Talk:Mumbai/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18

Sister cities

I question the relevance of this section. Project-specific WP:CITSTRUCT does not mention it and a quick glance at the WT:WikiProject Cities archives shows there's dispute about whether it's inclusion as a section is justified on each city's page. Thus we are left to decide on a case-by-case basis and there's already a link to that list in the See also. Particularly with it per this edit. This is a GA and as such, we can't just add sections because they are technically possible without any relevance or source scrutiny; being a rather long list, WP:DUE and WP:NOT comes to mind. If we do it, let this be ironed out first. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I'd agree with Ugog Nizdast. Batternut (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Mumbai/Bombay

The name "Bombay" is still somewhat controversial in Mumbai itself, and the state of Maharashtra; as the name Bombay has roots with Portuguese, as well as British Raj. Bombay is barely used by Indians, the use is almost non-existent. And as the article states, Bombay was officially renamed to Mumbai.

My request is, appropriate changes should be made to this article so it would reflect Bombay is a former name, and not the current one. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

See the third brown box from the top, on this page. I think consensus had already been reached on this issue. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 21:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
You need to prove that the consensus has changed. Until then, the current wording is quite clear that Mumbai is the current official name and that Bombay is the former official name which still maintains a high degree of recognition and a fair degree of use. There would seem to be no reason to change it. --Khajidha (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2017

→

203.92.43.194 (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — IVORK Discuss 07:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Mumbai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Mumbai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

9th most populous agglomeration?

The article states that Mumbai is the ninth most populous agglomeration in the world, but the source linked to[1] lists it as the 17th and the reported population is much larger than that stated in the article. I don't know enough about the subject to have the confidence to edit, but surely something is wrong here? RaspberryPhi (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_agglomerations_by_population

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mumbai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Etymology of 'Bombay'

There is little to no documentary evidence that the island of Mumbai was ever referred to as 'Bom baim' or 'Bom bahia' by the Portuguese. The phrase 'Bom bahia' itself is an incorrect one as it conflates the feminine 'bahia' with the masculine 'bom' and hence can not be correct. The correct derivation of the name 'Bombay' seems more likely to be from 'Mumbai', which in turn seems to be a derivation of 'Maha-Amba'. The Portuguese seem to have used the names 'Mombaym' and ultimately 'Bombaim' which then got anglicized to 'Bombay'. The similarities between the word 'Bombaim' and the Portuguese word 'Bahia' may have led to the misconception that the two were somehow linked, which was later accepted and propagated without question. Following are excerpts from a few authors regarding the issue:

1. Bombay in the Making – Phiroze B. M. Malabari (1910)

Pg. 21 "In 1548 we find that the Ilha da Boa Vida (“The Island of the Good Life”) was made a gift of by the King of Portugal to Garcia Da Orta, an eminent Portuguese physician of the period, on payment of a quit-rent."

The name ilha da Boa Vida is not an official name, but rather a designation by which the Portuguese named this island. Apart from Mombaym and Bombaim, this is the only other name by which any Portuguese record refers to the island which does not have any etymological roots in Mumbadevi.

Pg.22 "Bombay was then considered less important even than the island of Mahim. It had not then attained the distinction of a cacabe : it denoted merely the island whereon once stood the shrine of the old Hindu goddess Mumbadevi (from which many derive the word “Mumbai”; which was eventually anglicised into “Bombay”)

The etymological derivation of “Bombay” from “Boon-Bay”, good harbour, about which Fryer seems so positive, has been generally discredited. Sir George Birdwood also discredits the derivation of the place-name “Bombay” from a supposed Portuguese form “Bom-Bahia” which he characterises as “ bad grammar and altogether unhistorical”. Writing to the Times on the subject recently, Sir George observes “Bombay, in Mahratti, Mumbai, that is, Sister Mum, takes its name from the primitive tutelary of the island, Mumba Devi, the Goddess Sister Mum, whose temple formerly stood on the Esplanade, but was transferred in the eighteenth century to the native town. The name Bombay therefore means the Town and Island of Our Lady Mumbai.”

