Talk:Swaminarayan Akshardham (Delhi)/Archive 1

Gandhinagar
the akshardham in delhi was created many years after the akshardham was first made in gandhinagar, gujarat. still this article does not even mention the great monument. see Gujarat Akshardham

Hello,

I've added a small section about Akshardham Gandinagar. I also changed the image of Akshardham New Delhi so that the two images in the article would match somewhat. Also added, are links to other wikipedia articles concerning various things mentioned in this one (i.e Swaminarayan, BAPS, Pramukh Swami Maharaj, Neasden Temple)


 * After reading that text, my estimation of Clinton took a nose-dive. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

About Akshardham Gandhinagar
Hi,

I have now created a detailed page on Akshardham Gandhinagar. I also added a See Also link on Akshardham (Delhi) page :)) enjoyy

Uday 03:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed
The Good article nomination for has failed
 * Unfortunately there are basic problems: there are no references, and section headings should be capitalised as a normal sentence. Also, there is a sense of a point of view being expressed, in sentences such as has already attracted tens of thousands of visitors from all over the globe, which sounds promotional.  Worldtraveller 09:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite any source for Bill Clinton's quote please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.247.164 (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring the article
Hey all, I feel that the article, if wanted to be taken more seriously, needs to be structured better.

Currently, the article reads:

* 1 The Temple * 2 The Exhibitions * 3 The Yagnapurush Kund * 4 The Bharat Upavan * 5 The Yogi Hraday Kamal * 6 Other Features * 7 Guinness World Record * 8 Creator * 9 Akshardham Gandhinagar * 10 See also * 11 References * 12 External links

I feel that this should be changed to the following, to make the article seem good and appropriate, encyclopaedic-wise:

* 1 History * 2 Temple features * 2.1 Monument (previously would be what the Temple is currently) * 2.2 Hall of Values (previously would be what the The Exhibitions is currently) * 2.3 The Yagnapurush Kund * 2.4 The Bharat Upavan * 2.5 The Yogi Hraday Kamal * 2.6 Other Features (including what's already there, as well as Mystic India) * 3 Awards * 3.1 Guinness World Record * 4 Creator (may require heavy alterations, or some sorta joining to 'History') * 5 Akshardham Gandhinagar * 6 References * 7 See also * 8 External links

This, by no means, will essentially be the end result, but more of a springboard for the direction of change. Ideas were used from current featured (star) articles such as the Cathedral of Magdeburg, Palace of Westminster, and Chicago Board of Trade Building, so it would be hard to go wrong to organise the article in such a manner. Please add your own thoughts, otherwise I shall begin work on this format in the near future under the assumption that no one has anything against it. -- Harish - 18:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Akshardham Gandhinagar Section
Is there a need for this on the Delhi Akshardham page? According to me, a link in the See also section should be sufficient - Wheredevelsdare (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dispute
Hi,

Why has the dispute section under Guinness world record been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.170 (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/Delhi Addition
Note: WP India Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate, please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag   TALK2ME  04:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Disputes (Guinness World Record)
As good as it is being there, it has just one cite. For a GA nominee it's not sufficient. I also remember reading an article where the heads of these mandirs agreed to not chase up on being awarded the world record, if you can find it it'll be a good add as it gives closure/resolution to the situation showing that there's no ever lasting problem or something. -- Harish (Talk) - 09:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

'''swaminarayan sect is not hinduism and should not be a guiness world record. hindus do not worship living priests or have islam like lineage of avatars. hinduism does not have a founder and does not recognize original works by swaminarayan '''

Assessment
I have recently revamped the entire article. We need a re-assessment on the quality of the article. Juthani1   tcs 21:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You have revamped the entire article? Anyway, just a comment: would is have been better to get a peer review on this article first? So that you have an article you know it prepared to a good standard for the GA nomination, rather than hoping to go off the accessors comments and getting a quick fix? Just asking from personal experience, it's been more helpful. -- Harish (Talk) - 09:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It is going to be examined by a GA collaboration. If this fails, I will do that    Juthani1    tcs 11:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

GAN Review
Hi. Tough luck losing your reviewer... if you'd like me to take over, I'd be perfectly happy to. I've reviewed several GANs in the past. Just let me know. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay I'll get to it as soon as I have time to devote for a good review. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I promise I'll review this; I'm just super swamped at the moment and my brain is fried. Sorry. :D Intothewoods29 (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * DONE. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

