Talk:Sanjay Gupta

Dunda

I understand that it is very important for this page to mention that he was considered sexy. While this might be true and not ridiculous, I wonder how [censored for inappropriate content]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.11.120 (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

References

What

What is the meaning of the following line under the Links section?:

I will one day be Sanjay Gupta shubes, one day.

Pic

That CNN screencap is pretty awful. Can anyone find a better pic of Dr. Gupta? Isopropyl 07:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/gupta.sanjay.html Errorneous 00:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Nationality

I removed

Indian-American

from the place where nationality belongs, in the lead, bcz that is not a nationality in the WP:MOSBIO sense: see Category:Indian-Americans. What passport does he carry? (If two, separate them by "and", not a hyphen.) Beyond that, perhaps the lead can support more info w/in the MoS, but if he was born in India say "Indian-born"; if he merely has Indian ancestors, say "Indian-descended". And of course documentation is desirable, as some are likely to put down what is to them "obvious" w/o checking a source or stating what they think their wording means.
--Jerzy•t 00:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, xxxx-American is a common Wikipedia usage to describe ethnic origin. An "Indian-American" is commonly understood to be an American of Indian descent, just as "Italian-Americans" are Americans of Italian descent. Documentation is always welcome, but it is rather hair-splitting to demand evidence of Indian origins for someone named Sanjay Gupta. Essex9999 68.83.140.156 05:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Battlefield Controversy

they way this section it is, it is unclear if Gupta agreed to operate or not. Please clear this up. Also, you do not "don ___ for ___" i believe, adding to the confusion. either way, dont pussyfoot around what happened, just say it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.112.223 (talk) 05:22, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I've noticed that Dr. Gupta pronounces his first name as "Sahn-jay." Is this an Americanization? I thought the name was pronounced "Sun-jay." Essex9999 68.83.140.156 05:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Sun-juy is he correct pronunciation. Actually even Gupta is not pronounced the way he does. Wonder if Wikipedia is supposed to truthfully report the correct pronunciation or should defer to the pronunciation used by the person in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.48.53 (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hindu American

Is there a citation to back up the inclusion of the Hindu American category? --Crunch 21:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Moore Criticizes Gupta

Seemed to be getting a decent amount of "meta-news" coverage, mostly from right-wing sources (Drudge, etc.), so justified as an update. Wbroun 02:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by CHC: The following sentence: "A further review into the matter reveals some information on Paul Keckley, one of the analysts interviewed during Gupta's segment: Keckley has a primarily corporate background[2] and has donated to campaigns of the Republican Party in the past.[3]" I am not taking a stand on the accuracy or inaccuracy of this sentence, but (a) it seems to dangle, lacking a response from Gupta, and (b) it seems to lead to an entirely different topic (Moore's point-of-view). I don't think this sentence belongs here, at least not at this point in the story... I'd wait for some dust to settle. I'm commenting rather than taking the edit pen into my own hands. Thanks for considering.

That sentence was gone when I got here, but I gave the Moore debate it's own subsection, and added more information. I constricted More's list of more than 10 complaints to 3. I also deleted a poorly written and out of place sentence which said that Gupta apologized for a mistake, and added a statement to that effect in a more appropriate place. Fsu23phd 03:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the Michael Moore controversy subsection in this article is a bit biased, towards Moore. Most of the quotes from organzations and individuals were saying that Gupta was wrong. Surely, the entire media does not agree with Michael Moore. Can anyone find a reference that favors Mr. Gupta, because in the argument he did bring up some valid points against Moore.

is that so, anonymous editor from Georgia? Ripe 22:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can find a reference that favors Gupta. I tried and failed. I read an email list of Deshi journalists, and they also said Gupta and CNN were brownnosing the insurance industry. The final proof for me is the comments by Schwitzer, who is one of the most reliable and objective sources for analyzing health care coverage, which I added to the article.

Schwitzer went beyond the ping-pong debate over details and addressed the fundamental issue, which is that CNN hadn't covered the basic problems with the health care system in the U.S., while Moore did. The U.S. news media has done a surprisingly poor job of covering comparing the U.S. health care system to systems elsewhere (I've searched the periodical indexes), and they know it. Moore really did a better job of journalism than the New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN.

Furthermore, his main point that other, government-run, health care systems do a better job than we do, at half the cost, is a conclusion that you can find repeatedly in major medical journals, like the New England Journal of Medicine, which Gupta reads, although he never reported on the many articles in the NEJM which made Moore's pont.

I was looking for knowledgeable negative reviews of Sicko and I couldn't find one. Even David Gratzer, who writes for the Wall Street Journal editorial page, wouldn't confront Moore directly on the issues.

I think this is one of those cases where you can't give equal weight to both sides because one side, Gupta, is basically wrong, and the other side, Moore, is basically right.

Gupta was right, though, to get a comment from Paul Keckley, the insurance industry spokesman. That's standard balanced journalism. It's not fair to fault him for that. Nbauman 22:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

But, at least according to Moore, Gupta claimed that Keckley wasn't an industry spokesman; he claimed that CNN had checked and that Keckley's sole afiliation was with Vanderbilt University: "His only affiliation is with Vanderbilt University. We checked it, Michael. We checked his conflict of interest. We do ask those questions." The false representation was the problem. 20:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it fascinating that the 02:57, 11 July 2007 contribution from 69.138.21.119 added the editorial comment (subsequently removed) that "Nevertheless, Gupta did raise some interesting points such as the impending bankruptcy of Medicare, a program that was highly touted by Moore in his film." GeoBytes reports the IP as Silver Spring, MD, and by an amazing coincidence Kaiser Permanente has offices there. Ripe 23:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

GeoBytes also reports my last IP as being in Kansas. I'm actually in Texas. You're really reaching for a 'coincidence' there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.110.224 (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

From the video, as far as I can tell, Moore was arguably defeated on two points- the one I edited in about Canadian health care wait times, and the cherry picking facts assertation about the BBC article. The rest of the debate, Moore arguably won. I edited in the first one, should I add the second for balance? The Cherry picking facts thing goes like this: Gupta accused Michael of picking data that suited him and ignoring the rest. Basically, Moore used a "unsourced" BBC article to assert that Cuba spends $251 per capita on health care, while he simultaneously used NHS data that the US spends $7??? per capita. Either A, the article is untrustworthy, and he brazenly used a made-up figure of $251 to get a nice sounding number in there, or B, the article is trustworthy, and Moore ignored the number in it to go to a different number that is calculated in a different way for his own purposes. --Prime642 03:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The BBC article may be "unsourced" but as Moore explains: "Actually, the number 'Sicko' cited for per capita Cuban spending on health care - $251, a number widely cited by the BBC and other outlets - comes from the United Nations Human Development Report, helpfully linked on our website. Here it is again: http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/indicators/52.html." Alas i am 20:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you cannot, under WP:NOR, go through the video and decide where Moore is right or wrong and where Gupta is right or wrong. You have to do what I did, which is find a reliable source, like Schwitzer, who comments on it. Nbauman 03:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Prime642: please don't delete comments on talk pages, even if they were your own. thanks. Ripe 21:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, as you can probably tell, I'm a bit of an amateur at editing...--Prime642 17:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone's bio shouldn't have more text dedicated to the controversy of one interview than the whole rest of his career combined.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.56.19 (talk • contribs)

