Talk:Deepak Chopra

Recent release of the Epstein files document his involvement with sex abuse of underage girls and possible human trafficking. ~2026-78758-6 (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Covered in the "Personal life" section. Source was updated today. Marcus Markup (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2011/EFTA02376375.pdf

We just need to say that Deepak Chopra is in the EPSTEIN FILES CamillaFROST (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP violation. There is a wide gap between being mentioned in Epstein correspondence & your unsubstantiated allegation that the Epstein files document his involvement with sex abuse of underage girls and possible human trafficking. You have failed to provide any verification from a reliable source. Peaceray (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

And note that WP:BLP demands decent sources, not crap like . AOL is (at least mostly) an aggregator like WP:YAHOONEWS, and in this case the source was wealthofgeeks.com. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Please take a look here

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2011/EFTA02382260.pdf CamillaFROST (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

See WP:BLPPRIMARY. Basically, we might include the Chopra/Epstein whatevers that CNN or The Hindu thinks are interesting enough to write about. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. We shouldn't be considering such content without far better sources given what BLP requires. --Hipal (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I've restored the "cute girls" quote, given that the Wall Street Journal qualifies as a "far better source". Ericoides (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I've removed it given the bylines of that WSJ article. Looks like an opinion piece.

I'm concerned with the rest of the content and have removed it given the poor sources and NOT, POV, and BLP problems with the presentation and inclusion. Please don't include without consensus as required by BLP. I suggest writing a new presentation with better sources before trying again, preferably on this talk page first. --Hipal (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) ~2026-47721-3 (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Personal attack removed. --Hipal (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Administrator's note: Oh well, that's a pity in a way, Hipal, because I wanted to comment on it, to say that if a user posts a bad-faith assuming attack like the one Hipal removed (link to it here), they'd better expect to be promptly blocked without warning, as the TA in question has now been. I hope this information is of use. Bishonen | tålk 18:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC).

Mention of Epstein was first added to the article this past November 21 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deepak_Chopra&diff=1323358290&oldid=1322364764), where it has remained. Until now. Removing all mention of Epstein is completely untoward, and for you to go on about doing things without "consensus" is ironic. Marcus Markup (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, considering people are eager to comment in this thread, hopefully someone will do that at some point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The cookie cutter nature of this entire thing is hilarious ~2026-12068-82 (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Please restore the cute girls quote. Here’s a primary source from the DOJ ~2026-17373-18 (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2011/EFTA02656615.pdf. Sorry here’s the source ~2026-17373-18 (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

See WP:BLPPRIMARY. Basically, we might include the Chopra/Epstein whatevers that CNN or The Hindu thinks are interesting enough to write about. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

It is criminal that there's absolutely no mention of the 3,000+ references of this man in the Epstein files. How are the US Justice files not a "quality" source? Thisisjoelee (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

It is not that the US DOJ is not a quality source, it's that it's a primary source, and we rely on secondary sources to avoid WP:Original research. In the case of Chopra there are in any case sufficient reliable secondary sources about the Epstein connection (The Guardian, ABC Television, BBC, etc) for us to include material about it in this article. Ericoides (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The Times. Yes, there are sources for a WP:PROPORTIONate mention of Epstein-Chopra in the article. Opinion pieces can also be WP:RS for facts in context, and I see no reason to assume WSJ got the fact wrong in this case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

deepak bros deeply involved in removing it. see Hipal aove. ~2026-47721-3 (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Or they think WP:BLP is important on this website. You will think what you think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Again, best to develop proposed content on this talk page, get the required local consensus for it, then either add it in or seek help from a noticeboard. Identifying one strong source that clearly about Chopra with broad encyclopedic context could change this, but I'm not seeing any. Given Chopra's celebrity, I think it likely that something close will be written given time. --Hipal (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Again, best to develop proposed content on this talk page... Says you. I see no indication that the usual process for improvement of article insufficient for dealing with any legitimate concerns. The article has mentioned Epstein since November, making inclusion the consensus, and your insistence on its removal, against consensus. Also, watch out for the 3RR, I believe you are at your limit. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:FOC and take a close look at WP:BLP. Thanks. --Hipal (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

What is your BLP issue with this, which has been present since November until your removal: "Documents released by the U.S. House contained exchanges between Chopra and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Chopra has denied any wrongdoing." (link above). As it has been present since November, I think that qualifies as consensus which makes your repeated removal against WP:ONUS and disruptive. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Again, please FOC. See WP:TALK as well. --Hipal (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

My question is completely appropriate. I will ask you again: why should not the consensus version from November be restored? Marcus Markup (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

See the comments by Gråbergs Gråa Sång, my agreement, and my subsequent comments. Is there something that I can elaborate on from those? --Hipal (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Your comments above pertain to proposed recent additions/changes, not the November consensus version I am discussing now, which was: "Documents released by the U.S. House contained exchanges between Chopra and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Chopra has denied any wrongdoing." and is sourced to the Times of India which is fine for such a basic statement of fact. Marcus Markup (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

