as an antidote to cognitive stress states.

— Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn

O'Donovan, Aoife (2012-05). "Stress appraisals and cellular aging: a key role for anticipatory threat in the relationship between psychological stress and telomere length". Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. 26 (4): 573–579. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2012.01.007. ISSN 1090-2139. PMID 22293459. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Jacobs, Tonya L. (2011-06). "Intensive meditation training, immune cell telomerase activity, and psychological mediators". Psychoneuroendocrinology. 36 (5): 664–681. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2010.09.010. ISSN 1873-3360. PMID 21038639. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Epel, Elissa (2009-08). "Can meditation slow rate of cellular aging? Cognitive stress, mindfulness, and telomeres". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1172: 34–53. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04414.x. ISSN 0077-8923. PMID 19735238. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |DUPLICATE_url= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Consciousness

Deepak and I spoke at the same TEDMED last year, and afterwards we met for the first time. We started talking about the brain, and we realized that me coming from the neuroscience side, thinking about cognition and nerve cells and synapses, and Deepak coming from the consciousness side, in a series of e-mails after we met we realized that we agree on just about everything, but I think about it in terms of neurophysiology and neuronal processes and how synapses form, and Deepak is thinking of it in a metaphysical way in terms of consciousness, using Vedantic literature.

— Dr. Rudolph E. Tanzi

Tanzi, Rudolph. "What's the relationship between the brain and the soul?". Curiosity.

DC maintains the subjective/objective split is nonexistent – a smooth continuum, the surface of a calm sea. SH sees the subjective/objective split as OR self-collapse, an edge or boundary between quantum and classical worlds. But these differences are trivial compared to the vast gap between our mutual views and conventional science, in which consciousness emerges exclusively as an epiphenomenon of complex neuronal-level computation.

— Stuart Hameroff

"Can Science Explain the Soul?". Deepak Chopra and Intent.

Major Influence

Epel, now director of the Aging, Metabolism and Emotion Center at UCSF, has a long-standing interest in how the mind and body relate. She cites as influences both the holistic health guru Deepak Chopra and the pioneering biologist Hans Selye…

— Dr. Elissa Epel

Sara Andreasson. "Can meditation really slow ageing?". Mosaic.

Epel, Elissa (2009-08). "Can meditation slow rate of cellular aging? Cognitive stress, mindfulness, and telomeres". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1172: 34–53. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04414.x. ISSN 1749-6632. PMID 19735238. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Epel, Elissa (2012-10). "How "reversible" is telomeric aging?". Cancer Prevention Research (Philadelphia, Pa.). 5 (10): 1163–1168. doi:10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-12-0370. ISSN 1940-6215. PMID 23041472. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Mind-Body & Ayurveda

The author, who was called a pioneer in the field of mind-body medicine, opened the Chopra Center for Wellbeing in Carlsbad in 1996 with longtime friend and colleague Dr. Deepak Chopra.

— UT San Diego about the late Dr. David Simon

"Biography: David Simon, MD". WebMD.

"David Simon, 61, mind-body medicine pioneer, opened Chopra Center for Wellbeing". U-T San Diego. Feb 9, 2012.

SAS81 (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

A hypothetical

Suppose there is a creationist who has been voicing his objections to Wikipedia's article on William Dembski. His primary complaint: Why aren't Dembski's theories on intelligent design more positively "neutrally" represented in the article? (For convenience let's abbreviate "intelligent design creationism" as just "creationism", as many do.)

The creationist is ready to provide a plethora of supporting sources, saying, "For every scientist out there that you can find a quote of that is unfavorable to intelligent design, I can find another one that is favorable". That is undoubtedly true. There are creationist professors at respected universities, creationist journals, and schools that teach creationism. A significant segment of the public -- not far from 50% in the United States -- believes in some form of creationism. Pointing to all these factors, the creationist argues that Dembski's theories should be more positively "neutrally" portrayed in the article.

However that is not how Wikipedia weighs points of view when it comes to scientific claims. Wikipedia defers to what expert/mainstream/independent sources say on the matter. Overwhelmingly, this amounts to the utter rejection of creationist claims, including intelligent design. Even if we can find supportive creationist arguments from professors at respected universities published in respected journals, they do not counterbalance the prevailing scientific view. Using them to achieve "balance" in this regard would be placing undue weight on a fringe view. This is a perfect example of the application of WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE. Avoiding the false balance is the neutral point of view, as Wikipedia defines the phrase.

