![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Hi! I am partially copy-pasting an argument in favor of inclusion of two particular images in the article, from the talk page of User:Nikkul who is opposed to the inclusion of this and this images.
Regarding the slum image, you tell that slums do not represent all of Kolkata demographics. Yes, I agree that it does not represent all of Kolkata demographics. For that matter, there is no single image that represent all of the demographics of any city. As the article says, "1.5 million people, who constitute about a third of the city's population, live in 2,011 registered and 3,500 unregistered (occupied by squatters) slums." So, the slum image does represent almost one third of the dwellings. So, it is not merely ornamental in that article.
Regarding the flower vendors image, you say "flower vendors have little to do with economy". Well, it could be vendor of any other kind, like fruit vendor, grocery vendor, or, other hawkers. I am not argumenting in favour of flower vendors only. What I wanna say is, vendors are a part of informal sector of economy, which, according to the article, "until recently ... comprised more than 40% of the labour force." For example, "roadside hawkers generated business worth Rs. 8,772 crore (around 2 billion U.S. dollars) in 2005" (I admit I do not have recent data though). The economy section of the article, so, will be very much representative of the city economy if there are two images—one from IT sector (the booming sector of the day), and one vendor (or any other informal sector image), which has traditionally been a major part of the economy of the city.
Moreover, if you see the FAC of the article, you will see that these two images were particularly praised for giving ,"...an almost tangible understanding of the city to the page" by an uninvolved reviewer. So, I don't see any reason not including those 2 images. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 06:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Nikkul for uploading the pie chart of distribution of religion in Kolkata. Graphs or maps are quite suitable for demographics section, especially when there is no images significantly representing the demographics of the city/state/country in question.
However, the slum image does significantly represent the demographics of Kolkata, becasue:
1. "...about a third of the city's population, live in 2,011 registered and 3,500 unregistered (occupied by squatters) slums", as mentioned in the article. And a third of population of a city is definitely significant.
2. The adequacy and appropriateness of the image had been established in the FAC of the article. No editors (whether directly involved in the article or not) questioned the image's appropriateness. Rather, as I have mentioned earlier, one uninvolved editor particularly praised this (and another image) for "tremendous quality and interest", and, giving "an almost tangible understanding of the city to the page".
While the pie chart of religion is a very good one, and does represent significantly the demographics, it is nothing extra-ordinary (a graphical representation of numerical data already present in the text adds no additional value). Since we have something extra-ordinary in the slum image (almost tangible understanding), the pie chart should be replaced by the image.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 10:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The slum image DOES NOT represent the demographics of Kolkata when 66 percent of people DO NOT live in slums. It is understandable to have an image of the slum if 70 percent of people lived in slums, but this is not the case in Kolkata. Every city has slums, Kolkata is not the only one. If you feel that a third of the population is significant, than 2/3 is more "significant" and hence the image should not be there.
The image is pointless. It doesnt even show on full hut. It shows a roof, which is irrelevant to the section. Nikkul ( talk) 09:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
If you agree it is difficult to describe the demography of Kolkata, then how can you say the slum image represents the city when 66 percent of the population doesnt live in slums? Wouldnt it be more appropriate to add a picture of non-slum housing as it would be more appropriate for the demography section? And the editors of the FAC praised the article itself not the slum image. The article includes text, references and other images. So there is no real consensus about this particular image. And I dont think the article needs a featured article review because the text and the article itself is first class. The slum image, though, is very inappropriate for the article. Nikkul ( talk) 21:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted the deletion of this image. It reflects a significant aspect of the city and its population. Kolkata, for all of its qualities, has slums in which large numbers of its citizens reside. Excluding the image and the living conditions it represents would diminish the balance of the article and its representation of its topic. It should stay. -- KenWalker | Talk 22:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
There was never consensus to keep the image specifically. There was just no opposition against it. Fortunately, Wikipedia is a dynamic website, which means that even after an article becomes featured, images and content can be changed. I am not going against any consensus because There was never consensus to keep the Image. To say that an article must be kept untouched after it becomes featured is ridiculious! If I add an image of a house, wouldnt it mean it was more appropriate than the image of a slum since more people live in houses than in slums? Nikkul ( talk) 10:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Under this topic, "Discussion on the image on Demographics section", Nikkul has objected to what he considers the overly-squalid-looking slum image, and under "City of Palaces" someone has objected to what he considers the overly-affluent-sounding "City of Palaces" epithet. Do a one-sided epithet and a one-sided image perhaps balance each other out?
D.achyuta ( talk) 02:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Calcutta, was often called the city of places, between about 1780 to 1840, because parts of the city consisted of mile upon mile of mansions built by employees of the East India Company. 90% of these imposing buildings either no longer exsist or are in a terribly ramshackle condition, moreover, in the last 70 or 80 years, I would strongly argue that there has been very little noteworthy construction in Calcutta - not even a very tall office building, let alone a new "palace". To call modern Kolkata a "city of palaces" is quite rediculous, indeed it's a mockery of the urban poor, but the article says that modern Kolkata is often described as such. This is made up. I have never heard modern Kolkata described as a city of places, the term in fact means such a cluster of palaces in one area, that they constitute a city unto themselves. So where is this cluster of palaces in Kolkata?
TB
Nikkul, I enjoyed browsing the images of India that you have collected. Valuable work! Thanks for doing it. I have some I took myself earlier this year which I have stored at hq23 that I could upload to Wikimedia commons if any of them might be useful. -- KenWalker | Talk 23:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone please add the list of sisiter cities of kol? Rohitom ( talk) 12:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone please add the list of sisiter cities of kol? Rohitom ( talk) 12:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a Wikipedia article at wiki/Kolkata_Municipal_Corporation. According to its name it should logically be the Wikipedia's most in-depth article about the KMC, but it is very short and says less about the KMC's political structure, for example, than does the "Civic administration" section of this Kolkata article.
Then there is an article at wiki/Kolkata_district. It contains only four sentences, the first of which is "Kolkata is an administrative district of the Indian state of West Bengal" and the last of which is "The area is under the administration of Kolkata Municipal Corporation." Readers may wonder, "If Kolkata is an administrative district, why does it need to be under the administration of a municipal corporation?" It should be explained that the district is "under" the KMC in terms of civic infrastructure only.
Then there is an article at wiki/Neighbourhoods_in_Kolkata. By "neighbourhoods", it means municipal areas which are part of the Kolkata Metropolitan Area – for example, Barasat Municipality. But in this present Kolkata article, "neighbourhoods" is used as follows: "A characteristic feature of Kolkata is the para or neighbourhoods having a strong sense of community. Typically, every para has its own community club with a clubroom and often, a playing field . . ." The Neighbourhoods in Kolkata article could perhaps be merged into this Kolkata article, but in fact is not even linked to from this article, except in a footnote.
There may well be an existing Wikipedia term for the kind of coordination of different pages whose need I have pointed out here, but I don't know what that term is, so I have used the term "rationalization" of different sites.
There are also the sites wiki/History_of_Kolkata and wiki/Kolkata_Police.
D.achyuta ( talk) 14:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Now Akhandadarshana has proposed moving material from the Civic administration section of the Kolkata article to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation article. This will help to rationalize things. So let him finish his work, then I will see what more appears to need rearrangement. D.achyuta ( talk) 03:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Now thanks to the recent work by Akhandadarshana and Dwaipayan, I think most of the rationalizing problems have been solved. Following up their work, I have so far only touched up the Kolkata_district page to solve the problem I mentioned above. I did only the minimum. Regarding other pages, the only thing that remains from my list above is to think about merging the Neighbourhoods in Kolkata article into the Kolkata article. This would mean that Neighbourhoods in Kolkata would cease to exist.
The following text is now duplicated in the Kolkata page and the KMC page, but maybe there's no harm:
...divided into 141 administrative wards that are grouped into 15 boroughs.... The corporation as the apex body discharges its function through the Mayor-in-Council, consisting of a mayor, a deputy mayor, and ten other elected members. As of 2008, the CPI(M) led Left Front holds the power in KMC. The city also has an apolitical titular post, that of the Sheriff of Kolkata.
