Wikipedia & Deepak Chopra II: Top 5 Most Inaccurate Claims

An Insider's Point-by-Point Rebuttal of the Bias and Deception on One of Wikipedia's Most Contentious Pages
Note: Referenced material includes links to Wikipedia Differences Between Revisions, unalterable snapshots of online conversations.

Since the first article was published about Wikipedia's dishonest biography on Deepak Chopra and the online harassment that surrounds it, three major developments have occurred. First the Wikipedia editors involved dramatically increased their condemnation of Dr. Chopra, and secondly they harassed the writer of the article across Wikipedia and the internet. Given that this was precisely the behavior they were being critiqued for, these consequences were predictable.
The third consequence was more surprising: the public, including Wikipedians, voiced their outrage at the manipulation of facts, sharing and retweeting the article thousands of times. As disgraceful as the denigration of a man for ideological purposes is, it was the systematic distortion of truth on the most widely used information website that especially angered and frightened readers. While the skeptics tried to pound home their orthodoxy by dominating the forums, editors like you succeeded in increasing the pressure for a more balanced article. This has already resulted in the deletion of the Bibliography section that spoke of burning Chopra's books, and has been growing steadily as more people get involved.

This does not mean the page is neutral, however, and the orthodox-skeptics have grown even more aggressive. They have declared anyone who has ever taken Deepak Chopra seriously to be a dangerously gullible fool, and have taken it upon themselves to defend the public from unsafe ideas. When editors with an agenda can subtly misinform the public on a mass scale, how do people find information about controversial or cutting edge ideas and figures?
The answer is by relying hard facts and science. In recognition of the concerns readers expressed about specific cases of misinformation, ISHAR has compiled a list of 5 of the most misleading and/or biased arguments on Wikipedia's Deepak Chopra Talk Page, where the content of the biography gets decided. Each of these will be debunked with verifiable facts.

• The Universal Principle of Biology: Determinism, Quantum Physics and Spontaneity
• A Multidisciplinary Approach to Mind and Consciousness
• Cardiovascular and nervous system changes during meditation

• Any "scientifically accepted" aspects of Ayurveda cannot be listed, as they are not indicative of the supposed unacceptability of Ayurveda (see: paradox). That means the fact that Ayurveda prescribes meditation, yoga, good diet, and exercise cannot be listed, despite being proven treatments.
• Medical studies supporting Ayurveda cannot be considered because they are not broad enough.
• Large-scale texts supporting Ayurveda cannot be considered because they are too broad.
• Ayurvedic research done by Ayurvedic researchers cannot be allowed, since they obviously believe in Ayurveda and are thus untrustworthy.
• The general medical establishment of the nation of India is not applicable, as it has Ayurveda as part of its standard medical education and is therefore unscientific.
• Any medical study of Ayurveda must be published in a highly reputable medical journal in order to be considered legitimate.
• Any medical journal that publishes an Ayurvedic study shall not be considered reputable, since Ayurveda is illegitimate.

"there is, however, nothing in Ayurvedic medicine that is known to be effective at treating disease, and some preparations may be actively harmful..."

1. Aniraban Bandyopadhyay, PhD
2. Bernardo Kastrup, PhD
3. Donald Hoffman PhD
4. Elissa Epel, PhD
5. Elizabeth Blackburn, PhD (Nobel Laureate)
6. Erhard Seiler, PhD
7. Eric Schadt, PhD
8. Eric Topol, PhD
9. Frank Wilczek, PhD (Nobel Laurate)
10. Henry Stapp, PhD
11. Joel Primack, PhD
12. Josephine P Briggs, MD
13. Keith Black, MD
14. Menas Kafatos, PhD
15. Murali Doraiswamy, MD
16. Nancy Abrams, JD
17. Neil Theise, MD
18. Paul Mills, PhD
19. Pim van Lommel, MD
20. Rudolph Tanzi, PhD
21. Sheila Patel, MD
22. Stanley Klein, PhD
23. Steven Steinhubel, MD
24. Stuart Hameroff, MD
25. Thomas Insel, MD
26. VA Shiva Ayyadurai, PhD
27. Hans Peter Durr (deceased)
28. Henry Stapp, PhD
29. Dimitar Sasselov, PhD
30. Amit Goswami, PhD
31. Bernard Haisch, PhD
32. Bruce Rosenblum, PhD
33. Candace Pert (deceased)
34. Daniel Siegel, MD
35. Dean Ornish, MD
36. Dean Radin, PhD
37. Elisabet Sahtouris, PhD
38. Elizabeth Thompson
39. Fred Kuttner, PhD
40. Keith Black, MD
41. Subhash Kak, PhD
42. Michio Kaku, PhD
43. Lothar Schafer, PhD

Whether or not I share all of his views, I consider Deepak Chopra to be a legitimate figure in the medical and scientific field. As a member of the scientific community I do not endorse the claim that Deepak Chopra must be dismissed or condemned by that group. I am familiar with examples of Deepak Chopra's work that are, to my knowledge, as well supported and valuable as those of many other accepted figures in science.

The orthodox-skeptics used an offhand comment in a Lifestyle article to justify their depiction of the entirety of the scientific community, apparently hoping no one would question the source. Unfortunately for them, the scientific community has a habit of speaking up.

• Despite 95% of news coverage of Deepak Chopra being positive, Wikipedia editors insist that only the 5% that is negative is "notable" enough to be included.
• There are patterns of double standards and abuse intended to harass editors who try to reference any non-negative content.
• That Dr. Deepak Chopra has 14 times more negative Wikipedia commentary about him than Dr. Jack Kevorkian, despite the latter being obviously much more controversial.

• The same critical quotes are used over and over again in different sections in order to increase the odds of any given section having negative content.

5) You can't edit this page because you're too ignorant of Wikipedia policies (and jargon). You have to be completely fluent in WP:MEDRS in order to cite refs on a BLP that's subject to WP:FRINGE & WP:REDFLAG, or you'll violate NPOV, get reverted and be sent to ARBCOM.
This is the most tragic misinformation on Wikipedia, because it robs the world of the potential contributions of hundreds of minds who are put off by bullying editors. Despite the sea of jargon these editors spew forth and the constant insistence upon policies and rules, their obsession with orthodoxy has blinded them to one of the founding Pillars of Wikipedia: There are no firm rules. Wikipedia is intended to bring in diverse perspectives, regardless of the buzzwords more experienced Wikipedians toss around, newcomer's voices are just as important as Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales. If the current rules cannot resolve the abuses listed above, they can and should change.
While enormous work has gone into Wikipedia policies and new editors should be familiar with them, there is also enormous amounts of new work left to be done. The problems listed in these articles are highly visible on Deepak Chopra's page, but are not unique to it. Wikipedia is free to all and open to all who wish to improve humanity's body of knowledge. Anyone reading this article is capable of contributing to Wikipedia, all that is necessary is patience and the will to act. If there is misinformation occurring, it is the responsibility of all who know better to do something about it. Go here to learn how to edit Wikipedia and, if the above behavior seems unethical, remedy it.
There's a common saying on Wikipedia: if someone notices a problem and asks why it has not been fixed, the traditional answer is "Because you haven't fixed it yet."
Let's fix it.