Talk:BAPS Hindu Mandir Abu Dhabi

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2024

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Mahant Swami Maharaj, the present spiritual guru of the BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha, formally opened the grand mandir on February 14, 2024 with a ribbon cutting ceremony. Source: http://www.coastaldigest.com/middle-east-top-story/pm-modi-inaugurates-uaes-first-hindu-stone-temple-grand-ceremony MJNmangaluru (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2024 (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. Shadow311 (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Deities

Hey @Redtigerxyz,

I noticed that you moved the Deities section as a subsection under Architecture. Your reason being that it was "in line with with other Hindu temple articles." I have to say that I disagree with this because there are other major Hindu Temple articles that also have a separate Deities section: Venkateshwara Temple, Tirumala, Pashupatinath Temple, Padmavathi Temple, Jagannath Temple, Puri, and Mithrananthapuram Trimurti Temple

Let me know if you disagree and what your thoughts are. Chilicave (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chilicave, Jagannath Temple, Venkateswara Temple, Tirumala have broad sections on Deities and thus not comparable. As per MOS:OVERSECTION, "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheadings."

Please see FA Angkor Wat, GA Badrinath Temple, GA Arunachalesvara Temple, GA Kandariya Mahadeva Temple, GA Kodandarama Temple, Vontimitta, GA Raghunath Temple, GA Vimala Temple, GA Munneswaram temple. All these include Deities in the flow of Features/ Layout/ Architecture sections. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chilicave I agree with @Redtigerxyz here regarding MOS:OVERSECTION. I had also raised the same concern earlier on your talk page after your revert when I had moved this to Architecture section. But, as I had mentioned on your talk page, I do agree with your point that Deities and Architecture are different. Maybe add more content in the Deities section and then we can decide if a different section make sense? Also, I think regardless of a different section, I think it will make this Deities section more readable if we can add brief detail about each of the deities here on this page, instead of having the reader click each of the deities. But, currently, the content for Deities section is just one sentence and don't think needs it's own section.Asteramellus (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Asteramellus Seems fair to me. I'll go ahead and start adding content for each deity. Chilicave (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This is not the way to go for deity section expansion by WP:UNDUE. If information is available on the the deities similar to the Jagannath temple/ Tirumala temple, only then we should add it. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Redtigerxyz,

Okay, I do see what you mean about adding specific information about the deities related to the mandir. Let me do a little more research. Chilicave (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Redtigerxyz

Upon closer look at the articles you recommended, there are brief descriptions of the respective deities sprinkled throughout, like what I was trying to do earlier.

For example, the Venkateshwara Temple, Tirumala says Venkateshwara, an avatar of Vishnu is the presiding deity of the temple. The same applies to Vimala temple under "Religious significance" and the shaligram description for Ragunath temple. Looking at all of this, it would be fair to provide at least a sentence or two for each deity to make it easier for readers to understand.

Also, I did find a few articles related to the specific deities of this mandir. Since this is an encyclopedia, we can't assume that readers will know everything about the deities installed. So, if we add a bit of general information about the deities as done in many other Hindu temple pages then the page will be accessible to a broader audience than those who are knowledgeable in deities. Looking at the international coverage of this temple, I think this would be important for a broader audience. Please bear with me as I update everything. Chilicave (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The specific murtis/ deities of Vimala Temple and Venkateshwara temple are referred in Hindu scriptures and are not comparable. The description of murti, the material is specific to the article and should be included. The generic descriptions add more questions then answers, by introducing more jargon terms - Vishnu, Lakshmi, Mohini, Vaishnavism, Shaivism etc. Considering the information on deity icons, I still do not believe the separate section separate from Architecture is required and should be incorporated as a paragraph/ section within Architecture in line with the existing precedent of GAs and FA Hindu temple articles. Also, looking at the references cited, they devote just a para or two on deities/ shrines. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Redtigerxyz,

I'm afraid I don't understand your first comment about The specific murtis/ deities of Vimala Temple and Venkateshwara temple are referred in Hindu scriptures and are not comparable.The murtis/deities that we are discussing are clearly relevant to this mandir. Its connection with Hindu scripture does not relate to whether it's worthy of having its own section or not.

