Talk:Kolkata/Archive 8

colonial structure

The discourse on the colonial architecture is not gelling well with the urban structure content. I think we have to absorb the colonial architecture content elsewhere, mostly in the "history". Unfortunately that will make the "history" section considerable large. Please help!--Dwaipayanc 16:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I like what you did!--Blacksun 00:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Origin of Name: A separate section?

Hello, I am proposing that we move out the details about name from History section and make a new short section "Origin of Name" and place it before history. My reasons for this are three-fold:

1. It will allow us to create a more exciting lead in for the important history section.
2. It will make history section shorter by 3-4 lines. I think it is a bit long right now.
3. It follows the established Indian city article convention.

--Blacksun 00:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I don'n think we need to include another seperate section on the naming. We can create a seperate article on the naming controversy, and link it to the main article Kolkata and also to the article Indian renaming controversy. There is no need to unnecessarily increase the size of Kolkata, rather improving sections like economy and civic administration should be done. Also, many articles relating to Kolkata can be created, like, improving the article on Kolkata Police, Kolkata municipal corporation etc. Also, I think it's time we remove the "trivia" section, and link the Kolkata trivia to , maybe, the culture secrion as a See also entry. Bye!--Dwaipayanc 07:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I never liked the triiva section anyways.

Also, I disagree that origin of name section would increase content. I am not talking about going into any more details than we already have. All I am talking about is cutting and pasting all the name related stuff from history to "origin of name." History, in my opinion, needs to be made more concise while adding some information about communist party rule and this might help with that. Also it follows the template of Indian cities.

Peer review

I think we are getting close to peer review. If you dont agree, then post which areas we should focus and we will hammer it out over next couple of days. Only part I am not a big fan of is the history section but I cant think of how to improve it further right now. I think we have reached a stage where we could use some outside input on what to work on. (Blacksun 07:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

I still have major doubts over the culture section. I do not think people are going to support this format ! Another thing regarding the content of culture, almost nothing have been said about the fine arts etc. In any case, I guess people are going to say that we should write the culture in a summary form and discuss in detail in article Kolkata culture. I think we should request users like Bhadani, Gurubrahma, Ragib, Rama's Arrow, Sundar, Ganeshk and others to have a cursory look on Kolkata before it is pitted for peer review.--Dwaipayanc 14:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Peer review is for inputs on how to make it better, not for support. But ok.(Blacksun 16:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

Peer review, in its tradional sense, implies review by competent authority of articles submitted in an academic journal for assessing the quality of the article. Of course the basic theme is further improvement of the article, however, it's implied that the article meets certain standard, and follows certain norms, before submitting for peer review. Wikipedia being a non-traditional encyclopedia, you are quite right in pointing out that peer review here is largely for improvement upto FAC standard. Moreover, the format is not that much hard and fast here.

In any case, I thought it would be better if the article is first seen by those who have interest on India related topics, and then pit it for a global peer review (though in that case also, the same India-interested wikipedians would contribute majorly !).--Dwaipayanc 07:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Points: History

Quoting from the "History" section of Kolkata:

The Battle of Plassey, fought between Bengal's then ruler, Siraj Ud Daulah and British East India Company is an important part of Kolkata's history and also, British rule in India. The battle was started by an attack on Fort William at Kolkata by Daulah due to various provocations by the British. The armies of Daulah occupied the fort, immediately after which the infamous Black Hole of Calcutta [5] incident occurred (20 June 1756). On 2 January 1757, Calcutta, briefly renamed Alinagur following Daulah's siege, was retaken by a British force under Sir Robert Clive who encountered minimal resistance during the assault.

The aforesaid portion is somewhat clumsy and does not represent the Battle of Plassey, rather represents the Treaty of Alinagar in the first few lines , then the outcome of the Battle of Plassey in tha last lines. This portion needs careful rewording so that a clear picture can be visualised. After reading this portion, it seems as if Battle of Plassey occured in Kolkata itself. The battle was never started by Daulah's attack. The attack on Fort William forms the background of the Battle of Plassey.--Dwaipayanc 07:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and make appropriate changes but I think that we should not go into that much details as their is already a big article on battle of plassey. Just couple of sentences.--Blacksun 17:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I have made the necessary changes with necessary references and links.--Dwaipayanc 05:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Points: History -2

Please read the following article on the telegraph, you will see that the first electric telegraph in India was stationed at Calcutta http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1380.htm and this seems to be more important than the current information in the history section regarding telegraphs. What I wrote was deleted (twice) and yet it fits in with what the above website is saying, and other written material that I have read.

The history article isn’t too bad now BUT…

You insist on writing that Calcutta was the epicenter of Indian resistance in British India, I have inserted several times that non-British Calcutta took no part in the 1857 rebellion, - which has been repeatedly deleted. I refer your attention to such books as H. E. Cotton’s Calcutta Old & New (1909).

Yes, in 1857 troops at Barrackpore (not Calcutta) helped initiate the rebellion, yet from then on the upheavals quickly shifted westwards and Bengal and Assam were left largely untroubled.

Eyewitness report: “I look for a white face amid these leagues of black and brown fellow-creatures, with scant attire, who are swarming in and out of their miserable dwellings. I see not one, not one till I enter Mr. Townsend's house. It was the first impression made on my mind as to our numerical nothingness amidst the people. All the splendour of Calcutta carriages could not efface it. When I crossed over to Barrackpore, instead of looking at the fine trees in the park, or admiring the outside of the Governor-General's country house, or the lawn and bungalow and officers' quarters, I was looking out for white faces, and here at last I found them. Under every shady clump of trees, at every lazy corner, were groups of great, well-made six-foot soldiers, in red coats (for the tunic cannot be enumerated among the causes of the sepoy mutiny), but their faces were black. I never set eyes on men who had more the look of soldiers when their backs were turned. These were the men of the disarmed regiments, two of which are stationed at Barrackpore, held in watch and ward by one English regiment. The men saluted us as we passed, but my companions made a point of not returning their salutes, or taking the least notice of the men. Several of them were doing a mockery of sentry's duty, with canes instead of firelocks. It is said they have recently become civil - almost abject in their demeanour.”

William Howard Russell, (Special Correspondent of The Times) 1858

This really says it all. Despite a massive numerical advantage the Indian population of Calcutta refused to rebel, so to paint a picture of British Calcutta being the hub of anti-British feeling in India is dishonest.

“A great cause of uneasiness also arose from the fact that, at the time of the outbreak scarcely any English troops were quartered in Fort William; while the proximity of the military stations at Barrackpore and Dum Dum (the first being sixteen miles, and the latter only eight miles from the seat of government, and, at the time of the mutiny, chiefly occupied by native troops), was a circumstance well calculated to inspire alarm: fortunately, beyond alarm, no immediate evil result afflicted Calcutta society, in connection with the revolt.”

Lord Canning, History of the Indian Mutiny, 1874.

But of course you won’t have any of this will you?

“The battle was never started by Daulah's attack.”

OH PLEASE!!!

So tell me, if there was some kind of plot to take over Bengal (pre 1756) why was Fort William in such a ruinous state? Why were there pitifully few British troops in Bengal? The ensuing conflict with Siraj had everything to do with his almost completely unprovoked attack on Calcutta, but (despite all the crystal clear proof) Indians can’t admit this because it suggests that Sir Robert Clive was fighting a legitimate action.

Kind Regards:

TB

Please sign your comments with your user name, or, at least indicate your IP adrees, not this TB stuff !

Anyway, the role of Kolkata in 1857 rebellion is not mentioned in the article now. You have quoted a quotation by Lord Canning. Please provide the refernece, i.e. the book name, ISBN, or the paper name etc. and if available, the URL. We would of course add the info if it is significant enough. Given the fact that the size of the article is already more than 40 kb, it may not be wise to add unnecessary info. For example, nowhere is mentioned that Kolkata took part in the rebellion. Because, regarding the history of Kolkata, the fact does not seem to be as necessary as other facts mentioned. There is a separate article on History of Kolkata that is for the history perspective only. Please feel free to add the info there, if possible, with reference.But here in the main article Kolkata, we are trying to represent the history in a summary form where all the info may not be accomodated. Please try to add any info you feel necessary for thr subsection "History" in the article Kolkata, and also to the article History of Kolkata. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 20:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest not using blanket statements. Their are fairly good amount of articles out there that document acts that were seen as provocation by Siraj. Either way, Indians in general dont really know who clive was nor do they care whether or not he was fighting a legitimate action. Furthermore, this is definitely not the place for this debate (if anyone is actually interested in debating). In fact, I think their is too much detail about it in the article. Also, the article is referring to 1930s independence movement and not 1857 solider rebellion. --Blacksun 08:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Clive could never fight a legitimate cause because the very fact that he was fighting in the soil of a free foreign country against it's legitimate ruler negates this possibility. He was a colonial warmonger who was mainly interested in extending British teritorrial limits by means of colonial and mercantile aggression genarelly in India and particularly in Bengal.He was also interested in grabbing wealth by any means!So how could he be just? Siraj, being the legitimate ruler of Bengal, had every right to arrest his expansionist deeds.OK?

Al-minar 08:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If someone does not want to believe Kolkata to be the epicentre of 1857 rebellion for Indian Independence he/she is wrong....absolutely wrong! The rebellion was ignited in Barackpore,hatched among the sepoys in Dhaka and Chittagong all of which were very much in the territorial limit of Bengal. Of course Kolkata as the capital of Bengal had a pivotal role in this! Murad67 (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Image Explosion

I normally like images, but I think that, for once, I have found an article with too many images. I'm going to cut a few out the are irrelevant or repetitive and also move a few around. joturner 00:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

When talking about a topic like a large city, images serve to clarify the subject and deliver some 'feel' of the topic that can not be fully carried by words alone. Loom91 10:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Culture section

Ok I really really like this section (although I still dont agree with the removal of subsections from it but doesnt matter). However, since the removal of subsections, it seems rather long. I was wondering what people think of removing the colonial architecture paragraph from it. It does not fit that well in this section but I think it should definitely be part of some other section. It could fit well in history but history is already quite long. Any suggestions?--Blacksun 19:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The essence is - the sections in the article should be written in a summary form , and can be elaborated in the linked main articles i.e. Kolkata culture in this case. I think at present condition, the section "Culture" cannot be cut down anymore except for two ways: first, to restructure sentences to decrease size. Second, to remove architecture to some other section. Information-wise, the section is quite compacr. In fact, some more info may be added like some points on literature.