Here we find an explicit reference to the derivation of the name ‘Bombay’ from anything other than Mumbadevi - Mumbai. Malabari states in no uncertain terms that ‘Bombay’ is a corruption of ‘Mumbai’ and rejects all other derivations.

Also, he makes the distinction between the name Bombay as referring to one of the islands in the archipelago from the name referring to the entire archipelago.


2. The Rise of Bombay – S. M. Edwardes (1901)

Pg. 41 "We may well pause for the consideration of the origin of a name, which so far as we know, was not universally recognized till after the fourteenth or fifteenth century of the Christian era. For many years the name of Bombay was held to have arisen from the juxtaposition of the Portuguese words ‘Buon’ (Good) and ‘Bahia’ (bay or harbor), and to be proof of the attachment which the men of Portugal formed towards this island-haven. But the rules of euphony forbid the acceptance of this view, and the fact that early Portuguese writers refer to the place as ‘Bombaim’ and not ‘Bombahia’ shows that this derivation cannot be correct. Another version connects the name of our island with the name of Mubarak I, Emperor of Delhi, who seized the sovereignty of Mahim and Salsette during the early years of the fourteenth century A.D.; but the absence of any record showing that he gave his name to the island and the probability that, had he done so, it would have been designated ‘Mubarakpur’ or ‘Mubarakhabad’ militate against this derivation. For a truer conception of the origin of the title, one must seek among the traditions of our oldest settlers. Local folklore, based upon an old work known as the Mumba Devi Mahatmya or Puran, declares that the island of Bombay owes its name to the goddess “Mumba”. Whence comes this name “Mumba”? Is it of foreign origin, or the name of some Hindu female , given to the goddess? Some authorities believe that it is derived from “Munga”, the name of the Koli, who built the original temple; but we like best the derivation of the word from “Maha-Amba”, Patron deity of our earliest settlers, in other words, Bhavani, consort of Shiva. The feminine form of the word ‘Munga’ is ‘Mungi’ or ‘Mugi’ (c.f. Mugbhat); and the correct form of the island’s name would have been ‘Mungi-ai’ and not ‘Munga-ai’ or ‘Mumbai’. Bhavani, on the other hand, is often known as ‘Amba’, ‘Ambika’ or ‘Maha-Amba’; while the suffix ‘ai’ meaning ‘mother’ is a term of respect often used by Marathi-speaking Hindus towards their goddesses. ‘Mambai’ or ‘Mumbai’ is the exact name of the city and island among the natives of these days, and has been transformed by the Portuguese into ‘Bombaim’ and by the English into ‘Bombay’."

Edwardes rejects the name ‘Bom Bahia’ and proposes the goddess ‘Mumba’ as the origin of the name ‘Mumbai’, which he explicitly states as the origin of the Portuguese ‘Bombaim’ and the English ‘Bombay’. He also proposes the name ‘Maha-Amba’ as the origin of ‘Mumba’.

Pg. 64 "Leaving Dabhol on the 5th January, 1509, the Portuguese paid their first visit to our island on the twenty-first of the same month; for, having seized a Gujarat barque in ‘the river of Bombay’, the cargo of which did not satisfy their requirements, they landed at Mahim for the purpose of obtaining wood and other necessaries. So frightened were the inhabitants at the recent fate of Dabhol that they fled from the Fort and allowed the new arrivals to land unmolested. According to Gaspar Correa, author of the ‘Lendas’, “the Viceroy departed from Dabhol, passed by Chaul which he did not enter, to avoid delay and cast anchor at Bombay where the people, terrified, fled away. Our men captured many cows and some blacks, who were hiding among the bushes, and of whom the good were kept and the rest were killed. The Viceroy, happening to see a well-disposed black being carried away, ordered him to be set free , on condition of taking his oath according to his law, that he would carry a letter to Diu and deliver it to Malik Ayaz. The poor black, delighted at the prospect of freedom, consented, and the letter was delivered to Malik Ayaz twenty days before the arrival of the fleet.”

