Talk:Kerala/Archive 5

Jews Arrived - period mismatch
In the intro it says jews arrived in 1st century AD and in the history it says they came in 573 BC. mixdev (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Image
Please undo the images done by me!! thankyou  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.185.75 (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

കേരളം or േകരളം
Copied from Talk:Kerala/Archive01 :
 * േകരളം - is correct, even though it looks better than കേരളം on some computers.
 * കേരളം - is not correct, but if you see this incorrectly on your computer, please read ml:Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers to know how to enable east asian font viewing in your computer. -Bijee
 * -- Saravask 19:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Does it matters whether my computer lacks east asian font support? The objective of this page is to provide information to mostly first-time visitors, who are unlikely to have such support enabled. I see it as 'karelam' on firefox1.5.
 * The thing here, is that you are seeing it incorrectly due to your computer's inability to display unicode characters properly. If you are on windows XP SP2, it should display correctly on Internet Explorer. -- thunderboltza.k.a.D e epu Joseph14:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Deepujoseph took the words right out of my mouth. Saravask 00:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:COMPLEX. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Kerala can not be the most densely populated state in India
For sure it is Delhi, and even if Delhi is not taken into account, the tag should go to either W. Bengal or Bihar (after bifurcation). There are many more reliables sources than good old Britannica as far as Indian affairs go.--vin (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This list in Wikipedia says that Kerala ranks third after West Bengal and Bihar. The article however does not specify which data was used to create the list. Docku (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Official census data says that Kerala is third. Mkeranat (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact West Bengal is the most denssely populated State since Delhi is not considered as a State. Delhi is still not an independent state, Delhi is a Union Territory. So Most densely populated States are: 1. West Bengal 2. Bihar 3. Kerala —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.211.187.107 (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

HINDUISM
At the onset let me congratulate you for your earnest effort at enriching the article on KERALA. However, I am afraid, the section I took the liberty to erase, is not within the scope of this particular article. Nonetheless, it is well within your rights to create an article on "Hinduism in Kerala", or something along the same line.--vin (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Its not up to you to decide what belongs in the article. The material added is COMPLETELY REFERENCED! - meaning you can't touch it! - Sapna —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * @Sapna, i feel the article "hinduism in kerala" should have been kept as a section or sub-section in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhil121 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Intro revert war
We need to discuss the reason for Bharatveer's revert here, in a timely fashion. Saravask (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Saravask, Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable. "Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed. Headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user." Please change the heading accordingly.-Bharatveer (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * To repeat: Bharatveer, explain why promotional cruft, style errors, factoid bloat, and straight repetition of infobox stuff is a good way to introduce a FA. Or do you object to something else? Thanks. Saravask (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Kerala (['keːɹəˌɭɐ] (help·info); Malayalam: കേരളം?; Kēraḷaṁ) is an Arabian Sea state on the Malabar Coast of southwestern India. Do you think this is correct??-Bharatveer (talk) 11:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please explain what you mean by "promotional cruft" & "factoid bloat"??-Bharatveer (talk) 11:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

BV: Do you think this is correct??
 * Yes.

BV: Please explain what you mean by "promotional cruft" & "factoid bloat"??
 * WP:UNDUE Wikitravel-style tourist-magazine self-promotion in the first paragraph.
 * Remorseless eye-rolling textual rehash of stats found infoboxed a few cm to the right.

Read WP:LS and WP:NOT. Peace. Saravask (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * BV, clarify what is not "correct" or I'll restore the rewrite. Thanks. Saravask (talk) 06:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not heard of an "Arabian sea state" before. If you are sure, you can restore it.-Bharatveer (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted. Anything else you object to? Saravask (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey!. Have we lost the plot here? I have tidied the intro what I think is an encyclopedic form -- no POV, no travelogue, and certainly tighter writing. Hope this helps. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 06:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It most certainly does. Thank you both for your work. Saravask (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Dubious
The following statement:

According to a 2005-2006 national survey, Kerala has one of the highest literacy rates (89.9%) among Indian states is referenced with a source from. I've gone through the cited reference and can find no information regarding this statement apart from education levels which are states as being:

(All figures are in percentages)

I suggest that we remove the current citation and find better sources. Also, a survey conducted on 3k+ households does not exactly fully represent the entire state. This can indicate a trend, but not the literacy rate of the state itself. Thoughts, opinions, welcome. aJCfreak y A k 07:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The percentage is there in second page but not the statement.  Docku:  What up?  07:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I concede that 89.9 % is listed in the reference as being the literate populace above 6 years of age. However, I still have the following concerns:


 * 1) Source for stating that it is one of the highest in India
 * 2) A better source for the literacy rate than a sample survey of 3k+ households.


 * That's all I'm asking. aJCfreak  y A k 07:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Found it. 80.039% literate. I'll wait a few days to see if anyone has concerns regarding this. If no concerns arise, I'll make the edit in the main article to reflect this more reliable source. aJCfreak  y A <b style="color:#FF6600;">k</b> 07:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

2001 census says Kerala's overall literacy is 90.9 (http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_data_finder/C_Series/Literacy_rate.htm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.107.2.20 (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Have a look at the bar chart here. Apparently, the chart is uploaded by user:P.K.Niyogi. Also, there is a source available here. It quite unequivocally states that "Kerala, which has the highest literacy rate of 90.92 per cent, occupies the top slot in both male and female literacy, at 94.20 and 87.86 per cent respectively." Salih  ( talk ) 15:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Seriously. Are you saying that the census data of the GoI is unreliable or non-factual? Check the source I've posted earlier. The census data for 2001 points to an 80.039% literacy in the state. Looking at the census data from '91 (86.x%), we might even have to mention that the literacy rate is falling, like how the population growth rate has been discussed.


 * Also, the statement at is unclear about the source. It mentions that the data is from the census, but as the census figures go  - the statement is incorrect. Hence, this would have to be treated as an unreliable source.  a<b style="color:#FF0000;">JC</b>freak  <b style="color:#CC66FF;">y</b> A <b style="color:#FF6600;">k</b> 15:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How about this ? Please see the bottom of the file. The source is indicated as "Office of the Registrar General, India." The document belongs to Ministry of Finance Govt. of India. You want this source also to be discounted as unreliable source? Salih  ( talk ) 15:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly speaking, unless someone explains as to why the 2001 census figures vary across 3 different govt-related sources/links (the three sources I'm referring to are - 80.039%, 90.86%, 90.92%) I'd say we do not have any agreeable, verifiable data and would have to wait to find sources that are certainly more reliable. This is not just some random article. This is an FA. Standards need to be strict and very high, don't they? Anyways, just outta curiosity, how are you getting these links to the PDFs? I'm just interested. Cheerio. a<b style="color:#FF0000;">JC</b>freak  <b style="color:#CC66FF;">y</b> A <b style="color:#FF6600;">k</b> 03:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The difference in figures might be due to the way it has been calculated. The figures mentioned here could be based on the total population of the state. Whereas, the percentage of literate mentioned here and here could have been calculated by excluding children below certain age which is more logical.

Also, html files may not have a printed version. On the other hand, pdf files are normally a part of printed documents and hence more reliable. In any case, all the documents show that Kerala has the highest literacy rate. There should not be any ambiguity in that.

