Talk:Swaminarayan Akshardham (Delhi)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Concision

I will be revamping/spending some time on the article for the next several days doing major clean-ups, applying concision and copy-editing. Looks like a lot of stuff on the article needs to be updated with new information and some of it removed. Cheers! Kapil.xerox (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Environmental Violations

With regards to the edit about the complex lacking the proper environmental clearance, the sources provided lack clarity. I checked all of the sources and none of them point to any specific violation or required clearance. I found the National Environment Policy, dated 2006 - http://www.moef.gov.in/sites/default/files/introduction-nep2006e.pdf. The completion of the complex predates this policy handbook. If the sources supporting the edit don't provide any specific information, then I don't think this verbiage should be in the article. If others could chime in, that would be great.

Actionjackson09 (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the edit should be removed, because it relies on demonstrably false information. Akshardham opened in 2005, whereas the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification requirement under the National Environment Policy came into effect in 2006. It is also evident that Akshardham was constructed in accordance with the environmental regulations in effect at the time (see http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Delhi-CM-sidesteps-Jairam-Rameshs-remarks-on-Akshardham-temple/articleshow/7241785.cms and http://akshardham.com/about-us/timeline/). The articles referenced in the edit at issue have published or relied upon clearly false information, and therefore fail to satisfy Wikipedia’s standard for reliable sources (see WP:QUESTIONABLE). Because these articles cannot support the claims asserted in the edit, the edit should be removed. HinduPundit (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that there is no basis to the assertions that the sources are making. Thus, this voids the sources as per WP:QUESTIONABLE. Not to mention, as per WP:RS, most of these news sources cited here by Wikipedia standards would be considered unreliable due to their lack of proper fact-checking processes. Additionally, the citation from the book is misplaced and synthesizing with the environmental issue clearly violates WP:Synthesis. I would agree with the arguments given above and the edit should be promptly removed due to unreliable sources. Thanks! Kapil.xerox (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The multitude of sources simply cannot be ignored. There are several articles stating the environmental impact. I will actually expand the section in the article because the monument is so big, people should know as a part of an encyclopedia the river bed violations. I would disagree with the arguments given above and that the edit should have more expansion within the article as a half dozen citations stating there are environmental issues. Also there is a persistent conflict of interest from the users above but from their follow-ups, there intentions will be clear.Swamiblue (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

As discussed above, the edit in question relies on false information. Akshardham was constructed in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time. As the edit stands, several wiki policies are being violated. None of the issues which bring the edit into question have been addressed. There is consensus regarding the removal of this edit. Accordingly, I will be removing the verbiage. Actionjackson09 (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the citations? I have updated the sources to include many primary and secondary citations. How is it false information if it is repeated by over a dozen books and sites? There is no consensus because several people in your alliance claimed consensus have a conflict of interest in the group BAPS. Please do not revert again or else your will be in violation of Wikipedia policy of vandalism. I am going to request for an administrator not affiliated with this discussion to look at it and the topic. I will expand that part in the heading in a article and you are welcome to help me. I have requested admin bbb23 to help me in the past and they have said no so I am going try to contact other admins. Please control yourself from reverting until then. Swamiblue (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You contacted me, but this is a garden variety content dispute, something you calmly discuss on the talk page and hope to reach some sort of consensus. There is no vandalism, so drop that line of attack completely; content disagreements are explicitly not considered vandalism. The world is not going to come to an end in the time it takes to continue the conversation you're having here. WP:DR might be helpful reading. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks user:Jpgordon, I will be patient as requested. I added a section that expands the sentence in question. I added several more citations and learned more about the problems that this structure has caused. I should have not used the term vandalism but rather conflict of interest. I hope there are more people that are not directly involved with the group can be a part of this discussion. Just the constant reverts by the other users were annoying because they can do it individually once or twice while I can only respond three times and so I did not want to get blocked for the 3RR. Swamiblue (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Factually incorrect information is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia articles, regardless of whether such false information happens to be repeated by multiple outlets. The Wikipedia policies discussed in this talk page section make clear that the assertions regarding Akshardham’s alleged violation of environmental regulations in effect at the time it was constructed are based on false information, and therefore should be removed. The consensus on this issue is evident here, and User:Swamiblue’s continued overriding of this consensus would constitute edit warring and a violation of NPOV. Further, the new content regarding the National Green Tribunal’s recent action should be removed because it constitutes WP:UNDUE. First, a separate Criticism section on this single issue accords it undue weight. As WP:BALASPS specifies, “discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be...disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.” Second, the mention of the National Green Tribunal’s action is itself undue weight, as the article cited in the edit itself makes clear that the action is still unresolved and subject to a review petition.[1] In the context of this Wikipedia article, referencing proceedings that are not yet final would mislead readers and give undue weight to what is only a preliminary action. This content should therefore be removed. HinduPundit (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I am reverting the edit based on the consensus reached in this section. The arguments presented by User:HinduPundit and User talk:Kapil.xerox hold merit and align appropriately with numerous wiki policies.Actionjackson09 (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
You are not waiting for others. You have clearly demonstrated on your tedious editing that you do not want this particular thing being shown about your temple. You have to wait for a proper consensus to be reached and have others input. I will reach out to other admins and users for help. You are officially edit warring at this point and it is not okay. I have provided over a dozen citations so knock it off.Swamiblue (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I have been through the talk page discussion on this issue and went through all of the sources cited by Swamiblue. However, based on the articles and actual documents that Actionjackson09 is citing, it is clear that Swamiblue is citing sources that are multiple repetitions of demonstrably false information with regard to Akshardham's initial lack of environmental clearance. Thus, I agree with Actionjackson09 and HinduPundit's contention that this section should be removed as it is in violation of the wikipedia policies that HinduPundit has clearly cited in his post. I also noted that instead of addressing any of these points, Swamiblue is making accusations and assuming bad faith, which I think is not helpful to constructive editing. It is clear that Swamiblue feels very strongly on this issue, but the greater consensus is clearly on having the section removed until the specific issues raised by Actionjackson09 and HinduPundit can be addressed and resolved. Thus, I think the best approach is to remove the section for now and address the points raised in Actionjackson09 and HinduPundit talk page posts here on the talk page so that everyone can come to some agreement instead of getting into accusations and counter accusations of edit warring. So, I will go ahead and revert as I see a greater consensus for that, and hope that we can have some constructive resolution on the talk page.Sacredsea (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


