Talk:Kolkata/Archive 1

Second City of Empire? I think Glasgow and Bristol might dispute that somewhat.

I strongly feel this should be at Calcutta, which is currently a disambig page. The only other use is a gambling game. A glance at "what links here" shows that virtually every use, if not every one, is referring to the city. I've never heard of it being called anything but "Calcutta". Tokerboy


 * Calcutta is the former name. Kolkota is the current proper (official) name, and generally cities countries, etc. whose names have recently changed are consitently listed under the new official name in Wikipedia - even if the former name is still better known.
 * Examples: Myanmar (Burma), Mumbai (Bombay), Iran (Persia), Sri Lanka (Ceylon). Mkweise 06:46 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)
 * Except for Mumbai, none of those are parallels. (If the article is at Mumbai, I don't think it should be)  The rule (see Naming conventions) is to put articles at the most common name unless disambiguation necessitates something else.  That doesn't apply here, ergo, it should be at Calcutta.  Burma, Sri Lanka and Myanmar are known as Myanmar, Iran and Sri Lanka by virtually everyone, I think -- they are by far more common than "Kolkota", which I've never heard of in spite of being pretty well-educated geographically. Tokerboy


 * The difference is that Kolkota and Mumbai officially changed their names a few years ago, whereas it's been a few decades for Sri Lanka and Iran.
 * Also, it wold be rude to refer to a country/city by its former colonial name after it has officially changed its name. Mkweise 07:26 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)
 * It may be rude, but that is the naming convention. Greenland is at Greenland and not Kalaalit Nunaat, in spite of that being the correct name, etc, etc, etc...  The wikipedia way is to keep articles at their least ambiguous name.  That is Calcutta.  Argue against the policy if you wanthttp://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges, but not here.  There is no reason for Calcutta to be an exception. Tokerboy
 * I don't think it as clear cut as that. The names of Kolkata, Mumbai etc. are the official ones, and widely adopted in the English speaking world - newspapers, maps, airlines etc. all use them.
 * The job of an encyclopedia is to inform. If a new name is not widely used only because people haven't heard about the name change yet, readers will want to be informed about the most widely used current usage.  If somewhere changes its name, and it's clear that this change will be widely recognised, then we should go along with that - following the example of, say, Leningrad. Enchanter 23:50 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)
 * They can't be that widely accepted -- I've never heard either one once, in spite of having seen several maps and airlines and newspapers. Wikipedia policy is to put articles at the most unambiguous and common name.  Why should Indian cities be an exception? Tokerboy
 * Mumbai is definately pretty well accepted - eg. googling for "Mumbai" and "Bombay" gives it more hits, and it is used in many contemporary newspapers. Kolkata/Kolkota/Calcutta is probably a more marginal case, but I still think that it is sufficiently well accepted by those in the know to make a good case for using the new name as the article title.


 * I think provided it looks like the new name is being accepted by those who have heard of it, it's a good idea for Wikipedia to use the new name, which makes us more up to date and accurate. The naming convention is good and useful, but it is not an iron law - we can deviate from the convention if we think that would be in the interests of improving the encyclopedia.


 * As an aside, as far as I am aware the spelling Kolkata more common that Kolkota - perhaps the article should be moved to that spelling. Enchanter 20:52 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)


 * Please move this back to Calcutta -- Tarquin 10:33, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree. Or please move Lisbon, Rome and Brussels as well Fransvannes 10:39, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Why don't we move Guangzhou to Canton while we're at it? - Efghij 10:43, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * common usage is still "Calcutta". Until that changes, that is what we should reflect. -- Tarquin 10:46, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * By that logic, we'd also have to move United States to America—while incorrect, that is the most common usage. Mkweise 18:18, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It should reflect the city's official name, not some butchered version imposed by foreign rulers 150 years ago. This is not the American wikipedia. 200 million English-speakers in India call this city "Kolkata." - Efghij 10:57, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That is a point I had forgotten to consider -- the native name is in english (this argument doesn't apply to Kiev though does it?). But I tried a search on The Times and got nada for "Kolkata". -- Tarquin 13:47, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Western press seems to prefer Calcutta whereas the Indian press uses Kolkata (except for institutions that have "Calcutta" in their name). - Efghij 17:21, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Anyway, we've been through this whole argument about 6 months ago, and the consenus seemed to be to base the spelling of place names on the CIA World Factbook. Mkweise 18:22, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well that doesn't really help us with Kiev. The World Factbook lists the capital of Ukraine as "Kiev (Kyyiv)", says one of the country's administrative regions is "Kyyiv (Kiev)" municipality, notes that the mayor of "Kyyiv (Kiev)" is a member of the council of regions, and then lists one of Ukraine's major ports as "Kiev (Kyyiv)"!! - Efghij 18:34, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Regarding Kyiv, see http://insp.pnl.gov/?chorninit/spelling - this is a sensitive issue to the Ukrainian people. Mkweise 19:08, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I know. That's what got us here in the first place. See Talk:Kyiv. - Efghij 19:12, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I support naming articles after the official name used in the English language publications of the city in question. Thus, "Kyiv" and "Kolkata" are both fine. WRT Kyiv, the CIA World Factbook and the American government in general are still moving slowly towards the name preferred by the locals, a pace often criticised. Kricxjo 19:04, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, if we're naming after the name used in English, it's Calcutta then... -- Someone else


