Talk:Statue of Unity/Archive 1

Archive 1

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Statute of Unity .jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Name of the article

Can the name of the article be - 'Patel's Statue of Unity'? -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Why? It's not his statue, but a statue of him. Doesn't make sense as a name. Canterbury Tail talk 15:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say the name of the statue is? --Jayron32 16:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Well the official website and Indian government releases have named it Statue of Unity. Those who own and build it get to name it. We have no say here. Canterbury Tail talk 18:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Patel's Statue of Unity: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Statue of Unity: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Statue of Unity seems to be the common and official name. --Titodutta (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2018

Could you please:

Link princely states

Take out the first first name from "Vallabhbhai Patel was one of the most prominent leaders"

Thank you

BTW is it a river-island in a lake? The Statue of Unity (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Online booking

I don't think the "online booking" section is appropriate. It seems like advertising more than anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:9841:2900:1195:CB1C:FE7A:32DD (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2018

It was not Swarajyamag, but Larsen & Toubro itself that clarified 9% of statue was built in China. Swarajyamag as visible on article https://swarajyamag.com/politics/was-the-statue-of-unity-really-made-in-china-here-are-the-facts based its statements on that of L&T Turbo.

Also read https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sardars-statue-being-built-in-India-not-China-LT/articleshow/49489043.cms, the same article used by Swarajyamag.

The clarification was done way back in 2015. Please change "It was later clarified by Swarajyamag" to "It was later clarified by L&T". 117.234.53.43 (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you.-Nizil (talk) 04:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Facing the dam

The figure is facing the dam, sure, but the whole statue is actually around 5km upstream and northwest of the dam. [1] Can we add that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak, the article already mentions it is about 3.2 km (2.0 mi) away from the dam. The statue is downstream because river flows from east to west. Am I right? We can add that.-Nizil (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Nizil. Yes, of course. I didn't look at the map well. Yes, please modify the article accordingly. Thank you kindly. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done, after traffic calm down, I intend to rewrite article with more details but right now I have added down stream at one place. There will be a section on location in future (likely). Regards,-Nizil (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2018

Should not be shown as the "Created date" it should be "Construction started on date" NixonPerinchery (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The word "create" doesn't appear anywhere in the article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

issues

The comparison of its height with the Statue of Liberty is misleading. Just the figure of Unity by itself is about double the combined height of the figure of Liberty (up to and including the torch) PLUS its plinth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.37.52 (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I feel that the comparison of this statue's height with the Statue of Liberty's height in the lede doesn't make much sense. With or without the base, the Statue of Liberty is surpassed in height by quite a few other statues, many of which are in Asia. (See List_of_tallest_statues. The SOL is number 47 on that list.) Why the lede should single out the SOL for comparison is unclear, unexplained, confusing. Mark Froelich (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Anybody have opinion how should we include this opposition point of view.. ndtv It discussed the legacy of Patel and controversy around money spent. Political issies between legacy of Patel is also thete. I need opinion before putting this political issues . Nizil (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Also nowhere does the reference sources say that the entire project will be covered under 2700 crores , i.e amusement parks, research centres, roads,etc. it says the amount only regarding statue. 1994bhaskar (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Photo

Just a suggestion: All the photos of Statue of Unity are either from side or from distance. Even the comparison of statues chart has the same. Can somebody help to get right photo taken from front and upload on Wikimedia commons and in tern to various articles of Statue of Unity? Thanks... Kautuk1 (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies regarding criticism section

I know about BLP and a few policies which prohibit sections like criticism. According to them article should be neutral and criticisms, if any, should be within the content and not in a separate section. Is the criticism section of this article compliant with Wikipedia policies? If not, any suggestions for improving the article and in particular, criticism section? Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 07:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe that there's any such policy. But there is an essay at WP:NOCRIT that recommends what you are stating. However, no matter which way we look at it, the statue is controversial. While I can see how parts of the criticism section could be merged into other sections of the article, I would personally prefer to group them all together and address them properly. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo is right that such sections are not created when you have only some protesters or opposition political party statements as "criticism". Not removing the section, but section title needs to be more neutral, to which I have changed now. Rzvas (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

These "some protestors" and opposition political party statements as well as criticism of the exorbitant cost have received significant coverage in not only the national press, but the international press too. And Pankaj is stating that a dedicated section to criticism is not kosher and that the criticism should be merged into other relevant sections. He's not stating that the section should be simply renamed to a misleading title. I've retained your inclusion of 11-day attendance figures (as below), but have also removed the trivia about "200 Gujaratis from 20 states" attending the opening. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:SOAP and WP:NOT should be considered when deciding what needs to go on criticism. I removed redundant activism and opposition political soapboxing, both of which are always predictable and undue. Qualitist (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The entire criticism section has been purged (by a user with no page to boot). Unclear if this is desired? I don't want to restore it without investigating first, as I recognize that it's a contentious topic.

