Talk:Kochi/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Neutral Point of View

Whether you are asserting a positive or a negative point, keeping a neutral POV is vital for an encyclopedia article. EVERY city in this world have a slum. EVERY city have broken roads. EVERY city have traffic problems. EVERY city have poverty. Then getting hold of some of that information and adding that to the page does not constitute a neutral POV.

The opposite is also true. EVERY city would have a nice segment of road, a nice building, or a scenic location. Highlighting that also does not constitute a neutral POV.

In order to qualify for inclusion in the encyclopedia page, the information must add some value to the page. Stating/proving Kochi has a slum, with a few tents pitched in an open ground, doesn't add any value, and it is not neutral POV, because every city have them, and nothing special about it.

If you want, get the official statistics of the slum dwellers by number, show that it is a significant percentage of the population, and THEN use the picture to support that.

DileepKS69 (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

See the following links as you enquired . http://www.corporationofcochin.net/ksudp/poverty.html http://www.travelpod.com/travel-photo/shoberg/1/1263590407/a-stream-outside-one-of-the-slums.jpg/tpod.html http://www.travelpod.com/travel-photo/shoberg/1/1263590407/in-a-shanty-house-in-the-slums.jpg/tpod.html http://staffcommunity.com/showthread.php?t=180

Hope now I can edit this..

--Induzcreed (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

None of the links give any information leading to the conclusion that there is a slum problem in the city that is different from other cities in the country.

First link is the policy statement of the corporation. It appears that you haven't read the article of the second and third photo links, because those are from MUMBAI, not Kochi. the flourth link is a forum post, which itself is not acceptable per Wikipedia stds, and it is talking about building housing for the poor.

None of this gives any notion that slums is a major, or unique feature of Kochi. In order to satisfy the content needs of wikipedia for inclusion of that picture, you must prove the following:

1. Slums is either a major, or unique feature of the city, compared to other similar cities. The links posted by you does not come anywhere near that. 2. The picture has a traceable license.

Do that, and then edit the article please. Happy editing.

DileepKS69 (talk) 07:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The corporation of Cochin states that there are 280 slums in the city. And there are plans to eradicate that. Apart from the identified slums, there are many more slums created by the labors from other states. This is well evident and the website of corporation of cochin is a valid citation. If you want, I can provide more citations from Kerala Government’s slum eradication programme.

In most cities, slums are there. This doesn't mean that it should not be told here. And it is an unique feature for Kochi in the sense that it holds the most number of slums in Kerala. If there are slums in Kochi, why you are fighting to hide that? It seems that you want to glorify the city you represent. Same time, I want to put the facts for the city I represent. So, there is a diferrence in view point. And, it is evident that the POV you are putting forward is not NEUTRAL. You and your friends do not want to mention Kochi as the second largest city behind the capital means you are not NEUTRAL. You do not want to publish any negative things of the city, means you are not NEUTRAL.

I am not removing any positive things with citations from the article. I am not adding any negative things without citations. So, how can you tell that I am not neutral? I request you to follow an unbiased view point here. This article should not be for ADVERTISING THE CITY. It should hold both NEGATIVE and POSITIVE facts.

Also, please do not post lies here about the license of the picture. If you have any problem with the license of the picture, do report it in the Creative Commons or in the Image Description Page. I am not the one who uploaded it and took license for it.

Enjoy Editing. Thanks. --Induzcreed (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if your point is that Kochi has the most number of slums in Kerala, you sure can add that information with the citations.

About the image, no, you can not use that image without proper license. The fact that someone else uploaded it without license, does not mean you can use it unhindered.

DileepKS69 (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Please check before you reply. The image is already licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

Check out the image if you are in doubt.

Thanks --Induzcreed (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make a point, add the citation please. Title of an image from a wiki source is not a citation. Link the corporation article (if that is what you want to use as reference) and make your assertion the fact based on that.

The source of that image is not verified. It is not clear if the original uploader had the right to do so. DileepKS69 (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• My thoughts on this : The image license is a valid one, I checked. However, the citation cannot be from the image description. Corporation of Cochin website is a valid citation. --Chektomate (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Check, educate me please. Could you explain how the license validity is determined? Thanx.

DileepKS69 (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Induscreed, where is the citation for the statement Hundreds of people, mostly comprising migrant labourers from other states of India who come to the city seeking job prospects, live in such shabby areas. please? If you have it, please add. If not, please delete that phrase.

DileepKS69 (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC) The same phrase is already there in the image description itself..I don't think it should be removed. Why I should oblige to a un-genuine request? You mean to say local people stays in such shabby areas ? I believe not. It is the migrant labourers. Thanks. --Induzcreed (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The image description is not a valid citation, and you can not use an uncited assertion. Please find a supporting document somewhere, and add the reference. Without that, the said phrase can not be used in the title. There is no question of genuine or un genuine request. An assertion must be verifiable. Please do provide reference.

DileepKS69 (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC) OK.If you are particular about reference than those in the image itself please fidn these links http://www.hindu.com/2007/10/09/stories/2007100960020300.htm http://www.indianexpress.com/oldStory/81252/ I think these will be more than you required..Now I'm reverting back to the old..Please don't do the edit war again.Please. Thanks and enjoy editing other than this. --Induzcreed (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Indus, nowhere in those newsclips it is said that the labourers live in those shacks. In fact I know for a fact that none of the labourers under contractors, whom the article mentions, live in those kinds of tents in open lands. The contracted labourers live in colonies which have buildings with walls and roofs. It is true that their condition is terrible, but the photo you have posted does not relate to them.

The tent dwellers are not labourers. They do rag picking, panhandling and such occupations. Only a very small part of the BPL population live in those tents. In fact I am afraid that they don't even feature in the records.

Given these facts, your reference could not be accepted.

I deny any allegation of edit war. All I am asking is a reference to the phrase Hundreds of people, mostly comprising migrant labourers from other states of India who come to the city seeking job prospects, live in such shabby areas.. I have removed the phrase only after giving you ample time and opportunity to provide the reference. You sir, on the other hand, have added the disputed phrase back unilaterally, quoting links that does not give any substance. If someone is doing edit war, I am sorry to say, that would be yourself.

DileepKS69 (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Initially,your dispute was about the license of the image,then was the phrase.When a valid reference give you cannot accept that and telling that the people shown in the picture are not labourers.How can you tell that? Anyway no more dipute in that.Here's a more valid reference than a newspaper news.http://csesindia.org/admin/modules/cms/docs/publication/16.pdf

Hope now you are happy with this.

Thanks.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Induzcreed (talk • contribs) 01:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanx for posting the reference. If you had read it fully, you would have noticed that it thoroughly disproves your assertion. See Table 12, Page 14 of the paper. Three percentage of the sample lives in the class Verandah of shops. The rest are classes such as House/room shared with others and Single Room.

Now, you would agree that in order to add a photograph to the page, it should at least represent a major or unique fact in the city. Do you honestly consider that 3% represents major or unique? Qualifying for a photograph to be posted on the page?

