Talk:Lotus Temple

Useful Link

Here is a source that could help with improving/expanding the article: . Unfortunately, it requires a subscription so I can't read most of it - so just leaving it here for anyone with access. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 18:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Contradiction?

„capacity of 1,300“, but „2,500 seatings“? 91.96.206.210 (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed removal of "Arrests" section (WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP)

I'd like to open a discussion about removing the ==Arrests== section. My concern is not with the reliability of the cited source, but with due weight and the treatment of living persons.

The section consists of one sentence sourced to a single August 2006 article in The Hindu: former employees filed a complaint, a trial judge directed the police to register an FIR, and the Delhi High Court stayed the arrests. No arrests occurred. No charges were ever prosecuted. The section's own source — headlined "High Court stays arrest of Lotus temple trustees" — describes a legal action that was immediately halted.

Focusing on WP:UNDUE, Wikipedia policy requires that the weight given to a claim reflect its prominence in reliable secondary coverage. This event received one day of wire syndication in August 2006 and then disappeared from the public record. There is no follow-up reporting in any reliable source (neither in English nor Hindi), no trial, no conviction, and no treatment in any secondary academic literature on the Lotus Temple or the Bahá'í Faith in India. A single-day wire report about a court injunction that was stayed within the week does not meet the threshold for a dedicated standalone section in an encyclopedic article.

Another note: the underlying complaint named specific living individuals (trustees of the temple). Wikipedia's policy WP:BLP on biographies of living persons requires particular care with unresolved or dismissed legal allegations. Where such allegations have not resulted in any finding of fact — and where the only documented judicial action was a High Court order preventing arrests — their inclusion requires strong justification that the sourcing here does not provide.

As a secondary point: the heading ==Arrests== is factually inaccurate. No arrests took place; the High Court intervened to prevent them. This misrepresents the outcome described in the cited source itself.

I propose removing the ==Arrests== section in its entirety. If there is consensus that the event warrants some mention, I would support a brief neutral note folded into the History section under an accurate heading (e.g. "2006 legal dispute"), with the webindia123.com citation removed as a duplicate of the The Hindu wire report.

Interested in other editors' views. ABehjat (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• agreed to not mention it in so prominent position. The source is old and singular. I dont see a pattern to cover now, let alone knowledge of what happened in the end. Smkolins (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

agree that the section should be removed as it's undue based on the minimal, short term coverage it received. I'm also unable to find any follow up stories/outcomes since the event, suggesting that it was a transient news event without lasting coverage. Based on that, a standalone section is difficult to justify and the info doesn't belong in the article per WP:NOTNEWS. Also agree with dragfyre, BLP doesn't seem to be a significant issue here since no names have been mentioned in the article. EM (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• Agreed, the section seems very random and violates WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. WP:BLP might not apply because no name is mentioned. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Implemented. Thanks all. Consensus here (Smkolins, dragfyre, EM, Tarikhejtemai, and myself as proposer; no objections after one week) is that the standalone ==Arrests==section fails WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS given the single-day 2006 wire report and absence of follow-up coverage. There was no consensus on whether WP:BLP strictly applies, but that did not affect the outcome. I've removed the section and the duplicate webindia123.com citation. I have not added a replacement note to the History section, since no one argued the event warranted mention; happy to revisit if anyone wants to propose specific wording. ABehjat (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

^ Cuñado, Oceanflynn, thoughts?

ABehjat: I feel like that's fair - I had looked into this a long time ago and did find the article from The Hindu, so I left it in since it was at least verifiable. Although I'm not 100% sure that the comments about BLP apply to the letter since the trustees themselves aren't named (disclaimer, I'm not an expert on BLP issues), I agree that it's still iffy and at least fails WP:UNDUE based on your observations. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 03:37, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Rewrite ahead of GA nomination

I have made a substantial revision of the article and intend to nominate it for Good Article status. History of my changes can be seen in my sandbox here:

• Sources: Claims now rest on engineering literature and the 1987 reviews in Progressive Architecture and Architecture. Used some of the existing sources like Hassall, Pearson and the 2014 UNESCO submission. I removed the circular sources (Bahaipedia, the District Magistrate page, travel listicles) and dead links.
• Structure: The sections in the past were not organized well for its given content. I introduced better section structure like having design folded into Architecture, dedication into History. Reception now carries both praise and Sabikhi's 1987 criticism to ensure NPOV, and the awards is a subsection in reception.
• Citation: Changed the short footnotes to full inline references with {{rp}} page numbers. I had a ridiculous time trying to source some of the information available and trying to see where the citation was referencing. Also relied significantly on Internet Archives and sourced what I can into the article.

Let me know if you have any feedback or comments.

- ABehjat (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2026 (UTC)