Talk:Mumbai/Archive 1

Mumbai<-->Bombay
I just wanted to establish that this should be moved to Bombay. See Talk:Kolkota. Tokerboy


 * Hi, mumbai is a great City. I m here for last 10 years and enjoying very well the environment of the city. -- Chetan100


 * Hmm. I see that Mkweise and Enchanter are the only other people to have commented on the issue at Talk:Kolkota, and they both disagree with you, so it seems that there is no consensus that this page should be moved. -- Oliver P. 17:31 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)
 * I know. That's why I haven't done it. Tuf-Kat


 * Why would anyone want to rename it? The name changed from Bombay to Mumbai, not the other way around ( 14:39 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)


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


 * I don't think the locals, who after five hundred years of a colonial name have finally stood up and restored the original name, would be happy with Wikipedia still imposing the old name. There's a redirect at Bombay, which will still allow people to get to the content they are looking for, while at the same time educating them on the new name. Kricxjo 19:01, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * This has been resolved at Talk:Kolkata - Efghij 19:05, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Metro
Patrick, what do you mean by "metro" ? Is it the underground railway system ? Mumbai doesn't have one yet. If metro means an independent rail system for a city, thats the sub-urban railway that Mumbai has, and its mentioned in the same line. So the metro word is redundant. Jay 09:19, Aug 31, 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I rephrased it. As http://www.metropla.net/as/mumb/mumbai.htm lists it, I suppose it has no level crossings and can be considered a metro, even though not underground. - Patrick 10:06, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

M. G. Road
Jeandré, you have changed the name of a road by mistake. There is no "Mohandas Gandhi Road", it's "Mahatma Gandhi Road". Jay 16:17, Aug 31, 2003 (UTC)

Mumbai safe?
Added by Hemanshu, "Mumbai is the only city in India where all the women feel safe in public places at any time of the day or night, according to recent surveys. The cosmopolitan nature of the sleepless city means that women feel safe to wear the clothes they like and travel at any time alone. Also the work environment is commended as being closer and more open to the concept of gender equality than anywhere else in India."

I suggest that this be removed; it sounds very POV, and in any case doesn't belong in an Encyclopaedia at all. If you think Mumbai's cosmopolitan nature is to be underscored, the last two statements can be rephrased. The first sentence, I feel, has to go. I could remove the paragraph if no one has objections. Ambarish 22:53, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe a link to the survey/surveys could do. Jay 07:11, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Possibly. A possible rephrasing could be "Mumbai has always been known as one of India's most cosmopolitan cities, in terms of a liberal work environment, a bustling night-life, blah, blah. ". Suggestions? Ambarish 07:33, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree too. Maybe I am biased, but the South is generally considered to be much safer than the North, and Chennai is far better when compared to Mumbai. Mumbai is (in)famous for eveteasers, especially in crowded places such as the suburban railway. So I am told:-) The para can definitely be rephrased. Go ahead, do it!KRS 14:11, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Red Light?
And where is the info about Red Light? People who aware of it may add that stuff too 'coz it's one of the popular places in Mumbai. Many foreigners often visit there to provide some sort of help to the Sex workers.--Rrjanbiah 08:46, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, they are real philantropes (note: irony). --213.114.27.64 19:39, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pictures needed
To improve the ciy's page, I feel that more pix are needed. Pics showcasing the architecture, life and landmarks of the city, not some bullock carts that are a rarity now and give the city a poor image. Newer pictures reqd not some 90's pic of Marine Drive.

Somebody needs to go and click photos of places in Mumbai and release them to public domain.

Re: Mumbai Pics

I recently have taken some good photos during my summer internship. but cant figure out where/how to upload?
 * See the Upload File on the left hand column underneath the search tab. &#x00b6; nichalp | [[User talk:nichalp| Talk ]] 19:18, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

About the reverts

 * Himanshu: First I would like to say that Gateway of India is synonymous with the city. A lot of media channels show the pic. when the city is in focus. The Marine drive picture looks too old to me, and as we are trying to potray a vibrant city, it does look out of place.
 * The international telephone code additions are also unnecessary as 91 is associated with India, and 00 is prefixed to that. 022 is unique to the city.
 * It is advisable to thumbnail the satellite image. The image is over 100kb in size and takes a long time to load.

