Talk:Swaminarayan Akshardham (Robbinsville, 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)

I deleted a clause because it made it less readable and didn't add significant relevant information (WP:RDAL). Moksha88 (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Material restored due to egregious manipulation of consensus

I'd encourage everyone to take a look at my recent thread at NPOVN (PermaLink) and the sockpuppet investigation that begat it. In the above thread, Harshmellow, Skubydoo, and Moksha have all been blocked as sockpuppets or meatpuppets who conspired for years to push a pro-BAPS POV in this article and many others. Hexcodes and Golfer remain under scrutiny for the same, but it's undisputed that neither had ever participated in an on-wiki discussion prior to this one, which at the very least strongly suggests conflicts of interest.

Reading the above thread in light of this information, I'm really just left with Erp and Doncram's views, and thus rather than a consensus against including details of the suit, see a (soft) consensus for including it. Furthermore, I see little policy-/guideline-based validity to the arguments against inclusion. I have no idea how someone could in good faith read WP:SUSPECT, which discourages reporting on accusations of crimes against non-public figures, to apply, when this is not about an accusation of a crime, not about a non-public figure, and indeed not about an individual at all. (The suit of course extends to individuals involved in the alleged torts, but they are not named in this article nor in the cited news articles.)

Perhaps there are good reasons not to include the material. Further discussion can definitely occur on the matter. But as this is the kind of material that we generally include in articles, and as the good-faith consensus here seems to tilt toward inclusion, I have for the time being restored details of what the suit alleges. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:12, 25 June 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)

Case withdrawn

Hi, I'd like to draw your attention towards the withdrawal of the forced labor case of the BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir. As several news outlets have reported, the case filed was false and the labors were coerced to give false testaments and allegations.

Times of India : https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/charges-against-robbinsville-akshardham-temple-false/articleshow/101793020.cms?from=mdr

English Jagran : https://english.jagran.com/india/no-violation-of-artisans-rights-at-robbinsville-akshardham-temple-in-new-jersey-charges-false-labourer-body-psg-10088084

Can we edit and remove the controversy section now?

Thanks. Bhavyaahir (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

You can find the official papers here: https://twitter.com/CoHNAOfficial/status/1680290348348723200 Bhavyaahir (talk) 07:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2024

Proposing to change the main image displayed at the top of the article (BAPS Robbinsville Mandir - Exterior) from the current:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/BAPS_Robbinsville_Mandir_-_Exterior_2.jpg

to the following:

https://media.baps.dev/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/28203128/Campus-dusk-scaled.jpg

The current image is not a good representation of the subject because it only shows a small corner of the building structure. The new image would be a considerable improvement. 71.191.46.188 (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: We use the current photo because it's freely licensed, which is (generally) a requirement for images on Wikipedia. That image appears to be copyrighted, as I can't seem to find a relevant free license statement with it, so we can't use it. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 00:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Recent Akshardham pictures - removed

Hello @Eucalyptusmint,

I noticed that some of the pictures I posted as part of the Akshardham Gallery have been removed. These pictures adhere to WP:REL and are important for the encyclopedic content of this article. Could you please tell me why they were removed?  

Thanks! SpunkyGeek (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Spunkygeek, all those images are not needed in that section as it really overwhelms that section with pics. It might be better to spread out some of the ones the ones that you want to add throughout the article, where applicable, so its better balanced. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you might not have noticed, but there are two separate mandirs in the Akshardham Campus. The previous pictures only represented one mandir, the BAPS Robbinsville Mandir. Here, I have posted pictures of the newly inaugurated Akshardham Mandir, which opened in October. Therefore, these pictures enhance the article without violating any policies. SpunkyGeek (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I did- but that doesn't mean all the images need to be smushed together into one section. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Confusing mandir details