D.achyuta ( talk) 04:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I have prepared a rough map that illustrates and I think clarifies the "adjacent areas" and also other matters of boundary and jurisdiction as posted in the Civic administration section by me and others. I would like to post a more polished version of this map in the Civic administration section. However, getting a map done professionally would involve some time and expense, so I would like to "test the waters" first – I would like to get some degree of assurance that such a map would not be quickly removed by someone. So before I proceed further, I would like to get the feedback of other editors regarding this rough map. (To view it clearly, you may need to download it and view it with your own software.)
These boundary matters may be of more importance to Kolkata residents than to the average Wikipedia reader, but at least we should not give the reader any wrong impression, and it's hard to avoid giving a wrong impression regarding all the jurisdictions without spelling things out in detail.
Sources:
Lists of police-station areas under the Kolkata Police and under the South 24 Parganas Police are provided by the Ganashakti Ready Reckoner 2005.
National Atlas & Thematic Mapping Organisation, Dept. of Science & Technology, Govt. of India, Administrative Map of Calcutta, Plate 15, 2nd Edition, 1988, Reg. No. 2844 E/57 – 5002'SS.
National Atlas & Thematic Mapping Organisation, Dept. of Science & Technology, Govt. of India, District Planning Map Series: Kolkata District, 2001, 2nd printing 2006.
National Atlas & Thematic Mapping Organisation, Dept. of Science & Technology, Govt. of India, District Planning Map Series: South 24 Parganas District, Reg. No. 106-NA/DP-2000-2000, 1st Edition 2nd printing 2008.
National Atlas & Thematic Mapping Organisation, Dept. of Science & Technology, Govt. of India, District Planning Map Series: North 24 Parganas District, Reg. No. 066-NA/DP-5000-98, First Edition 1998.
Akhandadarshana ( talk) 04:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
There is already an article called "Kolkata Municipal Corporation" which, as has been pointed out on this page, is sketchy in its content. So I think the most logical approach would be to rename that article "Kolkata Municipal Corporation and the Civic Administration of Kolkata" (or, if that title is too long, simply "Civic Administration of Kolkata") and to transfer most of the present Civic administration section of the Kolkata page to that article. However, I'm not sure whether it's possible to rename an article – could you please guide me to instructions as to how to do it?
In transferring material to that article, I think it would be most logical to transfer not only the paragraphs that I added to the Civic administration section in mid-June, but also much of the material that existed in that section prior to any of my edits. Do you think this would be okay?
Akhandadarshana ( talk) 12:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I have now created an article called Civic Administration of Kolkata. So there are now eight Kolkata articles that I know of:
Kolkata
Kolkata_Municipal_Corporation
Kolkata_district
Neighbourhoods_in_Kolkata
History_of_Kolkata
Kolkata_Police
Kolkata Metropolitan Area
Civic Administration of Kolkata
What I have put in the new article and what further I have done:
1. Copied everything from the Civic Administration section of the "Kolkata" article to the new "Civic Administration of Kolkata" article, and placed my map in that new article. (Sorry, the map is still rough -- accurate, to the best of my knowledge, but rough artistically. To get the map redone professionally might be expensive. Does anyone reading this page have the skills to improve it?)
I copied everything to the new "Civic Administration of Kolkata", that is, except:
"The city is divided into 141 administrative wards that are grouped into 15 boroughs. [1] Each of these wards elects a councillor to the KMC. Each borough has a committee consisting of the councillors elected from the respective wards of the borough. The Corporation, through the borough committees, maintains government-aided schools, hospitals and municipal markets and partakes in urban planning and road maintenance. [2] The corporation as the apex body discharges its function through the Mayor-in-Council, consisting of a mayor, assisted by a deputy mayor, and ten other elected members of the KMC. The mayor is responsible for the overall functioning of the KMC and has a tenure of five years. [3] At present, the CPI(M)-led Left Front holds the power in the KMC."
Regarding the placement of the above, see 4. below.
GDibyendu had suggested using the "Kolkata Metropolitan Area" article to place the map. But the area that the map pertains to is that of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Meanwhile, GDibyendu had said, "Kolkata Municipal Corporation should be artcile for MC only as it is." So using this new page for the map seemed like the best solution.
This new page contains links to "Kolkata", "Kolkata Metropolitan Area", "Kolkata Municipal Corporation", "Kolkata District" and "Kolkata Police".
2. Reduced the Civic administration section of the "Kolkata" article down to an outline, and created a link to the new article, where the previous material of this section will now be found.
3. In the "Kolkata Police", "Kolkata Municipal Corporation", and "Kolkata District" pages, also, created links to the new article, and links to each other.
4. Copied to the "Kolkata Municipal Corporation" article the following:
"The city is divided into 141 administrative wards that are grouped into 15 boroughs. [4] Each of these wards elects a councillor to the KMC. Each borough has a committee consisting of the councillors elected from the respective wards of the borough. The Corporation, through the borough committees, maintains government-aided schools, hospitals and municipal markets and partakes in urban planning and road maintenance. [2] The corporation as the apex body discharges its function through the Mayor-in-Council, consisting of a mayor, assisted by a deputy mayor, and ten other elected members of the KMC. The mayor is responsible for the overall functioning of the KMC and has a tenure of five years. [3] At present, the CPI(M)-led Left Front holds the power in the KMC.
"The city also has an apolitical titular post, that of the Sheriff of Kolkata. [5] The Sheriff presides over various city-related functions and conferences. Another ancillary civic body is the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA) responsible for the statutory planning and development of the Kolkata Metropolitan Area (KMA). [6] The KMA includes a large suburban hinterland around the urban centres of Kolkata."
Besides copying material from the "Kolkata" article, I also added to the "Kolkata Municipal Corporation" article the following:
"The jurisdiction of the KMC covers the area covered by the [[Kolkata Police]] (which in turn covers the area of Kolkata District), but covers an adjacent area as well. See Civic Administration of Kolkata."
5. Added to the Kolkata District article the following:
"Kolkata District is bordered by Howrah District, North 24 Parganas District and South 24 Parganas District."
-- and --
"The jurisdiction of the Kolkata Collector, that is, of Kolkata District, does not include the entire area covered by the Kolkata Police, nor the entire area covered by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. See Civic Administration of Kolkata."
6. Copied to the Kolkata Police article the following --
"The Kolkata Police's entire area comprises eighty-six wards of the KMC in their entirety, plus most of another six KMC wards. [7]"
and added --
"The jurisdiction of the Kolkata Police covers the area of Kolkata District and an adjacent area as well. That adjacent area, like Kolkata District, is within the boundaries of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. . . . But it does not cover the entire KMC area. See Civic Administration of Kolkata."
Akhandadarshana ( talk) 11:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
First, to D.Achyuta: Confirmed. I didn't exactly forget, I logged in and worked on six pages, the next-to-last being "Kolkata"
(Civic administration section) and last being this Discussion page. Somehow
I became logged out after the fourth page. I realized it after saving the
sixth page, so logged in again and corrected that page. But there seemed to
be reason to think that no earlier page had been affected.
As you will see above, Amartyabag once wrote:
"The addition and info that you have provided is correct and highly essential in terms of understanding Kolkata which have a complex civic administration. However as this article is a Featured article and follows Summary style and need to maintain high standards, we cannot accomodate the whole addition into the main article and will rather request you to create a sub article Civic administration of Kolkata and put the gist into the main article."
I adopted his suggestion, and on July 24 moved material from "Kolkata" (Civic administration section) to the new "Civic Administration of Kolkata", leaving only a "gist", as requested by Amartyabag, in the section.
Docku soon undid that version of the "Kolkata" article. But I think two of his reasons may have been: 1) I did not appear to have logged in, and 2) he thought that material had been deleted completely from the Wikipedia.
Now that I am logged in and now that I have explained that no material was deleted, but rather it was moved (mostly to the new page, but some to "Kolkata Municipal Corporation"); and now that it is clear that this was all at Amartyabag's request -- perhaps Docku will not object.
Explaining why, under the "Kolkata" page's
Civic administration
heading, there should now appear --
-- and not --
The new "Civic administration of Kolkata" article is intended as the full coverage of the topic of the "Kolkata" article's Civic administration section. Information about the Kolkata Municipal Corporation is a subset of information about the civic administration (the civic administration includes all the various authorities involved, not only the KMC). In the "Civic administration of Kolkata" article, there is a link to the "Kolkata Municipal Corporation" article.