GAN Review Review
Hi. Sorry I'm really busy right now, but I'll try and get to re-reviewing this ASAP, hopefully this week. Sorry about the wait. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Opening Description Bias
The starting description is taken from the site maintained by the body governing akshardham, which in turn cannot be declared unbiased. Thus, please review the "10,000 years of" part of the description, and consider removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samveen (talk • contribs) 10:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, point. The 10,000 years was POV. I changed it to centuries. Please verify this is NPOV    World    tcs 19:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Development Section
I recently added this section to the history and development section of the article. This section needed more info as decided at the end of the GA review. If I have made any mistakes, please fix them World (talk • contributions) 20:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Just an update for all interested. BEfore we start working towards FA status, I would like to add a paragraph to the introduction. Also, a few of the sections within the features and other features sections need to be expanded. Lastly a section on the traditional temple itself at the monument needs to be included. World (talk • contributions) 23:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Small update needed for the lead
The second half of the second sentence of the second paragraph of the lead section of the article&mdash;okay, I'm just having fun here&mdash;reads thus: "adjacent to the proposed 2010 Commonwealth Games village". As most of you may know, not only the village has been built but the Games are very much over and done with! Can somebody please corroborate the location and maybe find some way to integrate the updated information (in the present tense, obviously) in the lead or, better yet, in the "History and development" section? &bull; H☼&omega;d&Theta;esI&dagger;fl&notin;&isin;   {KLAT}  &bull; 08:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The games recently took place (they ended only a week ago). I will make the fix, thanks The  Wo  rld  19:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Restructuring

 * Well, since our friend Harish101 didn't go through with it, I decided to rectify the matter. I'll resume briefly. I put the "History and development" section first because it makes way more sense; besides, it's the way most articles are organized. I integrated the "Monument" section as the first subsection since, after all, it is a feature; I also changed the Level 4 "Other features" to bold titles (using the semi-colon as in the "External links" section): that way, they don't show up in the table of contents. (Some might disagree with that choice, but I felt these "other features" were not important enough&mdash;at least textually&mdash;to deserve a spot on the TOC.) Seeing as the images were kind of negligently placed, I put them all to the right and under their appropriate and respective subject. As for the "Sisterlinks" template, I checked each of them and, as only the "Wikicommons" actually lead to something worthwhile, I simply made the switch: the rest of the Wiki project links were meaningless or misleading. Honestly, it's kind of strange that the article, awkwardly organized as it was, could be evaluated as a "good article"... I can only hope that my input will have proved fruitful. &bull; H☼&omega;d&Theta;esI&dagger;fl&notin;&isin;   {KLAT}  &bull; 08:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Many other articles do follow a format in which the history/development are first but this is an article about a monument/building. The most relevant information is that regarding the monument and the complex as a whole. The history is not as signifigant as this information. Also, the monument is not a feature. The monument is the actual "Akshardham" and the rest of the complex consists of the features (even though the complex is referred to as Akshardham collectively). All images should not go on the same side (even though it may look nicer on certain computers) - it doesn't follow the set wikipedia guidlines. Continue discussing if you have more questions or ideas. Also take a look at our GA discussion, you might get a better idea of why we arranged it in the way that we did. Thanks The  Wo  rld  18:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I find there is much to learn from the official booklet sold at the complex. (I kinda hate resorting to such "biographical backing", but it now seems necessary to nourish my arguments.) Yes, I've actually been to the complex; yes, I do own the booklet (because one isn't allowed to take pictures inside, sadly). I won't be looking at the structure, for one has to take into account the actual purpose and priorities of this most-interesting document: pictures come first, then comes information; in other words, it is meant for tourists (and Wikipedia is not). That said, I believe the article could be improved by turning to this mine of data, which beats any website. I'll see what I can do about it. But, perhaps more to the point (mine, that is), many precious details can be gleaned inside about the appropriate wording and descriptions.


 * Allow me to further elaborate my perspective by responding to your comment. You write that "this is an article about a monument/building", but the Akshardham is first and foremost a cultural complex, meaning the article shouldn't be revolving solely around the monument (and, I admit, that I was wrong for adding "religious" to the disambiguation link at the top of the article). The monument certainly is the main focus of the complex, but it doesn't have to be for an encyclopedia article. You add, "The history is not as significant as this information", and I totally agree with you in a way, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't go first anyhow! References are essential: should they go first? The complex as a whole should be considered, and not "only" that monument, as magnificent as it truly is.


