Talk:Bangalore/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Wikipedia is not a Telugu blog / web site to advertise baseless arguements about the origin of the name "bengaluru". The arguements found in the article "telugu history behind name of Bengaluru" does not help foster harmony and peace in India's most cosmopolitian city. I have taken the liberty to delete the article. Some of the arguements betray our inherent disunity and lack of knowledge about our history.

Dinesh Kannambadi

Contents 1 Document with original Bangalore city plan 2 Theories on origin of name and Conclusions therein 3 ORIGIN OF NAME 4 Shopping in Bangalore?? 5 House rules for nicknames 6 Clean up 7 Englpiesh 8 Famous Visitors 9 Bangalored 10 Infrastructural woes 11 Population 12 City Planning 13 Astroturfing in external links (esp. myaarzoo.com) 14 Source of Language Statistics? 15 Push to FA 16 Something is wrong with the population density number 17 Officially Bengaluru 18 native name 19 veracity of edits 20 Language spoken 21 edit reverses 22 List getting longer 23 City History 24 Ghettoization 25 City Taxi numbers

Document with original Bangalore city plan

"The document describing the city as he conceptualised it, written in Telugu the commonly spoken language of this region, is still preserved. This language is still spoken in the villages of Bangalore, Yelahanka, Devanahalli, Doddaballapur, Hoskote, Anekal and Hosur districts."

Can someone prove this with references instead of ambiguous claims??

Dinesh Kannambadi

Theories on origin of name and Conclusions therein

I see several hastily put together theories to the origin of the name "Bengaluru". I happened to go thru a blog site linked to this page at the bottom. The blog is called "Telugu origins ...." something. My question is how come nobody ever brought up these issues prior to the government's decision to change the name. To me the answer is simple. Now that the government is giving a "Kannada" identity to the name, people from outside Karnataka but settled in Bangalore are all too eager to link Bangalore's name to their own roots (be it Telugu or Tamil). A few years back many people were all too sure that other cities like Hyderabad would surpass Bangalore in IT (which could still happen). I think this is a natural reaction. One inscription from 17th centuary in front of a temple or one document in Telugu supposedly written during Kempe Gowda's time does not mean anything, just as a 9th century Kannada Inscription in Jabalpur. Madhya Pradesh (dated to the Imperial Rashtrakutas) does not mean that Jabalpur had majority Kannada population. It only indicates that Kannada had spread as far north as Jabalpur. This period in history is called the time of "imperial Kannada". It is very easy to come to hasty conclusions with a knee jerk reactions. Bangalore itself is located at the junction of 3 states (Karnataka/AP and Tamil Nadu). Kolar which is the district right next to Bangalore was the battleground for countless number of wars, especially between competing Kannada and Tamil kingdoms and was called Kolahalapura (city of destruction). Parts of South Karnataka as been keenly fought over by these two great competitors for ages, mainly over Kaveri river. It is not surprising that one can find Hoysala/Chola/Vijayanagar/Nolamba structures/monuments in this part of Karnataka. Even today Bangalore is a mixture of Kannada/Telugu and Tamil people. It makes no sense for Kannada and Telugu people to battle over whether "Bengaluru" is a Kannada or a Telugu name because both languages emerged from "old Kannada" that was the main spoken language across the deccan possibly from 7th century - 12th century during the rule of the mighty Chalukyas of Badami & Kalyana and Rashtrakutas of Manyaketha who ruled from what is today Karnataka, just as it makes no sense for Marathi's of Belgaum to claim it has to be a part of Maharashtra. The earliest Marathi inscriptions dated 981 AD were discovered in Hassan district, just like the earliest Kannada inscriptions from Halmidi dated 425AD -450AD, a village in Hassan. What we call today as Karnataka has given India a lot, a lot of action has always happened here and still continues that tradition. This region we call Karnataka is the origin of carnatic music, udupi cuisine, haridasa movement, Vesera style of architecture (also called the Karnata Dravida or deccan style or chalukya-hoysala style), home to some of India's mightiest empires (Chalukyas/Rashtrakutas/Vijayanagar Empire), Indias oldest silk culture (mysore silk)& our IT revolution. Hence its no wonder that people of different languages and cultures want to share our successes as their success too. What matters most is that the people of Karnataka create an eclectic atmosphere so that talent from other parts of the country can add to our own achivements and embellish the name of Karnataka. This is what the world sees. Lets all be proud of that and call it peace.

