Talk:Mumbai/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

External Links

I want to propose inclusion of this site kyakare.com in External links. This site is rich in Events related content for Mumbai. Rklaxman 16:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, external links are meant for useful encyclopedic information, not for sites selling commercial stuff. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I didnt see anything commercial in this site? Rklaxman 05:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you mention what encyclopedic content does the site have with respect to Mumbai viz- history, geography, culture etc? =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There are hundreds of sites which offer "related content for Mumbai" (newspapers, mags, yellow pages, travel agencies, groups, forums etc.). The main criteria for inclusion is that the site should have some encyclopedic content, which this site doesn't seem to have. utcursch | talk 06:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Prostitution and AIDS in Mumbai

I made the following addition to the Economy and the Demographics section: [1], and I was quickly reverted by User:Maharashtraexpress without explanation. Can someone tell me why prostitution does not bear mention in Mumbai, a city with the biggest red light district in the world and quite possibly the most sex workers of any city as well as the highest number of AIDS cases in the world? I don't want to get into an edit war here with someone who doesn't want to acknowledge this vile underbelly of Mumbai, but I think it's quite POV to ignore it. Any thoughts? Wikipedia brown 03:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the article on Kolkata does mention sex workers in demographics, how can this article not? Wikipedia brown 04:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedia brown, I agree with you that this is a significant enough feature of Mumbai to deserve a mention. Perhaps we can discuss the exact language for inclusion (and find appropriate supporting citations) here on the talk page, to prevent any possibility of edit warring on the main page. What do you think ? Abecedare 04:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Abecedare. It needs a citation (largest etc are claims and should be backed by credible sources). Secondly, the red-light area information hardly belongs in the =Economy= section. I've moved it to the =Culture= section and commented it out pending references. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I would be happy to discuss here before including these facts again in the main page. I have several citations (mostly American sources), not sure if the sources are high-quality enough though:

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/india.htm (mentions 100,000 sex workers in Mumbai, largest sex industry center in Asia)

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1264/is_n9_v28/ai_20112924 (100,000 sex workers)

today.reuters.com(more recent estimate of 600,000 sex workers)

So, I guess the actual number is not agreed upon, however Mumbai is acknowledged as having the largest red light district in Asia (and by some sources, in the world, see links below). I believe this information belongs under the Economy section, since prostitution is nothing more than selling a service for a price, and can be considered an "occupation" (I'd bet people in Germany and the Netherlands, where prostitution is legal, would say that). Please explain how it would relate to culture. I could make a compromise at Demographics like in the Kolkata article, and the AIDS situation should also be mentioned here too. Wikipedia brown 14:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

More links, including an actual yearly revenue ($400 Million), meaning it is a notable part of the local economy :

http://sapnamagazine.com/Fall06/articles/culture/f06-redlight.html (around a half billion dollars in revenue)

http://www.thevillager.com/villager_144/tryingtogetbyin.html (largest red light district in the world)

http://www.freeachild.org/article3.html (largest red light district in the world)

Wikipedia brown 15:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it quite funny that Amsterdam, the sex capital of the world, mentions prostitution under the tourist attractions section. --nikkul

I believe that largest red-ligjht district is in Kolkata. Mumbai is above all these. Each and every city has a red-light area. Ir cant be a part of a culture/economy of a city. Please refrain from adding hoaxes and rumours about AIDS here. Its a serious subject. Perhaps we can add a gallery with all pics that nikkul is talking about so that article passes necessary guidelines too. Maharashtraexpress 17:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia brown, thanks for all the links. I'll try and go through them (may take some time, though)

Ideally we would like some sort of official survey/estimate (UN, Indian/Maharashtra govt, MMC) to quote a number - I'll try to search for that information. Also, is the Mumbai/Kolkata largest red-light district just a matter of he said/she-said, or is there a reliable source to decide the argument? If not, we should just leave the superlative out.

Personally, I think culture is the most relevant section for the topic. You are right that prostitution is an economic transaction, but the reason it deserves a mention in the article, is not because of its economic size (after all, many "industries" in Mumbai exceed $400M revenue), but rather because of its impact on and as a reflection of the Mumbai culture/lifestyle. Abecedare 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing I have read points to the fact that Kolkata has a larger red-light district. However, I can agree to not include this information about Mumbai's being the largest (for now), but I will strive to find an "official" source, as you request. Keep in mind however that there is no requirement on Wikipedia saying a source has to be from the government and at least half of the references used in this article are from newspapers or periodicals, and in at least one case from someone's page on angelfire.com.

As far as the section, I see your point that we should not include it in Economy. However, I still don't see how it's a cultural issue. When someone thinks of the way of life of a typical Mumbaikar, do they think of a daily visit to prostitutes and brothels? I really don't think so (but I don't live in India, so I'm not really sure). I think we should compromise and include it in Demographics, like in the Kolkata article. The AIDS epidemic may also bear mention there as well.

By the way, thank you very much, Abecedare, for taking the time to discuss. Wikipedia brown 18:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A US state department report (2001) says "There are approximately 100,000 to 200,000 women and girls working in brothels in Mumbai" [2]. Some will consider this a biased source, but at least it is well-known and the reader is free to decide whether to trust the numbers or not. I agree with you that official sources are not (and should not be) required on wikipedia; however the issue I have with using numbers from NGO advocacy groups is that (1) though they may be well-meaning, they may not have the resources to compile comprehensive data, and (2) since they are usually local, an average reader has never heard of them and cannot therefore judge their credibility.