That's incorrect. --Hipal (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

By prefacing your comment with I agree with the removal you were in fact responding to the removal of recent additions. The recent additions do indeed have BLP issues that two sentence bare statement of facts in the November version does not suffer from. The removal of recently added material, as it has no concensus and wnas challenged, was proper. Using it as rationale for blowing away every other existing mention of Epstein in the article because of it, is was not. Marcus Markup (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

This isn't WP:FOC. I see no reason to continue with this back-and-forth at this point given BLP. --Hipal (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

When material is improperly excluded from an article, the article's talk page is absolutely the proper venue for it's discussion. WP:FOC is content resolution policy, but this is not a content dispute, per se. The issues I raise are not "content" based, but involve basic implementation of policy and guideline regarding consensus building, WP:ONUS, and respect editors are expected to have for prior consensus versions of the article. Marcus Markup (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for vehemently pursuing this disturbing topic. ~2026-18712-20 (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Documents released by the U.S. Department of Justice contained exchanges between Chopra and sex trafficker and financier Jeffrey Epstein, whom Chopra met over a dozen times between 2016 and 2019 to practise meditation and raise funds for "alternative science health projects", as well as attending a dinner at Epstein's New York residence, along with Woody Allen.^[1] In one email to Epstein from 2017, Chopra wrote: "God is a construct. Cute girls are real."^[2] In another email from 2017, Chopra invited Epstein to Israel, saying, "Relax and have fun with interesting people. [if] you want use a fake name . Bring your girls. It will be fun to have you."^[3]

The documents indicate that Chopra was aware of the legal cases involving Epstein at the time.

^[4] Chopra has denied any wrongdoing,^[5][6] saying that he is "happy to share whatever I know with authorised officials".^[1]

This is the last version removed. --Hipal (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Marcus Markup: What is your preferred version of the disputed content? Are any of the additional sources suitable to add, for DUE purposes at least? How about this version to start?

That is pretty much the November version (with an updated source) which is all I was advocating for. I could not care less about how it is edited going forward, as long as it is by the process of consensus building. I wish you all luck with that. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Documents released by the U.S. House contained exchanges between Chopra and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Chopra has denied any wrongdoing.^[1]

Assuming we can find better sources to support it, the obvious problem is that it ignores the main context completely: Epstein files. --Hipal (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

completely agree! "exchanged e-mails about meetings" completely whitewashes over the fact that the emails were "BRING YOUR GIRLS" to the convicted child molester!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-14535-19 (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at WP:BLPN#Deepak_Chopra_mentioned_in_Epstein_Files to hopefully move us along. --Hipal (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I've trimmed back the content, working from the better sources:

According to documents from the Epstein files, Chopra had multiple meetings and email exchanges with Jeffrey Epstein. Chopra has denied any wrongdoing.^[1][2]

Again, we need better sources. There's not much to work from, and even the best publishers are relying heavily on quotes and presenting basic facts rather than creating a narrative about Chopra. It's difficult to avoid SYN, NOT, POV, and BLP problems in such circumstances. --Hipal (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

What are the best sources that we have so far for providing coverage about his connection with Epstien? NavjotSR (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Recently Chopra has been linked to Epstein thru very credible Department of Justice published documents.

The evidence is published by the DOJ on their website. 'https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files

Evidence such as. DataSet 209/ EFTA00464723.pdf Which states.

"European tour in April You should come to my 2 day workshop with your girls in Switzerland in Zurich - small village in suburbs A <emoji_ulf3fd.png>0 Will be fun Deepak Chopra MD"

While this shows no wrong nor allegation of such , there is concern possible that needs further inquiry.

CNN has recently also reviewed the recently published DOJ evidence, and shown clear evidence of Chopras interest in "girls", "bikinis" and like.

To be clear I am not saying there is any wrong here.

However CNN does allude to concerns.

CNN article here. https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/23/politics/deepak-chopra-jeffrey-epstein-files

Further this until recently hidden secret emails show acts and possible wrongs which contrast the values and teaching of Chopra that millions have paid Chopra for via seminars and books.

Already in Europe many public figures have been removed or trained from public and private fund raising and other foundations.

Such contrast is concerning.

Wiki aims to be truthful and honest as well as balanced articles, on both sides.

There is no "controversies" section for Chopra.

Maybe it's time this page is opened up and it protection is removed or reduced.

Thanking you for your consideration. John64x (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

As there is no specific edit request here, I'm going to mark it as completed.

It appears to me that there is some discussion to be had about how involved Deepak was, and if any reliable sources can give us a clue. It seems that DC isn't just mentioned in the files, but is in fact a very frequent appearer, ranked highly in the cast of thousands, and sorting the wheat from the new age chaff is as yet not possible. Please refer to other discussions on this page.- Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 09:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The Epstein/Chopra thing is mentioned in this article, and at least one other. Per WP:CRIT, a "controversies" etc section is generally considered a bad idea, they tend to become shit-magnets. This article contains stuff like "Physicist Sadri Hassani writes that "few people have distorted and defaced quantum physics more" than Chopra. Hassani recounts how Chopra co-opts the language of quantum mechanics and uses nonsensical diagrams to advance absurd propositions about the relation between science and Ayurvedic medicine.", it just not put under a "controversy" heading. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)