I got those pdf sources by googling only. I really had to dig it out. Salih ( talk ) 15:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hope there are no further objections. I am removing the tag.  Salih  ( talk ) 14:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been reading about Kerala for 50 years (though I'm a New Yorker and not Indian). It was always accepted that Kerala has the highest literacy rate in India.  I don't think this statement is dubious; it's only the sourcing that was giving trouble.  I'm glad to see this settled -- thank you. Zaslav (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

KOCHI IS LARGEST CITY IN KERALA WITHOUT ANY DOUBT: How come trivandrum is largest city in Kerala. Only recoreds show it as so. But fact is something else. We can't beleive it. Also details in gazette world is wrong about Kochi. It shows Kochi population as 236000 or so as on census 2001. It is rubbish. It is shown in link number 41 near the quote which mentions Trivandrum as largest city. Any one who visits both cities will know which is the largest city. Don't fool the people who visit wikipedia for useful information. Please update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivekkochi (talk • contribs) 07:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The principal spoken language is Malayalam but many other languages are also spoken.
No offence but this is an extremely misleading and vague statement especially the latter part of the sentence. Many other languages???? This is supposed to be an article providing definite information. "Many other languages" is a very vague definition... also if one insists on maintaining the second part of the sentence, please provide reference to back up the validity... it is very easy to make blanket statements with any basis whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavelierarati (talk • contribs) 18:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, i have made it like malayalam is the principal spoken lang; and thn acknoeledged tamil's presence too; didnt feel like kannada was substantial enough to be included.

Arjun (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nick name in the infobox
User:Kaiwhakahaere feels that the nick name "God's Own Country" used in the infobox, has to be removed. He says, "slogan is used by the tourism department, not officially by the state, so should not be in the state's infobox".

My opinion is : The nick name of a place need not be officially declared by the state. If it is used by the govt.Tourism department, it can be considered as a valid one. The places like Jaipur, Kochi, etc uses the nick name, eventhough it is not officially stated by the state government. How can a nick name be official, afterall?

Btw, the matter of whether the name "God's Own Country" shoud be used in the infobox of Kerala, can be decided upon a consensus from the editors.

I am restoring the nick name in the article for the time being. I believe that since it was already there, let it be there till a consensus is reached. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 04:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is about Kerala, not Kerala Tourism Department. When you can demonstrate with cites that the State of Kerala has officially adopted this slogan, then it can be restored. Until then it is an unreferenced POV that cannot survive in the article, and thus I am again removing it.. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Instead, in a cheap bid to promote tourism, the Seattle-King County Convention and Visitors Bureau ran a nickname-seeking contest in 1982. "The Emerald City" is now a widely used stand-in for "Seattle" and is shown in the Seattle infobox. No need to be too particular regarding these matters IMO. Saravask (talk)

Support the inclusion of God's Own Country as the nick name. User:Kaiwhakahaere asked for citations to prove that the Kerala government officially adopted this slogan. Just google, and you will find loads and loads of info. If you are so particular about Government sites only, try searching in the site www.kerala.gov.in. Its not even for the tourism that this slogan is used. It is now widely used even when describing the history in the government site: Check here. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 10:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I had a look. Can't find a cite anywhere there which shows that the State adopted the slogan rather than the Tourist Dept. However, there seems to be a common usage so go for it.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

'''It is not a nick name. Its a marketing slogan by the Tourism Department.'''

"God's own Country" is not the nick name of Kerala and it is not known or identified any where around the Globe under that alias. It was just a marketing slogan adopted by the Tourism Department of Kerala some two decades back and has already become a cliche due to its over use and abuse by the politicians as well as the media. There was an article raising this issue and calling it a 'cliche' in Manorama daily some years back.

And in no way is Kerala 'Gods own country' now. What is it that makes it the Gods own country? Kerala's natural beauty? I will just say that those who makes this a point of argument hasn't seen the world.

And there is no comparison for this with the title 'Pink City' for Jaipur. Eventhought that too was started as a marketing slogan for tourism purpose, Jaipur is now identified a the Pink City. But Kerala in not identified as 'Gods own country' anywhere. The tourists themselves undertand it as a advertising slogan, not as a title or as an alias.

And remember that this is an encyclopedia. Not a tourism web site.

So I am removing the line from the info box. But if still editors think it is a wrong move, then they may put it back, but may please provide an explanation.

Austria156 (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Economic Recession impact in Kerala economy
Hi all, its time to add details about the impact of global economic recession in Kerala. Lot of gulf malayalis are returning after losing their job. The remittance of foreign money to Kerala is now facing a low time. These things should be well framed and should be included in the article. The article lead itself says that the economy depends upon the foreign remittances, esp from the Gulf. --Samaleks (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Keralaputra
I saw the word "Keralaputra" mentioned in the Etymology section without an explanation of its significance. I added a few words to explain what it means and why it's mentioned there. If anyone can improve this, please do. Zaslav (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Names
I added some of the old names of cities to the introduction. Reasons: (1)  Many people know the cities by these names, and will understand them better. (2) They are still commonly used, as I gather from their Wikipedia articles (especially the talk pages) and from other sources. I hope other contributors will add more of this. Zaslav (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Bold text==History and Legends== Legend has no stand in history until proved. The legend of mahabali has to be removed and if wanted instituted as Legend seperately --Challiyan (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Section - Education
I've copy-edited this section, tidied up a few paragraphs, removed weasel words and corrected a few grammatical errors. Anyone who can provide citations for some facts given there may please do so. Thanks. ChrysalSnowlax (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Largest city of Kerala
This page claims that Trivandrum is the largest centre in Kerala, wheras as per 2001 census the largest deistrict is Trivandrum, but the most popolous urban area is Ernakulam. This is also backed up in the article: List_of_most_populous_metropolitan_areas_in_India. Kochi is 24 and Trivandrum is 42. This mismatch may be rectified at the earliest in this article. For authentic info from Govt of India Site refer http://www.censusindia.gov.in/population_finder/State_Master.aspx?State_Code=32 Sarvagyana guru (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of various sources available in the web, the best and most reliable is the www.censusindia.gov.in. Please look at the links I have provided. It puts the Trivandrum population at 744,983 and the Kochi (Ernakulam) population at 595,575. Salih  ( talk ) 18:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The link I mentioned above are Thiruvananthapuram and Ernakulam.

Sarvagyana guru, The List_of_most_populous_metropolitan_areas_in_India is about the urban agglomeration in India. The check out the populous cities see here : List of most populous cities in India. Also check here to see the populous South Indian cities: List of most populous cities in South India.
 * The area of Kochi city is 94.88 km² (37 sq mi)
 * Area of Thiruvananthapuram city is 141.74 km² (55 sq mi)

Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 04:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Kochi city population appr. 0.6 million (2001)
 * Thiruvananthapuram city Population appr. 0.75 million (2001)


 * Also, check here for the population break down for Kochi UA: Kochi metropolitan area -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 04:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

KOCHI IS LARGEST CITY IN KERALA WITHOUT ANY DOUBT: How come trivandrum is largest city in Kerala. Only recoreds show it as so. But fact is something else. We can't beleive it. Also details in gazette world is wrong about Kochi. It shows Kochi population as 236000 or so as on census 2001. It is rubbish. It is shown in link number 41 near the quote which mentions Trivandrum as largest city. Any one who visits both cities will know which is the largest city. Don't fool the people who visit wikipedia for useful information. Please update. — —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.64.195 (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We, in Wikipedia, go by records and sources; not by your visual feelings. Salih  ( talk ) 17:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I too feel Ernakulam-Kochi to be bigger, it has a bigger Rly Stn, bigger airport, more international banks, big harbour, more industries, refineries, shipyards etc. Most airlines connect Kochi with other cities but to Trivandrum, the flights are less. Anyhow as the Gov of India site gives various conflicting figures, I propose this issue be put in abeyance Sarvagyana guru (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

'''Is it numbers on govt papers that decide which city is the largest in Kerala? Isn't this debate too technical?'''