The problem is not that the creationist is stupid. Rather, he merely has a narrow focus that leaves large swaths of science unexamined. He lacks perspective and background knowledge, not wits.

Unfortunately, the creationist is convinced that Wikipedia editors are mostly just a bunch of bullies intent on banishing dissenting opinion while pushing their own viewpoint. People are just using Wikipedia as a means to attack Dembski because they don't like his views, the creationist thinks. Sources favorable to Dembski are rejected because Wikipedia is overrun by biased editors, he thinks. He calls those who agree with him "neutral" and those who disagree with him "avowed skeptics" and "editors with an agenda".

How would you deal with this person? Regardless of his position on intelligent design, do you think his attitude is appropriate? vzaak 04:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia should represent any viewpoint 'more positively', whether it is Dr. Chopra or William Dembski. I do however think that Wikipedia should take extra care to make sure minority, philosophical, or notable 'fringe' views are represented in a neutral light - and not place a 'more positive' view on the criticisms either. So to your question, I would tell that editor that Wikipedia's role is not to put any view point in a positive light, but that they should expect to have the viewpoint of ID represented fairly as to what that view is by the authors who define it based on the appropriate sources, and what the reception to those ideas have been in the mainstream. I think what makes this difficult is those who have a strong bias against a subject matter might have a different perspective of what neutrality means. I for one am only interested in seeing a more neutral representation of Dr. Chopra's life and ideas and I am not asking for a more positive review, however if an article is biased towards criticisms, even a neutral viewpoint may appear to be a more positive perspective in comparison. I don't think it is wikipedia's place to criticize any viewpoint, no matter how extreme or bizarre it may be. SAS81 (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I forgot one caveat: the creationist clearly aims to portray Dembski's theories more positively in the Dembski article, but he refers to this as "more neutral". I have made the correction. I didn't say the creationist wants a positive spin -- only that he wants a more positive portrayal relative to the current state. He can call that more neutral if he wants, but the effect is exactly the same.

Do you have an answer to the second and final question I asked above? vzaak 13:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

my answer is still the same. I would work with that editor in the same way I would work with any other editor. I see you hinting at something so perhaps you haven't asked the question you want to yet? SAS81 (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to boil the problem down to its fundamentals. Removing Chopra from the equation is essential to doing that, so could we please stick to the creationist and the Dembski article? You said, "I don't think it is wikipedia's place to criticize any viewpoint, no matter how extreme or bizarre it may be." This seems to contradict your apparent acceptance of WP:PSCI in reporting the mainstream reception of fringe theories. When a fringe theory is totally rejected by mainstream science, being "biased toward criticisms", as you call it, is exactly the neutral point of view as Wikipedia defines it. vzaak 21:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated reply. We could probably get to the fundamentals by removing Dembski too. Yes, I stand by my statement that I personally do not believe it is Wikipedia's place to criticize anything - and by Wikipedia I mean Wikipedia's own voice, which is a NPOV. This is not to say that Wikipedia should not publish criticisms or perspectives, mainstream or otherwise, it just means that's not the intention of Wikipedia, Wikipedia itself does not have it's own unique voice other than a completely neutral one. So if someone is complaining about any article needing more positive representation "neutrality", as you put it, then they may be referring to the voicing of criticisms, rather than the publication of the criticisms itself.

ex: Scientists x, y, and z say Intelligent Design is dumb.

Which does Wikipedia say in it's NPOV voice?

a.) ID is dumb

b.) Scientists x, y, and z say ID dumb

I'm more of a 'b' editor. If your an 'a' editor, we disagree not about policy, sources, or even scientific facts, we disagree about framing content and the contextualization of content. SAS81 (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

In this example, it is of course b, because the NPOV voice will never use the opinion term "dumb" outside of a direct quote. But when we are talking about a factual statement, which I think is the more important situation here, then depending on the circumstances it could be included in the article as fact even if some people were to view it as a negative characterization.