I invite the opinion of other learned editors on this. 3% of the undocumented slum dwellers, which would be a feeble minority of the total slum dwellers, lives in shanties. Does that qualify for a photograph?

DileepKS69 (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC) FYI,It is not me who has taken the photograph and uploaded in the wiki under the license and not me who has given the image description.It is the photographer himself given that.You can verify that. Also,a study is conducted on a sample basis not a full mass.

--Induzcreed (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you have no arguments supporting the retention of the photograph. Thank you.

Unless you, or any other learned editor, provides a convincing argument for why that photo should appear on the page, given that the reference you gave proves that it is not a representation of a major or unique fact, the photo may be deleted. As I consider that the reference for the text to be valid, I have no contest on that.

I am not contesting here the image on Wiki Commons. That I shall do separately at the appropriate place. The argument I am making specifically here, is that the photo does not qualify to be on the Kochi page, because it does not represent a significant fact about the city. I make that assertion based on the references you yourself provided. Unless you could convincingly refute that, the image shall be removed from the page.

DileepKS69 (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear DileepKS69,

The study is conducted only on the Tamil migrant labourers in the city. It does not cover other state labourers from Karnataka, Maharashtra, Bihar, Bengal, etc. I was providing you a sample, since you were so adamant about a reference. You can find more references in the internet. Also, in an attempt to support your blind claim, you are LYING here and HIDING facts regarding the percentage of people lives in verandah of shops. The study says that 7.8% of the people(those who are single) lives in Verandah of shops. And the photograph is not a Verandah of any shop; it is about a slum like dwelling. Also, nowhere in the study asserts that only 3% live in shanties.
The study says “ They live in shanty houses/rooms in slum like localities often on a sharing basis. A few of them live on verandas of shops. They have limited access to sanitation facilities and safe water. Their practices of waste disposal pose problems of public health and environment. Their working and living conditions and habits make them suffer from a number of diseases. But their access to public services like health and education is limited. They enjoy very limited protection from labour laws. ”
The study cements again, “ Most of the migrant workers live in shanty houses/rooms in slum-like localities often on a sharing basis. In many cases, the houses/rooms are overcrowded. Only one in twenty families lives in an independent house. Many of the migrant families live in small houses or rooms where adequate toilet facilities are absent. ”
The photograph portrays some of the shanty dwellings of the migrant workers. I can even send you some similar photos taken from the city. Closing your eyes will not turn the world blind, but only push you into darkness. :-)
Thank you so much for forcing me to do more research on the subject, --Induzcreed (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Indus, please read the material before you go with your arguments. Read Table 12 of your reference. It clearly classifies the accommodation as: Independent house, Single room, House shared with others, Room shared with others, and Verandah of shops. Where would you classify those tents? You can't call them house or room, can you?

Also, do the math. It is 7.8% of singles, which is 38 base. Of the total is it 3%. Think before you use serious allegations like lying.

And I am sorry to say that you are still beating around the main point. Does a feeble minority of the population living in tents qualify for a picture on the main page? Answer that, substantiate that with reference.

Unless you do that, the image shall be deleted. DileepKS69 (talk) 06:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC) DileepkKS69, Table 12 says 7.8% on 100, not on 38. Read it once more with a calm mind. It is not about feeble minority. And I understand that house is some place where people live in. It need not be a four-walled and roofed one, it can be tents too. The image description says about migrant labourers living in shanty slum like dwellings. It can be tents also. And the image description says only about the migrant workers, not about the local population. If you search internet, you will get various other references even with more shabby images than this.--Induzcreed (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Indus, I am sorry that I have to explain this basic math to you. The sample size is 100. 62 is staying with family. ALL of them live in houses. 38 live alone. 78% of that 38 do not live in a house. That is 3% of the total.

Again, I am sorry to repeat. The title of the image is not a valid reference. It is typed in by someone with no citation, hence inadmissible as reference.

Let me repeat. Please prove the significance of that image, qualifying it to be displayed on the page using valid references. You are harping around the core issue here. Please provide valid references, or delete the image.

DileepKS69 (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

See this reference : http://123cochin.com/demographic.html --Induzcreed (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Indus, that is a circular reference from the same image.

Also, you are bringing up references repeatedly that there are shanties in the town. Prove that there is a significant number of them please. Otherwise it does not qualify for an image. What you demand is like posting the image of a mansion and claim that many people live in those.

DileepKS69 (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

An image should be significant and relevant for inclusion on the page

Dear Induscreed, from your recent actions, I have deduced that your intentions are not the integrity of the article. I will give one more chance to engage you in discussion.

The presence of a few shanty houses can not be significant for a city, just like the presence of a few mansions isn't. You are trying to deface the page by posting the image of a slum, where it no way represent the city. You need to show that people living in shanties are a significant number, or the area covered by shanty towns are significant. You haven't done any of that. You posted some links that simply shows shanty towns exist. That will not do.

In consideration of the neutral POV, and the standards of Wikipedia, the said image will not be allowed to stay on the page.

Any editor, other than the ones indulged in the edit war, please post your comments here.

DileepKS69 (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hope you are NOT the moderator or the admin to send warnings and giving chances..Rite.

The image is already in wikipedia,thus can't say it is not allowed.The references are already there in wikipedia for quoting some other points.So the same reference is applicable here.Also,the phrase is already there in the reference which you were asking for so long.

Simply you are arguing for this proves your intention that you JUST want to glorify the page by ignoring the facts which are already on grounds with valid proof available and were quoted here for reference.

Since the article explains the situation with more valid or with same references,the image is relevant and significant to the article "Demographics" which is very much supporting the article

--Induzcreed (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, you made your point, that you have no point to make.

The image is irrelevant, and shall not be allowed to stay on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DileepKS69 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You are creating unwanted arguments repeatedly even-after providing many proofs and references.

.The image is relevant to the article "Demographics", and will stay on the page. --Induzcreed (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There is only one question I want answered. Does the presence of a few shanties in a city justify putting up an image on the page?. Please justify your answer.

Inviting all the editors, especially the seniors, who are interested, please let your opinion known here, before you call it is an edit war.

DileepKS69 (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear INDUZCREED - Let me know where you are from, so I can post pictures of a few potholes, poverty and slums in your city's wiki page. Would you like that to be done? Please let us know - I think I have a hot Diwali Gift for ya! :)

Happy Diwali - 59.160.190.130 (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

All, I think you need to request a third opinion on this issue. I've already become involved so I don't think I am independent enough. See WP:3O for instruction. In the meantime, I suggest you apply WP:BRD - someone Boldly makes an edit (in this case, adding the photo), someone Reverts it, and then you Discuss it. Only once an agreement is reached should the edit be reinstated, or it be accepted that the photo is not suitable. Fighting over edits will likely get you both blocked. There is no WP:DEADLINE, so let's not insist on the "right version", it's not a big photo and it's not unduly showing the city in a bad light, but at the same time there's no consensus to add it yet. Bigger digger (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Digger, thanx for the opinion. I initiated WP:3O. Meanwhile, I hope the editor who added the image would remove it according to WP:BRD you outlined.

