Talk:Kochi

Template:V0.5

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Kochi. Consensus seems to be that this is the primary topic for the term. (To Kotakkasut: Okay, I'll do this one for half the price since it took nine days instead of seven. By the way, everyone is welcome to help out with the backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves.) Jafeluv (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Kochi, India → Kochi, Kerala — Relisting. harej 08:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia naming conventions on place names, the order is as follows: place, state, country. Examples include Taiping, Perak, not Taiping, Malaysia, Kesha, Hunan, not Kesha, China and Athens, Ohio, not Athens, United States. Therefore according to proper order of this place name, Kochi, Kerala, India, this page should be named Kochi, Kerala, not Kochi, India. Yours faithfully, kotakkasut 16:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Update Kochi, India → Kochi - A better title for the page move. kotakkasut 10:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a drastic oversimplication. There are two considerations which bear on Athens, Ohio, which are why we use it: Athens, United States is not idiom, and it is still ambiguous (see Athens, Georgia). Does either of them have a parallel here? (And that is still oversimplified; see WP:NCGN for much more; in particular, place, country is the default disambiguated title.) Not yet Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Should the article be simply at Kochi per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or is Kōchi, Kōchi in Japan sufficiently notable? — AjaxSmack 02:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I think Kochi, Kerala is a proper name, as in Salem, Tamil Nadu. There are many places named Salem in the United States, but then Salem, Tamil Nadu seems fine a name, so should Kochi, Kerala. Swaroop (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Why shouldn't it be just Kochi, and probably have a disambiguation link on the page to go to the ones in Japan? Swaroop (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment Swaroop, I totally agree with you, the name Kochi, Kerala makes more sense right? I don't think you can name it to just Kochi though, because the place in Japan is usually spelt as Kochi also in maps, it's only spelt as Kōchi in Hepburn romanisation. kotakkasut 00:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Agree with Swaroop. The city in India is clearly the primary use of Kochi. All other uses are either minor or derivative. This article should be at Kochi and the other uses listed at Kochi (disambiguation). -- 00:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment I'm changing my mind and agreeing with everyone that this page should be moved to simply, Kochi. kotakkasut 01:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support a move to Kochi - the Indian city is clearly the primary topic with all of the others deriving their name from the Indian city or they are minor. The only plausible alternative use is the former kingdom but that is better known as Kingdom of Cochin in English. The naming convention is fine for names where there is no primary topic and there is a probability of confusion, but in this case we should use common sense and be prepared to break conventions where necessary. Green Giant (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose IMO the context warrants a distinction between the places with the same name in India, Japan and Cyprus. Therefore the highlighting factor here is "Country" not "province-state". Had there been another Kochi in India, i would have voted support. Arjun^codename024 15:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Well if there is an agreement the this article could be deemed as the primary topic for the name "Kochi", it would do fine. Arjun^codename024 15:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment So Arjun, in other words, you disagree with the move to Kochi, Kerala but agree with the move Kochi right? kotakkasut 16:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Support move to Kochi :- Several search engines are fetching details about Indian city of Kochi over other Kochi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samaleks (talk • contribs) 12:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose move to Kochi—ambiguous with Kōchi in Japan. Spacepotato (talk) 07:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks for your opinion guys! I have a question though, why is this discussion not closed yet? It's more than seven days already. A consensus should have been made. To those who are responsible to close this discussion, procrastination is not good you know. kotakkasut 11:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead, Question

Kochi is also the largest city in South India without a Hindu majority => What statement is this? Very much idoiotic to be included in an encyclopedia. Let me ask my doubts. I request the "elited editors" to publish their thoughts too.

• Is this so important to be published in the first paragraph itself? Is it such an important information like "Kochi is called the Queen of Arabian sea"?
• What is the advantage of being the largest city in South india without Hindu majority?
• What you mean by "without Hindu majority"? THe sentence is confusing. If you check the percentage of Hindus, it is more than the other religions. This implies that Hindus are the majority. Are you referring that Kochi is a city where Hindus is less than 50 % ? If so, the claim "without Hindu majority" is not accurate, and is confusing too.
• There are several cities in India or South India where Hindus are less than 50%.