That said, here is data from such a group: "Equality Now" in a submission to UNHRC reported (based on "Submission from the Centre for Social Research - prepared by Kamla Nath."), "In Bombay alone, it is estimated that there are more than 100,000 prostitutes".[3] Anyway, irrespective of what source we decide to cite, there seems to be a rough consensus around a ~100,000 figure (except for one 600,000 outlier).

We should also try to find stats on AIDS prevalence and reliable source for "largest red-light district". Then we can work on massaging the exact language to be included.

By the way, I agree with you that "Demographics" is a better fit than "People and culture" for this topic. Regards. Abecedare 19:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Demographics would be a better fit. I don't support the addition of it in economy as it has little to do with the way the city makes its money or how its citizens work. As for the exact figures on the same, I'm sure it would be unavailable, so we would need to quote both the official figures as well as figures cited by independent sources. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

According to me, prostitution is NOT so significant to enter it in culture/demographics section. The information about AIDS should be backed by Govt. websites and not from US or any other western media. Prostitution and brothels are not an exception they are present in every other city and town. Let us not potray Mumbai in 'red light'.Maharashtraexpress 16:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not about portraying anything in red or green light, but citing facts. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion for inclusion followed by (possible) references:

"Even though prostitution is illegal in India, Mumbai has a large population of sex workers, estimated to number more than 100,000 [1]. High HIV prevalence among the female sex-workers (up to 50% or more [2],[3]), contributes to the spread of AIDS in the region and the country [3]."

[1] "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: India", US State Department, 2001.
[2] "HIV/AIDS in Asia and the Pacific Region 2001", World Health Organization, 2001.
[3] "AIDS in Asia, Face the Facts", Monitoring the AIDS Pandemic (MAP) Network report, 2004.
Please feel free to suggest changes in both the language and the references to be cited. Some other references that you may find useful :

• "Facts & Figures: HIV Estimate 2004", National AIDS Control Organization.
• "HIV and AIDS in India", AVERT.
• "India: The sex workers", FRONTLINE/World, June, 2004.

The last one says, "Kamathipura, one of the country's poorest districts and also its largest red light district, home to more than 60,000 sex workers." Abecedare 23:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That looks great, Abecedare. I think your two sentences are appropriate and are not over-exaggerating (or 09:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Kensplanet (talk)under-exaggerating) the issue. Your references are high-quality too. If you would like to add more context to your second sentences, I would word it thusly:

"Consistently high HIV infection rates among sex workers (50% or more among Mumbai's female sex worker population since 1993[2],[3]), coupled with lack of information, failure to use protection, and the migrancy of their clients[4], may contribute to the spread of AIDS in the region and the country [3]."

You can use [4] as a ref for the migrancy bit. Also, I changed it to the word "may" because I haven't seen anyone 100% sure that this is the way it works. Of course, feel free to go with your original, more concise version, since you're the one who's doing all the heavy lifting around here! Wikipedia brown 01:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia brown, sorry for the late response; I somehow missed seeing your reply earlier. I have updated the Prostitution AIDS info on the Mumbai page, based upon the above discussion. I thought that epidemiological details on the spread of AIDS may be tangential to the city page; however I have added the useful information and language you provided to the Prostitution in India page. The page AIDS in India, also needs a lot of attention - it is basically a stub, although the page in the number 5 hit for a google search on the topic. Clearly we don't lack quality informational sources on the subject! Abecedare 17:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good Abecedare! Now let's make sure no one reverts your edits because they believe it shows Mumbai in a "negative light". Wikipedia brown 17:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the British in Mumbai (formerly a British controlled Bombay) taught India a lot about sex. Something to pat about. Should we also not add who got them there during the British rule too?? and for what? I did not know till now that Prostitution was a part of the army drills. I studied a bit, I find a lots about it. If you find time scan a little at Google books, you will find a lots to read on secret army practices. It looks like British army was a lot frustrated leaving their dear ones behind. It should be a great thing to quote. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 08:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think both Bombay and Calcutta where creations of the English Army, no wonder we had to throw them out of Here. These are also India's biggest problems those our governments are trying to solve for the last 60 plus years. But, the fixes of the English army are so solid that both the places have millions of cries every day. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 08:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Image: Nehru Planeturium

Please scale down the pic, its too big and looks odd. spacejuncky 04:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you're seeing. To prevent clutter and large images, we haven't defined a pixel value, and the parameter |thumb| will automatically resize to what the user has specified as his/her preference in special:preferences. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Skyline Image

The new 'skyline' pic is neat but has adversely effected the box (at the top). I would suggest correction or removal of it and including it somewhere else. Plz check the lingo used for 'prostitution in Mumbai'. Maharashtraexpress 17:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This image is small and not a representative of the skyline. In absence of a good representative, I suggest using an excellent existing image of mumbai skyline from great powers page. The amount of displacement it makes to the box is almost exactly what is seen in other good city pages like one for chicago. Also copyright issues with this image have already been settled.

--Rakov 20:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your enthusiasm in pushing for your skyline image but it is very poor representative of the city skyline. It shows only three major buildings and most of the real state of the image is dedicated to useless water in front. I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mumbai_construction.jpg is a better representative of the skyline. Also as far as pushing the box down is concerned, I dont think thats a biggy if you look at other major city pages - Chicago, New York City. No matter how small a image you put above the box, the box is never going to totally visible without scroll (also this is dependent on user screen size) so we might as well remove box visibility as a constraint and put a decent picture up there. do let me know your thoughts on this.