Second, the words that you removed are not jargon. Several of the sources that I derived this from - Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Brittanica, and Essential Hinduism - also introduce these deities in a similar fashion. Again, this is an encyclopedia so we cannot assume that the audience is familiar with these deities. If further reading is needed for readers, they can click on the wiki-links.

Third, I noticed that the GAs/FAs you listed were reviewed a long time ago. For example, Angkor Wat - reviewed 2008, Badrinath Temple - rev. 2014, Arunachalesvara Temple - rev. 2013, and Raghunath Temple - rev. 2015. Changes have been made to these articles since then. My point is that what was applicable over a decade ago may not necessarly be applicable in newer articles. Looking at the guideline you cited earlier, MOS:OVERSECTION, it mentions nothing of only adhering to FAs/GAs in terms of layout. In fact, MOS:SNO is the only guideline I see that says to refer to precedent articles, but regarding section order and using "similar articles" not only FAs/GAs.

Lastly, I disagree with placing Deities under Architecture not only for this article, but for other articles as well. Based on my understanding, a murti is venerated as a manifest form of the divine, much different to the deities literally carved into the exterior and interior design of the mandir (architecture). The main purpose of building a mandir is for the deities, so having one heading when there is a distinction between deities related to carved architecture and deities in the shrines does not make sense. Please explain as to why you think it belongs in architecture other than it following a similar template to FA/GAs. Chilicave (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Chilicave and @Redtigerxyz,

Firstly, I want to express my thanks for the good work you've been doing to shape this article. I've been following your discussions and thought I could contribute a few insights for your consideration.

1. Murti and Hindu Architecture: "Murti" (consider Hindu deity) and "Hindu architecture" represent distinct facets of Hinduism, each serving a unique role in religious and artistic expressions. The significance of the murti lies in its embodiment of a sacred image representing a deity. Beyond its tangible form, the murti serves as a manifestation of the divine, fostering a connection for devotees through acts of devotion and rituals. On the other hand, Hindu architecture involves the design and construction of temple structures, incorporating regional styles and cultural influences. Characterized by intricate carvings, sculptures, and symbolic motifs, Hindu architecture often centers around a sanctum where the murti of the main deity resides, surrounded by halls, pillars, and courtyards. Notably, this distinction is reflected in the organization of articles on Wikipedia, where Murti is presented as a separate article and not part of Hindu architecture. Hence, I agree with @chillicave's perspective that the article would benefit from the addition of a distinct section dedicated to the Hindu deities.
2. Significance of Deity Representation: In my recent edits to the Ram Mandir page on Wikipedia, there is a separate section on the significance of the primary deity Ram, particularly in his unique Balak (child) form. Similarly, the Tirupati Balaji mandir features of Venkateshwara are depicted standing with four arms, each adorned with unique gestures. Hindu rituals dictate that the divine presence is invoked (prana pratishtha) in the murti, facilitating the transfer of divine power. Concerning the BAPS Abu Dhabi Mandir, it is crucial not only to reference the deities but also to provide detailed insights into the unique features associated with them, as these details contribute significantly to the encyclopedic value of the article.
3. Finally, I agree with @redtygerxyz regarding MOS:OVERSECTION, emphasizing that "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose." Therefore, I have revised the relevant section to adhere to this guideline. Additionally, I appreciate @chillicave's valid observation that the guidelines do not explicitly state the necessity of formation sections according to FA/GA articles on a similar topic.

