This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Yoga Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga, Hatha yoga, Yoga as exercise and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YogaWikipedia:WikiProject YogaTemplate:WikiProject YogaYoga Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

One user isha sacred walks one of the fraud trust be aware this fraud trust

Localemediamonitor (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) Citation 36, which, using improper grammar, attempts to cite that an "environmentalist" called Rally for Rivers a "shallow solution" only leads to a gulf news article which itself does not name the environmentalist or even attempt to provide a source. Anyone who claims to care about the environment can be called an environmentalist. It's a weasel word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:102:8201:83F0:903A:2EA4:E669:9B5B (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Accesscrawl and Regstuff:: what happened to this discussion about consensus on the section on controversies?—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cpt.a.haddock: idk where it is going. No one participated except both of us. What do you think? Accesscrawl (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Accesscrawl: I think the elephant corridor section looks relevant although I would recommend against using The Wire as a source at this time. The abduction allegations do not look substantial enough at first glance.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 20:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cpt.a.haddock: There are plenty of other RS available to back up elephant corridor controversy. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Please discuss/add the ISHA foundation controversies here. IMHO, they don't warrant dedicated sections over at Jaggi Vasudev. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It merits a mention here as well as at Jaggi Vasudev. As the matter is very much relevant to both the subjects who are party to the case. we cant have only one sided WP:PUFFERY pieces on the subject. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any WP:PUFFERY on here. You can highlight any puffery you see here or remove it yourself, but remember WP:GEVAL. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isha yoga foundation is a highly controversial organisation and a lot of criticism is found in the mainstream media, and yet this page only contains appreciations and positive information that is expected from a PR agency of this organisation. Just like on Jaggi Vasudev There seems to be people who are actively removing all kinds of information that is not showing Jaggi Vasudev in good light. Accordingly a POV tag is placed and this should not be removed unless the underlying concerns are fixed. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Jaggi Vasudev. The article has been already covered in near-entirety at the proposed target, and per WP:NOPAGE we ought to maintain a single entry. ∯WBG^converse 10:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paging DBigXray as well Harshil169, the sole longstanding editors who have contributed to these areas sans me. ∯WBG^converse 10:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Winged Blades of Godric, I support the WP:REDIRECT since it passes the deletion criteria as notability of Jaggi is WP:NOTINHERITED by hs companies. DBigXrayᗙ 10:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• And InfoWars should be redirected to Alex Jones? No. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG and separate article should continue to stand. See [3][4][5] The Hindu, [6] Economic Times, [7] The New Indian Express, and these academic sources [8][9] This took me barely a couple of minutes to find these sources that are more than enough for meeting GNG. Editorkamran (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Academic sources--LOL. WP:NOPAGE. ∯WBG^converse 11:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed academic. WP:NOPAGE applies for the pages whose notability entirely depends on the broader subject, not the subject that has gained heavy amount of coverage on its own as clearly evident from all the independent sources above. Editorkamran (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the links mentioned above does not prove the standalone notability. Kindly post the sources as asked or self revert and restore the redirect. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They actually do and you know that. If you really disagree then how about you take it to WP:AfD and we will see how good it goes? I am sure you would bet against the deletion just like anybody else would. Editorkamran (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editorkamran, No, they don't and claiming they do shows that you lack an understanding of WP:ORGCRIT and WP:INHERIT. The redirect will be restored if you fail to produce credible source proving standalone notability. DBigXrayᗙ 11:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support because IMHO, organisation passes GNG but details included here are already included in the Target page. No other opinions on anything.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section below on Notability has valid arguments as to why this page should remain separate and active as per the norms laid out by Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Requesting User:Harshil169 User:DBigXray User:Winged Blades of Godric and User:Editorkamran to please mark this as closed and move the discussion there. Thanks :) KP (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been close to three weeks with not much of a response. Can we close this already? Are any specific prescriptions of the Notability Guidelines for Organisations being violated here? Please point if there are any. Else, please reach WP:CONSENSUS. Help, @Harshil169:, @MarkH21: ! KP (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The closest analogue case is Ravi Shankar and his Art of Living Foundation, where no redirect has been proposed. With a followership that numbers in the millions, and with a fair amount of literature that speaks to the organisation rather than its guru, Isha Foundation's notability seems beyond reasonable doubt. ARK (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability_(organizations_and_companies) states that an organisation is deemed notable if it gets references from sources that pass four standards: Significant, Reliable, Independent and Secondary. There are numerous articles that reference programs run by Isha Foundation, lawsuits and litigations that the Foundation handled, independently in media outlets like The_Hindu_(newspaper), The_Times_of_India, Scroll.in.

It seems that by the standards set up by Wikipedia, this Foundation passes Notability Standards. Could someone clarify of any violation that might have been overlooked? And, could someone help us conclude this notability resolution and remove the tag or the page? Thanks!

Requesting User:DBigXray, User:Winged Blades of Godric, User Talk:Harshil169,Editorkamran for help! Thanks :) KP (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tamilmama, please bring your suggestions on how to improve the article (in digestible bits, please) here to the article talk page. Also, please disclose if you are a foundation member or volunteer, per our conflict of interests policy. I have placed an enhanced protection to the article, because I'm seeing promotional editing coupled with whitewashing which are virtually the same as the ones which were so problematic at the Jaggi Vasudev article. My suggestion to you, then, is to, again, go one item at a time, here on the article talk page, and see what other editors think. Thank you and good luck. El_C 14:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, I am neither a member or volunteer. What I've added has been cited with WP:RS. If you feel they should be discussed here first, no problem. Tamilmama (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for clarifying. El_C 15:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than a separate section, I feel these should be subsumed under the relevant sections - Adiyogi & probably Other activities. Also this bit about the Agricultural professor's daughters has been dismissed in court 1. This should be mentioned in the article. And I really dont see how his profession is important here. The 32-year-old son part, I can't even find anything about a case in the news, and it should be removed as such.

