115.242.156.221 (talk) Undid revision 419332583 by Mountainwhiskey (talk) |
|||
Line 1,144: | Line 1,144: | ||
:::: '''@ 59.98.80.xx''' - Yes, we are all supposedly from KOCHINOW and we want to promote '''Kochi'''. Aha, so what next? Do you have a solution to all the above so-called problems or are you here to create more problems? - '''MountainWhiskey''' - [[User talk:Mountainwhiskey|talk]] 18:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |
:::: '''@ 59.98.80.xx''' - Yes, we are all supposedly from KOCHINOW and we want to promote '''Kochi'''. Aha, so what next? Do you have a solution to all the above so-called problems or are you here to create more problems? - '''MountainWhiskey''' - [[User talk:Mountainwhiskey|talk]] 18:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
@''Mountainwhiskey, Dileeks and Bijuts'': Thanks for openly admitting that you are all from a common forum for hyping Kochi. That falls under Meat Puppetry in wiki. And your intentions are similar to paid editing. Btw, it is not good to call others vandals to show your frustration. Infact, your efforts to glamourize the city page are problematic. When I went through the discussion, I feel what IP 59.x is correct. My suggestion is to move the distance chart in transport section to the Transport subsection. None of the other city pages are having those kind of format. --[[User:Samaleks|Samaleks]] ([[User talk:Samaleks|talk]]) 00:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:59, 18 March 2011
Kochi is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 1, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 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)
- 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. Arjuncodename024 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. Arjuncodename024 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. Arjuncodename024 09:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Plus, make sure you get rid of the confusion between majority and plurality. Arjuncodename024 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 """" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.19.181 (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
Dear Dileepks69, The references you have provided in the Sports section for the Golf Courses are of Wikimapia, which is not a valid reference. The references to any wiki related projects are not valid in wiki. The wikimapia project is not authentic and stable, in the sense, it is open for all to edit and add(just like other wiki projects). Hence, I have replaced it with other citations. However, I couldnt find a valid reference for the golfcourse at Navalbase. Please help.--Chektomate (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, wikimapia/google earth should be a reference if you can identify it without the assistance of any markup. A golf course is a very identifiable feature in a satellite map, and the image of the naval golf course is very clearly identifiable as a golf course.
Anyway, here are other references: http://indiannavy.nic.in/kochi.html, http://www.hindu.com/2004/12/25/stories/2004122514960300.htm, http://www.hindu.com/2009/03/15/stories/2009031555941400.htm. Have your pick.
DileepKS69 (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I counted the greens on the navy course. It is 9 holes. CIAL opened with 9, but phase2 is in progress to make it full 18 holes, as ped the news items. Do you think it makes sense to add that info?
DileepKS69 (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I have added the citation for the Naval base golf course from the latest news piece from "The Hindu". Thank you for your help. --Chektomate (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Dear Dileepks69, the information you added about NASSCOM ratings is of 2002. According to the 2009 rankings, Bangalore stands first, followed by Chennai. Kochi is in the 12th position. May be the uncertainity on Smart city might have pulled down the rank of Kochi. In fact, the Smart city issue have degraded the image of the entire state. I will soon provide the citation on the 2009 ITES rankings. Thank you, --Chektomate (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Check, I saw the 'updated 2006' date stamp, and thought the report is of that date. My bad. I did do a search for later years, but didn't get a conclusive datapoint. You are most welcome to edit it with the updated reference. DileepKS69 (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
why kochi second largest it IS the largest in kerala no doubt. somethin fishy here.
Neutral Point of View
Whether you are asserting a positive or a negative point, keeping a neutral POV is vital for an encyclopedia article. EVERY city in this world have a slum. EVERY city have broken roads. EVERY city have traffic problems. EVERY city have poverty. Then getting hold of some of that information and adding that to the page does not constitute a neutral POV.
The opposite is also true. EVERY city would have a nice segment of road, a nice building, or a scenic location. Highlighting that also does not constitute a neutral POV.
In order to qualify for inclusion in the encyclopedia page, the information must add some value to the page. Stating/proving Kochi has a slum, with a few tents pitched in an open ground, doesn't add any value, and it is not neutral POV, because every city have them, and nothing special about it.
If you want, get the official statistics of the slum dwellers by number, show that it is a significant percentage of the population, and THEN use the picture to support that.
DileepKS69 (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
See the following links as you enquired . http://www.corporationofcochin.net/ksudp/poverty.html http://www.travelpod.com/travel-photo/shoberg/1/1263590407/a-stream-outside-one-of-the-slums.jpg/tpod.html http://www.travelpod.com/travel-photo/shoberg/1/1263590407/in-a-shanty-house-in-the-slums.jpg/tpod.html http://staffcommunity.com/showthread.php?t=180
Hope now I can edit this..
--Induzcreed (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
None of the links give any information leading to the conclusion that there is a slum problem in the city that is different from other cities in the country.
First link is the policy statement of the corporation. It appears that you haven't read the article of the second and third photo links, because those are from MUMBAI, not Kochi. the flourth link is a forum post, which itself is not acceptable per Wikipedia stds, and it is talking about building housing for the poor.
None of this gives any notion that slums is a major, or unique feature of Kochi. In order to satisfy the content needs of wikipedia for inclusion of that picture, you must prove the following:
1. Slums is either a major, or unique feature of the city, compared to other similar cities. The links posted by you does not come anywhere near that. 2. The picture has a traceable license.
Do that, and then edit the article please. Happy editing.
DileepKS69 (talk) 07:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The corporation of Cochin states that there are 280 slums in the city. And there are plans to eradicate that. Apart from the identified slums, there are many more slums created by the labors from other states. This is well evident and the website of corporation of cochin is a valid citation. If you want, I can provide more citations from Kerala Government’s slum eradication programme.
In most cities, slums are there. This doesn't mean that it should not be told here. And it is an unique feature for Kochi in the sense that it holds the most number of slums in Kerala. If there are slums in Kochi, why you are fighting to hide that? It seems that you want to glorify the city you represent. Same time, I want to put the facts for the city I represent. So, there is a diferrence in view point. And, it is evident that the POV you are putting forward is not NEUTRAL. You and your friends do not want to mention Kochi as the second largest city behind the capital means you are not NEUTRAL. You do not want to publish any negative things of the city, means you are not NEUTRAL.
I am not removing any positive things with citations from the article. I am not adding any negative things without citations. So, how can you tell that I am not neutral? I request you to follow an unbiased view point here. This article should not be for ADVERTISING THE CITY. It should hold both NEGATIVE and POSITIVE facts.
Also, please do not post lies here about the license of the picture. If you have any problem with the license of the picture, do report it in the Creative Commons or in the Image Description Page. I am not the one who uploaded it and took license for it.
Enjoy Editing. Thanks. --Induzcreed (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, if your point is that Kochi has the most number of slums in Kerala, you sure can add that information with the citations.
About the image, no, you can not use that image without proper license. The fact that someone else uploaded it without license, does not mean you can use it unhindered.
DileepKS69 (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Please check before you reply. The image is already licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
Check out the image if you are in doubt.
Thanks --Induzcreed (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make a point, add the citation please. Title of an image from a wiki source is not a citation. Link the corporation article (if that is what you want to use as reference) and make your assertion the fact based on that.
The source of that image is not verified. It is not clear if the original uploader had the right to do so. DileepKS69 (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- My thoughts on this : The image license is a valid one, I checked. However, the citation cannot be from the image description. Corporation of Cochin website is a valid citation. --Chektomate (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Check, educate me please. Could you explain how the license validity is determined? Thanx.
DileepKS69 (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Induscreed, where is the citation for the statement Hundreds of people, mostly comprising migrant labourers from other states of India who come to the city seeking job prospects, live in such shabby areas. please? If you have it, please add. If not, please delete that phrase.
DileepKS69 (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC) The same phrase is already there in the image description itself..I don't think it should be removed. Why I should oblige to a un-genuine request? You mean to say local people stays in such shabby areas ? I believe not. It is the migrant labourers. Thanks. --Induzcreed (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- The image description is not a valid citation, and you can not use an uncited assertion. Please find a supporting document somewhere, and add the reference. Without that, the said phrase can not be used in the title. There is no question of genuine or un genuine request. An assertion must be verifiable. Please do provide reference.
DileepKS69 (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC) OK.If you are particular about reference than those in the image itself please fidn these links http://www.hindu.com/2007/10/09/stories/2007100960020300.htm http://www.indianexpress.com/oldStory/81252/ I think these will be more than you required..Now I'm reverting back to the old..Please don't do the edit war again.Please. Thanks and enjoy editing other than this. --Induzcreed (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Dear Indus, nowhere in those newsclips it is said that the labourers live in those shacks. In fact I know for a fact that none of the labourers under contractors, whom the article mentions, live in those kinds of tents in open lands. The contracted labourers live in colonies which have buildings with walls and roofs. It is true that their condition is terrible, but the photo you have posted does not relate to them.
The tent dwellers are not labourers. They do rag picking, panhandling and such occupations. Only a very small part of the BPL population live in those tents. In fact I am afraid that they don't even feature in the records.
Given these facts, your reference could not be accepted.
I deny any allegation of edit war. All I am asking is a reference to the phrase Hundreds of people, mostly comprising migrant labourers from other states of India who come to the city seeking job prospects, live in such shabby areas.. I have removed the phrase only after giving you ample time and opportunity to provide the reference. You sir, on the other hand, have added the disputed phrase back unilaterally, quoting links that does not give any substance. If someone is doing edit war, I am sorry to say, that would be yourself.
DileepKS69 (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Initially,your dispute was about the license of the image,then was the phrase.When a valid reference give you cannot accept that and telling that the people shown in the picture are not labourers.How can you tell that? Anyway no more dipute in that.Here's a more valid reference than a newspaper news.http://csesindia.org/admin/modules/cms/docs/publication/16.pdf
Hope now you are happy with this.
Thanks.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Induzcreed (talk • contribs) 01:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanx for posting the reference. If you had read it fully, you would have noticed that it thoroughly disproves your assertion. See Table 12, Page 14 of the paper. Three percentage of the sample lives in the class Verandah of shops. The rest are classes such as House/room shared with others and Single Room.
- Now, you would agree that in order to add a photograph to the page, it should at least represent a major or unique fact in the city. Do you honestly consider that 3% represents major or unique? Qualifying for a photograph to be posted on the page?
I invite the opinion of other learned editors on this. 3% of the undocumented slum dwellers, which would be a feeble minority of the total slum dwellers, lives in shanties. Does that qualify for a photograph?
DileepKS69 (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC) FYI,It is not me who has taken the photograph and uploaded in the wiki under the license and not me who has given the image description.It is the photographer himself given that.You can verify that. Also,a study is conducted on a sample basis not a full mass.