SpunkyGeek (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Following WP:INDISCRIMINATE

Hello @Capitals00,

I noticed you re-added the statement, "This is the third Hindu temple in the UAE after the first temple was created in 1958 in Dubai and the second temple was created in 2022, also in Dubai," which deviates from the main focus of the article, which is primarily centered on a specific temple rather than providing a broader context about Hinduism in the UAE or the history of temples in the region. According to the guideline WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it is important to avoid including information that may be considered irrelevant.

I believe the inclusion of years for other temples may not be relevant to this article, as it could be compared to adding details about the opening years of all churches in each area, which is basically irrelevant. Therefore, I made the changes to satisfy the guideline but also stating the fact that it is the third Hindu mandir and the first traditional stone mandir.

Also, I noticed that you reverted my edits without providing a clear reasoning. I incorporated your additions in a way that logically fits into the lead, and in my recent edit I also included information about the seismic simulation in the lead where the features are described. If there are specific concerns or reasons for the reversion, could you clarify them?  

BR SpunkyGeek (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

If you are really going to worry about what is relevant for the lead then 2nd and 3rd paragraphs look entirely WP:UNDUE.

"first traditional Hindu stone mandir"? Who cares about such trivia? Capitals00 (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay here are some points:

1. I've incorporated information about the mandir being the "first traditional Hindu stone mandir" based on multiple sources - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Therefore, I disagree with the characterization of this as "trivia", as it seems to be a significant aspect highlighted by reputable sources.  
2. According to Reuters: "The opening of the first traditional, stone-carved Hindu temple on the Arabian Peninsula, the birthplace of Islam, is symbolic of the close ties between India and the UAE. India's relationship with the influential Middle East state, built on more than a century of trade links, has expanded."
3. In the same source, the significance of the carvings is described, "The seven emirates of the UAE are represented by the seven spires of the Abu Dhabi temple, which was built with sandstone from India's Rajasthan and marble from Italy. Hindu deities are depicted along with ancient civilizations and other religions, including Islam, the only official religion of the Gulf state.” - Therefore, it is clear Notability is met and necessary in the lead.
4. Regarding the structure of the lead, the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs aim to provide a concise summary in line with WP:LEAD. I believe the content appropriately reflects the key points of the article without undue emphasis on any specific section.  

Again, reiterating that I am not removing your content but rearranging and including relevant information according to WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

SpunkyGeek (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I just want to note here that I disagree with the content being added by both @SpunkyGeek and @Capitals00 regarding "third Hindu temple". I had actually highlighted a bit of my concern earlier for possible WP:OR on Capitals00's talk page because seems out of two sources cited for the "third", only the sceneNow source mentions this mandir and then, I had read in this source which says that there are "three other hindu temples that are located in Dubai", which means this possibly is "fourth" in UAE? Also, if we do a google search for "Hindu mandir Dubai", it shows more than 3 mandirs just in Dubai: "Shiva temple", "Hindu temple Dubai", "Shiridi Sai Baba Mandir", "Shirnathji temple" etc. I do see couple of sources report this as "third" in UAE, it seems questionable and possible synthesis of multiple information by such sources. I would suggest that we leave out such questionable claims and not include such details like "third in UAE". Since many sources do say something like traditional/stone mandir, maybe it makes sense to say something along the lines for that or maybe "first Hindu Mandir in Abu Dhabi" (which also some sources say) Asteramellus (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Asteramellus,

1. I agree, it's important to avoid WP:OR when editing Wikipedia articles. If the statement about the "third Hindu mandir in the UAE" is not supported by reliable sources and is a result of synthesizing information, it should be removed.  
2. Regarding the fact that it underwent complete digital modeling, the placement of such information in the article should align with Wikipedia's guidelines on structuring and presenting content - MOS:FIRST. This is one of the mandir’s features, hence it would be better placed in a subsequent section that discusses the architectural features or unique aspects of the temple.
3. Also, I would like to highlight, that if the fact about being the "first traditional stone mandir in the Middle East" is well-supported and notable (as presented in my previous reply), it's appropriate to include it in the introductory 1^st para considering MOS:OPEN.