Could you please talk to Nichalp in this regard? He has been instrumental in all the Indian city articles that are FAs. He is experienced and knows all the problems. I have already asked his help quite a few times. Can you please?

See here for the guidelines of Wikiproject Indian cities, where it is recommended that architecture should be added to "Culture". The problem with Kolkata is there is so much to tell about the culture, retaining the summary form is becoming difficult ! We have to compromise.--Dwaipayanc 04:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

kk I was not aware of those guidelines. Well then I must say that the article is really close to you nominating it for FA. --Blacksun 17:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Eden Garden Image

Ok, I have to admit that I hate that image. Those makeshift stumps are so ugly! Anyways, it would be really cool if someone had a nice public domain picture of Eden Garden. Otherwise, a good picture of soccer being played in Kolkata would do too. If not then we are stuck with the current picture for now. --Blacksun 20:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It would have been wonderful, as I once said, to have a pic of soccer in Maidan in a rainy day!--Dwaipayanc 04:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Fact check

"Private cars are less in number and usage compared to other large cities in India." This needs to be substantiated. --Blacksun 03:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm! This is a tough task, really. Some news paper articles maybe! Anyway, since you have requested, if we are not able to give some reference, I think this has to go. However, the fact is not much a source of potential debate/ controversy. Also, not of extreme statistical importance, like , say, the population data. So, I think, even if no good reference is founf out,(and also, not many objections are raised), this statement may be retained. In any case, the statement itself is not very much important. Please comment. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 04:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Please see this where they are saying density of cars in Kolkata is much less than Delhi. Also see the traffic tally here. "registered vehicles in Delhi alone amount to the total number of vehicles running in Kolkata, Mumbai and Chennai" says here. I think the second article from The Telegraph may be cited, although that only compares with Delhi. Beleive me, I have been to Delhi and Mumbai, and the gap in number of private cars between these 2 metros and Kolkata is conspicuous !!--Dwaipayanc 04:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is ok to cite the second link. But I think Kolkata car usage is low compared to only Mumbai and Delhi. I don't think this sentence has much utility and might be better to not include. Also, I removed the religious data as I could not find anything in the search. Well, actually I found something on a random site that claimed it was from 2001 census which showed very different %'s --Blacksun 05:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

article length

We need to be bit careful about this. At 42 kb, it is starting to creep up a little. I know that their are other city articles that have more length but I doubt if they had the current lenght at the time of its FAC. Anyways, it is not bad right now but something to keep in mind. --Blacksun 05:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

40 to 41 kb seems to be achieved after some copy-edits. Decreasing further can only be achieved by ruthless chopping, as it appears!--Dwaipayanc 07:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sonar Ganchi

Or, in whatever way its written or pronounced. I was quite surprised when I visited this page and did not find any mention of the largest prostitution network that exists in the country (which is located in the city). I guess, we will have to work on that. --Andy123(talk) 09:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sonagachi is the article. Please visit. It is under the category:Red-light districts and category:Kolkata neighbourhoods. Kamathipura in Mumbai is India's largest prostitution network.--Dwaipayanc 11:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, ofcourse, there is an article. But, it has to have a mention in the Kolkata article as well, I believe. --Andy123(talk) 11:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Kolkata map

File:Calcutta Map.jpg

Does this map fit into the article? I mean, is this map ok as far as usefulness is concerned? And second point, can this be added to the article in some way? I think number of images is already high, and we'll have to replace some image. The radar-image of Kolkata? Can that be replaced with the map? However, if we include this map, the colonial map in the history should be removed — two maps is not needed. Some good old Kolkata photo may need to be incorporated in "History" in that case, which should not be a problem. Please comment. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 07:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

HISTORY SECTION

Sad to see that my brief, important (and affectionate) reference to Calcutta being called the City of Palaces was wiped, and yet a massive load of information on Calcutta’s somewhat mythic and grossly exaggerated anti-British “revolution” has been added. There were only 8,460 English in Calcutta 100 years ago (1901 census - men, women and children) with over a million Bengalis in Calcutta and tens of millions more Bengalis in the surrounding province, from this fact alone it is strikingly obvious that the British had a light hold on Bengal and ruled over a largely passive and submissive populace. The 2nd Fort William in Calcutta, commenced in 1758, was designed as a strong refuge for all Calcutta’s Europeans in times of revolt, in over 150 years it was never used once, nor was a single shot was ever fired at it. Then you people lecture the world on how rebellious you all were! This is just Indian nationalist Republican propaganda - which is fine in its right place, but it's not history. Of course the various political movements should be mentioned but to this degree and space should be made for the 250 year British period, which had its good and bad points. The truth be known, the number of Englishmen assassinated in Calcutta for political reasons was miniscule, and any riots were invariably fights between Muslims and Hindus and not anti-British. Of course, the resistance did exist but to give it such huge prominence is a complete distortion of true events.

My references to Calcutta having the first electric telegraph in Asia was also wiped. I would add something about the discovery of the link between malaria and mosquitoes having been discovered there too, but alas, it will fall victim to people with political and nationalist axes to grind. Should I add that sati was also first outlawed from Calcutta? Where is the information on the British Asiatic Society? Where is the information on the British drive to promote female education? I would love to add it, but it would all get censored by the Jai Hind brigade.

And what are my complimentary musings on British Calcutta replaced by:

“Kolkata remained among India's most prosperous cities for years after India gained independence in 1947.”

“herbingering the formation of Indian National Congress 2 years later.”

“British prisoners were locked in a crampy dungeon…”

My God – they can’t even speak English.

Calcutta was British for over 250 years – it’s only been Indian for sixty. Prior to 1690 it was a tiny muddy fishing village, and perhaps not even that. The British contribution was massive. The history article is now unbalanced, biased and almost unreadable. It’s a shame that all British India articles get hijacked by patriotic Indians, as if they were the only people that ever had a hand in Calcutta/India. Obviously the notion that Calcutta was actually (in large parts) a very beautiful place under British rule, where groundbreaking scientific work was conducted, is utterly repugnant to their political and patriotic ethos – regardless of history. Please would you stop your overbearing approach and allow another historically valid point of view to surface herein, - which might not be akin to your own.

“Depend upon it, Calcutta is the finest place in the world. I know there are towns with far larger and grander buildings; but then they are not half so clean, and new, and beautiful, as this bride-like city.”

Miss Emily Eden, 1836.

There are many such glowing comments in many journals and travelogues from the early 19th century. Most people (with a passing interest in Calcutta who surf in here) would (I think) find references to the erstwhile “city of palaces” quite fascinating and very surprising. It is also very important to note that Calcutta was once a showpiece city, despite its subsequent maligning in the 20th century.

“The city's documented history however, begins with the arrival of the British East India Company in 1690, when the Company was consolidating their trade business in Bengal.”

Again – terrible bias in this article. This implies to any reader that there was a settlement, town or city known as Calcutta (or Kolkata) on this site before the East India Company arrived. There was only a tiny fishing village called Govindapur which the British renamed Calcutta right from the start. They probably adapted this name from another nearby village called Kalikata which they also purchased. In 1690 there was no place here known as Kolkata. Again, this is crucial and factual information, which I had previously inserted, has been rubbed out by Indians with biased patriotic agendas.

By the way, I don’t want to “debate” I just want to offer a few facts regarding this wonderful city’s history – facts that biased parties are too eager to suppress.

I have cut the "crampy" addition to the Black Hole, as the victims were not all British anyway. There is a full article on this issue which squashes the whole "dispute" anyway - and it should not really be gone into here. It was badly written, superfluous, had a biased tone and contained an historical error.

....................

Book name (as above) = quote taken from "History of the Indian Mutiny" by Sir John Kaye and G. Malleson, History of the Indian Mutiny (6 vol., 1896)

TB

You really need to sign with your username. Also, almost everything that you mentioned as being removed as part of some anti-British conspiracy was removed because it was insignificant or trivial details. For instance, is it really significant to point out that person xyz found the link between Malaria and Mosquito in Calcutta?? If this was the case then articles on Berlin, Washington D.C., etc. would be filled with silly trivia like that. Also, city of palaces is still in the article - it has just been moved to another section - rearranging is common in an article that is being worked on a lot. Anyways, I kindav agree that "city's documented history" is somewhat inaccurate way to word that sentence and I have corrected it. However, I do not appreciate your jumping to conclusions regarding that. It would have been far more appropriate if you had pointed that out without getting all flustered about it and insulting the intentions of the people working hard on improving the article. I am sorry but I think that you are reading things that arn't there and/or maybe you are the one suffering from bias. Regards, --Blacksun 04:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Statements

This city can claim a widespread argumentative culture that adds to its reputation as being one of the prominent centres for journalism in India. — this might need a citation or may need to be reworded; it seems a strange statement/generalization otherwise. Are the references used generally to back up the statements w/out citations? FAC voters might catch-on to the more controversial ones otherwise. Great job so far. Thanks. Saravask 06:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please point out some potentially controversial statements. We'd be happy to substantiate as many loopholes as possible. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 12:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

oh ya I had my eye on that too but it slipped my mind (or maybe that NYT article had something in it that supported it). --Blacksun 14:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Lead

The lead has been substantially improved thanks to Saravask. However, the largely predominant image of Kolkata to the world is that of a city full of problems and sub-human conditions. Do you think at least one line highliting the problems of the city should be added to the lead? Like the slums/ poverty etc. I think so. However, I am finding it difficult to insert such a line appropriately. Maybe we can add it after the line that ends with "...the city is now experiencing economic revival."