 * "Also, the monument is not a feature. The monument is the actual "Akshardham" and the rest of the complex consists of the features (even though the complex is referred to as Akshardham collectively)." Upon reconsideration of that statement of yours, I've checked the booklet and have come to disagree with you: while Akshardham does refer to the monument, it still is a "feature" of the complex, called "Swaminarayan Akshardham". You see, I'm starting to feel that a significant portion of our disagreement is based on the proper subject of this article: you say it's about the monument, while I say it should be about the complex. I see that the article is called "Akshardham (Delhi)", but, if it were really about the complex, as I firmly believe it should, the article would need to be called "Swaminarayan Akshardham" and thus have the whole "cultural complex" as the subject. Besides, as our friend Juthani1 wrote responding to a reviewer, "[t]he article is about the entire complex". See, I did read the entire discussion page.


 * Now, if we're to opt for your definition, then the article remains vague and ambiguous (as it presently is): the lead section talks about a "temple complex"; the various names given refer indiscriminately to "Akshardham", "Delhi Akshardham", and "Swaminarayan Akshardham" as if they all really meant the exact same thing (well, maybe for inhabitants of Delhi, but there's a whole world to take into careful consideration as well...); the "Monument" section talks (uses the words) about "the main monument" and not the Monument, per se; and so on. I mean: we need to get it straight whether it's a temple, a complex, a monument or God knows what else! In essence: I find there is no precise, consistent vocabulary being used in the article, and that should be remedied. I've read thoroughly the booklet and these are the terms: "Swaminarayan Akshardham" is always used for the whole complex, while the monument is always referred to as 1. "monument", 2. "Monument", 3. "Akshardham Monument", or 4. "Swaminarayan Akshardham monument" (meaning "monument of the Swaminarayan Akshardham"). (On the website, they use the sanskrit word "mandir", meaning "temple", probably because the booklet is intended for non-Indian, people unfamiliar with the word "mandir". The booklet is much more reliable than a website, don't you agree?) The facts speak for themselves.


 * On the other side, if we were to opt for my definition, then the article would still need extensive reworking, mostly in terms of structure and wording, as I've just mentioned. (Also, I went through many cultural complexes' Wikipedia articles and&mdash;guess what?&mdash;the history usually comes first.) I thus formally propose that this article be renamed "Swaminarayan Akshardham" and "rewritten" as to focus on the whole complex rather than (misleadingly) "only" the monument, as some seem to prefer it. That way, most ambiguities can be discarded and there would be no flimsy reason to keep the structure as it currently is.


 * Let us move on to other matters. "All images should not go on the same side (even though it may look nicer on certain computers) - it doesn't follow the set wikipedia guidlines." I'd love to get me some quote for this one... I quickly went through the "guidelines" (among other pages) and found no "in-your-face" formal recommendations in that sense. Care to enlighten me, then? The Manual of Style only states that "[m]ultiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left". And while we're at it, the same source states that "[i]t is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text", which is exactly what I tried to do in my edit. Care to disagree with me?


 * "Also take a look at our GA discussion, you might get a better idea of why we arranged it in the way that we did." I carefully read it, yet it didn't give me any insight as to your overall reasoning behind that awkward article structure. The second reviewer himself seemed slightly dumbfounded as to why this and that where placed as they were... And while we're at it, our other friend G_man_yo also expressed similar concern about the structure, saying that it's "slightly messy"; on the whole, I thoroughly agreed with him... and with Harish... and with very own myself. So, after all, I'm not the first to notice how strange the structure as you (and others, I suppose) want to leave it is. What more do you want or need in terms of convincing? Should I make a survey of other encyclopedias just to show you that a history of a place usually comes before the summary description of its features?


 * Consequently, I still strongly challenge the use of the word "exhibitions" made in the article. While I could probably find smaller, weaker arguments, this one amply suffices: there are already "exhibition halls" in the complex, and you want to use the word "exhibitions" to describe the different parts of the complex, parts among which one shall find said "exhibition halls"? Come on, give me a break.


 * There is a subsection of this article called "2009". 2009. Really. I'm not joking. The joke is, if you actually read its content, it covers two specific things: the fire incident and the construction (and subsequent opening) of the metro station. 2009. Really. Can't anybody else (except me) come up with a "better" name, or at least a suggestion?


