Talk:Swaminarayan Akshardham (New Jersey)

Removed - 2021 forced labor controversy

Hi all, according to the cited article, the events occurred on the morning of 11 May 2021, and the article itself was written 13:22, only hours later. Therefore, this information should be considered breaking news which, "without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution." (WP:RSBREAKING) “Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies.” and it is better to wait for more accurate information that would come out as journalists gathered more facts. Harshmellow717 (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Harshmellow717, I agree with leaving it off. This article contains a number of unproven allegations, and they should be left off Wikipedia until proven because the presumption is of innocence. [WP:SUSPECT] says that “editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured”. So, until a verdict is reached in court, I think it would be judicious to wait to add this. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Harshmellow717 Skubydoo Sure thing. I'll wait until the court case is complete to add it again. Skippy2520 (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with what appears to be consensus on this issue that Skubydoo has mentioned that since the allegations have not been proven, it would be better to wait for the verdict to add this. According to this consensus, I am removing the recent additions. ThaNDNman224 (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I should note that a lawsuit that has made the New York Times, CNN and other major news sources is significant enough to be included in an article about a subject very much involved in the lawsuit at least while the lawsuit is active. There is a difference between stating the allegations as factual (not allowed until generally accepted factual) and stating the allegations have been made in a lawsuit (writing X happened versus writing the lawsuit claimed X happened). Note there seem to be three possibly very closely related events (or possibly not closely related). First in April a (the?) contractor working on the temple site, Cunha’s Construction, was issued a stop-work order by the New Jersey government on the grounds that "the contractor was paying workers in cash off the books, did not have workers’ compensation insurance, failed to pay overtime, and for unpaid or late paid wages".(NJ.com, Joe Atmonavage (11 May 2021). "Hindu temple in N.J. accused of exploiting workers it lured from India, lawsuit alleges". nj. Retrieved 13 May 2021.) Second a class-action lawsuit was filed by 6 people alleging violations of labor law, forced labor, etc against several BAPS entities and several individuals. Third that FBI agents and other federal agents visited the site apparently with a search warrant. --Erp (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The current paragraph is plagiarized from the NYTimes article. Additionally, it appears from Skubydoo and other posts on the talk page that it should be seriously considered by editors not to include such material until a conviction has been secured. I agree with that, and am thus removing the relevant section. Hexcodes (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I did not evaluate about plagiarism in a recent version, before I just restored it, but there have been multiple contributions by myself and others adding factual coverage about recent events. It is NOT OKAY for a local group of editors to protect this article against such coverage. There is no court case to wait for its outcome. There has been, AFAIK, no assertion by me or other editors which has inappropriately passed judgment or overstated anything, there has been no blanket assertion that the organization is guilty of exploiting workers. It is factual and appropriate to say that there is FBI investigation and that there are questions. It is NOT OKAY for one or a few editors to remove all that. If someone feels there is in fact too close paraphrasing or other fault in most recent version with coverage, then restore instead my version, and/or discuss here the specifics of your allegations. I do not blindly accept latest assertion of plagiarism put up by an editor who appears to be simply blocking coverage, and perhaps generating multiple "reasons" for deleting coverage. --Doncram (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

With regard to WP:PLAGIARISM, Doncram mentioned that they did not evaluate the claim before restoring it perhaps because they thought I was blocking or deleting coverage in bad faith. That was not my intent at all. I was just following the policy where one approach to such problems is to speedily delete the offending text, allowing another editor to add text that is not plagiarized. I agree with Doncram that another approach would be for an editor to fix the text themselves, but the approach they took of just leaving the text and telling someone else to fix it is not according to the policy as I understand it.

But the larger issue that I feel is relevant to this topic of discussion was originally brought up by Skubydoo, who mentioned WP:SUSPECT and said that material (including accusations, investigations and arrests) should not be included until a conviction has been secured. In the United States, a lawsuit is part of a court case, so there will be an outcome. That was the main reason I thought that the text was in violation of Wikipedia’s policies. Of course, as Doncram suggests, WP:PLAGIARISM can be fixed. But according to WP:SUSPECT, it seems to me-- and I think the majority of those who have commented agree--that it is important to wait until a conviction has been secured to add something to the article. Hexcodes (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:SUSPECT applies to people and in particular people who are not public figures. The words in question mention no person but an organization and one considered notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. The plagiarism at least of some does hold up so I've copied the short paragraph from Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha on the issue. No names are given so the WP policy does not apply. --Erp (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

So current affairs can't be added to Wikipedia unless they have completed any associated legal process regarding their veracity? That is not an amenable solution for our project, and I have not seen such a direction being taken on any other Wikipedia page. Weinstein had an entire page dedicated towards allegations concerning his conduct, without a single conviction until 2020. Should we have declined to add any content regarding #MeToo until the courts had their say? Of course, it would be unwise to add any accusations without skepticism, however, this content isn't just composed of allegations. An entire FBI raid was executed- this is significant enough on its own to add to the record. Moreover, seeing as this incident has also been covered by various credible sources (gov. & mainstream media), there is no reason that I can see why the details cannot be included. SuperTah (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Erp, thank you for pointing the details of WP:SUSPECT out. I have moved the short paragraph to the “Construction” section as I think one incident does not merit a “Controversy” section. Further, per WP:STRUCTURE, “Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other,” we should not isolate this information from the rest of the article and the information being added is related to the construction. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@SuperTah: At a minimum a paragraph break was needed since the first part of the paragraph about the 2017 opening had nothing to do with this, so I added one. I also separated the FBI visit and the lawsuit into two sentences. They occurred on the same day but the FBI hasn't officially said why the visit happened other than it was "court authorized". The Temple response seems to be only to the lawsuit --Erp (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Erp, I think the paragraph break makes sense. I’ve made a few edits for clarity. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I’m just reading this on the news and I’m wondering why this is even included on the talk page. I don’t think it should be included since nothing has been proven, but I guess for now just mentioning the allegations is fine. Golfer1223 (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Erp and Skubydoo, I appreciate that you have used content from an acceptable source, according to WP:CWW. The Construction section seems to be the most logical location. Interested to see how the case plays out. Hexcodes (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey everybody, just want to give my two cents. I agree with these sentences under ‘construction.’ Coolcactus04 (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Unclear

It is unclear to me what is the distinction between "BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir" and "Akshardham Mahamandir" and item the article is about, "Swaminarayan Akshardham". Is the second the same as the "Swaminarayan Akshardham Mahamandir" mentioned in the intro? Perhaps start each section with a short paragraph about what it is in relation to the article subject before going into the construction details. Or expand the overall intro. Given the temple is in New Jersey it is more likely many readers will be unfamiliar with details that would be obvious to someone from India so greater care may be needed to explain or point people to the necessary info. --Erp (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Erp, I agree that this should be clearer, and I have made edits accordingly. “Swaminarayan Akshardham” refers both to the entire temple complex/campus as well as the to the eponymous “Akshardham Mahamandir” (see section 2). The Mahamandir and campus also share a name in Swaminarayan Akshardham (Gandhinagar) and Swaminarayan Akshardham (New Delhi).

In New Jersey, the “Akshardham Mahamandir” is currently under construction, while the “BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir” and congregation hall have already been constructed. The Gallery section in the article depicts the “BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir” (or “mandir”). Let me know if you think this is conveyed in the latest version of the lead. Apollo1203 (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)