I did not combine all the information in the "Kolkata Municipal Corporation" article with the information in the "Civic administration of Kolkata" article, as one article, because GDibyendu had written (above): "Kolkata Municipal Corporation should be artcile for MC only as it is."
So all editors please consider the new organization as a whole and consider accepting it all (generally accepting the new organization, that is, while continuing to refine the information within it).
To Dwaipayan: Yes, your opening sentence has more gravity. Thanks!
Akhandadarshana ( talk) 09:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
-- gppande «talk» 11:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Calcutta was the second biggest city (after London) of the British Empire (history's largest). I think this is an important and interesting fact, and should be worth half a line. Also I think half the information on Bose is just Indian patriotic bluster, most of it doesn't really link to the city.
The line about the Bengal "As food stocks were being diverted to feed Allied troops, millions" ... would lead the casual and uninformed reader to conclude that this was the only cause of the famine. There were only a few hundred thousand British troops in India at that time (the millions of Indians in the armed services were Indian nationals who would have had to have been fed from the harvests of Mother India anyway) and even if all of these foreigners had been fed exclusively from Bengali food grains (which they were not), as the population of Bengal was (even back then) around 60 million, these extra foreign mouths would have robbed Bengal of about 0.25% of its food stocks, which can hardly have "killed millions" all by itself, indeed all historians agree that there was a set of problems which created the famine, some caused by the British, some caused by the Japanese and WWII, some caused by natural disasters - indeed even certain Indian administrators have also come in for criticism. I think this attempt to sum up the cause of this extremely complex topic in a one liner that squarely blames the British is somewhat too simplistic, and perhaps overtly anti-British. The article should be neutral, whereas that line gives a clear POV.-- 144.137.90.79 ( talk) 02:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Recently Akhandadarshana created a new page, Civic administration of Kolkata, and moved to that page information about Kolkata's territorial extent and the complex administration thereof. But neither on that page nor in the History of Kolkata is there any clear information about how Kolkata's territorial boundaries expanded historically and how the complexities arose in the first place. Does Akhandadarshana or anyone else have such information, and if so could they add a little of that information to the History of Kolkata? D.achyuta ( talk) 04:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe that, as in Kolkata one can find one of the most diversified cuisine range and because in the previous version of the article, there was no separate cuisine section and very little information was given about the same within the Culture section of the article so, I felt the need of a separate section along with some details about the type of food and name of some of the old and famous retaurants. Therefore, I have created a separate cuisine section in the article and have merged the existing information on cuisine from the Culture section in this new section. -- Jsengupt ( talk) 04:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. Much though I prefer Calcutta, the arguments in favor of Kolkata are stronger and it seems to have become the de facto name of the city in the English language. -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 13:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Kolkata → Calcutta — The name of the place is Calcutta, and not Kolkata. -- Milkbreath ( talk) 13:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC) I was rather surprised to see the Kolkata page has content rather than being a redirect to Calcutta. I had expected that the Calcutta would have the text and Kolkata would be a redirect to that. The common English name for the city is, and has been for c. 300 years, Calcutta so surely we should call it Calcutta.
After we have a page for Cologne not Köln, Florence not Firenze, Manila not Lungsod ng Maynila, etc.
FerdinandFrog ( talk) 13:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree, especially when Kolkata/Calcutta are not significantly different in their phonology. The examples are endless where we don't use the local name in common English parlance: Warsaw not Warszawa, Munich not Muenchen, etc... just because it represents some sort of reclamation for India to have their official English spelling as "Kolkata" does not mean that the general geographic traditions in English should jump to follow suit. 203.97.98.36 ( talk)
Right, and the article itself, in Kolkata#Name, calls "Calcutta" the "anglicised name". What language Wikipedia is this? Oh, yeah, English. The article also says that the "official English name was changed from "Calcutta" to "Kolkata" in 2001." What does that mean? I didn't get that memo. Last time I checked, nobody had the power to "officially" change English at all. The article also says that "While news sources like the BBC have opted to call Bombay Mumbai, Kolkata remains Calcutta." Naming this article "Kolkata" is POV, and it should be "Calcutta". -- Milkbreath ( talk) 11:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose page name change. Wikipedia is not the only encyclopedia that calls the city Kolkata. Both Britannica and Encarta use the name Kolkata as the name of the city. Also, what was meant that the official English name was changed, it meant that the English name was be changed from Kolkata to Calcutta. It was not referring to changing the English language at all. Kolkata has other names in different languages that's why the statement about changing the English name was changed because only the English n name was changed and not the ones from other languages. News organizations, textbooks, maps and other information, at least in my area all and BBC as you stated refer the city as Kolkata. It seems more common that city is referred to as Kolkata. The city website (in English) also refers the city as Kolkata and not Calcutta since that's the old name. So it doesn't seem like a good idea to have the page name change. Isn't renaming Calcutta your own POV as well? Elockid ( Talk· Contribs) 14:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Our naming convention on placenames offers six texts, if there is no reliable secondary statement on what English-speakers normally call the city:
Enjoy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no issue with the page title. But in the History section I think it disturbs the flow unnecessarily to have to parse “Kolkata (then Calcutta)” in a sentence about the early 1700s. I have changed several occurrences of Kolkata to Calcutta in that section only. I intend no political or cultural subtext; only to avoid awkwardness and anachronism. I think it reads clearly and smoothly since #History directly follows the explanation of the name change and current British usage. I had to choose a logical stopping point, so I picked India’s independence in 1950, following which I left all occurrences as Kolkata. MJ ( t • c) 14:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else find it strange to have links to Calcutta in this article? I think the possible confusion of being redirected to the same page is worse than no link, so I'm removing the brackets from 2 occurrences. MJ ( t • c) 14:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The article Mosques in Kolkata should be retained as a separate article. - Chandan Guha ( talk) 02:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The British were part and parcel of Calcutta's culture for over a quarter of a millennia, and yet they are hardly mentioned in the culture section. Their main contribution was (I think) India's first ever newspaper, printed in Calcutta. Not a small thing given the importance of the press in India, but nevertheless, not worth a mention it seems. The influential Asiatic Society (only mentioned in passing in the Eductaion section, but even then not linked to the British), which did so much to introduce Hindu culture, science & philosophy to the outside world, is again, unmentioned. What about Calcutta being the birtplace of William Makepeace Thackaray even? -- Not even worth a link? Obviously not.
But of course, why waste space with the above in the culture section (or anywhere else) when you can write: "Street foods such as beguni (fried battered eggplant slices), kati roll (flatbread roll with vegetable or chicken, mutton, or egg stuffing), phuchka (deep fried crêpe with tamarind and lentil sauce)[....]" etc.
But how stupid of me, obviously fried battered eggplant slices are far more important than anything I have mentioned or 250+ years of Anglo influence. For example, the only reason we don't read about Calcutta's discovery of the cause of the tropic's most virulent killer (malaria) is because it had too much whitey and not enough Bengali behind it.
Let's be adults about this and face facts. There's an anti-British bias to the article, if not in what has been written, then certainly in what has been left out, (smothered by tamarind and lentil sauce perhaps).
Tim / Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.119.118 ( talk) 01:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me while I recover from that staggering display of an Aussie channeling scathing British sarcasm... Ahh, much better. Now, if I've missed some major physical disaster and Kolkata has been sucked into some time warp flinging it back 150 years - such that everything you mentioned is currently relevant to the day to day culture of the city - I will be sure to speak with my therapist and demand an increase in my medical dosage. Oh wait, I just checked, it seems my meds shall remain as they are since Kolkata appears to be firmly rooted in the 21st century. If I'm not very much mistaken, Kolkata is the capital West Bengal, not British India, and is now a center of Bengali culture specifically and Indian culture broadly - not British or even Anglo-Indian culture.
