Jump to content

Talk:Mumbai/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18

Metro region claims in the lead section & infobox

It seems to me that the lead section and the infobox both contain a fair amount of information that is not covered by the body of the article. Most editors will know that the Manual of Style expect them just to summarize the article (WP:LEAD & MOS:INFOBOX).

Specifically the lead section has "It is ... the second most populous metropolitan area in India, and the ninth most populous agglomeration in the world, with an estimated city population of 18.4 million and metropolitan area population of 20.7 million as of 2011". The infobox also mentions the 2 districts of covered by the article and gives the area of metro region. None of this is in the article body.

To address this I propose modifying the Civic administration section as follows (stripped of refs for this talk page):

==Civic administration==

The name Mumbai may refer to the 'City of Mumbai' (also known as 'Greater Mumbai' ) the area administered by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai or to the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (also known as 'Mumbai UA' or 'Mumbai (Greater Mumbai) Mega City' ) for which the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority provides regional planning and development co-ordination.

Various definitions and names exist for an extended Mumbai Urban Agglomeration, adding Vasai-Virar, Bhiwandi and Panvel for example to the area of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region, but they remain conceptual and have no corresponding administrative organizations.

===City of Mumbai===

The City of Mumbai, an area of 603 km², consists of Mumbai City district and Mumbai Suburban district, and extends from Colaba in the south... (as current article). Its population at the 2011 census was 12,478,447.

It is administered by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) ...

...(as current article)

===Mumbai Metropolitan Region===

Main article: Mumbai Metropolitan Region

The Mumbai Metropolitan Region, an area of 4,355 km², includes the above Greater Mumbai and other Municipal Corporations of Thane, Kalyan-Dombivali, Navi Mumbai, Mira-Bhayandar and Ulhasnagar and also the Municipal Councils of Ambernath and Badlapur. Its population at the 2011 census was 18,414,288.

The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, whose remit covers the Mumbai Metropolitan Region, was established for the 'implementation of the Regional Plan and for Planning, Development and Co-ordination of Development within MMR' .

@Rsrikanth05: reverted a similar edit a few days ago on the grounds that talking of non MCGM areas is redundant, the MMR article does that.

So, should the non-MCGM info be removed from the lead section and infobox? As it is the MOS is being somewhat ignored. I prefer changing the Civic administration section as shown. Batternut (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  • An alternative I can suggest is, add a See Also link in the Civic Administration section and link it to maybe Civic Administration in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region or something on those lines. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Rsrikanth05, We can also quite interpret it in terms of governing bodies such as The MMRDA looks after the whole Mumbai Metropolitan Region including the main Mumbai and its suburbs of Kalyan, India and Dombivali however the BMC looks only after Mumbai and not cities of Dombivali, Kalyan etc which are included in MMR. Dongar Kathorekar (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Confused: I am reading that the proposer is saying that some sentences in the lead are not really covered in the text below and then they are proposing editing the text but they proposal also doesn't contain that sentence; which is "It is ... the second most populous metropolitan area in India, and the ninth most populous agglomeration in the world, with an estimated city population of 18.4 million and metropolitan area population of 20.7 million as of 2011" So what's the proposal exactly? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The proposal does at least have the 18.4 million figure used in the lead and infobox. The rank claims should perhaps be there too. I don't know quite how to justify the 20.7 million figure for this article! Batternut (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay! Instead of stuffing all that in a long para somewhere in the article, it would be better to write a footnote instead. That way you can distinguish the areas and populations as well and not confuse readers. The basic purpose of this article should be to describe Mumbai that in general people perceive, which is irrespective of what administrative bodies or census thinks it is. I think that lead should hence talk of the whole combo and you may put the breakup in footnotes. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that footnotes are good enough. WP:LEAD doesn't say "summarise the footnotes"! Batternut (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

!!!