 * "Continue discussing if you have more questions or ideas." I mostly certainly will, yet if I don't think your (or others') responses offer proper or valid objections, I shall proceed once more with editing as my reason, conscience, and experience dictate me&mdash;this time, one thing at a time rather than the whole shebang. :P Cheers. &bull; H☼&omega;d&Theta;esI&dagger;fl&notin;&isin;   {KLAT}  &bull; 06:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "Our" friend User:Juthani1 is me. I changed my username about a year ago. If you go to that userpage, you will see that it redirects to my userpage. I have also been to the complex - not only that, but I have also volunteered at the complex. The article does not soley revolve around the monument as you mentioned, but is the focus. The article cannot be rename Swaminarayan Akshardham because there are another two (at leas tin the next 3-4 years there will be two, there is currently anothe one) Swaminarayan Akshardhams in this world. Let me clarify - I have no issue with allowing others to edit this article (or else I would be violating WP:Ownership). For WP:MOS, it specifically states to avoid arranging images so that they "stack-up". I was wrong about saying that the article is about the monument/building. I meant to say that is is about the complex. You keep mentioning a booklet - what booklet are you referring to? Here is a Featured Article about a building - take a look at the structure Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) (which follows WP:MOS) The are other articles that put the history first, but in many of these cases the historical parts of the artiles are more signifigant (for example Angkor Wat). As you can see the picture go right and left within the sub sections of the article. Also, the architecture come before the history of the building. The Main Monument is a considered a temple by some (but thats not its intended purpose) and monument - the "main monument" is also called Akshardham (by itself). Now Akshardham (or the Main monument) is within the Akshardham Complex or Akshardham Delhi. The article is about the complex - but the focus is the main monument or Akshardham. The features are a part of the complex and surround Akshardham or the main monument. Collectively everything is referred to as Delhi Akshardham or Swaminarayan Akshardham. For searching purposes (because most searchers search for "Akshardham" when trying to find this article - because that is what the complex is known for), we named the article Akshardham (Delhi). Mandir can't be used because the monument is not the actual mandir in the complex. There is an actual mandir in the complex (most tourists don't visit the actual mandir. I was actually considering adding a section on this, but never got around to doing it). So Akshardham is not a mandir or temple but a monument. And again the complex that surrounds is collectively known as Swaminarayan Akshardham or Delhi Akshardham. There are no faces or eyes in this article. What do you mean you tried to do that? Thats for articles with people pictures.And about the 2009 section, it would be great if you could come up with a better name. But because User:AroundTheGlobe thought that the fire incident was essentia to the article, we needed to add it to the history. A few sentences are not enough to make a whole section, so we concluded that we should combine them. Im not exactly sure what you are referring to in the exhibition halls rant. The exhibition halls are features of the complex that surround Akshardham or the monument (which is central to the complex)
 * Sorry about my confusing reply. We need to continue discussion Cheers The  Wo  rld  14:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I need to add one more thing: Akshardham also refers to the complex as a whole - because the main monument is the focus. So Akshardham is a vague term because it can be used to describe both (which the article does). The  Wo  rld  14:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Delhi Akshardham Fire in 2009
Moved here from talk pages of User AroundTheGlobe and User:World (as its pertinent to this article)

