Talk:Old Parliament House, New Delhi

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Delhi (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 24 May 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Old Parliament House of India. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Requested move 21 September 2020

Parliament House (India) → Sansad Bhavan – Official as well as common name utilised for building. Hence, would be better than to use a general name for other corresponding buildings. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:USEENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME. The English references used in the article use the term "Parliament House". Rreagan007 (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Move request withdrawn. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chausath Yogini temple?

Last year, I removed some claims about Parliament House's design being inspired by the Chausath Yogini Temple in Morena, because I could find no source supporting that statement. I see that the claim has been added again, this time with this Hindustan Times article as a citation, and is featured prominently in the lead. However, I am still unable to find any evidence that the claim is reliable - in fact, it is highly likely that the author of that article copied from Wikipedia rather than the other way round - the article was written on 31 January 2020, and the claim about the Chausath Yogini Temple had existed on this article prior to that, without a citation. I have been unable to find any historical source that corroborates this temple-inspiration factoid, although this opinion piece in The Hindu asserts - without citations - that 'some historical records' mention it. Another similarly unreliable citation is this photo-op for NDTV, which leaves an open-ended question - "there may have been the designer and builders of the Indian Parliament House in New Delhi. They say that its architecture is very much like mine. Do you think so too?" rather than something concrete. The webpage of the Archaeological Society of India mentioned as a citation in the article also does not mention it, while the Google Books link that supposedly corroborates the fact is unreadable - I cannot read page 21 because GBooks' "Snippet View" does not allow it. A search for 'Chausath Yogini Temple' in the book from GBooks' search bar yields no results. A search on JSTOR also yielded no results.

Considering the above, I propose that this fact be removed, unless better, older and more reliable citations can be found, like maybe the works of Lutyens or Baker themselves, or of other qualified historians. Except for the low, circular exterior, there is no obvious similarity in the buildings' architecture, particularly in the interior. I am not saying the fact is outright wrong - yet - because it not unlikely that it was indeed temple-inspired, since Lutyens' architecture does incorporate lots of native Indian elements. The reason I want the facts removed is so that we do not start urban legends, like that Hindustan Times article.

@Aman.kumar.goel: Pinging you as you are an active and experienced contributor. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 06:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Urban legend. https://www.financialexpress.com/lifestyle/travel-tourism/temples-which-inspired-design-of-indian-parliament-madhya-pradeshs-chausath-yogini-mandir/1575446/ TrangaBellam (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The matter was mentioned in 2012 in The Hindu, which says "Some historical records mention that the design of Sansad Bhavan is based on the design of a temple at Mitwali (Mitaoli) in the Morena district of Madhya Pradesh." "Government should have confidence in this House". The Hindu. 9 August 2012. Archived from the original on 20 March 2018.. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap, yes, I believe I addressed that point. The Hindu article gives absolutely no mention of what those "some historical records" might be. If those records exist, then we must be citing the records themselves, not some newspaper in the 21st century saying that they exist (without even giving their names, or citing what exactly they say). One newspaper saying that there are some sources which say something is a bit of a stretch for a claim's reliability, especially for a claim so prominently featured in the lead. The transparently obvious copying in the currently cited Hindustan Times article does not help matters, especially when another RS has an article contradicting it (see the one TrangaBellam mentioned). Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 08:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me too much to mention it in the lead, but it should certainly be mentioned somewhere in the article, even if only in a footnote, and even if only in the context of the reliably-cited rebuttal of the matter as a modern legend. The Hindu is of course a far better source than The Hindustan Times. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap, I've made some changes to the article. What do you think? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 09:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I've restored the transliteration (in addition) as otherwise most of our readers will just see a squiggle, however beautiful the Devanagari letters. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me as well. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 09:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Swapna Liddle noting:- ...There is also the conjecture of famous Indian temples and monuments serving as inspiration for the buildings being designed by the British. “Lutyens and Baker were sent off this tour to look at examples of Indian architecture. They also might have seen photographs collected by the Archeological Survey of India. So even though there is no proof of them emulating Indian monuments, it is not inconceivable that they might have done so,” says Liddle over the phone. “For instance, the fact that the Sanchi stupa was the model for the Rashtrapati Bhavan is quite obvious,” she says.