--Induzcreed (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- In other words, you have no arguments supporting the retention of the photograph. Thank you.
- Unless you, or any other learned editor, provides a convincing argument for why that photo should appear on the page, given that the reference you gave proves that it is not a representation of a major or unique fact, the photo may be deleted. As I consider that the reference for the text to be valid, I have no contest on that.
- I am not contesting here the image on Wiki Commons. That I shall do separately at the appropriate place. The argument I am making specifically here, is that the photo does not qualify to be on the Kochi page, because it does not represent a significant fact about the city. I make that assertion based on the references you yourself provided. Unless you could convincingly refute that, the image shall be removed from the page.
DileepKS69 (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear DileepKS69,
The study is conducted only on the Tamil migrant labourers in the city. It does not cover other state labourers from Karnataka, Maharashtra, Bihar, Bengal, etc. I was providing you a sample, since you were so adamant about a reference. You can find more references in the internet. Also, in an attempt to support your blind claim, you are LYING here and HIDING facts regarding the percentage of people lives in verandah of shops. The study says that 7.8% of the people(those who are single) lives in Verandah of shops. And the photograph is not a Verandah of any shop; it is about a slum like dwelling. Also, nowhere in the study asserts that only 3% live in shanties.
The study says “ They live in shanty houses/rooms in slum like localities often on a sharing basis. A few of them live on verandas of shops. They have limited access to sanitation facilities and safe water. Their practices of waste disposal pose problems of public health and environment. Their working and living conditions and habits make them suffer from a number of diseases. But their access to public services like health and education is limited. They enjoy very limited protection from labour laws. ”
The study cements again, “ Most of the migrant workers live in shanty houses/rooms in slum-like localities often on a sharing basis. In many cases, the houses/rooms are overcrowded. Only one in twenty families lives in an independent house. Many of the migrant families live in small houses or rooms where adequate toilet facilities are absent. ”
The photograph portrays some of the shanty dwellings of the migrant workers. I can even send you some similar photos taken from the city. Closing your eyes will not turn the world blind, but only push you into darkness. :-)
Thank you so much for forcing me to do more research on the subject, --Induzcreed (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Indus, please read the material before you go with your arguments. Read Table 12 of your reference. It clearly classifies the accommodation as: Independent house, Single room, House shared with others, Room shared with others, and Verandah of shops. Where would you classify those tents? You can't call them house or room, can you?
- Also, do the math. It is 7.8% of singles, which is 38 base. Of the total is it 3%. Think before you use serious allegations like lying.
- And I am sorry to say that you are still beating around the main point. Does a feeble minority of the population living in tents qualify for a picture on the main page? Answer that, substantiate that with reference.
Unless you do that, the image shall be deleted. DileepKS69 (talk) 06:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC) DileepkKS69, Table 12 says 7.8% on 100, not on 38. Read it once more with a calm mind. It is not about feeble minority. And I understand that house is some place where people live in. It need not be a four-walled and roofed one, it can be tents too. The image description says about migrant labourers living in shanty slum like dwellings. It can be tents also. And the image description says only about the migrant workers, not about the local population. If you search internet, you will get various other references even with more shabby images than this.--Induzcreed (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Indus, I am sorry that I have to explain this basic math to you. The sample size is 100. 62 is staying with family. ALL of them live in houses. 38 live alone. 78% of that 38 do not live in a house. That is 3% of the total.
- Again, I am sorry to repeat. The title of the image is not a valid reference. It is typed in by someone with no citation, hence inadmissible as reference.
- Let me repeat. Please prove the significance of that image, qualifying it to be displayed on the page using valid references. You are harping around the core issue here. Please provide valid references, or delete the image.
DileepKS69 (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
See this reference : http://123cochin.com/demographic.html --Induzcreed (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Dear Indus, that is a circular reference from the same image.
- Also, you are bringing up references repeatedly that there are shanties in the town. Prove that there is a significant number of them please. Otherwise it does not qualify for an image. What you demand is like posting the image of a mansion and claim that many people live in those.
DileepKS69 (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
An image should be significant and relevant for inclusion on the page
Dear Induscreed, from your recent actions, I have deduced that your intentions are not the integrity of the article. I will give one more chance to engage you in discussion.
The presence of a few shanty houses can not be significant for a city, just like the presence of a few mansions isn't. You are trying to deface the page by posting the image of a slum, where it no way represent the city. You need to show that people living in shanties are a significant number, or the area covered by shanty towns are significant. You haven't done any of that. You posted some links that simply shows shanty towns exist. That will not do.
In consideration of the neutral POV, and the standards of Wikipedia, the said image will not be allowed to stay on the page.
Any editor, other than the ones indulged in the edit war, please post your comments here.
DileepKS69 (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Hope you are NOT the moderator or the admin to send warnings and giving chances..Rite. The image is already in wikipedia,thus can't say it is not allowed.The references are already there in wikipedia for quoting some other points.So the same reference is applicable here.Also,the phrase is already there in the reference which you were asking for so long.
.Simply you are arguing for this proves your intention that you JUST want to glorify the page by ignoring the facts which are already on grounds with valid proof available and were quoted here for reference.
.Since the article explains the situation with more valid or with same references,the image is relevant and significant to the article "Demographics" which is very much supporting the article
--Induzcreed (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, you made your point, that you have no point to make.
The image is irrelevant, and shall not be allowed to stay on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DileepKS69 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
You are creating unwanted arguments repeatedly even-after providing many proofs and references.
.The image is relevant to the article "Demographics", and will stay on the page. --Induzcreed (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- There is only one question I want answered. Does the presence of a few shanties in a city justify putting up an image on the page?. Please justify your answer.
Inviting all the editors, especially the seniors, who are interested, please let your opinion known here, before you call it is an edit war.
DileepKS69 (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear INDUZCREED - Let me know where you are from, so I can post pictures of a few potholes, poverty and slums in your city's wiki page. Would you like that to be done? Please let us know - I think I have a hot Diwali Gift for ya! :)
Happy Diwali - 59.160.190.130 (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- All, I think you need to request a third opinion on this issue. I've already become involved so I don't think I am independent enough. See WP:3O for instruction. In the meantime, I suggest you apply WP:BRD - someone Boldly makes an edit (in this case, adding the photo), someone Reverts it, and then you Discuss it. Only once an agreement is reached should the edit be reinstated, or it be accepted that the photo is not suitable. Fighting over edits will likely get you both blocked. There is no WP:DEADLINE, so let's not insist on the "right version", it's not a big photo and it's not unduly showing the city in a bad light, but at the same time there's no consensus to add it yet. Bigger digger (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Digger, thanx for the opinion. I initiated WP:3O. Meanwhile, I hope the editor who added the image would remove it according to WP:BRD you outlined.
- Dear Mr. Induscreed. Please read the above explanation by Mr. Digger. Let me highlight: Only once an agreement is reached should the edit be reinstated, or it be accepted that the photo is not suitable.. That it WP:BRD Principle. I gave you the opportunity to comply, but you didn't. Hence I took the libert to make it comply.
DileepKS69 (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
DileepKS69 (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Third Opinion Response
I'm here to offer a third opinion in response to the request at WP:3O. I'm just a regular editor with no special powers, and you are free to listen to my opinion or ignore me as you see fit ;)
This article contains many images of Kochi. Most of these images represent the city as a beautiful and pleasant place.
I feel that using one image showing the slum tents, out of all those positive images, is proportionate and appropriate. It makes the article more rounded and accurate in its visual representation of the city. The image, with its juxtaposition of the slum tents and the modern office buildings, is quite editorially powerful and adds a lot of value to the article.
I think the image should be used.
Thparkth (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes! the image should be used. BTW, where are you from, Thparkth. I might have some images of that city of yours which I can upload on your city page. Do let me know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.178.192 (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hello anonymous user. I live in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in Canada. As far as I know there are no slums in Halifax, but if there are, you should certainly add them to the Halifax article. Thparkth (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- hello non-anonymous user, would like to remind you that Halifax is more like your adopted city. So, lets talk about your place back home? '_' ??? - 115.184.45.137 (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately for this conversation, the home of my childhood is a quite wealthy small town, so there are no slums there either. But really, this isn't about your home city or my home town, it's about achieving a fair, proportionate and accurate representation of how the place actually is. You mustn't let your obvious (and very admirable) pride in your city affect your commitment to neutrality in the article. Thparkth (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- hello non-anonymous user, would like to remind you that Halifax is more like your adopted city. So, lets talk about your place back home? '_' ??? - 115.184.45.137 (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear Thparkth, which is important for an encyclopedia? Neutrality, Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, OR Visual proportion, roundness, and editorial power? Your view have a place in politics, not in an encyclopedia. I believe the images must be showing something significant or unique about the city, that distinguishes it from the others. My objection is NOT that the image is maligning the city. My objection is that the image doesn't show anything significant or unique about the city. I thank you for the opinion.
DileepKS69 (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hello Dileep. All of these things are important. If images are only allowed if they show something "significant or unique", you will have to remove almost all of the images that are currently used in the article. Other cities have churches, bridged, office buildings etc. In fact the point of the images is not to show what is unique, but to give readers a sense of what the place is actually like. So my opinion has not changed - if Kochi has slums, it's appropriate to use a single picture showing this in the article. Thparkth (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello Thparkth. Could you please identify the images that are not significant or unique? We can discuss them, and remove if they do not satisfy the criteria. You are taking the unique' part alone, which is incorrect. It is significant or unique. That definition is a precision way of saying give readers a sense of what the place is actually like. Now, let me ask you. How does showing the picture of a few slums make it actually like it, where the whole city have only a few such shanties.
I would definitely agree that the shanties have significance, if there are hundreds of them at one location. I happen to know the location of the photograph. It is a carefully composed image to capture the few shanties with the backdrop of the highrises. It is a good photo for sensational journalism, but unsuitable for an encyclopedia. I would wholeheartedly welcome an editor providing a photo of a spread of a number shanties, if they can find them. That would be fact, and deserves a place on the encyclopedia.
DileepKS69 (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Dileep. I believe the "slum" picture is significant in its own right. Even if there was only one such area in the city, it would arguably be significant enough to include in the article. But if, as Induzcreed says above, there are hundreds of slum areas according to the city corporation, then it becomes a highly significant part of the cityscape, and to deliberately remove the single picture representing this from the article would significantly detract from the usefulness and neutrality of the article.
- So let's recap:
- Kochi is a city with a slums.
- We have a sourced statement in the article that the slum population was growing at least in the 1990s
- The city corporation has a plan to deal with the slum problem. This means that the slum problem is significant to them at least.
