![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
Hi,
I have now created a detailed page on Akshardham Gandhinagar. I also added a See Also link on Akshardham (Delhi) page :)) enjoyy
The Good article nomination for Swaminarayan Akshardham (Delhi)/Archive 1 has failed, for the following reason:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
I have recently revamped the entire article. We need a re-assessment on the quality of the article. Juthani1 t c s 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 t c s 11:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
"The theatre shows a movie specially commissioned for the complex that shows the journey Bhagwan Swaminarayan made during his teenage years across the length and breadth of India." This sentence is not gramatically correct. The wordiness is a problem, as well. You need to split this sentence into two separate sentences. Jor dan Contribs 11:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry it's taken me so long to get to this. I'm really swamped with work (which I really should be doing right now) but oh well...
I liked the article, but I'm going to put it on hold for a couple of fixable problems. I'm assuming you're aiming for Featured Article, so I addressed a lot of the concerns that FAC reviewers will have. :)
Like I said, good work. It's almost to GA status, so good luck. :) Intothewoods29 ( talk) 19:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I would like to show one problem. This article seems slightly messy. I know looks aren't everything, and I haven't bothered reading the article, but why should I if I felt like the article was messy? An article being formatted nicely can improve readability, i.e. I don't want to read an article if it looks like a bunch of words thrown on the page. You have really big headings for the exhibitions, but not much in them. Put more in, or make the headings smaller. Also, try to put something other than text, like a picture, on the left-hand side of the page, it would help break up the "Lots of random pics on the right, and a bunch of short paragraphs on the left" feel. Either that, or make the paragraphs bigger. When I come to a page, I want to think "Hey, this looks like a nice, well formatted page. I would feel comfortable reading it." instead of "Ahh, all these pictures in such a small amount of space make me feel cramped. I'm moving on." Okay, I'm making it sound worse than it is, and I definitely don't know that much about design, so take others' advice above mine, but it could use a little reformatting. G man yo ( talk) 15:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay sorry about the wait. The prose all looks good, congrats. :)
Some citation things that still need to be fixed:
I also asked about travel sites at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and I got this answer... so I looked at all of the travel sites and it looks like they're all pretty good except for the following -
As for pictures, you just need to fix those problems above... You might try asking for guidance at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. I wish I was more trained at the image use policy.
Other than those issues, though, this article looks like a GA. Great work. Sorry again about the wait. Intothewoods29 ( talk) 00:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of November 21, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
You did a great job with this article! Thanks for your patience with me during the entire process! :) If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Intothewoods29 ( talk) 21:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
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 t c s 19:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
The second half of the second sentence of the second paragraph of the lead section of the article—okay, I'm just having fun here—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?
•
H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈
{KLAT} •
08:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Akshardham Delhi carving peacock.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
|
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC) |
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)#2009_Fire and Talk:Akshardham (Delhi)#Delhi Akshardham Fire in 2009. 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:
Rather than creating speculations on what Wikipedia believes to be a Verifiable Source, taking a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia: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)
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).
Wikipedia:Relevance and Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight:
“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 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
Hi,
I have now created a detailed page on Akshardham Gandhinagar. I also added a See Also link on Akshardham (Delhi) page :)) enjoyy
The Good article nomination for Swaminarayan Akshardham (Delhi)/Archive 1 has failed, for the following reason:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
I have recently revamped the entire article. We need a re-assessment on the quality of the article. Juthani1 t c s 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 t c s 11:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
"The theatre shows a movie specially commissioned for the complex that shows the journey Bhagwan Swaminarayan made during his teenage years across the length and breadth of India." This sentence is not gramatically correct. The wordiness is a problem, as well. You need to split this sentence into two separate sentences. Jor dan Contribs 11:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry it's taken me so long to get to this. I'm really swamped with work (which I really should be doing right now) but oh well...
I liked the article, but I'm going to put it on hold for a couple of fixable problems. I'm assuming you're aiming for Featured Article, so I addressed a lot of the concerns that FAC reviewers will have. :)
Like I said, good work. It's almost to GA status, so good luck. :) Intothewoods29 ( talk) 19:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I would like to show one problem. This article seems slightly messy. I know looks aren't everything, and I haven't bothered reading the article, but why should I if I felt like the article was messy? An article being formatted nicely can improve readability, i.e. I don't want to read an article if it looks like a bunch of words thrown on the page. You have really big headings for the exhibitions, but not much in them. Put more in, or make the headings smaller. Also, try to put something other than text, like a picture, on the left-hand side of the page, it would help break up the "Lots of random pics on the right, and a bunch of short paragraphs on the left" feel. Either that, or make the paragraphs bigger. When I come to a page, I want to think "Hey, this looks like a nice, well formatted page. I would feel comfortable reading it." instead of "Ahh, all these pictures in such a small amount of space make me feel cramped. I'm moving on." Okay, I'm making it sound worse than it is, and I definitely don't know that much about design, so take others' advice above mine, but it could use a little reformatting. G man yo ( talk) 15:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay sorry about the wait. The prose all looks good, congrats. :)
Some citation things that still need to be fixed:
I also asked about travel sites at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and I got this answer... so I looked at all of the travel sites and it looks like they're all pretty good except for the following -
As for pictures, you just need to fix those problems above... You might try asking for guidance at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. I wish I was more trained at the image use policy.
Other than those issues, though, this article looks like a GA. Great work. Sorry again about the wait. Intothewoods29 ( talk) 00:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of November 21, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
You did a great job with this article! Thanks for your patience with me during the entire process! :) If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Intothewoods29 ( talk) 21:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
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 t c s 19:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
The second half of the second sentence of the second paragraph of the lead section of the article—okay, I'm just having fun here—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?
•
H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈
{KLAT} •
08:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Akshardham Delhi carving peacock.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
|
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC) |
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)#2009_Fire and Talk:Akshardham (Delhi)#Delhi Akshardham Fire in 2009. 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:
Rather than creating speculations on what Wikipedia believes to be a Verifiable Source, taking a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia: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)
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).
Wikipedia:Relevance and Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight:
“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 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)