More generally, the difference between your two examples is that the first is an appropriate formulation for facts and the second is appropriate for opinions. (Likewise, the second is not appropriate for facts and the first is not appropriate for opinions.) For Wikipedia's purpose, a fact is anything that is agreed on by a significant majority of the reliable sources in the field in question. When discussing ID in the context of science or where ID proponents make scientific statements, the relevant field is biology; when discussing ID in the context of philosophy or where ID proponents make philosophical statements, then the relevant field is philosophy, and so forth.

In some cases this will lead to an article which emphasizes either praise or criticism because of the emphasis taken by the reliable sources (this is WP:WEIGHT). If I may digress, I would say that the latter comes up as an issue more often because the simple statement "X is false" is easily interpreted as criticism whereas the opposite statement, "X is true," is not necessarily interpreted as praise. Although as with everything on Wikipedia, all of this is subject to caveats and the good judgement of editors; I'm just continuing with the hypothetical by describing general principles. Sunrise (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

ex2: Prominent Newspaper x, y, and z all refer to person A as a creationist. Person A publicly disavows that label, calling them self an Intelligent Design Scientist instead (Note: this is not a recognized branch of science).

Which does Wikipedia say in its NPOV voice?

a.) Person A is an ID Scientist...

b.) Persona A is a creationist and advocate for ID theories....

I think this might be a better example to discuss than the word "dumb" Dkriegls (talk to me!) 02:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Chopra/ Blackburn Study

Looks like the controls on the Chopra- Blackburn meditation study are better than the Shambhala- Shamata Project- in that the control group was at least in the same environment. The duration of meditation could be an issue. But I'll wait to see the whole results.

Short studies with Nobel Laureates. Breaking the Guinness Book of World Records. The knife cuts both ways with that.

I definitely support study of meditation. Although I wish it was just called directed attention -for studies.

"after four days, those in the retreat group saw a 40 percent increase in telomeres, said Chopra. The research also showed meditation changes gene expression."

I guess I'll hold on to that quote- it looks like either a keeper- or a typo.

Anyway- anxious to see the results. Plus-- I thought maybe I could ask this here. I am having some trouble with the very first sentence of my suggestions for the spirituality section. basically -Deepak Chopra is a spiritual guy- How to say that in Wikipedian. In the proper way. Spiritual adviser. Spiritual author. Speaker. What makes him a spiritual adviser more than an alt. med. adviser?

I noticed you had said somewhere that Dr. Chopra was not an alt med practitioner or adviser so much as something else. Was that a "spiritual" thing you meant? I tend to think Deepak was probably influenced -during the late 60's or earlier 70's - by Watts, Huxely etc. I assume this was before working with Maharishi. Or did Chopra get influenced by Maharishi first then explore the Perennial Philosophy etc.?

I believe that Dr. Chopra is spiritually oriented in almost all of his (many) suggestions for people. Am I wrong in this?

I also think it is quite obvious that Dr. Chopra offers a type of spirituality that is part of a change of thinking from an individual's duty and obedience to a patriarchal father-God toward personal empowerment and personal spiritual experience. I think mentioning this change of focus is documentable and is a good fit for the Spirituality and Religion section.

Also what I said before about emphasis on the unitive experience. (whatever people call it) That seems important to give an accurate picture of Deepak's spirituality. I am working that in to my proposal. Ptarmigander (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Ptarmigander, What sources are you referring to re:Chopra Blackburn study, would you mind sharing? Thanks for your good faith efforts here too, I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot. As to your question regarding the 'spiritual' quality of Dr. Chopra, that's a very good question! For some reason, 'spiritual' is not an accepted or respectable title for an encyclopedia,it could be considered WP Peacock. This question somewhat came up before, with the 'new age guru' issue. I think a good word, respectable for an encyclopedia, for someone who is famous or takes a leader ship role, is simply 'thought leader', so 'spiritual thought leader' would actually be an objective, neutral label to describe. I think the problem with the word 'spiritual' however is that it has too many subjective connotations to it, so 'thought leader' or 'philosophy' or philosopher I think would be more appropriate. Thoughts? So in a sentence, one could come to read 'Deepak Chopra is considered a thought leader in mind body philosophy, healing and practice' and I think the take away would still be that Deepak was a 'spiritual' leader of sorts, but this was mentioned in a more respectable manner and neutral in the sense that different viewpoints, spiritual or otherwise, would have understanding of the context. I'm not suggeting that should be a sentence in his article, fyi, this was just a thought exercise. SAS81 (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

"What sources are you referring to re:Chopra Blackburn study?" I thought you were the researcher and archivist. That "quote" about the "40% increase in telomeres" can be found here.