Please help! Bye.--Dwaipayanc 16:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

err maybe if you can do it right. I don't agree with you though. This article has lot of information regarding the problems faced by kolkata already, especially when you compare it with other city and country FA articles. Heck, this is probably the only article I have seen that has an image that shows the bad sides (slum image). I dont think you need to add anymore in the lead. It is not our job to cater to perceptions.--Blacksun 17:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

See also section

I am starting to think that it is too big to the point of being useless. --Blacksun 23:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm! Especially the sections Higher Education and Localities seem too crowdwd! Will think about it later, after the article gets stabilised. Bye.--Dwaipayanc 20:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyedits

I've copyedited and summarised =Geography= (+descendents), =Media+Utilities=, =Civic administration= and =Transport=. Please also fix embedded comments. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer review archived

The Peer review has been archived, as activities in the peer review request lessened in the past few days. However, activities on the article as well as this talk page have been quite high! Thanks to all the Wikipedians.--Dwaipayanc 20:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Last sentence in lead

I took out mention of "indian cricket", football and bengali film industry from it. First two are not very significant as many other cities are "home to cricket and football." Bengali film industry can be added back I guess but it sounds too long and messes up the flow of otherwise good sentence. Also, I have serious concerns regarding the ever increasing list of luminaries (current count at 8 names). --Blacksun 05:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I added those notes, and I agree with your POV. Btw, is it necessary to sub-section "urban structure" and "climate" in the main "Geography" section? Rama's Arrow 16:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, this subsectioning abides by the rules of Wikiproject Indian cities. On the other hand, if we go on to make them separate section, the "Climate" will be too short.--Dwaipayanc 18:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Image size

I increased the size of most images to 250 px from 200 as they were too small otherwise. --Blacksun 17:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Communist

Communist parties are deeply rooted in Kolkata. This is the general slant of the public and has to be mentioned in the article. In fact, West Bengal is home to the world's longest-running democratically-elected Communist government!!

Yes, we had once said this very comment (longest running communist government) in the article. But it had to be deleted following a review where it was pointed out that the statement belonged to West Bengal as a whole. So now, it is just mentioned that left front, led by CPIM, leads the cotporation. Please feel free if you eant to make any pertinent change. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 18:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

name query

The name change is labeled a political ploy twice, in almost identical sentences and referring to the very same reference (though they are seperate entries). I wonder if one should be removed. Also, was Kolkata not an official name in Bangla, or was Calcutta the only official name? I'm not sure the article made it clear where this Kolkata name came from.--ppm 05:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Kolkata was not the official name before. Only coloquially it was referred to as Kolkata. In official papers, it was Calcutta.

Thanks for pointing out the double referencing. I've removed one, from the lead. The name Kolkata(and also Calcutta) probably came from "Kalikata", as we've mentioned in the article.--Dwaipayanc 05:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Population Density

The 15 year old sensus which had >11 Million in <1500 SqKm, making it worlds most densly packed metropolitan city.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12268497&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum

Int Demogr. 1987 Jan;6(1):1-6.

The Calcutta metropolitan district.

American Demographics.

"PIP: 11 million residents in 1450 square kilometers make the Calcutta Metropolitan District the world's most densely packed metropolis and the world's 6th largest urban agglomeration. But even though Calcutta is India's largest city, it is growing at a much slower pace than other Indian cities. Its annual growth rate between 1971 and 1981 was 2.65%, well below the 3.8% growth rate for India's urban population as a whole. Even at this relatively slow growth rate, however, Calcutta's population will still grow to 11.7 million residents in 1990 and 15.9 million in 2000. Calcutta's failure to create urban jobs quickly enough to accommodate its vast population increase has led to widespread evidence of unemployment and extreme poverty. Many in Calcutta complain that the central goverment has thwarted development and international aid to Calcutta. Industrial stagnation has slowed the area's urbanization and rural-urban migration. As greater numbers of new job seekers enter the labor force and the dropout rate diminishes due to dramatic inprovement in health, relentless pressure is put on Calcutta's already strained economy. Calcutta's job seekers will be partly absorbed by the informal sector; one study estimates that 40-50% of Calcutta's labor force is employed in the informal sector. In 1971, 6% of Calcutta's work force was employed in agriculture, 40% in manufacturing, and 54% in services. 2/3 of the population make less than $35 a month, and about 10% are officially unemployed. Despite great improvements in public works, Calcutta's slums are still India's worst. Living standards have gone down compared to India as a whole. Most of the middle class has moved to the suburbs; what is left in the central core is the rich and the poor. However, despite widening income disparities, Calcutta is still a peaceful city--especially so at a time when India is marked with so much violence. "

PMID: 12268497 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Here is an interesting UN press releasing(please see page 5) on the comparison over time. http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wup2001/WUP2001-pressrelease.pdf

Dr.saptarshi 08:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your derailed information. Alas, we probably cannot use the info in the article, as we have used 2001 census data, wherever applicable. --Dwaipayanc 08:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured article

Kolkata is now a featured article thanks to the concerted effort of so many wikipedians including Rama's Arrow, Nichalp, Blacksun, Saravask, AreJay, Nobleeagle, Andy123, Ragib, Ambuj, ppm, Bob, Ganeshk, Sameerkhan, GreenGiant, Soumyasch, Pradiptaray, Samir, Aryasanyal, LordGulliverofGalben, Sikandarji, Joturner and many more. Thanks to everybody.--Dwaipayanc 20:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to blandly clarify that I did not do many edits to the article. My most important contribution to this article's FA drive was getting Doctor Dwaipayan to move his rear on the long-awaited FAC, dat's all. Rama's Arrow 03:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Congrats to all you folks! Great work on the article! -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 04:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The same from me. — yet another beautiful article! Saravask 04:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Great article on a great city. Makes me want to visit it again. Cograts to all editors.--ppm 17:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

References

I think the references section is not what it could be. A mixture of <ref> and Harverd references are in use, with some inotes thrown in for good measure. I think it will be best to use the footnotes system entirely. Loom91 12:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Harvard references have been used for book references. Harvard and <ref> can be used in a mix way, no probs. In fact, Inotes can also be used, as WP:MOS states. However, they are better replaced with <ref>. Inotes were used so that the article does not get hindered while reading due to too much footnote supersctipts. There is no probs if there are several styles of referencing. see India, Bangladesh etc. Bye.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not mix inline citations and references. Inline citaions (under section "Notes") are for footnotes. Whereas,"Reference" section includes some book or other souirces on which the article may be based. In fact, only when some figures/controversial lines from a reference book/source is cited in the article, specific footnotes are also made. Otherwise it should be presumed that the listed books were used to create the article randomly, and may be extensively.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks very bad to mix Harvard references (which are also inline citations) with <ref> inline citations. We should choose one uniform style, either Harvard or <ref>. I will personally prefer <ref>. It is usual stylistic convention outside of Wikipedia to stick to one reference system. We should do the same for aesthetic considerations. Those references that are NOT inline citations obviously can't follow either, bu we should clearly separate these from inline citations. Loom91 05:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have used <ref> for web references, while Harv for book references. Since, the citations in Kolkata are overwhelmingly web-based, of course, <ref> is more here. Harv ref for books give a more useful style as on clicking the superscript you first go to "notes" section to have a glimps on book source. On clicking the short description of the book source, you are taken to the full description of the book (which is in "Reference" section, along with the detailed description of other books as well). Using ref for inline citations from book would lead to duplication of the detailed book description, once in the "Notes" section, and again in the "Refrence" section. To get rid of this duplication, Harv is excellent. And there is no rule in WP:WIAFA stating mixture of style is not acceptable. In fact, several FAs have mixture. Regarding aesthetics, providing correct and detailed info should take precedence over aesthetic. Of course, aesthetics is important, I agree with you. However, at some point, evaluation of aesthetics becomes too subjective. Anyway, if you are able to make changes in the article without the duplication of detailed description of book sources, you are welcome. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean. I <ref used for books also (the very first citation) and I also don't see anything abou glimpses and detailed descriptions. What mechanism am I missing? Loom91 07:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for bringing into notice that the very first inline citation is from books and is not in Harv format. What I wanted to emphasize is this detailed description of book would preferebly be under "Reference" section. However, that applies if you have used the book repeatedly as a refernce for creating the article. In this instance (superscript 1), the book seems to have been used only once, and so probably it is ok to mention it within "Notes", and provide the detailed info on the book as it is now. Still, it would have been better if this citation read like (Mukherjee 1999), and that linked to the detailed description of the book under "References", I mean, in Harv form. Because, I am now slowly forgetting which books were used repeatedly for creating the article! May be this book was also used in more than one instance, but not always cited (As citation is almost always needed to substantiate figures and disputable comments; but over-citation may kill the flow of reading). I am temporarily converting that ref to Harv format. However, you can again change it to cite book! Basically, listing all the books used in "Reference" was what we were trying. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

But the problem with hav is that you have to scroll all the way down to the references section to check the reference, then scroll all the way back up, where with ref notes you click to check the reference, then click again to get back. Much more convenient, don't you think? Loom91 06:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. this point raised by you is really agreeable. Yes, that is a problem. I agree with you. However, imo, the refernce list of books at the end of article looks good. But probably you are correct that the structure is less user friendly. If we go on with turning all "harv" to "cite book", there will be a new peoblem. There will be no references! Or there will be some books in references that does not take part in any inline citation. That may make one to think that the references are jusr eye-wash! (How come you use a book as a reference while not using a single inline citation from that book?) Yes there are books which were just used as a basic reference and there were no need to do inline citations from those. At the same tome, there were books which were used both as a gross reference and for inline citations. This is really a problem. Let's do one thing. Let's consult some others who have used Harv frequently. And let's see what they tell about this problem of Harv you have pointed out. What do you think? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, have you thought this matter over? Did you consult others? What did they say? Loom91 07:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Should we include the info that Sarat Bose "attempted to construct a bid for a united but independent Bengal with Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, the Bengali Muslim League leader, but this received no support from the Congress or the League, nor the common public."? This is in order to somewhat portray the political unrest of that time.--Soumikdas 11:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide an acceptable reference, then it can definitely be considered. However if unrest is to be portrayed in detail, it will require more than just this sentence and things like what were the past and future developments will also be needed. I hope that since you have raised this you might be knowing more and can help by writing that part yourself. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is needed if as you say it received little political or popular support. Maybe a rephrasing is needed to better portray the political unres of the time but specifics are beyond the scope of this article, imo.--Blacksun 19:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The Calcutta Chromosome

I don't know who added this, but it doesn't seem objectionable to me:

"British achievements in colonial Calcutta included India's first newspaper, the discovery of the link between malaria and mosquitoes, and pioneering scientific development of the electric telegraph."