In my opinion, the above points would ensure that we have the overall flow and organization of the article according to the Wikipedia guidelines. SpunkyGeek (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@SpunkyGeek My concern was mainly for the content around the term "third mandir" and if it was actually correct or not as I had already mentioned earlier. Maybe include what I have previously suggested to say it is the first Hindu mandir in Abu Dhabi in the lead since that is very clear, and if you want to mention about being first traditional stone mandir in the Middle East (as many sources are saying), you can do that in the body. And regarding your second point, I disagree that is is not significant. It is quite significant or important to be the first mandir to have such digital modelling feature. And, I am not sure about current sentence not following MOS:FIRST because the very first information which is there is giving the key details (like what, when, etc mentioned in that policy) and after those details, it is gving details about digital modeling. I think the current paragraph in the lead is fine with that detail. Asteramellus (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I acknowledge the concerns raised by @Asteramellus regarding the statement claiming the temple as the third Hindu temple in the UAE. Therefore, I have removed that specific sentence. Instead, I agree with Asteramellus's suggestion to highlight in the lead section that this is the first Hindu mandir in Abu Dhabi, a detail I have incorporated into the second line. Placing this information immediately after the consecration date satisfies the contextual relevance.

Addressing Asteramellus's input, I've retained the point about this temple being the first Hindu mandir to undergo complete digital modeling and seismic simulation. However, I've relocated this detail to the following paragraph, where the construction process is discussed. Since this technological aspect was integral to the construction phase, it logically aligns with the flow of information in that section. SpunkyGeek (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Avoid the term mandir

English Wikipedia does NOT need not to use terms from other languages to refer to anything unless a common equivalent does not exist in English. One can check that reputed articles do not use terms like masjid and bet knesset, and instead use mosque/synagogue. In fact most pages on Hindu temples also use 'temple' as opposed to an Indian language word. 'Temple' should be used everywhere here except the proper noun 'BAPS Hindu Mandir'. Indielov (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Indielov Actually, I had thought about that before - but it seems using just "temple" instead of the word "mandir" would add ambiguity/confusion because "mandir" means "Hindu temple" (not just "temple"). But, I do think that when the Hindu place of worship uses "temple" in its name, the page should refer to it as "temple" and not "mandir" (to avoid confusion). Also, mandir is part of English dictionary, just like many other sanskrit terms such as "karma". I think reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch page will help clear up some concerns like this. Asteramellus (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Gallery

@Uzmashakir2 I saw that you had reverted my last edit after my revert for a spam edit and an edit by you. I have reverted your edit (see WP:BRD) so we can discuss more here. I have few points to note:

1. With this revert, it reintroduced the spam edit that I had reverted.
2. Also, in this edit, summary mentions "Tagged for inline citation", but it also has content removed from the lead - so, it was a bit misleading. But seems the details there are coming from the body, so don't think citation needed in the lead (see MOS:LEAD)
3. Regarding the Gallery, it was clarified in an earlier edit on 9/20 "see MOS:IMAGES - common to include such pictures in pages related to places to help visualize and understand details". Also, for example, see other similar pages (I am sure there are a lot more such examples): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - Images give more context.
4. Maybe I am not clearly reading, but not sure what from WP:NOT and WP:NOTGALLERY you think applies here on this page and other similar pages I have linked above.

You can add here your thoughts on this and we can discuss next steps. Asteramellus (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Asteramellus : Simply put, to me it looks like spammy.. with so many images in a single wiki page, not asking them to be deleted.

Have never seen so many images in a single wiki page. However, let them be in the commons page.Uzmashakir2 (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

sorry, were you able to look at some other similar pages that I linked (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) in my previous comment - It seems common to include multiple relevant images on such places articles - some pages have images spread out over the page, and others use gallery. See also e.g Notre Dame de Paris, Architecture of Paris, Florence Cathedral. Maybe the gallery can be formatted better. I can take a look. Asteramellus (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)