Edwardes tells the story, citing the records of Gaspar Correa as the source, of the first visit of the Portuguese to the Mumbai area, which places it in 1509.

Pg. 66 "Heitor de Silveira then returned to Bombay, where he was received with great ovations; and when on the 20th March, 1529, the Viceroy returned to Goa, Heitor was left behind with 20 bargatins, 2 galleots and 300 men to harass the coast as far as Cambay. It was during the three months previous to the burst of monsoon that Heitor and his men made repeated incursions into our island of Bombay and neighbouring isles, and gave the title ‘a ilha de boa vida’ (the Island of the Good Life) to our Heptanesia in view of the abundant food, refreshment and enjoyment which they supplied."

Edwardes tells of the origin of the designation ‘ilha da boa vida’.

Pg. 69 "In the general distribution of estates which occurred after 1534, the third of our Heptanesia, the old island of Mumbadevi or Mumbai was let to one Mestre Diogo, as tenant or foreiro, for an annual quit-rent of 1,432 ½ pardaos, payable at the Royal Treasury in Bassein. The precise terms and date of this early lease are unknown. Dom Simao Botelho, who was comptroller during this early period, mentions in his “Tombo” that “according to the old foral or rent-roll, the income of our island and its dependancies was 14,400 foedeas, and later 1,375 pardaos. The island or Kasba of Mahim was rented for 36,057 foedeas; and the Mandovim, that is, the Mandvi or Custom House of Mahim, for 37,975 foedeas. The island of Mazagaon yielded 8,500 foedeas, Mombaym or Bombay, 17000.”

…but in 1538 Garcia Da Orta, the celebrated physician and botanist…became the owner of Bombay… In his “Conversations on Drugs”, the worthy physician speaks of a third of our Heptanesia as “the island of which the King had made him a gift, he paying quit-rent for it.” (Mombaim terra e ilha de que El Rei nosso senhor me fez merce, aforada em fatiota.)"

The earliest references to the island of Mumbai never designate it as Boa bahia or Bom bahia, but Mombaym, Mombaim or Bombaim. Simao Botelho, the comptroller in 1534 uses this name. Garcia Da Orta, the owner of the island in the late 16th century, refers to it by the name ‘Mombaim’.


Pg. 71 "The nucleus of what Fryer describes in later years as “a pretty well- seated but ill-fortified house” must have been in existence at the time Garcia da Orta owned the island and was situated, as old records tell, “in a park with pleasure grounds, at the cacabe of Bombaim, the principal seat of the island near the little fort.”

Reference to the name ‘Bombaim’.


3. The English in Western India – Philip Anderson (1854)

Pg. 50-51 "Bombay – or Bombaim as it is called by old writers- has been naturally supposed by Europeans to derive its name from the Portuguese, and to have denoted an advantage of its geographical position. But Briggs declares- without, however, giving his authority- that in ancient days part of the island was called Mahim, and part “Mumbaye” from an idol. And certainly, an old temple, dedicated to Mumba Devi or the Goddess Mumba, formerly stood on the plot now called the Esplanade. About a century ago it was taken down and rebuilt at some distance from its former site. The place where it now stands is well known."

Anderson makes an allusion to the name Bombay being derived from Bom Bahia or Boa Bahia, only to dismiss it, citing Briggs as his source. His is largely noncommittal about it, however, as he rightly points out that Briggs does not cite any source for his hypothesis.


4. History of the Rise of Mahomedan Power in India- Vol 4 – John Briggs (1829)

Pg. 17 Footnote 21. "Bombay. The island seems at the time to have consisted of two parts; the one denominated Mahim, from the village of that name in the N.E. corner and the other Mumby from an idol to which a temple is still dedicated, as is known by the appellation of Mumbydevy, or the Goddess Mumby, which by Europeans has been corrupted into Bombay. The separation of the two islands would be again complete, if the dam called Breach Candy were removed, which keeps out the sea on the west face of the island."