On this issue most of the respondants appear to be simply arguing for the city they hail from. And most of them use technical arguments for their claim.

Let us try to see the facts and let us try to say the truth.

In all the data quoted from Govt sources, either it be about the population of the city or rather about the total area, they all consider the area of the local governing bodies to determine the territorial limits of the city. That is what makes Tvm bigger that Kochi in the govt records and reports. But we KNOW that, that is not the fact.

The city of Kochi consists of the 'Corporation of Kochi', the adjoining Tripunithura Municipality, Thrikkakkara Panchayat and Kalamasserry Municipality. This is soon to include the adjoining panchayat areas of the Goshree Islands. That make Kochi undoubtedy the largest city in Kerala by area as well as by population.

Suggested Executive Actions, Reports and Proposals of both Central govt and state govt as well confirm this (if people out here still think numbers in govt papers should decide which city is the biggest). Here are a few samples:

Merging the Thrikkakkara Panchayat to the Cochin corporation had been decided by the GOK (before 2004), but has been frozen due to objection from the Election Commission on the grounds that a Panchayat cannot be converted directly to have Corporation status, but it has to be first converted to a Municipality and then serve a number of years in that status. The proposal first rejected before 2004 Elections is now under fresh consideration.

It was in year 2008 that the Central Government proposed forming the Kochi Metropolitan Region (in the like of Mumbai/Chennai or any other Metropolis in India) which will include all the above said regions. But the state govt is not responding positively to this, apparently due to two reasons. 1. The local self govts dominated by the left will lose its powers in this region. 2. The present bureaucrats will lose their powers (eg: District collector of EKM.)

But I have put all the above info for those who seems to cling on to govt papers for the decision.

I have a better suggestion. Just visit Kochi and Thiruvananthapuram and decide it for yourself.

Or else if what you still need is 'documentay' evidence, see any travel guide published out-side India or any Encyclopedia other than this.

Austria156 (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Kochi is the largest city without any doubt. It is common that records show a different picture.

For example; Bangalore has become the third largest city in India in records. In records it has overtaken Chennai in terms of population and area. Actual fact is that Bangalore in records means BBMP areas (greater bangalore). But in Chennai concept is different. Even if the chennai city has expanded a lot, and corporation area is still considered as the central business area. Other areas are considered as different districts or industrial suburbs. If you consider all the areas and form a greater chennai, then it is bigger than Bangalore.

Similar may the case of Kochi and trivandrum.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.99.227.254 (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Such explanations have no relevance here. Reliable third party sources report the size of the cities and we just record it here. - Spaceman  Spiff  14:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Justify the presence of this line in header
"Jewish immigrants arrived, and it is believed that St. Thomas the Apostle visited Kerala in the same century.[2]"

Usually, the lead paragraph is reserved for significant events that shaped the topic in question. How exactly is the immigration of a small Jewish community or the speculation about the visit of someone who might or might not have even existed more significant than the scores of local people who actually shaped the history of present day Kerala? This is a perfectly fine example of bias towards Western history and western point of view in Wikipedia. --Blacksun (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think, you've got a very valid point here. Will think about it and act. --Stopthenonsense (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have rewritten the lead section. It should be more neutral now. --Stopthenonsense (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please spare this FA your "rewriting"; you clearly lack the ability to write crisply and grammatically in standard Indian English. I've reverted your edits to protect the mental health of Wikipedia readers. You are free to try again once you've studied WP:MOS and perhaps Tony1's advice for improving writing skills. Much cruft has accumulated in the article (particularly under "Education"); please do not contribute *yet more*. It is a *big enough* job to continually strip it out. Thanks. Saravask (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have written in normal English. There is no issue with that. If you find errors, you are free to reword or correct them. I find your revert very disruptive. There is a clear lack of important content and factual errors like the Arabian sea in the first sentence. There is not a single mentioning of the important sea trade role of Kerala included. What kind of FA article can this be without these informations? I kindly request you to just correct my sentences by grammar or whatever you have a problem with my style. But don't delete the content. --Stopthenonsense (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Stopthenonsense, while your intentions are certainly noble, you really should proof read your edits some more. In your recent edit, you said In all its history Kerala's region played an important role as a maritime trade center of ancient South India.
 * That just doesnt make any sense. I really think it'd be best if you discussed with others before rewriting paragraphs on a FA.  You also are not citing references properly and the sloppy insertion of refs such as
 * plays a big part in demotion of FAs.  Corpx (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Religions
Better create a new article called "Religions of Kerala" and give only brief description in this article, this section is getting bigger and bigger and unwieldy Sarvagyana guru (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The link at Marthoma leads to an article about St Thomas, which is what Mar Thoma means. Is this supposed to be another Church distinct from the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic ones?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Religion - Census reports are not reliable. More than 50% of the SC/STs/OBCs are Christians according to surveys. The Christian population is somewhere around 50% and is the dominant religion in Kerala. Many more are discovering the gospel and the numbers are growing. Around 25% is Muslim, 15% Hindu and 10% Communist or Atheist. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In this section, it is written that "Kerala is relatively free from sectarianism compared to other States." I think this is completely false. If anything, Kerala is THE emerging CITADEL of sectarianism - as a hotbed of Hindutva , Islamic Fundamentalism , Catholic orthodoxy , Protestant jingoism and of course , Communist intolerance of religion itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.161.93 (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FAR
Ignorance triumphs. I've taken this devolved slab of crap off my watchlist, and cringe to know that my name is attached to it.

This egregious specimen must be listed at WP:FAR for (1) instability, and (2) terrible, turgid, ungrammatical, convoluted writing.

Saravask (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I too share the same concern and am going to boldly revert those edits which are not so constructive. Salih  ( talk ) 13:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've told you, that you may reword or correct things you don't like. I did request you to leave the significant content. Maybe you feel inferior now by seeing the important role of Kerala through the ages. This article is a "farce article".--Stopthenonsense (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Large-scale editing without following the WP:MOS is not very helpful. Salih  ( talk ) 13:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine, I will file a review request. --Stopthenonsense (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've requested full protection due to WP:3RR issues Corpx (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

nominated Kerala for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Stopthenonsense (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Messing up the intro
The following was in the intro before i edited;

Kolla Varsham or Malayalam Era founded by the Tharissapalli sasanam of 824AD is the official calender of Kerala.Faith in Christ founded in Kerala shore by Apostle Saint Thomas was planted deep inside five prominent Namboothiri communities in Kerala and Tharrissapalli Sasanam of 824 AD by Kollam king Stanu Ravi Guptan Namboothiri to Mar Abo who came from Assyria, acknowledged the orthodox Christian church as a independent religion outside vedic Hinduism.A Shaivite revival among the christian faith ful in the ninth century Led by the Shaivite scholar Manikkavacakar who was inspired by the doctrine of Advaita vedanta of Adi Shankara (literally, non-duality and is a monistic system of thought),clearly indicates the nature and background of the christian church in the early centuries

I have some points to make;

1) the entire info was kept without source.

2) The establishment of Kolla Varsham is something that the historians has not come to a consensus. so i added in the kerala pg a version given by the kerala govt website; using the tag "assumed".

3) the coming of Christianity to kerala is well suited to the Religion section and not the intro; and the mar Abo stroy is quite undocumented.(atlst when i googled!!)

4) "............ clearly indicates the nature and background of the christian church in the early centuries" ... well this is intro to kerala.