Dear Mr. Induscreed. Please read the above explanation by Mr. Digger. Let me highlight: Only once an agreement is reached should the edit be reinstated, or it be accepted that the photo is not suitable.. That it WP:BRD Principle. I gave you the opportunity to comply, but you didn't. Hence I took the libert to make it comply.

DileepKS69 (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

DileepKS69 (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion Response

I'm here to offer a third opinion in response to the request at WP:3O. I'm just a regular editor with no special powers, and you are free to listen to my opinion or ignore me as you see fit ;)

This article contains many images of Kochi. Most of these images represent the city as a beautiful and pleasant place.

I feel that using one image showing the slum tents, out of all those positive images, is proportionate and appropriate. It makes the article more rounded and accurate in its visual representation of the city. The image, with its juxtaposition of the slum tents and the modern office buildings, is quite editorially powerful and adds a lot of value to the article.

I think the image should be used.

Thparkth (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes! the image should be used. BTW, where are you from, Thparkth. I might have some images of that city of yours which I can upload on your city page. Do let me know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.178.192 (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello anonymous user. I live in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in Canada. As far as I know there are no slums in Halifax, but if there are, you should certainly add them to the Halifax article. Thparkth (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

hello non-anonymous user, would like to remind you that Halifax is more like your adopted city. So, lets talk about your place back home? '_' ??? - 115.184.45.137 (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately for this conversation, the home of my childhood is a quite wealthy small town, so there are no slums there either. But really, this isn't about your home city or my home town, it's about achieving a fair, proportionate and accurate representation of how the place actually is. You mustn't let your obvious (and very admirable) pride in your city affect your commitment to neutrality in the article. Thparkth (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Thparkth, which is important for an encyclopedia? Neutrality, Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, OR Visual proportion, roundness, and editorial power? Your view have a place in politics, not in an encyclopedia. I believe the images must be showing something significant or unique about the city, that distinguishes it from the others. My objection is NOT that the image is maligning the city. My objection is that the image doesn't show anything significant or unique about the city. I thank you for the opinion.

DileepKS69 (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Dileep. All of these things are important. If images are only allowed if they show something "significant or unique", you will have to remove almost all of the images that are currently used in the article. Other cities have churches, bridged, office buildings etc. In fact the point of the images is not to show what is unique, but to give readers a sense of what the place is actually like. So my opinion has not changed - if Kochi has slums, it's appropriate to use a single picture showing this in the article. Thparkth (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Thparkth. Could you please identify the images that are not significant or unique? We can discuss them, and remove if they do not satisfy the criteria. You are taking the unique' part alone, which is incorrect. It is significant or unique. That definition is a precision way of saying give readers a sense of what the place is actually like. Now, let me ask you. How does showing the picture of a few slums make it actually like it, where the whole city have only a few such shanties.

I would definitely agree that the shanties have significance, if there are hundreds of them at one location. I happen to know the location of the photograph. It is a carefully composed image to capture the few shanties with the backdrop of the highrises. It is a good photo for sensational journalism, but unsuitable for an encyclopedia. I would wholeheartedly welcome an editor providing a photo of a spread of a number shanties, if they can find them. That would be fact, and deserves a place on the encyclopedia.

DileepKS69 (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dileep. I believe the "slum" picture is significant in its own right. Even if there was only one such area in the city, it would arguably be significant enough to include in the article. But if, as Induzcreed says above, there are hundreds of slum areas according to the city corporation, then it becomes a highly significant part of the cityscape, and to deliberately remove the single picture representing this from the article would significantly detract from the usefulness and neutrality of the article.

So let's recap:

• Kochi is a city with a slums.
• We have a sourced statement in the article that the slum population was growing at least in the 1990s
• The city corporation has a plan to deal with the slum problem. This means that the slum problem is significant to them at least.
• In the article, we briefly discuss the city's slums with a few sentences briefly restating the facts above.
• We currently have fifteen images in the article. Fourteen of them are "tourist-brochure" images that show the city as modern and prosperous, which of course it is for the most part.
• The "slum" paragraph currently uses an image which has a few (quite clean and orderly) shanty-style tents contrasted with modern office buildings in the background.
• This image appropriately illustrates not only what one Kochi slum looks like, but also represents the challenges the city faces and the progress it is making.

I honestly don't think that the average Wikipedia editor would consider this image to be inappropriate. They might wonder if you are trying to make the article represent Kochi in as positive a manner as possible because you live there and are proud of your city. There is nothing wrong with this of course, but you should be prepared to defer to the judgement of editors who do not have a personal connection to the place, when it comes to questions such as these.

At this point I think I have given my opinion in sufficient detail, and explained myself enough times, that I don't have anything else to add. It remains my considered opinion that using this image is a positive contribution to the article, and that removing it diminishes the article. Of course this is just my opinion and I may be wrong, so you might want to consider getting even more outside opinions by opening a WP:RFC on this.

Thparkth (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Well Dileepks69, you requested for a third opinion, and you got that. I too find no serious problem to have the slum picture in the article. I back the opinion from Thparkth. --Chektomate (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I am also with user Thparkth.I am not a UNIQUE user :). I am only stating my opinion here. I have gone through the article and i feel like reading a tourist-brochure. I can find only +ve things about the city. Most of the sentence starts with Kochi stands first, Kochi is the it the largest, Kochi is ranked, The only city from South India etc... The word largest and first is used in so many places of the article. (you can search these words in the article using FIND option from the menu of your browser) Its just like an advertisement of the city!!!. I also find no problem by inserting that picture to the article. Like Thparkth said, it represents the challenges the city faces and the progress it is making. The editors are trying to put a push a STRONG POV in favor of the city in this article. Its good to be font of your home city but remember that this is an encyclopedia and so many people outside the country is not only reading, but also use this article for references. You can glorify your city through forums, blogs or by starting your own website. 112.110.138.62 (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, you do not wanna start the page of a city with things like "Poorest", "Smallest", "Last", "Dirtiest" etc.!?!, which is what is the intention of many people out here! thanks and if you do have some contributions, positive or negative, please do that and we can put it up in the appropriate section. You might also wanna refer a thesis or an essay on any subject, usually areas like "Challenges or Problems" are mentioned towards the end ... - MountainWhiskey (talk) 07:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I thank all the editors for their opinions, and according to the high standards of Wikipedia, I accept the verdict.

I am sure the same high standards would be applied to the other city pages as well, when a dispute happens in the future.

DileepKS69 (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC) But,this page is categorized under FA,which should contain all Pros and Cons.Otherwise there is no value of FA. Thanks --Induzcreed (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Page protected

The page has been protected to stop the continuous edit war. Please discuss all issues on the talk page. The protection is not an endorsement of the current version.