--Rakov 01:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Name in first line

I think that the first line should be

Mumbai (Marathi: मुंबई Mumbaī, IPA: /'mumbəi/ (help·info)), formerly known as Bombay...

It will be more correct than saying:

Mumbai (...popularly known in English as Bombay,...)

because that popular depends on usage. For instance, business correspondence will never use Bombay anymore even if in Bombay is used in normal speech in English --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 09:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It used to be like that. I've now corrected it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

By which act of parliament was the name changed to Mumbai

Most articles on the web mention that the name of Bombay was changed to Mumbai "by an Act of Parliament". Does anyone know which act? In which year? some say 1995 and some say 1997, so thats open to dispute, though I personally remember it to be 1995!! Moreover, just like the reference to the State Linguistic Reorganization Act, it would be good to provide a reference to the exact piece of legislation, perhaps just for the sake of knowledge.

I have tried searching the India Code website (indiacode.nic.in) but to no avail. Search words such as Mumbai, Bombay and "rename" turned up no results for the period 1995-2000.

Any pointers would be helpful in this regard. Would like to either add the info here or history of Mumbai article.

Pizzadeliveryboy 16:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The name was changed circa Dec 1995 and was I think made official in Jan 1996. It was a state government act I think. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

no marine drive pic

very sorry to see no marine drive pic.202.41.72.100 06:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Jogeshwari Caves and Mahakali Caves

Please, add some information on 2nd century budhhist Mahakali caves and Jogeshwari Caves. vkvora 18:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

These caves are not really important in the overall aspect of the city. Perhaps we can improve the articles themselves? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sister Cities

A few points:

1. Indian cities are governed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities where there are clear cut guidelines on what sections are needed to be added. Sister cities comes under culture.
2. Lists are not recommended for matter which can be prose: See Wikipedia:Guide to layout
3. Mumbai is a Featured article. LA and NY are not. Those cities should emulate this one, not the other way round. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Climate

How does a satelite map define the climate of a city? Lets get some better pictures cuz theres already a map of the city right above the "climate map" Nikkul 13:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

located on?

Mumbai is located on Salsette Island

I don't this line is entirely correct. Salcette is the part north of Mahim creek, not the entire Mumbai district as it now exists. In school we had studied that Bombay (city) was made up of three parts : Bombay(Island), Trombay and Salcette. Any comments? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Name

Can someone tell me why the name off this city was changed from Bombay to Mumbai. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Veracoco (talk • contribs). utcursch | talk 14:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

See Indian renaming controversy and The Politics of Name Changes in India. utcursch | talk 14:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Pics

(pics deleted) Nikkul 01:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing the pics. they are unsourced and IndianBoy1 himself has admitted that he isnt the creator of these images. Anyway if anyone wants to refer to them, they will be available on Special:Contributions/Indianboy1 until they are deleted. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 11:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Mumbai High

i do not know how to edit the Mumbai Related Topics area which has a link to the Bombay High oil fields.

City's name is changed to Mumbai but the oilfields arent called Mumbai High ...they are still known as "Bombay High"

its a name similar to Bombay Dyeing ...which doesnt become Mumbai Dyeing ..does it ??

~ Ninad

Thanks for pointing that out, Ninad! I have corrected the Template:Mumbai topics. Why don't you create an account and help us edit and upkeep these articles ? Cheers. Abecedare 02:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Slums?

My friend just visited Mumbai, he told me about those huge slums in Mumbai. Anyone has any sources and pictures on those slums?

Many individuals have taken pictures that are posted unprotected, like this one: http://www.panoramio.com/photos/original/1526900.jpg It is terribly misleading to only include photos that might appear in an up-scale tourist brochure when half of the city consists of slums. 134.173.117.123 21:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the license of that image? We also have some free images like Dharavi UNICEF rubbish .jpg on commons. utcursch | talk 04:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Utilities : Marine Outfalls

There is no mention of the two marine outfalls built at Worli and Bandra, which *if i am not wrong* are the longest in the world, some 3 to 5 kms out into the sea. I searched google but didnt come up with any articles, actually there is no "Marine Outfall" article on wikipedia ...so I have requested it. But we can atleast for now mention that two marine outfalls (and a third one being planned) have been recently constructed to reduce the ocean pollution.

Caption Underneath 1st Picture

in reality, there is no real "downtown" in mumbai, as it is thoroughly dense. The picture shows a view from Chowpatty beach, which does not necessarily mean that's downtown Mumbai. There are several other areas like Andheri and Worli which are also dense and full of office space. Thats a view of Nariman Point and Cuffe Parade 74.114.243.104 21:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

thats true and plus we dont call our business districts as "downtown". but instead of just writing view of mumbai, it would be better to describe it as "view of southern part of mumbai(nariman point and cuffe parade)" ~ Ninad

also should "chowpatty beach" change to "Girgaum Chowpatty" ? doesnt chowpatty mean a beach or beachfront. Its certainly not called "Chowpatty beach"

UNESCO World Heritage Award

Mumbai has 2 UNESCO world heritage sites. Cant find any proof that it has won 3 world heritage awards ..can anybody confirm ? 60.240.244.244 02:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Ninad Hardikar

Yes, Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus and Elephanta Caves are World Heritage Sites. See this list. I am not sure about World heritage awards.