These are all interesting facts about the History of the City, although perhaps they belong on the History of Calcutta page: they certainly aren't vandalism worthy of automatic reversion, and I imagine the author, whoever he or she is, may feel a bit peeved about it. You can always removed the word "British" if you like, although it's a bit difficult to write them out of the History of Calcutta altogether. The story of the discovery of the link between malaria and mosquitoes by Sir Ronald Ross is particularly fascinating, and is the subject of Amitav Ghosh's novel The Calcutta Chromosome. I might add that to the "Calcutta Culture" page.

Sikandarji 07:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm! Agreed and action taken. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

MORE INDIAN NATIONALISTIC HISTORICAL REVISIONISM

“As food stocks were being diverted to feed Allied troops, millions starved to death during the Bengal famine of 1943.”

This implies that the root of the problem was the transfer of food from Bengal to Assam to feed a few British divisions, and that somehow feeding tens of thousands of extra mouths killed “millions” of Indians. It’s quite ridiculous! Westerners were never great consumers of rice anyway. Secondly, “millions” did not die, it is estimated to have been 1.5 million – a desperately sad and shocking figure, but still not “millions”.

In 1942 the rice crop in Bengal had been ruined by a cyclone. In the following year the crop was again ruined by flooding. This alone would not have been a problem as Bengal had previously imported huge amounts of rice from Burma and French Indo-China. This emergency source was however interrupted by an INA backed Japanese occupation. A second problem was the confiscation of vessels by the Indian Navy who feared they would be used by Japanese invaders. The lack of boats hampered both the fishing and transport industries. This was obviously a huge mistake on the part of British Government and is often cited by Indian and Leftist historians as the root cause famine – which is incorrect, it was merely a contributing factor. I also read HERE that food was funnelled away from Bengal to feed frontline troops which caused the entire situation! Yes, action should have been taken in 1942, but both the central and Bengal governments stood idly by whilst the situation progressively worsened. Mr. Fazul Huq, the Prime Minister of Bengal did not help when in December 1942 he declared at a Delhi food conferance ‘We do not require for the next few months any rice, even though we are in deficit.’ Despite the writing having been on the wall since the winter of 1942, by May 1943, when people were dropping dead on the streets of Calcutta, Mr. H. S. Suhrawardy, Bengal’s Food Minister, declared that despite certain ‘difficulties’ there was enough food to feed every Bengali. Out of 86 sub-divisions of Bengal, 15 subdivisions with a population of about 15 million were most intensely affected. These areas were located in the densely populated deltaic regions of south and eastern Bengal. There was a general exodus to Calcutta from such rural areas and 1.5 million people are estimated to have died. After Lord Wavell assumed the title of Viceroy in October 1943, the Central Government's early mistakes were set right.

TB

Sir Ronald Ross

He discovered the key to solving one of the world's biggest killers, and gave rise to the greatest (and some would argue the only) scientific discovery to come out of Calcutta. But of course, he is far too "obscure" to even be mentioned in passing in the article!!!! Or should I say far too "British" - if his name had been "Gopal Chakraborty" I am sure he would have got his very own paragraph.

Calcutta, "the second biggest city of the British Empire after London" - another "obscure" fact not worth mentioning. Oh, but if it had been the second biggest city in the Mogul empire, this fact would get two or three paragraphs. But then, what was "Kolkata" during the Mogul period before the British arrived - a tiny muddy fishing village surrounded by a swamp.

I'm sorry, I don't come here to brawl, but the history section is totally biased.

TB

Dear sir, please feel free to edit the article. However, as this is a featured article, it would be greatly appreciated if you give references, and better still, discuss here in talk page. Thank you for discussing here in the talk page.

As a matter of fact, second largest city of the Empire was previously mentioned in the article. Also, the Ronald Ross episode was described with great pride. However, the formar was removed during the peer review. While, the malaria-mosquito discovery got somewhat disputed as Sir Ross is also described in some sources to have discovered the relation while staying in Secundrabad. So we had to remove that also. Now, this has again ben added.

In history, once we had "Hickey's Gazette", "Siemens Telegraph" - many achievements. During peer review and Featured article candidacy, we had to remove some info as per other wikipedian's recomendation (and that includes wikipedians all over the world).

Please feel free to add/edit the article. It is absolute truth that Kolkata was a swamp before British came. Kolkata is the city that the British built, maintained and later had to leave (probably the worst thing to happen in the city's history - this also must be admitted, seeing the decay of the city after the British left). In fact, most of the places in Kolkata that are historically important are of British legacy. If you feel that the British influence on Kolkata has not been highlighted properly, please feel free to edit. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• You are free to present inaccurate historical facts in the article as long as you provide sources. If however you make such claims without sources then rest assured they will be promptly reverted. In reality, the famine was caused neither by feeding military nor because of Japanese occuptaion, but it was an artificially induced famine by traders who stocked rice in huge amounts to drain the market and drive up the prices. Loom91 07:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• hog wash - do you come here every two months and copy paste the same bullshit? Because I have never seen you participate in a discussion. Pathetic behavior. --Blacksun 02:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Malaria issue

I have reverted the mention of Malaria discovery connection and addressed the infrastructure projects in another sentence: "this caused a massive investment in infrastructure projects like rail roads and telegraph by the British". Fact that someone not native to Kolkata discovered the link between mosquitoes and malaria in Kolkata (which is disputed by Secunderabad) does not mean it deserves a place in kolkata article. Furthermore, not placing that in the kolkata article does not mean that it is some type of crusade for erasing British history. It has nothing to do with Kolkata - do you see a list of all the grand scientific breakthroughs that are made in cities like Berlin, Boston, or London in their respective article?? Hey, lets go to the London article and demand that it mentions Ramanajun's discovery while he was there!?!?! NO, that would be silly. Why? Because such information belongs in either a) related scientific article or b) article on the organization where the discovery might have been made c) related article of the person who did it. But to state that this is some type of "nationalistic agenda" is stupidity. We are not here to entertain the whims of stupid people. --Blacksun 02:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Writer's Building

could someone plz upload a modern image of the Writer's Building? WoodElf 07:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Lyon's Range

How about an article on Lyon's Range, the calcutta stock exchange, with a mention in this article? WoodElf 08:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course an article on Lyon's range is welcome. Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Limited exists and has been linked to the article. --Dwaipayan (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanx!!WoodElf 16:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro too long

I think the introduction is too long. the history behind the naming of the city should be made a seperate headline, like here.

WoodElf 07:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it was a seperate section once. However, the content of that section (origin of name) was not much, and so, was not consistent with the sizes of the other sections. (sections need not be of same size, but some parity should be there, with each section having a respectable content.) You can see WikiProject Indian cities where it has been stated that the origin of name can be a seperate section, or, can be incorporated in the intro (aka lead). However, after the decision of incorporating the name origin into the lead was taken ( during the FA drive) and , in fact, after the article became a Featured Article, there was slight expansion on the name origin data — kalikshetra was added. As a matter of fact, creating a new section on "Origin of name" can be tried , with using data from here. If the section turns out to be of respectable size, of good prose quality, and with necessary references, the section can be retained. You can go ahead to create this section. Also, correspondingly, the lead has to be modified. After you do this, I'll contact some other editors also to see if this new way reads ok. We should be cautious about changing the content of Featured articles! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

About Images

Are slums the only distinguishing feature of Kolkata? Why cannot we have proper skyline images of the city as well in the main article? Slums are as as much a reality as skyscrapers. Sometime back I released several Kolkata images for Wikipedia. However I am not sure if someone felt that the images didn't fit the perceptions of Kolkata (the big, bad, slum filled city full of poverty). There is a need to project a more balanced image of Kolkata and other Indian cities. As far as images are concerned hats off to the Chennai article. It is by the far the best article on an Indian city.

However if any new photos are needed - here is my latest set. I have two hundred more photos to add (including Bidhan Nagar, Rajarhat, Second Vivekanada Setu (under construction), expresways, flyovers, modern office towers etc.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/85296574@N00/sets/72157594144593718/

Since I am not used to wikipedia, if this is not the right place then please delete this post.

cheers

seaview99 12:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Audio template usage

The current usage of audio templates is not satisfactory. It is almost impossible for anyone without knowledge of how Commons works to actually find the file comments. There is no way of checking any info about the files, including license information. Please try to find a more practical solution if there's too much problems with linkage clutter.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

surface area

The article gives the surface area as 1,026 km². What entity does this area figure correspond to? It is larger than the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (185 km²) but smaller than the census-defined urban agglomeration (1,480 km&sup2). Polaron | Talk 01:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Linked article contradicts this article

The link "second largest" in the intro takes you to a list on which Kolkata is ranked third. Olborne 01:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The article had an error. Kolkata used to be the 2nd largest, but is now 3rd. The article was fixed, but the main page has a stale snapshot. Dgies 03:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Culture

Dwaipayanc How did you forget the ubiquitous Beguni as one of the roadside foods and include Kati rolls. How many Kati roll joints have you seen in our city. I also added Jibanananda Das amongst our literary luminaries and Tapan Sinha as one of the movie directors. Pulakesin2 21:57, 25June (UTC)

Education

Shouldnt this article mention the contribution of Calcuttans in science? Calcutta has produced remakable physicists such as Meghnad Saha, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose, the statistician P C Mahalonobis, Satyen Bose, who gets mentioned along with other non scientists in the beginning. Sir Ronald Ross and C V Raman had their research laboratories in this city. The great evolutionary biologist JBS Haldane worked at ISI for a considerable period of time. Pulakesin2 21:59, 25June (UTC)

Largest urban agglomerations in India?