If you wish to make any edits, gain consensus and place {{editprotected}} before the text that has to be inserted and an administrator will perform those edits. —SpacemanSpiff 16:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the page to be kept protected, and edits proposed here and done under consensus. Should work much better than all the flip-flops.

DileepKS69 (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mountainwhiskey, 5 November 2010

{{edit protected}} Hi, there is a line which says "most of these islands are small ...." which requires a Citation and none has been provided for so long. Please have that removed, coz as far as I know that ain't true :) THANKS!

MountainWhiskey (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Your statement "as far as I know that ain't true" is not acceptable in wiki. It is quite obvious that you and your friends are trying to push a STRONG POV in favour of your city. I request all editors not to be biased and please start your own blog or site, if you want to advertise the city. --Chektomate (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If my statement is untrue, I request you to give the right figures, failing which this calls for deletion! Why is a statement like "most of these islands are small" being allowed to stay when the editors who contributed the same are not able to validate it? - MountainWhiskey (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template.. Mountainwhiskey: if you are arguing for change, you'll need to provide the reference. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kochi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gyrobo (talk)

• The article is currently protected due to an edit war, so it fails on stability alone. It's impossible to evaluate the content if the content is in dispute. And judging from the nominator's contributions, he/she seem to have created a single-purpose account to promote this page.
  -Gyrobo (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You may please add this as the citation requested by MountainWhiskey Average size of islands Thanks --Induzcreed (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{editprotected}}Please edit the mayor's name to Tony Chamminy, who was sworn in yesterday. DileepKS69 (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Survey Details

Check, why was the survey details removed from Demographics? You mention talk page, but I don't see the talk. Please clarify your grounds for the edit. DileepKS69 (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The survey from Nielson company and such type of unknown companies are not very authenticative data. Do you want to put such kind of information in the article? It only serves the purpose of glorifying the city. --Chektomate (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

AC Nielsen is a well known and reputed market researcher, whose opinion carries a lot of weight in the industry. The Confederation of Indian Industry is the apex body of industrialists in India. Both are reputed and reliable sources for evaluating the livability and competitiveness of a city. You should have researched the sources before discounting them simply because they do not align with your POV. The sources are reliable and authentic enough.

If surveys from entities like Rediff, and news from sources like metrovaartha could be used as source, especially if it carries a weak POV on the city, I wonder why AC Nielsen can't be a reliable source? DileepKS69 (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I am extremely sorry about removing the survey details, I could have done a detailed check. I am re-inserting the info about the affluent cities in India. However, the link for CII survey is not valid. If you can provide a valid link, the info can be included. --Chektomate (talk) 06:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have the copy of the report that I downloaded from the link when it was available online. What would be the best way to make that into a reference?

DileepKS69 (talk) 08:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I found a copy of the same document at http://www.janwani.org/images/Governance/cii_and%20_insti_for_competetiveness_liveability-report_2009.pdf. The link says 2009, but the actual document is the 2010. DileepKS69 (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Great job! I am going through the pdf and will add it soon. --Chektomate (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Weasel Word?

Check, what exactly is the weasel word in the statement Kochi is the most cosmopolitan city in Kerala.. I checked the wiki page on that, and neither significant words appear on that page. Please clarify your grounds for the edit. DileepKS69 (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Dileep, the statement "Kochi is the most cosmopolitan city in Kerala" is lacking factual figures. What actually you mean by cosmopolitan city? A city/place or person that embraces its multicultural demographics is cosmpolitan. There is no figures available to support the claim that "Kochi is most cosmopolitan", other than the reference from a GoK site about Kochi for tourism promotion, which repeat the same sentence (without any figures to prove it). It may be even a circular reference! --Chektomate (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

So, a GoK document is not good reference for you, when it comes to a strong POV, while any source, including sites like metrovaartha is good source for a weak POV?. If you go like that, no reference could be valid enough for you. How do you measure cosmopolitan-ness? Can you quantify it? If you start asking questions like that you will have to face such questions at a lot of points at a lot of pages. Once again, you can't bend the conventions and pick and choose the sources based on POV. GoK is a valid source, so allow its use. DileepKS69 (talk) 06:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The site provided in the ref is for tourism promotion, and as I mentioned it may be a circular reference. You need not compare with other pages, if you are trying for the betterment of this page. If you can establish the "most cosmopolitanism" with figures, you are welcome to add it. As of now, that statement is just a peacock term for the city and cannot be included in the lead. --Chektomate (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Updating the Demographics Section

I have deleted a wrong assertion made based on a business standard report on the Liveability Index study. It said lowest rank, while the actual number if 23. I propose to re-write the last three paragraphs using the available references, because they looks kind of disjoint right now.

Looking at the liveability report, we can find that the following are the strikingly salient points. Overall ranking 12, which is best in state. Housing ranks 23 which is worst in state by a large margin. Education ranks 36, but all three cities similar.

Since the crime report is featured, we may note the safety ranking here, which is 16, and best in state.

Please comment. DileepKS69 (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The unemployment numbers are incorrect, as they refer to the District, not the city. One data point to note that Kochi and Kanayannur taluks where the city situated, shows only 5.3 and 6.7% increase. So, the rate should be around 6%.

DileepKS69 (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Read page 15 of the liveability index report. It says "8 cities have their lowest ranks on Housing issues – Coimbatore, Jaipur, Kochi, Kolkata, Nagpur, Nashik, Vadodara, and Vishakhapatnam". For the crime report, the report from crime bureu hold more authenticity than the liveability index by CII. When some on add superlative things about Kochi, you concur with them. You always wanted to remove all negative images of the city and add all puffery things there; and seems to be so madly dedicated to glorify the page 24X7 :-) As many times said before, please understand that wikipedia is not a soap box. Please do not try to overtone the article. I suggest to put the article for a review, so that other editors may come and share their thoughts. --Chektomate (talk) 09:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it does say 8 cities have their lowest, BUT, the actual ranking number is available elsewhere in the same report, and that is NOT the lowest. So, which one should one use? A general statement, or the actual number?

madly dedicated to glorify is a very strong allegation, which I forcefully deny. There are a number of editors, yourself included, working to project anything bad about the city. (I am not complaining. that is your POV). Naturally, you will see things from that perspective. What I try is to counteract the biased views presented, and bring back the balance and reality.

I intend to play by the rules, both in letters AND spirit, and by the high standards of Wikipedia, I would always go by consensus. I take my work here quite seriously, and I would greatly appreciate if you would respect that.

Regarding the crime report, I am NOT asking to remove it. What I am asking is to add the information from the livability report next to that. Why should you object to that?

Also, please note that I am using the talk page, and have not edited anything, waiting for consensus. I would greatly appreciate the same courtesy from you and the other editors hereafter.

Happy and constructive editing. DileepKS69 (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You can judge your own edits by seeing your contributions. You always complain that "others are delibrately trying to put Kochi in bad light". Why all others should do that? It could be your phobia. Actually, there is not much so called bad things about the city in the article.