I revised the infobox to match the content under 'Akshardham Mandir' - figured that is the main title/topic of this article and its strange to have the infobox not match the content related to the main topic. It's also strange to find the main topic (aka Akshardham mandir) all the way at the bottom of the page, so I moved it up. There are two opening dates and different details related to each so its super confusing. Got mixed up when moving stuff around because one is referenced as an opening and the other an inauguration. I think I got it right in the end, but it may need some further cleanup. Regardless, moving up the Akshardham mandir makes more sense and more accurately reflects the title/topic of the page. Schwinnspeed (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Schwinnspeed - I just reverted an edit of yours. I don't agree with swapping the order of the Akshardham mandir section and the Swaminarayan Mandir section because chronologically, the Swaminarayan mandir was constructed and inaugurated before the Akshardham mandir (basically a decade before). Doesn't make sense to switch it in my opinion. RealPharmer3 (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

But per the article title, and as already noted by Schwinnspeed, this page is about the akshardham temple and therefore that info should be at the top of the page per WP:DUE. And though chronologically it may make sense, sounds like it's also adding to lack of clarity for some of the info. Could consider creating a subpage for the Robbinsville temple per WP:SUMMARY, as it can also help improve readability of current page/avoid confusion. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

HI @Eucalyptusmint @Schwinnspeed,

I think it is better to keep it as one article and here are the following reasons:

1. Comprehensive Understanding: Keeping the content together provides a comprehensive understanding of the Akshardham Campus in one place, making it easier for readers to access all relevant information without navigating multiple pages.
2. Context and Continuity: This article delves into detailed topics like the history, architecture, and reception of both the mandirs (temples), and it helps to maintain the narrative's flow and continuity.
3. Content Overlap: There’s a significant content overlap between the two mandirs hence differentiating between them is a challenge. If there's any confusion about identifying a picture, we can clarify it by adding more specific captions.

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the above reasons.

SpunkyGeek (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

A subarticle for the other mandir makes a lot of sense to me and helps address my fundamental point of concern - this article is about Swaminarayan Akshardham. The first 50% of content reflects another mandir and its hard to even realize thats the case when you are reading it (which is why I moved that content down and switched the order).

One is covered significantly in the media as the 2nd largest hindu mandir in the world, but then its easy to mistakenly reference stats and info related to the other one instead. This happened in the infobox but also in places like this list where the opening date was originally referenced as 2014 (which is for the other mandir, not the one that actually makes the list)

@SpunkyGeek I would argue that all the detailed context for each is actually making things more confusing and working against the flow. I would recommend taking a look at WP:PCR and WP:Audience. Agree there is overlap, but WP:Summary addresses this well. To me this about more than just adding captions to the pictures. Schwinnspeed (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Schwinnspeed Okay - I think in that case, it may not be a bad idea to create a new article for clarity. RealPharmer3 (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I've created a subarticle page for the other mandir per the discussion above and have redone the sections accordingly. This makes a lot more sense to me now and allows the primary content on this page to align with its the title. Schwinnspeed (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Lawsuit in introduction section

The talk page discussions and previous editorial consensus have determined that the lawsuit in question does not warrant inclusion in the article's introduction. This decision is based on several factors:

The lawsuit is not considered sufficiently relevant to the subject's primary notability. There are discrepancies in the allegations and facts surrounding the case. The information is already adequately covered in the article's history section.

As per the Wikipedia guideline WP:LEADCITE (Lead section guidelines), only the most salient and crucial information should be presented in the lead. This guideline advises against including peripheral details or contentious matters that are not central to the subject's notability in the introductory section.