PS: Don't forget to sign your talk-page posts by appending 4 tildas (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Abecedare 00:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There dont seem to be any world heritage awards, just world heritage sites ..so I am making that 2 from the existing 3. 60.240.244.244 02:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Ninad Hardikar

Mumbai's Area

The article says Mumbai's area is 468 sq km. Are we sure about this. I remember reading somewhere that it is around 600 sq km and 110 sq km out of that is the national park (which is no 104 sq km because of the damn slums). If it was 468 sq km ..and 104 sq km national park ..then the total area would only be 364 sq km which is pretty less. I will try to find proof on google :P 203.9.185.137 23:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Ninad

Sports in Mumbai

I think we need a different page which lists the sports facilities available in Mumbai and then link it from the Sports section of this page. The new page should have a list of sporting venues and list of clubs/gymkhanas, public grounds in Mumbai. Otherwise we can link this section to Category:Sport_in_Mumbai Ninadhardikar 01:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If you wish, you can start a Sports in Mumbai article, that expands on the current section and lists the various sporting facilities and events. By the way, the current sports section in this article is completely uncited, and could use some references, historical perspective and less recentism. A encyclopedia article should do more than just say X,Y,Z are played in Mumbai at stadiums A,B,C. Abecedare 02:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

IAST for Mumbai ?

Can editors please comment on what the correct IAST transliteration for Mumbai (is ?

• IMO it should be Muṃbaī based on the Devanagari spelling मुंबई
• User:Tuncrypt thinks it should be Mumbaī

Can other knowledgeable about the issue please settle this great "ṃ" versus "m" debate. Cheers. Abecedare 22:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

In Devanagari the anusvara (which I'll call "dot") is short-hand for 6 things: 5 nasal consonants, and nasalization of a vowel (when the specific symbol for that, the chandra-bindu or "moon-dot", can't be written). When met with the dot, the convention in transliteration is not for the dot to have it's own single symbol, but for what the dot exactly represents to be written. In this case it represents m, which is the nasal consonant of the same mouth position of b, and thus we write m. ṃ signals a nasalized vowel, and that's not what we have here.

For confirmation I suggest you check Oxford's Hindi-English Dictionary. You'll see that dots are transliterated into whichever consonants they represent in their specific cases (m n ñ ṅ ṇ, or nasalized vowel if the moon-dot can't be written). So, case settled. Tuncrypt 00:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, before the point is raised, it's true that some old European works on Sanskrit used singularly ṃ to transliterate the dot. Nonetheless the modern convention isn't that anymore, with the transliterated Devanagari of Oxford's Hindi-English Dictionary as one reference. Tuncrypt 00:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to give an opinion on this interesting question. Different books follow different manuals of style regarding the handling of anusvāra. A simple test is to take a popular work like the Gita that has many editions, and look up a single passage that includes anusvāra. I urge you to crack open your Gita and see how it is romanized in your favorite version. For example, I looked up 6.1, which includes the term संन्यासी, in six editions chosen at random and found that while all those that gave the Devanagari showed it as संन्यासी, the romanization varied:

• saṁnyāsī : Zaehner, Sargeant, Chidbhavananda, Radhakrishnan
• sannyāsī : Gambhirananda, Sivananda

In works directed at the general public, I agree that it is common to "decode" the anusvāra by showing the nasal of the corresponding class (in this case, "m"). However for books directed at an academic audience, the primary function of IAST is to serve as a lossless representation for the Devanagari writing system. To achieve that goal, in academic works I think it is most common to preserve the anusvāra if that is what would appear in Devanagari. The IAST is simply representing what you would see if the Devanagari were there. So in many academic works an internal anusvāraḥ (occurring within a word) typically would be romanized either as ṁ or ṃ depending on the font the book is set in.

In this case, the city is मुंबई so the lossless IAST equivalent is muṁbaī, which preserves the fact that anusvāra is used to write the word in Devanagari. Examples proving that the word is often written in Devanagari using anusvāra include:

• http://www.mcgm.gov.in/forms/grindex1.aspx
• http://www.mu.ac.in
• http://mumbaiport.gov.in

Another way of thinking about the function of IAST as a lossless equivalent of Devanagari is to ask what you would get if you started with IAST = mumbai and then wrote that IAST losslessly in Devanagari. You would get मुम्बई, not मुंबई. So a related question may be, what is the relative frequency of these two Devanagari versions of the name?

The anusvāra is used to write the word in Devanagari because of a Sanskrit writing rule (paraphrased from Judith Tyberg, p. 30): The final m remains the same at the end of a sentence and before vowels. When followed by a consonant of the first five classes it optionally takes the anusvāra or the corresponding nasal of the consonant to which it is joined. Before all other letters it becomes an anusvāra. Tyberg follows this optional practice by in writing examples, e.g.: हंस haṃsa, वंश vaṃśa. A table showing the cases under which anusvāra and labial "m" are differentially used appears on p. 74 of Roderick Bucknell's Sanskrit Manual.