Ten20ten (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Read above discussion. Qualitist (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the content. It is disputed content and the discussion about it is taking place here. The last stable version should remain until here is consensus about what to do. For the record, I do not care about the outcome. Whatever is decided here is fine with me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

It was never a stable version but easily most problematic one. Qualitist (talk) 07:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

My the content was removed again by User:Qualitist stating copyvio already discussed. I must be missing it. Please point out the discussion about the copyvio. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: You seem to be misrepresenting WP:BRD because all edits of Notthebestusername have been already discussed here. Why he is not discussing his POV edits? He is violating copyrights as observed by other editor. Compare the text with [2][3]. There are more websites though from where he copied the content. Qualitist (talk) 07:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Some maybe circular, but see this: [4], he has repeated this copyvio two times. Similarly he has repeated that paragraph about "People of Kevadia, Kothi, Waghodia, Limbdi, Navagam, and Gora", two times. It seems that he is not only misrepresenting sources or violating copyrights, but he is also not checking what already exists word to word on the article. Rzvas (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing. Qualitist (talk) 08:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the article back to the state with the "Issues and criticism" section. As for Qualitist, the one-month-old account familiar with WP:SOAP and WP:NOT, political criticism here is neither predictable nor undue. There is significant coverage of criticism of the high price of the entire project and that needs to be mentioned. I'm not as familiar with the issue of environmental clearances. But I see that that also has coverage. Discuss here and gain consensus first. I'm not averse to merging this section with others. But all points will need to be considered. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock: for last two days you had no objection to the version until another editor started restoring the content for which he had no consensus. You are told by 3 editors(including me) that we should not use unreliable sources as criticism. Environment activists oppose every well known infrastructural development while opposition political parties criticize everything that is done by their opposition. Both are predictable and completely WP:SOAP and WP:NOT. If new content has no consensus then it should be removed. Content was perfectly merged before the recent edit war. I have tagged the section for now. Qualitist (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Figures

The figures of steel, concrete and bronze used in the statue differ according to sources.[5][6][7][8][9] The confusion may be due to amount used only in the statue or used in statue plus its associated constructions like bridge etc. Can anyone point to most reliable source? So we can add and update the article. Thank you,-Nizil (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Give greater weight to figures released after completion; perhaps compare with any offered on the statue of unity site as well as the L&T site. If there are still any discrepancies, add it to a footnote. I believe all the construction durations etc. are estimates from 2013 or so. There are also discrepancies in things like the wind speeds that the statue can withstand as well as the number of people the elevators can hold.

If anybody's is going to be poring over a lot of articles about this, please keep an eye out for the possibility that the original plan had the viewing gallery in Patel's eye. All I could see was a quote by a GJ government minister. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Well done everyone

It is looking better and better. The criticism content is a bit fat, but the rest could get bigger to balance that. I wish commons had a few more pics, but maybe they will come. Anyhow, well done, folks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes I have removed the POV heading and subheadings. They don't really seem to be "criticism" in any case. Also we need to use neutral sources not the partisan ones. Rzvas (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I was the one who changed the title from "Issues" to criticism. I'd not noticed the bit about environmental clearances being approved. The rest qualify as criticism (for the moment) and probably a "controversy" section eventually. I've reset the title to one that was used earlier. +1 on removing The Wire. (And if you were responding to Pankaj's comment above, feel free to move my reply over there too.)—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave that to you folks.

So, where are all these wonderful pics I expected??? Big opening ceremony and this is it? I want more pics of this wonderful new statue. You know, we had the biggest over here in China. Now this dwarfs it. Well bloody done. Go India! It's beautiful! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It's slightly off the beaten track. But I suspect that photographs will soon be coming in.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I suppose you are right. I imagine tourists eventually turning up and taking pics from all angles. I'm eager to see this viewing gallery. Where is it? Half way up? I cannot see it in pics. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock and Anna Frodesiak: See this image to understand the internal structure of the statue from this page of official site. Can anyone adapt it for use on this article?-Nizil (talk) 06:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nizil Shah: I believe Anna's looking for views of the gallery from inside and out. It is kinda visible here. That image looks interesting if a little cryptic. Any idea what "box", "diagonal coat", and "Inclined" mean?—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Please could this put somewhere in this article

This Times of India article has information related to the number of visitors visiting the statue that I think should be included in the article. -
75, 000 visitors in 5 days: Sardar Patel's statue major tourist draw. Source: Times of India articles dated Nov 11, 2018 ( LINK )
What do you think, should this be included? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 10:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

IMO, it is too soon. Yearly figures will eventually be relevant. But daily/weekly/monthly figures are not especially so soon after the opening. (There's another report that states that 128,000 visited the monument in 11 days.) For the moment, sources stating expected annual figures are probably the only thing we can include.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Added due to significant coverage of the information. It can be updated time to time. Rzvas (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rzvas: Are you talking about the order of the statements? Feel free to revert to the original order. I only swapped it to improve the flow with the addition of "officials". The BBC article is dated Oct 31 2018.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It is WP:NOTCRYSTAL. It was a prediction after all, as per the actual source and we can't state predictions for this type of article. Rzvas (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, that's pretty much what I said in my edit summary. These predictions are not something that our article is meant to report. Furthermore, the crystal ball figure is from 31 October 2018, as the guy above noted, before the statue was opened to the public, and considering the fact that in excess of 1.28 lakh people visited the statue in just 11 days since its opening, to say that the statue will be visited by only 25 lakh people in a year would be a rather ridiculous understatement. MBlaze Lightning 13:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)