I still believe it is best interest in the article to wait until we have a few outside users weigh in. I will not revert the article until there is a true consensus. There are heavy biases by the users above and I have provided 12+ citations regarding the environmental criticism towards the attraction. For future readers, this is the content at dispute with the citations Swamiblue (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC):
Content and sources being discussed

Last line in the introduction:

The temple has gained heavy criticism[2] regarding its location from environmentalist whom have stated the temple which is built on banks of Yamuna River and is accused of lacking the environmental clearance and first culprit in Yamuna bed violation.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

Criticism section:

The monument has attracted significant environmental criticism and has contributed to slum displacement concerning its construction on the banks of the Yamuna River.[14][15][16] Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh stated, "Akshardham didn't get the clearance. Akshardham didn't apply for the environmental clearance." When pressed further, he stated "It has already happened. What is yet to happen, we can stop that...We can't demolish the Akshardham Complex. We have to protect the remaining river bed."[17][18] Large protests from environmentalists who were against such a large structure on the riverbed have occurred.[19][20] Recently, National Green Tribunal fined the temples management for “carrying out expansion without prior environmental clearance and asked a committee on revitalization of Yamuna to examine whether the expanded portion fell on the river's floodplains.”[21][22] Non-Governmental Organization Yamuna Jiye Abhiyan and other environmental organizations have said the temple and several other structures are encroachments on the floodplains that can increase the risk of dangerous flooding.[23][24] The construction of the temple resulted in Yamuna Pushta slum being demolished dislocating thousands of people.[25][26][27] In 2004, the construction of the temple was challenged in the Supreme Court by the U.P. Employees Federation but the case was ultimately lost.[28]

References

  1. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/developmental-issues/Akshardham-fined-for-expansion-without-clearance/articleshow/48025976.cms.
  2. ^ Brosius, Christiane (2014). India’s Middle Class: New Forms of Urban Leisure, Consumption and Prosperity. Routledge India. p. 121. ISBN 978-1138020382.
  3. ^ http://www.indianexpress.com/news/akshardham-is-first-culprit-in-yamuna-bed-violation-ramesh/734643/
  4. ^ http://www.outlookindia.com/news/article/Akshardham-an-encroachment-on-bank-of-Yamuna-SC-issues-notice/241156
  5. ^ Babu, Chaya (2013). Fodor's Essential India. Random House Inc. location=NY, USA. p. 85. ISBN 978-0-89141-943-3. {{cite book}}: Missing pipe in: |publisher= (help).
  6. ^ http://www.hindustantimes.com/newdelhi/largest-temple-no-stranger-to-controversy/article1-265664.aspx
  7. ^ http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110108/main7.htm
  8. ^ http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-07-10/news/64282731_1_akshardham-temple-environment-clearance-the-ngt
  9. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/NGT-puts-question-mark-over-Akshardham-expansion-nod/articleshow/47980877.cms
  10. ^ http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/article404383.ece?service=print
  11. ^ http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-newdelhi/new-construction-on-yamuna-river-bed-alleged/article933270.ece
  12. ^ Colopy, Cheryl (2012). Dirty, Sacred Rivers Confronting South Asia's Water Crisis. Oxford University Press; 1 edition location=London, UK. p. 55. ISBN 9780199845019. {{cite book}}: Missing pipe in: |publisher= (help)
  13. ^ Bharucha, Ruzbeh N. (2006). Yamuna Gently Weeps A Journey into the Yamuna Pushta Slum Demolitions. Sainathann Communication location=India. p. 181. ISBN 978-8190382700. {{cite book}}: Missing pipe in: |publisher= (help)
  14. ^ Brosius, Christiane (2014). India’s Middle Class: New Forms of Urban Leisure, Consumption and Prosperity. Routledge India. p. 121. ISBN 978-1138020382.
  15. ^ http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-newdelhi/new-construction-on-yamuna-river-bed-alleged/article933270.ece
  16. ^ Matthew, Vipan (2010). Has the Judiciary Abandoned the Environment?. NY, USA: Socio Legal Information Centre. p. 39. ISBN 81-89479-67-9..
  17. ^ https://in.news.yahoo.com/akshardham-temple-never-got-green-clearance-admits-jairam-20110107-023904-290.htmlT
  18. ^ http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-07-10/news/64282731_1_akshardham-temple-environment-clearance-the-ngt
  19. ^ http://www.hindustantimes.com/newdelhi/akshardham-cwg-shouldn-t-have-been-built-on-riverbed-ramesh/article1-647384.aspx
  20. ^ http://www.thehindu.com/2004/07/04/stories/2004070403970400.htm
  21. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/developmental-issues/Akshardham-fined-for-expansion-without-clearance/articleshow/48025976.cms
  22. ^ http://zeenews.india.com/news/eco-news/ngt-imposes-fine-on-akshardham-temple_1627963.html
  23. ^ http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110108/main7.htm
  24. ^ http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/article404383.ece?service=print
  25. ^ http://www.omct.org/escr/urgent-interventions/india/2004/05/d2319/
  26. ^ Chaturvedi, Bharati (2010). Finding Delhi Loss and Renewal in the Megacity. NYC, NY USA: Penguin/Viking Books. p. 14. ISBN 978-0670084838..
  27. ^ Nanda, Meera (2011). The God Market: How Globalization is Making India More Hindu. Monthly Review Press. p. 135. ISBN 978-1583672495..
  28. ^ Colopy, Cheryl (2012). Dirty, Sacred Rivers Confronting South Asia's Water Crisis. Oxford University Press; 1 edition location=London, UK. p. 55. ISBN 9780199845019. {{cite book}}: Missing pipe in: |publisher= (help)