I have never tried to project only some thing bad about the city. I donot have any such motive, and is evident from my edits. I have added many positive things in the article, and you have appreciated that (check here. When I add some thing, which is negative to the city, you will challenge that and will try to polish it. In short, your appreciation is only for positive things about the city, and you gets annoyed when other editors try to prevent you from overtoning or glorifying the article. I still remember effort of your friend to add a false claim (Mahatma Gandhi described Kochi as the Epitome of Adventure), which was a real glorifying attempt. You asked for WP:third Opinion regarding the slum picture in the article. When the third opinion favoured the slum picture, you replied in a very bad tone to the editor who gave his thought. Go through this talk page, and you can find several examples for your attempt to glorify the artilce. --Chektomate (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

These arguments are irrelevant for the original context. We are talking about re-writing a section, combining the available data. If you think the current form is good, please say so.

Now, I am forced to answer a couple of points you made.

1. I wasn't involved with the Epitome of Adventure. I made no edit, and no comment. 2. I have never used a bad tone on Wikipedia. Never will. I graciously accepted the 3O, after getting some clarification from the editor. Someone else did some edit in very bad taste there. It wasn't me. I have never edited without my own ID, and I do not condone uncivil behaviour. DileepKS69 (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Check, you claim neutral and unbiased. Then kindly explain me this. The Business Std report you refer have mentioned Kochi at TWO places. Why only ONE is mentioned in the article? Do you call that neutral? All I asked was to use the actual number of ranking in the article, and you are calling for neutrality.

DileepKS69 (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have given the rank also to the sentence, though it will not serve any purpose. No general readers will be so keen in knowing the exact rank, I believe. Anyways, I am not ready to continue this silly debate; hence added the rank also to the sentence, as per the demand of Dileep. --Chektomate (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I fixed a grammar error there, and that specific issue can be closed. Still, it is better to cite the report, because some other editor, at a later date, might question the number.

I need to reply to an assertion you made above. I took some time and reviewed your entire edit history. The ONLY positive thing you added to Kochi (in this user ID, because even though it begins on 2nd Oct, you do go way back) was Sreesanth. (Well, given his antics, I wonder if it is in fact positive or negative). You did some neutral edits, like fixing links, and re phrasing, which I appreciate. But in general, you spent time fighting any positive edit. You also pushed POV several times by irrelevantly linking Trivandrum. You have not earned the right (in this user ID) to profess neutrality.

I take you (this user ID) for what you are, and try to work with you. Happy Editing. DileepKS69 (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There you are.. :-) Providing internal links, external citations, re-phrasing for better reading, are all Neutral for you ! According to you, positive can be ONLY when some one write great about Kochi !! Such edits are NOT called positive edits, but called advertising. Adding some relevent and useful information without using much superlatives is just NEUTRAL for you, be it from me or any other editors.

I never irrelevantly linked Trivandrum. You wanted to remove the sentence "Kochi is the second largest city after the state capital Thiruvananthapuram". Since this is a fact supported with census data, and I did not see any danger/false in that sentence, I supported to retain it in the lead. What is the wrong in that? Now, I noticed one more thing; that Thiruvananthapuram is removed from the lead. Since you removed the word Thiruvananthapuram, I suggest to link [[Thiruvananthapuram|state capital]], so that the readers will be provided the flexibility to check which is the state capital. (I can foresee a STRONG NO from you :-) ) --Chektomate (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Continued in section : Talk:Kochi#Wiki_Links

Thripunithura is a major station

Indus, Thripunithura have stops for several express trains, hence it is a major station. Please check your facts before boldly reverting. According to the online timetable, the following express trains stop there. 6381/82 Kanyakumari exp, 2623/24 Tvm mail, 6327/28 KRBA TVC Exp, 6301/02 Venad Exp, 6629 Malabar Exp. This station have a computerized reservation centre also. What else do you need? DileepKS69 (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Computer reservation is not the criteria for a major railway station. Railways is introducing online ticketing services through the IRCTC website for major and minor railway stations.

There are more than 30 express trains passing through Tripunithura and out of it, 8 stops there.Also,FYI,train numbers 6630 and 6382 have NO stop at Tripunitura.How can you say it is a major railway station ? Do not argue for the sake of arguing. Think with an un-biased mind. You can think about starting your own site to advertise your city; you have the potential. My best wishes will be there. Thanks, --Induzcreed (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You, Sir, should have an unbiased mind. The rest of the stations are halt stations, where passenger trains alone stop, and no reservation facility available. Thripunithura and Aluva are major stations where express trains stop, and hey have reservation facility. The fact is clear. Both those stations should be listed together, while the rest should be termed as halt stations.

I do not understand your adamancy in this, and why you bring in allegations of bias on this simple, but obviously clear matter. DileepKS69 (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no adamancy here.If you have the Railway Time Table with you which costs only Rs.30 and you can check yourself which are the Major Stations in Kerala or even in Southern Railways.Will you consider Piravom Station as a major station where some of the express trains stop?Also Edappally has stop for some.Even Cochin Harbour Terminous was considered as a major station before;but it is not functioning now.
Thanks--Induzcreed (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Indus, what exactly is your objection here? That Thripunithura is not a station in the class of Aluva? I agree on that. It is not. But it is not in the class of the other halting stations listed either. So, obviously combining it with those doesn't align with reality . Could you make a phrase that agrees with those facts please?

DileepKS69 (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion is that the editing in Transport section shall be based on the editing done here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Kochi...
The main points in the Kochi Main Page shall match which the subsections.
BTW,I accept the inclusion of Tripunitura Station in the current way.
Thanks. --Induzcreed (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Links

Dileep, I never irrelevantly linked Trivandrum. You wanted to remove the sentence "Kochi is the second largest city after the state capital Thiruvananthapuram". Since this is a fact supported with census data, and I did not see any danger/false in that sentence, I supported to retain it in the lead. What is the wrong in that? Now, I noticed one more thing; that Thiruvananthapuram is removed from the lead. Since you removed the word Thiruvananthapuram, I suggest to link [[Thiruvananthapuram|state capital]], so that the readers will be provided the flexibility to check which is the state capital. (I can foresee a STRONG NO from you :-) ) --Chektomate (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Check, I haven't messed with the ref to state capital in the first paragraph after I found some serious sensitivities there. Yes, I strongly believe that a link to the capital there, or anywhere else in the article, is irrelevant, and I know that many other editors do strongly believe that it is relevant. It has become a sensitive matter. Therefore, it would be impossible to reach a consensus.

In such matters, I refer to the wiki pages of the other cities in India which are similar to Kochi with respect to the issue at hand. If we see most of the other cities carry some information, I would readily agree to carry the same information here too. I believe you would agree that is a fair method to employ.

Since this issue is a perennial irritant to all, are you willing to work on this using the aforementioned method? If so, we could research the pages together, and arrive at a rational conclusion once for all.

Do you agree?

