Talk:Mumbai

This reference page has been destroyed by the addition of the Nov 26 terrorist attack information. This is not a news page people! Codeviolation (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC) codeviolation

Largest Municipality in India

How can it be claimed that Mumbai is still India's largest municipality when the most recent estimates say that the municipality of Delhi is 13.7 million residents to Mumbai municipality's 13.6 million residents? --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion with reliable sources. Be sure you have the latest estimates of both Delhi and Mumbai. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 09:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI There are three municipalities in Delhi. As Kenneth says, please do cite sources to back up any claims. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is Delhi still seen as a municipality? Don't they have semi-state government with a Chief minister with move towards complete statehood? Mumbai is still just a city. --GPPande talk! 19:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"Semi-state" is not technically correct. Delhi has a legislature. For all practical purposes, it is a union territory. As per the Constitution, the Union Government can create a legislative body for a UT. Delhi and Puducherry are the two UTs currently with a legislature. The Union Government can also deem fit assign powers to a UT. But for the creation of a state, a constitutional amendment is necessary. However Delhi and Mumbai should only be compared on context, and a lot of people who post on this page (and Delhi's & India's pages) do not realize the differences. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so it's a UT with a legislature. But this legislature has limited rights (like no control on police or no state home/finance ministry) as compared to usual state government. So Delhi's legislature must be controlling 3 municipal administrations as Maha government does for some 20+ in state. This uniqueness of Delhi as compared to the other 5 metros of India can be highlighted explicitly somewhere. But now I am going off-topic. Will work on this somewhere else. Definitely don't compare Mumbai and Delhi after you read all this. --GPPande talk! 20:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

True, there is a clearly defined power sharing in the case of Delhi. That is mentioned briefly here: Delhi#Government_and_politics. But what's really bugging are the number of cases on WP where I have to revert mention of Delhi as a *state*. Those Dilliwallas never learn! LOL =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to cite sources when they are readily available on each city's page, and you all didn't have to be so rude when asked a simple question. I have no agenda, here. I'm not from India; I am not Indian. I was asking a simple and honest question. From what I understand, the municipal corporation of Delhi has 13.7 million residents, now, no? No, you tell me why it's wrong. I asked the question. --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey buddy, nobody is rude to you. Good you have shown some interest here and asked question. Nichalp and I was just having discussion, as you can see - even I being an Indian and Wikipedian for sometime, had something new to learn. Join in, all are invited - Indian or not doesn't matter as long as you listen to other. --GPPande talk! 09:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

CriticalThinker, just to clarify, my last comment was not directed at you. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess u r comparing the infobox on each page. u r right. I am sure someone who keeps good track of these numbers will reply. Docku:“what up?” 06:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

<reindent>I'm sorry if we appeared rude or jumped on you, but we get regular edits to the page that mention Delhi is more populous than Mumbai. Unfortunately, most of these edits or claims are attributed to non-reliable projected figures using methods and metrics that are questionable. For example, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi website claims an estimated population of 13.78 million residents. What that figure is (floating or actual), and how that is derived, is questionable since the municipality is not an authorized body to collect demographic data. It is also possible that the Delhi Municipal Corporation put up latest projected figures, while the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai has not updated its population statistics. Nevertheless, both are unscientific. To resolve the issue, as per established Wikipedia policies on reliable sources, we need to only go by census data (albeit dated 2001) released by the Census of India that lists Mumbai as more populous than Delhi. Reference. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image

Image:Hutatma chowk mumbai.jpg is released on the cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 licence. The non-commercial clause makes it unsuited for wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. [:pl:Bombaj does not have the image. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I had nominated it for CSD - See this. But was shot down - maybe for wrong category. Now somebody else has nominated it again. --GPPande talk! 19:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have speedily deleted it. The licence clearly states non-commercial use, and that is not allowed by our policy. Yes, Gppande, you listed the wrong category. Those categories are meant for articles. Use IFD instead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Population

