Talk:Maldives

Maldivian wiki contributors are encouraged to visit Maldivian Wikipedians' notice board

Bleached Corals?

Could somebody please place a picture of the bleached versus the still alive corals? This might help to understqnd the process. Thanks!

population density

These numbers don't make sense. 10,036.9/km2 (11th) 2,866.9/sq mi You would assume /km2 would be lower than /sq mi, not the other way around.

These are inverse km2 (No. of people per km2), thus slash /. Materialscientist (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Materialscientist doesn't understand this. The original commenter is right - the numbers don't make sense. A square mile is much larger than a square kilometer. Thus, you would expect more people to be in a square mile than a square kilometer. Indeed, this appears to be a typo. The World Bank reports population density in the Maldives in 2010 to be 1052.95/km2, or 2685.55/sq mi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.227.130 (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether what I suggest makes sense, but since only less than 4% of the territory is land, were the population density to be calculated on that area, it would be 27 561 inh./km², which I think is more useful in terms of what population density is used to measure (overpopulation, urbanization, livability etc.). Lori 21:52 CET 11/07/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pqnlrn (talk • contribs) 19:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Republic of Maldives vs. Maldives Wikipedia pgs

If I'm not mistaken, everything on the Republic of Maldives page is almost the same thing on the Maldives page...Except, the Maldives page has a semi-nude Buddhist Tara picture. I suggest we remove the Buddhist Tara picture, as IMO it sort of ruins the page, in order to keep it identical with the Republic of Maldives page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwix (talk • contribs) 21:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Identical with what page exactly? Buddhism was a important part of the Maldivian history, thatswhy it would not be acceptable to remove the picture.--Askalan (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That's weird; on the Republic of Maldives page it did not show that picture, but now it shows it...Yes buddhism is an important part of the Maldivian history, but my point was previously that there was a picture on 1 page and not on the other and that we should take it down to match the other page...Anyway, I think it would still be better if we removed the picture so it could be easily accessed by students who are doing projects on Maldives, so that they wouldn't have to look at semi-nude photographs. You can still keep the history about buddhism; the picture is just decor. Kiwix (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

What page do you actually mean? Write a link or something.

To your other point: Semi-nude Picture? Really? It is doesn´t matter, it was a important part of the history, so it stays here. If you think that´s kind of offensive or something, don´t use this site. Make your own prude muslim site if you want to. There is a reason Wikipedia is called "The Free Enzyclopedia".--Askalan (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of Section on 2012 Coup

The section currently violates WP:NPOV as well as WP:Sources. If there was corruption under Nasheed, please reference a legitimate source that covers a specific incident, not anti-Nasheed blogsites that merely express their writers' opinions.Jdkag (talk) 12:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to wade on in here (Warning! Newbie trying to live up to the BE BOLD policy I read about), but even though it was a violation, would the better course simply be to remove it rather than add a place holder then talk here? I reverted it in the mean time ^^ Terkaal (talk) 07:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently nothing has been done about the NPOV issues on this section. This should be reported so appropriate editors can correct the content. --Perew (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The section was a complete, unintelligible, unencyclopaedic mess. I've tidied up the existing information so that it actually forms some kind of coherent narrative and removed the POV. The section isn't at all up to date with the developments in the Maldives, but I can't be bothered typing up new sections right now. At least the stuff that was already there is presentable now. 86.17.19.215 (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This edit war is ridiculous. The original version of this section was completely unencyclopaedic. If you don't like what it's been changed to, discuss it and modify it, but reverting it to its original state is not an option. Wikipedia is not a place for one-sided, unsourced, sarcastic rants about politicians. 86.17.19.215 (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The current version I am reading is not perfect, but hardly a one sided sarcastic rant. Can you be more specific? Also, I think the subsection should be changed to "Nasheed Presidency" or something similar. The content is about more than just his "ousting." Ditch ∝ 18:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Most of the text seems acceptable enough, but this part seems seriously biased: "From that moment on, Maldivians are being bombarded with vastly differing versions of events on 7 February and prior to that. Unfortunately, President Waheed appears to be too busy lurching from crisis to crisis led by the nose by his coalition partners and by Nasheed, to bother about a small matter such as an investigation into allegations of a military coup." I will go ahead and remove this part from the article, as it equates to editorializing and adds little to nothing from a content perspective. Kansan (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The version I first read did not include that language. I see it in the diffs, but am having trouble distinguishing who originally inserted it. Anyway, doesn't really matter. Hopefully people will start talking this out, rather than edit warring. Ditch ∝ 19:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Uh Oh...