This issue is simple. Content is either OK to have in this article, or it is not OK. If it is OK for the article, that means it is OK for the lead section and for the infobox and for the article body. To say otherwise is to ignore the WP:MOS. Batternut (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

If article is about Mumbai city then there should be mention of proper Mumbai city alone. But as lead and infobox both mention about MMR(Mumbai Metropolitan Region), we can also mention it in body of the article. But there is separate article on Mumbai Metropolitan Region then we can just link that article in relevant section as See also : Mumbai Metropolitan Region instead of mentioning it in body. Because we have mentioned population of MMR as every big city article do mentions population of Metro region without any further info on it. --Human3015 knock knock • 18:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
@Human3015: Let's look at how other big city articles do it - the top 10 megacities are:
  • Tokyo - does have the metro area population (and GDP) in the Economy section,
  • Jakarta - does have the metro area population in the Demography section,
  • Seoul - has only the metro area population density in the Demographics section,
  • Shanghai - lead section has no metro area claims, but the infobox claims a metro area population of 34 million with no explanation or reference anywhere defining the metro area,
  • Delhi - The Delhi metropolitan area is defined in the Civic administration section; however the lead section says the metropolitan population is 16 million but the infobox says it is 21 million,
  • New York City - has lead section claims not repeated in the article body,
  • Karachi - irrelevant, as it has one population figure only, for the city,
  • Mexico_City - does have the metro area population in a brief Metropolitan Area subsection of the Politics section,
  • Beijing - does have the metro area population ranking in the Demographics section, though not the metro population given in the infobox,
  • São_Paulo - does have the metro area population in a brief Metropolitan_area subsection of the Geography section.
So from this sample most big cities do follow the WP:MOS, though a few do get various things wrong. Batternut (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Noisiest City

A day earlier, a User added that Since 2011, Mumbai is the noisiest city in the world. A Times of India and Mumbai Mirror source were added. I added the word reportedly to make it sound more objective. However, after going thru BOTH sources, I can't seem to find a critera to include them here. They just state that it is the noisiest in the world, according to data from an Indian govt agency. I'm unable to find a source from the World Health Organisation on this matter and feel that untill a WHO report states it, OR a report with numbers, comparing it with others appears, it would be pointless to add this. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Megacity

Mumbai is a megacity, settlement_type can be changed to Megacity. Reference.--Vin09 (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

MMR statement in the lead

"...Along with the urban areas, including the cities of Navi Mumbai, Thane, Kalyan-Dombivali, Mira-Bhayandar and Bhiwandi it is one of the most populous urban regions.."

But it turns out that Mumbai Metropolitan Region#Municipal Corporations consists of total eight municipal corporations including Vasai-Virar etc. Now to mention that, this would really become excessively wordy. I say we remove the the statement itself as redundant, since the previous statement ("the second most populous metropolitan area in India, and the ninth most populous agglomeration in the world") mentions its ranking as a UA and MR. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I like this alternative. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Done. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 18 external links on Mumbai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Montage

I've again reverted the change to the montage. The one included currently File:MumbaiMontage.png, created by Nikkul is of far better quality and has a representative selection of images too. Unless a new one comes up with similar quality images and equally representative, it shouldn't be changed. —SpacemanSpiff 04:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: I feel that the Cuffe Parade skyline image in File:MumbaiMontage.png is not very representative of the city's skyline, given that none of the city's tallest buildings are in the skyline image. Could we at least change that (and maybe include some landmarks outside of South Mumbai)? 14:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm ok with changing some images, but the one from the montage you had posted isn't the right one, the composition on that isn't right. If you find other images on Commons we can discuss them here to build a fresh montage. At this point I haven't seen anything that would improve upon quality or scope of the current image. —SpacemanSpiff 09:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox "other name" field

INFOBOXs summarise the article. This was set to "Bombay" to reflect the article which says "also known as Bombay". To avoid repeated arguments see the old discussions linked on the top of this page. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Date of name change

Did it become Mumbai in 1995 or 1996? Or is there some ambiguity? At the moment, different parts of the article state each of those, without explanation. 219.78.216.52 (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I've briefly checked the different parts with each of their sources. Slate says 1995, Hansen says 1995 whereas mcgm.gov says "The name "Bombay" was changed to "Mumbai" by the Corporation Resolution No.512 dated August 12, 1996, Maharashtra Act, XXV of 1996". So in the third case, it looks like it can be argued that the act is dated to 1996 but the name change 1995. Does this make sense? ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to be exact. I'll check thru the Gazette archives. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Mumbai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2016

In the Etymology section, please include Suryavanshi Kshatriya along with the native communities Agri, Koli and Somvanshi Kshatriya already mentioned. Harry0709 (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2016

This request is related to the references given for the geographical areas of the metropolitan and metro regions of Mumbai. These are reference numbers 7 and 8 in the article (as of 17th Jan, 2016). Kindly add a better reference, for eg. the information provided on the website ( https://mmrda.maharashtra.gov.in/about-mmr ) of Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), which is a competent Government authority.

