Talk:History of Mumbai/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

preoselytizing comment not needed here

There is a comment on proselytization and forced conversion by the Portugese which I have removed since these things end up being controversial. I have added a line on Dr. Orta. see article for details. Moroever repititive comments on forced conversion and proselytization and alluding to the fact that the natives were "converts" sounds out of place. Also, Portugal managed capture large sections of west coast of india, but not much in the east coast.

some minor rephrasing was also done.

Pizzadeliveryboy 20:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

stub

A new stub - Template:Mumbai-history-stub may be used for suitable articlesPizzadeliveryboy 18:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Change of Names

Should we mention regarding the change of names Bombay to Mumbai and VT to CST etcDoctor Bruno 17:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed false info

The statement:

Nine Roman Catholic churches were built on Sashti island by the Portuguese: Nirmal (1557), Nossa Senhora dos Remédios (1557), Sandor (1566), Agashi (1568), Nandakal (1573), Papdy (1574), Pale (1595), Manickpur (1606), and Nossa Senhora das Mercês (1606)

is false, as these places are geographically located in the Vasai-Virar region and not on Sashti island. This false statement has therefore been removed.

60.243.34.15 11:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

  • [1] History of Bandra is interesting. Source is mentioned in the opening paragraph.
  • Neolithic settlement in Kandivali [2]
  • References to historian Sharada Dwivedi

=Nichalp «Talk»= 20:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Kandivali, nothing is mentioned on that page but on Page 25 (http://books.google.co.in/books?id=PKw3AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover#PPA25,M1), we have good deal of Info about Pleistocene sediments in Kandivali. Kensplanet (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Siddhi invasion

The Siddhis had also ruled Bombay at one point of time. See Sewri Fort. Belapur Fort also has some information on the Portuguese influence. To ramble on... the articles on the forts of Mumbai has some interesting historical information. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead, copyediting, and images

I don't think we should worrying about the lead, or copyediting the lead at this stage. See User:Nichalp/FA. I'm currently adding to commons:category:History of Mumbai while this page is done. I'll have ago at copyediting and precis writing once the sections are developed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Instead, we should focus on developing the sections. A FA guide. I love FA guides. I'll surely go through it. Kensplanet (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
A great To Do list. Kensplanet (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Review

  1. Excess use of CE, remove unnecessary ones.
  • Removed many. If you find some unnecessary, then you can remove yourself

Ancient period

  1. Remove the names of the islands. It is unlikely that those were the names before the arrival of the Portuguese.
  2. by Todd (1939) -- odd reading
  • by Todd in 1939 should work I guess
  1. the Aryans -- remove "the"
  2. present day -- hyphenate it's an adjective
  3. Coins found at Bombay --> where & How does this indicate?
  4. completely under --> completely is redundant?
  5. re
  6. Marco Polo, an Italian explorer --> an > the -- he was famous
  7. Pratappur (the present day Pardapur or Parjapur, a deserted village near the centre of Salsette) -- where is this?
  8. establishment of monasteries and trading routes. AFAIK, Sopara and Kalyan were the predominant ports. How significant were monasteries, and what trading routes would want to pass through the hilly islands?
  9. Aryans ruled Bombay --> Who? This is post 200 BCE, the Aryans would have been long gone.
  • That's a factual inaccuracy which has been corrected. Aryans just arrived in Bombay; didn't rule it.

Islamic period

# Government --> Lower case

  1. noble of renown, --> tone
  2. basically Bhandari --> redundant
  3. 1491-1494 --> use an ndash

Portuguese

  1. However, the Portuguese --> however does not fit
  2. Cheul --> link to Chaul
  3. were granted --> passive voice
  4. St Andrews church --> wikify
  5. marriage treaty or dowry?