&#x00b6; nichalp | [[User talk:nichalp| Talk ]] 19:49, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Gateway of India is a monument. How can it be synonymous with a city? how does the Marine Drive pic look too old? --Hemanshu 19:55, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * 022 is only from within India. agreed 91 is India but +9122 gets you to Mumbai. there is no unique dial code for Mumbai. It's different from within India and outside. The 0 of the 022 is to access STD number. --Hemanshu 19:55, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The image is thumbnailed but it doesn't have to be tiny. --Hemanshu 19:55, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Look at the image of Marine Drive, its a tinted vigennete. Gateway of India is an integral part of the city's surroundings, monument or no monument. Let's agree on 22 as the code for the city. As far as the satellite map is concerned, it took a large amount of time to download. &#x00b6; nichalp | [[User talk:nichalp| Talk ]] 20:06, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Gateway of India does not quite represent Mumbai. We must have a picture that represents Mumbai if it is to be at the top. --Hemanshu 20:15, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Your right to a certain extent. The Marine Drive picture is too faded and conveys little meaning. The other pictures do not fit the bill as they convey very little info on the city. What is needed is a good photo, one which sets the city apart from other world cities. &#x00b6; nichalp | [[User talk:nichalp| Talk ]] 19:23, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Islamic terrorists
Surya: Please do not label the persons responsible for the August 25 2003 bomb blasts as Islamic militants. A islamic militant justifies the henious crime comitted in the name of Islam. The above bombing was in no way connected to religious idealogy rather a means of unsettling Indians, masterminded by the ISI. Nowhere in the chargesheet of the accused is it mentioned that they were islamic militants. See [Mid day] for more details. It is crude, biased and definate POV to label the alleged accused Islamic militants solely on the basis of their religion.

Also see:
 * islamist terrorism
 * terrorist

&#x00b6; nichalp | [[User talk:nichalp| Talk ]] 19:17, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not being crude, biased or definitively POV because this was clearly a heinous crime under the auspices of Islamic terrorism. The very charge sheet you linked to itself mentions the vital connection that has been incontrovertibly established between the criminal family and Lashkar-e-Toiba ("Army of the Pure"), which is a well-known Pakistan-based Islamic mujahideen terrorist outfit, one of the most vicious out there.

"Lashkar-e-Toiba (the Army of the Pure) (formed 1990) is a militant Islamist group based in Pakistan and active in carrying out armed attacks on Indian armed forces and civilians in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. It is the armed wing of Markaz Dawa-Wal-Irshad (the Centre for Religious Learning and Propagation), an Islamist organisation of the Wahabi sect of Islam. US Secretary of State Colin Powell in a notification on December 26, 2001 designated the outfit as a foreign terrorist organisation."


 * That quotation's from Wikipedia. Now go to any news site or informed subcontinental and find out about LeT. One of their stated goals is Islamic rule of India. These bombings were very much Islamic terrorism. The charge sheet didn't need to say something so obvious: it was clear with the LeT connection. I am reverting your changes. --LordSuryaofShropshire 05:06, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Updated it to reflect the linked articled &#x00b6; nichalp | [[User talk:nichalp| Talk ]]


 * I can't believe you guys are labeling the terrorists as "Islamic". This is exactly why you have the terror problem. You create the Boogeyman through fear. Does it matter that all the Muslim people I have known personally were awfully nice? Stop behaving like a pack of children, like Bush, and start thinking about the other people living with you on the same bloody planet. I would trust the Wikipedia anyday more than Mid Day!

Bullock cart
I noticed last night that someone overwrote my pic of the bullock cart, Image:India.Mumbai.04.jpg, with a picture of a bus. Presumably this has to do with the comment above about the poor image that bullock carts give the city, and how they are nothing like as common as they used to be. Fair enough. However, I think the way to do that is to upload a separate, new image Image:Bus in Bombay.jpg for example, and change the reference in the page to that; overwriting a photo that could well serve somewhere else on the Wikipedia with a completely different picture of a completely different subject doesn't seem to me to be the way to do things. I'll remove the offending picture from the article in a moment; I'd be happy to see it put back, but as a person who doesn't know the city, I'm not really in a position to judge whether it's appropriate or not. –Hajor 17:53, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure who overwrote your image, but bullock carts aren't visible on the streets these days. The only occupations these animals have is to transport ice blocks and sugarcanes, that too most of them are losing their jobs to mechanised transport. I agree with you that changing your image is not the way to go about it. Please could you do the needful so that you reload your image and the current image is also restored. &#x00b6; nichalp | [[User talk:nichalp| Talk ]] 19:43, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

The bus picture is here. I'm not sure what the mechanics would be: save a local copy, then reupload it under a different name? But that's a job for the uploader of that picture, not for me -- I don't know anything about its provenance or copyright status. (His uploading it over my pic effectively hijacked my copyright references, of course, but that's a problem with the software more than anything). –Hajor 20:06, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll do the needful on changing the image. &#x00b6; nichalp | [[User talk:nichalp| Talk ]] 20:39, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

BCE, CE etc
Surya: BCE and CE may be the correct syntax, but at that moment those linked pages aren't filled up. Since the current text display's the correct syntax, I don't see it to be a POV edit. It also alows a person to click on the relavent link to get to a known page. If you are adamant on the correct syntax, please change the linked page too, so all can benefit and there are no red links. &#x00b6; nichalp | [[User talk:nichalp| Talk ]] 19:18, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Demographics
There is an obvious error in the demographics section: 811:100 female-to-male ratio. The text indicates that there should be more males. Can someone find a primary source?