The lawsuit has been appropriately documented in the article's body for a considerable period, which adheres to Wikipedia's content organization principles. Adding it to the introduction would be redundant and potentially overemphasize its importance relative to other aspects of the subject. Ram112313 (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The lawsuit has been widely covered by the reliable sources. Your claim that it is not relevant to the subject's notability makes no sense. What has been widely covered has to be mentioned on the article and lead is for summarising the content of the article body. Ratnahastin (talk) 08:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The lawsuit in question has indeed been covered in the article, but it's important to note that there are differing accounts of its credibility, and the allegations remain unresolved and on hold. Previous editorial consensus had determined that this information should not be included in the lead section, a decision that aligns with the treatment of the same lawsuit in the BAPS article, where it is also excluded from the lead despite affecting multiple mandirs within the sect. Given that the lawsuit is already appropriately mentioned in the article's history section, repeating this information in the lead would be unnecessary and potentially misleading. In contrast, the widely reported claim that Akshardham is the second largest Hindu temple in the world has been deemed significant enough for inclusion in the article, including its lead section. This demonstrates the difference in how established, widely accepted information is treated compared to ongoing, contentious matters in Wikipedia articles. Ram112313 (talk) 08:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

That does not address what I said. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Ram112313 I think you might be mistaken about MOS:LEADCITE are you sure that's the policy you're referring to? Because it simply states that citations aren't generally required in the lead but certain types of info in the lead may require citations. And Ratnahastin, while I agree that the lawsuit has been covered by major news media, and will AGF, but I'm a little baffled as to why as someone who hasn't made edits to the page previously added an unbalanced summary of the issue when its covered in a balanced way later in the article? I think it's misleading for readers. I also don't think the info is warranted in the lead due to questions about its validity, based on recent (2023) events where the plaintiffs who filed the suit withdrew stating they were coerced with threats and inducements by an external party to make false claims about BAPS in the lawsuit. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

It is ridiculous that you are talking about "AGF" and in the same sentence you are assuming bad faith. Can you cite the source for your claim "they were coerced with threats and inducements by an external party to make false claims about BAPS"? Just because some of them have withdrawn, it doesn't mean all of the charges have been dropped. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, apologize if that came off the wrong way, that wasn't my intention. But for clarification, the source(s) of the claim are in the article itself, which I thought you had read since you copied part of that section into the lead, but maybe I'm mistaken. Either way, I felt that addition to the lead was misleading with one pov since it didn't summarize the article content in a npov.Eucalyptusmint (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, just to note I didn't say the charges are dropped because the plaintiffs withdrew. If you take a look at the history section in the article is basically states 1) lawsuit was filed to the government for labor charges etc. 2) some plaintiffs withdrew from the lawsuit saying they had been coerced by threats and inducements to make false claims 3) the lawsuit was put on hold while the government investigates the situation. So based on that it seems no charges have been filed by the government currently, so there's no question about charges being dropped, unless you've come across more recent sources stating this? Eucalyptusmint (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I recommend we have a third party view on this due to the recent unconstructive edits by user Ratnahastin to try to resolve this issue. Ram112313 (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This has been throughly mentioned in the article as well. Putting the lawsuit in the introduction of the paragraph leads to an unbalanced view of the article as mentioned by user Eucalyptusmint. The validity of the lawsuit as well as the recent withdrawals make the article not NPOV by mentioning it in the article introduction. It is already covered in the history section of the article anyways. Ram112313 (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ratnahastin @Ram112313 @Eucalyptusmint,

First of all, I think we should focus on discussing the content in question.

Regarding the labor law violation allegation: I think it's worth discussing whether this really belongs in the LEDE. As @Eucalyptusmint pointed out, the sources indicate that no case has been filed yet, and the most recent development mentions that several plaintiffs have withdrawn from their suit, citing coercion in filing the lawsuit. The LEDE is typically reserved for presenting well-established facts and significant points, rather than unresolved or unverified claims. With that in mind, it might be best to leave this out of the LEDE for now and revisit it once the situation is fully resolved.