British

  1. I think it was 10 pounds in gold. Ask on reference desk for the equivalent today
  2. like Gujuratis, --> never use "like", use "such as" ; also use the modern spelling of Gujaratis
  3. Holland is not a country. The name t is The Netherlands
  4. 1737, the Riwa Fort was built. (I've taken out pics of the fort, will upload when time permits)
  5. Sion Causeway --> I read it was also known as the Duncan Causeway then
Mentioned Duncan causeway in brackets.
  1. Sion Causeway --> I read that there was a toll naka there set up by the Marathas. Although bombay was British, they were subject to Maratha rules, and contraband were checked, and a 30%? toll levied on all goods into the city. ref
  2. See this snippet too: [3]
  3. I'm not sure if the Jews came to Bombay during Aungier's reign.
  4. November 5 --> date issue
  5. isles --> usually poetic/archaic usage. use islands
  6. Parsi-Hindu --> wasn't against Hindus,
  7. Arabs completely omitted [4], [5]
  8. Bombay Castle was finished --> passive voice | British completed the construction of Fort George --> Actually this is incorrect. Fort George and Bombay Castle were two different entities. Bombay Castle exists behind the Town Hall till date. Fort George was build atop the old Dongri fort that was razed, now the site of St. George Hospital. Additional city walls, roughly a trapezoid shape, defended the city from attacks. Dongi, later Ft George was the main defensive battlements, while Bombay castle, although defensive in nature, was the seat of governance. See List of forts in Mumbai
  9. which remains the oldest docks --> odd grammar
  10. The Dadar expansion is significant with respect to decongesting the city source
  11. Also mention that Crawford market was the first establishment to be lit up by electricity.

Post independence

  1. Mill worker's strike 1982

Peer review

After the text is done, we need to have it peer reviewed. This is what I propose:

  • Internal PR, +post on WP:HIST & WP:IN noticeboards
  • Request Dab (a historian, on Indian history to review)
  • External: Mail Rahul Mehotra to review
  • Copyedit (Tony1?)

=Nichalp «Talk»= 09:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Process looks good. Looking forward for it when the article is done. KensplanetTalkContributions 17:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Mehrotra will reply or even review the article; just saw his email id on a website. I'd like to review this article first before we get others to review it. It may take some time though. I have three people in mind who could review the page based on their works on Indian history. After they review, we take it to various PRs, before we email Mehotra. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Who is Rahul Mehotra? -KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 18:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Sharada Dwivedi and Rahul Mehotra authored several books on Bombay including the magnum opus Bombay, the Cities Within. Read more here =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Names of Mumbai

The article "In 1995, the newly-elected Shiv Sena-led government renamed the city of Bombay to Mumbai, after the Koli Goddess Mumbadevi." implying Shiv sena proposed a new name but the name "Mumbai has long been the name of the city in Marathi and Gujarati, whilst Hindi-speakers called it Bambai." ref: Samuel Sheppard Bombay Place-Names and Street-Names (Bombay: The Times Press) 1917 pp. 104-5 (Renaming of cities in India). Bombay was NOT the original name of the city, the name was given by the British, as per article. The city was officially renamed from Bombay to Mumbai in 1995, by the Shiv Sena, reverting to the native name. Ref: [6] [7] [8]. Using Bombay in "King Bhimdev founded his kingdom in Bombay in the late 13th century, and brought many settlers to the islands." or "After the end of the Satvahana rule in 250 CE, the Abhiras of Western Maharashtra and Vakatakas of Vidarbha held dominion over Bombay.", when Bombay word never existed is historically wrong. I propose replacing all occurrences of Bombay before British era by Mumbai or the correct name in use for the city in that era. British period (1661 - 1947) should retain "Bombay" til 1996 in "Post-independence and modern period (1948 - 2000)". Also as per Mumbai article, "The former name Bombay had its origins in the 16th century when the Portuguese arrived in the area and called it by various names, which finally took the written form Bombaim, still common in current Portuguese use." So Bombaim should be acknowledged in Portuguese period (1534 - 1661). The portuguese name was Bom Bahia (lit. "Beautiful Bay") as per ref [9]. Also ancient names if available must be used, in appropriate sections. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am also a bit confused. I myself don't know what name should be used. KensplanetTalkContributions 09:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • British period (1661 - 1947) should retain "Bombay" til 1996 in "Post-independence and modern period (1948 - 2000)".
  • Also as per Mumbai article, "The former name Bombay had its origins in the 16th century when the Portuguese arrived in the area and called it by various names, which finally took the written form Bombaim, still common in current Portuguese use." So Bombaim should be acknowledged in Portuguese period (1534 - 1661). The portuguese name was Bom Bahia (lit. "Beautiful Bay") as per ref
    • Although the Portuguese name for the city was was Bombaim from 1534-1661 and ofcouse is still is. In the Portuguese language, the city is still known as Bombaim. But was it the official name for the city during that time. Since this is the English Wikipedia, we have to check what the city was called in English during 1534-1661. If it was called Bombaim in English from 1534-1661, we use it. Or else we have to contact experienced Wikipedians. KensplanetTalkContributions 10:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
When the title "History of Mumbai", why should "Bombay" be used? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Because this is the English Wikipedia and the city was known as Bombay in English, Mumbai in Marathi before 1995-96. Although it is now known as Mumbai in Marathi as well as in English. KensplanetTalkContributions 10:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The city was officially renamed from Bombay to Mumbai in 1995, by the Shiv Sena, reverting to the native name.
This seems as if the native name was lost. Please do not forget that when the name of the city was Bombay, the native name was Mumbai. Only and only in the English language, the city was known as Bombay. KensplanetTalkContributions 10:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment: It was Bombay in English, Bambai in Hindi, and Mumbai in Marathi. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Also Bombaim in Portuguese. KensplanetTalkContributions 10:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Now Mumbai is the official name in English and Marathi so except in the British era till 1996, "Mumbai" should be used for consistency, if correct name of the city in a particular era is not known. "Bombaim" should be used in Portuguese era part as that was the official name then. I have a copy of "Bombay Place-Names and Street-Names" will read if more names are given. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:25, 15 November