If it's more notable than the rest of his life, why not? Anyway, it will be trimmed down after the situation settles down.--Svetovid 12:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not more notable, it's a single event a single show in a very long career, it shouldn't be mentioned except in perhaps a few sentences. The weight it is given is clearly an attempt to use Dr. Gupta's biography to pimp out a political agenda. But nobody ever said Wikipedia was encyclopedic did they?--Rotten 05:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because it is a 'single event' doesn't make it 'not more notable'. The 9/11 attacks were 'a single event' in the long history of the Twin Towers, but their collapse was arguably 'more notable' than the rest of their history. Similarly the collapse of any facade of credibility for Dr. Gupta is more notable than his lackluster 'career'. Dlabtot 00:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

How about we just say theyre both attention whores? 72.199.100.223 (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Moore "Sicko" and unbalanced tag

There's a great CNN rebuttal to Moore's rebuttal (a re-rebuttal?). Anyway, later when I get motivated I'm going to include it on a point by point basis as is done for Moore's rebuttal for balance.--Rotten 05:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And until that is done, this section is entirely unbalanced. Right now, it consists of an introductory paragraph, six paragraphs of Moore's POV, four paragraphs from third parties attacking Gupta, and a generic paragraph of CNN's response. In fact, dozens of other people have criticized Moore for inaccuracy, Gupta is hardly alone. The entire section violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight. THF 11:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong disagree. As noted above by Nbauman, it's much easier to find sourced 3rd party commentary and analysis from prominent organizations and people that conclude that Moore was correct. As the NPOV policy you linked to says, "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views." It is apparently the majority view that Gupta was in the wrong. If you have a list of dozens of prominent & relevant sources that criticize Moore in the context of the Sanjay Gupta/CNN controversy, that would be appropriate to add, but stating that they exist in the talk page and not adding them doesn't mean the article is POV. There is no sentence that makes a statement about reality that is contested that would make it POV. Quoting people that make a stance on the controversy, and the fact that the majority of them criticize the Gupta/CNN coverage, is not POV, it's reality. 198.112.236.6 13:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not at all what Nbauman meant. I guarantee you that. This is an entry promoting a political agenda. It needs to be pared down. Also, why is Schwitzer, who was fired from CNN, a reliable source. He has an ax to grind with all of broadcast media, as evidenced by his awful website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlstar3 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The length of the controversy (with MM) section is clearly too long as compared to the rest of the article. This article is a biography of Gupta; making ~half the article about one particular controversy violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight. R. Baley 17:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, totally agree! I'm the editor who started the whole Michael Moore controversy section on the Gupta page. At this point, I feel strongly that it has outgrown the Gupta bio to an almost absurd extent. I was shocked when looked at how big this section has become. Word for word, the article now gives the appearance that Gupta's life has been defined by the Moore incident. There is an imbalance, alright, but it's more in the importance given to the incident than in a political bias. Anyway, just my 2 cents. I respect all the terrific discussion and interesting information. I just wonder whether much of this would be better placed in the Moore article rather than Gupta's (unless I'm missing something here?). Wbroun 18:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've parred it down. I'd like to recommend that certain nutcase editors should refrain from editing this section to flog their political agenda. --Rotten 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The section is much more appropriate at this point in terms of the size of the article. I wouldn't mind seeing a ref to MM's site concerning the rebuttal, as well as a short sentence along the lines of CNN responded to MM's rebuttal with one of their own (with reference). But other than that I think we should keep this section short and to the point. R. Baley 19:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I have added two citations to the paragraph linking (in the ref section) MM's rebuttal and CNN's re-rebuttal. While I like the overall size of this section now, it is slightly one-sided. I want to add the overall point (1 sentence) that Gupta made, something along the lines of "MM could have made the same good points, but without fudging the facts", or Gupta believes that 'Sicko' fudged the facts, when it didn't need to, in order to make good points about health care in the United States." I think this would give the paragraph a little more balance (NPOV) and in the end make it easier to protect against an out of proportion, explosion of info on this biographical page. R. Baley 20:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to mention Gupta's assertion that 'Sicko fudged the facts,' it may be worthwhile, in order to preserve a neutral POV, that in response to Moore, CNN had to issue two corrections, one official (re: the $251 Cuba stat) and one unofficial (re: the Expert that was trotted out that worked for GOP think tanks). You might also wish to insert that in the CNN reply, the author changed the main central premise of Gupta's argument - i.e. Gupta claimed that 'Moore fudged facts,' but in the CNN rebuttal, it claims that Moore 'fudged points.' Points and facts are two different things. - [eriel.]

Thanks for the reply. You bring up a good point. My main concern is that in writing the nuance you describe, we end up with another out of proportion (to Gupta's bio) controversy section (esp. as various editors write points and counterpoints to help the right side 'win'). Basically, to keep it short, I'm thinking 1 argument (or point) for Gupta and 1 arg. for Moore, with links to appropriate articles and in the refs section. This keeps the article under control but still provides guidance for the reader to find out the underlying details. R. Baley 17:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: RFC

I came across the request for comment here and looked over the article at its current revision. As the controversy section is now written, I don't see any issues with NPOV. I don't see that it's inclusion or size is an NPOV issue, either. That said, though, it does simply seem over-large compared to the rest of the article as a whole. I don't know that it should get its own section, but it seems to me like it should get mention in his history. Will this controversy define Gupta for the rest of all time? Seems unlikely, he's a pretty ubiquitous media figure and Wikipedia is not news. Douglasmtaylor 11:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I've examined the article and don't see any POV problems. There was a prominent and widely reported controversy between Gupta and Moore and it is noted in the article. Badagnani 03:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I disagree with the notion kicked around on this page that just because an article is underdeveloped, that current events surrounding a person should be underdeveloped. That may or may not be the case here, but as a principle, the most notable and newsworthy aspects of a person are the things that will be most full-bodied. Saying that a flaccid article calls for a flaccid section about a current news-making event (instead of saying "The MM section is really large, we need to build up the rest of the article...") is myopic. --David Shankbone 03:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - David Shankbone hit the nail on the head. The problem here isn't that this (notable) incident needs shortening, it's that the rest of Dr. Gupta's article needs expanding. Italia^vivi 15:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia and admittedly looked up Gupta after all the press attention. I have always liked him, and continue to do so. This entry about the Moore controversy seems strange to me, and very mcuh seems like the editors have the let their political bias enter into the equation. Given that new controversies are being added -- for the first time ever -- i wonder if this is a wikipedia hit job. Also, if the story about asian IQ that Gupta reported is considered controversial, then should any story done by a reporter that sparks controversy have its own wikipedia subsection? Seems overdone. To simply write "viewers" were concerned -- who are these viewers? Why not instead target the drafters of the original study as opposed to the reporter? Also, Gupta's biggest controversy ever was about operating in Iraq, while serving as a journalist. To me, that was really far more significant. I suggest eliminating the Asian IQ and Gardasil sections and adding one about the battlefiled operation. Should i proceed or how does this work? Carlstar3 14:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am leaving a note here again regarding what appears to be a bias on this page. One specific editor insists on inserting unsupported claims in the section on michael moore. I have tried correcting and explaining only to have my comments conistently deleted. Gupta and CNN admitted to making a mistake, which was corrected. Ripe insists there was a second mistake. I have looked through the statements and see no evidence of that. Also, Moore did call a truce, yet Ripe keeps deleting that as well. Editors, please advise. Carlstar3 19:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC close