Since you seem to be such a dazzling maven of the British history and impact in Calcutta, why don't you provide your contributions to History of Kolkata, where I'm sure you will find very appropriate grounds to sow your seeds of knowledge.-- Taajikhan ( talk) 02:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
It is strange that Mother Teresa is not mentioned in this article - not just as perhaps Kolkata's most famous resident, but also in terms of the city's portrayal. I see in her article that she was criticised by Aroup Chatterjee for "promoting a negative image of his home city." She is mentioned, but not discussed, in History of Kolkata and List of people from Kolkata. It does seem this deserves a mention, maybe in a paragraph about perceptions of Kolkata. StAnselm ( talk) 05:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Calcutta was probably an ANGLICIZED version of "Kalikata" which was one of the fishing villages that the British forged their town of Calcutta out of (of course the fact that the British started Calcutta with three unconnected fishing villages is not mentioned in the article due to its anti-British bias, and if included, it might actually make it sound like the British founded Calcutta - which of course they did.) "Kolkata" is (ironically)probably a Bengalified version of "Calcutta" - as there was never any "Kolkata" prior to the British. Please meditate on this word: ANGLICIZED - that is to say, it was put into an English pronunciation. Hence the word CALCUTTA is English - period, no debate! So, .... a Communist led council in West Bengal in 2001, changes the ENGLISH name of a city into the Bengali name and then tells the world that English must be Bengali - and you people buy it??? Well, I still hear "Calcutta" on the BBC, and even the airline industry still calls it Calcutta, amongst many examples I could give, because almost everybody knows that it's still Calcutta (in English) - but not Wikipedia it seems. But of course the Indians are free to call it whatever they like. So a Marxist regime in Calcutta, makes a ruling that an ANGLICIZED word is no longer English and 300+ years of common English usage must change. Yeah right!!!! It amazes me that there is even a debate whether the article should be called Kolkata, - and yet there is, and it has been. The entire article is just a biased Bengali and nationalistic travel brochure for "Kolkata". There is no neutral historic overview. No mention of outside cultural influence. Any criticism of the city over the last sixty years is minimal, and even the name has been hijacked. I do not want to see the city's modern reputation degraded here, nor do I want to see the British 257 year tenure "window dressed" - but what we have here is the complete opposite, the British 257 year tenure is degraded, and modern "Kolkata" "window dressed" - how about just a bit of neutrality and honesty? The name would be a good place to start.
Tim Barrett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.47.24 ( talk) 23:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
This section misses the part of the economic stagnation of the Kolkata during the 70's and the 80's. I think it will be good idea to include part the economic stagnation of Kolkata. Also this section only mentions the economy of Kolkata after 2001 but it does completely missed out the economy of the city prior to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anirbandasnet ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The pictures on the Kolkata page are very pretty. However, they look absolutely nothing like what Kolkata actually looks like. I find it a little misleading that the pictures display Kolkata this way. Can we at least get a few pictures of what Kolkata looks like when it hasn't been photoshopped to American glory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.99.41.226 ( talk) 10:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Keeping in line with the West Bengal page where the same photo is used: I have changed the definition of the Durga picture from "an idol" to "a Murti (representation)" of Durga. It is common misconception that Hindus worship idols. Calling these representations idols is as incorrect as referring to the Cross or similar representations of Jesus in the same manner. Idolatry as defined in Wikipedia itself is "a term used in religion for the non-monotheism worship of cult images, termed idols." This is not what the image of Durga represents.
The word "idol" in English usage, especially in western countries, has a pagan connotation and is often used against religions that are viewed as polytheistic, which Hinduism is not. The complex nature of the representation of one God into many forms is not something that can be easily translated into one word. The word sculpture or statue may be a better fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.83.26 ( talk) 19:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.162.181 ( talk)
A part of the lead reads : Once the centre of modern education, science, culture and politics in India, Kolkata witnessed economic stagnation in the years following India's independence in 1947. However, since the year 2000, an economic rejuvenation has led to an acceleration in the city's growth. Like other metropolitan cities of India, Kolkata continues to struggle with urbanisation problems like poverty, pollution and traffic congestion. I can't find mention of this in the rest of the article. Can anyone revise the lead to reflect the rest of the article? Regards, Yes Michael? • Talk 06:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The Bengal Engineering and Science University is not a part of Kolkata. It is situated in Howrah, twin-city and has been mentioned therein. It needs to be removed. Rahulghose ( talk) 09:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I have removed BESU and it has been added to the Howrah page. Rahulghose ( talk) 09:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
There is definitely something wrong:
--
Superzoulou (
talk)
02:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
That is wrong. I will correct it. Thanks for reporting!
Guitarist(
talk|
contributions)12:40, 8 July 2024
UTC [
refresh
There has been a recent moderate edit war between users User:Kkm010 and User:Iamgymman123, mostly regarding the content of the second paragraph of the introduction to the article ( diff). In order to avoid further edit war I suggest that both users User:Kkm010 and User:Iamgymman123 discuss their differences in this talk page and reach Wikipedia:Consensus. In the mean time I am reverting much of their recent disagreed edits (the second introductory paragraph) to the original contents of the article (Revision as of 14:28, 21 June 2011 - see this diff). Once User:Kkm010 and User:Iamgymman123 have agreed upon the changes to the second introductory paragraph, please feel free to put the agreed changes to the article. - Subh83 ( talk | contribs) 20:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Whats wrong with you, you're putting wrong and unsourced materials in the second para.-- Kkm010* ۩ ۞ 04:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Kolkata -> Calcutta
The most common English name must be used. -- J4\/4 < talk> 13:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I've known agencies like AP and BBC to be generally conservative. The English media in India widely uses Kolkata. Yes Michael? • Talk 17:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Kolkata → Calcutta – While Kolkata may be the local Hindi name for the city, WP:ENGLISH says that the common English name should be used instead. -- 134.10.114.238 ( talk) 21:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Presently there are two nicknames on the article, but it actually has more:
Source:
www.iloveindia.com,
Asia Times,
AboutKolkata.com
Note: These were present on the article but have been removed by some user recently. These were added long before but the user removed it recently which is not justified.
Regards.
Guitarist(
talk|
contributions)
11:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page not moved per discussion. There is no consensus to move the page to the old title. Furthermore, there is much evidence presented below that in modern English-language usage - considering Indian English (as shown by Sodabottle) or English spoken in the west (as shown by Kauffner) - Kolkata is preferred. - GTBacchus( talk) 06:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Kolkata →
Calcutta – Yes, I
Avenue X at Cicero (
talk ·
contribs), request Kolkata to be moved to Calcutta. I know that I did oppose the move earlier, but have now realised that Calcutta is the more common name, even to Indians. First up, I checked the Google n-grams,
and found that the use of Kolkata has decreased in 2005, merely 4 years after it was renamed, and Calcutta retains its place as the more common name. I expect to receive many oppose votes, some may even say that Kolkata should not be moved as it is the official name, but, on WP, we don't care about the official name. It is just the name that people use more often that we keep as our article title. Secondly, you may say
here that Calcutta is used merely ~2000 times but Kolkata is used ~5000 times, but, as you may see, many times the media starts the news like this: KOLKATA: Lorem ipsum... and also, the media uses Calcutta in the text of the article, meaning that it is more common. Yes, I know that many discussions regarding this have been attempted but I would rather suggest that we take this as a fresh discussion with a blank mind and only the evidence above. If someone differs, I request him to quote evidence here and not link it.
Avenue X at Cicero (
talk)
18:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
— Bill william compton Talk 06:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I found Sodabottle’s arguments based upon what English-language sources in India to be less compelling. The English-language version of Wikipedia has to follow the practices of publications originating in countries whose populations speak English as their first language. If we worried about honoring other countries’ practices as “being most correct,” I’d go to the Spanish-language version of Wikipedia and tell them they can’t spell it “ Estados Unidos de América” because if is “properly ‘United States of America’” and for the Spanish-language version of Wikipedia deny that “United States” is the “proper” spelling is “hate language” and “racist” [yadda yadda, political correctness-run-amok, make the world a better place].
But the fact that a most-reliable English-language source like The New York Times is switching to “Kolkata” is a compelling argument that an encyclopedia like Wikipedia should keep it as “Kolkata.” Greg L ( talk) 19:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: line feed character in |publisher=
at position 18 (
help); line feed character in |title=
at position 8 (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: line feed character in |publisher=
at position 18 (
help); line feed character in |title=
at position 4 (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: line feed character in |title=
at position 6 (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: line feed character in |publisher=
at position 18 (
help); line feed character in |title=
at position 8 (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: line feed character in |title=
at position 14 (
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Hi! I am partially copy-pasting an argument in favor of inclusion of two particular images in the article, from the talk page of User:Nikkul who is opposed to the inclusion of this and this images.
