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)

References

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)

Azuredivay - Please refrain from engaging in edit war 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.--coolk (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page: In what way is [the version favoured by @Azuredivay: et al] the consensus version? Looking at the page history, it seems like you're trying to revert to a version of 5 August while the expanded version, with more reactions, dates to May and stood for three months. I don't see how the 5 August version is somehow the consensus. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

After the revert, the talk page discussion took place where problems with this edit were highlighted and multiple editors agreed with the problems. Before the resumption of the recent edit war which was started by the same person who added the content in the first place, the version (without his content) existed for nearly 2 months. That is how the "consensus version" is the one without the new content. AnM2002 (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC) copied from talk pageAnM2002 (talk)

• @Hemantha: I see you haven't even read the consensus to remove this repetitive content above which was recently restored by this editor who thinks "statue is not viewed positively by everyone". Regarding your this restoration you need to read above discussion which say "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." Your other two restorations [1][2] are also problematic. I am baffled you didn't even check before making this revert because you have directly falsified the source,[3] which makes no mention of 'protests', 'posters' or any opposition happening 'hours' ago. There is no need of this edit because there are details of these "China"-related content on both Statue of Unity#Design and construction and Statue of Unity#Construction. Now just because some politicians prefer using these points as part of their political campaign, the Wikipedia page still does not have to enteratain such POV. I agree that "criticism is generally from opposition" politicians but Wikipedia is not supposed to be used as a WP:SOAPBOX to entertain their political battles. Read how the article of Statue of Liberty was structured before adding the rejected POV back to the article. AnM2002 (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

AnM2002 Thanks for that text wall, but no, I see no consensus anywhere. About aid, if he is wrong, add a note with source. To remove sourced content as wrong requires better proof than a simple ToI announcement. See for example this and this. About 'protests', nothing is being falsified; BBC is being used to source farmers' statements. I'll rewrite the other text, perhaps. China criticism isn't present anywhere else, details in construction are about sourcing only. If you have nothing else, I'll restore the section. hemantha (brief) 06:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

If you call this a 'text wall' then you need to improve your poor reading skills clearly visible from the rest of the improper response. There was clear consensus among 3-1. The 3 years old Sky News link does not refute the news from TOI, nor does it strengthen the misleading political rant from a UK politician. Express.co.uk, the tabloid, actually says "Although the UK does not technically send aid to India, in 2018 the Government announced plans to provide £98million to invest in technical enterprises over the next two years". Similarly, BBC does not mention any 'protest' related to this statue. You need to stop falsifying the sources. There is no 'criticism' regarding Chinese link here but only political WP:SOAPBOXING by opposition which we don't need at all on this article. You need to gain consensus instead of promising to renew your problematic editing. AnM2002 (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter; Business Today is a WP:RS, its content can be used here. If you are arguing WP:UNDUE, make that case instead of irrelevant points. I've rewritten text sourced to BBC, please check. There is clearly opposition to Chinese sourcing, and appropriately sourced; don't be disingenuous. hemantha (brief) 06:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Rewording the rejected content won't work, propose and gain consensus per WP:BRD AnM2002 (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a novel interpretation with hints of WP:OWN. I've removed any traces of copyvio, strictly aligned with WP:RS and balanced the article with other viewpoints. If you have concerns with the text improve it or suggest on talk. Disagreement doesn't mean vetoing any change. hemantha (brief) 07:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

How you can be this misleading? I thought you already understood what you are doing but since you are pretending otherwise, let me explain in more details, but don't complain I am writing 'text wall'.

If someone is being 'disingenuous' then that is you with your clear inability to understand what the source says. Instead of edit warring to restore same rejected content you need to propose it here and gain consensus per WP:BRD. But you are edit warring.

What happens in "the people in the neighborhood" is not relevant to the article. As for Peter Bone's comments and the China-related criticism which is nothing but political rants as made clear by the source which relies on tweets and quotations by opposing politicians, I don't have anything else to add here since I have already explained it. You must read WP:SOAPBOXING and refrain from the WP:DE you are engaging in. AnM2002 (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

"China criticism isn't present anywhere else," have you read "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present the prevailing viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias, whether positive or negative."? Or you are adding 'criticism', sourced to 4 year-old-source just to push a negative POV? Azuredivay (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I see no substantial argument at all here. (You are quoting an essay btw, not a WP policy). You seem to know enough, so I trust you to revert yourself. If you oppose having any points not aligned with yours, I'll call for other opinions. hemantha (brief) 07:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That's your issue if you don't want to take the argument seriously. The standard on criticism clearly applies to this article - it is better off without outdated political rants for criticism. AnM2002 (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2022

Indian Independence movement was in no way nonviolent, there were many massacres and the naval mutiny and the First war of Independence was also their. Kaniskam (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done hemantha (brief) 09:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)