Calling Deepak a thought leader seems pretty peacockian to me. Especially since almost every single use of that "thought leader" term in relation to Deepak is coming from Oprah productions.

I thought maybe the Spirituality and Religion section was so small in part because there is not much to criticize about Dr. Chopra as a spiritual/inspirational author and speaker. I have a few comments and questions about this- but I will have to come back with them later. Ptarmigander (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I was not actually trying to call Deepak a "spiritual guy" on Wikipedia. I was just acknowledging that the opening sentence of any expansion of the Spirituality and Religion section was going to be tricky. (as you demonstrated) I was thinking maybe we could brainstorm about it. But I found a good work around. So all is good for now.

In defense of 'spirituality". about 1/4 of adults in the US identify as spiritual but not religious. Among millennials that is as high as 3/4. Spirituality is not going away yet.. it is evolving. Dr. Chopra is part of this evolution.

BTW I hope I wasn't being too subtle about that typo - 40% increase in telomeres. You do realize it is a typo.

Also - there is this info that you could throw in as food for thought before you (quite shamelessly) continue pumping telomeres and "aging".

(see your statements about telomeres and aging on the Deepak TALK page)

"Telomere length and telomerase activity directly affect the replicative capacity of primary human cells. Some have suggested that telomere length influences organismal lifespan. We compared telomere length distributions in a number of inbred and outbred established mouse strains with those of strains recently derived from wild mice. Telomere length was considerably shorter in wild-derived strains than in the established strains. We found no correlation of telomere length with lifespan, even among closely related inbred mouse strains. Thus, while telomere length plays a role in cellular lifespan in cultured human cells, it is not a major factor in determining organismal lifespan." Ptarmigander (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Chopra Foundation

Per my discussion on both the Deepak Chopra Talk Page and the COIN, I've updated the Chopra foundation article proposal with more secondary sources, a new section on Legal Actions, adjusted a bit of content, then posted it. It's a pretty standard article that more than meets WP:GNG, but if anyone has any questions/issues, please let me know. The Cap'n (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

WOW!! This was absolutely not what I was ever expecting to read on my talk page today. BIG THANK YOU!!!! I'm not sure if you need my help for anything, but I am here if you need. SAS81 (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ishar and the correction of the Dark Crystal

I was thinking about Ishar just a couple days ago. I was hanging out on the computer sifting through articles while kind of watching Jim Henson and Brian Froud's the Dark Crystal with some kids. Mostly I was watching the kids. They had been overly rambunctious and since it was raining they were terrorizing the house. I made them pick a movie and watch it.

They chose the Dark Crystal. And as it played I realized there are some incredible similarities between the Dark Crystal and Wikipedia.

I think even Deepak has described Wikipedia as a precious jewel. But like the Dark Crystal, it is a tainted and broken gem. And like the Dark Crystal, it is controlled by evil militant Skeksis. Who suck all the inspiration and light out of it and allow none of it's great healing powers to emerge. You think?

And the Ishar are a lot like the UrRu Mystics. They are the light holders. They will repair and regain the brightness of the Crystal. So maybe if all the Gelflings and Mystics and Podlings and Landstriders etc. got together and "intended" the Wikipedia Crystal to brighten that would give the Ishar/UrRu an extra boost enabling a critical mass that would turn the tide. Then the Ishar/UrRu would wrest control from the malevolent Skeksis, and correct the Dark Crystal.

Wouldn't that surprise the Skeksis, if they suddenly turned (like the Grinch), their hearts expanding many sizes and they saw that "maybe an encyclopedia means a little bit more."

Perhaps you could get an Ishar coming out announcement in Huff post or something. Get some momentum going. If Deepak can break the World record for number of people meditating next week (and who doubts that he will succeed?) imagine the power he/we all could tap into by directing this energy! How exciting is that? And just imagine the good it could do in helping Ishar repair the Wikipedia Dark Crystal. Can't wait to see how you and Deepak and the founding Ishar luminaries are going to do it all. I love seeing a good strategy unfold.