I hope i will be answered by the intellectual editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.221.140 (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

First please assume good faith. The information provided can be quite interesting, especially if Hinduism is the largest belief in the region. This little bit of information relates to politics and day to day life of the city. The question of the majority is simple 50% or more is a majority, Hindus are still the largest individual group(plurality) but the larger group is the non-hindus making this the majority. - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 18:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

IMO, it is a significant and interesting point worthy to be included in the lead. Kochi has 47% Hindus per the census report - this falls short of majority. Since, Kerala and India has a Hindu majority; and most big cities have a Hindu majority; this feature is distinctive to Kochi and fits well in the lede (IMO). And i don't see anything "idiotic" to be honest. Arjun^codename024 09:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Plus, make sure you get rid of the confusion between majority and plurality. Arjun^codename024 09:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hyderabad is the largest city in South India, without a Hindu majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.216.222 (talk) 05:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The demographics of Hyderbad is Hindus 45%, Muslims 40%, Others 15%. So, it is wrong to say that Kochi is the largest city in South India without a Hindu majority. Thank you, PKV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.131.153 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Epitome of adventure"

Arunvarmaother has added this line: "[[Mahatma Gandhi]] used to refer the city as ''Epitome of Adventure''<ref>http://expressbuzz.com/Cities/Kochi/kochi-from-a-vantage-point/149015.html</ref>" with the edit summary as "Information is now sourced and has verifiable reference". I am not entirely convinced that this is a good way to go about this - as it stands, the Wikipedia article is citing a newspaper/?blog review of a book by "Tanya Abraham" with a claim that MK Gandhi said/used these specific words in reference to Cochin. I believe that is stretching WP:RS to breaking point. It would be better to source this information directly from Abraham's book but even better would be a quote directly from Gandhi himself in his collected works or his diary for example. A cursory search of Google books turns up three possibilities of which two contain the sentence "The sea is an epitome of adventures" whilst a copy of Gandhi's works on a wiki at IIIT-Hyderabad says that Gandhi addressed a meeting in Cochin in 1925 and said: "Living on the seaside you are aware of what adventure can do. The sea is an epitome of adventures." Is it possible that this statement is the basis of the claim that Cochin is "the epitome of adventure"? Green Giant (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Greengiant. Gandhiji has made the statement in a public meet about Kochi and its proposed harbour in 1925, when British Govt decided to construct a new large modern harbour.

Gandhi was referring to the fact, Kochi and its backwaters (Surrounding water bodies) which may appear as sea to him, that it is an epitome of adventure. He was referring to the place Fort Kochi, which was the first point in India where European Colonization started with portuguese, dutch, french and British trying to occupying the supremacy of the fort. He was intending that the sea and land was the epitome of all adventures and was asking local youth to get inspired and join into the adventure of getting Freedom for India. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=zhGwA0umwAoC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=Kochi+Epitome+of+adventure&source=bl&ots=DYY70wWQvv&sig=TCnZzA5LXMJPDqeq8m6Y0F7SZYs&hl=en&ei=blyxTJzXNI2mvQPX3tS7Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Kochi%20Epitome%20of%20adventure&f=false

http://vivekcochin.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html

I feel that makes nothing wrong to determine his reference that the city is an epitome of adventure --Arunvarmaother (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

As you are a user with few edits, I recommend you read WP:RS and WP:V to understand why your two links here are unacceptable as verifiable and reliable sources. The link page to the book on Google does not have any mention of the words "Kochi Epitome of adventure" except in the search box and the blog link cannot be considered a reliable source per WP:SELFPUBLISH. As for your statements:

• How do you know that "Kochi and its backwaters (Surrounding water bodies)" appeared as a sea to Gandhi?
• How do you know that Gandhi was "referring to the place Fort Kochi" when the IIIT copy of his works makes no mention of the fort, the city or any proposed new harbour.
• I can see where he says "the sea is the epitome of adventure" but how does that translate into Cochin being the epitome of adventure?

I am sorry to inform you that your last sentence ("I feel that makes nothing wrong to determine his reference that the city is an epitome of adventure") suggests to me that you and possibly many others have assumed that Gandhi mean't that "Cochin is the epitome of adventure" but if there is no direct evidence for this statement then it falls under original research and therefore should not be included in the article. Green Giant (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Slow to Industrialize?

The two references given for the statement "unlike other leading South Indian cities, Kochi has been slow to industrialise.[21][31]" Does not give ANY substantiation to that claim. The only thing I could find is in Ref 31

The emphasis on the social service sectors to the subordination of commodity-producing sectors has inherently weakened the economy. The growth rate has been low, industrialisation slow and investments tardy. As the labour absorption in the private sector has been either stagnant or falling, government and public sector employment has become an end in itself, resulting in overstaffing and inefficiency.