We may have a problem here. Same section, a few paragraphs down:

The cited source reads: Nasheed alleges that 18 security service officers pointed guns at his head and demanded that he resign. He says that, if he did not resign, the MNDF officers threatened to fire upon the public. First Lt. Ali Ihusan categorically denied that. He said that, he had been on the ground from the late afternoon of February 6th, had interacted with and been close to Nasheed several times during the events, but had not witnessed any MNDF officers asking Nasheed to resign. On the contrary, he too had been present when Nasheed asked several officers present whether he should resign. He contends that the call for resignation came from outside, fuelled by an escalation of the situation due to misjudgments by Nasheed and his ministers in handling the situation that day.

The article reads: Nasheed alleges that 18 security service officers pointed guns at his head and demanded that he resign. He says that, if he did not resign, the MNDF officers threatened to fire upon the public. First Lt. Ali Ihusan categorically denied that. He said that, he had been on the ground from the late afternoon of 6 February, had interacted with and been close to Nasheed several times during the events, but had not witnessed any MNDF officers asking Nasheed to resign. On the contrary, he too had been present when Nasheed asked several officers present whether he should resign. He contends that the call for resignation came from outside, fuelled by an escalation of the situation due to misjudgments by Nasheed and his ministers in handling the situation that day.

I'm not going to use the "p" word here, or dig through the diffs to see who did this, but it is definitely very concerning. I'm going to work on fixing this section, but if anyone has some time, it might be helpful to check the language of some of the other sources vs. the article text to make sure this is not a larger problem. Ditch ∝ 19:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any down paragraphs except the differentiates between the date 6 February and February 6th. --Raptor232 (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's me, Kansan again (I changed my username yesterday): I noticed that this source [1] is used for some of the contentious areas, and frankly, this doesn't strike me as a reliable source at all; it is a blog post that takes a definitive POV and makes no bones about it. Can a better source be found? Against the current (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: I removed one instance where this blog was simply noted as a duplicate source to Al Jazeera (clearly reliable), and I removed one paragraph entirely based on the blog, all of which contained potentially contentious material. One instance of the blog being cited still remains because I have not yet figured out how best to handle it, and I would hope somebody else takes a look at it in the meantime if I do not have time to get back to it immediately. Against the current (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The artilce clearly states what happened in February 7th day President nasheed resigned, What proof do you have to say that the source in not reliable? It clearly states what happened in February 7th day President nasheed resigned. So do not judge based on a point of view. --Raptor232 (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The article does more than say that the President resigned. It goes on and claims to talk about "what really happened", as if it were promoting some sort of conspiracy. It takes a definite side and is not wirtten in an unbiased manner. And I don't think the site is reliable at all; it's listed as somebody's blog, and I took a look at what else the website has. One article I found is called "The miraculous nature of the Quran." [2] This is clearly not a reliable news site, and whether the government links to it (which hasn't been proven) is irrelevant. Against the current (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a poor excuse cause to remove it. The artile is about ousting president nasheed not praising him. --Raptor232 (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your changes because you were given a poor excuse to remove a artile that came from a reliable source. --Raptor232 (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have given you several reasons why I do not think the source is reliable and you have responded to none of them. You only continue to assert that it is reliable but asserting it does not make it so. Against the current (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is about ousting of president nasheed so it contains about the incidents happened on president nasheeds resignation as other news sources have brought so i haven't seen any biased material from the article. --Raptor232 (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It discusses the circumstances of the resignation and implies that Ali Ihusan's account must have been untrue. If all of this has been covered by other sources, can we simply find another, more neutral, source to cover this? Against the current (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