From the page Agglomeration there is a link to this page which suggests that Kolkata is the 3rd largest agglomeration in India, not 2nd as claimed at the top of the article. Dgies 02:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In the 2001 census Kolkata was the 2nd largest but most recent estimates do indeed show that Delhi has since taken 2nd place. Maybe its better to put third place in the article since the agglomeration figure shown is a recent estimate so a recent ranking is more appropriate. Polaron | Talk 02:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Since this is a featured article, perhaps one of it's 'caretakers' should be the one to edit it (while still featured). Dgies 02:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else think this article should be called Calcutta?

After all that is what it is most likely to be called in English and the Mecca article isn't called Makkah.--Greasysteve13 04:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes: I added this in the discussion on Madras:

"'Chennai formerly known as Madras...' and similar statements are pure brainwashing. Whatever the city is called in Tamil, in the English language it will still be known as Madras to the vast majority of speakers. Who takes it upon themselves to make statements like that, or to try to pretend that English is something other that what it is? There is no reason to accept that the language can be redefined at the whim of some local politician trying to do something for his image. Would any of you dream of telling a German that Milan has to be called Milano and not Mailand or a Frenchman that it's London and not Londres? Your proposal would be rejected with contempt, of course. Every language finds its own names for familiar foreign cities by the most natural process in the world. This lack of objectivity and intrusion of political correctness is a sad departure from the high standards which have been achieved by Wikipedia."

"But it was deleted, apparently without comment. I'd like to think that scrupulous honesty is hallmark of every Wikipedia article, and such things disappoint me. Peter

No, this city is called Kolkata now. The name was officially changed to Kolkata from Calcutta. Calcutta is now known as Kolkata everywhere(officially). Old english names are not in use anymore. About Mecca it's different. The name was not officially changed to Makkah so it is not used in English. Please refer to a new atlas. You will see that the name of Calcutta has been changed to Kolkata. All old british names are being replaced with Indian names in India. No one is callng India "Bharat" because both Bharat and India are official names. That is not the case with Kolkata. Many names have been changed all over asia. Burma has been changed to Myanmar, the chinese province of Canton is now known as Guangdong, Peking is Beijing etc. Avik, from Kolkata.

It's not possible to legislate as to what a city is called everywhere "officially". I live in Vienna, which to the Austrians is known as Wien. But to English speakers like me, it's always known as Vienna. Should I go around telling people that I live in Wien? No, of course not. Each language uses its own name for cities. It's the same with London/Londres, Cologne/Köln, Munich/München, etc. Why should I stop using the English language version of the name Calcutta? --Richardrj 11:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It IS possible to legislate what a city is called officially. Wikipedia is an encyclopeadia, so its goal is to inform readers about what they did not know, not reinforce their errors by repeating them. In any case, this page was moved to Kolkata after a long debate that was decided in favour of ridding us of cultural imperialism and if you want to reopen it you are welcome to go ahead, though I would advice you that you don't have a snowball's chance in a hell of succeeding. Loom91 12:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no desire to question the moving of the name to Kolkata, and I support Wikipedia's naming policy. I'm talking about how one should refer to the place in everyday conversation. I'm simply suggesting that there appears to be a double standard at work here whereby it's OK for me to refer to Wien by its English name, Vienna, but not OK to refer to Kolkata by its English name, Calcutta. Why should this be? --Richardrj 12:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I also wish to follow Wikipedia's Naming Conventions; and I note that the core of them is this:

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

In my experience, and according to the Google Test, "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" is 'Calcutta', and this introduces no ambiguity or linking problems.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) meanwhile says:

If a native spelling uses different letters than the most common English spelling (eg, Wien vs. Vienna), only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form.

This does not appear to be the case here. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) also seems to say nothing to contradict this.

I'm not especially concerned by this, and I know there are political issues; but 'Calcutta' does seem to be the name suggested by policy. If we think this page should be at 'Kolkata', then we should probably examine our policies so that this decision is compatible with them.

I do think it's silly that the current Main Page summary of this article makes no reference at all to the name by which most English speakers will most easily recognise the subject. User:TSP 12:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree "Calcutta" should be mentioned there, but the article should stay where it is. India is an English-speaking country of a sort, so this is a very different case from Vienna, as in my opinion it means that the Indians have the right to decide what its English language name is because they are stakeholders in the English language, just as it is up to the English to decide on the English-language name of London and the Americans to choose that of New York. On the other hand it is not up to Austrians to decide what the English-language name of Vienna should be because they have no proprietary stake in the English language. While it may be true that the majority of English speakers are more familiar with Calcutta, most actual usages of the city's name by English speakers are presumably made by Indians. Chicheley 13:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

But Kolkata is a transliteration of a Bangla word. joturner 18:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this because in my view it's not possible to regulate the English-language name of a place. It may be possible to regulate its official name, but that's something else entirely. I agree with these words, pasted from Archive 6 of this talk page:

"The problem seems to be the mistaken impression that there can be an official English name for anything. The English language is regulated by no authority, so there can be no such thing as an official English anything. The only regulator of English language usage is English language usage itself, and anyone who claims differently is attempting to wield linguistic power that they do not have.

"It is true that the official name of the city changed from Calcutta to Kolkata, but it is NOT true that the official English name of the city changed to Kolkata, for the simple fact that there is no such thing as an official English anything." --Richardrj 14:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not a matter of "regulation". I didn't say it should be and I don't think it should be. I am not confused and I did not need that guidance. It's a matter of establishing s convention. Chicheley 18:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think a convention needs to be established? Why not let people call it Calcutta if they want to? --Richardrj 19:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The official change of the name from Calcutta to Kolkata was political and was opposed by several Calcuttans, including me. However I do not agree with changing the name of this article to Calcutta. Most English speaking tourists visiting the city refer to the city as Kolkata albeit with some difficulty in pronouncing it. People from other parts of India too refer to it as Kolkata. I however agree that the main page summary should have had a line stating clearly that the city was formerly known as Calcutta Pulakesin2 10:30, 26 June (UTC)

In my opinion, it should be called Kolkata. Anyway, this whole discussion is irrelavent here. I suggest moving this to: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) instead. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}14:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. This is the place to discuss it as it is a specific point, not a general one. Chicheley 18:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this debate made moot by the fact that when one searches for "Calcutta" on the Wikipedia search, one is immediately redirected to "Kolkata", which, to any reasonable person, is clearly the same place? It seems unlikely that anyone would react thusly: "Dang it! I keep trying to find the Wikipedia article on Calcutta, but all I get is this stupid article on some place called Kolkata!" It is far better to accept the infinitesimal risk of that, while informing huge numbers of English-speakers of what locals call their own city. Provide new and accurate knowledge to readers rather than reinforcing colonial misinformation.

Redirects help, yes; but surely it would provide more "new and accurate knowledge" to people if they knew the page was telling them about a place they'd already heard of under another name, rather than about a new place entirely disassociated in their minds from everything they already knew about Kolkata/Calcutta. That's the principle we apply everywhere else in Wikipedia - why not here? Articles are for providing people with information they didn't already know; article titles are for helping them find the information in the first place.

As for 'colonial misinformation', neither 'Calcutta' nor 'Kolkata' predates colonialism. I'm not sure I see that it's 'misinformation' any more than calling Wien "Vienna" is. TSP 15:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In the same manner that Mecca and Makkah are both (shortened) transliterations of the Arabic مكة المكرمة, Kolkata and Calcutta are both transliterations of the Bangla কলকাতা. So which transliterations are more common? Mecca and Calcutta. Which names are closer to their correct pronounciations in their respective languages? Makkah and Kolkata. Which are officially preferred by their governments? Makkah (since the 1980s) and Kolkata (since 2001). So why do we use the common name for Mecca but use the officially recognized, linguistically correct name for Kolkata even though it has been the name of preference for a much shorter time than Makkah? It makes no sense to me. I say stick with the Manual of Style and go with the common names. joturner 18:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The renaming has been done of the English name, so Kolkata is the official English name. It is used in all official and unofficial English language media and documents in India. I would doubt if the name of the city is used (in English language) more often in whole world put together than in India. Mention Calcutta in the very first line, but stick to the standard name otherwise. deeptrivia (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As Deeptrivia said, Kolkata and Chennai are the English names, simply the new English names. If you check a website such as [www.cricinfo.com Cricinfo], grounds will be listed in cities called Kolkata and Chennai not Calcutta and Madras. Even the information on the Bombay cricket team is listed under a page for the Mumbai cricket team. Its not anything to do with local and foreign interpretations of a word. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the English name has been changed to Kolkata. Bengalis have always called it Kolkata. A few years ago the English name was also changed to Kolkata from Calcutta. Even BBC uses the word Kolkata now. At the beginning of this article it has already been mentioned that the city was formerly known as Calcutta.

Well, I think the city should be called Calcutta. Since that won't happen, the article should be called Kolkata. Too bad. - Cribananda 05:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• The question whether the city be called Calcutta or Kolkata is not just the question of the anglicized form. The city's name was changed from Calcutta to Kolkata officially and not just in local pronunciation. Even in Hindi (a phonetic language), the city is now called कोलकाता, instead of कलकत्ता. Since the change, the new name is used everywhere and the old name has been dropped not just in India, but worldwide. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

True to a degree, but Wikipedia's policies are not necessarily to follow official usage; the Naming Conventions refer primarily to common usage. I don't have any conclusive evidence on this, but the Google Test (unreliable though it is) has 'Calcutta' still more widely used than 'Kolkata', 5 years after the change was made. In common usage, the old name has not been dropped worldwide (or universally in India; I note that, for example, the Telegraph still identifies itself as being published in Calcutta).

