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)

Transporting the bronze panels

@Nizil Shah: about the bronze panels made in China, you wrote that they "were transported by sea and tan road", which seems like a typo. I changed this to "were transported over sea and then by road", which is what the referenced article says, but I'm not quite sure that that was what you meant to wrote. Please fix it if you meant something else. – b_jonas 12:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@B jonas:, Thanks. It was a typo.-Nizil (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

A request to correct some misleading information

Hello everyone, I visited the statue of unity yesterday, and find much of the information posted here misleading. May I suggest that we stick to facts on this page (example - the height of statue, museum, development companies, costs) and stay away from painting a hagiography / propaganda? I am hopeful that the editors here are not paid trolls / working for BJP and are bonafide Wikipedia editors? (example: the statue was innaugurated - not dedicated. Controversies should have a section, but should only contain a few lines. Number of visitors should be based on actual reports). Also, Sardar Patel was one of the country's foudnign fathers 9as anyone who has studied the country's history knows).

I look forward to hearing your comments. Also - since this might be an ego project, we need to be careful to not painting an untrue image through a statue. Notthebestusername (talk) 10:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you have sources talk about the statue and also verify your information? Qualitist (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Qualitist - all 18 references are given here. I cannot find you on Wikipedia conventionally so I am a bit flummoxed by your existence. Notthebestusername (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Terms like "ego project" cannot be used here. What we need is a clear and concise summation of the primary criticisms. The first two paragraphs currently appear to conflate tribal issues and environmental clearance issues. From what I've seen perusing a number of articles, the primary issues/criticism are:

1. Cost
2. Tribal issues: Land, jobs, religion, protests
3. Environmental clearance issues
4. Political: "Appropriation" of a Congress leader

Of the above, the first two are the most notable. The whole "Made in China" thing is minor criticism and the fact that the bronze cladding for the statue was cast in China has already been mentioned. What I see about environmental clearance is that it was dismissed because of a technicality.

IMO, separate subsections are unnecessary for each of these items.

And there are plenty of sources that state that Modi "dedicated" the statue to the nation including an official one.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 21:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Cpt.a.haddock - Thanks for your response. I agree on some of the aspects. I agree that the "made in China" issue is really a non issue, as everything that we use today, starting from the computer that we are currently using is made in China, and it really does not matter. Regarding the use of the word "dedicated" I think it does not make any sense here as it is simply a glorified adjective. Statues and roads are inaugurated. The only people who can dedicate a statue are sculptors and artists who create it on their own, with their own money. not heads of states (who routinely use this term in their speeches, but this is never reflected in the Wikipedia pages). This statue has been made with Indian tax payer money, hence it belongs to the people of India, irrespective of whether someone says that they dedicate it or not. Using this term in the opening paragraphs of this wiki gives it the appearance of a hagiography, rather than an objective piece, and frankly, will make most readers not notice the otherwise extraordinary care that all contributors to this article have made.

Regarding information on the other issues, here are 18 references, from highly regarded sources including India spend and The Wire. Unfortunately, the government does not give us access to the tender and project documents (one of my colleagues in Sardar Sarovar showed it to me, but I do not have its pdf) hence they cannot be placed, however, I have confirmed that the facts in these citations are correct -

1. India spend article - on costs of SOU:
2. Times of India article - }}
3. Funding and costs - and
4. Local unhappiness - , and and
5. Environmental clearances (the issues relate to farming and usage of water, hence are relevant to the future of the region) -
6. Other information on Sardar Patel and the statue - and .
7. People opinion regarding Wasteful expenditure - this has been reported in various media outlets oand ont eh internet by a number of common people - . . The Gujarat government reported that the statue of unity had cost nearly twice the annual agricultural budget of Gujarat.

1. Architects Turner construction -

The TOI article merely states expectations (in lackhs and crores of people) - not actual figures. Hence shouldn't the wiki also state this as "expected"? When we vsited a short while back, there were rather few people. Notthebestusername (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

References mentioned in this section:

Photo gallery

Hi everyone, Seeing that this wiki does not have one, I have added a photo gallery, starting with some photos that we had taken on our trip. Hope you find them useful.