When this month are you launching?

"We are planning on launching ISHAR online archive August of 2014." Ptarmigander (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra and ISHAR

Hey SAS81 Now what has happened to Deepak at ISHAR? His name is no longer on the supervisory board- which has been changed to Board of Curators.

"Curators"? - So you are leaning heavily on the "Library of Alexandria" image still. This is clearly a cover being used to soften and obscure the actual intent of ISHAR which is to act as a Trojan Horse to try and insert alternative medicine and psychic pseudoscience content into Wikipedia.

I remember when we first talked back in the beginning of June 2014 I stated:

"I just can't hold a lot of confidence in your position. I am thinking that it will quite possibly go the way of Deepak's "The Consciousness Project- Hopeful Solutions for Epic Problems". Whatever happened to that by the way? I was really hoping for the solutions. User:Ptarmigander 15:38, 9 June 2014"

Now I am thinking this more and more about ISHAR.

I see that the ISHAR indiegogo crowd fundraising did not reach even 50% of it's goal. But because you went on to "flexible funding" ISHAR gets to keep that money. When will there be a detailed public statement that discloses where and who this Indiegogo money has been dispersed to? I believe people of the Yoga and meditation community that were exploited to solicit donation to this "Library of Alexandria" deserve that.

I was concerned that this was not a good investment for Dr. Chopra. And I am curious now where your loyalties lie. (And to what degree they have lied in the past.) Ptarmigander (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that is a little harsh. I just want to see you do good. If the debut of ISHAR is now December 1st I'll be anxious to see how you do. You know, whether you broaden awareness by way of the highest standards- as you promised - or try to harness volunteers to insert pseudoscience while appeasing people who have felt wronged by Wikipedia and seek recompense.

Playing that game would not be higher centered. So at least now we finally get to see which way the ISHAR pendulum will swing. And how artful you can be. *Hooray*.

PS if you are no longer a rep for Deepak and will not be in under his employ or instruction regarding his page that might be good to announce here or on your user page. If for nothing else than to maintain consistency with your principled wikipersona. You are after all listed as the representative of ISHAR on Wikipedia. So if you are still that. Good luck. I'm really rooting for the highest and best outcome here.Ptarmigander (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

i can't help but feeling like this is just taunting. not pretty. :( Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi JYT, My comments are concerning a conversation I had with SAS81 on my user page regarding the future of ISHAR and Dr. Chopra's involvement in it. Whether it was a good investment for Dr. Chopra. I did not think so at that time and was concerned.

I don't mind if you find it "not pretty". That's your prerogative. If SAS81 is the representative of ISHAR on Wikipedia- and if ISHAR ends up trying to cram pseudoscience into Wikipedia because it has a mission to "correct" Wikipedia and right wrongs against people who's pseudo-scientific stances have not been accepted and supported on Wikipedia- and if SAS81 has not been truthful about this- then I do not think that is "pretty".

If on the other hand ISHAR and SAS81 become a great benefit to Wikipedia and they help expand knowledge and awareness and transcend divisiveness- because they are so truthful and principled and above reproach- just like SAS81 has declared over and over they would be - then I am going to be supportive and encouraging. And not critical, or challenging, or disbelieving.

It has been a long wait to see what ISHAR is. And see if it lives up to what we have been told. The roll outs have repeatedly been pushed back so seeing what ISHAR will come to be in relation to Wikipedia has not been possible. Now the rollout date is December 1st. Which is real soon. I am curious what SAS81 and ISHAR will have to show. More power to them and best wishes. At least if they pursue lovely Wikipedia interactions and stay away from the uncomely ones.Ptarmigander (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Well Deepak is back on the ISHAR curators list. As a "Founding Champion and advisor". Hope he knows what he is doing. Only Five more days till the announced Dec. 1st debut of ISHAR. Although I can't find that announcement anywhere now. It's probably someplace? I would not wish another delay upon them. Ptarmigander (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. I Found it!!!

"We are pleased to announce that the first iteration of the modern library of Alexandria, ISHAR, will be live on December 1st, 2014!"

You had me worried SAS81 .......... Happy Thanksgiving ..... gives hand salute... Raise ISHAR!!  ::::: Ptarmigander (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)