Decoding the results of this writing rule is discussed in Antoine, R., A Sanskrit Manual (which is rather officiously labeled as "Approved by the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination, 12th January 1966). To paraphrase Antoine, anusvāraḥ represents either 1) terminal म् or 2) any of the five nasals corresponding to the following class. (Antoine, volume 1, p. 2) For examples of romanization of anusvāraḥ Antoine gives कं = kaṃ, अंग = aṃga, and सिंह = siṃha.

This formal preservation of anusvāra has been common in academic works for quite a long time. For example, see: Lakshman Sarup, The Nighantu and The Nirukta (London, H. Milford 1920-29), Repr. Motilal Banarsidass 2002, ISBN 81-208-1381-2. Critical editions, e.g., the critical edition of the Mahabharata, often follow this practice of retention of anusvāra, and the electronic edition has gone to great effort to preserve anusvāra. Since the electronic edtion is easy to scan, I found the character sequence "mb" often, but found the sequence "ṁb" tends to occur only in compounds such as "saṁb-" except for book 6, suggesting that their editorial rule was to use labial "m" rather than anusvāra for most labial cases, which differs from their handling of non-labial consonant classes. Thus if following that practice, the romanization would probably be mumbai.

Preservation of anusvāra in IAST continues today in many academic works so it is not correct to suggest that this practice has died out. For current examples of works directed primarily at an academic audience, see:

• Niels Hammer (2003), The Art of Sanskrit Poetry, Munsiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd. ISBN 81-215-1079-1
• Gary A. Tubb & Emery R. Boose (2007), Scholastic Sanskrit, Columbia University Press, ISBN 978-0-9753734-7-7

Buddhipriya 07:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tuncrypt and Buddhipriya for the detailed analysis. So it appears that neither transliteration is incorrect, just a matter of which IAST convention one follows - the one of Oxford English-Hindi dictionary, or the one standard in other academic texts cited by Buddhipriya. Personally, I still prefer Muṃbaī since that transliteration makes it possible to recover the more commonly used Devanagari spelling of मुंबई, but I don't intend to change the article till Tuncrypt has had an opportunity to respond. Overall, this is a minor issue, and the main gain of this discussion may simply a better understanding of the topic that may be useful in other contexts. Abecedare 16:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In the end I still side with anusvara decoding and not preservation. buddhipriya you have demonstrated that even modern Sanskrit works preserve it, and that's completely fine. However Marathi is a New Indo-Aryan language, in which case I believe that the relevant and trumping precedent remains the Oxford Hindi-English Dictionary (1993), which decodes the anusvara of its Devanagari. Further corroborating this is A Dictionary of Old Marathi (2000), which decodes as well. Tuncrypt 23:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

part of the problem is that IAST is a scheme to transliterate Sanskrit, while मुंबई is not Sanskrit. The proper transliteration scheme for Marathi is ISO 15919, thus Muṁbaī. But Indian vernaculars are typically lazy with spelling nasals, using the dot just as a shorthand for "any nasal". Thus, Mumbaī is actually "better than lossless" by restituting the intended nasal for the generic one. dab (𒁳) 12:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

On a practical basis, IAST is a standard romanization method for any Indic script that uses the same sound system as Devanagari. That is why it is used for romanization of other languages such as Pali, and for other scripts related to Devanagari, such as Bonji. The idea that it is limited to Sanskrit is not correct. The choice of characters in IAST was determined by the romanization needs of classical Sanskrit, however, and that is why IAST lacks some characters needed for modern Indic languages (such as the candrabindu) and those needed for Vedic accents. However for any romanization where those deficiencies are not a problem, IAST gives satisfactory results. Regarding the Mumbai romanization issue, on a practical basis I do not recall ever seeing it romanized with the anusvara shown, even though it technically would be shown if preservation of the Devanagari were the objective. Buddhipriya 22:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Buddhipriya, ISO 15919 is practically identical to IAST. To anyone but a pedant, it doesn't matter. The point is, when transliterating modern Indic languages, you do it in ISO, not IAST, even if the actual transliteration string is identical. In the case of Mumbai, the difference is all of ṁ vs. ṃ. dab (𒁳) 14:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A user dab has changed the IAST name and wrote dont use Marathi IAST in message. Please note that even if Marathi uses Nagari script, it has certain peculiarities against Hindi or Sanskrit script. While deciding IAST of Mumbai consider Marathi and not any other language. (Stateofart 08:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

you are not making sense. --dab (𒁳) 14:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

IAST used in this page should be as per Marathi pronounciations. (Stateofart 04:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

what the hell are you saying? Tuncrypt 01:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Construction boom photos

According to me, the Hutatma Chowk photo is important as the protest etc was for "Bombay" and its part of Bombay's history. Whereas, the topic of construction boom doesnt necessarily need a photo that too of some 2-3 buildings in construction. All we need is a photo of Mumbai's skyline which is already present. A photo of the Bandra Kurla complex would be really good though. Ninadhardikar 02:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The construction booms are same for all cities. Its nothing peculiar for Mumbai city. It definitely doesnt need a pic. Creation of Maharashtra state and the protests to keep and declare Mumbai as its capital is more important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stateofart (talk • contribs) 09:51, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Nikkul is bringing good pictures but including more picture will not look it tidy. History section, Mumbai high court and Hutatma chowk picture are enough. We can remove Hiranandani garden pic and replace with Subhash Chandra Bose Road (Marine drive). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stateofart (talk • contribs) 10:01, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Lead