reinstating fire section - refer edit history for reason (I do not see why it was removed in the first place, there was a neutral reference for the incident). Newpapers have various means of getting their information - questioning the source is not a reason for removal of vital information (unless there is a source claiming the news as unreliable). I seems to me that any info that is deemed "Bad Publicity" or "Negative" for BAPS (or its temples or monuments whatever they are called) is removed from Wikipedia. We need to remember that all articles need to be WP:NPOV. Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 09:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, the newspaper is a valid source but the source used by the newspaper is not valid. The information was leaked and solely depends on temple manager's perspective. Also, in context to the monument's history, the event is now irrelevant. The article is an overview of the monument and briefly touches on the history behind the construction and its opening. Further verification from alternate sources would make the statement more credible, but its irrelevant anyway. I don't understand why you insist on keeping the information. I strongly believe in WP:NPOV but if its not relevant or well cited, why keep it? The  Wo  rld  15:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We are worried only about our own sources (i.e. newspapers) and not the source of our source (they run a business they know best how to). It was a major incident and needs to be documented on the article(other articles such as Empire State Building that mentions a plane crash into it way back in 1945 have such incidents listed as well). This source  quotes the BAPS pro and a fire officer. This is important information - and cited with an article from a reputed national newspaper (which is itself a listed company on the Bombay Stock Exchange). I dont see why the fuss about the reference - we went through this same drill way back in August 2009 in the 2009 Fire section on this very page. Lets not take this too much further now.  Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 09:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As I see it anyone can claim to be a BAPS pro, but nothing from the newspaper is verified by the organization, nor is the report reported through another medium. I would consider a plane crash into the Empire State Building to be fairly relevant. That is likely well cited and a major event in the building's history. However, multiple events that have taken place at a larger scale at the monument aren't even mentioned in the article. We have gone through multiple discussions about this topic and need to come with a conclusion.I'm against keeping the information on the grounds of relevance and it being poorly cited. In addition to this, the single incident is too minor to have a section of it's own. The newspaper is reputable, I completely agree, but the source's citations are not completely clear. I feel that that is what essentially counts.  The  Wo  rld  01:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you feel that the person who was quoted was not a BAPS PRO then bring it up with the newspaper concerned. The article clearly quotes the BAPS PRO confirming a fire (BTW the name of Dr Janak Dave, the guy quoted has appeared in several other newspaper articles as BAPS PRO, , ). A fire dept officer has also been cited. As I have stated several times we are concerned with secondary sources not primary ones, hence where the newspaper got their info from is not our concern, I feel that your stand is absurd on this point. I strongly object to this incident being played down (and that there was a cover up of the incident by BAPS) - damage to the central monument was such that it was closed for over a year - June 2009 to July 2010! And you call that minor? If you still persist with your stand Im afraid we are going to have to seek administrator intervention. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 05:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

2009 Akshardham Fire (continued)
Please include your comments on the Credibility of MidDay and views on the Importance of the Event separately under the headings Credibility of MidDay, Importance of the Event, and Motions.

For editors new to this topic that are interested in partaking in this ongoing discussion, this discussion is a continuation of Talk:Akshardham_(Delhi) and Talk:Akshardham (Delhi). Earlier discussion was moved from the talk pages of User:AroundTheGlobe and User:World as it was pertinent to this article. The discussion is centered on a segment of the History and developments section of this article.

Previous discussion on the fire takes the discussion to two major points: The credibility of MidDay and the Importance of the Event:

Credibility of MidDay
Rather than creating speculations on what Wikipedia believes to be a Verifiable Source, taking a look at Verifiability and IRS might help us solve this dilemma.

Under WP:IRS:

As User:L'etudiant points out, MidDay is a tabloid which often contains information which is often cited poorly. “Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited.”

As User:AroundTheGlobe pointed out, multiple new sources that are often considered credible, often times contain errors as well (When comparing MidDay to the Times of India and Indian Express). Wikipedia also recognizes this fact by stating, “Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors.”

WP:IRS goes on to state: “While the reporting of rumors has a limited news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.”

MidDay Sources:

The article on http://www.mid-day.com/news/2009/jul/090709-Akshardham-temple-complex-fire-Diwali-reopening-Delhi-news-short-circuit.htm provides information from a “senior member of temple management wishing not to be identified.” This provides no comprehensive source for MidDay.

The second article on http://www.mid-day.com/news/2009/jul/100709-Akshardham-temple-fireproof-world-class-temperature-control-fire-alarm-system-Delhi-news.htm confirms the fire but not the details of the incident provided in the first article. This is only done through two quotes. BAPS’s attempt to cover itself through media is speculation. Though Al Jazeera may have brought light to this idea, it is in no way relevant to this discussion. The Wo  rld  21:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Importance of the Event
The incident has not been a critical development in the monument’s history (this can be judged by the number of sources) and as it is no longer a current or new event (it being three years since the incident).

Relevance and UNDUE:

“Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views…”

As WP:IRS states, “While the reporting of rumors has a limited news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should include information verified by reliable sources…”

The value of this news piece is quite limited as it is only sourced by MidDay (and possibly a few mirrors) and is now 3 years old. The Wo  rld  21:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Motions
Motions and/or Conclusions on your arguments may be made within this section. If you choose to amend your conclusion after further discussion on the topic, you may do so, but please do not remove your original conclusion. Place your new view directly under your previous comment. However, please keep discussion on the topic under the first two headings. This section is meant to provide an overview of an editor’s conclusion. This is not a WP:Vote. We hope to achieve a conclusion through collaboration.