Please do add more photos to this section. I have a few photos inside the statue and some closeups, but they look odd (I think it is because there is no perspective - we had the same issue with our Eiffel tower photos).

Btw, just in case anyone is planning to visit it, be ready for a lot of walking in the sun (bring your cap!) as the parking lot is far from the statue, there is a lot of construction still in progress, the flowers have "murjha gaye" unfortunately and it is a bit disorganized still. However, there are many kiosks for water and food. Though do be prepared for long lines (a bit like the lines in Akshardham temple - though the latter is all shaded and hence cool). Notthebestusername (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Museum and audio–visual gallery

Is it inside the base? We could use a section on this. There are photos at commons. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Anna Frodesiak - I agree. The museum is really nice (I saw it two weeks ago) and seems under represented here. It has very few actual items used by Sardar Patel, but it has a lot of rare photographs which gradually build up Sardar Patel's life story. It is very well laid out, made on international standards, In a good comfortable manner, which is common in museums in Malaysia, China, UK, USA and Germany, but rare in Indian museums. Can we use the photos from the official website? I can add information about it based on what I saw, but I cannot find any citations for this. Unfortunately, there aren't enough books sold on the site, especially biographies (there were just 2 staff minding the museum, both of whom were pretty ignorant about Sardar Patel's life), neither are there sufficient places to sit . Hopefully that will improve later. Do let me know what you feel. Notthebestusername (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Notthebestusername. Wow, you visited it! So nice. I'd love to see it in person. Photos from the website? I'm not sure. But didn't you take pics? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Anna Frodesiak, yes I did, but I have handed them over to the 2 news agencies that I made the trip for, hence their rights are owned by them and I cannot use them here. :( I have a few personal photos that I took, one interestingly with an old 80 year old tourist who had seen Sardar Patel (as a child), but they have me and people in them, hence I don't want to use them online Notthebestusername (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, my friend. Also, if you were there on business, and they paid for your time and transportation there, then they probably own the rights to any photo your took during the trip. I remember a debate of whether or not an astronaut's selfie he took in space was his own property. I think it turned out NASA owned it because they paid for the rocket. I'm not joking, by the way. This debate at Wikicommons took place. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak, you are spot on right. As per my contract, all photos taken using my SLR camera belong the to these two organisations. I entered the "SLR camera" text to avoid the astronauts issue that you rightly mentioned. Else all personal photos of mine with my cell phone camera also would be owned by these companies! I always add these clauses to protect my own work. Notthebestusername (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak, Good news - there were a few photos on my cell phone that I could cut out people from. I have added them in the photo gallery. I'll take a few more next time, this time specially for this page :) Notthebestusername (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Notthebestusername. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

"to form the single large Union of India without any bloodshed" -> in the introduction, this is factually incorrect.

This is factually incorrect. Indian annexation of Hyderabad was very violent and very much full of bloodshed. Sardar Patel was directly involved in this war on the Indian side. Breakfastisready (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I am in agreement with this, and can cite India After Gandhi by Ramachandra Guha. I will fix it. Cepiolot (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources to expand

• https://www.mensxp.com/social-hits/news/56591-the-30ft-tall-dinosaur-worth-rs-2cr-built-to-attract-tourists-to-the-statue-of-unity-is-now-gone.html --DBigXrayᗙ 08:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Controversy about construction of statue

I have tried to add a new section regarding controversies about the construction of this statue. One regarding tribal peoples, the information of which was already part of another section, and one about conservation issues - namely the relocation of crocodiles to make way for a seaplane service. Both of these are reliably sourced with the latter new information being sourced from the BBC. User:39.49.103.192 has repeatedly reverted this new section I added without giving any good reason for doing so and ignoring my request to take the issue to the talk page. If any other editor would like to comment please do so. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