Dinesh Kannambadi

ORIGIN OF NAME

Telugu closely resembles 'OLD KANNADA or HalaGannada". The Telugu script itself was derived from the "old Kannada" script over a prolonged period starting from around 13th century AD.The Ganga inscription/vir gal(hero stone) indicating the earliest name of Bangalore is probabaly "old Kannada", NOT Telugu. The Ganga dynasty of Talkad (western Gangas) are a proven Kannada kingdom, as all their inscriptions are in old Kannada. Please refer to history of Kannada and Telugu languages for better understanding of the issue. In Kannada literature, the Rashtrakuta classic "Kavirajamarga" (9th century AD) makes references to earlier Kannada works written by Ganga King Durvinitha around begining of 6th century. Please refer to "History of Karnataka By Arthikaje" at http://www.ourkarnataka.com/history.htm to better understand history of Gangas of Talkad. Lets have a discussion about this. Lets have real proof and references.

Dinesh Kannambadi

Shopping in Bangalore??

I was surprised to see that a shopping section does not exist for Bangalore. With the rise of the Mall culture in India, Bangalore is becoming one of the major shopping hubs in India. If no one has a problem, I don't mind starting a section on this topic.

Nitin.

A section for shopping will not be appropriate here. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities or Mumbai, on the sections needed for Indian cities. Info about shopping can probably go under culture. Right now, there is an urban life section, which needs to be merged with culture. You can expand more on Bangalore's shopping centres at Wikitravel's [Bangalore page].

Pamri • Talk 04:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

House rules for nicknames

I would like everyone to look into some house rules as far as monikers and nicknames go. We've seen many nicknames for Bangalore like City of Lakes, London of Asia, Fashion Capital of India and now Pensioners Paradise, and so on. I think it makes sense to consider just a couple of nicknames, since, even on a national scale no one really equates them to mean Bangalore straight off the bat. Silicon Valley of India is now an "established" nickname and Garden City is what Bangalore was historically called. I can't think of any reason to keep adding nicknames. They contribute little to the overall understanding of the city itself and are often very misleading. Furthermore, they may not necessarilly be accepted by everyone in the region, let alone the nation. Comments welcome. AreJay 02:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• While i agree with the gist of your comment, I disagree that we need to include nicknames that bangalore is known for at the international level and that they don't contribute to the city's overall understanding. For eg, Bangalore was called 'Pensioner's Paradise' because it did have a large no. of people who were working in PSU's,Defence forces,etc., who preferred to settle here and which in turn explains the large educated middle class.

The 'city of lakes' nick isn't far fetched, since Bangalore had atleast a 100 lakes, most of which were taken over by land sharks & the corporation. Heck, my layout in b'lore was an old lake & the tank bed still passes thro my outhouse.(me going into nostalgia :-D ). To summarise, we should not make blanket policies, but rather decide on a case by case basis. pamri 13:47, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

• Thanks for replying. Just saying "Pensioners Paradise" or whatever dosen't really tell anyone about Bangalore, especially if those people have never been to the city and want to know more about it. I makes more sense to elaborate and say why it was/is a pensioner's paradise (as you have indicated above), etc. If I've never been to the city and I visit this page and I see "Pensioner's paradise", I'd want to know why it is called that. Merely citing nicknames dosen't add to the understanding of the city. AreJay 15:45, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I agree I should have added the info or edited the article. Will do that. pamri 13:13, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Clean up

I will be moving all of "famous people from Bangalore" to another page. This page is huge and looks disorganized. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not meant to be a links repository. It is a free content encylopedia. Please visit the India page to get an idea of how I plan to organize links on this page. The "Related Topics" heading in that entry seems a better organized way to structure Bangalore related articles on this page. AreJay 15:45, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Englpiesh

Englpiesh -- I think this is a made-up word. Could not find a reference to this on any website except wikipedia and its derived websites. Jay 17:58, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I live in bangalore and i've never heard the word Englpiesh.

