Talk:South India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the South India article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
South India is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.



Contents

[edit] Inclusion of Trivandrum.

Hi all., Trivandrum is a major city, a capital city etc., etc., I definitely agree. But it's not as major as the others that are listed. Moreover, it's not as populous as the other cities and the list is "List of large metropolitan cities", which Trivandrum is 42nd. I think, it was removed previously also for the same reason. Just entered this in the talk page to prevent further edit warrings... This is just my view. If yours differ, do reply.Mugunth(ping me!!!,contribs) 15:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just added a "Subdivisions" section to the article; I am looking to add a map of the states and districts if available. Maybe we can identify Trivandrum and other capitals on this map. Please let me know if anyone has such a map/map-template. I tried to create it one myself, but there are over 100 districts in South India and the level of detail is making it impossible to complete. Thanks AreJay (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
can we use maps from live local? (local.live.com) I'm not sure of the copyrights...Mugunth(ping me!!!,contribs) 09:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope...they are copyrighted Microsoft data...and plus this would be a raster image and would lack quality. I've worked on a SVG version based on the blank SVG India map. I just need some help editing it...will have a better picture on if I need to reach out to any resources this weekend. AreJay (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Rajithmohan has reinserted Trivandrum with the explaination that the section was about major cities, not most populous cities. The section's title says "major metropolitan areas". A metropolitan area is defined as follows:
A metropolitan area is a large population center consisting of a large metropolis and its adjacent zone of influence, or of more than one closely adjoining neighboring central cities and their zone of influence
The defining feature of a metropolitan area is its population; therefore a large population center is implicit in the definition of a "metropolitan area". I'm therefore going to rv his addition; like I said, I'd be happy to include Trivandrum in the map that I'm working on, but to include the 40th largest city over the inclusion of larger (and therefore more major) metropolitan areas like Madhurai, Mysore and Vijayawada doesn't make any sense. AreJay (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivandrum is the largest city (both in area and population) in Kerala. Moreover, it is the capital of Kerala. When you say about major cities, how Tvm can be excluded? The Southern Air Command is headquartered at Tvm. The city has an international airport. Around 80% of the states IT exports comes from this city. The list says about populous Urban Agglomerations. More populous doesnt implies more important. Is Pimpri a major city when compared to Chandigarh, whose population is lesser? Also, the list is about the urban agglomeration, not the city population. Here is the list of most populous cities in South India :

Rank City Population
(2001 census)
India Census 2001		 State
1 Chennai 4,343,645 Tamil Nadu
2 Bangalore 4,301,326 Karnataka
3 Hyderabad 3,637,483 Andhra Pradesh
4 Visakhapatnam 982,904 Andhra Pradesh
5 Coimbatore 930,882 Tamil Nadu
6 Madurai 901,681 Tamil Nadu
7 Thiruvananthapuram 744,983 Kerala
8 Salem 696,760 Tamil Nadu