Pls see to it that the intro aint messed up. Well, any pushers; pls discuss in here before any reverts. Thanks and rgds. Arjun (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Keralite, Keralaite, Kerala-ite, whatever?
The first sentence here says "Several ancient ritualised arts are Keralite in origin". Keralite? Should that be "Kerala ite" (whether spelled as one word, two or hyphenated)? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say the word 'keralite' is popular enough to put it tht way Arjun (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. How is it pronounced? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * it spells pretty straight as it's written....i am ver very bad exprssin prncn :( .. i wld try like "kerala+ayt" Arjun (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case it should be spelled keralaite, or kerala-ite. Ite is a suffix meaning "native of". In this instance it means native of kerala, not native of keral. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well..yeah, i agree with you that it should be spelled "keralaite"; what i meant to say was that the spelling "keralite" is more in popular usage. Arjun (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect reference
However, the first verifiable migration of Jewish-Nasrani families to Kerala is of the arrival of Knanai Thoma in 345 AD. The reference is Mundadan AM (1984). Volume I: From the Beginning up to the Sixteenth Century (up to 1542). History of Christianity in India. Church History Association of India. Bangalore: Theological Publications.

This is a made up statement. No such reference is in the book. There are no evidence for any migration or for arrival of any coolony in 345 AD. EasoPothen (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Kerala is Sanskrit not Malayalam
Don't revert this anymore. --123asskicker (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have source for this, or the other content about Kerala being Aryanized that you added to the article ? The burden is on you to cite sources and establish consensus on the talk page before making disputed edits to the article. If you have such sources, we can discuss the issues here; if you continue edit-warring and POV pushing, you will be blocked. Abecedare (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * namboothiris are the Aryans. they gave all prominent cultural things to kerala from North India. many sources say so, and then Kerala itself is a Sanskrit name. Also Kerala emblem is in Sanskrit not Malayalam. The ruling class and culture of the Kerala people is Aryan, but the language of common people is not. In their language Keralam is the name and its not exactly the same as Sanskrit Kerala. There is also no clear meaning of Keralam in Malayalam. No proofs, that it's actually an indeginous term. By this lack of evidence, one can assume, that it's Aryan. And it's a Sanskrit name after all. Please stop destroying my well researched work here. --123asskicker (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you please cite sources (books, academic papers etc) to back up your claims ? Even with sources, we will need to phrase the claims neutrally and decide on how much weight they deserve in the article - but without sources there is nothing to discuss here. I have left a welcome message on your talk page, which links to wikipedia's core policies. i recommend that you read them before continuing this discussion - you also need to change your username to something less offensive. Abecedare (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It can not be Keral in Sanskrit, if it is from Sanskrit, then it should be pronounced Keralam. Whatever be the origin of word Kerala, there is no need to give the spelling in each and every language. In no way does it contribute to the article Sarvagyana guru (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

the first Communist government in the world to come to power through ballots.
Contrary to popular myth, the first Communist government in the world to come to power through ballots, was not in Kerala; but was in San Marino, 1945 (see ). I have removed all sentences to this regard. Since, the popularity of the above belief is making editors -though sans malice- to add Kerala as the first to do so; i just decided to make an entry to the talk page. Thanks. Arjun (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

BCE-CE Vs BC-AD
Since BC ("Before Christ") and AD ("Anno Domini", "In the year of the Lord") represent a Christian Point of View, i have replaced it with their secularized versions ie. BCE ("Before Common Era") and CE ("Common Era") in the entire length of this article keeping in tone with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Before any reverts to this pls discuss in here. Thanks. Arjun (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of images
This page was really good sometime back, now it seems to be bloated with content and images. I cannot find any discussion regarding the use of images. I am taking a little liberty here and rearranging the images with a view to make the page more readable and more encyclopedia-like rather than looking like an advertising campaign for tourism.

Any questions, comments, undos are welcome.

Shekure (talk) 09:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I just shifted some images to gallery. However, the article needs serious cleanup. Many images seems to be on a rotation. Please rethink the need of it. Select a few suitable images that represent each section and please remove the rest. And please, not more than one image of Munnar/Varkala/Kumarakom. This is not a travel page.


 * Do have a look at Karnataka page. It is a well-written and illustrated article


 * Shekure (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue here is that a lot of the images are really good. Hence, we will need some consensus to finalise the best pictures for each section. The rotation idea seemed good because we can include multiple images in the same location and hence avoid clutter. Jovianeye (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I do agree that many images are relevant, but I still believe it is better to leave out some. Rotation is good, but what is the purpose of rotating the images of Trivandrum & Cochin airports? Images should contribute to the article, and either image is good here, and we should finalise one. More images can be moved to secondary articles. Shekure (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect to the airport photos I think Cochin International Airport should be included because it handles more traffic and is more important. Jovianeye (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Kerala
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Kerala's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Logan":<ul> <li>From Pazhassi Raja: Logan</li> <li>From Portuguese India: Malabar manual by William Logan p.312 </li> <li>From Francisco de Almeida: Malabar manual by William Logan p.312</li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Section - Health
The section on health is incomplete without any reference to "mental health". The state of the mental health of the population is increasingly becoming a cause for concern. The suicide rate in Kerala is the highest among all the states in India; so is the level of consumption of anti-depressant drugs. The very high level of consumption of ethyl alcohol in different forms - again the per-capita consumption is the highest in the country - is believed to be one of the major causes for depression, suicides and the increasing cases of domestic violence, particularly among the low-income groups. The dependence of successive state governments on the revenue from the sale of alcohol as a major source of government revenue, has made governments hesitate in addressing this problem.
 * The content is important, but you need to cite references.NMKuttiady (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Source Cited for Literacy
Polygreen, Lydia. "Coconuts ripe for plucking in India- but few dare" San Jose Mercury Newspaper 3 January 2010 B Print

According to this newspaper article as cited above using mla format, kerala is a unique and different state, having approximately 100 percent literacy rate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.232.223 (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Name
The word "Kerala" is an adjective. Example: Kerala Culture; Kerala Cuisine, etc. The true name is KERALAM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathcheru (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Page protection
I think this page needs semi page protection. There is a long list of Vandalism on the history Page.  BINOY  Talk 09:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not "Kerala", it is "Keralam"
The name of the sate is actually Keralam(കേരളം) and should be spelled so. What I see here is the title is set as "Kerala" and redirection is given for "Keralam". This should be done in the other way round. Page title should be "Keralam" and redirection can be given to "Kerala". W.a.r.F.o.x ( talk  &#124;  contribs) 02:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by WarFox (talk • contribs)
 * In the official language used by government the name of state is described as "kerala". I think the kerala is more popular among non-native people. The phonetic representation showed in the very first line will explain how it is called by native people

Nikhilkrgvr (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Education Needs clean up?
The section education is too long and (I think) need to display only major institutions instead of sections about each districts. a main article Education in Kerala link will serve the rest. Nikhilkrgvr (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I had removed excessive contents and replaced with a small summery the removed contents are pasted here. Thiruvananthapuram is one of the state's major academic hubs and hosts the University of Kerala and several professional education colleges including fifteen engineering colleges, three medical colleges including Trivandrum Medical College, three Ayurveda colleges, two colleges of homeopathy, six other medical colleges, and several law colleges. The College of Engineering, Trivandrum is one the prominent engineering institutions in the state. The Asian School of Business and IIITM-K are two of the premier management study institutions in the city, both situated inside Technopark. The Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology (IIST), the first of its kind in India, and the Indian Institute of Science, Education and Research (IISER) are also situated here.