Regarding the slum image, you tell that slums do not represent all of Kolkata demographics. Yes, I agree that it does not represent all of Kolkata demographics. For that matter, there is no single image that represent all of the demographics of any city. As the article says, "1.5 million people, who constitute about a third of the city's population, live in 2,011 registered and 3,500 unregistered (occupied by squatters) slums." So, the slum image does represent almost one third of the dwellings. So, it is not merely ornamental in that article.
Regarding the flower vendors image, you say "flower vendors have little to do with economy". Well, it could be vendor of any other kind, like fruit vendor, grocery vendor, or, other hawkers. I am not argumenting in favour of flower vendors only. What I wanna say is, vendors are a part of informal sector of economy, which, according to the article, "until recently ... comprised more than 40% of the labour force." For example, "roadside hawkers generated business worth Rs. 8,772 crore (around 2 billion U.S. dollars) in 2005" (I admit I do not have recent data though). The economy section of the article, so, will be very much representative of the city economy if there are two images—one from IT sector (the booming sector of the day), and one vendor (or any other informal sector image), which has traditionally been a major part of the economy of the city.
Moreover, if you see the FAC of the article, you will see that these two images were particularly praised for giving ,"...an almost tangible understanding of the city to the page" by an uninvolved reviewer. So, I don't see any reason not including those 2 images. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 06:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Nikkul for uploading the pie chart of distribution of religion in Kolkata. Graphs or maps are quite suitable for demographics section, especially when there is no images significantly representing the demographics of the city/state/country in question.
However, the slum image does significantly represent the demographics of Kolkata, becasue:
1. "...about a third of the city's population, live in 2,011 registered and 3,500 unregistered (occupied by squatters) slums", as mentioned in the article. And a third of population of a city is definitely significant.
2. The adequacy and appropriateness of the image had been established in the FAC of the article. No editors (whether directly involved in the article or not) questioned the image's appropriateness. Rather, as I have mentioned earlier, one uninvolved editor particularly praised this (and another image) for "tremendous quality and interest", and, giving "an almost tangible understanding of the city to the page".
While the pie chart of religion is a very good one, and does represent significantly the demographics, it is nothing extra-ordinary (a graphical representation of numerical data already present in the text adds no additional value). Since we have something extra-ordinary in the slum image (almost tangible understanding), the pie chart should be replaced by the image.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 10:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The slum image DOES NOT represent the demographics of Kolkata when 66 percent of people DO NOT live in slums. It is understandable to have an image of the slum if 70 percent of people lived in slums, but this is not the case in Kolkata. Every city has slums, Kolkata is not the only one. If you feel that a third of the population is significant, than 2/3 is more "significant" and hence the image should not be there.
The image is pointless. It doesnt even show on full hut. It shows a roof, which is irrelevant to the section. Nikkul ( talk) 09:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
If you agree it is difficult to describe the demography of Kolkata, then how can you say the slum image represents the city when 66 percent of the population doesnt live in slums? Wouldnt it be more appropriate to add a picture of non-slum housing as it would be more appropriate for the demography section? And the editors of the FAC praised the article itself not the slum image. The article includes text, references and other images. So there is no real consensus about this particular image. And I dont think the article needs a featured article review because the text and the article itself is first class. The slum image, though, is very inappropriate for the article. Nikkul ( talk) 21:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted the deletion of this image. It reflects a significant aspect of the city and its population. Kolkata, for all of its qualities, has slums in which large numbers of its citizens reside. Excluding the image and the living conditions it represents would diminish the balance of the article and its representation of its topic. It should stay. -- KenWalker | Talk 22:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
There was never consensus to keep the image specifically. There was just no opposition against it. Fortunately, Wikipedia is a dynamic website, which means that even after an article becomes featured, images and content can be changed. I am not going against any consensus because There was never consensus to keep the Image. To say that an article must be kept untouched after it becomes featured is ridiculious! If I add an image of a house, wouldnt it mean it was more appropriate than the image of a slum since more people live in houses than in slums? Nikkul ( talk) 10:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Under this topic, "Discussion on the image on Demographics section", Nikkul has objected to what he considers the overly-squalid-looking slum image, and under "City of Palaces" someone has objected to what he considers the overly-affluent-sounding "City of Palaces" epithet. Do a one-sided epithet and a one-sided image perhaps balance each other out?
D.achyuta ( talk) 02:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Calcutta, was often called the city of places, between about 1780 to 1840, because parts of the city consisted of mile upon mile of mansions built by employees of the East India Company. 90% of these imposing buildings either no longer exsist or are in a terribly ramshackle condition, moreover, in the last 70 or 80 years, I would strongly argue that there has been very little noteworthy construction in Calcutta - not even a very tall office building, let alone a new "palace". To call modern Kolkata a "city of palaces" is quite rediculous, indeed it's a mockery of the urban poor, but the article says that modern Kolkata is often described as such. This is made up. I have never heard modern Kolkata described as a city of places, the term in fact means such a cluster of palaces in one area, that they constitute a city unto themselves. So where is this cluster of palaces in Kolkata?
TB
Nikkul, I enjoyed browsing the images of India that you have collected. Valuable work! Thanks for doing it. I have some I took myself earlier this year which I have stored at hq23 that I could upload to Wikimedia commons if any of them might be useful. -- KenWalker | Talk 23:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone please add the list of sisiter cities of kol? Rohitom ( talk) 12:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone please add the list of sisiter cities of kol? Rohitom ( talk) 12:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a Wikipedia article at wiki/Kolkata_Municipal_Corporation. According to its name it should logically be the Wikipedia's most in-depth article about the KMC, but it is very short and says less about the KMC's political structure, for example, than does the "Civic administration" section of this Kolkata article.
Then there is an article at wiki/Kolkata_district. It contains only four sentences, the first of which is "Kolkata is an administrative district of the Indian state of West Bengal" and the last of which is "The area is under the administration of Kolkata Municipal Corporation." Readers may wonder, "If Kolkata is an administrative district, why does it need to be under the administration of a municipal corporation?" It should be explained that the district is "under" the KMC in terms of civic infrastructure only.
Then there is an article at wiki/Neighbourhoods_in_Kolkata. By "neighbourhoods", it means municipal areas which are part of the Kolkata Metropolitan Area – for example, Barasat Municipality. But in this present Kolkata article, "neighbourhoods" is used as follows: "A characteristic feature of Kolkata is the para or neighbourhoods having a strong sense of community. Typically, every para has its own community club with a clubroom and often, a playing field . . ." The Neighbourhoods in Kolkata article could perhaps be merged into this Kolkata article, but in fact is not even linked to from this article, except in a footnote.
There may well be an existing Wikipedia term for the kind of coordination of different pages whose need I have pointed out here, but I don't know what that term is, so I have used the term "rationalization" of different sites.
There are also the sites wiki/History_of_Kolkata and wiki/Kolkata_Police.
D.achyuta ( talk) 14:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Now Akhandadarshana has proposed moving material from the Civic administration section of the Kolkata article to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation article. This will help to rationalize things. So let him finish his work, then I will see what more appears to need rearrangement. D.achyuta ( talk) 03:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Now thanks to the recent work by Akhandadarshana and Dwaipayan, I think most of the rationalizing problems have been solved. Following up their work, I have so far only touched up the Kolkata_district page to solve the problem I mentioned above. I did only the minimum. Regarding other pages, the only thing that remains from my list above is to think about merging the Neighbourhoods in Kolkata article into the Kolkata article. This would mean that Neighbourhoods in Kolkata would cease to exist.
The following text is now duplicated in the Kolkata page and the KMC page, but maybe there's no harm:
...divided into 141 administrative wards that are grouped into 15 boroughs.... The corporation as the apex body discharges its function through the Mayor-in-Council, consisting of a mayor, a deputy mayor, and ten other elected members. As of 2008, the CPI(M) led Left Front holds the power in KMC. The city also has an apolitical titular post, that of the Sheriff of Kolkata.