Hence, I suggest to include Trivandrum also in the major cities section, as it is an important city down South.
Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 03:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where you got this list from, but the most populous city in South India is Bangalore while the most populous metrololitan area (urban agglomeration) is Chennai (links 1, 2). When we use the term "city" is refers to the jurisdiction of one municipal corporation, while the term urban agglomeration implies a larger, more populous area, perhaps spanning multiple municipal corporations. To your point about notability of Trivandrum, every city is noted for something (if not multiple things). I have no doubt that Trivandrum is an important city (I've visited the city and I think it's beautiful) — it's just that we are trying to restrict the list to the top 25 urban agglomerations and Trivandrum doesn't fall into that list. If we were to make a case for the inclusion of Trivandrum, we'd have to make a case for the inclusion of Madhurai, Mysore and Vijayawada, which are all, I'm sure, important and notable in their own right. If you refer to the map in the Infobox, I've included only the capitals of South Indian states and Trivandrum is very clearly mentioned there. Thanks AreJay (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I prepared the list based on the information from the Census website. Go here and search for the population of Bangalore, Chennai and other cities. What you stated regarding Bangalore and Chennai is wrong. According to 2001 census, Chennai is the largest city as well as largest UA. Check world gazatter also. Btw, I have provided the link too. Btw, if you are very much particular about the exclusion of Trivandrum, why to keep and inappropriate section name? Instead of major metropolitan areas, change the title to Populous metropolitan areas. This can convey the message more clearly.. -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 06:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm, not sure which World Gazetteer data you're talking about, but there's no ambiguity listed here [1]. In fact even if you look at the source data for your citation in the list that you created [2] it is contrary to what you are claiming...the source is for a list of cities, not urban agglomerations, and indicates that Bangalore is the largest city in SI as of 2008. And even on this list Trivandrum is ranked 53rd, below Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad, Visakhapatnam, Coimbatore, Mysore, Vijayawada, Madhurai, Hubli and Salem. However, I do take your point that the naming convention in the infobox is ambigious. I will change it to "Most populous metropolitan areas (2008)". AreJay (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that the info-box has been modified to the "Most populous metropolitan areas (2008)", the above discussion may not be very relevant, but let me make a few points. Firstly, the 2001 Census never took into consideration even outlying suburbs of Trivandrum when designating the U/A. This was due to a number of factors, not the least of which was the then-recent expansion of the Municipal Corporation. Secondly, the latest Election data (as of 2005) shows that the city had already expanded beyond a million people and it has consistently recorded one of the fastest urban growth rates in India. Finally, I believe that classifying the importance of cities just by population over factors like their economic, social, historical and geographical significance is an incorrect methodology. If it were true, then Mexico City would have beaten the likes of London, Paris, Shanghai and Washington D.C. to the post. Anyways, just my two cents. Let's not kick up another argument. Good work on the article. Cheers! - Ajaypp (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree with you. Thanks AreJay (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, after the change of the section name, the ambiguity is removed. The discussion can be archived. Btw, regarding the population of Bangalore, you pointed out the same link that I provided along with the list. I sorted it with the 2001 census data, while you maintained the rank as per the 2008 calculation. The 2008 population is just estimation, but not an authentic one. It reflects a guess figure based on the statistics of population growth. That’s why, I preferred the 2001 census population, which is officially declared and is more genuine. According to 2001 census, Bangalore is not the second populous city in India. However, in the list I created, I missed out Vijayawada and Hubli, which is having more population (2001). I will update the list soon. Thank you for pointing out.
Any ways, great effort in improving the article contents. Go ahead. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 03:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coorg and Murudeshwar

I be including some contents from these two articles into this.... Murudeshwara, kodagu. Your comments? Mugunth(ping me!!!,contribs) 05:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Murudeshwara article doesn't seem to have a lot of content while the Coorg article is certainly not lacking in it. What type of contents were you planning on including? Thanks AreJay (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
May be something from Coorg into the Geography section and some thing into the Culture and heritage section from the Murudeshwara article?Mugunth(ping me!!!,contribs) 04:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea! AreJay (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Few more sections

After comparing with other country articles, I felt that, we have to add Education, Transport and probably Tourist attractions to this article. Education should not be just a list of univ in SI, but should focus on Govt policies regarding compulsory education, may also state the reason for higher literacy rates in the South etc., Similarly, Transport, focussing on Southern Railways, road transport, BMTC Volvo (Volvo services for the first time in India) etc., etc., should be added. Tourist attractions, could be sort of a list of important places of interest, Kanyakumari, Ooty, Kodaikanal, thekkadi, Kochi, Coorg, etc., can be added. Mugunth(ping me!!!,contribs) 03:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I had given this some thought previously and had held off simply because of the fact that SI isn't a official political entity like a state/UT, so there's not one government enforcing policies on education, transport, etc. In that regard, I except to see differences b/w the SI article, and others, say, India. However, if you have the time, perhaps you'd like to take a shot at drafting these sections (Education, Transport, Tourism) and see what we come up with...I can definitely help fine tune them as necessary...just remember to keep them in Summary style. Also, I think we can definitely add the "Tourism" section, since, while each state has a tourism authority, there's still enough general information about tourism in SI that can be covered in the article. Thanks AreJay (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that Tourism isn't a major section for India-related articles as prescribed any of the WP:INSTATES, WP:INDIA or WP:INCITIES. In seeming some Indian articles, it looks like mention of tourist destinations is made in the culture or flora/fauna sections. We might need to do that as well. AreJay (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colonial - Euro Centric Images

There are four images showing people. Two of them are colonial images. Would someone please add images representing actual South Indian people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.249.252 (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name of the article should be: Southern India

Observation
I notice that the main article is hosted on a page titled "South India". Though browsing to "Southern India" also works (by automatically redirecting the user to "South India"), this is inaccurate. There is no geopolitical entity called "South India", except in informal and erroneous (and widespread) usage of the English language.