DileepKS69 (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Your agenda revealed again:-) If there is a need to link any thing in this article (whether it is the state capital or not) it will be done. There is no reason to stop that. For eg; if the article has a sentence like "NH47 connects Kochi to the state capital, Trivandrum", the link to Trivandrum would be definitely needed there. And your weak arguments are not enough to stop that, and you need not be irritant to that. I wonder, why a mere link to the state capital is SO SENSITIVE to you !!!
Anyways, I am not going to add any thing, as I am not concerned about it. I was just referring to your point that " you strongly believe that a link to the capital there, or anywhere else in the article, is irrelevant ". The relevance and irrelevance is not to be decided based on your bias.
Let me say some thing too, I am not interested to carry on with debating with you on this matter; as you may never stop arguing and will repeat the same points again and again without any validity. You stretch things to the end of the world !! Thank you very much. --Chektomate (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Check, you said The relevance and irrelevance is not to be decided based on your bias. I completely agree, and it is based neither on your bias as well. It should be decided on the needs of the encyclopedia.

You said If there is a need to link any thing in this article (whether it is the state capital or not) it will be done. That goes straight against the concept of consensus. You may be capable of steamrolling anything here, given your ample resources, and I am in no position to compete with that.

Thirdly, I offered a rational and unquestionably neutral method, ie taking reference to the other city pages. You conveniently sidestepped that. Let me repeat the question. Are you willing to work on that method?

DileepKS(talk) 16:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
In the transport section,the wiki reference is not necessary for the state highways since the original reference (PWD) is cited there.I think the article regarding state highways is based on the PWD records.So I think,there is no error in that and the citation provided is more than enough.
Thanks
--Induzcreed (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Check the previous version. The words State Highways itself was missing in the sentence, hence the edit. A wikilink is the easiest reference for a regular user, because it gives the information in a useful form. Hence I recommend retaining the wikilink. DileepKS(talk) 04:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion,if an autheticated reference is absent only we need to provide a wiki-reference.Please remember,the wiki-reference is also made with this outside reference.So it will be circle reference.Hence,the wikireference is NOT mandatory since the valid and authenticated citation is already given.I invite other editors' comments on this matter.
Thanks
--Induzcreed (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

In general, the wikilink is not a reference. Its primary function is additional information. Here, the regular user is given a quick list of SHs as another wiki page. When you wikilink the name of an object, its wiki page is given. It is done as a convenience, not as a backup.

At least that is my impression of its function, as a normal user of Wikipedia.

Then, Indus, based on your current stand, how would you justify your wikilinking Trivandrum city, where Trivandrum Rly division is mentioned? Just curious. DileepKS(talk) 05:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
:Then, I am afraid to say that your understanding is not fully correct. Wiki link can be a valid reference, if the linked article is supported with external citations. Those citations need not be repeated in the other article also (which is holding the wikilink).

Trivandrum Railway Division is situated in Trivandrum city. Since there was no page for the Trivandrum Railway Division, I linked with the city page. You search the other articles in wiki, and could find many such cases. It is a natural act, and there is no question of a firm stand on that matter. In the eyes of biased editors like you, every such things may be wrong.

At the same time, wiki linking the city page instead of the the Rly division may not serve the full purpose of linking it. Hence, I am not adamant to keep it either. Hope this clarifies. And I request to stop this silly Q&A. It seems that you are very interested to keep on posting here; non-stop. I may not be so curious in replying for repeated points from your side.
--Induzcreed (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Indus, you made a comment and I responded, and now you complain that I talk too much. Well, I would invite your attention to the title of the page. You seem to be really particular on criticising/debating on anything I do, not that I am complaining. If you don't want to talk, I don't see anyone compelling.

Since you mentioned it, there is no mention of Trivandrum Railway Division in the Trivandrum page, except a category link. So, linking to the city page serves absolutely no purpose. I suspect it is a case of Narcissism that makes people put links where no relevance exists.

DileepKS(talk) 09:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually there was an edit error.Thanks for correcting,DileepKS :).
Providing wikilinks are not a wrong idea;but it should be used whereever necessary.Here evenif the wikilink is not provided;also nothing wrong in it.So better keep the link
BTW,I think Induzcreed didn't provide the linking of Trivandrum in Trivandrum railway division once the user Binoyjsdk pointed out about the "repeatlink".So accusing Induzcreed even after NOT doing the same mistake again, is NOT fair.:)
--R3dg33k (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

RG, please read through the edit history, and see how many times did Indus adamantly put that link in, despite all the discussions. Of course Binoy is a senior editor, and his opinion need to be respected, but my point is, Indus tried to steamroll it when I expressed the same. Then, he says something in direct opposite to what he advocated earlier. Tells something about his agenda, isn't it? I just wanted to put that on record, because I had been repeatedly called of bias. Thanks for the comment.

DileepKS(talk) 02:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

” So, linking to the city page serves absolutely no purpose. I suspect it is a case of Narcissism that makes people put links where no relevance exists ‘’ “

Read my reply carefully. I told , “ ‘’ wiki linking the city page instead of the the Rly division may not serve the full purpose of linking it. Hence, I am not adamant to keep it either. ‘’ “. --Induzcreed (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Unemployment Numbers

The unemployment numbers are not correct. The numbers quoted are for the whole district. The city/metro area numbers can be reliably deduced from the Taluk wise table, which comes to 21.6, with an increase of around 6%.

I propose to edit the line as follows:

The region of the district where the city belongs registered an unemployment rate of 21.6% in 2003, which is roughly 6% more than that in 1998. DileepKS(talk) 01:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Major Business Sectors

The article currently reads: Major business sectors include gold and textile retailing, seafood and spices exports, chemical industries, information technology (IT), tourism, health services, banking, shipbuilding, and the fishing industry. It is not accurate.

I propose to edit it as Major business sectors include construction, manufacturing, shipbuilding, transportation/shipping, seafood and spices exports, chemical industries, information technology (IT), tourism, health services, and banking

Refer to the GDP numbers from the planning board. Since city figures are not available, we have to use district figures. Construction is 19%, manufacturing is 17%(incl shipbuilding), trade and hotel (includes hospitality, tourism, and trade) is 19%, transportation 10%, which is mainly the port. Banking is 4.8%.

Comments invited.

DileepKS(talk) 05:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Please change accordingly. --Induzcreed (talk) 09:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Colleges not in Kochi

There are some colleges in the Education section, those are not in Kochi.

1. MACE,Kothamangalam there.MACE is around 45-50 kms away and not even in the suburbs of Kochi. http://www.mace.ac.in/php/showContent.php?linkid=9&parent_id=2

2. Federal Institute of Science and Technology,which is actually near Mookkannur,a rustic village in the outskirts of Angamaly. It is not in the suburbs of Kochi city.

3. The Federal Business School which is a part of FISAT.http://www.fisat.ac.in/php/showData.php?linkid=186&headid=7&headtype=Y is also not in Kochi city.

The above institutions should not be mentioned in the article.

Thank you, --Induzcreed (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

MACE is removed. It obviously not connected to the city.