D.achyuta ( talk) 04:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I have prepared a rough map that illustrates and I think clarifies the "adjacent areas" and also other matters of boundary and jurisdiction as posted in the Civic administration section by me and others. I would like to post a more polished version of this map in the Civic administration section. However, getting a map done professionally would involve some time and expense, so I would like to "test the waters" first – I would like to get some degree of assurance that such a map would not be quickly removed by someone. So before I proceed further, I would like to get the feedback of other editors regarding this rough map. (To view it clearly, you may need to download it and view it with your own software.)
These boundary matters may be of more importance to Kolkata residents than to the average Wikipedia reader, but at least we should not give the reader any wrong impression, and it's hard to avoid giving a wrong impression regarding all the jurisdictions without spelling things out in detail.
Sources:
Lists of police-station areas under the Kolkata Police and under the South 24 Parganas Police are provided by the Ganashakti Ready Reckoner 2005.
National Atlas & Thematic Mapping Organisation, Dept. of Science & Technology, Govt. of India, Administrative Map of Calcutta, Plate 15, 2nd Edition, 1988, Reg. No. 2844 E/57 – 5002'SS.
National Atlas & Thematic Mapping Organisation, Dept. of Science & Technology, Govt. of India, District Planning Map Series: Kolkata District, 2001, 2nd printing 2006.
National Atlas & Thematic Mapping Organisation, Dept. of Science & Technology, Govt. of India, District Planning Map Series: South 24 Parganas District, Reg. No. 106-NA/DP-2000-2000, 1st Edition 2nd printing 2008.
National Atlas & Thematic Mapping Organisation, Dept. of Science & Technology, Govt. of India, District Planning Map Series: North 24 Parganas District, Reg. No. 066-NA/DP-5000-98, First Edition 1998.
Akhandadarshana ( talk) 04:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
There is already an article called "Kolkata Municipal Corporation" which, as has been pointed out on this page, is sketchy in its content. So I think the most logical approach would be to rename that article "Kolkata Municipal Corporation and the Civic Administration of Kolkata" (or, if that title is too long, simply "Civic Administration of Kolkata") and to transfer most of the present Civic administration section of the Kolkata page to that article. However, I'm not sure whether it's possible to rename an article – could you please guide me to instructions as to how to do it?
In transferring material to that article, I think it would be most logical to transfer not only the paragraphs that I added to the Civic administration section in mid-June, but also much of the material that existed in that section prior to any of my edits. Do you think this would be okay?
Akhandadarshana ( talk) 12:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I have now created an article called Civic Administration of Kolkata. So there are now eight Kolkata articles that I know of:
Kolkata
Kolkata_Municipal_Corporation
Kolkata_district
Neighbourhoods_in_Kolkata
History_of_Kolkata
Kolkata_Police
Kolkata Metropolitan Area
Civic Administration of Kolkata
What I have put in the new article and what further I have done:
1. Copied everything from the Civic Administration section of the "Kolkata" article to the new "Civic Administration of Kolkata" article, and placed my map in that new article. (Sorry, the map is still rough -- accurate, to the best of my knowledge, but rough artistically. To get the map redone professionally might be expensive. Does anyone reading this page have the skills to improve it?)
I copied everything to the new "Civic Administration of Kolkata", that is, except:
"The city is divided into 141 administrative wards that are grouped into 15 boroughs. [1] Each of these wards elects a councillor to the KMC. Each borough has a committee consisting of the councillors elected from the respective wards of the borough. The Corporation, through the borough committees, maintains government-aided schools, hospitals and municipal markets and partakes in urban planning and road maintenance. [2] The corporation as the apex body discharges its function through the Mayor-in-Council, consisting of a mayor, assisted by a deputy mayor, and ten other elected members of the KMC. The mayor is responsible for the overall functioning of the KMC and has a tenure of five years. [3] At present, the CPI(M)-led Left Front holds the power in the KMC."
Regarding the placement of the above, see 4. below.
GDibyendu had suggested using the "Kolkata Metropolitan Area" article to place the map. But the area that the map pertains to is that of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Meanwhile, GDibyendu had said, "Kolkata Municipal Corporation should be artcile for MC only as it is." So using this new page for the map seemed like the best solution.
This new page contains links to "Kolkata", "Kolkata Metropolitan Area", "Kolkata Municipal Corporation", "Kolkata District" and "Kolkata Police".
2. Reduced the Civic administration section of the "Kolkata" article down to an outline, and created a link to the new article, where the previous material of this section will now be found.
3. In the "Kolkata Police", "Kolkata Municipal Corporation", and "Kolkata District" pages, also, created links to the new article, and links to each other.
4. Copied to the "Kolkata Municipal Corporation" article the following:
"The city is divided into 141 administrative wards that are grouped into 15 boroughs. [4] Each of these wards elects a councillor to the KMC. Each borough has a committee consisting of the councillors elected from the respective wards of the borough. The Corporation, through the borough committees, maintains government-aided schools, hospitals and municipal markets and partakes in urban planning and road maintenance. [2] The corporation as the apex body discharges its function through the Mayor-in-Council, consisting of a mayor, assisted by a deputy mayor, and ten other elected members of the KMC. The mayor is responsible for the overall functioning of the KMC and has a tenure of five years. [3] At present, the CPI(M)-led Left Front holds the power in the KMC.
"The city also has an apolitical titular post, that of the Sheriff of Kolkata. [5] The Sheriff presides over various city-related functions and conferences. Another ancillary civic body is the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA) responsible for the statutory planning and development of the Kolkata Metropolitan Area (KMA). [6] The KMA includes a large suburban hinterland around the urban centres of Kolkata."
Besides copying material from the "Kolkata" article, I also added to the "Kolkata Municipal Corporation" article the following:
"The jurisdiction of the KMC covers the area covered by the [[Kolkata Police]] (which in turn covers the area of Kolkata District), but covers an adjacent area as well. See Civic Administration of Kolkata."
5. Added to the Kolkata District article the following:
"Kolkata District is bordered by Howrah District, North 24 Parganas District and South 24 Parganas District."
-- and --
"The jurisdiction of the Kolkata Collector, that is, of Kolkata District, does not include the entire area covered by the Kolkata Police, nor the entire area covered by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. See Civic Administration of Kolkata."
6. Copied to the Kolkata Police article the following --
"The Kolkata Police's entire area comprises eighty-six wards of the KMC in their entirety, plus most of another six KMC wards. [7]"
and added --
"The jurisdiction of the Kolkata Police covers the area of Kolkata District and an adjacent area as well. That adjacent area, like Kolkata District, is within the boundaries of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. . . . But it does not cover the entire KMC area. See Civic Administration of Kolkata."
Akhandadarshana ( talk) 11:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
First, to D.Achyuta: Confirmed. I didn't exactly forget, I logged in and worked on six pages, the next-to-last being "Kolkata"
(Civic administration section) and last being this Discussion page. Somehow
I became logged out after the fourth page. I realized it after saving the
sixth page, so logged in again and corrected that page. But there seemed to
be reason to think that no earlier page had been affected.
As you will see above, Amartyabag once wrote:
"The addition and info that you have provided is correct and highly essential in terms of understanding Kolkata which have a complex civic administration. However as this article is a Featured article and follows Summary style and need to maintain high standards, we cannot accomodate the whole addition into the main article and will rather request you to create a sub article Civic administration of Kolkata and put the gist into the main article."
I adopted his suggestion, and on July 24 moved material from "Kolkata" (Civic administration section) to the new "Civic Administration of Kolkata", leaving only a "gist", as requested by Amartyabag, in the section.
Docku soon undid that version of the "Kolkata" article. But I think two of his reasons may have been: 1) I did not appear to have logged in, and 2) he thought that material had been deleted completely from the Wikipedia.
Now that I am logged in and now that I have explained that no material was deleted, but rather it was moved (mostly to the new page, but some to "Kolkata Municipal Corporation"); and now that it is clear that this was all at Amartyabag's request -- perhaps Docku will not object.
Explaining why, under the "Kolkata" page's
Civic administration
heading, there should now appear --
-- and not --
The new "Civic administration of Kolkata" article is intended as the full coverage of the topic of the "Kolkata" article's Civic administration section. Information about the Kolkata Municipal Corporation is a subset of information about the civic administration (the civic administration includes all the various authorities involved, not only the KMC). In the "Civic administration of Kolkata" article, there is a link to the "Kolkata Municipal Corporation" article.