Other research centres in Thiruvananthapuram include Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology, Sree Chitra Thirunal Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology (SCTIMST), Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute, Kerala Fisheries Research Institute, ER&DC – CDAC, Kerala Highway Research Institute, CSIR – National Institute of Interdisciplinary Science and Technology, Free Software Foundation India (FSF/I), Centre for Earth Science Studies (CESS), Central Tuber Crops Research Institute (CTCRI) and The Oriental Research Institute & Manuscripts Library.

Kozhikode is home to two of the premier educational institutions of national importance: the IIMK, one of the seven Indian Institutes of Management, and the National Institute of Technology Calicut (NITC). In addition, Kozhikode also houses the Calicut Medical College and a Govt. Engineering College.

Kochi is home to Cochin University of Science and Technology, another prominent engineering college. The National University of Advanced Legal Studies and Government Law College at Ernakulam are the centres of Law Education. Educational centres for oceanic studies such as Central Institute of Fisheries Nautical and Engineering Training and the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute are also based here. Centre of Excellence in Lasers and Optoelectronic Sciences functions here under CUSAT. Nikhilkrgvr (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work! --Logical Thinker: talk 15:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The education section may miss names of some notable institutions. Look for them Nikhilkrgvr (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Subdivisions contain matter which belongs to other sections
subdivisions section contains matter which are redundant or belongs to other sections these are removed from there and pasted below

Thiruvananthapuram (Trivandrum) is the state capital and most populous city. Kochi is the most populous urban agglomeration and the major port city in Kerala. Kozhikode, Kollam, Thrissur, Palakkad and Kannur are the other major commercial centers of the state. Kannur district is the most urbanised district in Kerala, with more than 50% of its residents living in urban areas. The High Court of Kerala is located at Ernakulam. Kerala's districts, which serve as the administrative regions for taxation purposes, are further subdivided into 63 taluks; these have fiscal and administrative powers over settlements within their borders, including maintenance of local land records. Nikhilkrgvr (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Kerala is bordered by Lakshadweep Sea, not Arabian sea
Kerala is bordered by Lakshadweep Sea, not Arabian sea - the opposite is a popular misconception stemmed from treating Lak sea as a part of Arabian sea or simply ignoring its existence (AFAIK). I have corrected this a lot of times, but gets reverted blindly reverted (Note:the footer notes were not removed, which i added last time i corrected so that editors are reassured). Regular editors pls take a note of this. If (you think) i am wrong, pls discuss in this thread. the footer note is copy-pasted below. Thanks.


 * The International Hydrographic Organisation defines the border between Lakshadweep Sea and Arabian sea by a line running from Sadashivgad Lt. on West Coast of India (14.8°N, 74.11667°W) to Corah Divh (13.7°N, 72.16667°W) and thence down the West side of the Lakshadweep and Maldive Archipelagos to the most Southerly point of Addu Atoll in the Maldives.

 Arjun  codename024 06:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Very interesting point!. I took some time to research this.


 * The official boarders of the state are what appear in the maps published by the Surveyor General of India. The maps DOES call the sea Lakshadweep Sea. So, that is the correct information.


 * However, a lot of government documents still call Arabian Sea. I suggest to add the point right in the text itself so that future edits have ready and obvious reference.

DileepKS(talk) 08:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the superscript [note] will definitely meet the eye. But, casual vandalism is an issue - people would think they are correcting a mistake. Plus, DileepKS - it would be good if you can bring in a reference from your source of Surveyor General of India.  Arjun  codename024  17:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The school atlas published by reputed publishing houses (I referred to Macmillan) is a traceable source to SOI maps. Unfortunately, none of the online maps are approved by SOI, since it actually violates the (draconian) map laws of the country.

DileepKS(talk) 02:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Although it is accurate to say that Lakshadweep Sea borders Kerala, in a bigger context it is the reference to the Arabian Sea which is popular. Kochi is called the Queen of Arabian Sea in this context. Hence, it is better to retain the reference based on Arabian Sea also. The sentence could be split and re-written as " ... bordered by Karnataka to the north and northeast, Tamil Nadu to the south and southeast. Lakshadweep sea, which is part of Arabian sea lies on the west coast of the state." This may stop future (ignorant) reverts also.
 * Cheers, -- Aarem (Talk) 10:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If Lakshadweep sea is part of Arabian sea (if it's so and given ample proof could be given), the note needs to be modified (if its needed) before the main article is modified like Aarem said.  Arjun  codename024 16:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedia Britannica says about :
 * Arabian Sea : "Arabian Sea, Northwestern part of the Indian Ocean, lying between India and the Arabian Peninsula."
 * Lakshadweep : ".. of some three dozen islands scattered over 30,000 square miles (78,000 square km) of the Arabian Sea off the southwestern coast of India."
 * Kerala : "It lies on the Arabian Sea, is bordered by Karnataka and Tamil Nadu states, and surrounds the coastal enclave of Mahe."
 * Laccadive sea is shown as a part of Arabian Sea in Worldatlas.com : Check here
 * The official site of Gov.of India states that : "Between the Western Ghats and the Arabian Sea lies a narrow coastal strip"
 * Also, please check what Gov.of Kerala says about the geographical boundaries : "Kerala lies along the coastline, to the extreme south west of the Indian peninsula, flanked by the Arabian Sea on the west and the mountains of the Western Ghats on the east."
 * Even though the 1953 IHO publication defines Laccadive sea seperate from Arabian sea, Government of India publications are not stating so. Cheers, -- Aarem (Talk) 12:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It may be technically correct to say that Lakshadweep Sea borders Kerala, but Wikipedia is not about technical correctness or absolute truths, it is all about verifiability, notability, and reliable sources. In this case, since an overwhelming number of reliable sources (Arabian Sea, Lakshadweep Sea) including the Government websites, Encyclopedia Britannica, school textbooks published by CBSE, and other published materials state that Kerala is bordered by Arabian Sea, I think, it is not wise on our part to leave out that information. Salih  ( talk ) 13:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The relevance of matter Christianity in India in SEE ALSO
Christianity in India i think not required in see also on a page briefing about Kerala.Also following the same line, if somebody add Hinduism in Kerala, its also cannot be justified.We can argue relating to strong bonds of Christianity in India with Kerala ,but if we think impartially we can indentify the matter presented is more suitable for an India based topic.I request all editors to take this in true spirit based on the ethics and principles of wikipedia and in general.I am not removing it because i like to know  the consent and approval of all other valuable editors. Shankarr1977 (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Use of the adjective Commercial Capital
There had been a flurry of activity on the term Commercial Capital in connection with the city of Kochi, but no one has opened a discussion. So, here goes:

There are two distinct questions here..

1. Does the adjective "Commercial Capital of Kerala" needed a place on the article of Kochi? 2. Does a mention of the above needed a place on the article of Kerala

The adjective of Commercial Capital is attached to Kochi for a long time. There are a number of sources for this, including the vishva vijnana kosham encyclopedia. (See Vol 1, article on Ernakulam). There are official sources, like the Kerala Development Report by the Planning Commission of India, page 447. A simple web search will yield a number of other documents including govt sources. So, it is an irrefutable fact that the adjective is in wide use.

There is precedent of using this adjective on the pages of other states. Gujarat have mention of both Surat and Ahmedabad as commercial capital. Madhya Pradesh have Indore mentioned. Cuttack and Kanpur also claim the distinction on their pages.

So, there is no justification in objecting the mention of the fact on the Kochi and Kerala pages. It can not be disposed as POV pushing.

To sum up:

1. The term "Commercial Capital of Kerala" is a widely recognized adjective for Kochi. 2. There is precedent that the adjective is used on Wiki pages.

Hence, it must be added to the pages of Kochi and Kerala.