geology

The geography section could do with some information on the geology, that is, on the origin of the islands. Do they follow the path of an ancient volcanic hot spot? Cesiumfrog (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Redundancy in '2012 ousting of President Nasheed' section

In the '2012 ousting of President Nasheed' section the 4th paragraph is redundant with sections of the 3rd paragraph. The redundancy should be eliminated. Tweisbach (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Relevance

Does this content belong to this article? --SMS ^Talk 12:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Maldive Islands?

There is a short stub at Maldive Islands. The feedback left by users indicates that the article is causing confusion in unexperienced readers, who probably arrived there from Google or the search function and expected to find the proper article about the Maldives. True, it does link back to this article clearly enough, but is it even necessary? Wouldn't a redirect suffice? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Technically, it also encompasses Minicoy Island, but even our own article Maldives isn't really consistent on this. Perhaps we could make a note somewhere in Maldives that that island (owned by India) is technically considered part of the islands (if this is even true), and merge. This is exactly how we should be handling reader feedback and heartens me that the feature is doing some good. Kansan (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Reference problem

Reference #41 (^ "A sinking feeling: why is the president of the tiny Pacific island nation of Nauru so concerned about climate change?". New York Times Upfront. 2011.) currently takes you to a search engine at Search.com. New York Times Upfront seems to require registration, so I'm not sure how to fix this. 75.89.51.144 (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I did a little research and came up with these. This page is with the list and this page is from NYT Upfront. If no one is opposing to these, I will replace the citation with these pages. Thanks. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 12:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Replaced; no opposition --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 12:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

User SriSuren's edits

Copied from User talk:SriSuren#July 2013 Second Warning

A Quicky Introduction

• User SriSuren on 12th July removed certain information from the article citing lack of reference.

• On 26th, an IP added both the info back and the source along with which it was removed, claiming it was referenced. This was reverted by SriSuren whose edit summary contained:"The reference states that its from Sanskrit. No mention of Tamil or Malayalam in the whole book".

• I added a different source supporting the content, as well as re-instated the removed source seeking evidence for its removal.This was immediately undid by Suren who had this time REMOVED BOTH THE SOURCES. However on his talk page, he had clarified on the first source, and he was justified.

• But once again he removed(this time without discussing) all the info and manipulated with the source which corresponded to the info that he had removed.

Clarifications

• Now going through the content of the article, the key para says:

"Some theorise that the name Maldives derives from the Sanskrit mālādvīpa (मालाद्वीप), meaning "garland of islands". In Malayalam, "Garland of Islands" can be translated as Maladweepu (മാലദ്വീപ്). In Tamil, "Garland of Islands" can be translated as MalaiTheevu (மாலைத்தீவு). None of these names is mentioned in any literature, but classical Sanskrit texts dating back to the Vedic period mention the "Hundred Thousand Islands" (Lakshadweepa), a generic name which would include not only the Maldives, but also the Laccadives, Aminidivi Islands, Minicoy and the Chagos island groups."

• While it speculates above on the term 'Maldives' possibly derived from Sankrit term Maladvipa, the word Maladvipa itself translates to "Garland of islands".

• Now garland of islands as the content rightly points out, translates into Malai and Theevu in Tamil and Malaidweepu in Malayalam respectively.

• The source that I have added, provides the literal translation of the term, but Suren says he reverted on the basis of :"Your new source was nothing but a list of names, it does not support any claims of the etymology of Maldives, nor does it support your translations of the words." I see it as a direct case of POV pushing/ deliberate vandalism because it seems like the Tamil and Malayalam translations of the term have been removed to project only the Sinhala and Sanskriti translations, so as to Sinhalize/Sanskritize the etymology altogether.