 * Who defines the English language? The Indian government uses "Kolkata" in its English language publications. India, being a former British colony, has millions of English speakers, and they would take great offense at your suggestion that their English is somehow not correct. Kricxjo


 * Mostly, dictionaries do. Since the name appears as Calcutta in most dictionaries, that is the standard in most places. If "Kalikata" has been adapted as an English word in Calcutta, then their English is not, in this case, inferior, but a non-standard dialect. -- Someone else 07:08, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * The new name was set only a couple of years ago. That is not enough time for many sources of information in print form to contain it. Ditto for Kyiv, the national-language name which was reasserted after independence. However, this does not mean that the new name should be ignored. Wikipedia has an important role here, as it can be updated faster than a print source.


 * In any event, dictionaries do not usually concern themselves with place-names. Therefore, better to use the name set by the city or country in question in its English-language publications.
 * Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary does, its Eleventh Edition was published in 2003, four years after the "change" and of the three spellings, only Calcutta appears in it. -- Someone else 10:35, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There seems to be some argument in this thread about what the Indians call the city, so being an Indian I thought I'd chip in :) JMO -- Arvindn
 * I call it Calcutta. Same for Bombay which is now Mumbai. I live in Madras, which is now Chennai, and I use Madras and Chennai 50-50, but that's probably because Chennai was in wide use even before the name change.
 * The name change game is a reactionary and pointless pastime of politicians. Most people don't care one way or the other.


 * The way I see it, it doesn't matter what you or other individual people call the city, but rather what the government calls it in its English-language publications. As the Indian government is democratic, it can be seen as fulfilling the will of the people as a whole, and thus the people want Kolkata. Kricxjo 07:45, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia article names are generally the names used by most English speakers, with redirects from other lesser used English names. We have articles at Rome, not Roma, Copenhagen not København, The Hague not 's-Gravenhage. Kolkata is a name change made for local consumption, an appeal to a certain constituency, and it's by no means clear that it will be followed in the rest of the world, or won't be changed back.  "Calcutta" is already engrained and already has given its name to historical events, and I wouldn't bet that Kolkata spreads very far.-- Someone else 10:35, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * "Kiev", "Formosa", "Burma", "Siam", and "Danzig" were all pretty ingrained as well. But try finding them in a travel guide nowadays. When governments decide to change the name of a place, they almost always win in the long term. If Wikipedia ignores that, then we look stupid. In some cases we may also look disrespectful to countries which are only now moving past the oppression of the colonial era. Kricxjo 13:22, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Wikipedia can't decide what is "an appeal to a certain constituency", that would violate our NPOV policy. "Derry" and "Myanmar" could both be discribed this way, but it certainly wouldn't be NPOV to have the articles at "Londonderry" and "Burma". If, for example, the Danish govenment anounced that the official English name of their capital is "København", then we would move that article too. - Efghij 17:27, Aug 24, 2003 (UTC)

The city has been renamed, end of story. Calcutta is a former name, and its usage is clearly receding. Just because some people haven't gotten the memo yet, doesn't mean we have to wait for them. --Wik 00:15, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

Summary
Of the views expressed so far, the views on the move to Kolkata are:
 * In favor: Mkweise, Enchanter, Efghij, Kricxjo, Wik
 * Opposed: Tokerboy, Tarquin, Someone else, Arvindn
 * Google shows 539,000 Kolkata, 1,390,000 Calcutta.
 * The BBC is still using Calcutta. CNN has switched to Kolkata.
 * The article and other encyclopedias I've checked say that the city was founded by the British East India company under the name Calcutta, so I'm having difficulty seeing how using Kolkata would be a return to an original pre-colonial name.