My 2c: I took a look at the discussion and disputed content after Swamiblue asked be at my talk page, and IMO the content is definitely worth including in the article although the current write-up (in the collapsed section above) is not particularly well-written. Unlike what Kapil and HinduPundit though, almost none of the sources are questionable, and the information is not "demonstrably false", although care should be taken to attribute the various critiques. Perhaps we can work to rewrite the content here on the talk-page before re-adding it to the article. Also as far as possible we should avoid a stand-alone "Criticism" section, and integrate the additional content into the relevant sections, such as Planning and development. Any volunteers to take a stab at the rewrite? Abecedare (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Abecedare - I would agree that some content from the citations provided might merit inclusion. However, I don't agree with the assertion that 'almost none of the sources are questionable'. The information can be clearly demonstrated to be 'false'. The Akshardham complex was completed and officially opened to the public on November 6th 2005. The sources claim 'environmental' violation, specifically the "National Environment Policy" violation, which came into effect in 2006 when the construction project had long been completed. I believe it was a result of careless reporting on the part of the publishers. Thus, it makes the sources highly unbelievable given the fact that the policy wasn't even in existence. This is analogous to Z reporting Y breaking a non-existential law, X. This issue has much resemblance to The Chicago Daily Tribune gaffe where the following headline banner was mistakenly made: "Dewey Defeats Truman". See Dewey Defeats Truman. The only difference is that The Chicago Daily Tribune made a follow-up correction which I couldn't find for the sources stated here. Thus, I underlined why I believe the sources are WP:QUESTIONABLE and unreliable as per WP:RS, due to publishers lack of proper editorial fact-checking processes in place. In agreement with User:Abecedare, I will remove the content for now as we keep on working on a rewrite here and we will re-add after reaching consensus. I also agree that we don't need a separate criticism section due to WP:UNDUE. It would be great to see a more involved discussion here regarding this issue. Thanks Kapil.xerox (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you point me to the cited sources that specifically claim violation of the 2006 act (by parts of the complex that were completed by 2005)? Abecedare (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your review and suggestions, User:Abecedare. I agree that a stand-alone “Criticism” section is inappropriate; any accurate and properly substantiated content would be better situated in other sections of the article. I’d like to expand on the earlier discussion with specific reference to the content and citations in question, using the reference numbering in the collapsed excerpts you posted above.
· First, per WP:RS and WP:QUESTIONABLE, the content and citations that merely echo the invalidated allegation that Akshardham was constructed in violation of the environmental regulations applicable at the time should be removed. In the context of the facts in question here, two pertinent decisions by the Supreme Court of India, which scrutinized the facts and analyzed the applicable legal issues, are decidedly more authoritative than articles from outlets that merely parrot others’ opinions on the subject without presenting further reasoning or evidence (see WP:RSCONTEXT). The Supreme Court of India, in its 12 January 2005 Order in U.P. State Employees Confederation & Anr. V. Principal Secretary & Ors. (Civil Writ Petition 353 of 2004), specifically rejected the challenge to Akshardham’s construction as being “without any basis,” and held that Akshardham’s construction was lawful and in accordance with the governing regulations. Subsequently, in its 30 July 2009 Judgment in Delhi Development Authority v. Rajendra Singh and Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4866-67, et al.), the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed this ruling and confirmed once again that Akshardham was constructed in compliance with the regulations in effect at the time. Citations # 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 17, 19, 23, and 24 rely on or simply restate the wholly disproven allegation regarding Akshardham’s construction, and are therefore unreliable. To be clear, I am not contending that the news outlets who have published these articles are themselves altogether unreliable. Rather, as WP:NEWSORG recognizes, “whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.” This is a case where the particular articles cited here are unreliable for the specific facts or statements they assert, as they rely on or merely repeat expressions of opinion that have been demonstrated to be false.
· Second, certain of the aforementioned citations, as well as citations # 2, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 25, 27, and 28, themselves do not substantiate the assertions they purportedly support. For instance, citations 12 and 28 (which are the same source) are cited to support the statements that Akshardham’s construction lacked environmental clearance and was unsuccessfully challenged before the Supreme Court. However, the cited source does not include any such statements, and the source’s discussion of Akshardham is limited to the author’s narrative of her visit to Akshardham and the unrelated opinions and speculation of two individuals. Some of the citations even expressly acknowledge (in consonance with the Supreme Court decisions) that Akshardham was, in fact, constructed in accordance with environmental regulations. The content relying on these citations is thus unsubstantiated and should be removed. Further, the ref-bombing of citations that are mirror pages or which merely parrot the other questionable sources fails to confer any reliability to the content in question (see WP:CITEKILL). As WP:RSCONTEXT makes clear, “sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article;” the citations identified above fail to do so.
· Third, a separate issue is the content regarding the National Green Tribunal’s action with respect to the expansion of Akshardham. I’d like to reiterate my opinion that at this time, such content affords undue weight to a legal process that is currently unresolved and subject to a review petition before the same Tribunal, as citations # 1, 18, and 21 demonstrate (corroborated by Rule 22 of the National Green Tribunal (Practices and Procedure) Rules, 2011). Further, as citations # 8, 9, 18, and 22 make clear, the National Green Tribunal directed a separate committee to make the determination of whether the Akshardham expansion actually encroached the Yamuna River’s floodplains. Referencing the pending proceedings before such a determination has been made would not be appropriate content for this article at this time.
HinduPundit (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Are there any secondary sources about the 2005 and 2009 Supreme Court decisions you cite? If so, they can and should be used to update the article. Of course, the books by Cheryl Colopy and Christiance Brosius, and some of the other sources listed above would be even better since they post-date those decisions, and these books from first-rate publishers are likely to provide better context than newspaper articles tend to.
As I stated above, I am not particularly happy with the current text of the section but it'd be better to improve it rather than repeatedly remove/re-add it in toto. I have browsed enough of the sources to know that the issue is due and can be well-sourced but will have to have to go through it again more carefully to write a summary myself... which, if needed, will take time due to off-wiki commitments and on-wiki distractions. Abecedare (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