- In the article, we briefly discuss the city's slums with a few sentences briefly restating the facts above.
- We currently have fifteen images in the article. Fourteen of them are "tourist-brochure" images that show the city as modern and prosperous, which of course it is for the most part.
- The "slum" paragraph currently uses an image which has a few (quite clean and orderly) shanty-style tents contrasted with modern office buildings in the background.
- This image appropriately illustrates not only what one Kochi slum looks like, but also represents the challenges the city faces and the progress it is making.
- I honestly don't think that the average Wikipedia editor would consider this image to be inappropriate. They might wonder if you are trying to make the article represent Kochi in as positive a manner as possible because you live there and are proud of your city. There is nothing wrong with this of course, but you should be prepared to defer to the judgement of editors who do not have a personal connection to the place, when it comes to questions such as these.
- At this point I think I have given my opinion in sufficient detail, and explained myself enough times, that I don't have anything else to add. It remains my considered opinion that using this image is a positive contribution to the article, and that removing it diminishes the article. Of course this is just my opinion and I may be wrong, so you might want to consider getting even more outside opinions by opening a WP:RFC on this.
- Thparkth (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well Dileepks69, you requested for a third opinion, and you got that. I too find no serious problem to have the slum picture in the article. I back the opinion from Thparkth. --Chektomate (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am also with user Thparkth.I am not a UNIQUE user :). I am only stating my opinion here. I have gone through the article and i feel like reading a tourist-brochure. I can find only +ve things about the city. Most of the sentence starts with Kochi stands first, Kochi is the it the largest, Kochi is ranked, The only city from South India etc... The word largest and first is used in so many places of the article. (you can search these words in the article using FIND option from the menu of your browser) Its just like an advertisement of the city!!!. I also find no problem by inserting that picture to the article. Like Thparkth said, it represents the challenges the city faces and the progress it is making. The editors are trying to put a push a STRONG POV in favor of the city in this article. Its good to be font of your home city but remember that this is an encyclopedia and so many people outside the country is not only reading, but also use this article for references. You can glorify your city through forums, blogs or by starting your own website. 112.110.138.62 (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Obviously, you do not wanna start the page of a city with things like "Poorest", "Smallest", "Last", "Dirtiest" etc.!?!, which is what is the intention of many people out here! thanks and if you do have some contributions, positive or negative, please do that and we can put it up in the appropriate section. You might also wanna refer a thesis or an essay on any subject, usually areas like "Challenges or Problems" are mentioned towards the end ... - MountainWhiskey (talk) 07:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I thank all the editors for their opinions, and according to the high standards of Wikipedia, I accept the verdict.
I am sure the same high standards would be applied to the other city pages as well, when a dispute happens in the future.
DileepKS69 (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC) But,this page is categorized under FA,which should contain all Pros and Cons.Otherwise there is no value of FA. Thanks --Induzcreed (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Page protected
The page has been protected to stop the continuous edit war. Please discuss all issues on the talk page. The protection is not an endorsement of the current version.
If you wish to make any edits, gain consensus and place {{editprotected}} before the text that has to be inserted and an administrator will perform those edits. —SpacemanSpiff 16:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I suggest the page to be kept protected, and edits proposed here and done under consensus. Should work much better than all the flip-flops.
DileepKS69 (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from Mountainwhiskey, 5 November 2010
{{edit protected}}
Hi, there is a line which says "most of these islands are small ...." which requires a Citation and none has been provided for so long. Please have that removed, coz as far as I know that ain't true :)
THANKS!
MountainWhiskey (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Your statement "as far as I know that ain't true" is not acceptable in wiki. It is quite obvious that you and your friends are trying to push a STRONG POV in favour of your city. I request all editors not to be biased and please start your own blog or site, if you want to advertise the city. --Chektomate (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- If my statement is untrue, I request you to give the right figures, failing which this calls for deletion! Why is a statement like "most of these islands are small" being allowed to stay when the editors who contributed the same are not able to validate it? - MountainWhiskey (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}}
template.. Mountainwhiskey: if you are arguing for change, you'll need to provide the reference. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Kochi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
- The article is currently protected due to an edit war, so it fails on stability alone. It's impossible to evaluate the content if the content is in dispute. And judging from the nominator's contributions, he/she seem to have created a single-purpose account to promote this page.
-Gyrobo (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
You may please add this as the citation requested by MountainWhiskey Average size of islands Thanks --Induzcreed (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Edit Request
{{editprotected}}Please edit the mayor's name to Tony Chamminy, who was sworn in yesterday. DileepKS69 (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Crime Statistics and Inference thereof
Check, you have deleted the statement The state of Kerala as a whole stood at the third position. Within the state, Kochi reported the least number of crimes, making it the safest city in Kerala., supported by data in Table 1 of the reference. You claim wrong citation. Have you checked the numbers? The first statement is directly evident from Table 1.6, Page 200. The second statement is evident from Table 1.14, page 266, where the district wise crime data is given. Where a city commissioner is available, that data is separately given. you have to add the numbers to get the total in each row to see that Ernakulam commissioner have the lowest number of crimes reported. Please clarify your grounds for the edit
DileepKS69 (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Dileep, I have checked the cited content. It says about Ernakulam district, and not about Kochi city. Moreover, if you add the number of total crimes recorded, Ernakulam is not the "safest". Ofcourse, Kerala always records a high number of crimes because of the fact that each of the crime is registered with the Police; unlike in many other states where the crimes are not even reported to the police. I request you to be more neutral while editing Kochi article. I understand the "my city is the best"-feeling; but please be considerate in wikipedia. --Chektomate (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Let me explain how the calculation is made.
There are city police commissioners in the three larger cities, and rural SPs for the rest of the district. The objective is to compare those three cities. There are 32 classes of violent crimes in the table. Then there is the 'others' class which is essentially non violent crimes, like financial crimes. It is not considered for evaluating the safety of a city. If you add up the violent crimes in the three cities, you will get 1736 for Kochi, 2437 for Kozhikode and 3269 for Trivandrum. Hence, in total number of violent crimes, Kochi stands lowest. Now, divide it by the population. Since we do not have accurate numbers for 2008, let us take 2001 as a reference. We get 307.48, 558.23 and 438.94 per lakh of population.
Hope that clears the point. DileepKS69 (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Dear Dileep, from the citation, I can see that the total crimes are not the least in Kochi. I am referring to and adding up all the tables, and not only Table 1.14 as you mentioned. Crime includes financial crimes, theft, molestation, robbery etc (as listed in the cited pdf). There is nothing like violent crime and non-violent crime :-) All sort of crimes affects the safety of the citizens. --Chektomate (talk) 08:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Also refer to Table 1.6, page 201 in the pdf. It is clearly stated that Kochi's Rank of Criminality is 4 among Indian cities, below Indore, Bhopal and Jaipur. --Chektomate (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Please read up on the way cities are ranked based on crime. For example, http://www.cityrating.com/crimestatistics.asp. The safety of the city is evaluated on major crimes, that the residents feel a sense of threat/fear. There is a reason why the 'others' category is there in the list, when every possible types of crimes are listed.
Perhaps the basis of the assertion could be made clear in the statement, but I don't see any reason for not using that data point.
Please note that the 4th rank is mentioned in the article. That makes it only fair to add the counter point to offer balance. In fact, I would suggest to add the reason for the high rank. In Kerala, crimes do get reported!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by DileepKS69 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- The figures from National Crimes Record Bureau covers of all possible type of major crimes apart from "Others". And safety is also based on theft, molestation, robbery, riots, rape etc; and not only based on murders or murder attempts.
It seems that you have an urge to polish the harshness of the fact that Kochi recorded a high crime rate. :-)
As you said, it is possible that the high crime rate is because of the fact that only a small number crimes go un-reported in Kerala. But here, we cannot make assumptions of our own, as it may get challenged. People from Bihar or UP can claim that their state is safer as the recorded crimes are lower.
Remember, wikipedia doesnt hold any opinion of its own. Wiki policy states that it is not a place to publish our own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. It is not a soap box to write promotional stuff (check here : Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. You can go through Original research policy to find out more. --Chektomate (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Drawing inferences from the available data and making assertions are NOT original research. BTW, your first sentence shows that you haven't read through the classifications of crimes. The numbers are derived after adding EVERYTHING except the class 'others'. Careful observation shows that the percentage of others is very high in Kochi. This is obviously because of all the industrial and financial activities in the city, and it does not cause safety concerns for citizens. DileepKS69 (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- There is no need to be so careful; simple reading itself will tell you that the crime rate in Kochi is not the lowest in the state :-) --Chektomate (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
please edit to say largest city. it is the largest by all std —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.125.169 (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Removal of Survey Details
Check, why was the survey details removed from Demographics? You mention talk page, but I don't see the talk. Please clarify your grounds for the edit. DileepKS69 (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- The survey from Nielson company and such type of unknown companies are not very authenticative data. Do you want to put such kind of information in the article? It only serves the purpose of glorifying the city. --Chektomate (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
AC Nielsen is a well known and reputed market researcher, whose opinion carries a lot of weight in the industry. The Confederation of Indian Industry is the apex body of industrialists in India. Both are reputed and reliable sources for evaluating the livability and competitiveness of a city. You should have researched the sources before discounting them simply because they do not align with your POV. The sources are reliable and authentic enough.
If surveys from entities like Rediff, and news from sources like metrovaartha could be used as source, especially if it carries a weak POV on the city, I wonder why AC Nielsen can't be a reliable source? DileepKS69 (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am extremely sorry about removing the survey details, I could have done a detailed check. I am re-inserting the info about the affluent cities in India. However, the link for CII survey is not valid. If you can provide a valid link, the info can be included. --Chektomate (talk) 06:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have the copy of the report that I downloaded from the link when it was available online. What would be the best way to make that into a reference?
DileepKS69 (talk) 08:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I found a copy of the same document at http://www.janwani.org/images/Governance/cii_and%20_insti_for_competetiveness_liveability-report_2009.pdf. The link says 2009, but the actual document is the 2010. DileepKS69 (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Great job! I am going through the pdf and will add it soon. --Chektomate (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Weasel Word?