Is the RFC issue now resolved? Can the RFC be closed? Eiler7 20:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

There appears to be some controversy over the section restored in this diff, if I am reading it correctly, a dispute between two editors which has been going on for some days. Rather than have the edit war continue, it would make sense to discuss why such changes are being made on this talk page. Note that I have no opinion either way on the veracity or otherwise of the content, but it does seem verified so removal without discussion (say per BLP) does not seem appropriate. Orderinchaos 18:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Carlstar3's 19:11 comment above in the RFC section, I've provided 3 sources (1: "The second mistake came not in Gupta’s original report – where Keckley was correctly identified as representing Deloitte – but in an on-air debate where Gupta claimed Keckley was working for Vanderbilt University.", 2: "Another CNN correction followed on July 15 concerning the credentials of "Sicko" healthcare expert Paul Keckley.", 3: "CNN's Gupta falsely claimed his source's "only affiliation is with Vanderbilt University"")that call the mistake by Gupta during the King interview a second error, so it's not an "unsupported claim." For those unfamiliar with the details, Moore challenged Gupta during the King interview that one of Gupta's experts worked for a partisan health care think tank. Gupta responded that "His only affiliation is with Vanderbilt University. We checked it, Michael." (transcript). As CNN said in their response here, point #11, "Moore is correct." It's Carlstar3's position that is unsupported. Ripe 20:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It is increasingly clear that Rip is using this page as an opportunity to pursue an agenda. The statement did acknowledge that "moore is correct" and that "gupta was correct". The specific transcript from cnn.com says the following. "He is with a think tank michael and his only affiliation is with vanderbilt university." While he left vanderbilt from a full time position, he still has an affiliation. There was NO second mistake. Furthermore, why does Ripe insist on deleting the section about Michael Moore calling a truce? He did call a truce and backed off all his attacks. Ripe insists on making this Sanjay Gupta section both inaccurate and biased. Sanjay Gupta is a practicing physician at an indigent care hospital and advised the Clinton administration on health care. We should acknowledge these things instead in teh sake of completeness instead of letting Ripe interpret these two men's lives. Carlstar3 16:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC) CarlStar3

I'm sorry I didn't weigh in on this when I looked at the first deletion of the CNN transcript and noticed that the text "He is with a think tank michael and his only affiliation is with vanderbilt university" opened the possibility that Gupta had been merely incoherent rather than committing the actual error of "mistakenly contesting Moore's observation that Gupta's one on-air expert was now associated with a Republican-linked think tank rather than a university". This wasn't what I had remembered, so I looked at the Media Matters article and noticed that there the transcript reads "MOORE: He's with a think tank -- GUPTA: You know, his only affiliation -- ..." I haven't checked the video at the MM cite, but if MM's transcript is correct I hope we can agree that Carlstar3 was misled by the CNN transcript's mistke and Gupta did indeed make the second error. Andyvphil (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for analysts observing the situation (such as my first source cited above, an AP television reporter) or is that your own interpretation that there was no second error? See Wikipedia:No_original_research. Just because he is a practicing physician at an indigent care hospital and advised the Clinton administration on health care doesn't mean he didn't make a second error. Ripe 20:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the essay WP:NOTOR and consider the comment in "Caveats about expert material" (which this is not, but I think the thinking has wider application) that "We have a responsibility to present an accurate and factual overview of the topic addressed in the article. <paragraph break> This may include indicating when a given authority may be wrong..." If Gupta had actually said "He's with a think tank..." then CNN would have been wrong to conceed that he'd made an error when he'd merely been incoherent. Don't let WP:NOTOR lead you into repeating obvious falsehood without demur. WP:IAR exceptions are rare, but I assert that this is one. Andyvphil (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

When CNN or Gupta make an error, they acknowledge it by saying "we made an error," as they did with the per capita Cuba spending. There was no second mistake. Please tell me why you keep removing the section about Michael Moore calling a truce? Are you too ashamed of your guy Michael Moore backing off?Carlstar3 01:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC) CarlStar3

Please no personal attacks. Also read Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No_original_research and WP:CIVIL. I'm not going to respond further to you until you adhere to these policies. Ripe 02:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Carlstar3's edits

Firstly, allow me to say I have no opinion on the sentence itself. I have no idea who Sanjay Gupta is, I am not American, and I don't have any opinion on the transcripts or anything like that.
With that said, I have been reverting Carlstar3's edits (here, here and here), as those edits are not improving the article. Indeed, they are worsening it. So when Carlstar3 cited ignore all rules here, I felt I had to interject. Here are the objections I have to the addition.

1. The edit introduces unencyclopedic language: "To be clear, Gupta's exact quote was". It is an encyclopedia's role to be clear at all times to the reader. No encyclopedia will ever have an article that follows up an explanation with "To be clear, X". It is language used in conversations, instructions, or blog entries, but not encyclopedias. This, therefore, worsens the article.
2. If you scroll down on any of these edits to the section that has been edited, you will see that the edit separates three citations from the material they are being used to cite. This either gives the impression that they are citations for nothing, or that they are citations for the line being added by Carlstar3. This, again, worsens the article.
3. [1] (which is provided as a plaintext "cnn.com/transcripts/larrykinglive", rather than any clickable link, or better yet, a citation), doesn't even work. It comes up with a page not found error, and therefore cannot be used.

These are the reasons I have reverted yet again, and the reasons why WP:IAR does not apply. Please discuss here in future, Carlstar3, as you have been told to do in the past, or else, as User:Orderinchaos suggests, you may end up being blocked. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you dreaded walrus for your note and I appreciate your civility. I was not that familiar with Sanjay Gupta until I watched the segment being discussed. As I watched this wikipedia entry grow, I was startled at its bias. So, I created an account and weighed in. At issue is whether Gupta made a second error. He did admit to the error about Cuba per capita spending as noted. In the citation from CNN Ripe has provided, it merely says Moore was also correct. That is, of course, different from Gupta being in error. The citation of the actual transcript http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/10/lkl.01.html, is very specific in what Gupta said. He conceded that the expert was with a think tank and that he had an affiliation with Vanderbilt University. There was not a mistake. You are correct in that my language of "to be clear" throws the rest of the entry into scrutiny and that should be struck. I think Gupta's exact words should be a part of this entry for accuracy sake. I also think the fact that Michael Moore called a "truce" should be included, if for no other reason, than to bring this matter to a close. Carlstar3 (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, dreaded walrus, can you please make the changes? I am not facile enough to add the citations. Carlstar3 (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to edit Wikipedia then you need to educate yourself on how to edit Wikipedia, including thoroughly reading the policies I pointed you to above as well as Wikipedia:Consensus. When you've done that you can read Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page. The incorrect citation format is not the only problem with your edits and I and others will continue reverting the edit you're pushing because you're synthesizing your own conclusion from the transcript, whereas the 3 citations that you keep deleting have written their own analysis on the specific event. Ripe (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And, I will continue to undo your biased edits. This is the exact language per the transcript. Carlstar3 (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC Carlstar3's edit