The following source (dated January 2005) confirms the ‘lawful’ construction of the complex as per the Supreme Court: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20050113/delhi.htm#13. The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority to adjudicate whether Akshardham had the necessary clearance. Accordingly, as the source confirms lawful construction, then all sources that state otherwise, are unreliable. Even if there are a multitude of unreliable sources claiming a fact, and only one reliable source claiming the opposite fact, due says that to mention both in the article would be undue, as it provides false balance.
The ‘controversy’ over President Obama’s birth certificate is analogous to the discussion surrounding the lawful construction of Akshardham. Some people alleged President Obama wasn't born in the U.S., but that allegation was proved false when his birth certificate was circulated. Despite the proof, some people still allege now that he wasn’t born in the U.S. Similarly, some people alleged that Akshardham lacked clearance, but that allegation was proven false by the Supreme Court. Some people still allege now that Akshardham lacked clearance. Accordingly, just as it would be undue and improper for the Wikipedia article on Obama to include a mention of the birth certificate issue in its discussion of his birth, it would be just as inappropriate to include a mention of the disproven allegation about Akshardham's construction in the article at issue. The fact that some people still repeat the birth certificate/environmental clearance allegations years after they were proven false does not make those allegations due or worthy of inclusion in the respective Wikipedia articles.
Additionally, the inclusion of the pending proceedings regarding Akshardham’s expansion would also be undue at the moment. The National Green Tribunal’s final review and determination are still pending.
Actionjackson09 (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
But there is a page on Obama's birth certificate [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_birth_certificate#Release_of_the_birth_certificates ::Swamiblue (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Lets not get lost in debating analogies. Actionjackson, thanks for the tribune link about the 2005 verdict. Is there a similar source about the 2009 Supreme Court decision? I'll try to go through the sources more carefully this weekend to make sense of the various charges, refutations and timeline. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
In addition to ActionJackson's source, the book published by EQUATIONS, "Humanity-Equality-Destiny? - Implicating Tourism in the Commonwealth Games 2010" on page 71 also refers to the 2005 Supreme Court decision whereby it confirms that Akshardham was lawfully constructed. It also clearly states that the 1994 Environment Impact Assessment Notification did not apply to construction projects like Akshardham. The subsequent 2009 ruling was only a reaffirmation of the Supreme Court's initial stand. In view of the current talk page discussion, there is already consensus that the current addition be removed including the criticism section. Though User:Abecedare would like it to be improved versus removing it in toto. I agree to that however, there is some work that needs to be done to figure out where some of it can be fitted (as many of the sources are WP:QUESTIONABLE as shown by the discussion here). Thus not only does the write-up require some thought but it is fraught with a possibility of being contested again, if not correctly done. If my weekend permits, I can take a stab. For now, I have gone ahead and removed it, BUT in expectation that we will continue our efforts to discuss a more neutral version that is not due. I would strongly recommend posting a version of it here so that consensus can be reached - before adding it to the article - as this issue has already created a long discussion and I find it undesirable to go back and forth adding/removing/re-adding cycles.
On a side note, the Obama's birth certificate article link posted above, should be noted that is not part of the main Obama's article but part of "Barack Obama's citizenship conspiracy theories". At this point in time, I don't see any reason for having a separate article on "Akshardham Construction Conspiracy Theories". Thanks Kapil.xerox (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for your input but you are contradicting yourself. Please improve it rather then remove. It is useful information to any reader as a part of a whole article that discusses its very many other attributes.. I gave a starting point and User:Abecedare said they can help when they get time so there is no reason to remove it right now. Swamiblue (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


I’ve removed the criticism section because none of the issues raised by the HinduPundit have been addressed. Until these points are addressed, it’s not right to keep the section up. While I agree the issue does have a place in the article, I believe we need to come to a consensus on the talk page about how it should be presented. I don’t think the issue should be presented in the lead section. Rather, it merits a few lines within the construction or history section. We can write a sentence or two discussing how some groups had accused the complex of not having proper environmental clearance. Further, this issue was taken to the Supreme Court where it was ruled that Akshardham had the proper clearances. This was also reiterated in the second case. I think we should discuss in the talk page how to present the information before finalizing. Especially since what was up previously was demonstrably false. Actionjackson09 (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


You removed it and thankfully User:Ohnoitsjamie restored it. I would like to request User:Ohnoitsjamie to provide their input as well as we need to have more discussion from people not directly involved with the sect. The sources speak for themselves and warrent a critism section. Especially now because the new momument is going to be built in New Jersey and people want to know more so they should have access to the proper information. There is an agenda to whitewash this sects pages to make sure they are portrayed in a certain type of way but there is more then enough evidence to show there is a problem with the location of this structure and its effect on the environment. Stop removing it until a proper consensus is reached. Swamiblue (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
User:Ohnoitsjamie seems to have not thoroughly gone through the talk page discussion. There is already consensus on certain aspects. I would request User:Ohnoitsjamie to go over the talk page discussion to better acquaint with the issue. To my belief, the user did not even give a thorough look on the talk page discussion based on the short edit history's time difference between them and User:Actionjackson09. User:Abecedare, User:HinduPundit and other editors agree that the criticism be removed/moved to other sections. Contrary to what User:Swamiblue asserts due to their continuous disruption on Swaminarayan related articles and being blocked on several occassions, consensus has been reached. The neutral version at present best describes the facts under question. I have made references to the most reliable sources in my re-edit. Kapil.xerox (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