Thanks. SpunkyGeek (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It belongs to the lead per MOS:LEAD. See the coverage across mainstream media about this.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Reasons provided against the inclusion so far simply contradict WP:NOTCENSORED. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It is also prevalent to show how those same mainstream medias also included differing interpretations of the case citing the withdrawal and how the case is currently on hold with no definite outcome. Putting the case (in which the validity of it is not clear) in the lead section would cause the article to be unbalanced. The lawsuit is already mentioned in the article history anyways. Ram112313 (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Just because it's on hold doesn't mean that the lawsuit has been dropped. In fact, given the widespread and in-depth coverage it received, it should be included in the lead. The lead is a summary of the body; if the content is mentioned in the body, then it warrants inclusion in the lead. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

But the validity of the lawsuit as well as well as the repeated different claims of the lawsuit, makes it more appropriate to keep the lawsuit out of the lead section and instead keep it within the article as it is. Users eucalyptusmint and spunkygeek agree as well. Since these are actually just allegations and not proven for cases, as it being on hold, it is better to not include the article in the lead section and push an unbalanced view. Ram112313 (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

There are also many details that are mentioned within the document that are not mentioned in the head and the header is supposed to be an unbiased view into the article having a lawsuit in the Led section leads it to have a negative POV for claims that have not yet been verified and are still on as well as different claims regarding validity and withdrawals. Ram112313 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from reverting the article to add unconstructive non NPOV content in the header section. The revised section you revert does not refer to any of the updates of the case and does not give a neutral view of the article. The lawsuit has been discussed in depth already within the article as the other users have also said. General consensus between the users is to refrain from editing the introduction of the article until more updates of the case are given. Ram112313 (talk) 09:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no censorship in question as the article still

mentions the lawsuit in depth in the history section. It is simply not relevant to bring an unverified case which is on hold with no relevant updates to be part of the lead section (in an albeit biased view). It pushes a non neutral view of the article. Ram112313 (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The article has described the controversy on sections and it should be also mentioned on lead. What you are doing is indeed against WP:NOTCENSORED.CharlesWain (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The lawsuit as per LEDE is reserved for well established facts rather than unresolved and unverified claims. The withdrawal as well as the general case being on hold with no charges makes it go against a neutral point of view to display the lawsuit as user SpunkyGeek pointed out. The general consensus is to keep it out of the introduction section until more updates to the lawsuit. It has already been throughly mentioned in the history section of the article. Ram112313 (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

What is with the constant edit warring? The last 10+ edits on this page have been the same revert over and over, despite what seems like numerous attempts to engage and establish consensus on the talk page.

@Ratnahastin: and @CharlesWain:, if you're referencing MOS:LEAD, then that policy also says Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section. The info being added to the lead is lacking the relevant context thats covered more thoroughly in the latter section. This feels like a POV push and instead of consensus building, its become an edit war.

I also don't understand the censorship argument here - as previously noted by @Ram112313:, the lawsuit is covered thoroughly in the article. Adding a lawsuit that is on hold in the LEAD is a little bizarre to me. I don't see many other examples where lawsuits that are on hold or pending investigation are mentioned in the lead, only ones that have confirmed investigations or indictments. Donald Trump and the California Cisco case come to mind. Are there others that are handled differently?

Otherwise, how is this compliant with MOS:LEAD and what is the point of duplicating an entire section of the article in the LEAD? Schwinnspeed (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump is a BLP. More accurate example would be Trump University where the lawsuits have been mentioned on the lead. Capitals00 (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Those lawsuits are also settled and have multiple different charges, and some if not most are proven. This is a case on hold that is already mentioned in the article. Ram112313 (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Capitals00, The Trump University article proves my point exactly - the lawsuit is resolved - the lead mentions that the cases were 1) heard by a federal court 2) settled by Trump.

My point is that in this situation, the government hasn't filed a lawsuit in state/federal courts, and the civil case is on hold, with many plaintiffs withdrawing, claiming their initial accusations were coerced and false (FYI, incase you haven't seen it - all of this relevant context is covered pretty thoroughly in the article itself, per WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED)

Just because a suit is filed does not mean the accusations are true, and amplifying it in the lead without evidence is WP:UNDUE.