Similarly, one is often struck by the similarity in structure and design of the Parliament House and the Chausath Yogini Temple at Mitawli village in Morena district near Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. “Again we have no proof that they went to Mitawli or that they saw this temple, but at the same time it is not inconceivable that it might have served as an inspiration,” says Liddle..... TrangaBellam (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Arun Bapat is not an art-historian but a seismologist. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New parliament building, new page

This article is about the circular building. There is simply no need to include such large amounts of detail about the new biulding that will eventually house Parliament. A small paragraph, like the one found at Central Vista Redevelopment Project will suffice, with a "main article" link to a new article, say New Indian parliament building, where all information about the new parliament building can be held. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 05:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bombings in 1930

Why there is no mention of Bombings done by Hindustan Socialist Republic Association, isn't it is the same place where that took place in 1930. Ref [1] Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:New Parliament House, New Delhi which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

change it to Old Parliament House of India Rahil1610 (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Owner information change after 1947 | revison id 1157421946 | 13:56, 28 May 2023‎

Transfer of ownerhsip was done on 14 August, 1947 as mentioned on

The Print - https://theprint.in/india/following-nehrus-footsteps-modi-to-invoke-old-chola-tradition-to-inaugurate-new-parliament/1592071/

The Hindu - https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/inspired-by-cholas-handed-over-by-british-to-nehru-historic-sengol-to-be-installed-in-new-parliament-building/article66888185.ece

The Indian Express = https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-history/sengol-new-parliament-significance-nehru-8626977/

So corrected the article which was mentioned for Gov of India from 1950 - present to 1947 to present

-- ~~~~ Iamrajdeepdas (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change Parliament house ,New Delhi to old Parliament

change page name to old Parliament house New Delhi because we have now a new parliament building. Socialworkerindia863 (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:New Parliament House, New Delhi which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change name to "Samvidhan Sadan"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Formal move discussion going on at Talk:New Parliament House, New Delhi#Requested move 19 September 2023 (non-admin closure) Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As both the houses of parliament have already approved the renaming of the old building as Samvidhan Sadan after the Parliament has officially shifted to New Complex, it would be appropriate to rename the entire page as Samvidhan Sadan. Karan.jr.Singh (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

change name Musicalartist071 (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Wikipedia doesn't follow official names. We follow common names and the English translations of native names. Most buildings and monuments in non-English speaking countries have a non-English name but we still use their English translation. Official name in native language if provided in lead should be in italics and brackets beside the name in English. See Eiffel Tower for example. Pinging @Shaan Sengupta. PadFoot2008 (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008 I have explained the same many times. Am I really need to repeat myself? It seems these people don't want to read the rules before starting editing. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 05:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaan Sengupta I understand but they are vandalising Wikipedia now. Karan jr. recently reverted my edit [2]. If you could provide your !vote to change the lead my suggested version[3] before Karan jr. reverted it, this can go much more smoothly and we can put this to a stop. PadFoot2008 (talk) 05:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008 you are at wrong here and the current version is right according to me. Just here. Because the government named it Samvidhan Sadan not Constitution House. As per your point about Eiffel Tower, it is the most common name that's why it is added not because it us in English. For example, please see Rashtrapati Bhavan, Rashtrapati Niwas, Rashtrapati Nilayam, Rastrapati Bhawan. There are many more examples like this. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 05:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaan Sengupta, I might be but I don't think so. The thing is, the Government officially named it "Samvidhan Sadan" in Hindi, but gave no official name in English. The official name for the new building too is "Sansad Bhavan" not Parliament House; no building called Parliament House ever existed in New Delhi. But it is the unofficial English translation. Therefore we ought to use the unofficial English translation of the official Hindi name of the old building too as this is the English Wikipedia. (I'm not talking about the article title but the article lead). PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008 this is a bit complex. It is Parliament not Sansad bhavan because English sources user the word parliament. And it is Rashtrapati Bhavan not Presidential Palace because most English sources use Rashtrapati bhavan only. Learn the difference. All of this is primarily based on the usage of English sources. Whether in the lead or in the title. Just like the constitutional term is House of the people not Lok sabha and Council of states not Rajya Sabha. But we still use the hindi names. I am still explaining you in good faith even after knowing your thoughts about hindi as it can be seen in your userpage. I would suggest you to stop here. Going further you are just digging a hole for yourself. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 07:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaan Sengupta, I do not see any use of going any further either. This change is new. But the environment might change in future. And I see you have a prejudice against me due to my position on Hindi, as I've mentioned in my user page. But I can assure you, this has nothing do with it. It's a pity, really, the state of my beautiful country. The attempts to divide the Union. Anyways, thanks for collaborating. PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too quick to judge. Now that you understood that you are wrong here you just leave by accusing me of having a prejudice. You are wrong here I don't have anything for you. Anways your thought. Cheers. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I was wrong. I just said I would have to wait. Maybe even years. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008 Yes, that's what make you wrong at the moment. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-closure comments

Quite a nice closing comment you gave for the readers and other editors, didn't you? PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008 that is the result of this. Because this wasn't going anywhere. If you want to continue this personally please do it on my talk page or your talk page. Because this now is in noway related to the article. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've realized my folly. I'm acting like an idiot. Sorry for annoyance. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.