FISAT is located outside the suburbs, but a lot of city/suburbs residents do day scholar there, so the general feeling around here is that it is a city college. I am not making a call on that either way.

There are some more institutions in the fringe which needs consideration. I will bring them here to discuss later.

DileepKS(talk) 11:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Following are the candidates for inclusion in the list

Engg Colleges

In the order of reducing urbanity

K M E A Engineering College, Pukkattupady, Alwaye Sree Narayana Gurukulam College of Engineering, Kadayiruppu P O, Ernakulam Toc-H Institute of Science and Technology, Mulamthurutthy, Ernakulam Jaibharath College of Management & Engineering Technology, Arackappady, Vengola Adi Shankara Institute of Engineering and Technology, Sankar Nagar, Mattoor, Kalady

Medical

Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church Medical College, Kolenchery, Ernakulam Sree Narayana Institute of Medical Sciences,Chalakka, North Kuthiathode, Ernakulam

DileepKS(talk) 11:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding FISAT,we can't add those details of what people feels.Since this is an encyclopedia,we should stick to the factual details.So it also be removed. BTW,The listed institutions seems lengthy including those already in the page and those yet to be brought out.So my suggestion is why can't be a separate page titled "Education in Kochi"?There these shall be listed under the different categories like Engineering Colleges,Medical Colleges,Business Schools etc...
Thus the content in the article "Education" in the city page shall be brief and the in detailed in the Supporting Page.What say??
--Induzcreed (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, FISAT shall be removed. I also agree on the separate page for education. I will attempt that soon enough. A lot of the sections, including edu, on this page looks like a face after numerous plastic surgery. They badly need re-writing.

DileepKS(talk) 01:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Distance to Capital is Irrelevant Information

Checktomate, this issue had been discussed above, and the information had been the way it was for a long time now. You are trying to incite an edit war here, which is sorely unfortunate.

I have proposed a rational and unquestionably neutral method to resolve this, and similar issues, but you haven't responded. Instead, you are digging up an old issue. This clearly shows bad intentions. If your intention is the well being of the article, as it should be for any editor here, please, let us work on the solution.

I was under the impression that we have come to an agreement that we would discuss first and then do the edit. You are violating that trust as well here.

With your ample resources, you might be able to steamroll the changes, but let me tell you that it goes directly against the principles of Wikipedia.

If you have any respect for the principles of Wikipedia, I implore you to stop, and let us discuss.

DileepKS(talk) 08:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

What on the earth are you talking about? Cant you check the page history before making such comments in the talk page? How you arrive at the conclusion that I added the distance from the capital?

Anyways, since my name is dragged here, let me state my opinion; I dont think it is a serious mistake to add the distance from the capital. --Chektomate (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

@ DileepKS, it was an OLD information which was already there and you only removed . Hence, we should retain it till consensus is reached in talk page.
Also,I don't think it is an irrelevant information.So,it will be reverted back.
--Induzcreed (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry, I would soon have a chart showing Distance from Kochi(by road) to major Kerala towns/cities and to other major towns in the South especially. I hope that is allowed here on Wiki @ Chektomate/Induz? Thanks for your permission in advance. - MountainWhiskey (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have given up trying to engage in a civil and productive collaboration with Checktomate and Induscreed in editing the Kochi page. I have no choice, other than to ignore the adamant narcissism of those editors who strive to establish the superiority and make a mark of their favourite place on every page possible.

I can contribute a lot more as an editor if I just ignore these silly and childish insistences. You are beneath me, my friends, and I shall not stoop to your levels. Hereafter, I shall not meddle in any Trivandrum boosting you may do on this page. I leave it to other editors, if any, to deal with them as they choose.

DileepKS(talk) 14:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Mountainwhiskey,That is a good idea.Hope I can also contribute some in that.If you have the Political Map of Inida/Kerala it will be easy for you to compile. If you eager to create such a page better NOT to restrict with Kochi alone and Can do it for other major cities too..
Also,DileepKS,at last, you agreed to atleast one fact. And I noticed that you and some other "editors" do not want to keep any link to Trivandrum in any Kochi related pages. Why is that?
Being Trivandrum the Capital of Kerala, is not the problem of either Chektomate or Induzcreed.All other states/city pages do give importance to their state capital.Why you people are NOT want here?
I feel you people have some hidden and planned agenda NOT to do so.

Btw, you agreed as above to create a page "Education in Kochi".Please do that at the earliest.I appreciate your acceptance of that task and Mountainwhiskey for the Distance Page.
Of Course, I am not here to one to edit from anonymous IPs. If I need to put forward some edits, I will do that from my account. You can believe me.
Thanks, --Sixsigma69 (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

@ Sixsigma69 - pls do not get so emotional. this is not the end of the world. And, I am not interested in publishing distance from Kochi to every city in central asia, turkey and the like. The whole idea here is to keep things relevant and useful for the general public. And since you are so worried, please add this statement on the trivandrum page or wherever you like "the distance from the Kerala capital to Kerala's Commercial Capital "KOCHI" is just under 220KMS". Have a great weekend in your part of the world. - MountainWhiskey (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have not inetersted who cares??I am NOT worried too.Even when I worried you need not care also
As you mentioned,it cannot be added as per your will and wish as this is NOT a "Sardarji Jokes" Page.Also, Kochi is NOT the State Capital and it will NEVER be too.

Also,keep cool..This is an encyclopedia... NOT your blog or your webpage to show your nasty comments and arrogance.

--Sixsigma69 (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't get carried away. Nobody is gonna make Kochi state capital by adding/deleting Distance to Capital. Why don't you stick to the topic being discussed? We are talking about 220KMS and you are talking about "blogs", "nasty comments", "Sardari Jokes", Kochi capital etc? Please be more composed in your replies. Like I said earlier, please do not get emotional. And, why do all 3 of you (Chektomate, Induzcreed & SixSigma) occasionally highlight (bolden) your sentences. Relax. BTW, i m working on the distance chart to major towns and cities. - MountainWhiskey (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope User:DileepKS69 will be civil in replying here. Can you please show me where in this article I tried to boost up any other place? I wish you could reply accurately, rather than issuing generalised and vague statements.

• I honestly don't understand how a statement "Kochi is situated 220kms north of state capital, Trivandrum" could boil your blood and you and your friends(User:Mountainwhiskey) are against retaining that info in the article.
• Is this the most serious mistake in this article? Is the article improved now in all other aspects?
• And I dont understand on what basis you find me boosting Trivandrum here!!

If you could give me a satisfactory and valid answers to the above questions, I would be happy to agree with you. Thanks in advance, --Chektomate (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

shucks, I was expecting a reply from SixSigma and not Checktomate! I don't see any reason why Checktomate has to be so offended by a reply from SixSigma! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountainwhiskey (talk • contribs) 20:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Because, I am dragged in to this by Dileep; and I replied. --Chektomate (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sixsigma, another sock? I just reviewed your contribs. You went to all the city pages in this part of the country and boosted Trivandrum there. Good job sir. Why don't you go to the pages of Delhi and Mumbai, and boost there too. Why stop there. Go to NYC and add that it is connected to Trivandrum. Let us see who objects!!

