Talk:World Cultural Festival

Criticism section
Copied below for discussion (originally added here): --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC) The event was heavily criticised by environmental activists, the public and the media for being organised on the sensitive flood plains of the river Yamuna. This forced the President to cancel his scheduled attendance. India's highest environmental court, National Green Tribunal fined the organisers Rs. 5 crore (US $ 740,000) for destruction of the eco-system and questioned authorities who gave them permission. Ravi Shankar refused to pay the fine imposed by the court of law. The event itself was criticised for its security negligence, forcing the army to build pontoon bridges at the last moment to prevent possible stampedes. Further, the security threat was deemed so great that a separate enclosure had to constructed for the Prime Minister to attend. The event received further criticism becuase the tax payers' money was being used to provide security for what was a private party. The performers claimed that they were treated poorly, being forced to wear wet clothes for hours and walk on stones. Many artists refused to go for their second performance. As was anticipated by environmentalalists, the aftermath of the party left a trail of garbage on the flood plains.

I removed it as being a WP:BLP, WP:OR, and WP:NOT violation. I expect that some can be salvaged, but we cannot add information that's not in the sources, especially about living people. Further, a "Criticism" section is inappropriate per WP:NPOV. The material should be included in the main article rather than sectioned on its own. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Latest Update:
 * Wikipedia is all about correct information and not intermediate development.
 * 1. Event got clearances from Police,Fire and all others. Different Stage is made for PM as requested
 * 2. NGT admitted that Art of Living has all permissions but they need fund to restore Yamuna Plains. So charged 5 cr for bio diversity park
 * 3. There was no security incident - 15,000 Police officers and Army took care. Everyone is checked four times considering terrorist attack threat
 * 4. Read times of Oman, news from Germany - Artists are very happy and said that it was lifetime opportunity.
 * I attended it live with 3.7 million people and have direct knowledge of development.

5. Environmentalist said no damage is done on the flood plains and enzymes were safe and actually cleaned river. Deepeshdeomurari (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In India, many times news are politically biased and sensationalized. Wikipedia should refer international media. Deepeshdeomurari (talk) 06:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that Criticism is important. But, this cannot happen without actually describing the main event itself. The article with only criticisms is also not neutral. NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Amount of fine
Some sources say 5 crores, others 4.75 crores, and some both. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Looking over everything. I appears they paid 0.25 initially and tried to avoid paying the 4.75 remainder. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * http://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/sri-sris-art-of-living-loses-appeal-in-green-court-over-yamuna-banks-festival-1413837
 * http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Art-of-Living-Foundation-hints-at-moving-SC-against-NGT-order/article14388296.ece
 * http://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/310516/world-culture-event-ngt-rejects-aol-s-plea-says-will-have-to-pay-fine.html

Missing "critical" information
The article is missing the main reason for the event and why it is of importance: Over 37,000 artistes from around the world performed at this festival on a 7 acre stage. My edits on this page was reverted.. NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The references discussed in sections above are sufficient to present the criticism. Here is a PDF from the source that describes the highlight of the event itself, which should be described in the first place. Some media coverage is specified on pages 53-57. We need to filter out the bias because these articles are likely to cherry-picked. 08:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

1. Times of Oman, 2. Business World, 3. Inquirer.Net, 4. Hindustan Times, 5. Deccan Chronicle, 6. Indian Express,

✅ NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Alternative Name: World Culture Festival
World Culture Festival and World Cultural Festival have been used interchangeably in the news. Should be addressed NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

✅ NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

AOL counters NGT
It is important to state that AOLF has maintained a counter position to NGT's allegation. This must be said in the article to maintain article's neutral viewpoint. NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's SOAP by definition, the very opposite of maintaining a neutral view. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If two parties are fighting a case in court, presenting the position made by them is not SOAP. Could you clarify your definition for SOAP you are finding applicable here? NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to their public statement and rebuttal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_g9xM8VUQg.

Links to some press sources:
 * https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/Art-of-Living-hints-at-approaching-Supreme-Court-against-NGT-order/article14388666.ece
 * https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/national-green-tribunal-versus-the-art-of-living-a-case-of-environmentalism-or-selective-reporting
 * https://www.livemint.com/Politics/vhbDlcUkWuc1ysStChZRjK/SC-notice-on-plea-against-fine-on-Art-of-Living-for-damage-t.html

Link to supreme court notice: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/172249164/ - "Both learned counsel say that it is necessary to know the background of the case before a decision can be taken on the question of remand."

NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sources. I don't see how they help justify the content. What is livemint.com? The additional ref you added to the article is there why? --Ronz (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific about how it doesn't justify the content? I am citing them for the organization's position on the NGT's decision. The livemint.com is the website for Mint (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mint_(newspaper)). The article supports the claim that issue is still under contention in Indian Courts. NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Mint (newspaper). Thanks. It reads as a quick brief, so NOTNEWS.
 * Why the other ref? --Ronz (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * IndiaKanoon archives all legal proceedings. This one refers to the issue Manoj Misra v. Vyakti Vikas Kendra (VVKI). VVKI is the name of the Indian Chapter of the AOLF (See artofliving[dot]org/workshops-teachers). The Economic Times article explains AOLF's position on the issue. NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So NOTNEWS. --Ronz (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I have presented a strong argument why that statement should persist. You can't just present one side of the story to and claim neutrality. I invite comments from other editors, if they have any thoughts. NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You can't just present one side of the story You must if the sources don't demonstrate any encyclopedic value or weight to any other "side". --Ronz (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not going anywhere. Seems like the other editor is pretending not to understand. I have cited the sources (including link to actual court proceedings along with newspaper articles discussing them) that the findings are being questioned and the issue is being fought in the supreme court. It would be against any common sense not to include that in the article. We maybe able to update the article once we have the final verdict. NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 05:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It won't go anywhere when you totally ignore my responses, and attempt to make this into a personal dispute. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)