I'm really tired of seeing the population statistics being changed from most populous to second-most populous city and vice-versa. Is there a reliable source to support either? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Mumbai Houses about 11.9 Million people (Census 2001) SourceBMC webpage--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 14:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the most credible source. But, again that data is dated 7 years. What is the estimated population for 2008? That's the figure facing an edit war currently. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Best way is to follow Governments way i.e update population stats every 10 year!! What else can we do? Honestly I thing we must use census data as official population and estimated population should bear a note that "this is not official value/Govt released value" what do you think?--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 16:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

We need to have both. Having just a 2001 statistic is not helpful to a reader. A difference of 2 million is too large a statistic to ignore. The issue is the reliability of the project source. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess we should include 2001 statistics and 2008 estimation and mention that it was 2nd in 2001 and estimated first in 2008. Hope I am correct??? We can create Talk:Mumbai/FAQ section with commonly asked questions and answers. We should also leave an invisible note not to change the population statistics without discussion but instead refer to the FAQ first. Docku:“what up?” 21:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree to all 3 suggestions from Docku. Docku - can you come up with known FAQs and then we can collectively come up with the agreed responses to them. --GPPande talk! 07:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks GPP. Considering it carefully again, I just can think only of the population question. I wonder if there are more. Docku:“what up?” 15:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

:-D Actually I do remember people including of Navi Mumbai suburbs into Mumbai article. For that I think Template:distinguish can be used on main article page itself. --GPPande talk! 15:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There's an FAQ template somewhere that you can use. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

History and language issue

I made a contribution on History of Mumbai section. The current description just logs down a series of events and dates. I changed the presentation of content to describe the growth in religious, regional and linguistic divide in the city. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mumbai&oldid=254027434. History is a story of change not a log of events and dates. Every edit I have made is backed with references. Yet I see unreasonable edits from Kensplanet and Docku, deleting the entire change. On grounds like "Hindi, Guj not considered local languages of Bombay although spoken"

Language is the issue of concern for Bombay. Monopolizing the article by one sided views about the city is a matter of concern. There are many different articles about other cities in Wikipedia in which multiple language references are provided. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmedabad, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucknow. Why should article on Mumbai not include other language Wiki referenece? Specially Hindi and Gujrati which are widely spoken here?

Deleting someones factual contents without discussing is inappropriate. If some people monopolize the article like this then it will drive away interest in serious contributions. Please provide your views and support to improve the article on these lines.221.249.25.218 (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Hindi and Gujarathi transliterations of Mumbai on the grounds that other language scripts, in general, are intrinsically uninformative in an English encyclopedia. It makes the start of the article look ugly and will additionally encourage subsequent addition of other scripts in the future. Docku: What up? 17:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

221.249.25.218, there are a lot of conditions which need to be gratified before languages are declared local. The name which appears after Mumbai in the first line means the native name of the city in the native language. Hindi is out of question. Hindi was not spoken in Bombay during olden days. Association with just 40-50 years is not enough. Gujurati can be considered as a contender. The city has been receiving immmigrants from Gujarat from as early as the 13th century. The earlist settlers of Bombay, Pathare prabhus, had also migrated from Gujarat in 1298. But slowly they were assimilated into the Marathi stock and as of today they are Maharashtrians and not Gujaratis. This is the story of all immigrants from Gujarat in the olden days. Hence, even Gujarati cannot be considered as a local language of Mumbai. Hence, these two languages cannot be added. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 06:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• There are many different articles about other cities in Wikipedia in which multiple language references are provided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmedabad, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucknow. Why should article on Mumbai not include other language Wiki referenece? Specially Hindi and Gujrati which are widely spoken here?

• • Our article is independent of Delhi, Ahmedabad and Lucknow. As I have explained above, although widely spoken, Hindi and Gujrati are not considered local languages of the city. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 06:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Docku you had asked me a question that you later changed your mind about and removed from your message post. "Could you pls let us all know what historic information you want to add with references?". Sure I can provide. Please refer to the last two paragraphs of history section in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mumbai&oldid=254027434. As far as adding other language wiki is concerned look at the Wiki for 'India'. There is a link for other language wikis. Something similar can be done to keep the page clean if that is the concern. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_names_of_India. There are always option of improvement. I disagree with deleting someones post like it was done today. It discourages people from adding content. Editing means improving not deleting 221.249.25.218 (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The link to other language wikis on the left side of the article is good enough. Docku: What up? 19:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• I made a contribution on History of Mumbai section. The current description just logs down a series of events and dates. I changed the presentation of content to describe the growth in religious, regional and linguistic divide in the city. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mumbai&oldid=254027434. History is a story of change not a log of events and dates. Every edit I have made is backed with references.
  • Please note that this is a Featured article. You cannot just make monumental changes like this without discussing. Thanks for discussing anyway. We'll analyze [1]