This will improve the credibility of the article.

Thank you !!!

Soum wiki (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: The listed site has broken / self signed SSL. Be aware. --allthefoxes (Talk) 04:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Not done for now: The current sources are also credible enough, but yes, an MMRDA/GoM/MCGM reference would be a bonus. Will add in a while. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggested changes to GDP observations in opening paragraph

Hi,

The lines

1. " It is also the wealthiest city in India,[15]" and 2. "and has the highest GDP of any city in South, West, or Central Asia.[16] " 

in the opening paragraph use outdated and unreliable data sources respectively. These should be changed to:

1. " It is also the second wealthiest city in India,[15]" and 2. "and has the second highest GDP of any city in India.[16] "

The source for the first line is a 2009 newspaper article citing research from Indicus Analytics quoting Mumbai has the highest per capita GDP in India whereas a far more reliable and recent source is Brookings Institution's 2014 report "Global Metro Monitor" where Mumbai has the second highest per capita GDP in India. (see here: http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2015/01/22-global-metro-monitor)

The source for the second line is the website of a small, private Mumbai based institution called India Study Abroad Center which isn't reliable. Again, a far more reliable source is Brookings Institution's 2014 report "Global Metro Monitor" where Mumbai has the second highest GDP in India. (see here[1])

Thanks Pursuity (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2015/01/22-global-metro-monitor. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2016

Please use "Mumbai mainly has just one University , named University of Mumbai . The University of Mumbai is one of the largest Universities in the country and has over 1600 colleges under this university itself." Instead of "See also: List of schools in Mumbai and List of colleges in Mumbai" Yashkadakia (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. How does that have anything to do with requesting semi-protection?—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 02:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Not done: (1) There are more than just one university, (2) you'd need sources to support your statement, and (3) the see also section is meant for related articles which those seem to be. There is no reason to promote University of Mumbai. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mumbai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Mumbai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2016

AkshayAAP (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC) I have been waiting to see some changes in the Mumbai city wiki page for a long now The context in-terms of text is up-to-date and the information about the city is proper, but as you can see,the first image when you open the page is of Mumbai skyline.

Tough Mumbai's skyline has changed drastically,the page depicts the older images which is off putting.

its my sincere request to the editors please update the skyline image of the page,so that the page looks more vibrant, and showcase the true Mumbai-cosmopolitan,sophisticated and elegant!

thank you.

Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used.
Please note that the picture must not be copyright, which excludes almost all images that you find on the internet, in magazines etc., and you will need proof that it is not copyright, just saying it is not copyright is not acceptable. - Arjayay (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Demonym

People of Mumbai are also referred to as 'Mumbaiites' often. I think this too should be added to the page along with the name 'Mumbaikar'. Rraghav1987 (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Native language

Regarding this edit and as raised on my talk:

The source : "Marnage Customs of Christian Son Kolis" doesn't seem to support "(Maharashtrian Konkani)". There's "The mother tongue of the Kolis is Marathi, the language of the State in which they live. But they have their own dialect..." but doesn't mention more. So we could keep "Marathi" as it which is not exactly the same thing. Additionally there are way too many pages for me to go through and keyword search results show nothing, so requesting an exact quotation or page no as to where it supports it. Then there's Konkani which is its own language but Maharashtrian Konkani is a dialect per our articles.

The main issue here is, what does "native language" in the infobox mean: if it just means originally spoken then it doesn't deserve to be a field in an infobox imho as there's usually never a straight answer to that. The article text does mention that part more elaborately (For instance, see the Etymology section). Per MOS:INFOBOX, they summarise the article text. I assumed it meant widely spoken, so took " Marathi, Hindi, Gujarati and English" from the Demographics section which is sourced to "Multilingualism, Multiculturalism and Education:Case Study of Mumbai City", page 1804. Now the ref does mention more languages and doesn't mention the exact no. of speakers, so we probably need a better ref than that.

