Talk:Statue of Unity

POV pushing and copyvio

The reception section, added by Coo1k is not encyclopedic because it only includes predictable criticism from opposing politicians, frowned upon by WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. The statement from Mayawati is also largely about Ambedkar Memorial Park than this statue. The statement from another politician, Peter Bone, is also misleading because India has been rejecting UK aid since 2012. To dedicate a separate section to such a misleading statement is POV pushing. Among the millions of reactions made in relation to this statue, Rahul Gandhi's statement only alleges BJP to be contradicting Vallabhai Patel's ideology, while Shashi Tharoor's has only asked why there isn't a bigger statue of Mahatma Gandhi. These statements certainly also violate WP:UNDUE.

As for the "criticism" added by Mardurness , the large chunk of text was copied from the source itself in violation of WP:COPYVIO. Other part misrepresents the source that makes no mention of "make in India". And the last source is an opinion piece from the Times of India, thus failing WP:RS. Azuredivay (talk) 09:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Kindly see [WP:NPOVHOW] regarding guidelines to follow if you feel the content is not written from neutral point of view. It explicitly states "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone.". Simply removing the entire content is an extreme course of action. e.g. you could have edited the passage to achieve a more neutral tone like user HaeB did.

My original title was "Reactions" not 'criticism'. Complete absence of such section gives a false sense that there was no reaction to this project. Especially tucking away reaction from tribal people who lost their homeland as a direct result of this project, into "Construction" section is unfair.

Regarding reactions by national politicians - I'm completely fine with editing the verbatim reactions. But simply removing them altogether simply because their reaction is "predictable" is akin to suppressing dissidence. Also I did not find any section where "predictable criticism" is frowned upon, in WP:SOAP or WP:NPOV. I'm fine with changing the tone of their reactions as user HaeB did, but removing them altogether seems unnecessary

Regarding reactions by foreign politician Bone - I think you misunderstood his statement. His criticism here is more on UK parliament which is giving aid to India after seeing construction cost of the statue.

Completely removing entire content simply because it seemed biased is against the general rule of achieving neutral point of view WP:NPOVHOW and hence I request reinstating the "Reactions" section as per last edit by HaeB. --coolk (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Coo1k, instead of resorting to wikilawyering, focusing on fragments of policies in isolation and expecting somebody else to clean up your mess for you, how about you take a step back and take a long, hard look at the many important and legitimate concerns that others have raised.

Do not pretend all is well with your content and demand that the same be reinstated, when even a casual glance shows that much of what you have added is simply bickering or petty political points that are either simply immaterial or only tangentially related to the subject of this article. This encyclopedia has specific policies in place that empower us to guard against undue weight being given to such insignificant opinions.

So writing what Rahul Gandhi says about "systematic destruction of India's institutions" or Shashi Tharoor's demand for a "bigger statue of Mahatma Gandhi" and stuff like that will not even be considered for inclusion unless you demonstrate that reliable sources writing on the subject have accorded significance to these commentaries. It is an established policy that the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion falls squarely on those seeking to include disputed content. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Frankly your reply is quite hostile(calling my work a mess) and not constructive(accusing wikilawyering). My honest intention is to show the other side of this project that either hasn’t been covered in the article or hasn’t been given proper significance. It’s not a secret that this project has been criticized by several significant entities(affected people & opposition leaders) in India and refusing to show this criticism is unhealthy for democracy. There are rules & guidelines in place on Wikipedia so that conflicts are resolved smoothly and we don’t end up in shouting matches. Just dismissing those rules under “wikilawyering” is not a logical way proceed. Also I’ll repeat again, I’m fine with removing verbatim quotes from politicians and will even settle with just mentioning that these entities opposed the project. But I’m not okay with pushing the reaction from tribals under “construction” section because it doesn’t belong there. Let me know what you think. coolk (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. When you agree that "His criticism here is more on UK parliament" then you dont need the political statement here. The section about construction having coverage about some opposition by tribals fits well because they were opposed to construction. You don't need a new section for it. Azuredivay (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The "democracy" in question refers to democracy of a nation and not democracy in Wikipedia as I'm not asking for any polls. The "Construction" section talks about technical details of how the statue was built, which construction companies were involved & what resources were used to built the statue. Protests by tribals is completely misplaced in "Construction" section. Reactions to any project whether positive or negative belong to a separate section. There has been significant opposition to the project from tribals who were displaced as a direct result of the project and from Members of Parliament(MPs) which are elected by people of India. Moving this part to "Construction" undermines their plight & minimizes their voice. As far as statement by UK politician goes I don't really see why is that irrelevant since it's linked to the statue. Still I'm ok to compromise on that specific statement. Finally I propose to have a separate "Reactions" section divided further into "Tribal" & "Political" reactions from Indian MPs. Let me know what you think. --coolk (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

There hasn't been a response since almost a month. Specifically I'm proposing to restore the "Responses" section that I added in this(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Statue_of_Unity&diff=prev&oldid=1037301842) edit. This entire section was removed without any discussion. --coolk (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

[User:Azuredivay] - Please refrain from making changes without discussion. My previous edit clearly mentioned to discuss in the talk page before. You have completely removed the Tribal Reactions sections and tucked it under "Construction" which does not make any sense.

References

Discrepancies regarding funding amount

The article states that Gujarat state govt allotted Rs 500 crore between 2012 to 2015 from its annual budget. But the referring articles makes two different claims. The DNA article writes, "... Gujarat state government has made a provision of Rs100 crore for the Statue of Unity in the budget for 2012-13". Whereas the Indian Express article writes, "... Gujarat government’s 2014-15 budget also sanctioned Rs 500 crore for the Statue of Unity project".

Moreover, another news article (referred in this wiki article), clearly states that Gujarat state govt allotted (approximately) 100 + 915 + 800* + 899 = Rs 2714 crore on the construction project overall from 2013-2019. It even refers financial reports from Gujarat state govt's website. So I think the wiki should be updated now. --Eklavya111 (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)