IP user 39.49.103.192's mass removal of referenced information with the excuse that it was a "POV repetition of already added info" is misleading, now the article doesn't mention why the statue is controversial in terms of how it has affected locals, or crocodiles, and by removing all this, the article looks more WP:biased in favour of the statue, which contradicts Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. This fact, besides that this is the only page that s/he has edited, apart from your talk-page Robynthehode, gives the impression that the IP user is personally connected to the statue and likes it, so let me ask the IP user if s/he is someone who is personally connected to the statue, like perhaps being involved in its construction or supervision? Leo1pard (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC); edited 04:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Reverts seem correct per WP:NOCRIT. Adding a controversy section is considered non-neutral. The content which was being inserted in the section has been already included in some other sections. No need of a separate "controversy" section. Rzvas (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

There is need: I was amazed that there was none. The WP:NOCRIT is an essay, not a policy.

I restore most of it. Zezen (talk) 07:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Please specify your reason before restoring and also look at Help:Talk_pages#Indentation. 2402:3A80:10C3:828F:2998:D0AC:66B4:7FD4 (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing it here.

1. What do you mean by "sleeted links" in your rev comments? See https://www.thefreedictionary.com/sleeted

2. You are right about indentation. I restored it (and am typing it) on a mobile. Easy to fix.

3. The reasons are simple. The BBC quotes Times of India etc. that e.g.:

the decision to remove the crocodiles was a violation of the country's wildlife protection legislation. "The government is disturbing their habitat and putting their lives at risk," Dr Gavali was quoted by the Times of India as saying....

So these people claim it was a violation etc. hence: controversy.

See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy for a definition thereof.

-> Please restore or refute these sources.

-> Please log in when discussing. See my profile why so.

Pinging also Leo1pard as IP's (anonymous) edits here were called into question above already as I can see.

Zezen (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to other Wikipedians for restoring it.

If still challenged,here are other RS that mention "controversy", sometimes even in the title:

World's largest statue unveiled amid controversy over £330m price tag and scale of environmental impact

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/31/worlds-largest-statue-unveiled-amid-controversy-330m-price-tag/

https://time.com/5434131/worlds-tallest-statue-unity-india-patel/

Zezen (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop canvassing. All you did was copy paste content already existed at Statue_of_Unity#Construction. Some outsiders didn't liked the statue. What's the big deal about it? This was nearly 2 years ago. We cannot include one-off reaction per WP:WWIN and WP:NOTNEWS. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Statue of Unity the 'biggest' or 'largest' statue

@Swtadi143:. You have added that the Statue of Unity is the 'biggest' or 'largest' statue in the world and I have reverted it. It is the tallest statue and this is stated in the lede already with a link to the tallest statues in the world article. Your addition of sources supposedly supporting your 'biggest' claim is in error. Those sources uses the term 'biggest' to mean 'tallest' as is evident in the text of the sources in the main part of the article (rather than just the headline). Your addition makes the lede and article confusing for the lay reader and is inaccurate from the perspective of a strict definition. 'Tallest' means the height of something; 'Biggest' (while it can mean tallest using a loose definition) means the volume of something. Comparisons are across Wikipedia but here's one that makes things clearer re terminology: buildings see List of largest buildings and List of tallest buildings; the former lists floor area and volume of the building and the latter the heights of buildings. So unless there are reliable sources that state the largest or biggest statues in the world and their relative volumes (floor area wouldn't be appropriate) then adding 'largest' or 'biggest' is confusing for readers and wrong. Robynthehode (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Robynthehode, ok I agree with you and confirm you that they are no sources comparing the relative volumes of statues and making a list of biggest statues based on "volume". So all list of Statues in the internet websites whose headlines are "List of largest Statues" or "List of Biggest Statues" are based on Height and not volume and same is the case for wikipedia as there is no such list in wikipeia in relation to list of biggest or largest statues on volume, so this implies in case of statues Tallest=Biggest=Largest as all have the identical list of top 10 and are based on height for both internet websites and wikipedia...