Carlstar3 keeps submitting variations on a particular edit that removes sourced information & the associated version of events and replaces them with an unsourced less negative interpretation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 , while several editors including myself, Andyvphil, and Orderinchaos have been reverting his edits. He recently expressed above his intention to continue submitting his edit. I intend to continue reverting it because it deletes sourced 3rd party media commentators' interpretations of the events, whereas Carlstar3's edit pushes his own interpretation of the events and therefore I believe it is OR/POV. I would like to establish consensus on a version or suggested alternative. Ripe (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

RfD response:Carlstar3 is definitely out of line. One or two of such incidents can happen when multiple editors are working on an article, but the volume of incidents suggests that Carlstar3 is either working with a bias or not respecting consensus. He should probably be warned and encouraged to work with other editors. Removing referenced info and replacing it with OR interp is unacceptable. I am not familiar with the issues covered in teh article, but at the very least, if Carlstar3 is familiar with an opinion not being represented in the article, he/she should include that in addition to the information already present and cite references, which I hadn't seen done. If Gupta did say that the rep was in a think tank, that could be integrated into the report on the controvery. But the controversy should not be eliminated. Just as a side point, the article could probably do with some copyediting in reporting these events, but that is a secondary issue.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As with yourself, I am also unfamiliar with the subject of the article, though I thought I would mention that he has been warned, and encouraged to discuss on the talk page: see the section "Ripe's clear cut bias and inaccurate editing", on his talk page , where User:Orderinchaos says "Unless you discuss the edits you want made on the article talk page and reach a consensus with other users, and especially if you continue to edit-war on this article, you will be blocked from editing". He clearly has not followed these instructions. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Parents/Indian heritage

What part(s) of India do his parents come from and were they born in India? Badagnani (talk) 07:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Born in Michigan to Indian and Pakistani parents, Gupta graduated with both undergraduate and medical degrees from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan. RTT NEWS - http://rttnews.com/Content/PoliticalNews.aspx?Node=B1&Id=817153

1. In 2003, he was named one of People magazine's Sexiest Men Alive.
2. His parents, Subhash and Damyanti Gupta, are both Ford Motor Company engineers.
3. Wed Rebecca Olson in an elaborate traditional Hindu ceremony.
4. Alfred I. duPont Award to CNN due to Gupta's coverage of 2004 Tsunami.
5. Peabody Award to CNN due to Gupta's coverage Hurricane Katrina
6. 2006 Emmy Award for CNN report Charity Hospital.
7. Performed five surgeries in Iraq.

IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1918973/bio
CNN - http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/gupta.sanjay.html
CBS - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/utility/main2369456.shtml
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hence Jewish Anderstein (talk • contribs) 00:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hence Jewish Anderstein (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a side note, his parents can't be "Pakistani" if they were born prior to 1947 in the region now known as Pakistan. Many Indians born in that region have since migrated to India, and do not consider themselves Paksitani. AreJay (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This source says Sanjay Gupta's parents migrated from India. The staff writer's homework may be incorrect and it is very possible that the writer is unaware of the extreme unlikelihood of a mixed nation marriage in India in the sixties. if that were true a citation would be needed for the extremely unusual fact of an Indian marrying a Pakistani Hindu and settling in India. Alternatively, a web site named "The South Asian" is much less likely to get confused on this issue. Hence removing the WikiProject Pakistan tag. It can be readded should additional evidence prove his mother was of Pakistani nationality. AshLin (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on Surgeon General Reports

The reports that Dr. Gupta has been offered the position of Surgeon General have been reported by most major news outlets; therefore, we should have consensus that these reports are reliable. I'm looking to confirm this consensus before we begin a major rehaul of this page. 71.233.22.8 (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. CNN reported on it and sheduled his programming so as to not pose a conflict of interest. Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Associated Press reported as well. Reliable. Hekerui (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose that we retool the Sanjay Gupta article, hopefully to see if we can get it to GA or (if we do an extraordinary job) FA status. Now that he'll be an important American figurehead (President-elect Obama has stressed the importance of healthcare in his Administration), he should have a deserving Wikipedia article. 71.233.22.8 (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Being treated by Dr. Gupta was a privilege in the Joseph practice. 2600:1002:B031:1410:C1F8:8757:C8D0:4A42 (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

--

I actually removed it because it's still "being reported." The blurb i removed said that he had been offered and accepted the position, and the article cited says "Gupta has declined comment." and " The Obama transition team approached Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN's chief medical correspondent, about becoming U.S. surgeon general, according to sources inside the transition and at CNN." - "APPROACHING" someone does not equal "Offering them a position and having them accept it." - Let's wait until there are verifiable reports that he has actually accepted the position before we start saying that he has.

Actually, I'll un-delete it and just edit the section to reflect the fact that he's been approached about the position. At least that is verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.110.224 (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the reports say that he has accepted the offer and that final vetting is under way.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1870028,00.html?imw=Y

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2009/01/06/obama_wants_journalist_for_sur.html?hpid=topnews

WacoJacko (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sanjay_Gupta#Medical_practice

I don't think there is any such thing as "uncomplicated" spine surgery. More importantly, I've commented out a bit about the Ted Kennedy collapse. Gupta's assessment was in his capacity as a correspondent, not as a doctor, and therefore does not belong in this section. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sanjay_Gupta#Surgeon_General_candidate (whoa, whoa, whoa)

I commented out a long bit about the Moore business. The material in it belongs in the section farther down devoted to that. If someone wants to work it in down there, go to it, please. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Deliberately inaccurate descriptions of brain death added to controversies section

I'm not going to ascribe motive, or call it deliberate in the entry, but the inaccuracies have been consistant for a number of years now, even after criticism from medical professionals. Gupta's descriptions of brain death do not agree with the consensus medical opinion or experience. This is an objective, factual matter, and Gupta is not entitled to his own facts. Anyone with anything to add should use sources from the medical peer reviewed journals, or other responsible medical and government sources. There is a fair amount of irresponsible, medically inaccurate, conspiracy mongering written about brain death that I don't believe has a place in a description of how Gupta does not comply with the consensus medical opinion.

There is serious discussion in the medical community of improving the definition of brain death and how this relates to declaration of death, but I believe that this subject is best posted under the "brain death" entry. Under the "Sanjay Gupta" entry I'm just going to post Gupta's errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelpholloway (talk • contribs) 03:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Michaelpholloway (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius' apparent objection to brain death controversy entry

Nothing in the discussion, but the history shows an objection to my entry. I was careful to include just the facts in the entry, and Gupta's controversial statements about brain death are extremely relevant in the biography of a surgeon/journalist. In evidence based medicine there are facts and consensus opinion. Neutrality in this instance does not include assigning subjective opinion equal standing with current evidence in the peer reviewed liturature, or "balancing" the facts. Neutrality here involves documenting Gupta's statements, and the current medical facts regarding brain death, and its effects on organ donation.