I am done. No more discussion on the holy city of yours.

DileepKS(talk) 02:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Distance to capital CANNOT be the second sentence in a page about Kochi or any other city. There are more significant or important facts that needs to head a page. I have added a comprehensive Distance Chart for Kochi which includes the DISTANCE from/to the State Capital. Original entry is duplicate information and being removed. Thanks - MountainWhiskey (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You can add the distance to the cities in the sub page, Transport in Kochi. Not required in the main article. Follow the format of other Indian cities. --Chektomate (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the "Wiki" advice - I will add it to the TRANSPORT Section. But, that does not mean, the 2nd line of a city page should talk about the distance from the state capital? I dont understand why u are so adamant on mentioning such a stupid line as the 2nd line of a city page? Be reasonable, mate! Lets say you have a Wiki page about a car, would you mention the tire size in the 2nd line or the car's displacement. Lets say you have a Wiki page about yourself - Would you mention your age, your in-law's age or your neighbor's grand-dad's age in the 2nd line? - MountainWhiskey (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Distance to Capital is Irrelevant Information. It is truly an informative one. If the tire size of a car is important to the article, the tire size will be mentioned. see Monster truck.!!! Here the article is about a city (Not about in-law's or your neighbor's grand-dad) and the distance is from the Capital city. The Capital city is an important area encompasses the offices and meeting places of the seat of government. Distance from there cannot considered as irrelevant.27.97.126.105 (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You only DONT THINK. You are not SURE! See, 27.xx.xxx.105, the state capital is important, so is the district capital and the High court. But, the 2nd line about the city does not have to mention that. It can go under other sections like Governance or Government, if it is so important. Your argument does not have anything new in it. Please come up with a more solid reason. Please remember, even the National Capital is important. So, is Bangalore, where many a techie is from Kochi. Do you want all those cities to be mentioned? - MountainWhiskey (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is the TALK ? - MountainWhiskey (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like if Mountainwhiskey show a little bit civil behaviour here; rather than using harsh tones and personal attacks. Adding the location info quoting the distance and direction from state capital is a followed norm for Indian cities. There is nothing wrong in that, as it gives the reader a better idea about the location of the city. You need not be worried that "YOUR CITY" will lose importance. If you continue the edit war here, you might be blocked. Please use WP:3O or similar methods to arrive at the conclusion. Thanks, --Chektomate (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what is Civil Behavior to you. Please show me one instance of uncivil behavior here. There is no MY CITY, YOUR CITY thing here. Yours and your buddies forceful inclusion of an unimportant fact is nothing but trying to divert readers to that city's page. And I only reverted what you undid without talking of course. If you cannot arrive at a consensus by using common sense, that is your problem. I have clearly said here that it is fine to be mentioned but need not necessarily be the very first or second line. The geographical location is there in the first sentence itself. Even distances from other major cities and towns like Kozhikode and Thrissur could be mentioned, if we go by your logic. There is also a MAP which shows Kochi's geographical location. I think that is more useful than a mere mention of a distance to other city. Cheers and please talk here before you get busy again - MountainWhiskey (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I humbly request user DileepKS should stop being so neurotic and quite frankly, a bit of a drama queen, by seeing a Trivandrum bogeyman behind every editor in Wiki. And please stop posturing under make-believe high ideals and yet do the same things later under some guise. You make provocative strawmen like "I wont stoop to low levels" comment above, when I feel no one, including you "stooped" at any levels!! I believe we are all discussing, not stooping around as you want everyone to believe. Why create this personal hatred and strawmen?

Anyways what is the point in personalizing this discussion? This is not a personal war or a self-important excersize, when it comes to these topics. Please stop these petty fights and provocations.

Mountainwhiskey, a person who is visiting Kochi with business or other interests that involve interaction with Kerala State Govt should be informed of the distance to places where they might need to travel for government approvals and other administrative matters.
Also,please refrain from personal attacks.I support Chektomate in thi regard.Also,adding a distance map is different from adding a distance to the State Capital. The distance to the State Capital is more relevant and important than the former and is followed in most of the indian cities' pages.Then whats wrong adding that here?
--Sixsigma69 (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course, the state capital and her offices may be important to every businessman. And I have always said it can be mentioned. But, it has to be mentioned at the appropriate place like in the Directions or Geography. The Distance to the Capital is not SO IMPORTANT that it needs to be placed at the header of the page itself. In that case, the Distance to Kochi would require even more importance in every other Kerala city page, considering Kochi's commerical importance. - MountainWhiskey (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Editors, I have added the distance to the state capital and other major cities and positioned it in a more noticeable location. Hope this would help reach a consensus, rather than blind reverts. Please cooperate - MountainWhiskey (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Primary Education

I propose the following text to replace the current text.

The patern of primary education is essentially the same all over the state. There are government controlled schools, owned, or aided, which are affiliated to the Kerala State Education Board. A few privately owned schools are also affiliated to the system. Most of the schools owned by private organizations or individuals are affiliated to the Central Board for Secondary Education (CBSE). Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE) have some schools affiliated to them as well. The state education board offers both Malayalam and English medium instruction, while the other boards offer English medium alone. There are a few schools that follow international curricula, such as IB and IGCSE.

The general pattern of education is ten years of common schooling to reach secondary level. Kindegartens are widely available, but considered separate from formal schooling. After the secondary level, three streams, namely Arts, Commerce or Science are offered for higher secondary education. After finishing the school, students can opt for higher education related to the streams they had undergone.

The notable schools in the government sector are Maharaja Sree Rama Varma Boys High School, Edappally High School, Government School-Kochi and Govt Girls High School. There are four Kendriya Vidyalayas run by the central government. Charitable organizations like Chinmaya Mission and Bharathiya Vidya Bhavan runs many schools within the city and the suburbs. Religious trusts like CMI are also running many schools. There are also schools that are owned by private trusts and individuals, such as Toc-H and Greets Academy.

Recently several public schools have started offering advanced facilities and international syllabi. Choice School, Global Public School and Dawn Public School are some of the forerunners in this category.

There maybe some more schools that need mention. I shall move it to the edit unless anyone find this terribly objectionable, and then add the tweaks there.

Thanks. DileepKS(talk) 07:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

is there any move to shift capital to Kochi from trivandrum?

After reading some very defensive comments from pro-trivandrum editors here to DileepKS's Replies here, Why not discuss it here? Being a Cochinite, I have read a lot of times atleast for past 3 decades newspapers covering small but isolated movements from other parts of Kerala to shift capital of Kerala to Kochi(and in some cases also Thrissur). 20:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.35.113 (talk)

The users who replying and challenging the edits from DileepKS69 are not necessariy from any particular place. If you are in such a misunderstanding, it is your way of fearing things :-)

Also, Wikipedia is NOT a forum to discuss these things. No established editors will bite on this. --Chektomate (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)