You can put your edit here for discussion because it clearly is biased and removes a lot of information. If you or any other editor has a problem with what the multiple sources are stating, you are welcome to contact the authors and get them to print a redaction. I can provide more citations if needed but the article will have more ref bombing and that hurts the article. I know you may not be able to sit still as press releases are coming up for the new structure but until some facts are posted with proper discussion from NPOV users, you need to wait. I am open to discussion on your re-write here. You have been blocked in the past too. We all have had issues in the past so knock it off with the user attacks and stick to the facts. Swamiblue (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
My neutral version contains the basic verifiable elements of the argument. The parts that are removed are clearly questionable. The multiple sources that you have cited are problematic or the way you have cited some of the reliable sources is inaccurate. Let's begin by fixing the lead section that you have added. You cite, at the very beginning in the lead: "The temple has gained heavy criticism" but nowhere in the source content does it say so. The source says "ACC was built despite heavy criticism and even a (failed) court case because of the disputed land it was built on." You not only mis-state the fact but also ignore the subsequent neutral statements made by the author. Showing imbalance. The next line in the lead you state sources that assert that Akshardham is being accused of lacking environmental clearance is void as discussed above. Since, all editors who have discussed the accusation have all agreed that the accusations are void due to the Supreme Court rulings which holds the upper-hand when it comes to judging which sources hold precedence over being reliable. The next line in the lead you add an assertion made by the sources that Akshardham was the 'first culprit in the Yamuna bed violation' is also void. Since it never was a culprit to begin with as no violations were committed. There was no criminal proceeding showing such a thing happening. And the Supreme Court ruling out Akshardham as lawful. It would also be silly to say that "Such and such sources believe that it was the first culprit in Yamuna bed violation ...etc", since that not only makes no sense but is un-encyclopaedic. If it really was a culprit it should unequivocally be provable by multiple sources - which it isn't. However, there is no issue in mentioning, "According to Humanity-Equality-Destiny? - Implicating Tourism in the Commonwealth Games 2010", Akshardham somehow ended up giving precedence to other constructions such as the Games Village and the Delhi Metro Depot"
To begin with, I have fixed the lead section now: [1] removed the questionable text and [2] moved the updated text to its appropriate neutral section. It needs to be moved out of the lead since as per Wikipedia rules on lead (See WP:LEAD), which states, "a lead section is used to introduce an article and a summary of its most important aspects". The whole criticism surrounding the construction is unresolved, due to multiple issues - thus no merit being included in the lead. If the case was not so, that means if it were a simple issue, then we would not be having such a long talk page discussion about this issue. However, I have left the "Criticism" section for now. And plan to deconstruct in the same in my next post as we work towards an agreeable neutral version. Kapil.xerox (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The minister’s allegations have been proven false in this talk page and the issue regarding the fine was agreed to be removed due to a pending investigation. I’m in agreement that the criticism section be removed until such investigation is concluded. My latest edit reflects such. Actionjackson09 (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
You have not addressed the points in the rewritten lead with new citations or when through each reference. You have not contacted the authors of these publications and brought proof of redaction. Your group has a new building being built and people are googling the name and thus the rhetoric to keep the image clean is being pushed even though everything has been cited and properly source. Just because YOU may not like what the books, article and interviewed statements say does not give you the right to keep vandalizing the article. Swamiblue (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Swamiblue, you are starting to tread the line of WP:EDITWAR and the spirit of WP:3R with your reverts. I prefer to see users productively editing and discussing problems properly and thoughtfully. Onus of proof is on both sides of this argument Swamiblue, meaning you also have to prove that:
  • WP:Vandalism has occurred, or you should drop the argument and back away from it. The line "[e]ven if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful," sums up the main points discussed above and is taken directly from WP:VANDALISM's lead. I raise this since you refer to WP:VANDALISM in your edit summaries and have several times stated as much on this talk page.
  • If you believe that a user has a conflict of interest to Wiki's goals as you imply with your statement: "Your group has a new building being built and people are googling the name and thus the rhetoric to keep the image clean is being pushed even though everything has been cited and properly source. Just because YOU may not like what the books, article and interviewed statements say does not give you the right to keep vandalizing the article," then take the issue to the CoI noticeboard.
  • If you believe that sources are not reliable, or that other sources are reliable but users disagree with you, then go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard with specific resources.
  • However there seems to be a consensus of about 4~5 to 2~3, which is not by any means a "true consensus" but does show the general feeling and should be respected as such. If you feel that users such as Actionjackson09 or Kapil.xerox are wrong, then either go to the dispute resolution noticeboard (since this seems to have dragged on for a few weeks), seek a third-opinion or use an WP:RfC about the disputed content and put up notices on relevant WikiProjects.
Please do not keep reverting and saying to look to the Talk Page as that is self-defeating at the moment and definitely becomes over-used after the second and third reverts. I admit that I have only skimmed over some of the arguments and may have missed nuances. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The new version added in the lead does not merit inclusion: a) Edit introduces undue weight b) Consensus not present with new edit - recommend building consensus and re-add c) Makes sweeping generalization d) Makes the article clearly worse e) Mis-states source (See my earlier post) - I made a correction and retained verifiable argument(s). See "Environmental Clearance" section. f) Questionable sources - Accusations have been proved baseless (Supreme Court decision declared "construction lawful"). Again see my earlier detailed post on why this cannot and should not be added to the lead. Kapil.xerox (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The same arguments hold true for the criticism section. Whatever elements are verifiable by reliable sources have been moved to the "Environmental Clearance" section. No need to repeat. Thus, I have gone ahead and also removed it. There is already an overall consensus that the stand-alone "Criticism" section be removed. See: “Also as far as possible we should avoid a stand-alone "Criticism" section” in this diff - link here and “Criticism sections are ubiquitous on wikipedia and in almost all cases a sign of poor organization and writing. I have yet to see an actual encyclopedia article with such a stand-alone section. That said, my main reason for suggesting that the content be rewritten before being added back to the article is that the sentences being added are ungrammatical and poorly written; don't provide enough context about the issues” see this diff - link here) In spite of growing consensus User:Swamiblue continues to argue the opposite - that there is no agreement, engages in edit-warring and makes personal attacks: “Reverted Vandalism Vandal erased everything including information that was agreed to be kept” in this diff - link here. Thus, I agree with User:Drcrazy102 that complete consensus has not yet reached, and it would be better to await and add a neutral agreeable version that presents all views once a stronger consensus has been reached. Kapil.xerox (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
User:Swamiblue, before User:Drcrazy102, User:Jpgordon also asked you to exercise patience: "You contacted me, but this is a garden variety content dispute, something you calmly discuss on the talk page and hope to reach some sort of consensus. There is no vandalism, so drop that line of attack completely; content disagreements are explicitly not considered vandalism. The world is not going to come to an end in the time it takes to continue the conversation you're having here.” diff here You also replied, "I will be patient as requested." diff here Accusing me of being mute. FYI I also have an off-Wiki life. Please don't rush as we try to reach consensus. Just wondering why are you being so impatient? Kapil.xerox (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

How can we go about solving the developing WP:EDITWAR?