User Nikkul changed the lead sentence and he is keen to use terms like financial/entertainment capital of india, most populous city of india etc. I think, and just like Calcutta and Bangalore which are FA as well, mentioning Mumbai is the capital of Indian state of Maharashtra is important followed by 'biggest' financial capital kind of abjectives. (Stateofart 13:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

Actually, it might interest u to know that Ninadhardikar was the one who changed the intro line to something that I was perfectly happy with. People need to know that Mumbai is in India before they need to know that Mumbai is in Maharashtra. The line "Mumbai is the most popolous city in India and also the capital of Maharashtra" is perfect! Most of the readers who come here live abroad. They were on some other wiki article that linked here (like Most popolous cities) and now theyve come here to learn more. The best thing to do is introduce the country in which Mumbai is before introducing the state. Its like when u mail something, is ur address:

4 Dalal Street, Mumbai, India, Maharashtra 500058? or is it 4 Dalal Street, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, 50058? THe answer is the second one. It seems that there is a concnesus between Ninadhardikar and I that this line is perfect. Nikkul 11:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are some intros from Featured City Articles:

• Cape Town (Afrikaans: Kaapstad /ˈkɑːpstɑt/; Xhosa: iKapa) is the third most populous city in South Africa, forming part of the metropolitan municipality of the City of Cape Town.
• Canberra (pronounced /ˈkæn.bɹə/[1]) is the capital city of Australia and with a population of over 332,000, is Australia's largest inland city.
• The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region [pronunciation], commonly known as Hong Kong[4] (Chinese: 香港), is one of the two special administrative regions of the People's Republic of China (PRC);
• Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is the capital and largest city of Israel[2]
• Vancouver (IPA: /væn.kuː.vɚ/) is a city located in southwestern British Columbia, Canada.
• Isan, also written as Isaan, Isarn, Issan, or Esarn; (Isan/Thai: อีสาน) is the northeast region of Thailand.
• Cape Horn (Dutch: Kaap Hoorn; Spanish: Cabo de Hornos; named after the city of Hoorn in the Netherlands) is the southernmost headland of the Tierra del Fuego archipelago of southern Chile.

• Dhaka (previously Dacca; Bengali: ঢাকা Ḍhākā; IPA: [ɖʱaka]) is the capital of Bangladesh and the principal city of Dhaka District.
• Dorset (IPA pronunciation: [ˈdɔːsɪt]) (sometimes in the past called Dorsetshire), is a county in South West England
• Dundee (Scottish Gaelic: Dùn Dèagh) is the fourth-largest city in Scotland.
• Gyeongju is a city (see Subdivisions of South Korea) and prominent tourist destination in eastern South Korea.
• Minnesota (help·info) (pronounced: /ˌmɪnəˈsoʊtə/)[2] is a state located in the Midwestern region of the United States
• Oklahoma (pronounced: /ˌoʊkləˈhoʊmə/)[3] is a state located in the South Central region of the United States of America.
• Whitstable (IPA: [ˈwɪtstəbəl or ˈʍʰɪtstəbəl]) is a seaside town in northeast Kent, England

Nikkul 12:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would want to go with Indian cities lead system. The cities u mentioned above are either capitals (and hence the precedence) or not from Federal countries. I hope some admin helps us resolving this. Again Mumbai is in India. If one doesnt know India he obviously doesnt know Mumbai. There's no question of 'state or country'. Mumbai is the capital of Indian state of Maharashtra. This is the way other Indian cities have lead and here too INDIA comes before Maharashtra. (Stateofart 13:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

I have copyedited the lead and made the following changes:

• Consolidated the population discussion and removed the projected stats as per WP:CRYSTAL
• Added back the the sentence of Bombay being a port and placed the two "geographic" sentences together.
• Bolded Bombay, as per wikipedia's manual of style.

Abecedare

Hi saw ur msg at Mumbai talk page. Wikipedia manual of style does not explain bolding of a former name. Old names have not been bolded in Chennai, Kolkata or Bangalore. Dont u think lead shud be Mumbai is capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra just like other Indian state-capital articles ? (Stateofart 15:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

(Copied Stateofart's message here from my talk page. Abecedare 15:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

To address your two points:

• Bombay is still a popular and commonly used (colloquial) name used to reference the city and its institutions as seen by >4000 hits in Google News over the past month alone. As such MOS requires that we bold it, just as former names of Chennai, Kolkata or Bangalore should be bolded.
• As for the lead sentence: Do you think the current version "is the capital of the state of Maharashtra and the most populous city in India." needs to be changed ? 'Aside: IMO the debate about whether the state capital or the most populous city should be mentioned first in that sentence is just much ado about nothing. Do we expect that a reader will stop reading midway through the first sentence and hence miss out on one of those two important facts ?

Abecedare 15:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Now the lead sentence looks good. You said Bombay receives 4230 hits, but dont forget Mumbai receives 26,473 hits. The institutions like Bombay high court/stock exchange etc have retained their name and it is because of that u get 4230 hits. Consider Bangalore (10162 hits against 36 hits of Bengaluru. As u said Do we expect that a reader will stop reading midway through the first sentence and hence miss out on one of those two important facts ?The reader is going to come across to 'Bombay' which is at the first line itself and not going to miss it. No need to bold it. Wikipedia manual style doesnt say about bolding old names and furthur Bombay high court/stock exchange are mentioned in old names (which gathered search results for word Bombay).