DileepKS(talk) 03:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I was expecting the MEATof Bijuts and Mountainwhiskey to pitch in soon, for Kochi boosting and glorifying. I was sure that once the page is semi-protected, you will come out of the shell of anonymous IPs.
 * Officially there is nothing called Commercial Capital for a state. And nothing similar is given in Kerala Government websites in their "About Kerala" pages. If you insists on adding "Kochi is the commercial capital of the state", the same has to go with
 * "Thrissur is the Cultural Capital of the state",
 * "Kottayam is the letter capital of the state",
 * "Trivandrum is the knowledge hub of the state", etc
 * But, these details cannot be included here. So, please stop your Kochi glorification in wikipedia. From your contributions, it is evident that you are here in wiki with only one agenda - Glorification of your city. I request you and your MEAT PUPPETS to refrain from edit-wars. Please do not take this discussion continuing forever (as DileepKS always do). Please think rationally and adhere to Neutral POV. Thank you, Samaleks (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As usual, Mr. Samaleks has come up with the ONLY ARGUMENT he has against any discussion point, ie bias. Do you have any real refutals to the points made, sir?

Yes, discussions get prolonged as long as you do not provide refutals, other than alleging bias. Bring your arguments forth, sir.

DileepKS(talk) 11:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Read my reply again, you will find points. --Samaleks (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I get two points from your post.

1. Officially, there is nothing called Commercial Capital of a state.


 * Sure, but it is widely used by a number of cities, and present in wikipedia articles. Good enough precedent here.

2. You will have to add such other adjectives of other cities


 * Sure, as long as it is widely used, and reference for the same available. It is not your call to say such details can not be included here. If they are valid and notable, sure they could be.

DileepKS(talk) 12:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As usual, i am here to fight against biased - organized vandals, and their captain is going to continue this discussion for ever. And ever.......

Dear DileepKS, its, not so important to add that in Kerala page because of "it is referred so". It is not official. ie, it's only like a Nick name like "Queen of the Arabian sea". Apart from other states, Kerala cities has this kind of terms like Thiruvananthauram - "Educational hub of Kerala", Trissur - "Cultural capital of Kerala", Kottayam - "Akshara Nagari" (City of Letters), Kannur - "The Land of Looms and Lores", etc. There is no need to add all these into this article. Many of these have valid references and are widely used.

For example, Thrissur is known as the "Cultural capital of Kerala". It is widely used and has so many references and even we studied that from school.

Your questions..

1. Does the adjective "Commercial Capital of Kerala" needed a place on the article of Kochi?

2. Does a mention of the above needed a place on the article of Kerala

Answers

1. Does the adjective "Commercial Capital of Kerala" needed a place on the article of Kochi?

Yes, it's surely needed. Like Trissur page uses "Trissur is known as the Cultural capital of Kerala", Kochi page should be mention it as, Kochi is known as the Commercial Capital of Kerala or Kochi is mentioned as the Commercial Capital of Kerala.

2. Does a mention of the above needed a place on the article of Kerala?

No need in a state like Kerala which has so many cities with almost same importance and population and also have so many widely used terms like this.

And you said, ''As long as it is widely used, and reference for the same available. It is not your call to say such details can not be included here. If they are valid and notable, sure they could be.''

I don't think so. Not every points with reference can be add here. That point is notable in the Kochi page. And has no importance in Kerala page. (Don't ask why, because it's mentioned above).

For example, Thiruvananthapuram is the capital of Kerala State. It's clearly referenced and it has importance. But it has no importance to be be added in the article India. Lower 4th. Tal K   08:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Lower Fourth, you really need to read WP:Vandalism and understand the meaning of the word in context of Wikipedia before you make allegations of vandalism. I am not doing anything different from what you, or other Trivandrum based editors do, except that I discuss sticking to etiquette and civility. Obviously I agree to rational arguments and work for concensus, while you guys always filibuster the discussions.


 * Commercial Capital is not simply a nickname. It is an important economic qualifier. From a state perspective, it is a very important piece of information, that is why the state pages of Gujarat and MP have it mentioned. Maybe the editors from their capital city are not so insecure to fight it.


 * Thanks for agreeing that it is relevant on Kochi page. Someone had been removing the information from the lead there. Do you mind putting that back in? Your word carries weight.


 * DileepKS(talk) 15:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The same is applicable to other titles such as "Cultural Capital of Kerala", "Letter Capital", etc. But, you are only here to push POV for Kochi. Also, the commercial capital is already existing in Kochi article. Take the discussion there, if you want to any change in Kochi article. Please do not carry forward this discussion forever, as you always do. Regarding Vandalism, please educate your MEAT Bijuts first. As seen from many of his revert, he is simply accusing other editors of vandalism (proof:,  ,  ,  ) Please educate your MEAT PUPPETS when you do wiki related discussions in KOCHINOW forum or SKYSCRAPERCITY forum. Also, please refrain from edit-wars through anonymous IPs, else you people might get blocked. Thanks, --Samaleks (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Samaleks, it is the umpteenth time you are bringing in baseless allegations. If you have a complaint to make, please do so at the appropriate forum. Editors will have their aligned POV, just like yourself and a bunch of Trivandrum based editors always do. It is not wikiquette to allege sock/meat puppetry when editors happen to have similar POVs, and that is the reason why I do not make that allegation upon you and your friends.


 * Do you agree that the adjective should be in the lead of Kochi article?


 * DileepKS(talk) 06:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Samaleks, you need not worry. I have the screen shots which proves that DileepKS69, Bijuts, Arunvarmaother, and Mountainwhiskey are meat puppets. Dileep, It is not just a baseless allegation. I have solid proof of Dileep congratulating Bijuts for his destructive and biased edits for boosting Kochi in wikipedia. I am also aware that all of you are from a common city forum called Kochinow and Skyscrapercity. They are here for glorifying their city, Kochi and pushing/advertising Kochi in all other articles. Regards, Regards, Sunil(talk)


 * Well, you are free to raise an investigation. What is preventing you?DileepKS(talk) 10:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

All should be neutral regarding all the articles. For eg: the adjective "Evergreen city of India" is used for Trivandrum, "Garden city and Pensioners paradise for Bangalore, "Manchester of India" for Coimbatore etc., in the INTRODUCTION itself. Why coming with arguments against Kochi only? My question is very simple. What is wrong with adding the term "Commercial Capital of Kerala" in the introdction of Kochi page?

Also see Surat and Gujarat pages in wiki.

--Bijuts (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is nothing included in Gujarat article saying Surat is the commercial capital. You may move this discussion to Kochi page, if you want. Sunil (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC).

Did you check? Because the current version [] does mention it. Please, be serious when making assertions. DileepKS(talk) 09:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You better check. I couldnt find any such sentence in the lead. Also, in the article, Ahmedabad is also claimed as the commercial capital. So is it Surat or Ahmedabad?

You need not compare a poorly written article with Kerala article. Kerala was a featured article until recently, and is well structured than Gujarat. Sunil (talk) 10:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Gujarat article does have both Ahmedabad and Surat mentioned as Commercial Capital. See Madhya Pradesh. It has the term in the lead. DileepKS(talk) 11:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Please move the discussion to Kochi talk page.

--Bijuts (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Some modifications.
I am not very well-versed with Wikipedia technicalities. I removed/modified the following text in the article. Reasons are given. Reverts, comments, suggestions are welcome. I plan to continue modifying the article. My command over English is not great

"Kerala is also known for its many small towns that are scattered across the state, thus creating a higher density of population." Not a very factual statement. And certainly not needed in intro.