---

• City's unique demographics is a result of migration of people from other parts of the country. But since the middle of 80's the city has gone through linguistic and communal polarization, coupled by a rise in local sentiments.
• In August of 2008, a legislation was passed in the civic body to have all future documentation of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation(formerly Bombay Municipal Corporation) or BMC, in Marathi only . A similar legislation had failed to pass in 1986. Incidents of violence over name of the city (Bombay v/s Mumbai) and language of discourse (Marathi v/s others) have increased over the years.

---

• Your first point needs citation from reliable sources. Who says it is unique. Anyway in the Lead there's a sentence Mumbai's business opportunities, as well as its high standard of living, attract migrants from all over India and, in turn, make the city a potpourri of many communities and cultures. This is similar to your sentence. Hence, no need of mentioning it there
• Please no general statements like But since the middle of 80's the city has gone through linguistic and communal polarization, coupled by a rise in local sentiments.. Stick only to events like the North Indian attacks etc..
• How is the August 2008 legislation considered as a linguistic polarization. You may consider it as a linguistic polarization, I do not. Some people may, some people may not. Different people, different Point of views. Hence, better not include it here. 1986 legislation are all trivial details.
• I haven't heard many incidents of violence over name of the city (Bombay v/s Mumbai). There may be protests. (Marathi v/s others) - Which are these other languages? Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 07:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I an sorry but you are asking me to repeat what I have already cited in references. Please read those. There is citation of Bombay Dyeing incident. Others is not for language but for outsiders non-marathis. Attacks on other communities has occurred and has been cited. South Indians, North Indians, Muslims all have been targeted in past by certain people. Demographic of Mumbai is unique for any city in India and the world. Read the census report. There are people from many religious, linguistic, ethnic, national, racial groups living in the city. The section on demographic and people and culture in this article itself proves that. Read the changes in full (rather than mulling over each word). With an open mind one would understand what the intent is. You have not cited the reasons why Hindi is out of question very well it just sounds prejudice to me.221.249.25.218 (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi IP 221*: There are several issues with your edits. First, the article is mean to be a summary. Next, the prose has several issues: "city's unique demographics" (unique is a Weasel term. Next this statement: In August of 2008, a legislation was passed in the civic body to have all future documentation of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation – has nothing to do with the city, its an internal matter of the BMC, and should be covered in that article. See Wikipedia:Main article fixation. Next, about the lead languages: To avoid disputes, we transliterate the name with only the official language of the state in which the city is located. Adding Gujarati would result in a subjective call. Adding Hindi is debatable, we have not achieved consensus for that. If you have any issues, or want to debate the policy, please raise it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian cities =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Make Mumbai semi protacted People without Account should not edit this article.--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 09:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't do that unless there is protracted vandalism. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concerns Mr. IP. But since no one agrees, better not to add it in the article. May we suggest creating an account. You have a good knowledge of Wikipedia. Thanks, Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 15:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion about using an account well taken. But there is good reason why I don't use my account before editing any Wiki first anonymously. 221.249.25.218 (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

All who have added comments to my post, thanks for the input. Using terms like Our article' does not help. Nor does it help to come to conclusion about “No one agrees” with just 3 peoples’ comments. No one owns an article on Wikipedia not even its creator. It is publicly owned. There are reasons for my views. Marathi speakers in Mumbai are the largest majority but still less than 50%. Hindi is understood by most citizens here. That makes it a major language. You can find road signs in the city in Gujarati and Hindi in several parts of the city. Hinduism is not awarded a greater status in India. All religions are equal even if Hindus number 80%. Acceptance of a fact by the constitution makes the country what it is today. Majority does not mean others have to be ignored. Marathi was made the official language of Municipal Goverment Of Mumbai in Aug 2008. Same legislation that was rejected in 86. Name of the city was changed in 95. Why after 48 years of independence did this name change happen? Why were there anti South-Indian sentiments in Bombay in 80s then anti-muslim and now anti north-indian. Are there events just dates and facts or is there a pattern of change.