At the moment it appears that the support is mostly coming from those trying to make an anti-colonial political point rather than determine what the usual English usage is, to comply with the Wikipedia policy on names for places. Notable also that at least one local describes it as an attempt to make a political point and prefers Calcutta. Further comments on the following points would be helpful: Jamesday 00:05, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) What the name used in the wide English-speaking world today is. Examples of English-speaking news organisations using the different forms or having switched would be particualarly helpful.
 * 2) Whether you have succeeded in changing Wikipedia policy to use the most common English usage to a policy of using the current local name.
 * 3) A suggestion on when to review so we can move it to Kolkata when that usage has clearly become the usual English usage.
 * 4) Whether it is one political party trying to make a point and there is disagreement with other political parties, which may cause the name to change back.

I thought I'd reopen the question of where this article should be, given that somebody or other seems to have moved Mumbai back to Bombay, among other things. (By the way, has Bollywood become Mullywood since 2001?) Most Indian(-Americans) that I have spoken to generally seem to think that the whole renaming thing is basically ridiculous. The only self-identified Indian to have commented on the talk page here said approximately the same thing. As far as news sources, a Lexis-Nexis search suggests that most references to "Kolkata" are from Indian sources like the Times of India. Western sources seem to pretty much exclusively use Calcutta. But this is rather a difficult question. Are we just to use the name that the government says is the name? If the government of Pennsylvania decided to change the name of Philadelphia to Phylodelfeea, would everyone just have to start using that name? To be quite honest, I think to determine this we really ought to have more input from Indians, rather than speculating about the overthrow of imperialist oppression. On the other hand, not using the official name could open a can of worms... john 01:38, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Kolkata,Chennai and Mumbai were in vernacular usage long before the government decided to change the names. In fact, Calcutta and Bombay are direct 'Anglicized' usages of their vernacular names. 'Kolkata' derives from 'Kali Ghat' - The Temple of Kali and 'Mumbai' is belived to have been derived from 'Mumbadevi', the deity of the fisherfolk. These names among scores of others were Anglicized during British rule. In fact, so many that one can perhaps have a separate article List of Anglicized Indian cities :-)


 * Some curious examples exist - 'Sultanbatheri' - a town in Kerala state was known to the English folk as 'Sultan's Battery' - though no gun-battles took place there. Trichnopoly (the cigar brand that Sherlock Holmes smokes, is in fact a South Indian city Tiruchirapalli (in short Tiruchi), by which name it is known in all circles in India today. Madras cloth has no parallel in India today, the city having been christened Chennai.


 * OTOH, We also have some outright ridiculous rechritenings. For example, the insistence of the government of Maharashtra state to name every street, lane and monument after Shivaji, overriding popular usage. These names will perhaps never fade out of public memory.


 * But in cases like Kolkata, like it or not like it - these reversions are going to stand - not the least because the lobby to retain British legacy as part of history is not strong enough, and is unlikely to make an impact in the near future, big enough to influence such goverment decisions.