I have not attempted to include Gupta's motivation for spreading misinformation since he himself has refused to directly address the issue despite solicitations. If he were to offer some kind of defense, then that would be relevant, and that then would have to be "balanced" with the documented medical consensus opinion.

As far as it being an attack, I will freely admit that I am posting the entry in an attempt to push back against the misinformation of this widely read and watched author and supposed journalist. I wish I had something complementary to post, but Gupta's campaign against brain death is resulting in the unnecessary death of children (as well as adults) on the organ transplant waiting lists. He needs to be ashamed. His confusing the public is also blocking informed debate on necessary changes to definitions of death and brain death protocol. Michaelpholloway (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Carlstar3, not promoting political agenda, these are the facts

Restoring entry apparently deleted by Carlstar3 who failed to make any case for deleting it. The comment on the history entry was that it promotes a political agenda. This is obviously not the case. I could address misconceptions if someone were to post what the problem is. The section addresses serious errors in medical fact committed by Sanjay Gupta. Politics is not involved. Michaelpholloway (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The book, cheating death, has at least 13 sources to support the specific statements Holloway mentions. This section in factually incorrect and smacks of an attack section. A quick google search reveals how trollish Holloway has been. The book is endorsed by world renowned neuroscientists. It is unclear why a section like this should be included. There is a strong case for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlstar3 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been persistant, not trollish. I am not a medical professional, just a PhD, so I have no professional collegial interests. Professional neurologists, and OPO organizations, are reluctant to publicly and persistantly counter Gupta's misinformation, assuming that they're even aware of it.

Perhaps suggestions can be made that will allow the posting of the same facts in what would be considered a less confrontational manner? Michaelpholloway (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Third party resolution

1. Please resolve dispute between michaelpholloway and carlstar3. The section regarding brain death does have an attack quality to it and is neither sourced or validated. Gupta, the author of the book in question, is a board certified neurosurgeon and has sourced the book thoroughly. He has endorsements from Henry Friedman, who is widely considered a leading neuroscientist. Furthermore, a simple search of existing scientific literature illustrates the controversy surrounding brain death is not novel. (21:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlstar3 (talk • contribs)

Carlstar3 does not address the peer reviewed and medically authoritative sources I provided. The search of peer reviewed liturature that Carlstar3 seems to be suggesting reveals that the discussion of brain death in the medical community involves needed improvements in upper brain diagnosis, and better adopting better definitions. The President's Council and Bioethics report I cite is particular useful. It is objectively verifiable that Gupta's descriptions of brain death does not agree with that of the medical community, and his description of Mark Ragucci's experience does not agree with Mark Ragucci's story. All this is sourced in the section.

If interviews and endorsements of medical professionals are necessary, then calls to any local Organ Procurement Organization, or to UNOS, will provide you with authoritative explanations of brain death since brain death is such an important part of identifying potential organ donors. OPOs and UNOS have medical professionals and communications specialists who will be happy to help you. Please let me know if you need specific contacts.

Carlstar3 alleges a political agenda, but does not explain how politics enters into it. Michaelpholloway (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you've started four threads about this one, I'll respond to the bottom one. What you're trying to put into this article is original research, and isn't allowed on Wikipedia. If you have reliable sources showing your accusations are notable, you can provide them, but otherwise it doesn't belong in any article, especially a biography of a living person. Another user has also left you comments on your talk page, I'd suggest you review those as well for more information on Wikipedia's policies. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed entry under "Controversies"

I've edited my previous entry, and left comments in parenthesis. It would still need some additional references, and more can be added on request. I request that criticisms address the references and not imagined (and probably wrong) motivations on my part. Reference tags purposely edited out.

Sanjay Gupta's descriptions of brain death

In his new book “Cheating Death” Gupta states that a patient, physician Mark Ragucci, recovered from brain death, and that brain death is synonomous with vegetative state ref>Cheating Death, Sanjay Gupta, chapter 5.</ref. In an interview promoting the book on the radio program "Fresh Air" Gupta states that he personally has witnessed multiple patients recovering from brain death ref>NPR’s Fresh Air, October 12, 2009 http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=113681104</ref. A promotional description of the book used by the publisher states that the book describes stories of patients who recovered from brain death: “Extended cardiac arrest, "brain death," not breathing for over an hour-all these conditions used to be considered inevitably fatal, but they no longer are.” ref>http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Cheating-Death/Sanjay-Gupta/e/9780446508872 and other sites.</ref And in a 2005 interview on "Larry King" Gupta states that brain death is not actual death ref> Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, May 19 2007, Volume 35 Issue 2, Pages 273 – 281.</ref Detailed below are references highlighting how Gupta's characterization of brain death, and specific patient experiences, does not agree with the consensus medical opinion, and with documented case histories.

Brain death(note: this references Wikipedia's own entry on brain death) is the permanent loss of all brain function, including brain stem function that controls involuntary reflexes like breathing. It is clearly distinguishable from vegetative state, and coma. ref>http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/coma/coma.htm</ref, ref>http://www.braindeath.org/</ref (note: further authoritative references can be piled on if needed) It was adopted in the US in 1981 primarily because it is a better definition of death than anything else available (need reference). There has never been a documented case of a patient surviving a finding of brain death, despite the claims of many urban legends (need reference). In the approximately 40 years brain death has been studied and applied there have been 3 documented cases of infants properly diagnosed as brain dead that briefly recovered a small amount of brain function prior to loss of cardiac function days later while in intensive care. ref>Pediatric Neurology, Volume 41, Issue 5, November 2009, Pages 378-382. </ref While these three cases may illustrate deficiencies in the meaning of “irreversible loss of complete brain function” in the definition of brain death it does not provide any evidence that brain death diagnosis cannot be used to declare death.

In his 2009 book “Cheating Death”, Gupta states that a physician, Dr. Mark Ragucci, was pronounced brain dead, recovered, and can therefore "tell the story". ref>Cheating Death, Sanjay Gupta, chapter 5.</ref Mark Ragucci was never pronounced brain dead. The version of his story that Dr. Ragucci endorses can be found here, at the website of the NYU Rusk Institute. ref>http://webdoc.nyumc.org/nyumc/files/communications/u2/summer2008_PatientStories.pdf</ref

Gupta has not published anything in the peer reviewed literature of his observations of brain death. (A negative like this could be referenced, if someone insists, by a Pubmed search with the author's name and the subject keyword. These searches are saved on Pubmed. I'm uncertain what to do about non-peer reviewed sources.)

The 2008 white paper on death from the President’s Council on Bioethics details the current understanding and concerns of the medical and bioethics communities about brain death. There is nothing in the report about patient’s recovering from brain death. “Controversy” refers to the need for a better working definition of brain death and how this relates to a philosophical and ethical understanding of when death occurs. ref>Controversies in the Determination of Death: A White Paper by the President's Council on Bioethics Washington, D.C., December 2008. http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/death/index.html</ref

(Though I think it's highly relevant to the life of a physician, I've struck the peer reviewed medical journal reference of how brain death misinformation decreases support for organ donation and produces deaths on the waiting lists.) Mike Holloway 15:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelpholloway (talk • contribs)

You need to cut this down to two or three sentences. This article is not the place to expound on brain death. Find a source that directly refers to Gupta's controversial views on brain death and summarize it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet that would mean that any other biographical entry where an individual interacts with some uncommon thing, and an explanation is given of what this thing is, would also be incorrect. It seems that a special exemption is being made for Sanjay Gupta.