"The spice trade between Kerala and much of the world was one of the main drivers of the world economy. For much of history, ports in Kerala such as Muziris were the busiest among all trade and travel routes in the history of the world." Main drivers of world economy? Busiest port?

"Contact with Europeans after the arrival of the Portuguese explorer Vasco Da Gama in 1498 gave way to struggles between colonial and native interests. " Modified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shekure (talk • contribs) 13:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Condensed this part, as there are no citations:

"The spices from Malabar coast may have landed initially at Gulf of Aden and they eventually were transported to the East African trading ports in and around the city known in Grecian-Roman literature as Rhapta. Merchants then moved the commodities northward along the coast. In Roman times, they traveled to Muza in Yemen and finally to Berenice in Egypt. From Egypt they made their way to all the markets of Europe and West Asia. The beginning of the trade is hinted at in Egyptian hieroglyphic inscriptions during the New Kingdom period about 3,600 years ago which with the kingdom of Punt to the south. Although the Egyptians knew of Punt long before this period, it was during the New Kingdom that we really start hearing of important trade missions to that country that included large cargoes of spices. Particularly noteworthy are the marvelous reliefs depicting the trade mission of Queen Hatshepsut of the 18th Dynasty."

Removed the photograph of Paliyam church: There are several such churches in Kerala believed to have been established by St. Thomas

Removed sub-headings: There were many of them. Dont think they are necessary. And they were not very appropriate too.

Shekure (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to make changes. But since you had not explained why did such a massive change to the article, I reverted your edits. You may go ahead and make the necessary changes with proper citations and by providing appropriate edit summaries. Prividing an edit summary is of utmost importance so that your edits may not be mistaken to be vandalism. Cheers and happy editing! &mdash; Abhishek Talk to me 10:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Railways
Some anonymus ips continously removing Aluva and Ernakulam Town railway stations from Railway section. As these stations are in "A" category in Southern Railway. Same time, minor stations like Kasargod, Kayamkulam, Alleppey, Kochuveli also inlcuded. Please provide reasons for removing ERN and AWY.

--Bijuts (talk) 05:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not an article on 'Railways in Kerala'. and so elaboration on Raliways is required in this article. The collection should not be the criterion for determining whether a station is major or minor here. The geographical location of stations is more important. It is enough to have Ernakulam to represent both North(Town) and South (Jn) and Aluva is not required. The list can be trimmed to have only 3-4 major stations, geographically and historically. A detailed information can be there in a separate article like 'Raliways in Kerala' or 'Railway stations in Kerala' and linked from this article. There we can have all details like classification of stations, passenger throughput, collection, trains stopping there, connected places etc. <span style="font-family:monotype corsiva; color:#2554c7; font-size:14px; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:1px; font-style: italic; background-color:#ffe87c; text-align:center; margin:0px;">Anish Viswa  07:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed...If so, why Kochuveli? It should be removed. Even it is the lowest in terms of revenue in major stations in Kerala. --Bijuts (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. I already told above, only 3-4 major stations required a mentioning here. Rest all can go to a separate article. Some people may argue for Kochuveli due to the list of trains operating from there. But that is not very important in 'Kerala' article. All those can come in a separate article dedicated to Raliways/Railway stations in kerala. <span style="font-family:monotype corsiva; color:#2554c7; font-size:14px; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:1px; font-style: italic; background-color:#ffe87c; text-align:center; margin:0px;">Anish Viswa  08:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Then dear Anish, Do it.... --Bijuts (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait for this ongoing discussion to conclude first. <span style="font-family:monotype corsiva; color:#2554c7; font-size:14px; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:1px; font-style: italic; background-color:#ffe87c; text-align:center; margin:0px;">Anish Viswa  10:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Good to see that Bijuts is utilizing talk page and discussing matters. There is no need to include each and every railway station in the state here. It could be limited to a max of 5/8 stations, probably the important ones from each district/region. Cheers, Aarem (Talk) 02:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Keralan creation myths
On June 16 I removed a section titled "Mythological origins", an unattributed copy and paste from History of Kerala. An editor restored it. Since then, it has been repositioned (correctly, imho), re-edited somewhat, and retitled References in Hindu Scriptures; but it's still disproportionately long and over-detailed. This kind of duplication is not only unnecessary; it's against Wikipedia guidelines because the material's already addressed in depth (and thoroughly cited) elsewhere. This needs only the usual pointer and a brief summary, which should probably be no more than a single paragraph. Haploidavey (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right, the section could be briefly presented. I have now trimmed the section, please review. Cheers, Aarem (Talk) 03:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Aarem. I've trimmed still further, in general; but have also emphasised the ancestral links between the Pandiyans and Parasurama. The section's length and level of detail now seem proportionate to the article as a whole (imho) but please check (and amend if necessary). Best, Haploidavey (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate some constructive feedback on this change to the revised text. Here's my own, earlier summary to explain and justify a change of sequence. I feel the reader's better served by presentation of the material as a sequence commencing (as do so many founding myths) with mythic origins; there's a clear foundation narrative. I suggest that the historical sequence of the religious texts on which the narrative's based is of secondary importance. Just in case I've not made my meaning clear, please take a look at Wikipedia's treatment of similar foundation and origin narratives - such as Romulus and Remus, and Genesis creation narrative. Haploidavey (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * SumerianPrince and I are now having productive discussions on this small matter, here and here. Comments are still invited, of course. Haploidavey (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Good. If you could move the discussion from your talkpages to here, it would be helpful for others to track and pitch in. And please refrain from making further changes to the section until consensus is reached. Cheers, -- Aarem (Talk) 07:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. Haploidavey (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC) (copy and paste from user talk-pages begins:

My own edit summary should be evidence enough that I'm amenable to discussion and reasoned argument. You're entitled to disagree with edits but please, don't "shout" (in capital letters) at your fellow-editors. Haploidavey (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Further to the substance of this issue: I presented the material as a sequence commencing (as do so many founding myths) with mythic origins. My intent was to present the reader with a clear foundation narrative, in which the historical sequence of the religious texts is of secondary importance. Just in case I've not made my meaning clear, please take a look at Wikipedia's treatment of similar foundation and origin narratives - such as Romulus and Remus, and Genesis creation narrative. Haploidavey (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC) (I've copied the essentials of this comment at the article talk-page in the hope of constructive feedback and consensus)


 * Hello Dave, it was not my intention to shout at you, or anybody else for that matter. This article keeps changing its entire structure every now and then which is not often seen in many of the better articles. It is one thing to add or remove information, counter vandalism, argue points which are not "facts" etc. It is another thing to see entire subsections introduced here and there which I have often seen with this article. I am not even sure who made that edit that I disagreed with. And my 'shouting' was not directed at you or anybody in particular.


 * As for your analogies, I disagree that you could draw them with the Romulus-Remus story, or even the Genesis. Rome most certainly did not exist in any conceivable form whatsoever, before the two brothers, and while a she-wolf mothering them might be contentious, what is beyond any shade of doubt, is that Rome "began" certainly after c. 750 BC when the two brothers were born. I am not sure, but I think that Christianity holds there was nothing before the story of the Genesis. The Genesis is the very beginning afaik.


 * In the case of Hindu texts, that way, why do you not feel the "first" story should be mentioned first? The Parasurama story is not even a universal one in Hinduism but particular to Kerala. On the other hand, the MP, regardless of any conceivable version states the same thing (and I have added four 100% reliable references no less). Same with the Vamana-Mahabali story. The MP was eons (going by Hindu Cosmology/Timelines hundreds of millions of years before the Vamana-Mahabali story which in turn was ages before the Parasurama one.