Check, what exactly is the weasel word in the statement Kochi is the most cosmopolitan city in Kerala.. I checked the wiki page on that, and neither significant words appear on that page. Please clarify your grounds for the edit. DileepKS69 (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Dileep, the statement "Kochi is the most cosmopolitan city in Kerala" is lacking factual figures. What actually you mean by cosmopolitan city? A city/place or person that embraces its multicultural demographics is cosmpolitan. There is no figures available to support the claim that "Kochi is most cosmopolitan", other than the reference from a GoK site about Kochi for tourism promotion, which repeat the same sentence (without any figures to prove it). It may be even a circular reference! --Chektomate (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
So, a GoK document is not good reference for you, when it comes to a strong POV, while any source, including sites like metrovaartha is good source for a weak POV?. If you go like that, no reference could be valid enough for you. How do you measure cosmopolitan-ness? Can you quantify it? If you start asking questions like that you will have to face such questions at a lot of points at a lot of pages. Once again, you can't bend the conventions and pick and choose the sources based on POV. GoK is a valid source, so allow its use. DileepKS69 (talk) 06:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- The site provided in the ref is for tourism promotion, and as I mentioned it may be a circular reference. You need not compare with other pages, if you are trying for the betterment of this page. If you can establish the "most cosmopolitanism" with figures, you are welcome to add it. As of now, that statement is just a peacock term for the city and cannot be included in the lead. --Chektomate (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Updating the Demographics Section
I have deleted a wrong assertion made based on a business standard report on the Liveability Index study. It said lowest rank, while the actual number if 23. I propose to re-write the last three paragraphs using the available references, because they looks kind of disjoint right now.
Looking at the liveability report, we can find that the following are the strikingly salient points. Overall ranking 12, which is best in state. Housing ranks 23 which is worst in state by a large margin. Education ranks 36, but all three cities similar.
Since the crime report is featured, we may note the safety ranking here, which is 16, and best in state.
Please comment. DileepKS69 (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The unemployment numbers are incorrect, as they refer to the District, not the city. One data point to note that Kochi and Kanayannur taluks where the city situated, shows only 5.3 and 6.7% increase. So, the rate should be around 6%.
DileepKS69 (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Read page 15 of the liveability index report. It says "8 cities have their lowest ranks on Housing issues – Coimbatore, Jaipur, Kochi, Kolkata, Nagpur, Nashik, Vadodara, and Vishakhapatnam". For the crime report, the report from crime bureu hold more authenticity than the liveability index by CII. When some on add superlative things about Kochi, you concur with them. You always wanted to remove all negative images of the city and add all puffery things there; and seems to be so madly dedicated to glorify the page 24X7 :-) As many times said before, please understand that wikipedia is not a soap box. Please do not try to overtone the article. I suggest to put the article for a review, so that other editors may come and share their thoughts. --Chektomate (talk) 09:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, it does say 8 cities have their lowest, BUT, the actual ranking number is available elsewhere in the same report, and that is NOT the lowest. So, which one should one use? A general statement, or the actual number?
madly dedicated to glorify is a very strong allegation, which I forcefully deny. There are a number of editors, yourself included, working to project anything bad about the city. (I am not complaining. that is your POV). Naturally, you will see things from that perspective. What I try is to counteract the biased views presented, and bring back the balance and reality.
I intend to play by the rules, both in letters AND spirit, and by the high standards of Wikipedia, I would always go by consensus. I take my work here quite seriously, and I would greatly appreciate if you would respect that.
Regarding the crime report, I am NOT asking to remove it. What I am asking is to add the information from the livability report next to that. Why should you object to that?
Also, please note that I am using the talk page, and have not edited anything, waiting for consensus. I would greatly appreciate the same courtesy from you and the other editors hereafter.
Happy and constructive editing. DileepKS69 (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- You can judge your own edits by seeing your contributions. You always complain that "others are delibrately trying to put Kochi in bad light". Why all others should do that? It could be your phobia. Actually, there is not much so called bad things about the city in the article.
- I have never tried to project only some thing bad about the city. I donot have any such motive, and is evident from my edits. I have added many positive things in the article, and you have appreciated that (check here. When I add some thing, which is negative to the city, you will challenge that and will try to polish it. In short, your appreciation is only for positive things about the city, and you gets annoyed when other editors try to prevent you from overtoning or glorifying the article. I still remember effort of your friend to add a false claim (Mahatma Gandhi described Kochi as the Epitome of Adventure), which was a real glorifying attempt. You asked for WP:third Opinion regarding the slum picture in the article. When the third opinion favoured the slum picture, you replied in a very bad tone to the editor who gave his thought. Go through this talk page, and you can find several examples for your attempt to glorify the artilce. --Chektomate (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
These arguments are irrelevant for the original context. We are talking about re-writing a section, combining the available data. If you think the current form is good, please say so.
Now, I am forced to answer a couple of points you made.
1. I wasn't involved with the Epitome of Adventure. I made no edit, and no comment. 2. I have never used a bad tone on Wikipedia. Never will. I graciously accepted the 3O, after getting some clarification from the editor. Someone else did some edit in very bad taste there. It wasn't me. I have never edited without my own ID, and I do not condone uncivil behaviour. DileepKS69 (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Check, you claim neutral and unbiased. Then kindly explain me this. The Business Std report you refer have mentioned Kochi at TWO places. Why only ONE is mentioned in the article? Do you call that neutral? All I asked was to use the actual number of ranking in the article, and you are calling for neutrality.
DileepKS69 (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have given the rank also to the sentence, though it will not serve any purpose. No general readers will be so keen in knowing the exact rank, I believe. Anyways, I am not ready to continue this silly debate; hence added the rank also to the sentence, as per the demand of Dileep. --Chektomate (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I fixed a grammar error there, and that specific issue can be closed. Still, it is better to cite the report, because some other editor, at a later date, might question the number.
I need to reply to an assertion you made above. I took some time and reviewed your entire edit history. The ONLY positive thing you added to Kochi (in this user ID, because even though it begins on 2nd Oct, you do go way back) was Sreesanth. (Well, given his antics, I wonder if it is in fact positive or negative). You did some neutral edits, like fixing links, and re phrasing, which I appreciate. But in general, you spent time fighting any positive edit. You also pushed POV several times by irrelevantly linking Trivandrum. You have not earned the right (in this user ID) to profess neutrality.
I take you (this user ID) for what you are, and try to work with you. Happy Editing. DileepKS69 (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- There you are.. :-) Providing internal links, external citations, re-phrasing for better reading, are all Neutral for you ! According to you, positive can be ONLY when some one write great about Kochi !! Such edits are NOT called positive edits, but called advertising. Adding some relevent and useful information without using much superlatives is just NEUTRAL for you, be it from me or any other editors.
I never irrelevantly linked Trivandrum. You wanted to remove the sentence "Kochi is the second largest city after the state capital Thiruvananthapuram". Since this is a fact supported with census data, and I did not see any danger/false in that sentence, I supported to retain it in the lead. What is the wrong in that? Now, I noticed one more thing; that Thiruvananthapuram is removed from the lead. Since you removed the word Thiruvananthapuram, I suggest to link [[Thiruvananthapuram|state capital]], so that the readers will be provided the flexibility to check which is the state capital. (I can foresee a STRONG NO from you :-) ) --Chektomate (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Continued in section : Talk:Kochi#Wiki_Links
Thripunithura is a major station
Indus, Thripunithura have stops for several express trains, hence it is a major station. Please check your facts before boldly reverting. According to the online timetable, the following express trains stop there. 6381/82 Kanyakumari exp, 2623/24 Tvm mail, 6327/28 KRBA TVC Exp, 6301/02 Venad Exp, 6629 Malabar Exp. This station have a computerized reservation centre also. What else do you need? DileepKS69 (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Computer reservation is not the criteria for a major railway station. Railways is introducing online ticketing services through the IRCTC website for major and minor railway stations.
There are more than 30 express trains passing through Tripunithura and out of it, 8 stops there.Also,FYI,train numbers 6630 and 6382 have NO stop at Tripunitura.How can you say it is a major railway station ? Do not argue for the sake of arguing. Think with an un-biased mind. You can think about starting your own site to advertise your city; you have the potential. My best wishes will be there. Thanks, --Induzcreed (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- You, Sir, should have an unbiased mind. The rest of the stations are halt stations, where passenger trains alone stop, and no reservation facility available. Thripunithura and Aluva are major stations where express trains stop, and hey have reservation facility. The fact is clear. Both those stations should be listed together, while the rest should be termed as halt stations.
I do not understand your adamancy in this, and why you bring in allegations of bias on this simple, but obviously clear matter.
DileepKS69 (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no adamancy here.If you have the Railway Time Table with you which costs only Rs.30 and you can check yourself which are the Major Stations in Kerala or even in Southern Railways.Will you consider Piravom Station as a major station where some of the express trains stop?Also Edappally has stop for some.Even Cochin Harbour Terminous was considered as a major station before;but it is not functioning now.
Thanks--Induzcreed (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Indus, what exactly is your objection here? That Thripunithura is not a station in the class of Aluva? I agree on that. It is not. But it is not in the class of the other halting stations listed either. So, obviously combining it with those doesn't align with reality . Could you make a phrase that agrees with those facts please?
DileepKS69 (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion is that the editing in Transport section shall be based on the editing done here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Kochi...
The main points in the Kochi Main Page shall match which the subsections.
BTW,I accept the inclusion of Tripunitura Station in the current way.
Thanks.
--Induzcreed (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Wiki Links
Dileep, I never irrelevantly linked Trivandrum. You wanted to remove the sentence "Kochi is the second largest city after the state capital Thiruvananthapuram". Since this is a fact supported with census data, and I did not see any danger/false in that sentence, I supported to retain it in the lead. What is the wrong in that? Now, I noticed one more thing; that Thiruvananthapuram is removed from the lead. Since you removed the word Thiruvananthapuram, I suggest to link [[Thiruvananthapuram|state capital]], so that the readers will be provided the flexibility to check which is the state capital. (I can foresee a STRONG NO from you :-) ) --Chektomate (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Check, I haven't messed with the ref to state capital in the first paragraph after I found some serious sensitivities there. Yes, I strongly believe that a link to the capital there, or anywhere else in the article, is irrelevant, and I know that many other editors do strongly believe that it is relevant. It has become a sensitive matter. Therefore, it would be impossible to reach a consensus.
- In such matters, I refer to the wiki pages of the other cities in India which are similar to Kochi with respect to the issue at hand. If we see most of the other cities carry some information, I would readily agree to carry the same information here too. I believe you would agree that is a fair method to employ.
- Since this issue is a perennial irritant to all, are you willing to work on this using the aforementioned method? If so, we could research the pages together, and arrive at a rational conclusion once for all.
- Do you agree?
DileepKS69 (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Your agenda revealed again:-) If there is a need to link any thing in this article (whether it is the state capital or not) it will be done. There is no reason to stop that. For eg; if the article has a sentence like "NH47 connects Kochi to the state capital, Trivandrum", the link to Trivandrum would be definitely needed there. And your weak arguments are not enough to stop that, and you need not be irritant to that. I wonder, why a mere link to the state capital is SO SENSITIVE to you !!!
