Talk:Mumbai

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2020

The article lacks a cityscape section like articles about other financial capitals (such as Shanghai) of the world does. I believe an appropriate section for cityscape can be included in the article. Addie666 (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests are for requests to make specific edits, not general pleas for article improvement. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Can we add this over to the page's top, Looks perfect and candid, Shot by u/AffectionateMind26 on reddit(With all due permissions and consent from the author)

frame|none|Mumbai Skyline shot in early morning, Shot by u/AffectionateMind26 on Reddit(With due permissions from the author) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuruPrasaathM (talk • contribs) 03:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2020

The card on the right about Mumbai-Magacity there are 6 pictures where it says

"Top to bottom:Downtown Mumbai aerial view, (The Gateway of India (L), Taj Mahal Palace Hotel (R), Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus, the Bandra–Worli Sea Link, South Bombay night skyline"

Where as it should actually be

"Top to bottom:Bandra-Worli Sea Link aerial view, (The Gateway of India (L), Taj Mahal Palace Hotel (R), Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus, the Bandra–Worli Sea Link, South Bombay night skyline" ZeeshanGhori (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

ZeeshanGhori, fixed Prolix 💬 09:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent image related changes

@Ultimateoutsider: This is a GA status article, so you need to discuss your changes and get consensus before adding/replacing images in the longstanding version. And do not edit war. Both Prolix and I find this image that you added here to be of lower quality than the one existing in the status quo version. - Fylindfotberserk (talk)

@fylindfotberserk i am not editing a war. @prolix is editing the war. tell him to stay away from my other edits. i will never edit your article again but in return, i want the same from you guys that you will not revert my delhi article edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimateoutsider (talk • contribs) 18:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ultimateoutsider: We are not here to bargain. If someone reverts your edits, the process is to discuss with the other user in the talk page as per WP:BRD policy. So, I'd suggest you to self-revert your edits to the WP:STATUSQUO version, discuss your changes in the Delhi article talk page with Prolix then achieve a mutual understanding. This is not 'my article', I do not 'own' the Mumbai article, nor you should feel that you 'own' the Delhi article. This is a collaborative project. If you behave as if a specific article is your own (WP:OWN), you'll get blocked in no time. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk You'll get me blocked?? okay lets see what you'll do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimateoutsider (talk • contribs) 18:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Addition of an unnecessary viewpoint regarding the name change of the city

Arrivisto, please explain why the content you added is necessary and relevant here. There's already a satisfactory explanation regarding the reasoning behind the name change. I really don't see why another opinion of a party that had nothing to do with the change is necessary. Prolix 💬 12:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Prolix First, I do not appreciate prompt reversals such as you have just done, twice. Instead, let other readers and editors consider the matter first. Secondly, of course my edit is "relevant"; Christopher Hitchens, who died a few years ago, was perhaps the world's greatest anti-theist polemicist, and he on several occasions opined that the change of the "British name" name of Bombay to Mumbai has nothing to do with erasing the Raj heritage, but is all about the abuse of power for sectarian reasons by Bombay's religious right in the fight for dominance and oppression of minorities and other factions. Arrivisto (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Arrivisto, my 'prompt' reversals are perfectly okay, if anyone wants to look through your edits they can do so by looking at the edit history. Most users that watch this page certainly keep track of all changes and would even pitch in to these discussions if they deem it necessary.

Regarding the content, Christopher's opinions on this issue seem to be in the minority. The prevalent view regarding this issue is that the name change was a result of a desire to shake colonial links from the city's name. Similar to how 'Calcutta' became 'Kolkata' and 'Madras' became 'Chennai'. This viewpoint has been adequately established in the article and seems to be the accepted reasoning behind the issue. Including Christopher's opinion on this issue which is clearly in the minority would be giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Hence, I do not think it should be included in this article. Prolix 💬 07:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

While I see the possibility of merit in including the point made by Arrivisto, I am inclined to agree with Prolix for the following reasons: a) the addition is poorly written in my opinion and does not meaningfully describe the point made by Arrivisto b) the source given is a youtube video (which is merely a snippet of a larger speech by Hitchens of which Mumbai is not the primary subject). If this is worth mentioning in the article, it should be easy to find multiple sources from different personalities stating a critical position of the motives behind the name change; Hitchens' notability in his own right give some him no specific relevance to the subject. Best to the both of you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

If the addition were indeed "poorly written", then why not try improving it? I am aware of the similar name changes to Calcutta and Madras; all three name changes ditching well-established and respected names altered in a pointless act of self-harm. The French call London Londres; the English have no intention of asking them to change! The statement "Christopher's opinions on this issue seem to be in the minority" has neither sources nor justification. I note from edit history that user Prolix (yes, thanks, I know what "prolix" means) is no stranger to reverting edits, a disagreeable trait. He has self-identified as an "Experienced Editor"; kindly note that I too have been an editor for rather more than a decade. In short, Hitchens' views are relevant and apposite, and reveal the nasty undercurrent of religious sectarianism in Indian politics. Arrivisto (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Arrivisto, please don't waste your time bringing 'experience' into this discussion. The number edits either of us have made and how long we've been on this platform are of no relevance to the topic at hand. If you'd taken the time to look through most of the reverts I've made you'd realise that they're mostly reverts of unsourced/bad faith edits. So instead of resorting to ad hominem please explain your stance.

all three name changes ditching well-established and respected names altered in a pointless act of self-harm. Such statements only serve to make you look like you have some sort of agenda to push here. If you're making an argument please ensure you stick to WP:NPOV, declaring city name changes by a sovereign country as mere acts of 'self harm' is quite bold and frankly unwarranted in this discussion.

I made a case for not including Christopher's statement based on it being WP:UNDUE weight in this article since it is a minority viewpoint. Cristiano Tomás summarizes this argument much better than I can and I feel my views have been expressed quite clearly by now. I would appreciate it if you tried to find a solution through discussion instead of adding POV comments here. Prolix 💬 12:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Arrivisto Firstly, it is not the responsibility of other editors to do your own work. I don't know if I agree with the sentiment in your statement added and I will not waste my own time trying to either rewrite your words or to find legitimate sources that you did not take the time to find your self. The number of years of experience editing on this site is completely irrelevant. Furthermore, whatever Prolix's actions may have been in past edits, that is not the subject at hand; we are discussing the merits of your addition not the merits of those in the discussion. Especially given your blatant POV in stating that "all three name changes ditching well-established and respected names altered in a pointless act of self-harm", I am even more inclined to repudiate your addition. Quite frankly if you truly believe in the strength of your argument (which I neither agree or disagree with), you should heed my previously-made point to accumulate more reliable sources from diverse origins and rewrite the addition to be more meaningful in its description of the criticism of the name change. If you truly believe there is a "nasty undercurrent of religious sectarianism" in regards to name-changing in Mumbai, go find more sources that say so. This is the most basic thing one can be asked to do on Wikipedia. I am not inclined to agree with the addition simply because Hitchens is Hitchens nor simply because you "too have been an editor for more than a decade", good intentions or not.Cristiano Tomás (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I note your criticisms, but I don't accept them. The allegation of "blatant POV' is absurd; the POV rule applies to an article not a talk page! And to call a single postscript sentence in a lengthy article as "UNDUE" ... words fail me! To accuse me of "pulling rank" or "having an agenda" is rather rich when Prolix adopts such a tiresome schoolmarmy tone throughout. I have not found this exchange of views helpful or enlightening or pleasurable, so I'll leave you to it, and shan't bother with this page again. Thank you and goodnight. Arrivisto (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)