John Briggs once again states explicitly that ‘Bombay’ is a corruption of ‘Mumby’. He makes no mention of any other derivation.


5. A New Account of East India and Persia – Dr. John Fryer (1681)

Pg. 62 "Bombaim is the first that faces Choul, and ventures farthest out into the sea, making the mouth of a spacious bay, from whence it has its etymology; Bombaim, quasi Boon Bay.

From whence these pieces of land receive their general name Salset, if it be worth enquiry, I can only guess, either because it signifies in Canorein a Granary, as they are to the Portugals North of Goa, and sometimes to Goa itself, as at this time, when their Armado of rice was all lost, which annually used to furnish them with provisions of corn; or else analogically, from the fruitful peninsula of the same name, near which Goa itself stands: but whether this be certain or not, the reason for the denomination of Bombaim is convincing."

One of the earliest English writers to refer to Mumbai uses the name ‘Bombaim’ and suggests its derivation from ‘Boon Bay’. However, this can be safely discounted as fanciful and baseless, as further on, Dr. Fryer also hypothesizes that ‘Canorein’ or Kanheri is derived from 'Granary', a claim which is demonstrably inaccurate.


6. The Origin of Bombay – Dr. Jose Gerson Da Cunha (1900)

Pg. 43-44 "That the name of Bombay is derived from that of the goddess worshipped in this temple is a fact now generally admitted. It is believed that Duarte Barbosa was the first European writer to refer to this island in 1516, in the strange form of Tana Maiambu. This complex form is indeed found in Ramusio and quoted by most of the modern authors; but the Portuguese edition has Benamajambu. Idrisi has Bana for Thana, and Barbosa’s Bena seems to stand for Thana, while Mejambu is simply Mahim, in contradistinction to Khelve-Mahim. Even if mutilated, there is nothing to resemble Bombay in it. But the earliest Portuguese writer to refer to Bombay was Gaspar Correa, under the name of Bombaim. He came to India in 1512, and began to write his Lendas when he was private secretary to Affonso de Albuquerque. He refers to this island seven times in his work, to which I shall refer again when treating of the Portuguese period. The next writer to refer to Bombay is D. Joao de Castro who also calls it Bombaim in his Primeiro Roteiro da Costa da India: Desde Goa ate Diu, written in 1538-39. Then Simao Botelho, in his Tombo, written in 1554, alludes often not only to Bombay in the form of Bombaym and Monbaym, but also to Maym, Mazaguao, and Valequecer, at each of which places there was a mandovim or custom-house. Joao de Barros does not refer to Bombay at all, but only to Maim; while Diogo do Couto mentions Bombaim or its river in connection with the defeat of the Cambay fleet by Lopo Vaz de Sampaio.

None of these eminent Portuguese writers ever attempted to attach any meaning to the name of Bombay. It was reserved for the inventive genius of Dr. John Fryer to discover that “Bombaim is the first that faces Choul, and ventures farthest out into the sea, making the mouth of a spacious bay, from whence it has its etymology; Bombaim, quasi Boon Bay.” Elsewhere he attempts to find out the meaning of Salset, which he guesses to be a granary, because it used to furnish the Portuguese with provisions of corn, and concludes thus: “but whether this be certain or not, the reason for the denomination of Bombaim is convincing.” And there is no doubt that this conviction was communicated to many of his successors, ungrammatical and untrue though it be."


7. Words and Places in and about Bombay: Indian Antiquary of 1874, Volume iii – Dr. Jose Gerson Da Cunha (1874)

Pg. 248- 249 "This word is derived from the Goddess Mumba in whose honour the temple Mumbadevi is named even in our days. The interpretation given by some writers of the word Bombay as derived from two words of the Portuguese language, bom ‘good’, and bahia ‘bay’, cannot be correct. The Portuguese could not have possibly combined the masculine bom with the feminine bahia – at the most they would have called in Boa bahia; but from the first the designation they gave it was not Bombay, nor Boabahia, but Bombaim. Not only the earliest Portuguese writers such as Diogo Couto, Faria e Souza, and others; but even the papers relating to the grant of the Island of Bombay by the King of Portugal to Charles II of England. In the treaty, concluded on the 23rd June 1661, the name Bombaim is used, which also the earliest English writers, such as Dr. Fryer and others, employed."