This is the most recent version of the Criticisms section and related content (deleted at time of writing) and is under debate between @Kapil.xerox, Swamiblue, and Actionjackson09: and has been discussed or edited by @HinduPundit, Jpgordon, Sacredsea, Abecedare, and Ohnoitsjamie:. I think there is reasonable grounds to move to WP:DRN but I would like ask if this is what other editors would like, or if they would prefer a different venue of reaching a consensus. Feel free to comment below on whether to to go to DRN or if you think somewhere else, such as WP:RfC or WP:3O, would be better? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you User:Drcrazy102 for your input in this matter. I still disagree with the content removal because all the citations were are not discussed and many have been outright ignored even though they include key information. The current version includes too much white washing on slum removal and impact on the Yamuna river. I strongly feel that in the lead, the notation of the constructions effect on the Yamuna, the environment and slums should be present. The reasons that I feel that this information needs to be included in appropriate sections is that the . Also I strongly believe that the users @Kapil.xerox, HinduPundit, and Actionjackson09: are apart of this organization and have a strong conflict of interest. As I have stated before, the sect is developing another akshardham temple in NJ. Many users are checking Wikipedia to learn more about this topic and are not getting a fair and unbiased viewpoint. This group is documented and known to to be very aggressive in constructing temples and all that comes with it. This includes negotiations in obtaining land, forcefully fund raising, using manipulative tactics to get permits and many things that come with being a Scientology type group that has to defend all things even though it may be blatently documented that they are in the wrong. Until user:Abecedare came and defended the content, I was going to get completely overridden by people who are wanting their group to be portrayed a certain way and not write and include all well rounded and cited information that should be on Wikipeida. The users above have a tendency to monitor and patrol any related topics that show documented criticism towards their religious beliefs and band together to remove them. According to WP:COI, they must disclose whether they are affiliated with the group and are editing contentiously because their 'duties' to their guru. I have evidence that their administration has told their members to 'up the rhetoric' on baps topics being a clean religious group on all public sites, social media and forums. They are instructed to remove any critical information that can be perceived as a "hindrance" for the completion of the New Jersey temple. This is due to some community concerns regarding the construction of the temple and the impending demise of their guru (Age 92). Because the group is a splinter group and has caused over a dozen other groups to form because of their split, and their reason for splitting is based on a interpretation, the group is always defensive. Their administration is also aggressively preparing for the very near succession to occur and is trying to keep all lids tight when this happens. There are demanding members to make sure that all online documentation is kept clean when the temple is opened to the public and their leader dies and a new person takes over. This is why the users are so militant in their approach and banding together to further their agenda. And the core of the issue cannot be refuted that there are over a dozen citations I have provided on the controversy over the construction of this temple. India's Environment Chief Minister has stated that this temple should have not been built but this is not included. There are a few more out their but none of the other users have taken equal initiative to find this information but spent a ton of time to refute a couple sources. I don't know what else to say but when I provide proof and certain users can control what is allowed, it makes it difficult to add information. I wish more admins saw these cells and addressed them. Just because their write a lot does not mean their content over rides documentation.Swamiblue (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
You haven't explained why you believe the section should be included ("The reasons that I feel that this information needs to be included in appropriate sections is that the [what reasons?].") though I have skimmed over some of the above discussion and kind of understand your position. Also, more importantly IMO, this section is not about discussing the content of the dispute, but how and where to go about resolving the dispute, i.e. should we go to DRN (the discussion meets the requirements and is for content disputes such as these), or RSN (since the content has disputed sources), or to NPOVN (since the content has disputed neutrality). Which do you feel is the most appropriate The same question goes for the other users I pinged above, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
If the editors can wait a day or two, I'd like to survey the cited sources on the topic to see if a middle ground can be reached between the criticism section that is being removed and the Environmental clearance section that has been added instead, since both have their merits and flaws. Abecedare (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I am willing to wait for User:Abecedare to complete their survey. I think it will help. @User:Drcrazy102: I didn't mean to go off on a tangent but you can see the situation is involved and has manipulation. For example: Look at the BAPS [1] lead. It is a fact that Shastriji Maharaj broke away from the Swaminarayan Sampraday to create his own organization. I can provide you with 20 books and many that use the term broke away. I added that and no one helped me there. I have shown many people that article and it is not clear that Shastriji Maharaj created a separate organization and it makes people think that this person was in the right my creating this organzation which should be left up to the reader. The article is written with so much bias. Here is another example: The lead states that BAPS was formed on 5 June 1907 but the first section under history states: Doctrinal Origins (1799-1905). That is not true and is completely misleading. It makes people think that the interpretation by one person that resulted in them breaking away is acutally representative of the original group. That is so one sided and prejudiced. This article and the BAPS article are written by members of the organization and they get overlooked because of the volume of writing. I am glad that I have gotten your attention because once I get a chance, I am updating that and expect to be reverted right away. Same thing again. And to complete this thought: ("The reasons that I feel that this information needs to be included in appropriate sections is that the [what reasons?]" I believe that their are many citations and sources that warrant a mention in the lead of the article and a well written criticism section because of the scale of the project. I will go to DNR after listening to what you and Abecedare say I appreciate your assistance in these topics. Swamiblue (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
@Swamiblue:, again, please stick to the question of this section, not "go off on a tangent". I did not ask for any explanation of why or history, simply how to resolve the current dispute. If you feel that users have a conflict of interest to Wiki's neutrality or reliability, then you should look into opening a CoI investigation on the CoI noticeboard. Before simply going to DRN for mediation, it is best to see if the other involved users (especially Kapil.xerox and Actionjackson09) are willing to attempt to settle the dispute at DRN as well. If neither wishes to resolve at DRN, then DRN cannot be used per the fact that is an informal resolution forum (unlike ArbCom which has "special powers and privileges").
@Abecedare:, feel free to look through the sources both currently cited and contested. Please let us know when you finish. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
@Drcrazy102: Maybe you are having trouble reading yourself? I said I would wait for user:Abecedare to finish.Kapil.xerox and Actionjackson09) have been mute this whole time so I am not too concerned about their opinion. I will go to the COI notice board, neutrality and reliability next. Swamiblue (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Swamiblue please tell me how everything between "For example: Look at BAPS ..." to "... once I get a chance, I am updating that and expect to be reverted right away." is actually relevant to how to proceed with settling the content dispute. I am not having trouble reading myself, I am having trouble understanding your points in response to what is asked. You apologise for going on a tangent, ... and then go on a tangent. Please stay on-topic or start a new comment section.
To be fair, editors have lives outside of Wikipedia; so it is reasonable for an editor to not respond for up to 3 days. Please be patient and don't try to rush the process of either DRN or the other noticeboards. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure @Abecedare: go ahead! I can wait. WP:NORUSH Request you to also review the talk page discussion about the questionable sources as you workout an agreeable version. IMO it is safer to err on the right than to err on the wrong. Post your version here so that further consensus can be reached before being re-added. If consensus seems unlikely after few iterations, then we may have to move to other channels - such as WP:DRN if other involved editors are equally willing. Cheers! Kapil.xerox (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has become much more involved since I last looked at it. With many arguments/sources presented, I would also benefit from a couple of more days to go over it in-depth to form an opinion. Thanks. Sacredsea (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Ditto. :)
As you can see, I have started to list and analyze the relevant sources below. A work in progress. Btw, I don't at the moment intend to read through all the posts in the section above because (a) tl;dr and (b) I want to speerate the content and conduct issues and focus on the former. If as a result, I miss any sources that have been brought forth, please let me know. Abecedare (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Timeline and source analysis