Anyways, I am not going to add any thing, as I am not concerned about it. I was just referring to your point that " you strongly believe that a link to the capital there, or anywhere else in the article, is irrelevant ". The relevance and irrelevance is not to be decided based on your bias.
Let me say some thing too, I am not interested to carry on with debating with you on this matter; as you may never stop arguing and will repeat the same points again and again without any validity. You stretch things to the end of the world !!
Thank you very much. --Chektomate (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Check, you said The relevance and irrelevance is not to be decided based on your bias. I completely agree, and it is based neither on your bias as well. It should be decided on the needs of the encyclopedia.
- You said If there is a need to link any thing in this article (whether it is the state capital or not) it will be done. That goes straight against the concept of consensus. You may be capable of steamrolling anything here, given your ample resources, and I am in no position to compete with that.
- Thirdly, I offered a rational and unquestionably neutral method, ie taking reference to the other city pages. You conveniently sidestepped that. Let me repeat the question. Are you willing to work on that method?
DileepKS(talk) 16:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
In the transport section,the wiki reference is not necessary for the state highways since the original reference (PWD) is cited there.I think the article regarding state highways is based on the PWD records.So I think,there is no error in that and the citation provided is more than enough.
Thanks
--Induzcreed (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Check the previous version. The words State Highways itself was missing in the sentence, hence the edit. A wikilink is the easiest reference for a regular user, because it gives the information in a useful form. Hence I recommend retaining the wikilink.
DileepKS(talk) 04:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion,if an autheticated reference is absent only we need to provide a wiki-reference.Please remember,the wiki-reference is also made with this outside reference.So it will be circle reference.Hence,the wikireference is NOT mandatory since the valid and authenticated citation is already given.I invite other editors' comments on this matter.
Thanks
--Induzcreed (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
In general, the wikilink is not a reference. Its primary function is additional information. Here, the regular user is given a quick list of SHs as another wiki page. When you wikilink the name of an object, its wiki page is given. It is done as a convenience, not as a backup.
At least that is my impression of its function, as a normal user of Wikipedia.
Then, Indus, based on your current stand, how would you justify your wikilinking Trivandrum city, where Trivandrum Rly division is mentioned? Just curious.
DileepKS(talk) 05:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
:Then, I am afraid to say that your understanding is not fully correct. Wiki link can be a valid reference, if the linked article is supported with external citations. Those citations need not be repeated in the other article also (which is holding the wikilink).
Trivandrum Railway Division is situated in Trivandrum city. Since there was no page for the Trivandrum Railway Division, I linked with the city page. You search the other articles in wiki, and could find many such cases. It is a natural act, and there is no question of a firm stand on that matter. In the eyes of biased editors like you, every such things may be wrong.
At the same time, wiki linking the city page instead of the the Rly division may not serve the full purpose of linking it. Hence, I am not adamant to keep it either. Hope this clarifies. And I request to stop this silly Q&A. It seems that you are very interested to keep on posting here; non-stop. I may not be so curious in replying for repeated points from your side.
--Induzcreed (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Indus, you made a comment and I responded, and now you complain that I talk too much. Well, I would invite your attention to the title of the page. You seem to be really particular on criticising/debating on anything I do, not that I am complaining. If you don't want to talk, I don't see anyone compelling.
- Since you mentioned it, there is no mention of Trivandrum Railway Division in the Trivandrum page, except a category link. So, linking to the city page serves absolutely no purpose. I suspect it is a case of Narcissism that makes people put links where no relevance exists.
DileepKS(talk) 09:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually there was an edit error.Thanks for correcting,DileepKS :).
Providing wikilinks are not a wrong idea;but it should be used whereever necessary.Here evenif the wikilink is not provided;also nothing wrong in it.So better keep the link
BTW,I think Induzcreed didn't provide the linking of Trivandrum in Trivandrum railway division once the user Binoyjsdk pointed out about the "repeatlink".So accusing Induzcreed even after NOT doing the same mistake again, is NOT fair.:)
--R3dg33k (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- RG, please read through the edit history, and see how many times did Indus adamantly put that link in, despite all the discussions. Of course Binoy is a senior editor, and his opinion need to be respected, but my point is, Indus tried to steamroll it when I expressed the same. Then, he says something in direct opposite to what he advocated earlier. Tells something about his agenda, isn't it? I just wanted to put that on record, because I had been repeatedly called of bias. Thanks for the comment.
DileepKS(talk) 02:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- ” So, linking to the city page serves absolutely no purpose. I suspect it is a case of Narcissism that makes people put links where no relevance exists ‘’ “
Read my reply carefully. I told , “ ‘’ wiki linking the city page instead of the the Rly division may not serve the full purpose of linking it. Hence, I am not adamant to keep it either. ‘’ “. --Induzcreed (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Unemployment Numbers
The unemployment numbers are not correct. The numbers quoted are for the whole district. The city/metro area numbers can be reliably deduced from the Taluk wise table, which comes to 21.6, with an increase of around 6%.
I propose to edit the line as follows:
The region of the district where the city belongs registered an unemployment rate of 21.6% in 2003, which is roughly 6% more than that in 1998. DileepKS(talk) 01:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Major Business Sectors
The article currently reads: Major business sectors include gold and textile retailing, seafood and spices exports, chemical industries, information technology (IT), tourism, health services, banking, shipbuilding, and the fishing industry. It is not accurate.
I propose to edit it as Major business sectors include construction, manufacturing, shipbuilding, transportation/shipping, seafood and spices exports, chemical industries, information technology (IT), tourism, health services, and banking
Refer to the GDP numbers from the planning board. Since city figures are not available, we have to use district figures. Construction is 19%, manufacturing is 17%(incl shipbuilding), trade and hotel (includes hospitality, tourism, and trade) is 19%, transportation 10%, which is mainly the port. Banking is 4.8%.
Comments invited.
DileepKS(talk) 05:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Please change accordingly. --Induzcreed (talk) 09:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Colleges not in Kochi
There are some colleges in the Education section, those are not in Kochi.
1. MACE,Kothamangalam there.MACE is around 45-50 kms away and not even in the suburbs of Kochi. http://www.mace.ac.in/php/showContent.php?linkid=9&parent_id=2
2. Federal Institute of Science and Technology,which is actually near Mookkannur,a rustic village in the outskirts of Angamaly. It is not in the suburbs of Kochi city.
3. The Federal Business School which is a part of FISAT.http://www.fisat.ac.in/php/showData.php?linkid=186&headid=7&headtype=Y is also not in Kochi city.
The above institutions should not be mentioned in the article.
Thank you, --Induzcreed (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- MACE is removed. It obviously not connected to the city.
- FISAT is located outside the suburbs, but a lot of city/suburbs residents do day scholar there, so the general feeling around here is that it is a city college. I am not making a call on that either way.
- There are some more institutions in the fringe which needs consideration. I will bring them here to discuss later.
DileepKS(talk) 11:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Following are the candidates for inclusion in the list
Engg Colleges
In the order of reducing urbanity
K M E A Engineering College, Pukkattupady, Alwaye Sree Narayana Gurukulam College of Engineering, Kadayiruppu P O, Ernakulam Toc-H Institute of Science and Technology, Mulamthurutthy, Ernakulam Jaibharath College of Management & Engineering Technology, Arackappady, Vengola Adi Shankara Institute of Engineering and Technology, Sankar Nagar, Mattoor, Kalady
Medical
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church Medical College, Kolenchery, Ernakulam Sree Narayana Institute of Medical Sciences,Chalakka, North Kuthiathode, Ernakulam
DileepKS(talk) 11:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding FISAT,we can't add those details of what people feels.Since this is an encyclopedia,we should stick to the factual details.So it also be removed.
BTW,The listed institutions seems lengthy including those already in the page and those yet to be brought out.So my suggestion is why can't be a separate page titled "Education in Kochi"?There these shall be listed under the different categories like Engineering Colleges,Medical Colleges,Business Schools etc...
Thus the content in the article "Education" in the city page shall be brief and the in detailed in the Supporting Page.What say??
--Induzcreed (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- OK, FISAT shall be removed. I also agree on the separate page for education. I will attempt that soon enough. A lot of the sections, including edu, on this page looks like a face after numerous plastic surgery. They badly need re-writing.
DileepKS(talk) 01:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Distance to Capital is Irrelevant Information
Checktomate, this issue had been discussed above, and the information had been the way it was for a long time now. You are trying to incite an edit war here, which is sorely unfortunate.
I have proposed a rational and unquestionably neutral method to resolve this, and similar issues, but you haven't responded. Instead, you are digging up an old issue. This clearly shows bad intentions. If your intention is the well being of the article, as it should be for any editor here, please, let us work on the solution.
I was under the impression that we have come to an agreement that we would discuss first and then do the edit. You are violating that trust as well here.
With your ample resources, you might be able to steamroll the changes, but let me tell you that it goes directly against the principles of Wikipedia.
If you have any respect for the principles of Wikipedia, I implore you to stop, and let us discuss.
DileepKS(talk) 08:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- What on the earth are you talking about? Cant you check the page history before making such comments in the talk page? How you arrive at the conclusion that I added the distance from the capital?
- Anyways, since my name is dragged here, let me state my opinion; I dont think it is a serious mistake to add the distance from the capital. --Chektomate (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
@ DileepKS, it was an OLD information which was already there and you only removed . Hence, we should retain it till consensus is reached in talk page.
Also,I don't think it is an irrelevant information.So,it will be reverted back.
--Induzcreed (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not to worry, I would soon have a chart showing Distance from Kochi(by road) to major Kerala towns/cities and to other major towns in the South especially. I hope that is allowed here on Wiki @ Chektomate/Induz? Thanks for your permission in advance. - MountainWhiskey (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I have given up trying to engage in a civil and productive collaboration with Checktomate and Induscreed in editing the Kochi page. I have no choice, other than to ignore the adamant narcissism of those editors who strive to establish the superiority and make a mark of their favourite place on every page possible.
I can contribute a lot more as an editor if I just ignore these silly and childish insistences. You are beneath me, my friends, and I shall not stoop to your levels. Hereafter, I shall not meddle in any Trivandrum boosting you may do on this page. I leave it to other editors, if any, to deal with them as they choose.
DileepKS(talk) 14:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Mountainwhiskey,That is a good idea.Hope I can also contribute some in that.If you have the Political Map of Inida/Kerala it will be easy for you to compile.
If you eager to create such a page better NOT to restrict with Kochi alone and Can do it for other major cities too..
Also,DileepKS,at last, you agreed to atleast one fact. And I noticed that you and some other "editors" do not want to keep any link to Trivandrum in any Kochi related pages. Why is that?