This article is about the whole Kerala, not specific to Kochi. A sweeping generalization can not be used as the basis for such a statement.

The said statement may be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DileepKS69 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The statement "unlike other leading South Indian cities, Kochi has been slow to industrialise" was discussed before. Kochi and Kerala was slow to industrialise and is still way behind other leading SI cities. Even Coimbatore, Madurai, Dharwad etc are ahead of the industries in all 3 cities of Kerala combined. Thiruvananthapuram and Calicut is very less industrialised and Kochi is leading in Kerala; but not with respect to leading South Indian cities. Anyways, I havent checked the citations provided by you after re-phrasing the sentence. Good going with the edits, but please remember not to overtone or glorify the article. Hope you will soon get the norms of editing wiki pages, and stay long here. --Samaleks (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting advice. BTW, I did read your talk page.

I consider that statement to be delibrately phrased to show the city in a negative light, especially since it considerably deviates from the content cited. If you can phrase it according to the citation, I have no problem. Be my guest. DileepKS69 (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Persistent and insignificant issues

Folks, the following issues which are minor seem to recur at the title.

1. Metropolitan City Vs City. I see that a number of people hate the city being called a Metropolitan City. We should admit that the city is not yet considered as a metro. We could call it a city with metropolitan features, but not a metro city in reality. I think we should leave it at that.

2. Distance from Capital. I believe Cochin have sufficient standing on its own to be located independently, so this reference is un necessary. Does anyone give the distance of New York city from Albany, or Los Angeles from Sacramento? Do we really need that mention of that distance?

DileepKS69 (talk) 02:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The current status of the city according to the population is not Metropolitan city, since the population is less than 1 million. So, "Type" in the Infobox of the article should be City.

It is natural and not a wrong notion to refer a place with the distance from the capital. Comparisons with New York / Los Angeles does not suits here. Further, it is not about being located independently; it is about giving an information to the readers that how far it is situated from the state capital. I dont see any strong reason to change it. Cheers,-- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me..)} 10:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Giving the distance from the capital is not an established norm at Wikipedia, even for the cities in India. For example, look at Coimbatore, Madurai, Pune, Nagpur, Vadodara, Surat, Kanpur, Indore, Ludhiana, Agra, Visakhapatnam and I can go on... Only a feeble minority of cities in India quote the distance to the capital, like Mysore. It is obviously an EXCEPTION to the norm. I don't see any strong reason to have it either. DileepKS69 (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I too agree for keeping the info to quote the location with reference to the capital. I dont either believe it will reduce the importance (if that is your fear) of Kochi. Btw, I can see lot of edits which is slightly POV, may be due to the reason that some of these new editors hails from the place :-) Lets try to keep the article neat and clean. I suggest to put the article to peer review. Thanks, --Samaleks (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I know a lot of editors would agree and believe with you, but you failed to answer the question. VAST MAJORITY of the cities do not quote distance to capital, then what is the reason behind your insistence here? Kindly answer that please. And how does it relate to the neatness and cleanliness of the article?

FYI, There is no place for emotions like fear, love, pride, envy etc in an encyclopedia, and I am not driven by that. Concepts like fact, fairness, balance and verifiability are the driving force here.

Yes, it is my intention to constantly monitor this article (and the associated ones), and keep it neat, clean, true and accurate. You should have already got an idea about my intentions by the few edits I did. DileepKS69 (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Dileep, you could be polite when talking to others here. Quoting distance from the capital is not a big mistake. It should be retained. Just for the sake of satisfying your pride or belief, it cannot be removed. --Chektomate (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Chektomate, could you please point out which part of my message was impolite? I agree that it is not a big mistake. What I don't understand is the reason why it should be retained. No one, including you, have given a reason for retaining it, other than stating "it should be retained". Allow me to raise the same argument that you did. Just for the sake of pride or belief of someone, it can not be retained.

Now, let me ask very politely. Could you please, if you wouldn't mind, provide a reason why it should be retained, when majority of the other city pages do not carry it? Thanks. DileepKS69 (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Other cities doesnot carry some information, so it should not be added here" is a weak argument. For instance; the statement "..luxurious Air-conditioned low-floor Orange buses as well as non-air conditioned Yellow buses under JNNURM" is not there in other city pages even though JNNURM buses are operating there too (well, the colour may be different :D ). Further, other cities like Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore etc does not contain all the stone and nail information about every thing in the city in the main page. The details are kept in the sub-pages. But here, you are trying to put so much info in to the main page, thus not keeping the article simple and high level. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me..)} 08:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If you consider that as a weak argument, please provide your stronger arguments in favour of retaining it. Till now the only reason being offered is "there is no reason to remove".