Sanjay Gupta doesn't need to be protected from his own statements, everything is well referenced, and no policy directives of Wikipedia are being violated by the proposed entry. I'm happy to make changes and add more references.

Mike Holloway 16:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please give an example of such articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that you might be laboring under some misapprehensions here. For one thing, the examples that you ask for are obvious and abundant when, for instance, writing about scientists. I can go right to the top of the popular list and cite Albert Einstein. It's impossible to write about him without going into the science, at least, to a small degree, as a quick check of the Wikipedia entry for him will show you. You'll find this to be the same for most any other biographical entry for a scientist, inventor, or a physician going rouge relative to the consensus of medical science.

Generalization: the general public doesn't understand the peer review system and the scientific/medical professional liturature. This misunderstanding is taken advantage of by less than scrupulous propagandists promoting anti-evolution, anti-global warming, anti-population control, etc. A single individual with a PhD, or an MD, is not the authority by themselves. They're only an authority when they're speaking for the community they represent, meaning that they have to quote the current consensus opinion as voiced in the professional liturature, otherwise they're taking a stand apart from the community. When you honestly represent the scientific liturature you are not voicing an opinion, you are presenting the peer reviewed consensus. The information about brain death I'm referencing is not my opinion, and I don't have to be a neurologist to reference it. To refute it you have to show that I'm citing bad journals, or that the general public summaries I reference are not from an authoritative source that properly represents the scientific community. I have the feeling that you don't understand this, but I'm certain the wider Wikipedia community will, and as more professionals become interested in Gupta's misinformation there will be increasing professional interest in illustrating it in Wikipedia.

Perhaps what I need to do with the entry is to write it more from the perspective of what Gupta himself states he wants to do with his new book. He states that he wants to open a dialog/debate among the wider population about definitions of death, and the ethical and clinical applications of those understandings. The major failure of this effort is that he misrepresents the facts. There is, in fact, a current professional debate on the definition of brain death (and not BTW on whether brain death exists or that it represents death), and a on going, long term, struggle with defining death. This deserves popular education and debate, but presenting incorrect facts tragically bolix's up the effort. And yes, this is a major part of the man's current life. It's what he states he wrote a book to do. It's a biographical entry.

Mike Holloway 20:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the other way of criticizing peer reviewed articles is to reference newer articles with better data and/or analysis. When such articles are not cited, as with Gupta claiming that patients recover from brain death, then the scientific concensus has not been changed.

Mike Holloway 01:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelpholloway (talk • contribs)

No, again, what you need to do is find reliable secondary sources that write about this controversy and write a summary. Perhaps I'm wrong, but you seem to think you should be able to add content to here like it was a magazine or newspaper article. It's not. All content and conclusions must have a reference to other sources. Anything else is considered original research. Is there no source you can find that Gupta's view on brain death is controversial? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I work in end-of-life care as a physician and would have to agree that the Dr. Gupta did significantly distort the meaning of brain death in his book for unclear purposes(I reviewed it in my blog post http://www.geripal.org/2009/12/cheating-death-book-lost-in-definitions.html). I do worry it may cause some harm for organ donation if this misclassification of patients is not corrected by Dr. Gupta sometime in the near future given his standing in the general public.Ewidera (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree wil NeilN above, if this is to be covered as notable, it has to be reported in reliable secondary sources. Otherwise, it's just original research, which isn't allowed here. Dayewalker (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Citing The Nation in discussing journalism?

I don't understand how you can possibly cite The Nation as a reliable journalistic source. I am astounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.3.180 (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding John of God: Having watched the video, Gupta seemed appropriately skeptical, and even called it quackery. Not sure how much more skeptical one can be than that, while remaining civil. More importantly, there are not sources to back up this claim of him accepting John of God "credulously." Please provide sources or this will be deleted.Joggerman (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Controversies section

I'm Peter Aldhous, the reporter with New Scientist magazine cited in this section:

Peter Aldhous criticized Gupta's "enthusiasm for many forms of medical screening – even when the scientific evidence indicates that it may not benefit patients." He and other medical journalists accuse him of a "pro-screening bias" in promoting widespread electrocardiogram and prostate cancer screening, even though medical authorities like the US Preventive Services Task Force recommend against it.[23] The US Preventive Services Task Force was asked to retract their recommendations regarding mammography for women aged 40–49.[citation needed] This was a relevant news story that Peter Aldhous chose to ignore, while Gupta pointed out the inconsistency in the organization's flawed reasoning.[citation needed]

The last two sentences, as well as lacking citations, seem to be inconsistent with the timing of events. It is suggested that I "chose to ignore" the controversy surrounding the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations on mammography screening. I presume the reference is to the recommendations that were released in November 2009 (see http://www.ahrq.gov/CLINIC/uspstf/uspsbrca.htm). This was several months after I wrote about Sanjay Gupta's suitability to be US Surgeon General.

The definitive statement that the task force's reasoning on mammograms was "flawed" also seems highly contentious, and there is no reference to who asked for the recommendations to be retracted. The recommendations are clearly controversial, and some people would like them to be retracted, but the statement as worded hints at some form of official request, without identifying what that might be.

For these reasons, I propose deleting these two sentences. I'd welcome any feedback before I do so.

Paldhous (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted those two sentences now.

Paldhous (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Peter Aldhous is missing the point. Gupta has never advocated screening, and certainly seemed to represent the American Cancer Society position when he discussed this. If someone is reporting new guidelines as news, it doesnt make that person an advocate. Also, since when does an anchor or reporter state that a company is advertising on their network, every time they do a story. I see Toyota still running ads on CNN. Should ever anchor have to disclose that those ads are running even when a Toyota story is being reported. Gupta should not have to be held to a different standard. Finally, saying someone regularly criticizes, like Gary Schwitzer, falls under original reporting, and should be deleted. I am deleting the "c of reporting section." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlstar3 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You've deleted the entire criticism section and added some unsourced trivia so I've reverted your changes and tweaked a sentence. Opining whether or not the criticism is valid is original research. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Dayewalker removal of sourced material

There is a back and forth regarding sourced material. This page now has additional sources, that are updated. Dayewalker, please stop removing that sourced material, or updates of sourced material. Will Await your reponse Carlstar3 (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about me reverting your edits like this one [2], your edit is also removing two large sections of properly sourced material. If you want to readd your section about Gupta appearing on the Late Show, go ahead. However, if you want to remove the sourced negative material, you'll need to discuss that on the talk page and gain consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"TOXIC AMERICA" - Question for Dr. Sanjay Gupta

ISSUES by Sandi Trend

Tonight, June 3, 2010; I watched part two of CNN's special two-night investigative report with Sanjay Gupta, MD; "TOXIC CHILDHOOD".

Dr Gupta spoke with the administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson concerning the chemicals children are exposed to and their toxicity. Dr. Gupta additionally spoke of "chemical pesticide" exposures and advocated for the use of "organic" products.