Here is my attempt to make sense of the numerous environmental issues and events related to the Akshardham temple construction.This is a work in progress, so please bring any relevant source I have missed to my attention and I will add it to the list (please avoid news sources that simply restate what is already covered in the reports below). To start with I am organizing and grouping the news articles in chronological order so that we can have a clearer picture of what-happened-when and which news reports update older ones. I will add summary of what the listed books have to say, as and when I read through them. Note that I am not proposing that all these sources be cited in the article per se, so hold on to complaints about particular sources being non-RS, undue, outdated etc. :) Abecedare (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

News reports
Listed by Abecedare
Books
Listed by Abecedare

Source Analysis Regarding Environmental Permissions and Violations in Akshardham Construction

To add to the extensive discussion regarding this point: As User:Abecedare stated, it would be good to focus on the content issues on the talk page, leaving the conduct issues to other fora. So, I think the intent of the discussion needs to be 1) To figure out what exactly happened, and then 2) To decide what parts of this are appropriate to put into the Wikipedia article.
Also, I don’t think that the Wikipedia talk pages with an ongoing discussion are designed to be dismissed with a tldr; the previous discussion is valid, those who wish to understand the ongoing discussion should take the time to read it, and the direction of consensus thus far should be respected. So, as User talk:Drcrazy102 has noted, based on the previous talk page discussions, there seems (now) to be a consensus about 6 to 3 in favor of removing the criticism section and lead portions posted by User:Swamiblue. Also, while it is not as clear, it seems there is some consensus for incorporating environmental violation discussions within the history section, which Kapil.xerox has attempted to do. I have made changes to the Akshardham page in line with this direction of consensus. I hope the direction of consensus will be respected until the discussion page or a dispute resolution fora provides another consensus.
That said, I understand User:Abecedare’s effort to bring more clarity to this complicated discussion. So as a next step, building on what they have done, I will try to add to their source timeline and offer a more detailed source analysis to get more clarity to the question of “what happened when?”. However, since sources with a later date can refer to earlier events, rather than just listing sources by date of publication, I have focused on analyzing the source content to determine a timeline of what happened. If I have left anything of relevance out on this topic that has been covered in the above discussions, other editors may feel free to add it in.
Also, as I went through the sources, it seems that many sources covered multiple topics and it would be more clear if we went through the chronology of what happened with regard to each topic in question separately, otherwise it becomes quite complicated. I’ve begun that below with a source analysis on Environmental Permissions and Violations in Akshardham Construction.
Sacredsea (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Chronology of the Environmental Permissions and Violations in Akshardham Construction
Listed by Sacredsea
  • Supreme Court Case Shows Akshardham Construction Lawful and not harmful to environment
    • "Akshardham an encroachment on bank of Yamuna? SC issues notice". Outlook (magazine). 9 August 2004.
      • Supreme Court issued a notice to Uttar Pradesh Irrigation Department, Delhi Development Authority and BAPS that a petitioner is accusing them that the temple being constructed has encroached government land and will harm the environment.
    • "Akshardham construction lawful: SC". The Tribune (Chandigarh). 13 January 2005.
      • After hearing the case, the Supreme Court ruled that in the construction of Akshardham, all the Land Use Plans have been adhered to and clearance of expert bodies like Central Water Commission and National Environment Engineering Research Institute has been obtained. Thus the Akshardham construction is lawful and does not violate environmental norms as per Supreme Court ruling.
  • Second Supreme Court Ruling reiterates Akshardham construction lawful and not harmful to environment.
  • The Humanity-Equality book cited here restates this Supreme Court ruling and adds that according to the law, the 1994 Environment Impact Assessment Notification does not apply to Akshardham.
  • Continuing divergent claims from various sources that Akshardham has been constructed with and without proper environmental permissions
  • This article reports that some environmentalists, (unidentified in this article) have been unhappy both with the construction of Akshardham in the Yamuna river bed and about the fact that the government gave it permission to do so. (Note that the Supreme Court ruled earlier that Akshardham is not constructed in the Yamuna River bed but 1700 meters away from the Yamuna River bank)
  • Congress Party Environment minister Jairam Ramesh Claims Akshardham lacks environmental clearance.
  • The new Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh is quoted, “Akshardham didn't get the [environmental] clearance. Akshardham didn't apply for the environmental clearance.” (Note:The rest of the sources User:Abecedare had put in this section are just restatements of the above source and offer no new information on this topic, so I have not included them here.)
  • Congress Party Chief Minister of Delhi Sheila Dikshit asserts Akshardham had received all environmental clearances prior to construction.
  • Dikshit is quoted, “I do not know in what context Ramesh spoke. However, the decision to give the clearance was taken by the then NDA government and the permission was given by the authorities.”