However, I do now understand why, under Wikipedia's policies, it should be Kolkata (whereas Vienna should not be Wien): because India is an English-speaking nation (that is, English is one of its official languages) and this is an Indian topic, the National Varieties of English guide says that Indian English should be used; so Kolkata, as the most widely-used from in Indian English, is correct, whether or not Calcutta is more common worldwide. TSP 19:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This debate has already been discussed in Feb-Mar 2005 and involved several well known editors, administrators, bureaucrats and a steward. Consensus was against the change. The discussion is in the page archives (unfortunately a user has fragmented it). No point reopening a can of worms again. The article name remains Kolkata. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and that should stop us from debating it even if we still think it's wrong?

I will personally always refer to this city as Calcutta, as will most people in the West, but I really don't care what articles like this are called - as long as there is a minimum of consequence. If Wikipedia wants to use local names (which they don't according to the guidelines), do it in all articles. This is obviously not the case now. I just did a serach for the capital of my country (København), and sure enough, I was redirected to Copenhagen... --dllu 15:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Once, I tried following guidelines and took the rap for it: Talk:Calgary, Alberta/Archive 1#Move from Calgary, Alberta to Calgary. Apparently people have guidelines for some things which goes against project-wide guidelines. And IMHO the guidelines for Indian city names seems to be to use the "consensus" name after a heated discussion, which invariably happens to be the latest name proposed by the governments. Ever heard of a place called Bengalooru? Well, there will be a huge article about it soon (as opposed to a redirect to one) although most readers wouldn't have heard of it. Just wait and see! -- Paddu 21:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC) P.S.: Ironically the Calgary article is now at Calgary.

What next? Njewe Joarg and Lars Anscheles?

The built-in problem with this kind of attempts at phonemic spelling is that the uneducated reader will now pronounce Kolkata like "coal-kayta". Dunnhaupt 18:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

Good grief! What's with the "azimuth" vandalism? What a shame.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.99.71 (talk • contribs)

Also, is "upliftment" a word?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.12.76.22 (talk • contribs)

No, its not a word. "Uplift" is itself a noun so another noun form is unnecessary. I have replaced the occurance of the word. For any such issues, be bold and edit the text yourself. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Request, if I may

Satyajit Ray is up for a peer review. Please take a look. Thanks,--ppm 17:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Calcutta

The name is Calcutta

Please see Talk:Kolkata/Archive_7#Requested_move, and #Does anyone else think this article should be called Calcutta? above. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Photos

I am visiting Calcutta, and could take photos of certain Kolkata landmarks, etc if needed. Even if we dont use tem on the Kolkata page, we could use them on Kolkata related pages. Also, I remember we were thinking during peer review about a iconic photo of Calcutta - any suggestions ? Pradiptaray 05:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A skyline of Kolkata taken from second Hooghly bridge approach. Some children playing foorball in maidan in rain. These 2 photos for Kolkata article.

And lots of photos (as many as u can manage) for daughter/related articles. That's the demand :) Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am in Calcutta now. I will try and go out and get some snaps this weekend .. I ll see about the skyline thing, and Maidan and Kolkata building pictures with the exceptions of the really famous ones. Pradiptaray 21:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Birati Natun Jagat

The article Birati Natun Jagat has been nominated for deletion. Birati Natun Jagat is apparently a charitable welfare organization located in Birati, Kolkata. [1] For the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natun jagat. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Number of assembly seats

The number of state assembly seats in the city is 21, according to the reference here. To see the list of seats, the "List of AC names" has to be downloaded (an Excel file).--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical Revisionism

Ronald Ross discovered the link between mosquitoes and malaria, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine of 1902 - he probably saved millions of lives (mentioned before). His name was not entered here simply because Ross was British (sorry, that is: "not native to the city"). It is now back in the list of Calcutta “luminaries” but I don’t know for how long, as heaven forbid you would allow anything remotely complimentary about 250 years of British rule (of Calcutta) to remain. After all, British Calcutta, the once prosperous hub of Asian trade for over 100 years, must be made to look pompous and evil so that Bengalis can feel good about themselves, and the economic tragedy which is Kolkata must be described as a glowing and vibrant metropolis. This isn’t history, it’s nationalist Indian propaganda.

How ridiculous that a book called “Thug” (printed in 2005) NOT EVEN ABOUT BRITISH CALCUTTA!!!!!!!! Has been quoted twice in the History section – what a farce!!! The derogatory quote is dated from the 1770’s but there isn’t even a name attached to it. It’s hideously amateurish and in my extensive readings, atypical of the comments made about the city at this time, then it’s closely followed by Clive’s derogatory quote. Rather than refer to jingoistic, populist and biased modern paperbacks printed in 21st century India, I would like to recommend the following original material to quote from(mostly memoirs)