Being Trivandrum the Capital of Kerala, is not the problem of either Chektomate or Induzcreed.All other states/city pages do give importance to their state capital.Why you people are NOT want here?
I feel you people have some hidden and planned agenda NOT to do so.
Btw, you agreed as above to create a page "Education in Kochi".Please do that at the earliest.I appreciate your acceptance of that task and Mountainwhiskey for the Distance Page.
Of Course, I am not here to one to edit from anonymous IPs. If I need to put forward some edits, I will do that from my account. You can believe me.
Thanks,
--Sixsigma69 (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- @ Sixsigma69 - pls do not get so emotional. this is not the end of the world. And, I am not interested in publishing distance from Kochi to every city in central asia, turkey and the like. The whole idea here is to keep things relevant and useful for the general public. And since you are so worried, please add this statement on the trivandrum page or wherever you like "the distance from the Kerala capital to Kerala's Commercial Capital "KOCHI" is just under 220KMS". Have a great weekend in your part of the world. - MountainWhiskey (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
If you have not inetersted who cares??I am NOT worried too.Even when I worried you need not care also
As you mentioned,it cannot be added as per your will and wish as this is NOT a "Sardarji Jokes" Page.Also, Kochi is NOT the State Capital and it will NEVER be too.
Also,keep cool..This is an encyclopedia... NOT your blog or your webpage to show your nasty comments and arrogance.
--Sixsigma69 (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Don't get carried away. Nobody is gonna make Kochi state capital by adding/deleting Distance to Capital. Why don't you stick to the topic being discussed? We are talking about 220KMS and you are talking about "blogs", "nasty comments", "Sardari Jokes", Kochi capital etc? Please be more composed in your replies. Like I said earlier, please do not get emotional. And, why do all 3 of you (Chektomate, Induzcreed & SixSigma) occasionally highlight (bolden) your sentences. Relax. BTW, i m working on the distance chart to major towns and cities. - MountainWhiskey (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I hope User:DileepKS69 will be civil in replying here. Can you please show me where in this article I tried to boost up any other place? I wish you could reply accurately, rather than issuing generalised and vague statements.
- I honestly don't understand how a statement "Kochi is situated 220kms north of state capital, Trivandrum" could boil your blood and you and your friends(User:Mountainwhiskey) are against retaining that info in the article.
- Is this the most serious mistake in this article? Is the article improved now in all other aspects?
- And I dont understand on what basis you find me boosting Trivandrum here!!
If you could give me a satisfactory and valid answers to the above questions, I would be happy to agree with you. Thanks in advance, --Chektomate (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- shucks, I was expecting a reply from SixSigma and not Checktomate! I don't see any reason why Checktomate has to be so offended by a reply from SixSigma! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountainwhiskey (talk • contribs) 20:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Because, I am dragged in to this by Dileep; and I replied. --Chektomate (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- shucks, I was expecting a reply from SixSigma and not Checktomate! I don't see any reason why Checktomate has to be so offended by a reply from SixSigma! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountainwhiskey (talk • contribs) 20:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Sixsigma, another sock? I just reviewed your contribs. You went to all the city pages in this part of the country and boosted Trivandrum there. Good job sir. Why don't you go to the pages of Delhi and Mumbai, and boost there too. Why stop there. Go to NYC and add that it is connected to Trivandrum. Let us see who objects!!
I am done. No more discussion on the holy city of yours.
DileepKS(talk) 02:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Distance to capital CANNOT be the second sentence in a page about Kochi or any other city. There are more significant or important facts that needs to head a page. I have added a comprehensive Distance Chart for Kochi which includes the DISTANCE from/to the State Capital. Original entry is duplicate information and being removed. Thanks - MountainWhiskey (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- You can add the distance to the cities in the sub page, Transport in Kochi. Not required in the main article. Follow the format of other Indian cities. --Chektomate (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the "Wiki" advice - I will add it to the TRANSPORT Section. But, that does not mean, the 2nd line of a city page should talk about the distance from the state capital? I dont understand why u are so adamant on mentioning such a stupid line as the 2nd line of a city page? Be reasonable, mate! Lets say you have a Wiki page about a car, would you mention the tire size in the 2nd line or the car's displacement. Lets say you have a Wiki page about yourself - Would you mention your age, your in-law's age or your neighbor's grand-dad's age in the 2nd line? - MountainWhiskey (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think Distance to Capital is Irrelevant Information. It is truly an informative one. If the tire size of a car is important to the article, the tire size will be mentioned. see Monster truck.!!! Here the article is about a city (Not about in-law's or your neighbor's grand-dad) and the distance is from the Capital city. The Capital city is an important area encompasses the offices and meeting places of the seat of government. Distance from there cannot considered as irrelevant.27.97.126.105 (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- You only DONT THINK. You are not SURE! See, 27.xx.xxx.105, the state capital is important, so is the district capital and the High court. But, the 2nd line about the city does not have to mention that. It can go under other sections like Governance or Government, if it is so important. Your argument does not have anything new in it. Please come up with a more solid reason. Please remember, even the National Capital is important. So, is Bangalore, where many a techie is from Kochi. Do you want all those cities to be mentioned? - MountainWhiskey (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Where is the TALK ? - MountainWhiskey (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- You only DONT THINK. You are not SURE! See, 27.xx.xxx.105, the state capital is important, so is the district capital and the High court. But, the 2nd line about the city does not have to mention that. It can go under other sections like Governance or Government, if it is so important. Your argument does not have anything new in it. Please come up with a more solid reason. Please remember, even the National Capital is important. So, is Bangalore, where many a techie is from Kochi. Do you want all those cities to be mentioned? - MountainWhiskey (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I would like if Mountainwhiskey show a little bit civil behaviour here; rather than using harsh tones and personal attacks. Adding the location info quoting the distance and direction from state capital is a followed norm for Indian cities. There is nothing wrong in that, as it gives the reader a better idea about the location of the city. You need not be worried that "YOUR CITY" will lose importance. If you continue the edit war here, you might be blocked. Please use WP:3O or similar methods to arrive at the conclusion. Thanks, --Chektomate (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am not sure what is Civil Behavior to you. Please show me one instance of uncivil behavior here. There is no MY CITY, YOUR CITY thing here. Yours and your buddies forceful inclusion of an unimportant fact is nothing but trying to divert readers to that city's page. And I only reverted what you undid without talking of course. If you cannot arrive at a consensus by using common sense, that is your problem. I have clearly said here that it is fine to be mentioned but need not necessarily be the very first or second line. The geographical location is there in the first sentence itself. Even distances from other major cities and towns like Kozhikode and Thrissur could be mentioned, if we go by your logic. There is also a MAP which shows Kochi's geographical location. I think that is more useful than a mere mention of a distance to other city. Cheers and please talk here before you get busy again - MountainWhiskey (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I humbly request user DileepKS should stop being so neurotic and quite frankly, a bit of a drama queen, by seeing a Trivandrum bogeyman behind every editor in Wiki. And please stop posturing under make-believe high ideals and yet do the same things later under some guise. You make provocative strawmen like "I wont stoop to low levels" comment above, when I feel no one, including you "stooped" at any levels!! I believe we are all discussing, not stooping around as you want everyone to believe. Why create this personal hatred and strawmen?
Anyways what is the point in personalizing this discussion? This is not a personal war or a self-important excersize, when it comes to these topics. Please stop these petty fights and provocations.
Mountainwhiskey, a person who is visiting Kochi with business or other interests that involve interaction with Kerala State Govt should be informed of the distance to places where they might need to travel for government approvals and other administrative matters.
Also,please refrain from personal attacks.I support Chektomate in thi regard.Also,adding a distance map is different from adding a distance to the State Capital. The distance to the State Capital is more relevant and important than the former and is followed in most of the indian cities' pages.Then whats wrong adding that here?
--Sixsigma69 (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, of course, the state capital and her offices may be important to every businessman. And I have always said it can be mentioned. But, it has to be mentioned at the appropriate place like in the Directions or Geography. The Distance to the Capital is not SO IMPORTANT that it needs to be placed at the header of the page itself. In that case, the Distance to Kochi would require even more importance in every other Kerala city page, considering Kochi's commerical importance. - MountainWhiskey (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Dear Editors, I have added the distance to the state capital and other major cities and positioned it in a more noticeable location. Hope this would help reach a consensus, rather than blind reverts. Please cooperate - MountainWhiskey (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Primary Education
I propose the following text to replace the current text.
The patern of primary education is essentially the same all over the state. There are government controlled schools, owned, or aided, which are affiliated to the Kerala State Education Board. A few privately owned schools are also affiliated to the system. Most of the schools owned by private organizations or individuals are affiliated to the Central Board for Secondary Education (CBSE). Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE) have some schools affiliated to them as well. The state education board offers both Malayalam and English medium instruction, while the other boards offer English medium alone. There are a few schools that follow international curricula, such as IB and IGCSE.
The general pattern of education is ten years of common schooling to reach secondary level. Kindegartens are widely available, but considered separate from formal schooling. After the secondary level, three streams, namely Arts, Commerce or Science are offered for higher secondary education. After finishing the school, students can opt for higher education related to the streams they had undergone.
The notable schools in the government sector are Maharaja Sree Rama Varma Boys High School, Edappally High School, Government School-Kochi and Govt Girls High School. There are four Kendriya Vidyalayas run by the central government. Charitable organizations like Chinmaya Mission and Bharathiya Vidya Bhavan runs many schools within the city and the suburbs. Religious trusts like CMI are also running many schools. There are also schools that are owned by private trusts and individuals, such as Toc-H and Greets Academy.
Recently several public schools have started offering advanced facilities and international syllabi. Choice School, Global Public School and Dawn Public School are some of the forerunners in this category.
There maybe some more schools that need mention. I shall move it to the edit unless anyone find this terribly objectionable, and then add the tweaks there.
Thanks. DileepKS(talk) 07:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
is there any move to shift capital to Kochi from trivandrum?
After reading some very defensive comments from pro-trivandrum editors here to DileepKS's Replies here, Why not discuss it here? Being a Cochinite, I have read a lot of times atleast for past 3 decades newspapers covering small but isolated movements from other parts of Kerala to shift capital of Kerala to Kochi(and in some cases also Thrissur). 20:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.35.113 (talk)
- The users who replying and challenging the edits from DileepKS69 are not necessariy from any particular place. If you are in such a misunderstanding, it is your way of fearing things :-)
- Also, Wikipedia is NOT a forum to discuss these things. No established editors will bite on this. --Chektomate (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
2 million Population
The reference given about the population is not a valid reference. As per World Gazetteer, the population of Kochi UA is is 1,355,406 (see) in 2001 and 1,564,089 in 2010 estimated population. It is more valid reference than the reference given and is used by WikiProject Indian cities. Note that he total rural population of Ernakulam district is only 1,477,085 according to Census of India.(see this).