I think 1) its fair to reserve judgement on the validity of the case given the case has not been resolved in court/through settlement, and charges haven't been filed by the government and 2) The lawsuit is covered pretty extensively in the article itself, and mentioning in the lead gives UNDUE weight to unproven accusations - especially considering many plaintiffs have not only withdrawn but also per the sources, provided notarized affidavits stating they were coerced into making false claims.

Its pretty black and white to me given what I cited previously re: MOS:LEAD. Again, not seeing many examples elsewhere on wikipedia where this is the case. The repeated edit warring without engaging on the talk page can give the appearance of a coordinated POV push. If anything, shouldn't we reach a clear consensus here first to avoid that perception? Schwinnspeed (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

You cannot claim that mentioning the lawsuit in lead is undue as the temple is pretty much only known internationally due to the coverage this lawsuit received. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This is false as the temple is more widely known for being the largest Hindu temple in the world. Any major article by a news source in the last 2 years has been about the opening of the temple more so than the lawsuit. The lawsuit at most is briefly mentioned in the articles as it is on hold and the final verdict has not been reached. Ram112313 (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The constant edit waring despite no final consensus on the talk page and attempts to talk seems like a coordinated POV push. User Ratnahastin has repeatedly reverted edits without taking about why the edits should be there in the first place and with no consensus on the talk page. The prior consensus was to not include the article allegations in the lead section due to the validity of the case as well as it being on hold. User Ratnahastin has also not made any constructive edits on other parts of the article and has banned me from reverting edits on the basis of trying to reach a consensus first. Ram112313 (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The article on Trump University had a whole paragraph on lead about the allegations and lawsuits since before any settlement.[10] Since you agree how that page was handled, you should have no issue with this edit. Capitals00 (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The lawsuits are also throughly mentioned and the validity of them are questionable. It is not appropriate to disturb an entire section of the article and even then give a negative POV of the article by not mentioning key details such as the withdrawal. It seems like heavy POV pushing and really isn't censorship as the details are already in the history section anyways. Ram112313 (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:FOC and don't use this talk page for whinning about the editors. Capitals00 (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Capitals00:, @ToBeFree:, and @Ram1751: Yo! The Swaminarayan content has long been plagued by pro-baps socks pushing for a branch specific POV narrative and removal of critical information in this space. Particularly trying to overstate the Baps branch was a theme. Please see this long investigation from 2021 | 2021 Bap Sock Investigation. There were years of consensus stacking to control narrative around this content topic. Over a dozen accounts were reviewed and half a dozen were blocked. All accounts that weren't banned but were part of the consensus stacking have long gone dormant as well as they couldn't quite dictate the content space with accounts identified as COI. It was a very elaborate operation in hindsight. Some really great Wiki mods and veteran users came together to unwrap the sock/meat puppetry going on. Themes included over glorification of baps ideology in the faith, removal of baps critical sourced content, talking up Baps temples, downplaying the beliefs of other branches (ironically every banned sock account at one point or another tried to downplay the lekh as a document instead of a scripture) among a lot of other subtle attempts to skew the informational nature of Wiki articles in favor of a desired branch. Just want to give everyone some context as you review the proposed edit here or ones being made elsewhere. Kbhatt22 (talk)