1727: Hamilton, Alexander: A New Account of the East Indies / Being the Observations and remarks of Capt. Alexander Hamilton, who spent his time there from the year 1688 to 1723. (John Mosman, Edinburgh). 1760: Watts, William: Memoirs of the Revolution in Bengal. (K.P. Bagchi & Co Reprint: 1988). 1763: Orme, Robert: A History of the Military Transactions of the British Nation in Indostan from the Year MDCCXLV. (John Nourse, London. Vol. I). 1764: Anonymous: Reflections on the Present State of our East India Affairs. With Many Interesting Anecdotes Never Before Made Public, By A Gentleman Long Resident in India (Printed for T. Lownds in Fleet Street). 1765: Holwell, J.Z.: Interesting Historical Events Relative to the Province of Bengal and the Empire of Indostan. 2 Parts (University Microfilms International 1986). 1766: Grose, John Henry: A Voyage to the East Indies containing Authentic Accounts of the Mogul Government in general, the Viceroyalities of the Deccan and Bengal, with their several subordinate dependencies of Angria, the Morattoes, and Tanjoreans--Of the Mahometan, Gentoo, and Parsee Religions-Of their Customs and Antiquities, with the general reflections on the Trade of India of the European Settlements, particularly those belonging to the English; their respective Factories, Governments, Trade, Fortifications and Public Buildings; the History of the war with the French from 1754 to the conclusion of the General Peace in 1763. (S. Hooper, 25 Ludgate Hill, London). 1772: Bolts, William: Considerations on India Affairs; Particularly Respecting the Present State of Bengal and its Dependencies (Printed for J. Almon in picadilly). 1773: Ives, Edward: A Voyage from England to India in the Year MICCLIV. And an Historical Narrative of The Operations of the Squadron and Army in India, under the Command of Vice Admiral Watson and Colonel Clive, in the years 1755, 1756, 1757; including a correspondence between the Admiral and the Nabob Serajah Dowlah. Interspersed with some interesting passages relating to the manners, customs, &c. of several nations in Indostan. Also, a Journey from Persia to England by an unusual Route, with an Appendix; containing an Account of the Diseases prevalent in Admiral Watson's squadron: A description of most of the Trees, Shrubs and Plants, of India, with their real, or supposed, medicinal virtues; Also a copy of a letter written by a late ingenious Physician, on the Disorders incidental to Europeans at Gonibroon, in the Gulph of Persia. Illustrated with a Chart, Maps, and other copper-plates by Edward Ives, Esq., Formerly Surgeon of Admiral Watson's ship, and of his Majesty's Hospital in the East Indies, London, (Printed for Edward & Charles Dilly). 1778: Orme, Robert: A History of the Military Transactions of the British Nation in Indostan from the Year MDCCXLV. (John Nourse, London. Vol. II). 1780: Sulivan, John: Observations Respecting the Circar of Mazulipatam in a Letter From John Sulivan, Esquire, to the Court of Directors of the East-India Company. (London). 1780: Thompson, Henry Fred: The Inrigues of a Nabob: or, Bengal the Fittest Soil for the Growth of Lust, Injustice and Dishonesty. (Printed for the author). 1780: Anonymous: Thoughts on Improving the Government of the British Territorial Possessions in the East Indies. (Printed for T. Cadell, in the Strand). 1782: MacIntosh, William: Travels in Europe, Asia, and Africa, describing characters, customs, manners, laws, and productions of nature and art, containing various remarks on the political and commercial interests of Great Britain, and delineating, in particular, a new system of the government and improvement of the British settlements of the East Indies: Begun in the year 1777, and finished in 1782. (J. Murray, No. 32 Fleet Street, London). 1784: Stanhope, Phillip Dormer (Penname: Asiaticus): Genuine Memoirs of Asiaticus, in a series of letters to a friend during five years residence in different parts of India, three of which were spent in the service of the Nabob of Arcot, interspersed with anecdotes of several well-known characters, and containing an impartial account of the confinement and death of Lord Pigot, and of the share the Nabob of Arcot had in that deplorable transaction (J. Debrett). 1809: Valentia, Viscount George: Voyages and Travels to India, Ceylon, The Red Sea, Abyssinia, and Egypt 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805 and 1806 (William Miller, Albermarle Street, London,). 1812: Graham, Maria: The Journal of a Residence in India (Archibald & Constable & Co). 1815: Anonymous: Sketches of India; or, Observations Descriptive of the Scenery, &c, in Bengal : Written in India, in the. years 1811, 12, 13, 14; Together with notes on the Cape of Good-Hope, and St. Helena, written at those Places, in Feb, March, and April, 1815 (Printed for Black, Parbury, and Allen, Booksellers to the Hon. East-India Company, Leadenhall Street, London , 1816). 1815: Ward, W.: A View of the History, Literature, and Religion of the Hindoos: Including a Minute Description of their Manners and Customs, and Translations from Their Principal Works In Two Volumes. (The Second Edition, Carefully Abridged, and Greatly Improved. Volume II. Serampore [Calcutta] : Printed at the Mission Press). 1823: Wallace, Lt. R.G.: Fifteen Years in India: Or sketches from a soldier's life. Being an attempt to describe Persons and Things in various parts of Hindostan. From the Journal of an Officer in His Majesty's Service. (Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme and Brown; Paternoster - Row, London). 1824: Huggins, William: Sketches in India, Treating on Subjects connected with the Government: Civil and Military Establishments; characters of the European, and Customs of the Native Inhabitants. (John Letts, 32 Cornhill, London). 1824: Anonymous: Sketches of India Written by an Officer for Fireside Travellers at Home (Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme and Brown; Paternoster - Row, London: second edition). 1825: Parkes, Fanny: Wanderings of a Pilgrim, in Search of the Picturesque During Four-and-Twenty Years in the East, with Revelations of Life in the Zenana, Illustrated with Sketches from Nature (Pelham Richardson, London). 1827: Holfland, Barbera: The Young Cadet, or Henry Delamere's Voyage to India, His Travels in Hindostan, His Account of the Burmese War, and The Wonders of Elora (John Harris, corner of St. Paul's Church-yard, London). 1827: Horne, Moffat James. The Adventures of Naufragus written by himself (written under the pseudnym ' Naufrgaus'. Smith Elder & Co. 65 Cornhill, London). 1828: Hamilton, Walter: East India Gazetteer, Containing Particular Descriptions of the Empires, Kingdoms, Principalities, Provinces, Cities, Towns, Districts, Fortresses, Harbours, Rivers, Lakes, &c. of Hindostan and the Adjacent Countries, India Beyond the Ganges and the Eastern Archipelago, Together with Sketches of the manners, Customs, Institutions, Agriculture, Commerce, Manufactures, Revenues, Population, Castes, Religion, History, &c. of their Various Inhabitants. (In 2 Volumes, B. R. Publishing Corp., New Delhi: Distributed by D.K. Publishers, reprint: 1984). 1828: Herber, Bishop: Narrative of a Journey through the Upper Provincesof India, from Calcutta to Bombay, 1824-1825 (John Murray, Albermarle Street, London). 1832: Mundy, Captain G. C.: Pen & Pencil Sketches, Being the Journal of a Tour in India by Captain G. C. Mundy, Late Aide-de-Camp to Lord Combermere, in two volumes. (John Murray, Albermarle St, London,). 1832: Ripa, Mateo: Storia della Fondazione della Congregazione e del Collegio de' Cinesti Sotto il titolo della Sagra Famiglia di G.C., (Napoli, Manfredi). 1833: Archer, Major Edward C.: (Vol. I) Tours in Upper India, And in Parts of the Himalaya Mountains: With Accounts of the Courts of the Native Princes, &c. (VOL. II) Observations on the Local Government of Bengal, and on the Army Attached to the Presidency (London). 1835: Roberts, Emma: Scenes and Characteristics of Hindostan. With Sketches of Anglo-Indian Society (W.H. Allen & Co). 1835: Hobart Counter, Rev. John: Oriental Annual, or Scenes in India: Comprising Twenty-Five Engravings (Bull & Churton, Holles Street, Cavendish Square, London). 1837: Bacon, Lieut. Thomas: First Impressions and Studies from Nature in Hindostan: Embracing an Outline of the Voyage to Calcutta, and Five Years Residence in Bengal and the Doab from 1831 to 1836. (W.H. Allen & Co. Leadenhall Street, London). 1837: Strong, F. P.: Extracts from the Topography and Vital Statistics of Calcutta. (The Strong Papers, courtesy of the Mukherjee Collection. Microfilm: University of Western Sydney, Australia). 1839: Leigh, W.H.: Reconnoitering, Voyages, Travels & Adventures in the New Colonies of South Australia; A particular description of the town of Adelaide, and Kangaroo Island, and an account of the present state of Sydney and parts adjacent, including visits to The Nicobar and other islands of the Indian seas, Calcutta, the Cape of Good Hope, and St. Helena, during the years 1836, 1837 and 1838. (Smith Elder & Co. London). 1839: Malcom, Rev. Howard: Travels in South-Eastern Asia, Embracing Hindustan, Malaya, Siam, and China; with notices on numerous missionary stations and a full account of the Burman Empire (Charles Tilt, Fleet Street, London). 1839: Nugent, Maria, Lady: A Journal from the Year 1811 Till the Year 1815, including a voyage to and a residence in India, with a Tour of the North-western parts of the British possessions in that country, under the Bengal Government (Calcutta). 1839: Anonymous: Memoirs of a Cadet, by a Bengalee (Saunders & Otley, Conduit Street, London). 1842: Fane, Henry Edward: Five Years in India; comprising a narrative of Travels in Bengal, a visit to the court of Ranjeet Sing. A residence in the Himalaya mountains, an account of the late expedition to Cabul and Afghanistan, voyage down the Indus, and a journey overland to England. (Henry Colburn, Great Molborough Street, London). 1843: Davidson, C.L.C.: Diary of Travels and Adventurers in Upper India. (Henry Colburn, Great Marlborough Street, London,). 1843: Johnson, George W.: The Stranger in India: or Three Years in Calcutta (Henry Colburn, Great Marlborough Street, London). 1843 Society for the Acquisition of General Knowledge, Selection of Discourses Read at the Meetings of the Society for the Acquisition of General Knowledge, Vol. III. Mitra, Baboo Peary Chand.: A few desultory Remarks on the ‘Cursory review of the institutions of Hindooism affecting the interest of the female sex,’ contained in the Rev. K. M. Banerjia’s prize essay on native female education. (Read on 12th January, 1842.) (Published in Calcutta, Bishop’s College Press. Courtesy of the Mukherjee Collection. On Microfilm, University of Western Sydney, Australia). 1845: Von Orlich, Captain Leopold: Travels in India, including the Sinde and the Punjab (Translated from German by H. Evens Lloyd, Esq., Longman, Brown, green & Longmans, Peternoster Row, London). 1846: Davidson, G.F.:Trade and Travel in the Far East or Recollections of Twenty-One Years Passed in Java, Singapore, Australia and China (Madden & Malcolm, Leadenhall Street, London.) 1848: Glieg. The Rev. G.R.: The Life of Robert First Lord Clive (John Murray, London. Reprint: 1907). 1850: Colesworthy, G.: Sketches of Calcutta. (Courtesy of the Mukherjee Collection. On microfilm - University of Western Sydney, Australia . Calcutta). 1852: Anonymous: Travels in India, Comprising Sketches of Madras, Calcutta, Benares and the Principle Places on the Ganges; - also the Church of England, Baptist, London Society, and other missionary stations, with observations on the oriigin of customs and worship of the Hindoos, and narratives of incident ans adventure, &c. (The author in the preface signs himself 'W.B. - Aberdeen, March 11, 1848'. He otherwise describes himself as a 'London missionary'. James Blackwood, Paternoster Row). 1854: Thornton, Edward: Gazeteer of the Territories Under the Government of The East India Company and of the Native States on the Continent of India. (Wm. H. Allen & Co. London, in four volumes). 1857: Train, Geo. Francis: An American Merchant in Europe, Asia & Australia: A Series of Letters from JavaSingapore, China, Bengal, Egypt, The Holy Land, The Crimea and its Battle Grounds, England, Melbourne, Sydney etc. etc. (G. P. Putnam & Co., 321 Broadway, New York 1860: Russell, William Howard: My Diary in India in the year 1858-9 (Special Correspondent of The Times in two volumes, London). 1861: Bunbury, Thomas: Reminiscences of a Veteran being Personal and Military Adventures in Portugal, Spain, France, Malta, New South Wales, Norfolk Island, New Zealand, Andaman Islands and India (in three volumes, Charles J. Skeet, 10 King William Street, Charing Cross, London). 1866 Trevelyan, G.O.: The Competition Wallah (Macmillan & Co, London). 1868 Hunter, Sir William Wilson: Annals of Rural Bengal (Smith Elder, London). 1869 Atkins, Rev. Thomas: Reminiscences of Twelve Years in Tasmania and New South Wales, Norfolk Island and Moreton Bay; Calcutta, Madras and Cape Town; The United States of America and the Canadas (Printed and published at the Advertiser Office, Edith Walk, Malvern). 1869 Bengal Asiatic Society. Ball, V.: Notes on a Trip to Nicobar & Andaman Islands. 1870: Lewin, T.H.: Wild Races of the Eastern Frontier of India (Mital Publications, New Delhi, reprint: 1984). 1872 Eden, Emily: Letters from India (Richard Bentley, London). 1878 Brown, Samuel Sneade,: Home Letters Written from India Between the Years 1828 & 1841. (Printed for private circulation by C.F. Roworth, Chancery Lane, London). 1882: Eastwick, Edward B. Handbook of the Bengal Presidency: with an Account of Calcutta (J.Murray, London). 1882: Tayler, William: Thirty Eight Years in India (W. H. Allen & Co. Pall Mall, London.) 1886: Anonymous: The Social Evil in Calcutta, its Strengths, its Haunts, its Causes and its Consequences with Suggestions for Hindering its Growth and Rescuing its Victims. (Courtesy of the Mukherjee Collection. On microfilm - University of Western Sydney Australia. Published by Smith City Press, Bentinck 1888: Busteed, H.E.: Echoes From Old Calcutta (Asian Educational Services reprint: 1999). 1892: Carlyon Jenkyns, C.: Hard Life in the Colonies, and Other Experiences by Sea and Land. (T. Fisher Unwin, London). 1896: Booth, Alison, W.: English Life in the City of Palaces. (written under the pseudonym 'Bluebell'. M’Kee & Gamble, Wellington, New Zealand). 1896: C.S.: Leaves from a Diary in Lower Bengal (Macmillan & Co. Ltd, London). 1897: Roberts, Field-Marshal Lord,: Forty-one Years in India, From Subaltern to Commander-in-Chief (Macmillan & Co, Ltd, London). 1900: Dickenson, Edith C. M.: What I saw in India and the East (J. L. Bonython & Co., The Advertiser Office, King William Street, Adelaide, Australia). 1901: Fenton, Mrs.: The Journal of Mrs. Fenton - A Narrative of Her Life in India, the Isle of France (Mauritius), and Tasmania During the Years 1826 - 1830. (Edward Arnold, Publisher to the India Office, London). 1901: Fitchett, W.H.: The Tale of the Great Mutiny (George Bell & Sons, London). 1903: Hobbes, John Oliver. Imperial India, Letters from the East (T. Fisher Unwin, Paternoster Square, London). 1905: Debb, Binaya Krishna: The Early History and Growth of Calcutta. (Romesh Chandra Ghose, Calcutta). 1906: Mathews, G. A.: Diary of an Indian Tour (Printed for private circulation by Morrison Gibb Ltd. Edingburgh). 1907: Carey, W. H.: The Good Old Days of John Company: Being Curious Reminiscences Illustrating Manners & Customs of the British in India During the Rule of the East India Company from 1600 – 1857 / Compiled from Newspapers & Other Publications... (revised reprint: R. Cambray & Co. Law & Antiquarian Booksellers & Publishers. Calcutta). 1907: de Lacy, Gertrude: Some Recollections of my Tour with a Musical Comedy Company in India & Java (John Ouseley Limited, Fleet Lane, Farringdon Street, E. C.) 1907: Malleson, Colonel G.B.: Lord Clive and the Establishment of the English in India (The Clarendon Press, London). 1908: Craik, Sir Henry: Impressions of India (Macmillan & Co., London). 1909: Cotton, H.E.A.: Calcutta Old and New.( Surajit C. Das, Calcutta, reprint: 1980). 1909: Allen, B.C. E.A. Gait, C.G.H. Allen, H.F. Howard: Gazetteer of Bengal and North East India (Mittal Publications reprint: 1993). 1914: Coxon, Stanley W.: And That Reminds Me, being incidents of a life spent at sea, and in the Andaman Islands, Burma, Australia, and India (John Lane The Bodley Head Ltd, London). 1918: Massey, Motague: Recollections of Calcutta for Over Half a Century (Thacker Spink, Calcutta). 1921: Moore, Charles: The Sheriffs of Fort William from 1775 to 1920 (Thacker, Spink & Co. Calcutta & Simla). 1923: Bradley-Brit, F.B.: Poems of Henry Louis Vivian Derozio, A Forgotten Anglo-Indian Poet. (Oxford University Press). 1927: Claude Brown, A.: The Ordinary Man’s India (Cecil Palmer, 49 Chandos Street, Covent Garden, London). 1927: Roper, Sir Walter,: The India We Served (Cassell & Co. Ltd, London). 1933: Burnell, John.: Bombay in the days of Queen Anne (includes Burnell's Narrative of his Adventurers in Bengal with an introduction by Sir William Foster, C.I.E., and notes by Sir Even Cotton, C.I.E., and L. M. Anstey. Printed for the Hakluyt Society, London).