Regarding the construction violations, I think it should be mentioned that while the directorate of town planning claims no approval was given, the district collector does say approvals were given.2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamilmama (talk • contribs) 07:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let other editors respond to the specifics. But as for integrating the controversies section elsewhere, what about also having a summary of some of the controversies in the lead itself? El_C 15:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it so that a section entitled "Controversy and Reception" only bothers to mention a controversy of imprisoning which is highly discredited without any information on how the organization has been received? If someone were to accuse the salvation army of holding members against their will, and it was shown to clearly be false, it wouldn't show up in their Wikipedia article. So why is it important to highlight baseless accusations in this article, which could negatively affect the organization's public image? If the purpose of this section is not explicitly to defame the organization, shouldn't information on the group's public reception be included here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:102:8201:83F0:903A:2EA4:E669:9B5B (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sampreeth S Bhat (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done It is not clear what you want to do with this image. --regentspark (comment) 14:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is already a better image of this sculpture in the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This foundation has bagged Guinness World record for 112-ft face of Adiyogi.(Source:[https:^[1]) But why have they been not mentioned? Sravan Mathangi (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done From the article: "The Adiyogi Shiva Statue has been recognised as the "Largest Bust Sculpture" by Guinness World Records." – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source [39] links to a newspaper article where no citations of any renowned environmentalists have been given. The term "shallow solution" is most probably coined by the editor herself. Thus this sentence should be removed as it takes its inspiration from nothing but shoddy journalism. 103.157.220.202 (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming the article writer just made up the quote is a serious accusation. Do you have anything to call this author into disrepute besides the fact you don't like what they wrote? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hemantha - Reaching out to discuss Save Soil and the connection to the Foundation. The following secondary sources either mention the Isha foundation or Isha Outreach: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/19/indian-mystic-sadhgurus-19000-mile-trip-to-save-soil-aoe, https://indianexpress.com/article/india/sadhguru-speech-global-leaders-unccd-save-soil-7902821/, https://www.wfp.org/news/world-food-programme-and-isha-outreach-partner-food-and-nutritional-security, and https://indianexpress.com/article/india/sadhguru-save-soil-mou-rajasthan-isha-outreach-7952635/. The Guardian and Indian Express have been considered generally reliable according to WP:RSP. The mention of Isha Outreach in some of these articles indicates that the foundation must be involved to some extent. The Isha Outreach website says it is, “Isha’s social outreach Initiative,” and that it “implements several large-scale human service projects to support individual growth, revitalize the human spirit, rebuild communities, and restore the environment.” The same website lists Isha’s various campaigns, such as Cauvery Calling, Rally for Rivers, Save Soil, Isha Vidya, and Action for Rural Rejuvenation. I added Save Soil to the article because it was the only one that was missing. The Foundation has also been listed as the contact for the Save Soil walkathons (e.g., https://www.tampa.gov/events/save-soil-walkathon/99061). As such, it may be worth including some mention of the Save Soil movement in the article, even if it is written more narrowly than the initial language. Happy to discuss further. JetGreen40 (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JetGreen40: for the record, Hemantha was blocked as a sockpuppet, so they won’t be able to respond to you here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add this paragraph to "Controversies and reception"

The body of a 34-year-old woman, who went missing on December 18 after attending a week-long yoga class at the Isha Yoga Centre in Coimbatore, was fished out from a well on Sunday, police said.

ref citations: https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/woman-missing-coimbatore-isha-yoga-centre-found-dead-171482

https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Coimbatore/missing-woman-found-dead-in-abandoned-well-near-coimbatore/article66326952.ece

https://www.indiatoday.in/crime/story/coimbatore-missing-woman-body-found-in-well-tamil-nadu-2315987-2023-01-01

https://www.deccanherald.com/national/south/woman-who-went-missing-from-yoga-class-in-coimbatore-found-dead-1176995.html S1 Reviews (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add this paragraph S1 Reviews (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: These sources do not support this being a controversy or reception related to the foundation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was going through the article and felt that there was very little information about the social and environmental initiatives of the Isha Foundation. For example, for The Project Greenhands, the foundation set a Guinness World Record for planting 852,587 saplings in 6284 locations across 27 districts in the state, by over 256,289 volunteers in just one day. This information should be part of the article. Similarly there are many such details that I wish to suggest. Is this the right forum to raise these request?

Can someone guide me! Divyanshupadhyay0514 (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have third-party reliable sources for this information? Not places that just regurgitate the Foundation's press releases, but actual in-depth articles on those topics? Because we've had lots of folks come by wanting to put those numbers into the articles, and it's always just random websites repeating what the Foundation PR team puts out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources regarding the world record:

indiatimes.com

hindustantimes.com

Claim ID from Guiness World Records is: 170735 as stated here.

Unfortunatly this record is currently - as the majority of all world records - not on the website of guiness world records. 0nelight505 (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request: The Total Revenue Generated By The Foundation Be Changed To $40 MillionItalic text (US Chapter) from $25 Million (US Chapter. Source. Arya Raval (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I updated the infobox. I also replaced the old charitynavigator source with your reference as there is a stronger consensus that propublica is reliable. Jamedeus (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change Revenue (2020) to Revenue (2022) Arya Raval (talk) 16:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding: "Controversies and reception" - "In 2016, a couple claimed that their two adult daughters were held captive at the centre." there is a decision of the supreme court now: The Hindu and multiple other sources.

0nelight505 (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]