With doing the least amount of work, I say we keep the native language field blank. The rest what I said can be done any time later. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ugog Nizdast.. Thanks for your post. But I'm still not convinced by, why did u put other languages. source link "Multilingualism, Multiculturalism and Education:Case Study of Mumbai City", page 1804. does not specify 'native language'(not even native people) rather 16 major languages spoken by the people. Every Core language has many dialects but all those are classified as into one core language. (Maharashtrian Konkani is a dialect of marathi language[1]) Prshntsathe (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the ref not specifying, see the second para of my starting post above. In any case, I don't support what I did.
The stated ref in the inforbox doesn't support what I said (see my first para above), you've given me a link to a Wikipedia article as a source. I don't doubt the accuracy of the statement, just that we still need a proper source for that (I didn't start searching yet)
Let me emphasise what needs to be done here: putting "The mother tongue of the kolis is Maharashtrian Konkani, which itself is a dialect of the Marathi language" into a single-word infobox field isn't wise at all, unfair to our readers. The article text already mentions this partially in the Etymology and Early history section, let's focus on improving that first. ...Marathi language, which is the mother tongue of the kolis and the official language of Maharashtra (etymology) ...they came to be occupied by the Koli fishing community (Early history)-- these are the only two mentions of them in the article. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

ok thanks i am reverting the maharashtrian kokani part, and keeping a marathi language as it, i guess there should not be problem now.Prshntsathe (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

And i guess there should not be any second opinion about marathi language as a native language as ref clearly state that. Lets make a discussion if you have any doubt about it before editing Prshntsathe (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Konkani_(dialect_of_Marathi_language)&redirect=no

Discussion at WikiProject Indian Economy about economy size and rank claims

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian Economy#City economy size and rank claims - a consensual approach which could affect this article. Please add all comments on that talk page regarding economy size and rank claims. Thanks, Batternut (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Best GDP figures to use

Re the recent edit made by Vibhss (talk · contribs), I would propose using the recent Oxford Economics PPP figure of USD 368 billion for 2015. In the absence of official metro area GDP figures I would think the Oxford Economics figure to be the best available now, and much better than the 2008 PWC figure.

Vibhss argues, reasonably, that the Brookings 2014 figure is strangely low. Obviously these figures depend on entirely on how the metro area is defined, and Delhi/NCR now includes over double the population of Mumbai Metropolitan Region, so Delhi's claim of a marginally-higher GDP is actually rather unimpressive. And it does not at all refute Mumbai's claim to be the financial capital of India, as that is all about where the banking industry is - which is clearly Mumbai. Batternut (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Batternut: Thank you so much for understanding my point. Please read my other viewpoints also as follows. Well, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) is a British London based thinktank while Brookings Institution is an American thinktank. Estimates for global city GDP figures of both of these vary significantly. Of course, their respective definition of a metropolitan area may be different but still PwC released its estimates much earlier than Brookings. PwC has estimated 2008 GDP of Mumbai as 209bn and 2025 GDP more than 500bn. The way Brookings figure of 150bn for 2013-14 for Mumbai (ranked 52nd among 300 cities in terms of GDP growth rate as per its own report) contradicts with the earlier well accepted figures of PwC is not at all acceptable. OK fine it showed inflated figures for Delhi by including areas of NCR but how can it decrease GDP of a fast growing city Mumbai ? Again because of its "definition" for a "metropolitan area".

By the way, while Brookings' shrunken figures figures for Mumbai may not refute its claim of being the "financial capital of India" but it does refute the well sourced claim of "Mumbai having highest GDP among all cities in South, Central and West Asia" made in the lead of this article itself. It mentions GDP of many cities of this region to be much higher than that of Mumbai. When a mere difference of $2 BN between GDP of Delhi (370 BN) and Mumbai (368 BN) as pointed out by estimates of Oxford Economics sparked such huge controversies in India, then how can the $293 BN figure for Delhi (almost twice of Mumbai's $150BN GDP) be tolerated and accepted ? Similar thing applies for Kolkata (a UA with population of about 15 million) whose GDP has been reduced to almost half by Brookings (from 2008 PwC estimates of $104 BN to just a little over $60 BN). I just want Brookings not to be used as GDP for articles of Indian cities specially.