Description
Technically, "South India" would refer to a nation/state of the mentioned name (not a region, as the fact is). Examples are North America (the name of a continent), West Virginia (the name of a state), and South Korea (the name of a country). The word "South" is one of the four cardinal directions. The only two accepted usage contexts in the English language are: in a proper name (e.g. South America) and to indicate the direction with reference to a particular and already existing entity (e.g. Sri Lanka is to the south of India). The correct way of referring to the region comprising the states of Karnataka, Andhra Pradhesh, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala is "Southern India". The government of India recognizes this anomaly and discourages the usage of the term "South India".

Suggestions
The main article should be hosted under the title "Southern India". Browsing to "South India" should automatically redirect to "Southern India" and a note inserted about the inaccurate usage of the term "South India".

--203.199.115.214 (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Vikram Tayde

Hi, what about South Indian Bank? This is a quite prominent bank in South India. I could tell you many other samples. Can you give us an accurate source, that the government of India declines this name for the southern region of india? Googling provides me 2.4 million hits for South India and just 900 000 for Southern India anyway. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Economic Comparison North Vs South- Data Obsolete/Article biased.

The data presented in the economy section is obsolete and fictitious, the national per capita income for India in 2008 is USD 1004(nominal) the economic comparison should be done on the basis of Gross Domestic Product of each individual state which depicts a clearer view of economic performance rather than on regional basis which is absurd as great variation exists between the demographic and socio-economic conditions of the states in North part of India. a) The richest states with highest per capita GDP are Punjab, Haryana, Himachal, Gujarat & Maharashtra and union territories of Chandigarh and Delhi. None of the four south indian states is among the top five in the country.

b) Even High Income states are more industrialised, developed and have higher literacy rates than South India. They spend more money per capita on health, education and development than South Indian states.

c) South India is not homogeneous and is divided on the basis of four dravadian languages namely Kannada, Tamil, Telugu and Malayalam. They have their own regional differences and disputes.

d) The situation in South India is not very different from rest of India in terms of poverty, malnutrition, unemployment, politics, corruption, riots, Naxal violence, law and order problem, infrastructure, health and education etc. If you compare South with the worst performing states than it may look better, but the problem remain unresolved. Why not compare South india with some developed country in Asia like Singapore which has per capita income of US$ 26,481 Vs South India of only US$ 625(2004 estimate). This means the per capita income in Singapore is 43 times higher than South India. This clearly indicates that South india is not very different from rest of India and has to go long way before it can boast of having a distinction of developed nation status like Singapore or Japan. source: [3][4][5] --Himhifi 11:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

To respond to this rant, certain states in south India complement each other to give higher averages, so essentially the individual states treatment you are talking about is also valid in your reference to Dravidian states. Kerala for example has the highest human development and literacy rate in India though poor industrialization, whereas cities like Bangalore and Kochi have high per capita incomes. The point being south India has overall higher averages than "north India" though on an individual basis all states have their pros and cons, though I have read sources suggesting south India is developing at a faster rate then even the more developed states in northern India. Anyway averages aren't perfectly accurate to all areas. KBN (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is valid arguement and not a rant, the richest states in India also exist in North part of India and economically they are performing better than four South Indian states which are grouped on the basis of culture and language. We can compare states on the basis of GDP for a better analysis of economic performance. Punjab/Delhi the richest states in india can be compared to UP/Bihar or Karanataka/TN irrespective of geographical location. The regional differences and similarities exists between all states in India. There are examples of faster developing regions throughout India like National capital region- Delhi, Gurgaon, Noida. Punjab/Chandigarh, Maharashtra/ Gujarat and Goa not just selective areas mainly metros in South Indian states like Bangalore, Hyderabad and Chennai etc. --Himhifi 13:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fastest Growing Cities in the World mostly in North, East & Western India.

