Talk:Malappuram district

sources not cited
Need to cite them per WP:V. Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 08:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Erumamunda
Could someone please write Erumamunda into this article so the orphan tag can be removed from Erumamunda? Kingturtle (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Population
According to the Official website, Population of Malappuram is 4112920 in 2011 Census. Click here for Website and select Kerala and Malappuram. Irfannaseefp (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Idimuzhikkal and Chelembra
Attn Roland zh

Chelembra is the formal name of the village government or 'Panchayath' and Idimuzhikkal is the biggest town in the village. Idimuzhikkal is also linked to the Ramanattukara because of the proximity but Ramanattukara is in Kozhikode District. Prof TPMS 09:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sub Categories Suggestion
There are 178 villages in Malappuram district and listing them all in one category is unwieldy. We need the following sub categories for logical classifications. Please post your suggestions. --Prof TPMS (talk) 01:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Kozhikode Airport area
 * 2) Thirurangadi area
 * 3) Tirur area
 * 4) Malappuram area
 * 5) Manjeri area
 * 6) Areekode area
 * 7) Nilambur area
 * 8) Perinthalmanna area
 * 9) Ponnani area
 * 10) Kuttippuram area

Removal of the topic 'Religious extremism".
This article is a geography-related article. Religious extremism can't be included under "Demographics". The inclusion of "Religious extremism" into the article has many political intentions behind it. It looks like the district is a recruiting center for ISIS. In fact, less than ten cases were reported years ago. Wikipedia is not the platform for political conflict of interest.

Instead of edit warring, please discuss your disagreements here. Outlander 07@talk 18:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, can you please let me know why you are deleting legitimate text with citations from reputed news sites? Thanks,Siddsg (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It misleads a lot. In fact, Malappuram is not known for religious extremism. When less than ten people join any terrorist organization, how does the whole district with more than 4 million people become a terrorist hub? Extremism is not the characteristic of any particular region. I think that it is based on fake political propaganda against the district based on a fake news regarding an elephant's death which was started just four days ago. Anyway, demographics is the data-based study of the population. It's no way related to extremism. It's not the space for a political campaign. Kambliyil


 * You are very wrong to think that your personal opinion is heavier than what reliable sources say. See Mirpur,_Pakistan. You can absolutely add about the history related to the religious extremism in this area. Falsely alleging me of WP:COI and calling my edits a "vandalism" is not helping you but you are violating WP:NPA. You need to avoid this and have a constructive dialogue how you can modify (not remove) and make the section better. Siddsg (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

If terrorism should be placed under the page of this district, then it should be placed under the wikipedian article of many Indian districts. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_India. Malappuram is not mentioned even in this page.


 * Having gone through the section and its sources, it's an obvious WP:POVSECTION with a lot of original research. For instance, the first line states, Malappuram has had a history of religious extremism which first came to the fore during the Mappila riots that consisted of various incidents of religious persecution of Hindus from the late 19th century to early 20th century. This is entirely unsupported by the sources other than the occurrence of the riots in the district. The sources do not state that it has had a history of religious extremism, neither can the riots be generalised as "various incidents of religious persecution of Hindus" from the text in the sources. This should belong to the history section which already seems to cover it with NPOV anyways. The second line states, In recent times, there have been a large number of people from the district who have joined terror organisations like the ISIS in Syria and Afghanistan, which has generated concerns. This is cavalier at best and disingenuous at worse, the sources cite exact numbers for the district who have joined ISIS. It gives no other figures or even any mention of any other terror organisation which is being implied in the line. It provides the number 60 for those who have went ahead and joined the ISIS and the number 89 for those in the district and have been identified as having IS sympathies. The term "large" itself is unused in either of the sources and there is no reasonable means by which one can summarise those numbers as being large when the subject of the article is a district with a population of over 4 million. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 17:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering the section fails WP:V, I would request removal of the text until at least a consensus is achieved. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 17:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Since this section does not contain vandalism or BLP violations, it would be unacceptable for me to edit a fully protected page to remove this section.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (sorry for the second ping) Understood but since this is a content dispute, wouldn't it be acceptable to revert to the last stable version which existed on 30 May? The version is the last uncontested edit and was left so till 3 June when the section was added in various forms and removed and on and on. I can't locate an uncontested edit between 3 June and 6 June. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 18:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain your reversion re-instating original research in the article? Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, just only noticed your discussions on the talk page. It looked disruptive editing to me with mass rollbacks and removal of cited contents. Outlander 07@talk 14:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to have been part of the content dispute/edit war that occurred here beforehand and as such should have been aware that it removed content which was contested. My comment has been lying here for quite a few days with no communication from any of the disputing parties. The WP:BURDEN for verifiability lies on those who intend to restore such material. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 14:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said you earlier it was a mistake. I was planning to report the same mass edits to WP:AIV just before I got a notification that you pinged me on my talk page. Seems I missed some of my watchlist logs. Check the edit history before accusing me. Thanks Outlander 07@talk 15:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Uoc calicut entrance.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Uoc calicut entrance.jpg

Nicknames and demonym
I have removed nicknames and demonym for the following reasons:
 * 1) Nicknames and demonyms must be well accepted and popular. Nicknames can't be sentences like "The Mecca of Kerala football". That is an epithet, not a nickname.
 * 2) The demonym 'Malappuramite' is not a popular one. A singe mention of this made-up word in a local-news article not enough to be used that as demonym on WP. ChandlerMinh (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)