On June 3, 2010 an email was sent to to Dr. Gupta by way of the CNN; "Contact us - Questions or comments? Email" section:

EMAIL TO DR. GUPTA

Dr. Gupta,

I am curious about something that I believe to be very important.

Beings you PROMOTE organic in the place of chemical pesticides; are you the Legal Representative/Business Owner of Neesa Agritech Pvt.LTd. in India?

Neesa Agritech Pvt.LTd. states:

"We have BIO FERTILIZER, BIO INSECTICIDE, BIO PESTICIDE, TISSUE CULTURE, BIOMASS Briquettes (Natural Coal) AND Frozen Food Recipes, OUR BIO FERTILIZER KNOWN AS VARDHAK VAM POWDER AND VARDAAN and we have BANANA TISSUE CULTURE OF G.9 VERITY, and we have Bio Mass Briquettes (White Coal) with best quality, "

If you are the Legal Representative/Business Owner of Neesa Agritech Pvt.LTd. in India then aren't you biased in your representation's that organic is better?

If I am incorrect; I sincerely apologize.

______

"IF" DR. SANJAY GUPTA IS IN FACT AFFILIATED WITH BIO-CONTROL PRODUCTS:

This is alarming as the Environmental Protection Agency definition of Biopesticide is; "Biopesticides include naturally occurring substances that control pests (biochemical pesticides), microorganisms that control pests (microbial pesticides), and pesticidal substances produced by plants containing added genetic material (plant-incorporated protectants) or PIPs."

BIO-CONTROL PRODUCT SEARCHING:

In the search for "novel" microorganisms for bio-control products; LIVING fungus, bacteria etc., to be used on food crops and for insect control:

NUMEROUS biotechnology scientists become "microbe hunters" and search the world to find "NEW STRAINS" of fungi and bacteria.

This SEARCH takes biotechnology scientist's to jungles, rain forests, ocean caves, etc. The scientist's search in soil, plants, plant roots, lichen, leaves and/or it’s litter, mulch and other decaying organic matter, fruit, bird feathers, dead insects, lake beds, forests, dunes and ocean caves, animals from terrestrial sources, marine sources (sponges, sea urchins, etc.) insects of all kinds, rain forests, jungles, dry creek beds, orchards, farm fields, and gardens - just to name a few.

THESE SCIENTISTS THEN BRING THE FOREIGN MATTER BACK TO THEIR HOMELAND IN SEARCH OF BACTERIA, FUNGI, ETC.:

In searching for microorganisms in a sample of plant material; there can be "BETWEEN ONE AND UP TO THIRTY INDIVIDUAL MICROORGANISMS"; This is a direct quote from Gary Stobel in his video, Jewels of The Jungle!SERIES 2 PART TWO

The commentator in Strobel's video, Jewels of The Jungle!SERIES 2!PART!THREE goes on to say, "'Dr. Strobel's next and final step is to now share the details of his discoveries with the rest of the scientific community'."

THESE microbial "discoveries" are not only shared with pharmaceutical companies, but with biotechnology companies as well, that experiment with the newly discovered microorganism for use on our food supply and for insect control. They are then manufactured and sold as "bio control" products that are on the market across the world.

The MAJORITY OF BIO-CONTROL PRODUCTS ARE LIVING MICROORGANISMS; BACTERIA, FUNGUS, ETC:

ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE LISTED on the product label is the "active ingredient"; the bacteria or fungus that is used against a "target pest". The "target pest" doesn't only relate to an insect, but a bacterial or fungal disease of a plant.

The "active ingredient" can be as low as .07%. THE PUBLIC DOES NOT HAVE A "RIGHT-TO-KNOW" what the "other ingredients" are.

WHO IS TO SAY THE "NEWLY DISCOVERED" MICROORGANISM IS SAFE?

WHO IS TO SAY A "NEW SPECIES" OF A MICROORGANISM IS SAFE?

WHO IS TO SAY ALL FERMENTATION BATCHES OF THE BIO-CONTROL PRODUCTS ARE NOT CONTAMINATED?

**IF THERE IS "NO FEAR" OF CONTAMINATION IN BIO-CONTROL PRODUCTS: WHY does the EPA Form 8570-6 say?:

QUOTE: “After fermentation and prior to further processing, each batch must be tested for the following microbial contaminants and have levels below those listed”:

•”E. coli Coliform Bacteria” •”Salmonella” •”Shigella” •”Staphlococci” •”Vibrio” •”Yeast” •”Mold”

New diseases are emerging at a very fast rate. IS THERE ANY WONDER WHY?

AMERICAN WORKERS' EXPOSED TO "UNKNOWN" TOXIN'S IN BIOLOGICAL LABORATORIES; CHEMICALS - VIRUSES - BACTERIA - FUNGUS - PARASITES - NEMATODES:

This happens more than one would think... or ever could imagine.

BIOTECH INDUSTRY = PLUS $$$ BIOTECH EMPLOYEE = MINUS $$$:

The biotechnology industry has a win, WIN situation because of the willful concealment's of workplace related injuries, illnesses and/or death from the biotech employer's "total disregard" for employee's health and safety.

TRADE SECRET'S - CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION:

The biotech employee's are never allowed to know what they are/have been exposed to because of "trade secrets", "confidential information" or "proprietary information".

FEAR OF RETALIATION - THREATENED, HARASSED, LAID OF, LET GO or FIRED:

The biotech employees' are afraid to speak out about safety and health violations in their workplace environment; for fear of losing their jobs or being black-balled in the industry.

BIOTECH INDUSTRY = MONEY - MONEY - MONEY = "GREED":

Biotech employer's DO NOT report the injures and illnesses that befall their employees for fear of "NOT obtaining": Federal and state funding; investor funding; Federal and/or state approval of their "product/s" AND global sales.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST & FINANCIAL TIES:

Further concealment takes place BETWEEN the biotech employer and The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the EPA, USDA, and FDA; by Federal and state public 'as well as' elected officials and within the workers' compensation systems.

~RECENT PUBLICATIONS ON FEDERAL AND STATE LACK OF OVERSIGHT IN THE BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY~:

• CRG Decries the Lack of Protections for Workers in the Biological Industries - A Pfizer Whistle-Blower Is Awarded $1.4 Million - NEW YORK TIMES, April 2, 2010

• "SAFETY RULES CAN'T KEEP UP WITH BIOTECH INDUSTRY" - NEW YORK TIMES, May 28, 2010

• BIOLAB SAFETY (electronic viewing) - COUNCIL FOR RESPONSIBLE GENETICS; GENEWATCH, March-April 2010 issue]

Ironically, on the same day the New York Times article, "Safety Rules Can't Keep Up With Biotech Industry" broke (May 27, 2010) the scientific watchdog group, The Council for Responsible Genetics-GeneWatch Magazine submitted the electronic version of the print subscription; March-April 2010 issue titled, "BioLab Safety".

'GeneWatch EDITORIAL by Sam Anderson "This may be one of the most important GeneWatch issues in recent memory"; "The same could be said of Becky McClain and David Bell themselves. These are not isolated incidents. Now that we have seen these two cases, one has to wonder; how many more are out there?

