Talk:Isha Foundation

userspace draft

User:Ishakaattupoo is a draft for a magazine of this foundation. Please check if it can be merged here, thank you. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit war, Conflict over sources, reads like an advertisement

Two users have deleted a section ostensibly because they don't like the source (but more likely because they don't like the info). The source is Vice magazine, which even its wiki page describes as a reputable journal. The users have begun an edit war, constantly deleting the section over and over. They charge that Vice is a "blog" (wrong). So now more experienced and objective users and editors need to weigh in on this issue, the section and the source. Otherwise the whole entry reads like an advertisement.

Localemediamonitor (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the Vice piece. Vice is considered to meet WP:RS hereabouts - if you have evidence why not, then the place for that would be at WP:RSN. Clearly Vice don't like cults and they see Isha as such a cult. Disagreement or being uncomplimentary doesn't make them an unreliable source. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Notifying about Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Article is being discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Isha Foundation and Vice. Involved users are welcome to comment. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"over 2 million volunteers"

The statement in the lede that the organisation has "over 2 million volunteers" is sourced to The Hindu here :[1]. Reading the source, I can't see how it supports the assertion - it says that "Project Green Hands (PGH), an Isha Foundation reforestation effort" has "involved over two million people" but does not state that these individuals were all Foundation volunteers. Instead it notes that the Project involved "highly motivated volunteers, corporate and business houses, more than 263 schools/colleges and over 1,869 communities" - making it clear that the Foundation volunteers only formed a part of the "over two million people" referred to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

And incidentally, the second citation, for an assertion that the Foundation "works in tandem with international bodies like the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations" is likewise sourced to The Hindu - which however states that "The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations has granted ‘Special Consultative Status’ to Isha Foundation, a release from the foundation here said". [2] The Hindu is merely repeating a press release. If the Foundation is working with these international bodies, we need a third-party source which says so, and says what they are actually doing, rather than one which merely reports that the Foundation claims to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Two dodgy references

Reference 21 is to a tweet. WP:RELIABLE states a general disapproval of such self-published sources. It is the tweet of a prominent person, but I do not think that is enough to justify it, especially as she appears to have no particular connection with the Isha Foundation. It is as if a prominent British politician tweeted about a bishop he particularly approved of. I would be inclined to delete it, but I don't want to leave the Reception section unbalanced, and would prefer some more reliable source to be included on the favourable side, if there is one.

I have deleted reference 22. This was to p.495 of "The AMA Handbook of Business Writing" Prima facie, this book has nothing to do with the subject of the article. I found the full text of the book online at notabene.kh.ua/files/BusinessWriting.pdf. (Whether it is legally hosted there I do not know, and I include the URL solely for the purpose of verifying the relevance of the citation.) Pages 490 to 496 contain a sample business letter, as if written by the Isha Foundation to apply for a grant. This document has no author or provenance, and is included in the book not as an assertion of its claims but as an example of business writing. It is completely unacceptable as a reference.

RichardKennaway (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isha Foundation. 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/20110505071255/http://www.lifepositive.com/Spirit/Jaggi_Vasudev/Exploring_the_unlimited122004.asp to http://www.lifepositive.com/Spirit/Jaggi_Vasudev/Exploring_the_unlimited122004.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://expressbuzz.com/nation/isha-shows-the-way/79583.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) 04:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

New Section

Not sure if this new section makes sense. Including content that can be construed as incriminating when in one case it hasn't been proven in a court of law and in another case hasn't even been filed as a case could make Wikipedia liable to legal issues. Removing for now. Please discuss this here before adding. Regstuff (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Proven or not proven is not the question. The section is "Controversy" not "Conviction". Content is sourced and needs some discussion. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Controversy can be a bit of a dodgy word if proper care isn't taken. Anything can be put under that banner if we're carless. As you say, discussion is needed, so please don't add the content into the article until there is consensus. As I said above, care needs to be taken about Wikipedia's legal liability and that's not something to be taken lightly. We need a few more inputs here. Requesting you to please wait till there's consensus. Regstuff (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

For now I've got the sources to back the content. Details about social and environmental initiatives read a bit like they are written for appreciating the organization and thats why I felt that controversy may provide balance. What do you say about it? Accesscrawl (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you that the tonality of the social, env issues sounds kind of like a brochure. It needs to be rewritten somewhat to fit into an encyclopedia style. This discussion has happened before but no one got around to doing anything. I am partly to blame because I added quite a bit to this article and never bothered too much about tonality. Mea culpa. I can make the time and have a go. Regstuff (talk) 07:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)