Strictly speaking highest GDP among all cities in South, Central and West Asia is probably still true as NCR isn't a city, Delhi is, and its GDP will still be way less that Mumbai's. Batternut (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Oxford Economics figures, well they can be used as they are at par with 2008 PwC figures. From 2008 to 2015, Mumbai's GDP could possibly have increased from $209 BN to $368 BN seeing its annual GDP growth rate. Vibhss (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

So you agree that Oxford Economics figures can be used... Excellent! Batternut (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@Batternut: Yes, but figures of Oxford Economics are not perhaps openly available. It may take hard time to find exact source. Yes, Brookings still refute the claim of Mumbai having highest GDP among all cities in South, Central and West Asia as it shows figures of West Asian cities Abu Dhabi, Tel Aviv, Riyadh, Kuwait and Jeddah-Mecca (twinned by Brookings) to be higher than Mumbai. Yes these cities are in Middle-East but continentally, they are located in West Asia. See yourself. But 2008 PwC figures of $209 BN indeed places Mumbai far ahead of these cities. I have further explained my perceived faults in Brookings (which are probable and may be true) in a new message on your talk page. Please read that long message if you haven't read it yet. Vibhss (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
But McKinsey in 2010 also put Tel Aviv, Kuwait City, Jeddah, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, plus Doha and Ankara above Mumbai. Sorry, but the 2008 PWC seems to be the odd-one-out here. With the most recent two reports against it, West Asia should now be dropped from the highest city GDP claim. Batternut (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Btw the Hindustan Times is a good enough source that we can quote for the Oxford Economics stats. Batternut (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Batternut: Well, PwC is NOT odd-one-out but Brookings is. 2010 data of McKinsey mentions nominal GDP of cities and not PPP GDP. See List of cities by GDP. Here we are talking about PPP (economists have always agreed that PPP is a better method of comparison and assessment among countries or cities rather than nominal GDP because the former (PPP) is based on current international dollar while latter is in US dollars, well that is the other thing). Countries or cities rank differently in either GDP. e.g. India ranks 3rd in the world in terms of total GDP PPP which is 9.5 trillion as per 2017 estimate of IMF, while it ranks 7th in terms of total nominal GDP which is 2.7 trillion as per 2017 estimates of IMF.[1] All I am saying is that you can't compare McKinsey's nominal GDP with PPP GDP of PwC or Brookings. Vibhss (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually the source (indiastudyabroad.org) for the highest GDP of any city in South, West, or Central Asia claim doesn't mention PPP, so should be using nominal. So McKinsey is then most relevant, and disproves the claim. But indiastudyabroad is not a good source anyway as it says Mumbai's population is 12.5 million... Batternut (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Hindustan Times is indeed a good source but it's article mistakenly mention Mumbai's GDP as $370 BN and Delhi's as $368 BN while it should mention exactly opposite. Check the second paragraph of this source carefully.</ref> Other good sources like Times of India, The Financial Express also have good articles on this "Delhi-Mumbai battle". I think these can be used. Vibhss (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Vibhss: Well spotted, and thanks! Times of India gets it right. Batternut (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Good that this seems to have been sorted out. I personally hate dwelling into these figures and comparing different disputing sources, gives me a headache. I recently tried to clean up this and make it consistent, it previously had different refs saying different things and dated to different years.

One question though, I've tried to follow the above discussion but it isn't clear why only the total GDP was update but the per capita GDP was removed altogether. What am I missing? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll add that I've understood that there's a dispute between Brookings and Pwc (mostly because of NCR's area increasing?). And if this is the reason per capita was removed, it can be solved by clarifying it with an explanatory note or something. A similar thing happened in the case of city population figures as well. I don't think we can do much (like using our discretion and removing it) if the source says so and isn't widely contested, . Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Vibhss: Removal of per capita GDP was your edit... Batternut (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=49&pr.y=8&sy=2013&ey=2020&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=534&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC&grp=0&a

Edit request

Please add {{other uses}}

For other uses, see Mumbai (disambiguation).

-- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mumbai/Archive_16&oldid=1085917724"