@Kbhatt22: - Given how this page is mostly edited by BAPS SPAs, I have my own suspicions about Moksha88 's return. - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin: Hi. There hasn't been a lot of POV pushing on the overall Swaminarayan content since the original ban in 2021. The same can't be said about the baps specific content as there such a large sprawl of pages (mostly created by the socks for marketing purposes) and hard to monitor all the pages for resurfacing of sock/meat puppetry activity. Feel free to share your thoughts on the next section created on this page. It seems this page has been duplicated and the controversial content on the duplicate page has been removed. Same geo location, address, and temple. A common practice of the socks from 2021 was when the desired narrative was not allowed, create a new page with desired narrative, let the discussion on the original page die down, merge the original page into the duplicate after some staged consensus stacking and during the merge add or remove the desired content. Not saying that's what's happening here but will have to keep a look out for similar patterns in the future. Kbhatt22 (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Kbhatt22: I've provided my rationale for why the page was moved on the other TP, per [1], per @Whpq: note below. To reiterate here, they are two distinct temples, inaugurated almost a decade apart, and notable in their own right. Again, I encourage you to read the actual content a little more closely. There has been discussion previously [2] [3] about the confusing nature of various stats for both temples on a single page. If by 'desired narrative' you mean providing clarity for the reader when referring to one temple vs the other, that remains the only intent as part of an effort to be WP:Encyclopedic. Schwinnspeed (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin: @Capitals00: We've gone back and forth on this repeatedly, and I still maintain that 1) there is a clear POV push in the lead and 2)there has been limited engagement or discussion from both of you to clarify why this merits inclusion in the lead vs anything else in the article.

Replying specifically to your earlier comments:

@Ratnahastin [1]: 'the temple is pretty much only known internationally due to the coverage this lawsuit received'. I'm not sure thats the case - its the second largest hindu temple, the largest in America. This contributes substantially to the international coverage and the attention its received. This fact is covered quite prominently in established American and International news outlets. Sharing a few more recent sources that were published by the American/international media after the new structure opened: [1] [2], [3][4] [5] (I noticed the the links @Ratnahastin chose to share earlier [1] were all from 2021)

@Capitals00: [1] Regarding the Trump university lawsuits, charges were actually filed and Trump University was tried in federal court - the article goes extensively into this and its the whole premise of the entry and therefore reasonable to summarize in the lead. The headline for one of the citations is New York Judge finds Donald Trump liable for unlicensed school. So clearly, the Trump U case had made it to court, some due process took place, and the judge made a ruling. Its not about unsubstantiated allegations as you say, there may have been certain components that were pending, but those matters were making their way through trial.

With this page, the situation is different. As I have explained before, the cited sources show the government has not filed charges, so obviously the matter is not under trial. As for the civil lawsuit, many plaintiffs have withdrawn with sworn statements saying they were coerced to make false statements in the original suit. This withdrawal + the affidavits has led to the civil suit being put on hold and under investigation - something that is broadly covered in the media.

So from a legal perspective, the Trump University case as you describe it and the Swaminarayan Akshardham NJ case at present are two very different situations. This is why I am repeating my previous points because it still stands inspite of your example that this is WP:Undue in the lead since 1) no charges have been filed in court 2)the civil lawsuit has plaintiffs withdrawing and giving sworn statements that the claims previously made were coerced and false 3)the civil case is on hold for this reason Schwinnspeed (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not undue, as there's clearly widespread international coverage about it which alone warrants it's inclusion in lead. There's no policy which states that we should not mention details about a well documented and covered lawsuit in the lead. These are the sources I found in five minutes of looking around, I'm sure they far outweigh any coverage this temple would have otherwise received just for being the second largest hindu temple, in fact I would say that this article is way too flattering and promotional of the organisation and the temple and needs to be rewritten to comply with NPOV. Also do you have any reliable source which confirms this statement "have withdrawn with sworn statements saying they were coerced to make false statements in the original suit"? So far all I found was horrible POV sources coming from Hindu Organizations and right wing or Godi media outlets such as OpIndia, Organiser and WP:TOI calling the lawsuit a conspiracy against Hindus, in fact this article also cites same horrible sources to reiterate the claims you made. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

You can view legal documents by going through pacer about more details regarding the withdrawal. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59895991/kumar-v-bochasanwasi-shri-akshar-purushottam-swaminarayan-sanstha-inc/ Ram112313 (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Schwinnspeed The sources claiming plaintiffs withdrawing are confusingly saying a lawyer in India was retained and Judge in India accepted their testimonies of coercion. Not quite sure the baring on this of a US trial but you are saying the civil suit is on hold due to the plaintiffs withdrawing but in fact it is on hold pending the federal investigation which is very common in US law. A civil suit has a much lower burden of guilt to meet when there is a federal indictment so its very common for a civil suit to be filed and placed on hold pending the federal investigation. Do you have a source saying the federal investigation is over? The last FBI release/news article shortly after the raid said investigations around violation of the RICO act were on the table which sometimes can take years to finish up.