 * I personally prefer to see things mentioned 'chronologically'. And I don't think that is against WIKI rules. The Parasurama legend is certainly not to this issue what the Romulus-Remus story is to Rome or the Genesis story is to Christianity. SumerianPrince (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your thoughtful response on my talk-page. So, in the same spirit; what to do? Given what you say, I must agree that my examples aren't strictly analogous; they were meant to provide examples of historiographically complex material presented as a clear narrative structure. Thing is, you've explained yourself clearly and have given valuable additional context on my talk-page. Most readers of the article itself will be no more aware of these implicit subtleties than I was; they really should be made explicit, clear and concise if the sequence you intend is to work for an interested reader with no foreknowledge of the topic. Plenty of those... anyway, I'd be happy to do make the necessary clarifications, based on what you've posted at my talk-page, unless of course you'd rather do it yourself. Haploidavey (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(copy and paste from user talk-pages ends. Haploidavey (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC))


 * Re-ordered section, with minimal (and probably adequate) change to content. Haploidavey (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the section needed? If so, where?
An editor removed the material entirely, on the grounds that no general article on Indian states has a comparable section. Another editor restored and amended the content relating to Parasurama. It now has first place under the "History section". I agree with the amended restoration, but its positioning seems somehow not right - the material's not straightforwardly historical; it's cultural and quasi-historical. If we're going to keep it (and I rather hope we do), where would it be best positioned? I'm seeking consensus on both issues. Haploidavey (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Based on my reasoning above, I've now moved the section. Any comments or objections here, please. Haploidavey (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mainstream history books normally touch the subject in a minor way at the beginning, because its a widely known tradition. A. Sreedhara Menon gives a little over a page at Page 11 in a total of 500 pages in "A Survey of Kerala History". Thats why I positioned it earlier on. Going by the chronological nature also, its a tradition about the origin, so probably fit enough to go to the beginning, with whatever importance it deserves. Perhaps a detailed description can be given in separate article for the tradition.NMKuttiady (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the relevant section in History of Kerala needs a deal of work but the sequence (and title - "Mythological origins") seems appropriate. This article however has a section on "Culture"; surely anything pertaining to religious beliefs and founder-traditions belongs there? We might simply expand that section. Haploidavey (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Roads in Kerala
Hi, National Highways which comes only 1% of length have more coverage in that section. Complete National highways are described in the section. Section doesn't give a lead to State highways or Major District roads --03:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The entire transport section should be improved. Waterways are not elaborated; and NH details are messy and sickening. Cheers, -- Aarem (Talk) 03:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * yes, the Highways section seems to have taken quite a few beatings. we all know how a good part of the kerala highway system is now of 4 and 6 lanes and of national standards. someone has been constantly removing references to six and four lanes simply because it does not point to his region of preference. sigh! - Amazer007 07:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazer007 (talk • contribs)

Education in Kerala
This section needs modification. there is no mention of new universities National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kerala University of Health Sciences,Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University,Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies and Central University of Kerala. The lead to the Education in Kerala is very less. Flagship programs like IT@School Project doesn't have any mention --naveenpf (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Economy Section
WITH REFERENCE TO: ''Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC), a major space research centre of the Indian Space Research Organisation(ISRO) is located in Thiruvananthapuram. A second missile making unit of BrahMos Aerospace Private Limited named BrahMos Aerospace Thiruvananthapuram Ltd is also located in Kerala.[101]''

Hi, Either all major industries/concerns in Kerala should be mentioned or none mentioned. Whoever has entered VSSC and ISRO has done a good thing but seems most likely trying to push or promote a particular region. seeking advice from Senior editors here as to whether this should be included in the first place considering that no other industries have been mentioned in the Economy section or whether a comprehensive list of Kerala industries should be put up there Amazer007 07:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazer007 (talk • contribs)

A comprehensive list is anyway not required or acceptable. We can have the major 4-5 based on its volume/turnover or its importance to the Economy o f Kerala. Geography should not be the criterion here. <span style="font-family:monotype corsiva; color:#2554c7; font-size:14px; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:1px; font-style: italic; background-color:#ffe87c; text-align:center; margin:0px;">Anish Viswa  07:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ^^^ I second that - Amazer007 08:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazer007 (talk • contribs)

Largest UA
Now this is one of the many disputes this article has. We have on one side some Trivandrum POV pushers and on the other side some Kochi POV pushers. It's time that this ends for good. Please remember that Kerala was formerly an FA. If such edit wars go and on, then it can never regain its FA status. Now the question is ''should the largest UA be mentioned in the infobox? Or is it sufficient to mention the largest city?'' It'd be of help if both and the IP opposed to him comment here. &mdash;    Abhishek    Talk to me 11:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Good move Abhishek.Actually this is because Kerala is an exceptional case in India. As you know, in most of the states in India have largest metro and city are same. But in Kerala largest metro aka UA and city are different. Largest metro is Kochi and city is Trivandrum. So it should be mentioned in the Infobox. Even our senior and respected editor Aarem had already restored these facts (See ) in this article. But some anonymus ips again reverted it.

--Bijuts (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to see you discussing here. As of now the article is protected per my request. Kerala is not the only state, even in Gujarat, the capital is Gandhinagar and largest metro Ahmedabad. Anyways you can't edit till 6th July. So let's keep this discussion on. &mdash;     Abhishek    Talk to me 13:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the largest city is also Kochi.Trivandrum is only the most populated city.Karyasthan Raman Nair (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Abhishek, Gujarat cannot be compared here. The largest city and largest UA in Gujarat is the same(Ahmedabad). Here, the largest city is Trivandrum(both in area and population); whereas the largest Urban Agglomeration is Kochi UA(which is a combination of Kochi city, and adjoining muncipalities & villages). The argument here is to include largest UA also in the infobox or not. There is nothing wrong in including largest UA also in the infobox. There are multiple issues with the article which needs to be addressed. I wish the editors could discuss and help to improve other sections also, rather than arguing for very narrow topics like this. Cheers, -- Aarem (Talk) 06:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Aarem, I have nothing against it's inclusion. In anyways we'll have to wait till 6th and probably request a semi to prevent the IP from vandalising the page. Cheers! &mdash;    Abhishek    Talk to me 06:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

HDI
The HDI seems exaggerated. It was actually around 80-85. Please provide source --173.168.199.172 (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Kerala in religious traditions
Why is there no mention of Syrian Orthodox Christians, who have been a very substantial minority -- 20-30% -- of the population since ancient times of what is now Kerala, converted by Syrians back in the days when that meant Christian, not Muslim. (Syria itself is down to 10% Christian.) Keralites are at least arguably among the nicest people in the world, though it's their indigenous culture, not their religion that makes them so: doesn't matter whether they are Hindu, Syrian Orthodox or Muslim. And those who are Syrian Orthodox are surely just about the nicest of all Christians in the world. And of course even Ethiopian friends -- of that same religion -- candidly profess the novel by the Keralite Abraham Verghese set in their country to be astonishingly moving and quite rightly a best-seller, set in the days when a great many of the highly qualified professionals in their country were Keralites, recruited by arrangement between Emperor Haile Selassie and Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. It might also be interesting to mention that one of the ten Biblically "lost" tribes of Israel wound up long before the year AD 1 in what, as I say, is now Kerala: they are nearly all gone now, only a very few still remaining in Trivandrum, not even enough now to fulfill the numbers required to hold religious services in a synagogue. Obviously of little modern significance, but nevertheless surely fascinating as history. I shouldn't insert such text, my experience and encounter being personal, not scholarly, but someone better qualified can doubtlessly do so, yes? Masalai (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)