Fastest growing cities and urban areas (1 to 100) Rank City/Urban area Country Average annual growth 2006 to 2020, in % 1 Beihai China 10.58 2 Ghaziabad India 5.20(U.P) 3 Sana'a Yemen 5.00 4 Surat India 4.99(Gujrat) 5 Kabul Afghanistan 4.74 6 Bamako Mali 4.45 7 Lagos Nigeria 4.44 8 Faridabad India 4.44(Haryana) 9 Dar es Salaam Tanzania 4.39 10 Chittagong Bangladesh 4.29 11 Toluca Mexico 4.25 12 Lubumbashi Congo 4.10 13 Kampala Uganda 4.03 14 Santa Cruz Bolivia 3.98 15 Luanda Angola 3.96 16 Nashik India 3.90(Maharashtra) 17 Kinshasa Congo 3.89 18 Nairobi Kenya 3.87 19 Dhaka Bangladesh 3.79 20 Antananarivo Madagascar 3.73 21 Patna India 3.72(Bihar) 22 Rajkot India 3.63(Gujrat) 23 Conakry Guinea 3.61 24 Jaipur India 3.60(Rajasthan) 25 Maputo Mozambique 3.54 26 Mogadishu Somalia 3.52 27 Gujranwala Pakistan 3.49 28 Delhi India 3.48(National Capital Region) 29 Pune (Poona) India 3.46(Maharashtra) 30 Las Vegas USA 3.45 31 Addis Ababa Ethiopia 3.40 32 Indore India 3.35(Madhya Pradesh) 33 Faisalabad Pakistan 3.32 34 Rawalpindi Pakistan 3.31 35 Brazzaville Congo 3.29 36 Peshawar Pakistan 3.29 37 Khulna Bangladesh 3.24 38 Suwon Republic of Korea 3.23 39 Karachi Pakistan 3.19 40 Asunción Paraguay 3.17 41 Lahore Pakistan 3.12 42 Asansol India 3.11(W.Bengal) 43 Riyadh Saudi Arabia 3.09 44 Dakar Senegal 3.06 45 Multan Pakistan 3.06 46 Valencia Venezuela 3.05 47 Jakarta Indonesia 3.03 48 Brasília Brazil 2.99 49 Port-au-Prince Haiti 2.98 50 Palembang Indonesia 2.94 51 Jidda Saudi Arabia 2.93 52 Accra Ghana 2.93 53 Agra India 2.93(Uttar Pradesh) 54 Hyderabad Pakistan 2.91 55 Bandung Indonesia 2.90 56 Wenzhou China 2.90 57 East Rand (Ekurhuleni) South Africa 2.89 58 Wuhan China 2.87 59 Mosul Iraq 2.86 60 Amritsar India 2.85(Punjab) 61 Bursa Turkey 2.85 62 Manaus Brazil 2.83 63 Meerut India 2.83(Uttar Pradesh) 64 Yaoundé Cameroon 2.80 65 Changsha China 2.80 66 Belém Brazil 2.79 67 Bangalore India 2.79(Karnataka) 68 Heze China 2.78 69 Tijuana Mexico 2.77 70 Shantou China 2.77 71 Maceió Brazil 2.75 72 Algiers Algeria 2.74 73 Ahmadabad India 2.73(Gujrat) 74 Lucknow India 2.72 (Uttar Pradesh) 75 Douala Cameroon 2.71 76 Austin USA 2.69 77 Bhopal India 2.69(Madhya Pradesh) 78 Atlanta USA 2.64 79 Ujung Pandang Indonesia 2.63 80 Ludhiana India 2.63 81 Managua Nicaragua 2.62 82 Zhanjiang China 2.59 83 Karaj Iran 2.59 84 Jamshedpur India 2.59(Bihar/Jharkhand) 85 Mecca Saudi Arabia 2.56 86 Vadodara India 2.55(Gujrat) 87 Davao Philippines 2.53 88 Kanpur India 2.53(Uttar Pradesh) 89 Ciudad Juárez Mexico 2.51 90 Tegucigalpa Honduras 2.51 91 Shenzhen China 2.51 92 Srinagar India 2.50(Jammu & Kashmir) 93 Coimbatore India 2.49(Tamil Nadu) 94 Abidjan Côte d'Ivoire 2.49 95 Yangon Myanmar 2.46 96 Dhanbad India 2.46(Bihar/Jharkhand) 97 Rabat Morocco 2.45 98 Aleppo Syria 2.42 99 San José Costa Rica 2.42 100 Khartoum Sudan 2.41