 * Abt articles in wikipedia... I am confused too. But, I tend to think that the most logical thing to do would be to let the article stand as it is, retaining Calcutta as a redirect and explaining the situation quickly to any bemused reader right away in the very first paragraph. Chancemill 06:13, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm...while Mumbai and Chennai certainly seem to have been about (but clearly it's not as though they were in universal popular use...c.f. Bollywood), I'm not sure about Kolkata. Britannica, apparently from a few years back, says that Kalikata is the Bengali name of the place.  But as to usage, aren't you being awfully confident?  I mean, India was independent for fifty years without there being any particular demand to change the names.  The impression I've gotten from Indian(-American) friends is that this was rather a silly BJP thing, and that people still generally use "Bombay", for instance (I don't think I was even aware of "Kolkata" until I saw it on Wikipedia) - or at least well-educated Anglophones from other parts of India do.  Another point for these three cities, in particular, is that they were essentially built by the British.  It's not as though Chennai, Mumbai, and Kolkata were flourishing Indian  metropolises, and then the British came in and made up new names for them.  They were tiny villages, or whatever, and the British built up huge cities, which were largely known to people not from there (including people within the subcontinent) as Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta.  And they are still largely known as that, as far as I can tell, except in official press and to local people who've never called them by their English names.  So an odd situation overall, but I suppose we should use the official names.  I mean, in 1914, presumably most people still thought of "St. Petersburg" rather than "Petrograd" (which is actually a rather similar case), but we still tend to use "Petrograd" to refer to the city at that time.  I would suggest that the more familiar names be used to discuss the earlier history of the cities. john 06:51, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, that certainly seems more appropriate. I personally prefer and think it is only logical to use Calcutta in articles like British East India Company, and reserve Kolkata for contemporary discussions - (which would, in any case, be of interest to only those who would care to know the latest name of the city, for purely practical reasons - say tourists.) I suggest that the title of this article be Kolkata (Calcutta). That should solve matters, I guess. But will this make an acceptable convention across wikipedia? Chancemill 08:25, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...That's actually a good idea for a title, I think, given that the one is the official name, but the other is still much better known, but I'm not sure about it as a general convention - I don't know of any other city title articles with parentheses for alternate names. Let's leave it as is, for the moment. john 15:25, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * KOLKATA : In light of the recent attempt at changing the references to KOlkata to Calcutta, and the uninformed nature of some comments foregoing, I would like to state something unequivocally. This is not history, and the name Kolkata didn't recede with the British renaming it Calcutta. In Bengali, a language which I speak, and among any Bengali, for centuries the native people have referred to the city as Kolkata. To speak of Kolkata as "Calcutta" while speaking the language of Bengali is artificial, and no one has ever done it. BEFORE partition and well before the British were on their way out Bengalis called Calcutta Kolkata in Bengali and Calcutta in English. Post-partition, it was only natural that Calcutta's name was eventually made to reflect its more widely used Indian equivalent. The same thing has occured. for example, with Rabindranath Tagore. His last name, and the one he signs with when writing Bengali, his favored language, is "Thakur", which basically means God (usually Vishnu) in Sanskrit-derived languages. Of course, when speaking in english, the palatal TH was difficult for Britishers and English-speakers, and convention changed the name to Tagore. But trust me, if you're speaking in Bengali, it is always "Robi Thakur." It has been the same for Kolkata. If you took the sheer weight of USAGE of the name Kolkata in raw numbers of spoken and written reference, then Kolkata would win out, even pre-partition, merely because of Bengali populations. This is not some artificial BJP reversion. Calcutta and Kolkata have been used in parallel for centuries. As for the whole Kali derivation, that is not a proven fact. Lastly, to give one more example of the Anglicization/Hindification of Bengali, my own name is really pronounced (and is pronounced thusly by any Bengali I meet, especially in Kolkata) as "Dotto-Mojumdaar," but for the sake of simplicity, it has been anglicized / Hindified to Dutt-Mazumdar.


 * *Google shows 539,000 Kolkata, 1,390,000 Calcutta. = Duh... the google hits we're getting reflect force of habit for many years in the English-speaking world, both within and without India.
 * *The BBC is still using Calcutta. CNN has switched to Kolkata. = BBC is British. Of course they're going to retain Calcutta. There is a historical association.
 * *The article and other encyclopedias I've checked say that the city was founded by the British East India company under the name Calcutta, so I'm having difficulty seeing how using Kolkata would be a return to an original pre-colonial name. = This is a debate and the presence of Kolkata references and the origin of the name belie this idea. Also, much of 'orientalist' history has yet to be revised.


 * The Kolkata name is just fine, and to insist that because non-Indians, esp. non-Bengalis, find it uncomfortable and new and thus the name should be reverted is silly, since the native populace has always referred to it as Kolkata. --LordSuryaofShropshire 14:10, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Okay: First point: why does the Encyclopedia Britannica, from only a few years ago, say that "Kalikata" is the Bengali name of the city? I want to get that cleared up first. Second of all, the city should be referred to as Calcutta during the time period when it was known as that in English, no matter what it was known as in Bengali. As far as I am aware, not only English-speakers in other parts of the world, but non-Bengali-speakers in India referred to it universally as Calcutta. I did not revert the name, by the way. I standardized the usage, which was woefully inconsistent previously, since it used Calcutta some of the time when it was talking about the present day city, and Kolkata when referring to it at earlier times. john 14:39, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Kalikata is another Bengali reference, but was never popular in the common vernacular. It is thought that the very first name of the city, before Kolkata and Calcutta, was Kalikata, based on its supposed origin from the name of the Hindu goddess Kali. It soon morphed to a more simple Kolkata/Calcutta.

