Talk:Bikram Choudhury/Archive 1

Age

There has been no factual basis for the age made here of his being born in 1946. The recent court proceedings list Bikram as age 71 in January 2016, thus being born in 1944. A record in court is more trustworthy than websites such as "I love India" https://www.scribd.com/doc/290425855/Bikram-Petra-Starke-Complaint Lothtorn1212 (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yoga Titles are A Claim without Factual Basis

1. Just a note: "Choudhury won the National India Yoga Championship "

As someone who has been practising Yoga for many years, my idea is Yoga is that it is a non-compeititive meditation excercise, used mainly for Self Realisation, especially in India where Bikram claims to have won a gold Medal. I have never heard of a yoga "tournament", in India or elsewhere. Can we please have some independent references for this & other claims? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.43.125 (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is merely a claim by the person repeated by multiple others without any factual basis. Yoga competition at the national level did not begin in India until 1976. At the very least, "claims" should be inserted Lothtorn1212 (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

More Claims

this article seems to be completely copied/pasted from Bikram's own website - at least it seems as so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.169.79 (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed -- that and http://tonysanchezyoga.com/lineage.html, at present. Reverted to version from 07:09, 3 July 2008. Zoombody (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

---Very poorly writen. "his 26 posture series which restored his health" from what? also, whose? his or his teacher?. Later it says "At age 20, a weightlifting accident crippled Bikram", so, is he disabled? are we to just infer that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessio.aguirre (talk • contribs) 14:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence for this study through either Tokyo University or the United Nations. The only "sources" for this are various Bikram studios and Bikram Choudhury himself. Since unverifiable claims can not be included on a biographical page, the section on the Tokyo study is eliminated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.239.73 (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversy section

I took out the whole thing because of concerns about WP:UNDUE. I have no objections to a controversy section per se, but the one that was in there was irredeemable. I think it'd be better to start from scratch and talk about issues of content and weight here beforehand.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Rape accusations

Regarding this story, which has been put into the article twice in the last few days. I think it should be left out until something actually happens in the case. For now the complainants are anonymous and there has been nothing adjudicated. for the sake of the BLP policy I think it'd be better to wait until there's some official action in the case at least. Thoughts? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Bikram_Choudhury.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I see someone's been putting this stuff back in. See BLPN discussion here and here where it was agreed that this material is inappropriate for inclusion at this time.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

"Controversy" section

"Controversy"-- is that the right word? Saying you have balls like nuclear bombs and boasting of your sexual prowess on camera and in front of a class (mostly women) makes a person controversial; being accused of rape is more than controversial.

I pruned it to remove unnecessary repetition and then further because I think that once the main details of the allegations are stated, that's enough. (But I am not in favour of cutting it down to two or three sentences, which would not be enough to sketch the main allegations.) A reader can find further details quite easily on the web. As for other things I removed: claiming you are like Jesus of Nazareth etc. -- if it belongs in the article, it doesn't belong next to claims of unlawful dismissal, sexual harassment and rape. Elsewhere, I found two of the quotes in this article necesary and informative, but the other two I think gives the claimants an undue platform.

Stating an allegation is not the same as stating that someone is guilty. From what I've seen I fear I'd have too much disagreement with various past, present or future editors. This relates to the argument put forward by alf laylah wa laylah and seconded by Nomoskedasticity in May 2013 apparently suggesting that that none of the allegations should be inclcluded because "anyone can file a lawsuit." To me it isn't an argument, it is half-way towards an argument, relying on the premise that having multiple lawsuits of rape filed against you is something everyday, it happens to everyone etc. -- whereas it is quite early noteworthy. Even if courts conclude that these five women were pawns payed by an old enemy of Choudury to make false allegations against him and he emerges, ahem, innocent, (the word stuck in my throat) -- even if he is declared not guilty, it will be an episode in his biography worthy of inclusion in the article.

While I can't claim to have an open mind, the article should make the "innocent until proven guilty" point. My current interest in the topic is insufficient to lead me to search out a a quote so that I could include Choudhury's reaction in the article, but a well-written section needs that too. 77.98.32.90 (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the article should take a "innocent until proven guilty" point. The man has never been convicted for any of these allegations. He lost a "wrongful termination" employment case in court to a former employee, who also has a criminal past. But no reference of that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theworldwideeditorialpost (talk • contribs) 00:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bikram Choudhury. 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/20120723131044/http://www.laweekly.com:80/2012-07-19/news/Bikram-yoga-greg-gumucio-bikram-choudhury/ to http://www.laweekly.com/2012-07-19/news/Bikram-yoga-greg-gumucio-bikram-choudhury/

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) 05:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thailand

Is he in Thailand or Mexico? There is evidence in a documentary about him.118.174.163.5 (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

We must await reliable sources (e.g. a national newspaper like The New York Times) for any such claim. Speculation is not allowed on Wikipedia pages, nor is it the function of talk pages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)