• Moreover the Tamil translation is not of an isolated basis, since Maldives was first inhabited by Tamil-speaking 3}} [Dravidian people]](See:Giravaaru people) who established a human civilization in Male, and are widely popular in local folklores as the original inhabitants of the island prior to inter-mixing with other immigrants.

• Maldives was also once a part of the Chola empire, which has been documented in Tamil Nadu and in one of the Chola records, Maldives is given the name "Munnir Palantivu Pannirayiram"(twelve thousand islands and the ocean where three waters meet) as per the (Source: Maldivian Government Agency).

So, User:SriSuren's edits come as high-handed disruptions into sensitive information, and by the sheer attitude with which he is involved in discussions show he is no mood to collaborate/or he is significantly determined in pushing his POV(very obvious to me he is not doing it unintentionally or something else) by the brash and impulsive language he is using in discussions. I do hope he would clarify further, now that this discussion is more public and in any case a third person might judge the issue and realize its gravity as well--CuCl₂ ^{(talk . contr . mail)} 12:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Copperchloride, This is simply ridiculous. The above looks like an ANI posted in the wrong place. LOL This is a talkpage of an article, not a noticeboard to complain about other editors. Anyways, your above post is nothing but an admission that you didn't have references for the content you added and that your actual intention is to give the impression that the word Maladvipa is derived from Tamil or Malayalam or that Tamil/Malayalam has something to do with the derivation.

So, this is just another case of you trying to use the talkpage to present diverse irrelevant theories and your own assumptions and trying to force others into accepting your deductions and original research, derived from your own analysis of sources. In other words, you want to insert your own original research into the article. All the points about the Chola's and Giraavu people etc etc just part of your own synthesis (by the way need a relaible reference for that the Giraavaru people were Tamil speaking). WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:STICKTOSOURCE It's just another case of your disruptive editing. What you need is a reference which says that Maladvipa is derived from Tamil and/or Malayalam (one would do since Tamil and Malayalam are closely related), and if you do not have that reference you must not add that sentence in the section about the derivation of the word Maladvipa, since the source you keep adding does not have a single occurance of Tamil or Malayalam, which you have already admitted. Even if it did say what the word meant in Tamil and Malayalam, its still not a source for the derivation of Maladvipa being from Malayalam or Tamil. Derivation and meaning is not the same.

Tamil - = search results in the 0

Malayalam - search results in the book 0

As for the second source, i.e the list which you claim supports the content you added - the difference between my edit and yours which you yourself have posted above, clearly shows that you added the second reference way down after this following sentence:

"None of these names is mentioned in any literature, but classical Sanskrit texts dating back to the Vedic period mention the "Hundred Thousand Islands" (Lakshadweepa), a generic name which would include not only the Maldives, but also the Laccadives, Aminidivi Islands, Minicoy and the Chagos island groups."

The questions which arise from your using or rather misuing this list as a source for your claims are:

a) What is the relevance of this list to the above sentence?

b) Where in that list of names, does it state anything about the literature from Vedic period mentioning "Hundred Thousand Island" (Lakshadweepa) a generic name which would include all the other islands mentioned?

c) Where in the list does it give the translations of the words Malaitheevu and Malaidweepu as you first claimed, which is in your edit summary in the you yourself mention above and now say that a reader can use Google translate? :) If one can use Google translate, why add the list at all?

d) Also, if you intended that this list can be used to translate the Tamil and Mayalam words, why did you add it after a completely different sentence further down?

e) In your opening paragraph in this discussion (your Quick introduction, point 3) you claim that this simple list of names in different languages supports the content you added! The content you added being way up, and referenced with a source which you have already admitted as not supporting the content you added.