Dr. Da Cunha here gives evidence for why the claim that ‘Bombay’ derives from ‘Bom Bahia’ cannot be true. Apart from the fact that no early Portuguese writer refers to the island by the name, it is grammatically incorrect to boot.


8. The Complete Diary of Samuel Pepys – Samuel Pepys (1672)

Pg. 924 "The Portugalls have choused us, it seems, in the Island of Bombay, in the East Indys; for after a great charge of our fleets being sent thither with full commission from the King of Portugall to receive it, the Governour by some pretence or other will not deliver it to Sir Abraham Shipman, sent from the King, nor to my Lord of Marlborough; which the King takes highly ill, and I fear our Queen will fare the worse for it."

Pg. 1062 "So home with her, and then I away (Creed being gone) to Captain Minors upon Tower Hill, and there, abating only some impertinence of his, I did inform myself well in things relating to the East Indys; both of the country and the disappointment the King met with the last voyage, by the knavery of the Portugall Viceroy, and the inconsiderableness of the place of Bombaim, if we had had it."

Samuel Pepys refers to Mumbai twice in his diary, using the names ‘Bombay’ and ‘Bombaim’ interchangeably.

Idostuffaskmewhat (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)idostuffaskmewhat

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2017

Please add new section called Air Quality to Geography, because there is no information about Mumbai's air quality in the article for Mumbai. The section text is provided below. Thank you.

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 14:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Air Quality

Air pollution is a major issue in Mumbai.[1][2][3] According to the 2016 World Health Organization Global Urban Ambient Air Pollution Database,[4] the annual average PM2.5 concentration in 2013 was 63 μg/m3, which is 6.3 times higher than that recommended by the WHO Air Quality Guidelines[5] for the annual mean PM2.5. The Central Pollution Control Board for the Government of India and the Consulate General of the United States, Mumbai monitor and publicly share real-time air quality data.[6][7] AreteY (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Borwankari, Vinamrata. "Air pollution killed 81,000 in Delhi & Mumbai, cost Rs 70,000 crore in 2015." Times of India. 19 January 2017. Retrieved 30 June 2017.
  2. ^ Chatterjee, Badri. "Mumbai breathes 2017's cleanest air; 'good' AQI after 6 months." Hindustan Times. 11 March 2017. Retrieved 30 June 2017.
  3. ^ Express News Service. "Air quality in Mumbai three times worse than Delhi." Indian Express. 14 March 2017. Retrieved 30 June 2017.
  4. ^ Global Urban Ambient Air Pollution Database. World Health Organization. May 2016. Retrieved 8 April 2017.
  5. ^ WHO Air Quality Guidelines. World Health Organization. September 2016. Retrieved 8 April 2017.
  6. ^ "Central Pollution Control Board Air Quality Information." Open Government Data Platform India. Retrieved 30 June 2017.
  7. ^ "U.S. Embassy Air Quality Data." U.S. Department of State, Mission Air Quality. Retrieved 30 June 2017.

Poverty needs to be addressed

Mumbai comes off in this article almost like some shining jewel. Nearly half of its population is cripplingly poor and Dharavi is hardly mentioned at all. There should at least be some indication of how bad the worst parts of the city are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.158.14 (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Means you want to tell us the black side of it? 