Either way this has been debated on here numerous times, and each time the consensus yields the same result as it is yielding right now. Can go round and round in circles all day but there is no further update from the FBI on their investigation so not much has changed to move anything around. Kbhatt22 (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the whole passage about "statements by Plaintiffs" is misleading and inappropriately written in Wikipedia's voice based on abysmally poor sources with no editorial transparency. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I was basing the above on existing content in the article (which has since been revised, again without discussion. @Ratnahastin, I am going to revert your latest changes. The whole approach is contrary to WP:HERE...lets talk about the sources)

In doing a quick search, here are two sources [1] [2] that mention 12 (out of 19) plaintiffs withdrawing and the case being on hold. What is your specific concern with this source that prompted you to remove it?

And as I mentioned before, I've reviewed the references you shared [1] but per WP:OLDSOURCES, its worth looking at more recent news vs the 2021 ones you keep referencing that don't reflect the updated status.

@Ratnahastin Typically people take a step back from the article and talk it out. I've noticed you repeatedly make edits or reverts on the page without addressing the discussion on the talk page leading to unnecessary swirl, confusion and disruption. Schwinnspeed (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Both of these sources have a poor reputation for fact checking. In any case they are simply reiterating the claims made by a labor body and one Mr. Trivedi in India. We cannot report them in wikivoice without giving proper attribution.

And as I mentioned before, I've reviewed the references you shared [1] but per WP:OLDSOURCES, its worth looking at more recent news vs the 2021 ones you keep referencing that don't reflect the updated status - I was simply highlighting the sheer amount of coverage it has received which makes the inclusion in lead warranted.

@Ratnahastin Typically people take a step back from the article and talk it out. I've noticed you repeatedly make edits or reverts on the page without addressing the discussion on the talk page leading to unnecessary swirl, confusion and disruption - Read WP:BOLD, there's no reason to discuss every change before doing it on the talkpage.

The sources you are restoring are extremely poor and POV, This sanjhisoch source doesnt have any information and author and is claiming that lawsuit was an anti-hindu conspiracy, it should never be cited on any article. This Indiawest source does not even state who is the reporter or the author and has no about us page. This Jagran source is merely reporting the statements made by a labour body calling the allegations as false and has no author information, just a generic byline. Same thing with this Times of India source, We cannot use them. The only usable source states "Their lawyer, Aaditya Soni, who is based in Jaipur, said in a text message that the workers believe the facts of the case are false and that they decided to pull out based on religious conviction" which is already in the article. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't realize the Associated Press had a 'poor reputation for fact checking' - this feels like we're choosing to exclude sources that don't confirm to a certain POV. That's certainly not a reason to file an SPI

The Associated Press is one of the more respected international news outlets so I don't think its fair to say its a throwaway reference. If you read the source, most of what you're saying above just isn't true (For one, it says nothing about Mr. Trivedi being based in India and specifically says he's at Columbia university. Secondly it mentions nothing about the labor body). Regardless I agree the proper attribution is required, and perhaps thats how we should revise the content, but the approach thus far has been contrary to WP:ACHIEVE NPOV Schwinnspeed (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it seems like heavy POV pushing. Ram112313 (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at Talk:BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir Robbinsville

Regarding the section above "Confusing mandir details", there was a request to deleted the BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir Robbinsville as a duplicate topic. I have instead started a discussion at Talk:BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir Robbinsville. Your input there would be appreciated. Cheers. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)