Famous Visitors

Should the section "Famous Visitors to Bangalore" be included? The list given in the article is just too short. Other famous visitors happen to be JK Rowling, Bill Gates, Sylvester Stallone, The Rolling Stones, The Scorpions, Elton John, Bryan Adams, Pink Floyd, Amitabh Bachchan, Hrithik Roshan, Abdul Kalam, Tony Blair and so on... The city is also a home for many well-known faces in the world of IT. And I feel the more information on the relation between outsourcing, BPO offices, call centres and Bangalore should be added. Guest, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Don't include it please. Bangalore being an important and happening city will recieve plenty of visitors, famous and infamous. I don't think its relevant.

Bangalored

Would the person who deleted the "Don't get Bangalored" paragraph please explain why? RickK 06:09, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Right, please, put it back. Being a european, I learnt about that stuff in this article. So I consider that it should be left, so everybody knows about such a paranoid american reaction and american hate of other peoples. I consider it also as an hommage in disguise for Bangalore's success. Hoping that many Bangalores will emerge on all continents, for the sake of the world economic development, I suggest as a motto for the world "Let us fill the world with Bangalores" --Pgreenfinch 08:57, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Sigh. RickK 04:27, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Yes, sigh, --Pgreenfinch 07:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I'll tell you why "Bangalored" should be left out. I was born and partly brought up in Bangalore and I live in the United States. There are lot of things that have made Bangalore prominent -- "Bangalored" is not one of them! "Bangalored" if anything, is a reflection of the paranoia of a bunch of slackers who just couldn't keep up with the competition than anything else. I do not consider it to be hommage (in disguise or otherwise) to Bangalore. I consider it to be hurtful and insensitive. If you want to talk about "Bangalored", take it to the outsourcing article. There are a billion things that can be included under the economy section and "Bangalored" is obscure and trivial and has nothing to do with anything. It does not deserve to be there. AreJay 15:48, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

• I feel it should be added as a seperate article and should be linked in 'See also'. I agree while it is interesting does not fit in here.

• Some major renovations under economic development. Added stuff relating to HAL, NAL and ISRO. Moved "outsourcing" paragraph to appropriate secition under outsourcing. This is an obscure, meaningless topic that does nothing apart from highlight the paranoia of some people. There are more interesting and pertinent topics to add in the economy section than that.

Infrastructural woes

Should temporal Information (final paragraph in "infrastructural woes") be included in a WikiPedia article? Not that "infrastructural woes" is temporal, but the paragraph seems to cover the recent happenings in Bangalore. And opinions such as "These events have apparently been consequences of Karnataka's new Chief Minister's -- N Dharm Singh's -- irreverence to the city's infrastructure." makes it look like a news column rather than an encyclopedia article ;) -- Sanjeeth

Yes, that ought to be either removed or at least reworded. -- Sundar 10:15, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

This section should not be removed as it represents an important chapter in the evolution of this city from a small town to a large city housing big industries. It could be reworded of course but removing it is like erasing away a part of it's reality which made it most famous all over the world. --manik

Have removed temporal POV - "Most of the initial excitement over Bangalore recovering from its infrastructural woes has now died down. It is suspected that Bangalore will lose out to competition from Chennai and Hyderabad. Bangalore may be Bangalored is the phrase invented to described the above" Will the anon who added this please clarify? --Ambar 09:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

According to me No city will be able to overtake Bangalore in any aspect...i have seen almost all important cities and feel Bangalore is far more better than Hyderabad or any other.....in all aspects including intelligent manpower....u cant live without telgu in Hyderabad ....but Bangalore is really Cosmopolitan...lifestyle is really unbeleivable...Bangalore is Awesome...while walking on streets of Bangalore i felt that i was not in India...and ofcourse Bangalore Rocks....Bangalore is really awesome and fantastic indian city..... India Is Really Proud with Bangalore