I did not combine all the information in the "Kolkata Municipal Corporation" article with the information in the "Civic administration of Kolkata" article, as one article, because GDibyendu had written (above): "Kolkata Municipal Corporation should be artcile for MC only as it is."
So all editors please consider the new organization as a whole and consider accepting it all (generally accepting the new organization, that is, while continuing to refine the information within it).
To Dwaipayan: Yes, your opening sentence has more gravity. Thanks!
Akhandadarshana ( talk) 09:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
-- gppande «talk» 11:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Calcutta was the second biggest city (after London) of the British Empire (history's largest). I think this is an important and interesting fact, and should be worth half a line. Also I think half the information on Bose is just Indian patriotic bluster, most of it doesn't really link to the city.
The line about the Bengal "As food stocks were being diverted to feed Allied troops, millions" ... would lead the casual and uninformed reader to conclude that this was the only cause of the famine. There were only a few hundred thousand British troops in India at that time (the millions of Indians in the armed services were Indian nationals who would have had to have been fed from the harvests of Mother India anyway) and even if all of these foreigners had been fed exclusively from Bengali food grains (which they were not), as the population of Bengal was (even back then) around 60 million, these extra foreign mouths would have robbed Bengal of about 0.25% of its food stocks, which can hardly have "killed millions" all by itself, indeed all historians agree that there was a set of problems which created the famine, some caused by the British, some caused by the Japanese and WWII, some caused by natural disasters - indeed even certain Indian administrators have also come in for criticism. I think this attempt to sum up the cause of this extremely complex topic in a one liner that squarely blames the British is somewhat too simplistic, and perhaps overtly anti-British. The article should be neutral, whereas that line gives a clear POV.-- 144.137.90.79 ( talk) 02:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Recently Akhandadarshana created a new page, Civic administration of Kolkata, and moved to that page information about Kolkata's territorial extent and the complex administration thereof. But neither on that page nor in the History of Kolkata is there any clear information about how Kolkata's territorial boundaries expanded historically and how the complexities arose in the first place. Does Akhandadarshana or anyone else have such information, and if so could they add a little of that information to the History of Kolkata? D.achyuta ( talk) 04:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe that, as in Kolkata one can find one of the most diversified cuisine range and because in the previous version of the article, there was no separate cuisine section and very little information was given about the same within the Culture section of the article so, I felt the need of a separate section along with some details about the type of food and name of some of the old and famous retaurants. Therefore, I have created a separate cuisine section in the article and have merged the existing information on cuisine from the Culture section in this new section. -- Jsengupt ( talk) 04:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. Much though I prefer Calcutta, the arguments in favor of Kolkata are stronger and it seems to have become the de facto name of the city in the English language. -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 13:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Kolkata → Calcutta — The name of the place is Calcutta, and not Kolkata. -- Milkbreath ( talk) 13:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC) I was rather surprised to see the Kolkata page has content rather than being a redirect to Calcutta. I had expected that the Calcutta would have the text and Kolkata would be a redirect to that. The common English name for the city is, and has been for c. 300 years, Calcutta so surely we should call it Calcutta.
After we have a page for Cologne not Köln, Florence not Firenze, Manila not Lungsod ng Maynila, etc.
FerdinandFrog ( talk) 13:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree, especially when Kolkata/Calcutta are not significantly different in their phonology. The examples are endless where we don't use the local name in common English parlance: Warsaw not Warszawa, Munich not Muenchen, etc... just because it represents some sort of reclamation for India to have their official English spelling as "Kolkata" does not mean that the general geographic traditions in English should jump to follow suit. 203.97.98.36 ( talk)
Right, and the article itself, in Kolkata#Name, calls "Calcutta" the "anglicised name". What language Wikipedia is this? Oh, yeah, English. The article also says that the "official English name was changed from "Calcutta" to "Kolkata" in 2001." What does that mean? I didn't get that memo. Last time I checked, nobody had the power to "officially" change English at all. The article also says that "While news sources like the BBC have opted to call Bombay Mumbai, Kolkata remains Calcutta." Naming this article "Kolkata" is POV, and it should be "Calcutta". -- Milkbreath ( talk) 11:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose page name change. Wikipedia is not the only encyclopedia that calls the city Kolkata. Both Britannica and Encarta use the name Kolkata as the name of the city. Also, what was meant that the official English name was changed, it meant that the English name was be changed from Kolkata to Calcutta. It was not referring to changing the English language at all. Kolkata has other names in different languages that's why the statement about changing the English name was changed because only the English n name was changed and not the ones from other languages. News organizations, textbooks, maps and other information, at least in my area all and BBC as you stated refer the city as Kolkata. It seems more common that city is referred to as Kolkata. The city website (in English) also refers the city as Kolkata and not Calcutta since that's the old name. So it doesn't seem like a good idea to have the page name change. Isn't renaming Calcutta your own POV as well? Elockid ( Talk· Contribs) 14:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Our naming convention on placenames offers six texts, if there is no reliable secondary statement on what English-speakers normally call the city:
Enjoy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no issue with the page title. But in the History section I think it disturbs the flow unnecessarily to have to parse “Kolkata (then Calcutta)” in a sentence about the early 1700s. I have changed several occurrences of Kolkata to Calcutta in that section only. I intend no political or cultural subtext; only to avoid awkwardness and anachronism. I think it reads clearly and smoothly since #History directly follows the explanation of the name change and current British usage. I had to choose a logical stopping point, so I picked India’s independence in 1950, following which I left all occurrences as Kolkata. MJ ( t • c) 14:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else find it strange to have links to Calcutta in this article? I think the possible confusion of being redirected to the same page is worse than no link, so I'm removing the brackets from 2 occurrences. MJ ( t • c) 14:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The article Mosques in Kolkata should be retained as a separate article. - Chandan Guha ( talk) 02:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The British were part and parcel of Calcutta's culture for over a quarter of a millennia, and yet they are hardly mentioned in the culture section. Their main contribution was (I think) India's first ever newspaper, printed in Calcutta. Not a small thing given the importance of the press in India, but nevertheless, not worth a mention it seems. The influential Asiatic Society (only mentioned in passing in the Eductaion section, but even then not linked to the British), which did so much to introduce Hindu culture, science & philosophy to the outside world, is again, unmentioned. What about Calcutta being the birtplace of William Makepeace Thackaray even? -- Not even worth a link? Obviously not.
But of course, why waste space with the above in the culture section (or anywhere else) when you can write: "Street foods such as beguni (fried battered eggplant slices), kati roll (flatbread roll with vegetable or chicken, mutton, or egg stuffing), phuchka (deep fried crêpe with tamarind and lentil sauce)[....]" etc.
But how stupid of me, obviously fried battered eggplant slices are far more important than anything I have mentioned or 250+ years of Anglo influence. For example, the only reason we don't read about Calcutta's discovery of the cause of the tropic's most virulent killer (malaria) is because it had too much whitey and not enough Bengali behind it.
Let's be adults about this and face facts. There's an anti-British bias to the article, if not in what has been written, then certainly in what has been left out, (smothered by tamarind and lentil sauce perhaps).
Tim / Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.119.118 ( talk) 01:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me while I recover from that staggering display of an Aussie channeling scathing British sarcasm... Ahh, much better. Now, if I've missed some major physical disaster and Kolkata has been sucked into some time warp flinging it back 150 years - such that everything you mentioned is currently relevant to the day to day culture of the city - I will be sure to speak with my therapist and demand an increase in my medical dosage. Oh wait, I just checked, it seems my meds shall remain as they are since Kolkata appears to be firmly rooted in the 21st century. If I'm not very much mistaken, Kolkata is the capital West Bengal, not British India, and is now a center of Bengali culture specifically and Indian culture broadly - not British or even Anglo-Indian culture.