Wikibhushan (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
That was a very old topic, whose sig got lost. Dharavi and other slums are mentioned under Demographics, so I think the issue has long been resolved. Batternut (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Elephanta Caves

Nice that Kanheri has found a place on this page. But can we mention Elephanta? It's by far the greatest thing in Mumbai. Nice work, otherwise! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.229.90 (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2016‎ (UTC)

The Elephanta Caves are mentioned. Batternut (talk) 06:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup needed of related article

City and Industrial Development Corporation desperately needs some cleanup. If anyone could assist that would be great. AusLondonder (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mumbai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2017

188.140.171.202 (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. nihlus kryik (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mumbai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2017

under independent India, the signoff suggested is as follows:-

Inspite of being the target of many terrorist groups and organisations, the city has never bowed down. The citizens of Mumbai, which prides itself on being the financial capital of India, were back to work on the day following these terror attacks. In fact the term 'Spirit of Mumbai' emerged as a reason of the city's resilient attitude towards terror. KingofSpades (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Too much puffery, and reliable source required for the "Spirit of Mumbai" epithet. Batternut (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mumbai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Changing thumbnail

I am changing thumbnail beacause it shows map of Maharashtra not of mumbai also it don't show relation with Mumbai Dragon200317 (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mumbai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Best beaches in Mumbai

The best beaches to visit in Mumbai are the Versova Rock beach and Silver beach as they are more clean and have a serene scenic view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.109.24.248 (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2018

i would like to edit the famous places and restaurants to visit in mumbai. I AM BORN AND BOUGHT IN MUMBAI AND I HAVE A GOOD TASTE FOR FOOD I AM BASICALLY A FOODIE SO I CAN SUGGEST OTHER PEOPLE WHO VISIT MUMBAI Namanmehta316 (talk) 07:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~ Winged BladesGodric 11:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Etymology

I have added sources that Kolis, the first settlers in Mumbai after stone-age men, were immigrants originally from Kathiawar and Central Gujarāt[1][2] and they also brought their goddess with them from Gujarat, after whom Mumbai is named, and she is still worshiped in Kathiawar.[1] Please discuss about it and if we can agree hopefully add back my edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mumbai&oldid=827526389 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mumba_Devi_Temple&oldid=827527302 A145029 (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer to see the full sources, not snippet views. Snippets are notoriously awkward to use because they can be taken out of context. For example, your first source is quoting someone called M. David but I have no idea if the author of the source itself agrees with David or goes on to dispute it. - Sitush (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Good point. But we still have 2 sources: Munshi, the second source I cited (which is not a snippet) and David, both of whom say that Kolis, the first people in Mumbai after stone age men, had originated in Gujarat. If the first source's author (or anyone else) disagrees with this, then you could write there are varying viewpoints to their origin, but we have no proof that anyone disagrees so the only thing there is evidence for is they did originate from Gujarat. I agree a copy of the full book online is more reliable, but that is not always possible due to copyright issues. For instance the 2005 book by Bapat, Jyotsna also cited in the section does not have any URL at all. A145029 (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
As well, in this section http://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/nfile/1064 is the only source with a url that says Koli's mother tongue is Marathi. But it is specifically referring to Son Kolis, not Kolis in general. Keeping in mind that there are several types of Kolis, I think the Wikipedia article should be edited to say it is specifically Son Kolis. And there is a conflicting source, this book says the mother tongue of Son Kolis is a variation of Konkani[3] (full quote is in the first result here: [4]), and their language has significant Urdu, Hindi, Gujarati, Parabhi, English influences.[5] which I think should also be added. A145029 (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm. Even your additional sources are snippet view here, and they all appear to be the same book. I am not sure what is going on now because I know that Google Books shows different views in different places (which is why I sometimes use a proxy to find a different view) but on the face of it you seem to be using the same source three times over and, possibly, extrapolating from what it actually says to form a conclusion. If that is what you are doing then WP:SYNTH comes into play.
I am not a regular watcher of this article but I would imagine that it does have many watchers simpler because Mumbai is such a significant place. Would anyone else like to comment? - Sitush (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The additional sources I added about Son Kolis are from another book I hadn't cited before: "The Son Kolis of Bombay" . They are snippets because there is a copyright restriction for these books. I don't think I have done any synthesis, I have written about Kolis just what is written in the books and not made any conclusions on my own or combined them to form conclusions. A145029 (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
It has been 1 week since you last replied. I think this edit should be added since it has valid sources. Also I think we should change that Mumba devi is kuladevta of only Koli community, not Agri and Somvanshi also. She is also worshipped by Agri and Somvanshi but all sources (including the ones already cited) mention she is kuldevta of Kolis only. A145029 (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about this. I refuse to work off snippet views and the folks who frequent WP:RSN tend to the same opinion. Can anyone else see these sources? - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