Also can someone look into the pronounciation file of Mumbai.ogg? That doesnt emphasize on 'ba' and 'ee' of Mumbai. In Marathi its dirgha ee. मुंबई and not मुंबइ. (Stateofart 04:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Stateofart, I am not trying to claim that Bombay is the official or even the preferred name; only that it is still a name used in reference to the city including, as you point out, in names of prominent institutions such as Bombay Stock Exchange, Bombay High Court, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay etc besides the google news hits I linked to above. As such wikipedia's manual of style (as well as simple logic and precedence) dictates that it needs to be bolded in the lead. Perhaps a few decades from now, when the name Bombay is no longer used contemporaneously, and is only of historical interest, we will no longer need to have it in bold - although examples such as Ahmedabad (Karnavati is bolded), Beijing (Peking is bolded) and Saint Petersburg (both Leningrad and Petrograd are bolded) indicate that we may have to wait well over a century for that.

I don't think I can explain this issue any better, and if you still disagree I'll be happy to invite a third opinion or an RFC so that other editors can weight in. Regards. Abecedare 05:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Bombay is used ONLY for Bombay high court, Bombay stock exchange etc. If at all city is called Bombay, it is by foreign medias and that too very sparingly. Mumbai is official and also part of popular culture. If bolding Bombay is necessary why not Bambai which is also used. Anyway i dont think we should drag it too much. If u still want it to be bold let it be. There is no dispute to do an RFC. (Stateofart 07:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Image:Gateway of India.jpg

I suggest an image of the Gateway of India be added somewhere within this article. It is afterall one of the most famous landmarks and symbols in the city, an image of it should be added somewhere to this article.--Sefringle^Talk 04:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes i also think the same. Perhaps we should use Gateway of India picture in the box which appears in top of the article. It currently shows Girgaum chowpatty pic. (Stateofart 12:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC))

I disagree with that. The lead image should be a skyline image when possible; some cities don't really have a skyline, in which case that would be inappropiate, but instead, I think the image belongs somewhere else. I tried putting it in two places, both of which are reverted, so I won't re-add it until there is some consensus as to where to put it. Sefringle^Talk 00:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok try a section where images are not cluttered. I think Mumbai high court pic can be replaced by GWofIndia. This pic shall satisfy the purose of Mumbai high court too. Nikkul has uploaded that pic so we must consult him before that. (Stateofart 05:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC))

The mumbai high court pic should stay since it was built in the 1800s while the gateway of india was built recently. Nikkul 23:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

people want a name change back to "Bombay"?

Is it true that people in Mumbai want to rename the city under its old name? 68.36.214.143 16:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of them still prefer the old name, but by and large, most people are now used to "Mumbai".

moderator

brihan mumbai means greater mumbai which means both city district and suburban district pls understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bala 207 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

One, we dont have moderators, second, we don't get why you're trying to say that Mumbai does not consist of the city and suburban district. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

hey there is a misunderstanding.. i am also saying what u are saying. but i think there is sort of misunderstanding.

cheer up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bala 207 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Mention About Bad condition of Roads

Well Mumbai is slated to become and International City but the infrastructure is far from being of the International Standards. In spite of years of planning ans wastage of precious public resources, The conditions of roads remain to be one of the worst in the world. Just after a single shower of monsoon, Potholes surface on major roads including the eastern and western express highways. No where in the world in any city you see such bad conditions of roads. Even the roads which have been concertized over a period of time are of the worst possible quality. No proper leveling, No smoothness of the surface and no proper expansion joints. My personal experience is that the car literally vibrates like hell when you traverse on these roads. I don't know whether the city roads will ever improve. In it doesn't then Mumbai is far away from becoming a world class city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishekjparmar (talk • contribs) 08:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad roads are common all over India. Why single Mumbai out? The roads in the city region are better than other cities in India. But yes, infrastructural problems can be integrated somewhere. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Twinned With London

According to this article Mumbai is twinned with London. However the article on London does not reflect this. The article City of London does list Mumbai as a twinned city. Either both of the London articles or the link in the Mumbai article need updating. I would do it, but I don't know which is correct. KingStrato 19:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Broken refs

For a featured article, there sure a lot of broken refs. Also, I tried to link the google cache of the census slums page (after an unregistered user changed the figure from 54 to 42 percent), which may not be available there for long (don't count on the govt. of India hosting this critical material again, so make backups of this, or I will), but to no avail. Anyway, I added the ref cleanup tag until the red ref error is addressed. Thx. El_C 09:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Need to stdize the references section

We need to standardize the format for rendering references using {{cite }} tags.

Completed; comments welcome.

I have hidden or removed some refs (esp web refs) which cannot be verified since the individual pages are no longer available. No archive info is available either from the web site in question or by the person who originally posted the reference.

Pizzadeliveryboy (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sister Cities

Mumbai has six sister cities (the maximum permitted by the Indian government). They are:

• Berlin, Germany
• London, United Kingdom
• Los Angeles, California, United States
• Saint Petersburg, Russia
• Stuttgart, Germany
• Yokohama, Japan

Sholdn't Sister cities be a seperate topic rather than merging it with People and Culture. In most of the international city articles, Sister cities are seperate. Shoudn't the format be that way.Kensplanet (talk) 09:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Must Check : Infobox

I was just comparing infoboxes of Delhi and Mumbai and found strange disparities. Even though infoboxes show population of -

• Delhi as 13,782,976 (13 million 782 thousand and 976) or 13.8 million approx. as of 2001, and that of
• Mumbai as 13.3 million as of 2006,

how come Delhi is 2nd largest metropolitan city in the country?