Also, according to the Census of India site, Kochi UA has a Population of 1,355,972. (see). What is the need for other references as we have all these reliable references about the population figures? BINOY Talk
- World Gazetteer is not a reliable source, as it call the population of Kochi as 266898 as per census 2001. That is a serious error, which should readily discount a source. This incorrect information had been on that site for quite some time, despite several emails being sent to the author. Hence, at least for Kochi related information, the said source shall remain discredited.
- Census of India is the official and credible source for population.
- But the issue here is a bit more complicated, which is the definition of the terms like Kochi UA and Greater Kochi. The Kochi UA is purely from the census POV and the Greater Kochi is from the urban planning POV. The urban planning area happens to be bigger than the urban agglomeration as defined by the census.
- A third data point came out recently, which is the master plan for Kochi. This defines an area that is midway between the above two.
- IMO, the census figure should appear at the head of the city article. The article on the urban area should use the urban planning based definition, and not the census definition. This is because census definition is based on the population angle alone, and the urban planning definition reflects the reality better.
DileepKS(talk) 09:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Spice, how can you call it a reliable source when it hosts an obviously incorrect piece of information? I would like to know your view on that, and why did you term it as a personal opinion, where I pointed out an obviously glaring error. It is not an opinion. It is a fact.
OR, are you asserting that the WG is correct, and the population of Kochi was, indeed 266898 in 2001?
DileepKS(talk) 10:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- The Census aggregate tables confound Ernakulam and Kochi, the details show where WG gets the exact number or 266898 from, with the Ernakulam part being the larger population sphere and Kochi being the smaller sphere. —SpacemanSpiff 11:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Where is Ernakulam called in that report? The section on important towns read as follows:
1.Kochi (M Corp.) (Part) 328,677
2.Kochi (M Corp.) (Part) 266,898
3.Edathala (CT) 67,754
Ernakulam is not called anywhere in that report, except as the name of the district at the title. There is no justification for taking one of the values, the smaller one at that, when the text clearly says it is two parts of the same M Corp.
Now, you are trying to defend a source that failed to do even the commonsense check on the data it publishes. Can you still vouch for its reliability?
DileepKS(talk) 11:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to be missing the point here, Wikipedia is not the place for you to indulge in original research. If a reliable source uses the census data to reach a conclusion on extrapolation that's it. If another reliable source contradicts it, then it is fair to use both sources within the article and mention the discrepancy, but using non reliable sources is not on and definitely saying something is not reliable because you don't agree with their interpretation isn't on either. As for the census. this also shows an urban population in Kochi sub-district of 275K. If you have any reliable sources that contradict this data then put that up and we can discuss and maybe arrive at a conclusion to use both (at this point, I can not find any source on the census site that has a higher population), but the source that I recently reverted was not one such. —SpacemanSpiff 12:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Kochi sub district means Kochi taluk. The above mentioned population from Kochi Taluk,not from metro area or city.
--Bijuts (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Please check the bangalore with same link http://www.censusindia.gov.in/PopulationFinder/Sub_Districts_Master.aspx?state_code=29&district_code=20
--Bijuts (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I am not missing any point here. You are just trying to prop up a losing argument to show WG's reliability, that's all. I don't know what your motivation here.
First of all, it is a well known indisputable fact that the city of Kochi, that is, the area under the local administration unit called Corporation of Cochin, had a population of more than 500,000 in 2001, and NOT around 266,000. That fact overrides all and every so called sources, their reliability notwithstanding. It is not a matter of interpretation. The exact number of population, however, needs a source. The census of India is the primary source for that. It clearly gives the city population, in two parts for reasons unknown, the total being 595575 in 2001.
Secondly, I am not making any original research here, and I am calling WG unreliable not because I don't agree with them. I am calling WG unreliable because they give a number that is obviously and blatantly incorrect, and you, dear sir, are trying to defend the indefensible. WG specifying the population of Kochi to be 266,898 is a serious error, tainting its reliability. That is all I have to say.
The real matter of debate here, however, is not the reliability of WG. It is the use of urban agglomeration as per census v/s the urban planning area as per the govt documents. Which makes sense in an encyclopedia. That is the real question. It is not a matter of source reliability. It is a matter of POV.
DileepKS(talk) 13:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this is going nowhere, it's not in your place to make that judgment -- "and I am calling WG unreliable not because I don't agree with them". Either you bring forth reliable sources that attest to the city's population or stop making these arguments. I haven't seen your source yet and we don't deal in indisputable facts here, only verifiability. —SpacemanSpiff 13:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- According to Census of India, the population of Kochi UA is 1,355,972. I cannot find any details of two million figures and the Greater Cochin area.
Also, Dileep said that the urban planning area happens to be bigger than the urban agglomeration as defined by the census. Do you have any reliable reference about this? The article Kochi metropolitan area says that The area constituted on the basis of census data 2001, consists of Corporation of Kochi (Cochin), 9 municipalities, 14 Panchayaths and parts of 4 Panchayaths. The article Greater Cochin also says that "Greater Cochin area consists of Cochin Corporation, 9 municipalities, 25 intervening panchayats and scattered islands around Kochi City (Goshree Islands) covering an area of 732 km²". The "25 intervening panchayats" mentioned here is not in the given reference in the article. That means Kochi metropolitan area and Greater Cochin is same or don't have too much difference.
See the City Development Plan – Appraisal Report which doesn't even mentioned about the Greater Cochin area. BINOY Talk 13:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Census figures says clearly about the urban agglomeration (Kochi UA) population. There is no census data available for some thing called Greater Cochin. Please produce valid population data before changing the article. --Chektomate (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The concept of Greater Cochin is established with the formation of GCDA in 1976. The GCDA Website says The jurisdictional area of GCDA comprises of the Cochin City, the commercial capital of Kerala, 6 surrounding municipalities and 25 intervening panchayats covering an area of 632 sq.km. I am not able to obtain a more detailed reference on the exact specification on this. A GO from the registration department says: The Jurisdiction of Greater Cochin Development authority comprises the area covered by: Cochin Corporation, Municipalities of Perumbavoor Always; North Parur, Angamaly, Thriyppunithura, Eloor & Kalamasserry; Panchayaths of Pallippuram, Kuzhuppally, Edavakkad, Ezhikkara, Kottuvally, Alangad, Kadungalloor, Kadamakkudy, Cheranalloor, Nayarambalam, Njarackal, Elamkunnapuzha, Malavukad, Nedumbassery, Chengamanad, Kanjoor, Sreemoolanagaram, Keexhmad, Choornikkar, Vazhakkulam, Thrikkakkara, VadavocodePuthencruz, Thiruvankulam, Chottanikkara, Maradu, Kumbanlingi, Chellanam, Kumbalam, Udayaymperoor, Mulanthuruthy and Edathala. (Ins 4/21410/89/220890 of IGRegn).
As I mentioned earlier in the discussion, the jurisdiction of GCDA is Greater Cochin. This is bigger than the CDP and master plan for the city. That in turn is bigger than the U/A defined by census records. DileepKS(talk) 02:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
ya nigga, its a BIGGGG great fantastic city!! its bigger than KERALA!!!!!!! Its bigger than Chennai, Bangalore, Delhi and even MUMBAI, Hong Kong etc... Its Bigger than INDIA.... and even bigger than the very small NEWYORK CITY town village!!!! Great KOCHI, Big city.
the worst article i ever red in wiki... every one knows the status of indian cities!!! the largest city in india, mumbai which is dirty with slums every where.......... chennai is a little better than this... only thing i loved is that the articles in wikipedia about those citys are very good. i read almost all the city articles of india. but in this article this city which was not even in the list of top 10 populous cities in the country, WAS VERY GREAT!!! if you google about the city, there you get the real face of the city!!! Its a city with a few shopping malls and theater houses... and the name of the only few shopping malls is written in the article itself!!!! what is the need for that??? the important details written in the article are """there is two turns from that road and this road has two speed breakers and 500 sign boards, that mall has 79million shops and this shopping mall has 50 billion shops, there is a biiiiggggg tree in the downtown etc......
and when we look into the talk page to write the mistakes about the city, there goes huuuuugeeeee arguments. i know nothing is usefull and no one cares this msg in this page and nothing is going to happen in this article... i know some one will reply to this msg and if someone replied, my reply to that reply was LOL!!!!! may your reply RIP..............
KOCHI, the first, largest, biggest, topest, fantastic, boombastic city in the Universe, which is smaller ! 27.97.67.233 (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Crime Statistics. Specific Mention of unreliable source
Aarem, Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Crime_statistics clearly states the following:
As a result, use of summarised crime statistics from raw data to indicate the criminality of a certain area in comparison with others or the prevalence of a certain type of crime constitutes original research. Editors should use reliable secondary sources for commentary on trends in the criminality or peacefulness of a district.
So, the NCRB report which suits exactly what is being called here, is inadmissible as a source. If reliable second sources are available, please bring it. If not, the statement need to be removed.
DileepKS(talk) 10:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Dileep, I think you missed the last line : Editors should use reliable secondary sources. The citation provided in the article does not fall under WP:OR, since it is indicated very clearly in the crime report published by National Crime Records Bureau. There is no summarising of raw data by the editors here. The rank is taken directly from the report published by the Government agency.
- As per the crime rate is mega cities, Kochi stands in the fourth position with a crime rate of 646.3.
Rank City IPC Crime Rate 1 Indore 860.3 2 Bhopal 836.4 3 Jaipur 722.4 4 Kochi 646.3 5 Bengaluru 569.4
- You may call for a third opinion, if you are still not convinced. Cheers, -- Aarem (Talk) 10:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, looks like you are right. Thanks. DileepKS(talk) 10:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Cuisine
Dileep, your edit here : cuisine is more apt in a tourism/travel page. As this is about the cuisine of the city in general, do we need to mention about fast food joints and You Buy, We Cook services? We need not mention these kind of details in the city page. Cheers, -- Aarem (Talk) 11:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is in the Culture section. Definitely the food is part of the culture. You Buy, We Cook is a part of the food culture of Fort Kochi. It is not just the tourists who enjoy it. I myself used to eat there whenever I visit Fort Kochi. It is something unique to the place, and as Fort Kochi as the Cheena Valas.
- The mention of fast food is under a different angle. It shows the gradual change in culture. Two decades ago, we hardly had any fast food places. Then the local foods, like dosa and porotta came in fast food avatar. Now, it is the time of other cuisines, like fried chicken, shawarma, pizza etc. Locals regularly eat them. Isn't it very relevant to mention this change at the culture section?