Also, for better or worse, The Black Hole of Calcutta is heavily associated with Calcutta’s history and a link should be provided to the large article, as this is the only thing that some people know about Calcutta’s history it should at least be mentioned in passing and a simple link provided!

........

Yes of course Kolkata should be listed under Calcutta, I mean, Spanish encyclopaedias list Edinburgh as “Edinburgo” and London (English – official name) as Londres (Spanish) – and so they should. But for some reason in this ENGLISH encyclopaedia we have to have Calcutta (English) listed under Kolkata (Bengali – official name). The name has stood from 1690 – 2001, I really don’t think a decision by the local Communist government, should affect the English language and centuries of habit. Kolkata is an awkward, unfamiliar and somewhat alien mouthful for any English speaker, and it is ridiculous that it should be imposed upon us.

This quandary is made worse by several prominent city organisations sticking doggedly to the tried and tested name ‘Calcutta’. The apathy towards the city's so-called new name also comes to one's notice in city organisations like the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta (IIMC) and The Calcutta Club, who seem to want none of this Kolkata nonsense. Acting CEO of Calcutta Club, S.N. Banerjee was quoted in The Times of India as saying, ‘We feel the entire tradition of the club is associated with the name of Calcutta Club. Although we put down the address of the Club as Kolkata we don't intend to rename the club,’ IIMC chief administrative officer Ashoke Sengupta was just as adamant, 'We are registered as IIM Calcutta and just because the city has been renamed we see no reason to part with our brand name. The exclusive CCFC or Calcutta Football & Cricket Club, (established in 1792) is in no mood to change to KCFC – which would make them sound like KFC (Kentucky Fried Chicken). The middle class have affectionately called their city ‘Cal’ for decades; this fashionable abbreviation has a dulcet tone, making the metropolis sound perhaps reminiscent of California or Calais. Its use is still very much alive and well and I can safely say Kol, sounding much like 'coal', will not catch on in the more polite sections of Cal’s society. (-;

So tell me, if all these great, wise and good Calcutta institutions use CALCUTTA, why are we using “Kolkata”?

An opinion poll in the Calcutta Telegraph from July 1999 showed 52% saying the renaming was not necessary, 38% saying it was, and the rest were undecided. ‘The methods proposed, the values espoused, the idiom of this project in social engineering are those peculiar to the most virulent strains of the right,’ proclaimed a livid article in Bombay’s Express (Tuesday, July 27, 1999) ‘…or to Maoists, the very people that the moderate left that is now in power helped to exterminate in the Naxalite years.’ The unnamed writer is of course correct. To change a name that most people were happy with, into something exclusively Bengali, seems chauvinistic in a city full of Marwaris, Sikhs, Biharis and Assamese. Many of the new "official" street names are almost totally ignored even by the locals, I mean do they really want names like: "Comrade Abdul Halim Lane" - the answer is no.

PS – my latest Microsoft English spell-check is fine with Calcutta – but wants me to replace Kolkata with things like “Collate” or “Cokato” - and I don’t even know what a Cokato is – the new name for Eden Gardens perhaps?

TB ( http://blog.360.yahoo.com/spirit_of1099 )

Do you like have an alarm set where you come and post this crap every two months? You have never bothered to respond to any responses to your messages except for post extremely long sermons and then disappear. And I apologize if it is inconvenient for you to say the new name of the city but that is what the democratically elected government of West Bengal has decided and that is what most of the major news outlets in India and World refer it to as. Wikipedia's job is not to gauge what is "popular" or "unpopular" name of the city or whether or not if it is inconvenient for your to speak it but to use official names. If it was upto you we would be still calling Myanmar as Burma and Sri Lanka as Ceylon. Alas, most of us do not live in the past and dream of British Raj. --Blacksun 13:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Topics related to Kolkata

whatever happened to that template that was used under Kolkata related topics?WoodElf 12:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The template is reinserted.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Official website, eh?

In the current article we've KMC's site as Kolkata's site, but this Gov't of West Bengal's site claims to be the official one (search in google "Kolkata" and watch the heading in the search results). Can someone find out? And I really miss the Eden Gardens picture. Where did it disappear? --Victor 07:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Monsoon direction

I believe the NASA article mistakenly calls the southwest monsoon as southeast. There is no major SE→NW wind movement towards Kolkata, only SW→NE and NE→SW as discussed at Monsoon. Google:+"southeast+monsoon"+India gives 701 hits, Google:+"southwest+monsoon"+India 124,000, Google:+"southeast+monsoon"+Calcutta 431 (incl. Wikipedia-derived), Google:+"southwest+monsoon"+Calcutta 10,300, Google:+"southeast+monsoon"+Kolkata 332 (incl. Wikipedia-derived) and Google:+"southwest+monsoon"+Kolkata 816.

Note that some of the matches for "southeast monsoon" appear to be mistakes for the northeast monsoon as evidenced by when/where the winds are said to blow, e.g. "In Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, they have a southeast monsoon season" from [2]. Also note that the NASA article itself refers to it as "southeast" only for the first few paragraphs and refers to it as "southwest" later.

It seems mistaking southwest/northeast for southeast/northwest and vice versa is quite common. as shown by the India map at Monsoon where northeast is called northwest. I had almost overlooked the fact that Kolkata was referring to a "southeast monsoon". I was curious why the reference for a sentence related to climate is a web page on a solar eclipse, when I noticed "southeast". -- Paddu 21:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been fixed in [3]. Thanks! -- Paddu 22:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Kolkata"?

What is the pronunciation of "Kolkata"? The same as "Calcutta"? or more like "coal-carter"? The article currently gives only the Bengali pronunciation, not the English.--Gheuf 00:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"Kolkata" is pronounced "kohl-kah-tah" and "Calcutta" is pronounced "kuhl-kuht-tah" in Indian languages, with a dental "t", although "Calcutta" is sometimes anglicised as "cal-kuh-ta" with an alveolar "t". I am not a linguist and hence might be imprecise in my description above, but I thought that description might be useful to laymen (= non-linguists). -- Paddu 22:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph headed "Problems"

This paragraph seems oddly place in the context of the article. While Kolkata/Calcutta may have its problems like any city, I don't think that the 'problems' need to be featured at the start of the article. I would suggest that this paragraph be moved down to a less 'front-and-centre' location and references or citations be included.Corlyon 19:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This has been fixed. Problems have already been incorporated in respective sections, such as Climate and Transport.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Red Light District

Why is there no mention of the Red-Light district in the article? Here7ic 17:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in the last line of the Demographics section. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 09:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

NEW NAME

QUOTE: "Wikipedia's job is not to gauge what is "popular" or "unpopular" name of the city or whether or not if it is inconvenient for your to speak it but to use official names."

OK answer me this: why isn't VIENNA listed as Wien? or MOSCOW listed as "Moscova" in Wikipedia then??? Those are the official names of those cities, according to their citizens and governments.

And by the way, what is "CRAP" is calling Burma "Myanmar" - not even the PC BBC does that!

And also, can you explain, since when the Communist government in "Kolkata" has been given the right to change the English language? So, tell me, can the Spanish government change "Spain" to "Espana" if they saw fit?

Does not "popular" usage define a language?

Can't answer any of that can you? ..... no, I didn't think so.

Oh, and they will never write anything about the LARGEST RED LIGHT DISTRICT IN SOUTH ASIA - because the editors will not let anything pass that makes Bengalis look remotely bad, unless, that is, they can blame the British for it.

TB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.81.169 (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

this "largest_red_light_district" of universe is getting on my nerves.

1) Its not in kolkata if you want to know where so badly then find out yourself. (hint look at the archives of this talk )

2) so whats the point ? should we list all the brothels of all the cities ?

Jeroje (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

---