Even on comparing by area Delhi is far more larger than Mumbai -

• Delhi - 1,483 sq km
• Mumbai - 603.45 sq km

Don't know why nobody else found it. Please review the data and discuss the situation so as to reach a consensus. It would be better if official data from Indian government is used for the purpose. A discussion in regard has been put on Talk:Delhi page.

- Manik (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the Air Quality like in Mumbai

Hello, just wondering what pollution is like in Mumbai. I would guess it is quite severe. Thanks for any info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.34.221 (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Recent Incident of Molestation of Women and Comments of Commissioner of Police

In the paragraph on Mumbai Police in this article, I added a post on the pulic outcry raised by the comments of the Commissioner of Police, as reported in the media, with proper footnotes. If it's true and incontrovertible, why would anyone call it vandalism. Why do you want to portray a santitised and idealistic version of information. Whose good does that serve, apart from letting us live in the ignorant comfort that the world doesn't know the truth concerning our city? --Julius (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news service. See WP:NOT. Consider wikinews instead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Images

I'm slightly concerned about the images on this page. Though some of the images are relevant to particular sections, some of them seem to be thrown in simply as eye-candy. The overall impression that this page gives is a far cry from the Mumbai that most people are familiar with. After all, this is an encyclopedia article and not a tourist brochure. A more judicious balance needs to made regarding the selection of images on this page, IMO.--thunderboltz^(TALK) 18:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nikkul, please reply to this post. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

When i started work on wikipedia, the images were of bad quality. I have replaced those images with better quality ones. For example, I found a better image of BSE and BMC building. If you guys have suggestions on adding new images, feel free. I mean, i am not the police here. I just make sure that no one vandalises the page. I suggest discussing new images here. Nikkul (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Bollywood Relative Size

The article says: "Bollywood the largest film industry". Bollywood is not the largest film industry. The Indian film industry, as a whole, is the largest film industry in the world in terms of the number of films. This includes Tollywood, Kollywood etc. in addition to Bollywood. Bollywood alone is not the largest film industry. In terms of revenue, Hollywood is the largest film industry. The sentence should be "Bollwyood, one of the major film industries". 203.158.89.10 (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree this should be at least qualified to say "Bollywood, the largest film industry in terms of volume". It appears that Bollywood revenues are less than 3% of Hollywood (http://www.bollywoodcountry.com/factoids.php), and "size" in business terms is usually referenced in terms of revenue or market capitalization, not strictly sheer volume. Rudejohn (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think based on number of films released annually, Bollywood is the largest film producer, and I think we all agree on that. The syntax does make sense because it makes sense to say that Bollywood is the largest film producer or largest industry in size Nikkul (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hotels

Can't just a sentence on Hotels be mentioned in the Culture section.------->>>>>>> Kensplanet (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Mumbai has 18 (5 Deluxe Hotels), 7 (5 Hotels) , 13 (4 Hotels) and 16 (3 Hotels).

Reference ---- http://www.bombay-mumbai-hotels.com/index.html
I don't think any other city in the country has so many 5 hotels.

How will just mentioning a sentence on Hotels make the article unencyclopedic???? ------ Kensplanet (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't put in a context. You mention that you don't think that any other city has so many hotels. Two things wrong with that statement: 1. "You think" -- personal statements and subjective reasoning is not valid on Wikipedia. 2. Adding trivia does not really make the article much better. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I too think that that fact (as well as many others recently added to the article) are unimportant trivia. If one really wants to talk about tourism, one should find and add details about how it contributes to Mumbai's overall economy/employment/culture etc.

More generally, I think this article needs a thorough re-review to make sure it lives up to its FA status. For example, I think the following aspects are problematic:

• The Transport section has grown to be larger than Geography/History/Economy etc, and contains trivia, such as, "Cool Cabs are blue, air-conditioned taxis that provide a comfortable ride but cost a little more. Gold Cabs, a new luxury service launched recently, are air conditioned and GPS enabled and provide audio and video entertainment." and, "A Ferry service from Vashi (Navi Mumbai) to Gateway of India (South Mumbai) in just 30 minutes has also been proposed by the Hind Jal Pravasi Vahatuk Sanghatana (HJPVS)."
• The Utility services section is also overly lengthy, thanks to trivia, such as, "The BMC has also set up a Garbage Control Room to take complaints from the public. The response time is supposed to be less than three days. " etc
• Too many sentences in the article have the form, "Because Mumbai is such an important city it has ...". Example: "As a city of prime importance and being the commercial and financial hub of India, Mumbai houses a host of Consulates and Deputy High Commissions of different countries. There are 48 Consulates in Mumbai" and that is in the utilities section !
• Overall, I think editors should consider UNDUE and remember that not everything true and verifiable needs to be included in this summary-style article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well we are not interested whether other cities have more hotels than Mumbai or not. The main point is whether I can post the sentence ""Mumbai has 18 (5 Deluxe Hotels), 7 (5 Hotels) , 13 (4 Hotels) and 16 (3 Hotels)"" or not in the Culture Section. Please tell me? ==== Kensplanet (talk) 11:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, as it is trivia. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

OKKK.. No Problem.. I won't add it. >>>>>>>>>Kensplanet (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)