The 28 page electronic version of BIOLAB SAFETY can be read as you would the subscription “printed” magazine issue. COUNCIL FOR RESPONSIBLE GENETICS; GENE WATCH - Volume 23 Issue 2' Biolab Safety EDITORIALS:

A Cruel and Unusual Corporation By Ralph Nader

A Roach in the Kitchen By CRG staff - interview with Becky McClain

Commentary: GM Crops By Eric Hoffman

Dedication: Tony Mazzocchi By Jeremy Gruber

Give Them an Inch... By Michael Siciliano

One Bug, One Drug By Lynn Klotz, Edward Sylvester

The Lab in My Backyard By Beth Willis

Teatime in the Lab By Sam Anderson

Book Review: Breeding Bio Insecurity and Germs Gone Wild By Andrew Thibedeau

Flushing It Down the Rabbit Hole By Andrew Thibedeau

Topic: Genetic Discrimination By Jeremy Gruber

Topic: Forensic DNA Databanks By CRG Staff

The Case of Dr. Malcolm Casadaban By CRG Staff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biotechharm (talk • contribs) 08:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Biotechharm: I guess you can't write with green felt tip pen online so all those capitals and all that bolded text had to suffice instead, eh? 86.133.211.42 (talk) 08:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

PS A grammar hint for you too - plurals don't have an apostrophe. 86.133.211.42 (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

one of the 10 most influential people in the country

The open says "one of the 10 most influential people in the country" and cites this Forbes article: http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/21/pundit-americas-top-oped-cx_tvr_0924pundits.html. But the article lists top 10 pundits not people, and Gupta's not one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.204.56.10 (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Current NPOV tag

I noticed that this article is tagged as having a dispute over NPOV since January 2010. Although there have been disputes over NPOV on this talk page, there is no indication what the current tag is for. I did notice a discussion from January 2010 (in this section and this one), but it seemed to me that consensus was reached back then, yet the tag remains. Rather than remove it, I thought it best to have a discussion started here as to whether it is currently merited. I am also going to edit the tag so it points here so that there is no confusion. I always thought it best to have tags point directly to a section to discuss them rather than having someone try and guess why the tag was there -- that is why these tags point to talk pages, after all. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Why I changed my mind on weed

Should we mention this article? http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana/ 212.90.151.90 (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

yes. very important policy change.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Umm... Gupta is an f'ing political tool, I mean he would not even have a Wikipedia page otherwise... duh. The idea that he was mislead or whatever about pot after living in Ann Arbor for no less than 15 years is laughable. Quite obviously he has "changed his mind" on medical weed for political reasons and not the reasons he is stating. This part of the page should at least be in "controversy" section. 98.250.6.4 (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the controversy section go?

Wikipedia policy advises against controversy sections. ScienceApe (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ideally, material from that section should be incorporated into the rest of the article. Until that happens, it should probably stay. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

So then what are we waiting for? ScienceApe (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing. Incorporate away! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Ebola Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

Cannabidiol has antibiotic effects on MRSA, gram positive organisms ,fungi, HIV and our studies are showing anti spirochetal effects. This could be tried on EBOLA patients to arrest the growth till a vaccine is made. 

Dr. Ernie Murakami M.D.Clinical Associate Professor Emeritus.UBC....

B.A. Bacteriology and Immunology UBC  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.55.56 (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC) 

"dementia village"

Dr. Gupta, last night while searching the web, I came across your interiew in the Netherlands, I was amazed and so thrilled to see such a place exists. I am a nurse, Geriatric Care Manager, specializing in the field of Demetia. I work with folks with various forms of dementia daily, and of course, most of them end up moving out of their home, being placed in various facilities. Often, family members attempt to play the caregiver role, but most burn out in a very short time. Not knowing where to turn, they end up placing their loved ones in an institution type setting. The guilt these family members face, is quite intense, however, they feel there is no other choice. This causes increased anxiety from family members as well as their loved one. I know if there was such a place here in the US, the families would feel much better making a decision. IT is much easier on the individual as well. I was so touched by this place, that I want to do something here. I need to do this, I feel the web lead me to this article. All I need are investors, someone to help with the costs to get something like this started. With the future and increasing dementia cases daily, there needs to be an alternative for all those effected by this disease. Thank you for sharing this story. Diane

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sanjay Gupta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090325071900/http://jnsonline.org/spine/issues/v97n1/pdf/s0970007.pdf to http://jnsonline.org/spine/issues/v97n1/pdf/s0970007.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sanjay Gupta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080725115958/http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/article_10017.php to http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/article_10017.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sanjay Gupta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120705212141/http://www.umiasa.org:80/about-us/iasa-history/1990-1991/ to http://www.umiasa.org/about-us/iasa-history/1990-1991/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110317171306/http://www.counterpunch.org:80/martens07202007.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/martens07202007.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120623073944/http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120428/SCHOOLS/204280365 to http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120428/SCHOOLS/204280365#ixzz1tqFaaYHK
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080615140116/http://www.worldchanging.com:80/archives/ to http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828190008/http://neurosurgery.emory.edu/FacultyGupta.htm to http://www.neurosurgery.emory.edu/FacultyGupta.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Sanjay Gupta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303183636/http://pritzker.uchicago.edu/about/news/commencement.shtml to http://pritzker.uchicago.edu/about/news/commencement.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.umiasa.org/about-us/iasa-history/1990-1991/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www2.med.umich.edu/prmc/media/newsroom/details.cfm?ID=1137
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211175323/http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/118484/in_defense_of_the_sanjay_gupta_appointment/ to http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/118484/in_defense_of_the_sanjay_gupta_appointment/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122195407/http://www.bradenton.com/living/story/1148201.html to http://www.bradenton.com/living/story/1148201.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100924065626/http://emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=26387 to http://www.emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=26387
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090630015833/http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/gupta_gets_endorsement_from_controversial_former_sg_109219.asp to http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/gupta_gets_endorsement_from_controversial_former_sg_109219.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/umn?q=Sanjay+Gupta
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldchanging.com/archives//009154.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Role in 2011 film Contagion and incredible coincidences with real life - why is this content not allowed on this page?

Everyone knows that Gupta played a role in 2011 film Contagion that is very similar to his role in real life, even using terms such as "social distancing". Since this is a very important part of his career why is it not allowed to be part of his Wikipedia page? Curious...you wouldn't be trying to hide something would you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.206.8 (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

No. The technical term for such things is "coincidence." Acroterion (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Medical licensing

I've removed an odd series of statements about former licenses, whose point is unclear. An IP has reverted that, claiming that somewhere it states that he's licensed in four states. We should correct that statement instead. I've removed the out-of -place discussion again. Acroterion (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Vaccine

Dr Gupta my name is teresa I’m 69 years old I have ara and correctly take xeljanz X-ray 11 mg clopidogrel 75 mg methotrexate 2.5 mg and hydroxychloroquine 200 mg two pills a day and other issue my question to you is can I take the vaccine and is this or the other vaccine life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.14.14 (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Change: Update Picture

• Specific text to be added or removed: Update photo to a more recent photograph
• Reason for the change: The current photograph is from 2011

Wildkarrde83 (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)