But I also posted a second source (Munshi) which is not a snippet, it is a full book and it also mentions they are from Gujarat.[2]
Yes but it doesn't say what you claim. It mentions several other communities before referring to the Kolis - read the entire paragraph in that source. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay, since Munshi doesn't mention goddess Mumba, so based on this source it cannot be concluded that Mumba originated from Gujarat. However, Munshi does mention that Kolis originated from Kathiawad and Central Gujarat, so I think that much can be added to the article. Munshi also mentions Dublas, Warlis, and Katkaris as aborigines who were in Mumbai before Kolis, so that can be also added, but I don't think that is in conflict with Koli's origin. A145029 (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I think although Munshi's source doesn't mention anything about the etymology, the info that Kolis originated in Kathiawad and Central Gujarat can still be added in the etymology and history sections. A145029 (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b David, M. D. (1983). "Journal of the Oriental Institute". 33. Oriental Institute. The kolis who suceeded the stone-age men on the island brought with them from Gujarat their patron goddess Mummai whom their descendants still worship in Kathiawar. The name of Bombay is derived from this koli goddess. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. ^ a b Munshi, Kanaiyalal M. (1954). Gujarāt and its literature, from early times to 1852. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. p. xix. The next immigrants into the islands of Bombay were the Kolis, who on all authorities continued to be their original inhabitants till Aungier founded the city of Bombay. Kathiawad and Central Gujarāt was the home of the Kolis in pre-historic times.
  3. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=gS4GAAAAMAAJ&q=konkani
  4. ^ https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=bks&q=konkani+son+kolis+mother+tongue
  5. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=gS4GAAAAMAAJ&q=gujarati
I am sorry but I cannot get my head round what your argument is. I really do think this needs to sit here until other people comment, regardless of how long that might be. - Sitush (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I think Munshi's source is valid. It does not directly pertain to etymology, but it does mention that Kolis originated in Kathiawad and Central Gujarat and this should be added to the article in the places where Kolis are mentioned. A145029 (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2018

Rsuthar123 (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — LeoFrank  Talk 11:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Location map

This location map is so useful (sarcasm). Why not just an empty square with a dot, use fewer pixels and not much of a step down in information?

I love when some Wikipedia editor discovers something cute. Too bad it's never reader friendly, you know, the-encyclopedia-has-content-for-readers thought process that never rears its ugly head amongst Wikipedia in-crowd editors.

Could the default possibly be the useful map, even zooming out the least bit on the other map for other than locals?

Wikipedia maps always make me adjust my Chrome settings to eliminate Wikipedia. New phone, damn.