Pickup any modern history book, the subject is made interesting read by prose explaining what change happened over the years, not by a bunch of dates and events. Most of the facts in the changes I did were already there in the article. Every fact I added was backed by references for leading media organization. My saying unique demographics of the city, is not a unique addition by me. There is another place in the article which says "unique topography". We saw nothing wrong with that. Demographics of Bombay are unique for India and for the world. What language is official is passed by legislation, which language is spoken and understood by a major population in the city is a fact. Bombay Stock Exchange has its website in Hindi and Gujarati along with English. BSE has done it because those are the major languages spoke by its traders. Such recognition is not have to be always a political decision passed in legislature it is just the recognition of a fact. VT is still called VT in spite of name change. Sahar airport is still called Sahar airport in spite of name change. Mumbai in Hindi and Marathi is written exactly the same way in Devanagari script. One may say Marathi another will say Hindi. Hindi move industry is in Bombay why Bombay why not some other city? Hindi is a major language spoken here, perhaps the largest second language spoken here if not first. It cannot be denied by legislation.

There have been attacks by activist of some political parties on businesses and people in the city. Bombay Dyeing was asked to stop using that name. The incidents are many.The narrow minded view shown on the streets should not be shown here on the article also. In the name of protecting the article from vandalism good faith edits should not simply be deleted all together. There is an alternative view to what some hold. I don’t intend to change the view of everyone. It is not possible to change peoples’ views in such a sort period of time. The intent here is to attract alternative, non-prejudiced view. Apologize for the long commentary. Please provide your suggestions and more importantly please spend some time thinking about these issues. 221.249.25.218 (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Show me where are Gujarati and Hindi sign boards in Mumbai can you add somwe pic of them? And Marathi and Hindi are written in diffrent way. Hindi dont have ळ in place of ळ they use ल for example कमळ this is marathi and Hindi its written as कमल. Got my point? Hindia and Marathi are diffrent --Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 02:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear AnUr, That is long. I cant answer all your questions. Let me try some. I understand your concern that three people dont make up the whole wikipedia and certainly dont get to decide what rightfully belongs in this article. Believe me, that is pretty much the average response you will get in any page in wikipedia. In some pages, no one will even care to respond unless you write "penis" in the middle of some random sentence. The point is, consensus is decided by people who watch the pages and people who r willing to participae in the discussion.

The unique demographics of Mumbai is very well written down here in English in the Demographics section, According to the 1991 census, the linguistic groups' demographics are: Maharashtrians (53%), Gujaratis (22%), North Indians (17%), Tamils (3%), Sindhis (3%), Tuluvas/Kannadigas (2%) and others. Why do we need Hindi and Gujarathi scripts to convey the same message?

Apparenlty you have a taste for redundancy. You said, "Most of the facts in the changes I did were already there in the article." Why, in the first place, would you then add things which are already in the article? Pls read WP:SS which might explain why it is not elaborated. Docku: What up? 03:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Terrorist attack?

Just heard what happened on TV ah the horror of 9/11 --210.84.36.109 (talk) 06:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes see this26 November 2008 Mumbai attacks--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 07:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not add aa link to it at the top of the page, saying something like :

Mumbai is currently under attack by terrorists... and so on Of course, we could make it milder. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 08:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Mumbai's "High Standard of Living"

This phrase "high standard of living" is very problematic here in the intro, as if I'm not mistaken many or most of these migrants are living in shantytown slums:

"Mumbai's business opportunities, as well as its high standard of living, attract migrants from all over India and, in turn, make the city a potpourri of many communities and cultures."

In general the article seems to be portraying a false impression of a thoroughly modern and prosperous Western-style city -- rather than a teeming and desperate developing world megalopolis with a vast divide between rich and poor.