So to be honest with you, My main purpose of adding the term "biggest statue in the world" in this wikipedia page is that when you search that term i.e "biggest statue in the world" in google the answer comes at top is Spring Temple Buddha which is completely wrong, Since in case of statues everything is based on height which I proved in above paragraph, the google engine which put's the term "The Spring Temple Buddha in China is currently the world's biggest statue at 128 metres" at top when searching "biggest statue in the world" is based on an outdated bbc article which was written just 2 months before inaugral of actual biggest staue of the world "Statue of unity" (That article also litreally included statue of unity in its text in it's main article which meant it tried to say that it will be the biggest in future) So you know that since tallest = biggest in case of statues, curretly statue of unity is the biggest so when people search this two term interchaneably they should get the correct answer in google which is only possible if you let me add the term "Statue of unity is the biggest statue in the world" in this wikipedia page and this will override that outdated bbc article page about 1 hour after I add that sentence in this wikipedia page, google will update that answer automatically when 1 hour of time passes from my edit here, google prefers showing wikipedia page information before internet websites so it will correct itself and show statue of unity at first heading when searching that term, which will be highlighted from this wikipedia page if you allow my edit. So will you allow me to add the phrase "Statue of unity is biggest statue in the world" in this wikipedia page as this is for goodwill answer and to replace the wrong answer of google at headline, when people search the "biggest statue in the world" at google they will get the correct answer as they actually meant tallest and both word are equal. (Even that outdated bbc article used tallest in headline and in text of source it used biggest term for spring buddha which meant it treated both tallest and biggest equally as mentioned above in case of statues, and Spring temple buddha is not the biggest

Statue in the world currently but was biggest at the time of the posting of that article show it must be updated which will only be possilbe if I add that sentence here), So will you allow me or not to add that sentence here?, what ever your answer will be I will respect it.

@Swtadi143: Thanks for your reponse. When responding on a talk page please: 1. Indent your post with a colon ':' - one more than the previous post. 2. Sign your posts using four tildes 4 x '~'. The terminology within Wikipedia that has been agreed by editors or is at least the de facto use of the terms is internal to Wikipedia. We can't second guess how other writers use language. Second it is not up to us to second guess how people search for information on the internet using Google or other means. We only edit Wikipedia following Wikipedia policy which means reliable sources. Unfortunately writers have used 'biggest' and 'tallest' as synonyms which confuses things but it doesn't mean we should follow that usage. Thirdly information in the lede of an article should summarise the article itself not introduce new information. The lede should also be concise and not repeat information across paragraphs of the lede. For clarity it is best to keep 'tallest' as the descriptive term not 'biggest' because of the way 'biggest' is used in other Wikipedia articles. This allows for internal consistency across articles in Wikipedia Robynthehode (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

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) Blocked sock

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 [10][11] are also problematic. I am baffled you didn't even check before making this revert because you have directly falsified the source,[12] 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) Blocked sock

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) Blocked sock

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) Blocked sock

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) Blocked sock

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 17 October 2022

The slenderness ratio of a building is the ratio of height to width. So the ratios mentioned in this article do not make any sense. Also, in the article this was directly copied from, max. wind speed of 220kmh are mentioned, not 180kmh. 80.209.201.6 (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Change "Vallabhbhai Patel" to "Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel" because that is the norm when taking his name.

Sardar is a prefix which is generally used with his name. Saying it without it is like saying some doctor's name without "Dr." prefix even if they use it. GyanPrakash2483 (talk) 05:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2023

43 millions in 2022 116.73.206.20 (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Equalwidth (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Footfall record

I am removing the following sentence:

The daily average tourist footfall at Statue of Unity during November 2019 reached 15,036, which was outpacing the Statue of Liberty (which attracts around 10,000 daily visitors on average).

This is not accurate. For the Statue of Unity, the period considered is just one month (November 2019); while the period considered for Statue of Liberty is several years. Average daily visitors for Statue of Unity is about 8500 for 5 years.

References

VIBHAATH GUDTROT (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)