--2600:1700:FB00:9C00:5444:3363:D761:448D (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I suppose you mean the map of Maharashtra - it shows where in the state Mumbai is, and that's fine and useful for me. Wikipedia is not a travel guide - if you want a road map, look elsewhere or buy one. Batternut (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, I was trying to catch the local to Andheri and thought the Wikipedia info box map should help. --2600:1700:FB00:9C00:647E:7A8C:EEC0:74C9 (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I find it annoying that when I click on the map, the image that opens is less useful than the thumbnail was because the locator dot is no longer present. --Khajidha (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for comments: should we add that Mumbai Kolis originated from Gujarat?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I've read this RfC and the comments above that led to it. I acknowledge Sitush's concerns about the fact that we don't have the full text. I think this is a relevant argument with regards to the claim that the name "Mumbai" is derived from a Koli goddess, but I believe it carries less weight with regards to the simple statement that the Kolis originated from Gujarat. The reason is that the first source unequivocally asserts it, and the second source embeds the information in such a way as to indicate that it doesn't ever return to dispute or further discuss this point. The RfC voters below seem to agree on this point. As such I say there is consensus to include that the Kolis are from Gujarat. There was less discussion regarding the claim that "Mumbai" originated from the Koli goddess, and I believe this generally reflects the lesser confidence in the sourcing provided in support of this particular claim. There is also the fact that a dissenting source was found late in the discussion. As such I believe there is no consensus for including this second claim as fact. There may be merit to including both David's position and Mehta's dissent. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 03:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Two sources state that Kolis (the first people in Mumbai) originated and migrated from Gujarat.[1][2] One of these sources also mentions that the name Mumbai is derived from the Koli goddess Mummai who also originated in Gujarat.[2] Should we add this information to the article? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC). A145029 (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Munshi, Kanaiyalal M. (1954). Gujarāt and its literature, from early times to 1852. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. p. xix. The next immigrants into the islands of Bombay were the Kolis, who on all authorities continued to be their original inhabitants till Aungier founded the city of Bombay. Kathiawad and Central Gujarāt was the home of the Kolis in pre-historic times.
  2. ^ a b David, M. D. (1973). "History of Bombay, 1661-1708". University of Bombay. The kolis who suceeded the stone-age men on the island brought with them from Gujarat their patron goddess Mummai whom their descendants still worship in Kathiawar. The name of Bombay is derived from this koli goddess. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Survey

  • Support As Sitush said, the full context of David's quote should be noted before inclusion in the article. Munshi's version of the Koli's origin seems alright for inclusion. Ankit2 (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I think KM Munshi and MD David's sources are sufficient to add this information. A145029 (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the specific addition that Kolis were from Gujarat. R. N. Mehta, author of the 1983 Journal of the Oriental Institute article, does not disagree with M. D. David on this. —Gazoth (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

  • @A145029: Do you have the complete citation and text for the 1983 JOI article? Abecedare (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @Abecedare: I do not, but I have located the original source where MD David mentions that Kolis originated in Mumbai, and I have added it above. A145029 (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@A145029: Nice find! I looked up an academic review of David's book and while the review was not uncritical, I think it establishes that David's thoughts on the subject can safely be included in the article, at least with attribution. Before we craft the exact language though, do you have access to the relevant page(s) so that we can make sure that we see the complete context and represent the source appropriately? Abecedare (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@Abecedare: I do not have access to History of Bombay, 1661-1708 either, I only know that the original quote about Kolis in RN Mehta's article was from that book. However, user Gazoth has been able to access R.N. Mehta's full article and he does not disagree that they originated in Gujarat. Hence, I think there is sufficient evidence to add that Kolis originated in Gujarat, and regarding the etymology of the name Mumbai it can be said that there are several proposed derivations of this name. A145029 (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • A145029 and Sitush, I have obtained the full article Bombay - An analysis of the toponym published in Journal of the Oriental Institute. The author R. N. Mehta does not disagree with M. D. David's assertion that the Kolis were from Gujarat. However, he does disagree with the assertion that "Mumbai" was derived from "Mumai" or "Mumbadevi". After quoting M. D. David, the author goes on to say

This is the usual explanation that the island is named after a goddess Mumbai or Mumai. This is the goddess of the kolis according to tho [sic] author. These kolis of Bombay unfortunately do not speak Gujarati and a perusal of Gujarati vocabulary does not explain the word. These linguistic and other situations raise a problem of the identification of the origin as well as the meaning of Mumbai or Mumbadevi.

He goes on to propose an alternative derivation of the word from Dravidian roots, providing examples such as the Tamil words Munci-face (or something along those lines, this particular sentence was a bit confusing) and Munmpu, Kannada word Munde and Telugu word Mundu. However, he notes that explanation he provides is not conclusive by ending the article with Further work on the history of the Dravidian term of this interesting word is necessary to remove any uncertainity [sic] of this explanation. If one of you wants to add Mehta's doubts on the derivation of "Mumbai" from "Mumai" or "Mumbadevi" or his proposed derivation from Dravidian roots to the article, I'd be happy to send the article to you. —Gazoth (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mumbai/Archive_17&oldid=1142335426"