2008 (UTC)

In the Ancient period, I have replaced Bombay by the islands and the region. KensplanetTalkContributions 10:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with both points, but this needs to be addressed at an appropriate Manual of Style page. We have Istanbul and Beijing as similar models we can explore, but it seems odd to call certain portions in history as Mumbai. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

At least, the current name "Mumbai" should be used for consistency. Why use a name "Bombay" which is neither used now nor then? But at the same time, other names should be acknowledged just once. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Nichalp. We need to follow a proper MOS style
  • For example: After his death in 1303, he was succeeded by his son Pratapbimba, who built his capital at Marol in Salsette, which he named Pratappur.
    • What about Marol and Salsette we have used here. Those may not be the names of the places during ancient times. KensplanetTalkContributions 10:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
"Bombay Place-Names and Street-Names" book gives lot of info about various names, should i create "Names throughout history" section (something like that) or add various names in relevant sections? Waiting for an answer. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Not at least in this article at least. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
See History of Beijing where various names of the city are acknowledged. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

<reindent> Maybe I misunderstood you. Could you clarify your suggestion again? =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, thats a good suggestion from Redti. But where's the space to add the table.KensplanetTalkContributions 14:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Year of change from Bombay to Mumbai

Even the year 1995 may be wrong, it was 1996 as per references [10] [11] [12]. Though i found [13] which says 1995. Need a reliable reference for exact date. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Changed as per official website "Mumbai Travel Guide". Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. Retrieved 2008-11-15.. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
From my living memory, it was proposed in late 1995, and came into effect in Jan 1996, just before the world cup. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Confusion

In the Ancient period, if we replace bombay by the names existing that time. Then what about Mahim, Salsette which we have used in the Ancient period section. Should we replace them too. by their names during ancient times. KensplanetTalkContributions 10:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

At least, the current name "Mumbai" should be used. Why use a name "Bombay" which is neither used now nor then? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
It's a highly tricky issue with global ramifications that needs to be addressed on WT:MoS. This page is out of scope. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Information about Indian film industry

I feel the setting up and flourishing of the Indian film industry (especially Bollywood) is quite significant. Like the 1st film studio...Any comments? --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 18:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good suggestion. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Please add it. KensplanetTalkContributions 06:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Mumbai's history is incomplete without Bollywood. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of Mumbai/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Starting GA review.Pyrotec (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

My plan is to do an initial review and to follow it up with a more detailed GA review to check references and sources, etc. Some of the grammar is a bit stilted in the WP:lead but that should not be too hard to fix. What does worry me, at the start, is the number of WP:red links in the Islamic and Portuguese periods. These may result in the article going On Hold. I mention this at the start of the GA review, so that it can be considered now.Pyrotec (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed all Over-red linking of Portuguese officers etc.... KensplanetTalkContributions 04:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the red link removal. Most of them would have been notable leaders of the sixteenth century. Removing it would lend a sense of systemic bias that favours recentism over historical figures. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not actually my decision. The GA reviewer has told that the article may go on Hold if the articles are not created. KensplanetTC 11:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Congratulations, I'm awarding GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Mumbai/Archive_1&oldid=1136272567"