"Second of all, the city should be referred to as Calcutta during the time period when it was known as that in English, no matter what it was known as in Bengali." That is nonsensical and inane. The whole point of the name change was to institute public recognition of its native language. Where did this rule come from? In all his movies, for example, Satyajit Ray called it Kolkata. So you're now going to force Calcutta on him when he himself referred to it as Kolkata? before we get into minor edits of KOlkata/Calcutta, I believe we should calmly discuss each section. For instance, if we're talking in the present tense about Kolkata, it should be Kolkata. If you mention the Britsh controlled 'Calcutta', that's fine. if you speak about how much Rabindranath wrote about the city, it should be Kolkata, because he primarily wrote in Bengali and called it Kolkata. Etc.--LordSuryaofShropshire 15:34, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. We are not writing a Bengali encyclopedia. We are writing an English encyclopedia. In 1990, or when Tagore was writing, or whenver, not only was the city universally called "Calcutta" in English, but that was its official name. The city is still universally called "Calcutta" in English when referring to it historically. The reason that the government of West Bengal changed the name of the city ought to be irrelevant to Wikipedia policy - we are not part of the public relations department of the West Bengal government. john 15:46, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * No one's asking for a Bengali encyclopedia. Facts dictate that international diplomacy recognizes serious, official changes of name and these changes often seep into less-educated general perspective. On the namechangepolicy talk page, I have cited some examples, including the WIDE-SPREAD use of Mohammadan (insulting, by the way) for Muslims that was phased out by official usage of Muslim. Congo/Zaire, Istanbul/Constantinople, Iran/Persia. At one point or another states of the world change names and they are widely phased in depending on their reasonable nature. To force your way on another state is unwise and Western-centric. If you had your way, Southern extremists could still officially refer to African-Americans in pejorative, or we could use the name Zaire to officially represent the renamed Congo, just based on a popularity contest. That doesn't sound factual to me, rather it sounds like indulging in a catering to popular sentiment as opposed to fact. --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:02, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Quit with the ridiculous straw-manning. In the first place, my point is that the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to encourage change in usage, but to relate information. In the second place, I'm not even advocating (at least right now, because I haven't quite decided my opinion) that we not call it Kolkata when referring to it now. I'm referring to the standard practice of referring to places by the name by which they're known at the time. We still call the country Mobutu ruled "Zaire", even though it's now the Democratic Republic of Congo. We still call the city Constantinople when referring to it before 1930. And so forth. john 18:25, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Great John. By attempting to insult people you really get your point across in a very objective manner. Anyway, you are no authority, as I said on the namechangepolicy page, to decide what is right or wrong. I know many people who are going by Congo. Who this mythical 'we' is, I don't know, and whom you are polling for these sweeping statements regarding current usage is beyond me. Also, by your logic, widely used terminology should be employed. The point is that encyclopedias and journals around the world have recognized many historical name changes, thereby spreading that new and more accepted official usage to the general world mass and aiding the process not unnaturally but simply by honoring these self-determined decisions. You have repeatedly dodged the issue of how other countries and cities, like Istanbul, gradually came to be known by their new names. It was through conduits like this.--LordSuryaofShropshire 18:31, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Dear lord, why is it that nobody I ever argue with this about can ever grasp that there's a difference between what you refer to a place as now, and what you call it in the past, when it had a different name. The Democratic Republic of Congo is currently called Congo. But a book about the country in the 80s would certainly refer to it as Zaire. And Istanbul is certainly better known as Istanbul now. But, again, I'm not arguing about that. I'm not really sure whether the city should be called Kolkata or Calcutta now, and until further proof about the more common usage shows up, I'm willing to accept Kolkata. What I am not willing to accept is calling it Kolkata when referring to it historically. Almost all historical works use Constantinople when referring to that city before 1930, even though Istanbul is generally used for post-1930. Why is this such a difficult distinction to understand? The city was Calcutta before 2001, so that is what it should be called when referring to things that happened there before 2001. Also, as Nohat has noted on the naming poll page, NPOV means that we shouldn't "honor self-determined decisions", because that requires us to make a value judgment on which decisions are self-determined, and which is not. john 21:49, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)~


 * By the way John, you keep seeming to forget that historically all the people you're talking about, like Ray and Tagore and Islam, referred to the city as Kolkata. Thus, you are being arbitrary and your 'common usage' rule falls flat when confronted with the raw fact that Kolkata has been in concurrent usage with Calcutta for centuries by the majority Bengali populace! --LordSuryaofShropshire 01:20, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

So what? Lorenzo de Medici, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Leonardo da Vinci all called it Firenze. King Ludwig II and Thomas Mann both called it München. That doesn't mean that the English names of those cities are or were any less "Florence" and "Munich". john 01:45, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * " there's a difference between what you refer to a place as now, and what you call it in the past, when it had a different name ." I was responding to this statement that somehow Calcutta was the term being used most widely whereas Kolkata had equal usage. This 'different name' situation is rather artificial since it's always had dual reference. Anyway, I can see where you're coming from with common English usage, and would agree that references to the historical Calcutta are apt, but the article itself, in reflecting current fact and the renaming of the English equivalent should, imo, remain. Also, overall statements about the city in general, such as "Kolkata has had a long history blah blah" should keep the Bengali/current official English name. --LordSuryaofShropshire 13:12, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)