So my dear friend, you are left with just the link to a list of names in different languages, as your sole source for the derivation of the name Maladvipa, being from either Tamil or Malayalam, which was not even inserted after the sentence, but further down in the paragraph!!!

As said, what u need is a reference from a realiable source which says that Maladvipa is derived from Tamil and/or Malayalam (one would do since Tamil and Malayalam are closely related), and if you do not have a reliable source, please do not disrupt Wikipedia, with any more commotions, and please delete the unreferenced content immediately as you yourself have admitted that the source does not support that.

WP:STICKTOSOURCE, WP:SYNTHESIS SriSuren (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply

• No admissions made, nor is this anything ridiculous never mind your opinion. Like I said you just want your opinionated version everywhere, please spare at least the talk page. And if you are talking about being lame, you for yourself added a citation tag to my comment here(this is a talk page ffs), how lamer can you get?

• The Girvaaurus were the first people to discover Maldives, and they sailed from the Malabar Coast which constituted erstwhile Tamilakam back in the old times. And the Maldives like many of the island territories in the Indian Ocean was under Chola rule for a brief period and hence is mentioned in one of their Chronicles. Its a pity your knowledge relevent to Maldiveds is so limited, and yet you can actively spend time in searching out an e-book and check out how many Tamil and Malayalam words exist in them. Whatever 'goodwill' and 'constructiveness' are you talking about, I cannot comprehend.

Clarifications(II)

I'am totally unable to comprehend all that you have flooded into here, but I'll try to answer them all in a brief possible manner unlike you, who only seem interested in diverting and escalating everything.

• Chiefly, the content here talks of Maldives being a translation of 'Mala Dvipa' in Sanskrit and 'Mahiladiva' in Sinhala. It only says MAY HAVE DERIVED and not that it had been derived likeyour POV claims.So since I'am not convinced of this fact, nor can you convince me; why don't you simply blank the section and I might as well keep mum and go away as well.

• Mala Dvipa in Sanskrit translates into Garland of Flowers which in turn in Tamil becomes 'MalaiThivu'. So the list is not only giving a translation of plainly the term Maldives into Tamil but rather supports the claim that 'மாலைத்தீவு' which means Garland of flowers(the google translates is as not maldives;if it was only a name translation) was used to refer to the island.

• I had already accepted(and told this too) that the first source bore no significance; But I never used it to clarify the content that was there, it is OBVIOUS, I'am using the third source, and you are just making it seem you were ignorant or too stupid to scroll down and verify. You were well aware and there is no use pretending.--CuCl₂ ^{(talk . contr . mail)} 07:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

@Copperchloride, this section is about the etymology of Maldives i.e. how the name was derived. What you're doing is merely providing the Tamil/Malayalam translations of Maldives. The source you provided merely provides the name of Maldives in dozens of other languages. You will need to provide a source that says that Maldives is derived from MalaiTheevu/Maladweepu.

@SriSuren - why did you only remove the Tamil/Malayalam names from this section, why didn't you remove other unreferenced content from this section, particularly the bits about the Sinhala name or the Mahawamsa both of which are unreferenced?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 12:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Obi2canibe, Nowhere Am I contending that Maldives has been derived from Malaithivu, my point is that the whole section has been speculative in nature. If people can speculate Maldives was off-shoot derivation of a Sanskrit term(especially when there was remote possibility of Maldives ever being influenced by Sanskrit), whats wrong in mentioning the Tamil term especially when both the terms when translated give the same meaning. SriSuren challenged the previous source as it did not provide any Tamil translation. The current source justifies the text, and a solid evidence that மாலைத்தீவு is indeed the translation we are talking about. All translations of 'Maldives' do not mean 'Garland of Flowers', I hope you get the point. And given the island's original inhabitants being descendants of Tamils(See:Giravaaru people), I don't see how the name could have yet possibly been derived from Sanskrit word..It would be interesting to Note Malaithivu and Maldive bear a great deal of resemblance.CuCl₂ ^{(talk . contr . mail)} 15:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