 * Delete: I move to remove the fire incident from the article. Though two quotes confirm the event, due to the low significance/relevance of the event to the entirety of Akshardham’s history as well as the credibility of MidDay on this topic in question. I move to delete after reviewing WP:IRS and WP:Verifiability as well as the content of the single source. The  Wo  rld  21:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This appears to be a very minor event, insufficiently widely reported. There is no need for this minor factoid in the article. Reywas92 Talk 05:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

2009 Fire
I suggest that "the idols toppled" over should be removed for multiple reasons. There is only one source which got its information from an internal link. This is hard to verify. Also, the idols are metallic and of heavy weight. It is hard for them to topple over or even fall over. They would have most likely still been in the up in their original up right position. Please give your input here so that a decision can be made. Thanks World (talk • contributions)


 * As there is a neutral and reliable source (national level newspaper) that confirms the event, there is no need for any changes. One proper source is enough for a 3 line para - as it covers the issue. There is no other source, neutral or non-neutral that disputes the fact, however diff. it may seem to digest. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 07:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * True, but again the newspaper's source is non-neutral. The source of the newspaper is a leak (as stated in the newspaper article).  There is a possibility that the facts the newspaper recieved it wrong.  I just want the section to be as unbiased as possible (include broader details, not specific details).  Damage is not too specific so that can remain.  But my main concern is the statement "the idols toppled over" because it is hard to verify a specific detail without multiple sources (even if the source is a reputable newspaper).  The  Wo  rld  18:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We are concerned with the newspaper (our source) and nothing else. Where they got info from is irrelevant. National Newspapers have got to be responsible and have hard proof to back their words, else they may be sued. A point to be noted is that BAPS has not contested any part of the article. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 23:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add my two cents here - I think this debate over the credibility of this national newspaper article misses part of the point.  It made sense to include details of the fire when it was still a current event.  But for almost a year now, the Garbha Gruh has been reopened with a new, redesigned platform.  The entire “Fire” section, as currently written, describes the fire and subsequent damage, which is certainly relevant and worthy of inclusion.  However, I feel that it’s even more important to bring this section up to date with details of the more permanent current characteristics of the monument.  Accordingly, I think it’d be helpful to create a section called “New Developments,” in which the 2009 fire would be noted along with sufficient attention to the redesigned Garbha Gruh, as well as to any other more recent developments. HinduPundit (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm still not exactly sure of the fire's relevance and still feel that better sources (other than a claim from "Pro-BAPS" Janak Dave), but I do like the idea of have a section that mentions 2009 and 2010 Developments (rather than "New" Developments - the context of new can be different from person to person). I am not arguing whether or not the fire occured but rather its relevance to the article as a whole. If we do come to a conclusion that the fire is indeed relevant, then it can be added to the developments section . However, we definetly do need to strongly consider creating a developments section. It is imparitive to the article as a whole. The  Wo  rld  23:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that the part me need to be rewritten, I strongly object to changing the title though. New Developments would totally sideline the fire incident, a MAJOR one as I pointed out at the bottom of this talk page on the fresh discussion. The monument was closed for over a year. Yes, the fire as it is now "older info" can be put into a Fire sub-title of 2009 along with New Developments thereon under as a second sub title to show the redesign and redevelopment post fire. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 06:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response, AroundTheGlobe; I appreciate your efforts to improve this article. If I understand you correctly, you'd like to have a section for 2009, within which the fire incident would have a separate subheading and the new developments would have a subsequent subheading.  I don't think this sort of layout comports with the predominant standard for Wikipedia articles related to monuments, landmarks, or other historical structures.  These articles do not organize recent events in a chronological fashion, and for a good reason - any monument that has been open for a number of years has gone through numerous physical changes (both major and minor).  It would be difficult for any reader to understand the monument as it stands today if he had to read through a few lines under multiple subsections called '2009, '2010,' '2011,' and on and on.  A more substantive approach includes every relevant fact, but in a much more coherent way.  Take, for example, the Angkor Wat article.  This temple has experienced numerous incidents of damage and restoration projects over the years, yet all of these events are summarized nicely in a single section - one that allows for continual updates as additions or renovations take place in the future.  No facts about what caused any specific damage are omitted or trivialized, while the reader isn't forced to slog through a longwinded stream of chronological subheadings.  