Only two South Indian cities Bangalore at 67th position and Coimbatore at 93rd position could make it to the fastest developing cities in the world. Source: [6] --Himhifi 01:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

South India covers a lot less area and population then the north. Similarly if you can find statistics on the least developed, both economically and human, places in India, the majority would be in areas of Indo-Aryan India which you have by error called North and Western India as you have highlighted eastern Indian cities as well. It is also likely that these statistics that you have shown will change in time. KBN (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Punjab & Maharashtra Tops the list in Human Development Ranking.

Human Development Ranking by State(2001)

State            Rank      GDP Per Capita 
                              
Punjab           1         2 
Maharashtra      2         1
Haryana          3         4
Gujarat          4         3
Tamil Nadu       5         5
Karnataka        6         6
Kerala           7         -  
Andhra Pradesh   8         7
West Bengal      9         8
Rajasthan        10        9
Madhya Pradesh   11        10
Assam            12        -
Uttar Pradesh    13        11
Orissa           14        12
Bihar            15        13

Source: [7] [8] --Himhifi 11:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

2001? I assure you Kerala is the leading state in human development at this time. This source says that states like Punjab while having good per capita income, has low human development. [9]

[edit] Revised map

South India
South India

About 33 per cent of the census 2001 population of India live on one-third of the landscape. This is south India comprising Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Tamil Nadu.Anwar (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2008 (UT

A discussion on the constitution of the South is in Archive 2. I don't think the term "New South" exists (or has been accepted) in India...we have to be careful not to bring in WP:OR into the article. Thanks AreJay (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Anwar, could you provide a reliable source for including Maharashtra and Gujarat as well as Goa to the South Indian region? --Thirusivaperur (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Maharashtra and Gujarat are part of the region known as Dravida along with the other south Indian states, however most definitions of south India refer to the four states. KBN (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] South India Defined

On what basis is South India defined in this article? With the Southern United States, the distinction is clearly based on secession during the Civil War. This entry, however, fails at present to attach the notion of "South India" to any clear variable(s). It is this omission that will continue to evoke requests of cartographic modification like the one above. Before we delve into History, Geography, Flora, and so on, I think we must first clearly define (with appropriate citational support) why the particular geographic region we have identified constitutes "South India." sæ (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed n times so far... Check the talk archives. For your information, you can search for "South indian states" in google. Reverting it back. If any one has a problem please discuss...

Mugunth(ping me!!!,contribs) 01:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Mugunth. Perhaps this was already discussed, but isn't some sort of internal citation in order, particularly for the WP user who does not consult talk page archives? sæ (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not an South India vs North India article

All the comparisons are with North, if one wants to show progress relative- a more balanced approach would be a comparison with all regions and not just one. Haphar (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone willing to discuss the inclusion of the table?. KBN (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Source is "India Information", I have never heard of the site before, but still even if one was to consider it, how does one reconcile the fact that India's per capita income is stated as US$ 1004 in the India article ,and this site gives the data as Rs 13000 + PCI for South India and Rs 8000 + PCI for North India ?. Where is the drag down to Rs 4000 coming from, considering that West should be doing well? Even if we get the correct information, a better approach might be to get a national average and compare that with that of the South to show how South is doing well ( which it is !). Haphar (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this...Mugunth(ping me!!!,contribs) 12:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no clue how this happened. The original table that I added a few years ago was sourced from Outlook India. It seems to have been replaced now by this whereincity website whose credibility is nil. I am going to go ahead and remove that table for now because it is sticking out like a sour thumb; meanwhile, I'll try to go back through the history to see if I can find my citation. Thanks AreJay (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Just updated the table. AreJay (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks good, could you add it to the Economy of South India article too ? Even there the other table had been put and I removed it yesterday. Haphar (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The new table is good... Let's go with this...Mugunth(ping me!!!,contribs) 04:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)