I happen to agree with you on the statement on JNNURM buses. Please edit that out if you please.

We are not talking about Mumbai and Bangalore. We are talking about cities and UAs similar to Kochi. And don't you think you are contradicting yourself when you say that there is too much information on the page, and at the same time, you want to retain a segment of information?

Let me repeat. My sole argument for suggesting deletion of the distance from capital is that most of the other similar cities don't have it. You need to show what is different about Kochi to demand a deviation from that norm. Having other similar deviations is not a reason for having this one. We can debate each of those under its own merits and demerits. DileepKS69 (talk) 09:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Friends, I join with Dileep that quoting insignificant distance from the state capital is irrelevant, as it serves no use. We have a map locator hence it helps a person to understand the position. Since most of the similar 2nd tier cities pages donot have similar norm or standard in Wikipedia, there is no need for such a reference in Kochi. If we look, even other Kerala cities like Kozhikode, Kottayam do have made such tags. Hence undue interest is expressed by few here to retain an insignificant sentence. Friends, at Wikipedia, our sole interest to ensure readers know the real and true information without sense of promotion, loyalty or bias. I think, lets avoid using this forum for showcasing our regional bias or city loyalty, which can be done in other net forums, where there are enough scope for doing so. My humble request, lets join our hands together in ensuring Wikikerala Project gets maximum FA status and better information. --Arunvarmaother (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want citation, ASK!

Deleting text is NOT the method to demand citation. Please mark the statement for citation, and it shall be attended to. DileepKS69 (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hindu Majority

The comment about Hindu majority had been discussed before, but we need to look at it again. The data says Hindus 47%, Christians 35%, Muslims 17%.

What is a Majority? There is ABSOLUTE MAJORITY, which means something is more than 50%. Then there is relative majority, which says something is more than the other. Absolute majority is useful only for voting on something. It doesn't apply when you classify things. The assertion in the article goes against the common sense of majority. It also makes un necessary connotations about the immaculately harmonious secular environment the region had been blessed with. Religion means NOTHING in the city, so it has no place in its wiki page.

This will be edited out soon, unless someone gives a good reason to retain it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DileepKS69 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me offer a compromise

Since some editors seem to insist that the fact that Kochi is the second largest city in the state, I offer a compromise. Why don't we retain it, after removing the phrase "after the state capital"? It serves the fact, doesn't it?

DileepKS69 (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

So the phrase after the state capital is your real problem? I don't know what is the problem with it and why you fear. May be because of your POV. :). Anyway, it also serves the fact. ;) Happy editing :) BINOY ^Talk 02:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no fear, but there is POV. The question should be whether the POV is neutral or not. The said phrase doesn't serve the fact. It seem to serve your POV, and I feel you are confusing between the POV and fact there.

The compromise was offered not to serve fact. It was done to end an un-necessary conflict that doesn't really help anything, and move on. If it is your belief that sticking to your POV is the best for the article, all I would say is I acknowledge your right to do so. DileepKS69 (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Dileep, You have to Accept that Madras is a satellite town like Devanahalli, of Bangalore.Doesn't get it? I mean, the City of Cochin is merely a suburb of the oh mighty """"

Article Improvement

Hello all new editors here. I have tried to improve the article quality through some edits. I have tried to clearly state "what and why" of all the edits in the edit summary. I suggest to discuss here, if you have any concerns or questions about it. --Chektomate (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Chektomate. That is what exactly we need. Give proper substantiation for the actions, and defend them. I wish all the editors would follow your example.

DileepKS69 (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Added after reviewing all changes: I have restored two of your edits about citations, Checktomate. Could you please explain what was the problem with them? DileepKS69 (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure Dileep, and thanks for the co-operation, rather than blind reverts. Please educate your fellow editors about "wiki style" of writing. We cannot push only positive things and assumptions here.

I am a little bsy now, and will explain soon here, why the citations were removed. Let us sort it out. Also, I suggest after our mutual reviews, we will put the article for WIKI REVIEW, where other senior wiki editors will also review the article to improve the quality. --Chektomate (talk) 06:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)