To Obi2Canbe, I have no objections to anybody removing Sinhala. You can remove it if u want to. I did remove some unwanted reference to Sinhala a couple of weeks ago. I removed that part because it was not cited and was irrelevant and seriously misplaced and confusing. If I had removed Sinhala totally, it would have been wrong since there are scholars who make connections between the Sinhala language and Dhivehi to the extent that some even say its a dialect of Sinhalese (which is ofcourse wrong, its a language on its own, and is not even derived from Sinhala as thought earlier. Ref. “ The Dhivehi Language. A Descriptive and Historical Grammar of Maldivian and Its Dialects ” by Sonja Fritz. There is an explaination given for the derivation of Maladvipa from Mahiladipa in it. Its from a Sinhalese legend). The reason I removed Tamil and Malayalam is that I have never read anywhere that it could be derived from Tamil or Malayalam, and the reference given didn't support the claim either.

The only entry given in the The comparative dictionary of Indo-Aryan languages is this. I do not know what to make of it. I think * means hypothetical. I don't think its wise to introduce another term into an already confusing discussion. So lets just leave it at that.

There is another derivation where it is said that Male is from "Maha" + "le", where Maha means great and le means blood. Both these words are also found in Sinhala, I don't know whether other Indic languages have it.

The point is, when it comes to folk derivations, only one's own fantasy is the limit, so if we all stick to sources where scholars have done the derivations, and try to be reasonable, there should not be an issue. As for Maladvipa being derived from Tamil or Malayalam, there doesn't seem to be even a folk derivation for it, and its purely CuCl2 trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Now suddenly he has introduced another meaning - "Garland of flowers" I don't know which reference says that. If he is not going to listen to what you have to say, he is not going to listen to anybody else either.SriSuren (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

To Copperchloride,

1. Looks like you have reverted the uninvolved editor's (Joshua Jonathan) good faith edit!!! That's your 5th revert in 24 hours and 30 mintues.

2. (I presume that third source is a typo and it should be second)

3. Now you got Obi2Canbe too as a second uninvolved editor, telling u what u need (so its 3 vs 1 now).

4. I know that you cannot comprehend, that's why I explained in detail, why your edit is problematic. Again and again.... you try to give the impression that this simple list of names, which u have now admitted as your sole source, supports the content you keep adding and the synthesis you are trying to achieve, by inserting the content right after the Sanskrit derivation, in the section of etymology, namely that Maladvipa is derived from Tamil or Malayalam. Now you have introduced a new translation, "Garland of flowers" !! To keep it short, let me quote you from your first post here:

You: "The source that I have added, provides the literal translation of the term, but Suren says he reverted on the basis of :"Your new source was nothing but a list of names, it does not support any claims of the etymology of Maldives, nor does it support your translations of the words."

Your claim that it provides any kind of translation, let alone the literal translation of these words is simply something which anybody can check and find out that it is not true, by clicking the link.

Here is what the list in the link gives for Tamil and Malayalam:

மாலத்தீவு ............ Tamil ........ ta

மாலைத்தீவுகள் ..... Tamil ........ ta

മാലിദ്വീപ് ............ Malayalam .... ml

So, again Copperchloride, where is this literal translation you claim?

As said earlier, there's absolutely no relevance of what these words mean in Tamil or Malayalam in the section of etymology. There's a separate article for the different names of Maldives. So this is actually a huge no-issue, even if there was a translation given, in your link.

So please, just give a reliable source which says that Maladvipa is either derived from Tamil or Malayalam (one is acceptable), and if you cannot give such a source, just don't keep edit warring. You have reverted Joshua Jonathan's edit too, that's a lot of reveting (see - 3 revert rule), without a single source for what you are actually adding to the article, and you do not have the consensus on your side either. SriSuren (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)