- IMO, there is a wide grey area between tourism/travel and culture, because much of tourism is about culture only. If you take extreme views, one can't even mention about places of interest, because they too are tourism/travel.
- Please suggest re-phrasing if needed, but my take is that the food scene is part of the culture, and should find a place on the page.
- DileepKS(talk) 11:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think you got me wrong. Sorry, if my message was not clear enough. I did not say that stating the food culture should be removed. My intention was to point out the [ statements entered by you. The statements sound like a blog entry. I need not suggest a re-phrasing, you are capable of doing that. Please go ahead. Cheers, -- Aarem (Talk) 02:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Fine. What about this?
The cuisine at Kochi is in general the Keralite Cuisine, which is characterized by the abundance of coconut and spices. Interaction with other cultures, both from the rest of India as well as international, had its influence upon the cuisine. Chinese and North Indian dishes find the same prominence as the Keralite cuisine at restaurants. A number of restaurants also serve various international cuisines, such as Italian, French, Mexican, Thai etc. Being close to the ocean and the backwaters, seafood forms a prominent part in the cuisine. A service known as You Buy, We Cook is available at the waterfront of Fort Kochi, where the fresh seafood purchased from the nets is cooked as per the customers needs. Fastfood culture is also very prominent in the city. Fastfood versions of traditional dishes like dosas and parathas are widely available. Arabian food joints that serve Shawarma and roasted chicken are a new addition to the fast food scene in the city.
DileepKS(talk) 03:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- May I know whether the Italian, French, Mexican, Thai, etc are a part of general cuisine of Kochi? Being in Kochi, I didn't know that these are part of normal cuisines. All cities have these kind of restaurants, but all these stuffs will not get included when we talk about cuisine of the city. This sounds snobbish (verum pongacham) and childish.
- If you still insist in adding these, then please add Chinese, Korean, Pakistani, Srilankan, etc. Because, some restaurants in star hotels serve these food also.
- I agree to add the You Buy, We Cook service. You should also add Kundan's thattu kada in Fort Kochi and many other parts in Kochi, which is very famous. It is also a part of the food culture of Fort Kochi. It is not just the tourists who enjoy it. Many people I know used to eat there whenever they visit Fort Kochi (may be you too). It is something unique to the place, and as Fort Kochi as the Cheena Valas and as You Buy services.
- There is another service in Marine Drive area known as Vayil Ulathiyathu (Food prepared directly from farms).
- You should also mention about "We give, you Taste" in Kaloor. This is very very prominent one, and I have seen Kochi crowds queuing up for this service.
- There are many more which could be included in the cuisine section; You buy we cook is not the only one.
- Apart from adding Shawarma and Roasted chicken, please add Ulli theeyal, Kaa varuthathu, and Undan pori also.
--59.98.82.136 (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear IP user 59.98.82.136 Wikipedia is NOT a FORUM to have a general discussion. If you want your arguments to be considered, please sign in under a username, and make the arguments in a civil and rational manner.
DileepKS(talk) 06:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no rule here that only registered users are allowed to edit or discuss. The statement from you above is as if you are the founder of wikipedia. I prefer not to login using any user name, and i may still edit the articles. If you can show me any rule in wiki that I cannot edit with anonymous IPs, I will stop contributing to wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.248 (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Of course you can contribute with IP, but if you want to hold a continued meaningful discussion on the talk page, there should be some continuity of the source. A dynamic IP that changes from post to post makes it very bad to hold a meaningful discussion.
- DileepKS(talk) 02:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Towns to be mentioned in the NH Table
An IP Editor is inserting Kodungalloor and Ponnani in the table entry for NH-17. The comment given in the edit summary is not clear. Already a couple of reverts happened, so I am opening the talk here to try resolve it.
It is the article of Kochi. NOT an article on NH-17, so you don't need detailed driving directions kind of information on the article. Only big/important towns are listed there. Avoiding driving confusion (that is what I could understand from the edit summary) is NOT a priority here, hence Kodungalloor and Ponnani is not needed there.
The IP Editor may please respond here. Meanwhile I am removing the edit, based on WP:BRD principle.
DileepKS(talk) 10:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Dileep,
I noticed the edit war going on around these two towns. While I partly share your opinion on the criteria to add towns to the list. Adding Kodungallur and Ponnani is not harming anyone. Strictly speaking we only need mention that NH-17 and NH-47 pass through Kochi with hyperlinks to the respective highway's article. If the edit war is not resolved, I suggest the table removed. rams81 (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
@Ram & the identity-less IP editor (59.x.x.x) - As the editor who put in that NH table on the Kochi page, let me request you not to blindly and blatantly wreck that useful piece of information. This is the Kochi city page and that table is talking about National Highways that either start/end or pass through the city and the major towns and cities that the corresponding NH passes through. If we go by your logic (both Ram & 59.x), we may have to add every town in Konkan, Goa, TN etc which are of the same importance and size of Ponnani and Kodungaloor. Excuse my spelling mistakes, if any. I suggest that only the importance cities and towns be retained in that table. The average visitor to Wiki should be able to gather information at one quick glance. Having 100s of towns in that table would not help the visitor that way. No, Ram - the table cannot be removed as you have requested above. We would rather remove those two UNIMPORTANT TOWNS than remove an useful piece of information. Also, please do not call this an EDIT war. It is one-sided Vandalism by 59.x. Thanks for your time - MountainWhiskey - talk 16:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- @ Mountainwhiskey
Ok. Please explain me how you define the criteria for "Important Town". rams81 (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- @Ram - I would ideally look at comparing the two towns you have mentioned to those like Kannur, Mangalore, Panaji etc. If you look at the cities mentioned in the table, only the MOST important cities or towns have been mentioned. The whole idea is to give the visitor an idea as to how Kochi connects to Panvel through the NH17. It is all about giving the visitor a sense of direction and is not an attempt to promote a particular city or town. The most commonly used route to Kozhikode from Kochi is through NH17 and I do not see a need to mention every small town that lies on the route, which would also mean a very lengthy and detailed table. The Wikilink to NH17 is given in the table and if a visitor so wishes, s/he can visit the Wiki page for NH17 and gather more information about the towns that lie on the NH17. Hope this clarifies - Cheers! - MountainWhiskey - talk 18:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- @ MW,
My point is as you have answered yourself, ("The Wikilink to NH17 is given in the table and if a visitor so wishes, s/he can visit the Wiki page for NH17 and gather more information about the towns that lie on the NH17.") it is enough to give the Highway number with a link to its article. The person will look into it if he finds it relevant. There is no point in having a table and then fighting over which city to add and which to delete.
Based on your own argument, I don't see any popular route to Kannur or Mangalore from Kochi other than through, so why give Kozhikode and Kannur?
The whole idea is to bring this article to a level of readability instead of clustering it with all sorts of information. If you remember it WAS a featured article some months back. rams81 (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Rams, vandalism is more of an attitude, than the action. Look at the history of this IP editor (Different but very similar IPs). First he added Ponnani. When that was deleted, he added Guruvayoor, which is not even on the NH. Then he posted something about the Cuisine. If you know the slangs in Malayalam, you will know the underlying meanings on that post. Then he went on the flip-flop of edit/revert, ignoring the invitation to Talk. Clearly, his intentions are not the well being of the article.
- IMHO, you did a disservice to the page by supporting him and reinstating his edit. You are a very senior editor, and I respect your intentions. But, I am sure you would agree that this would set a precedence and let people add a big list of towns.
- Back to the subject, I don't think just having the NH number, and linking to its page is enough to serve the purpose. Remember that it is about the connectivity of the city. It only makes sense to provide a general sense of the connectivity by providing the end points (required) and if the highway is long (like the NH 17 is) to provide a list of important towns that it connects (desired). The importance of the town should be considered from the angle of the city itself.
- The reason given by the editor is verbatim Ponnani from Malappuram is also needed since there is a confusion of SH-69 & NH-17 passing through Malappuram Dist from Kuttipuram/Edappal.. Is that a valid reason for inclusion on a city page? And you seemed to support that stance by reinstating that edit. I am sorry to say, but you aren't helping by that.
- I hear often about the past FA status on this page. Do you really believe supporting this kind of edits would further that cause?
DileepKS(talk) 01:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Just so that all of you who are part of this discussion are aware - there are several IP users trying to vandalize the page which could lead to a page lockout - the IPs worth noting start with 59.98.8x.xx (Kozhikode) and 124.247.212.239 (Pune). Pls ignore them as far as you can because their intentions are purely of a vandal nature and are not here to contribute whatsoever. - MountainWhiskey - talk 10:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC) @MountainWhiskey.
- Don't under-estimate anybody if that person is NOT using an id.Don't feel that whatever you do is RIGHT and whatever others object you ropnion which is digestable to you is WRONG.Also,don't make any Blind conclusion that ALL REVERTS ARE VANDALISM.You are also doing the same,not only here but in some other pages too.
@DileepKS
- Hope you are NOT the moderator or admin of wiki as you do in KochiNow.You are free to HYPE you city there.You are one among other editors and the wiki rules are same to al editors including you.Thats all.
@Bijuts
- Don't show your arrogance.Njaan pidicha muyalinu kombu moonnu enna bhaavam.Thats not good.
@All others.
- I accept the point that this is a CITY PAGE.Then why is the necessity of the detailed description ie;the cities covered column especially in this page.A wikilink to the concerned NH is enough.Those who need to get the details shall only goto that page.
- The statements made by MW & DKS are funny.YES Bosses.There is a confusion in the nodes you mentioned here.Because the node at Kuttippuram deviates 90 deg to Ponnani.and passes through Chavakkad,Kodungallur etc.
- You made it as Kochi just after Kozhikode.This is WRONG.One who travel this route clearly knows that.Your table simply makes confusion.Also you avoided a pont in Malappuram & Thrissur district.
- It seems you people want to put Kochi wherever you want.Why Kochi is to mention in the 3rd column.Its already there in "From" & "To" .It clearly shows you intention.
--59.98.80.89 (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- @ 59.98.80.xx - Yes, we are all supposedly from KOCHINOW and we want to promote Kochi. Aha, so what next? Do you have a solution to all the above so-called problems or are you here to create more problems? - MountainWhiskey - talk 18:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
@Mountainwhiskey, Dileeks and Bijuts: Thanks for openly admitting that you are all from a common forum for hyping Kochi. That falls under Meat Puppetry in wiki. And your intentions are similar to paid editing. Btw, it is not good to call others vandals to show your frustration. Infact, your efforts to glamourize the city page are problematic. When I went through the discussion, I feel what IP 59.x is correct. My suggestion is to move the distance chart in transport section to the Transport subsection. None of the other city pages are having those kind of format. --Samaleks (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)