 * It's got to be 811:1000. a) it makes sense, b) that's the standard metric used for the sex ratio - number of females to 1000 males. I've fixed it. Ambarish | Talk 16:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

POV rant at Bombay (disambiguation)
go to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Bombay_%28disambiguation%29&oldid=6752809 someone copied a POV rant to that page, (possibly a copyvio) but I wondered if anything of worth in there. Dunc|&#9786; 17:03, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

POV rant at Bombay (disambiguation)
Dun, - I wasn't ranting, but I will let that go. I was not there when the Nazis overran much of Europe, but from history, I know that it is much the same here in Bombay today. Bombay is no more Mumbai than Bratislava is Pressburg.

However, there is one thing that I find positively hilarious: Can you please tell me which parts of Bombay are "below sea level"? I will eat my hat (haven't one, but will get one) if there are any!

I am relatively recent to Wikipedia, but I am already getting disgusted at the utter idiocy that operates here - seems almost as if those intellectual zombies of the World Social Forum are running it! I guess I will get out.

Lucio Mas 12:02, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Some parts of the city, notably Parel region are a few feet below sea level. The city being seven islands which were filled up caused these areas to be low lying. During the monsoons, these areas are prone to flooding as the drainage is poor, owing to this fact that normal outflow of storm water drains are blocked by the inrush of high-tide water. &#x00b6; &#x273;&#x209;&#x010d;&#x1e29;&#x00e5;&#x1e3d;&#x1e57; | [[User talk:nichalp| &#x2709; ]] 20:11, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Cricket
Something should be written about the city and its cricket. :) from the cricket played in the gallis to the Mumbai cricket team. --Hemanshu 18:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * done to some extent. --Hemanshu 18:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

urbs primus status

 * Since the early 2000s the city's urbs primus status has been challenged by New Delhi, Bangalore and Hyderabad.

What exactly does this mean? How can we verify it? --Hemanshu 18:50, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Urbs Primis = City #1 ; With the infrastructure vastly improving in Delhi, Bangalore etc and the stagnation in development in Bombay. Note:- Delhi Metro, CNG buses, better traffic managment, the list goes on. &#x00b6; &#x273;&#x209;&#x010d;&#x1e29;&#x00e5;&#x1e3d;&#x1e57; | [[User talk:nichalp| &#x2709; ]] 19:11, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Parsi influence
I am not very firm in Mumbai's history, but shouldn't the role of the Parsi be mentioned in the history section?

"Below Sea Level?"
Nick, - I live in Parel. There is no part of Parel "below sea level", or of Bombay for that matter. There is a drainage problem in what used to be called "Upper Parel", near the Hindmata signal to Poibawdi / Parel Tram Terminus section, but that is because of peculiar topography: on the east, the land slopes down from Sewree, while on the west, the railways act as a general levee or dam preventing outflow.

The British dynamited most of Bombay's hills and used the rubble to reclaim the area between the islands. They designed the reclaimed area to be at some few feet above sea level. No part of the reclaimed land anywhere in Bombay is "below sea level".

Do you have any independent source for this "below sea level" stuff?

Lucio Mas 14:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I read it in the Times of India. They could be wrong... &#x00b6; &#x273;&#x209;&#x010d;&#x1e29;&#x00e5;&#x1e3d;&#x1e57; | [[User talk:nichalp| &#x2709; ]] 19:03, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Repetition within the article
I noticed that the latter part of the article contains much repetition of earlier content. I deleted one such repeated paragraph, but I leave it to others to correct the rest, as I am not vested in this article and fear that I might inadvertently delete some original content. The question remains, though: How did this large mistake happen? Rohirok 03:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

metropolitan or conurbation
The article defines Mumbai as a conurbation. But if you see the definations it is more metropolitan then conurbation. Views? Alren 17:21, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Technically, yes *Mumbai* isn't a conurbation. But if you include Mumbai and its satellite cities Thane and Navi Mumbai and throw in the fact that the urban area is expanding to include once distant cities like Kalyan and also the fact that the inevitable expansion means that the whole Mumbai-Pune belt can soon be referred to as a single urban aglommeration, I think that we do have a conurbation in the making here. The only problem is that it hasn't yet been named and Greater Bombay (or Brihan Mumbai) has already been taken. ravikiran_r

Kalyan a good investment opportunity ??
Does it make sense to invest in real estate in Kalyan now ? Any info/pointers would be helpful! thanks.


 * Its still far from the city 50 km. IMO as a long term measure it is OK, but for residential purposes New Bombay would be better. Nichalp 18:34, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)