Based on the above chronology of sources on this topic, we can arrive at some definitive conclusions that Akshardham had obtained requisite government and environmental permissions prior to construction, that it was not violating environmental norms and that it was not harmful to the Yamuna river bed, being constructed one mile away from the river bank and not even in the Yamuna floodplain.

These conclusions are arrived at from the above source analysis coupled with the logic posited in the previous talk page posts on Environmental Violations from 18 June 2015 to 4 September 2015, which I am not restating here since anyone interested can directly refer to that extensive discussion above.

Sacredsea (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for reading some of the sources that are up. It seems that word accused needs to be included when added this information because there is a lot of authors stating that there are violations & criticisms. The next question would be how do we incorporate this into the heading? We are also waiting patiently for User:Abecedare analysis. Swamiblue (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I would certainly like to see what other editors think about the conclusions drawn from the source analysis that I did. I am not clear on the meaning of the above comment by User:Swamiblue and I would appreciate it if they could clarify further what they mean by adding the word accused? Perhaps an example would make their point more clear? Sacredsea (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was proposing that the lead sentence that is under dispute have the word accused added to it because the sheer number of authors and articles calling this a illegal construction exceeds notability. Here is an example.

Last line in the introduction:

The temple has be subject to heavy criticism regarding its location from environmentalist who accuse that the temple is built illegally on banks of Yamuna River. They have denounced the temple as lacking environmental clearance and first culprit in Yamuna bed violation.Swamiblue (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Note - I have put the sources and chronology into collapsible text boxes to make the page a bit more visually condensed and about discussion, without removing relevant and good information. Hope this doesn't upset anybody. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The formatting improvements made by Drcrazy102 are good. In response to Swamiblue, after the Source analysis I posted, I would have to reject not just their proposal for the word accused but for that entire sentence in the lead. I can explain myself at length again, but as I have just said in my above post the exact arguments against this exact issue have already been made very clearly by a variety of editors in talk page posts on Environmental Violations from 18 June 2015 to 4 September 2015, so I am not copying and pasting them again here, unless everyone wants me to. I think we can move forward from here if Swamiblue finally offers a direct response to each of the various arguments made in that section (i.e., which arguments they agree with and which arguments they disagree with and why).Sacredsea (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with your rejection. I will wait for Abecedare to post their analysis. I believe that references speak for themselves. In your analysis, you seem to be stating the chronological events but ignore 20+ authors criticism towards the illegal structure as many refer to it. Also would you stop changing my addition to the heading for a section on this page? This is very petty of you @Sacredsea. Why is it bothering you that even though we are discussing a criticism section, you do not want the word criticism as a heading in the talk page? I am going to ask you to refrain from doing that. The revert demonstrates a strong conflict of interest in this topic.Swamiblue (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I think User:Swamiblue needs to desist with the personal attacks. Why am I changing the heading? I did a source analysis on Environmental Permissions and Violations, and that is why I kept that as the heading. I was not looking at all the criticisms in this source analysis as I felt it important to take it topic by topic as I explained in my post. User:Swamiblue seems to have noted in the post above that other criticisms are not discussed, but as I explained in my original post, that is why. They should feel free to do another source analysis of criticisms or whatever they wish, but I would hope that stop changing my talk page posts despite my repeated objections. Sacredsea (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry if you think I personally attacked you. I strongly disagree that I said anything regarding not including the criticism. The heading that I am trying to state reflects the overall environmental permissions and violations. Again I apologize if you took it it as a personal attack. I really wish more editors or involved in this that are not invoked in regularly editing this article. Swamiblue (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Taking a break from this topic for a few days. I will read the talk pages as they progress but I feel I am too involved. I encourage all people lurking and involved to discuss all the citations and update the page accordingly.Swamiblue (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay. I unexpectedly had limited web access during travel earlier this week. Still catching up with the accumulated on and off-wiki task list, and will follow through on the above discussion by tomorrow (Friday). Abecedare (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of related edits/reverts

Edits/Reverts discussion between D4iNa4 and Swamiblue
While many of these sources have been covered already on the article, they have been misused in wrong context on main article recently, I have just reverted them. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
@Swamiblue: despite your problematic editing, you are also in violating copyrights by copy pasting from sources,[2] none of them mention any criticism. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
At this point you have started an WP:EDITWAR and you are on the verge of being blocked. The section is open to edit and is properly being discussed here. You pointed out an article that is used as a supplementary citation. The two other sources explicitly use the term heavy criticism. Revert again, and you will be blocked. Swamiblue (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
None of the sources refers this as criticism. Seems like no one has agreed with you with your violation of WP:COPYVIO and misrepresentation of sources. Your cherrypicked statements regarding environmental situation have been already covered at Akshardham_(Delhi)#Environmental_Clearance. You have stolen the direct sentences of the sources.[3][4] D4iNa4 (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
It has been over a week since the all the materials have been posted. There has been no further discussion regarding this? What is suppose to happen next if the books show environmental criticism?Swamiblue (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I have been reading the sources above (at least the ones I could access), and they have a lot of useful material that is not covered in either versions of the sections being discussed. I will comment at greater length later this weekend. Abecedare (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

American English

This article was designated, for unclear reasons, as using American English. I have changed to Indian English spelling. AusLondonder (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Akshardham (Delhi). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Akshardham (Delhi). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Akshardham (Delhi). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan_Akshardham_(Delhi)/Archive_2&oldid=1104400410"