Since you seem to be such a dazzling maven of the British history and impact in Calcutta, why don't you provide your contributions to History of Kolkata, where I'm sure you will find very appropriate grounds to sow your seeds of knowledge.-- Taajikhan ( talk) 02:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
It is strange that Mother Teresa is not mentioned in this article - not just as perhaps Kolkata's most famous resident, but also in terms of the city's portrayal. I see in her article that she was criticised by Aroup Chatterjee for "promoting a negative image of his home city." She is mentioned, but not discussed, in History of Kolkata and List of people from Kolkata. It does seem this deserves a mention, maybe in a paragraph about perceptions of Kolkata. StAnselm ( talk) 05:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Calcutta was probably an ANGLICIZED version of "Kalikata" which was one of the fishing villages that the British forged their town of Calcutta out of (of course the fact that the British started Calcutta with three unconnected fishing villages is not mentioned in the article due to its anti-British bias, and if included, it might actually make it sound like the British founded Calcutta - which of course they did.) "Kolkata" is (ironically)probably a Bengalified version of "Calcutta" - as there was never any "Kolkata" prior to the British. Please meditate on this word: ANGLICIZED - that is to say, it was put into an English pronunciation. Hence the word CALCUTTA is English - period, no debate! So, .... a Communist led council in West Bengal in 2001, changes the ENGLISH name of a city into the Bengali name and then tells the world that English must be Bengali - and you people buy it??? Well, I still hear "Calcutta" on the BBC, and even the airline industry still calls it Calcutta, amongst many examples I could give, because almost everybody knows that it's still Calcutta (in English) - but not Wikipedia it seems. But of course the Indians are free to call it whatever they like. So a Marxist regime in Calcutta, makes a ruling that an ANGLICIZED word is no longer English and 300+ years of common English usage must change. Yeah right!!!! It amazes me that there is even a debate whether the article should be called Kolkata, - and yet there is, and it has been. The entire article is just a biased Bengali and nationalistic travel brochure for "Kolkata". There is no neutral historic overview. No mention of outside cultural influence. Any criticism of the city over the last sixty years is minimal, and even the name has been hijacked. I do not want to see the city's modern reputation degraded here, nor do I want to see the British 257 year tenure "window dressed" - but what we have here is the complete opposite, the British 257 year tenure is degraded, and modern "Kolkata" "window dressed" - how about just a bit of neutrality and honesty? The name would be a good place to start.
Tim Barrett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.47.24 ( talk) 23:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
This section misses the part of the economic stagnation of the Kolkata during the 70's and the 80's. I think it will be good idea to include part the economic stagnation of Kolkata. Also this section only mentions the economy of Kolkata after 2001 but it does completely missed out the economy of the city prior to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anirbandasnet ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The pictures on the Kolkata page are very pretty. However, they look absolutely nothing like what Kolkata actually looks like. I find it a little misleading that the pictures display Kolkata this way. Can we at least get a few pictures of what Kolkata looks like when it hasn't been photoshopped to American glory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.99.41.226 ( talk) 10:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Keeping in line with the West Bengal page where the same photo is used: I have changed the definition of the Durga picture from "an idol" to "a Murti (representation)" of Durga. It is common misconception that Hindus worship idols. Calling these representations idols is as incorrect as referring to the Cross or similar representations of Jesus in the same manner. Idolatry as defined in Wikipedia itself is "a term used in religion for the non-monotheism worship of cult images, termed idols." This is not what the image of Durga represents.
The word "idol" in English usage, especially in western countries, has a pagan connotation and is often used against religions that are viewed as polytheistic, which Hinduism is not. The complex nature of the representation of one God into many forms is not something that can be easily translated into one word. The word sculpture or statue may be a better fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.83.26 ( talk) 19:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.162.181 ( talk)
A part of the lead reads : Once the centre of modern education, science, culture and politics in India, Kolkata witnessed economic stagnation in the years following India's independence in 1947. However, since the year 2000, an economic rejuvenation has led to an acceleration in the city's growth. Like other metropolitan cities of India, Kolkata continues to struggle with urbanisation problems like poverty, pollution and traffic congestion. I can't find mention of this in the rest of the article. Can anyone revise the lead to reflect the rest of the article? Regards, Yes Michael? • Talk 06:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The Bengal Engineering and Science University is not a part of Kolkata. It is situated in Howrah, twin-city and has been mentioned therein. It needs to be removed. Rahulghose ( talk) 09:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I have removed BESU and it has been added to the Howrah page. Rahulghose ( talk) 09:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
There is definitely something wrong:
--
Superzoulou (
talk)
02:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
That is wrong. I will correct it. Thanks for reporting!
Guitarist(
talk|
contributions)12:40, 8 July 2024
UTC [
refresh
There has been a recent moderate edit war between users User:Kkm010 and User:Iamgymman123, mostly regarding the content of the second paragraph of the introduction to the article ( diff). In order to avoid further edit war I suggest that both users User:Kkm010 and User:Iamgymman123 discuss their differences in this talk page and reach Wikipedia:Consensus. In the mean time I am reverting much of their recent disagreed edits (the second introductory paragraph) to the original contents of the article (Revision as of 14:28, 21 June 2011 - see this diff). Once User:Kkm010 and User:Iamgymman123 have agreed upon the changes to the second introductory paragraph, please feel free to put the agreed changes to the article. - Subh83 ( talk | contribs) 20:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Whats wrong with you, you're putting wrong and unsourced materials in the second para.-- Kkm010* ۩ ۞ 04:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Kolkata -> Calcutta
The most common English name must be used. -- J4\/4 < talk> 13:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I've known agencies like AP and BBC to be generally conservative. The English media in India widely uses Kolkata. Yes Michael? • Talk 17:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Kolkata → Calcutta – While Kolkata may be the local Hindi name for the city, WP:ENGLISH says that the common English name should be used instead. -- 134.10.114.238 ( talk) 21:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Presently there are two nicknames on the article, but it actually has more:
Source:
www.iloveindia.com,
Asia Times,
AboutKolkata.com
Note: These were present on the article but have been removed by some user recently. These were added long before but the user removed it recently which is not justified.
Regards.
Guitarist(
talk|
contributions)
11:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page not moved per discussion. There is no consensus to move the page to the old title. Furthermore, there is much evidence presented below that in modern English-language usage - considering Indian English (as shown by Sodabottle) or English spoken in the west (as shown by Kauffner) - Kolkata is preferred. - GTBacchus( talk) 06:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Kolkata →
Calcutta – Yes, I
Avenue X at Cicero (
talk ·
contribs), request Kolkata to be moved to Calcutta. I know that I did oppose the move earlier, but have now realised that Calcutta is the more common name, even to Indians. First up, I checked the Google n-grams,
and found that the use of Kolkata has decreased in 2005, merely 4 years after it was renamed, and Calcutta retains its place as the more common name. I expect to receive many oppose votes, some may even say that Kolkata should not be moved as it is the official name, but, on WP, we don't care about the official name. It is just the name that people use more often that we keep as our article title. Secondly, you may say
here that Calcutta is used merely ~2000 times but Kolkata is used ~5000 times, but, as you may see, many times the media starts the news like this: KOLKATA: Lorem ipsum... and also, the media uses Calcutta in the text of the article, meaning that it is more common. Yes, I know that many discussions regarding this have been attempted but I would rather suggest that we take this as a fresh discussion with a blank mind and only the evidence above. If someone differs, I request him to quote evidence here and not link it.
Avenue X at Cicero (
talk)
18:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
— Bill william compton Talk 06:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I found Sodabottle’s arguments based upon what English-language sources in India to be less compelling. The English-language version of Wikipedia has to follow the practices of publications originating in countries whose populations speak English as their first language. If we worried about honoring other countries’ practices as “being most correct,” I’d go to the Spanish-language version of Wikipedia and tell them they can’t spell it “ Estados Unidos de América” because if is “properly ‘United States of America’” and for the Spanish-language version of Wikipedia deny that “United States” is the “proper” spelling is “hate language” and “racist” [yadda yadda, political correctness-run-amok, make the world a better place].
But the fact that a most-reliable English-language source like The New York Times is switching to “Kolkata” is a compelling argument that an encyclopedia like Wikipedia should keep it as “Kolkata.” Greg L ( talk) 19:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: line feed character in |publisher=
at position 18 (
help); line feed character in |title=
at position 8 (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: line feed character in |publisher=
at position 18 (
help); line feed character in |title=
at position 4 (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: line feed character in |title=
at position 6 (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: line feed character in |publisher=
at position 18 (
help); line feed character in |title=
at position 8 (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: line feed character in |title=
at position 14 (
help)