Other similar pages follow the same structure, and I don't see why the Akshardham page should depart from this standard. HinduPundit (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * HinduPundit, thank you for your interest in the development of this article. The idea of having a heading labeled as 2009 originally came up during the year 2009 to encompass the fire and closing which were current a the time. I do agree that it should now be renamed with a wider label to encorporate more information and keep the flow of the article smooth ( I needs to be updated). How do you propose we go about this? The  Wo  rld  02:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a new section and added it to the article. The section mentions the fire and also encompasses the major developments and events at the complex in the past few years. Please do comment on the addition. The Wo  rld  22:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The event has only been given a passing mention which is not good enough, it was a major fire that damaged 6 murtis, details need to be mentioned. Iv added some info from the archive, the latter part has been well edited so no need to change that - looks good. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 08:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have been watching the discussion closely and think it is an optimal time to offer my own opinion. I just want to address two points of relevance. The first point is that what makes Wikipedia advantageous over any printed encyclopedia is that it is constantly being updated, improved, and edited. This of course makes it the most current encyclopedia, thereby providing users and viewers alike with the most current events and developments around the world. With this in mind, I believe that the compromise, of sorts, the three of you have come to is a good one. The “New Developments” section is a good idea. This section quite satisfactorily addresses the newer developments of the Akshardham monument post-2008. What is still in question here, however, is just how much detail should be awarded to the 2009 fire incident. Let’s be clear about a couple of things. First off, the fire did occur. In addition to the source that Around the World has provided, there are a number of visitors that have mentioned the fire incident leading to the yearlong renovation in their personal travel blogs. (Here is one example- http://roadmonk.blogspot.com/). Secondly, and of much more importance, is that the extent of damage caused by the fire is pretty much unknown. Around the World has pointed to the MiD DAY report as a credible source for determining that “six murtis, including the 11-foot (3.4 m) Swaminarayan murti, were damaged in a fire inside the monument”.  In my estimation, there are two problems in accepting this report by MiD DAY as adequate evidence. The first problem is that while MiD DAY does have a relatively broad readership in India, it is not a newspaper but a tabloid. To get an idea of how Wikipedia views information from tabloids, I offer you a short snippet from the Biographies of living persons guidelines: “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.” This snippet gives you a very clear idea of how Wikipedia views information provided by tabloids: as sensationalist. Furthermore, take a look at the MiD DAY homepage and assess for yourself if this is a source comparable to the New York Times (credible) or TMZ (non-credible).  The second reason that the MiD DAY report is inadequate is that it blatantly ignores adhering to NPOV, the very principle that you alluded to in your conversations with World. The article bluntly refers to BAPS as an organization bent upon covering up the truth.
 * Thus, my suggestion is that the fire should be mentioned because it did occur. Your position on providing unfounded details, however, is misplaced. If you are indeed able to provide additional sources that follow a NPOV and are least more credible than Indian tabloids, then the issue must of course be reassessed. The section as it stands now, however, is blatantly in opposition to the Wikipedia policy of verifiability. Hopefully you will take my input into consideration and this article will be able to be improved as a result. L&#39;etudiant (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. Mid Day is a national Newspaper in tabloid format, however that does not mean that it is not NPOV. I can point out blatant mistakes in national newspapers like Times of India and Indian Express, does that mean we stop using them as points of reference? If this was not the truth then why did BAPS not take action against the newspaper? Does this mean than all of them are not NPOV? The second article quotes a BAPS spokesperson - BAPS would def. have taken action against Mid Day if it was not their spokesperson that was quoted (or was misquoted) - how can you say that I am wanting to present unfounded details when the spokesperson of the group has been quoted? I can point to more news publications that have mentioned about BAPS being secretive and controlling its public profile (AL Jazeera off the top of my head, Im sure there must be others). No photography/videography is allowed inside BAPS temples, the only ones available are those that are officially released. Is this not control? (and this has been spoken of in the press as well) How can you say that the article should be used for citing the fire took place and not details? Either you use it or you dont - you cant pick and choose. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 05:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the consensus reached was to mention the 2009 fire because no one contested User:AroundTheGlobe points. I will add it to the article and surely it will be reverted by someone for some reason. Swamiblue (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The consensus was reached to not include it. Your post here is not at the latest thread. See Talk:Akshardham_(Delhi) for a complete discussion on this issue and why it was decided to not be part of the article. Thanks Kapil.xerox (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is the criticism section (Environmental Section) correctly cited?
Would someone assist in improving the language in the criticism section? I wrote it and it needs to be improved. Having it fully there is being discussed so until then it can be tweaked. Swamiblue (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)