Population

While not remotely an expert, I first read the entry on Bangalore recently, and was surprised to find it described as India's third largest city. Looking around at several web sources (including Wikipedia itself), it seems pretty clear that Mumbai, Delhi, and Calcutta/Kolkata are each over 15M (the first two close to 20M), while Bangalore is less than half that. The sources I have seen may not be 100% current or accurate, but they are not that far off. Actually, Chennai/Madras appears to be a bit larger, and Hyderabad just about the same as, Bangalore. But the last are within the likely inaccuracies of population estimates. --Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The statistic you are quoting from is accurate, but reflect "major urban agglomerations" (what they call "metropolitan areas" in the United States) rather than the actual size of the city. An agglomeration includes the city itself, plus surrounding suburbs and sattelite cities. However, if you check the statistic for the size of the city (the link is provided at the end of the sentence that says "third largest city.."), you'll find that Bangalore is larger than both Chennai and Calcutta. Also, the term "agglomeration" dosen't really hold much meaning for Bangalore, because this is an area where most of its people live within the city itself. I'm not sure what the statistics are on that, but if you check the population of Bangalore city vs. the population of Bangalore urban agglomeration, I think you'll find the city accounts for about 75-80% of the agglomeration population. Hope this helps. AreJay 16:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I put in a parenthetical noting urban areas. The size of a "city proper" is often a somewhat arbitrary political/historical issue that does not reflect real demographic and economic trends. For example, in a USAian context, we pretty universally (and correctly) speak of Minneapolis/St.Paul, even though they are legalistically separate jurisdictions. OTOH, Los Angeles is quite a ways down the list of "largest US cities" according to administrative boundaries, but in a everyday language sense is the "2nd largest US city" (and pushing at 1st largest). --Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:22, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What I'm trying to get at with my argument here is that unlike other cities in India which have satellite townships/suburbs, Bangalore dosen't. Therefore, within the context of your argument, the term "city" (and any statictic therein) clearly articulates the "real demographic and economic trends" of Bangalore. You are right when you note that in an American context, urban areas warrant a discussion. A discussion of Chicago, for example, and its suburbs correctly identifies the demographic trends of "Chicagoland" (city and suburbs) because of the number of people that live in the suburbs, but contribute, economically to the city of Chicago. Also consider the wide divergence of the population of Chicago as a city and Chicago as an urban area (2.841 million vs. 9.418 million). You will not find such a divergence from a Bangalore point of view (4.91 million vs. 6.06 million), simply because the people that identify demographically with the city of Bangalore live, and work within the city. The term "urban area" really has no meaning for this city. AreJay 14:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aaggh! What AreJay writes in "disagreement" with my point is actually exactly what I'm trying to include in the entry! Some urban areas (population density clusters) correspond with city limits pretty well, other urban areas do not so correspond. Bangalore City==Bangalore urban area; but Kolkata City!=Kolkata urban area. It's not a difference between US and India, a similar distinction occurs in most every country.

When we vernacularly talk about the size of various cities, more often than not we really mean "urban area." No one in the USA, for example would normally say that "LA is the 10th largest US city" without adding something like "in a technical sense, based on city borders." I dare say that no one in India would describe Kolkata as "India's seventh largest city" without similar caveats about "in a technical/legal sense." I'm not against including the stuff about population within the city borders, but it is deceptive to omit any reference to what most folks mean: urban areas. --Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let me be concrete here. I first read the Bangalore entry last week, not having much knowledge about Bangalore. In the first paragraph I read it was the "third largest city in India" with some considerable surprise. Sure, I thought, it's a major city, but what about Mumbai, Calcutta, Dheli, which I know are huge?! (some other cities I knew as major, but not clearly larger than Bangalore). After putting it in the back of my brain for a couple days, it just felt like soemthing wasn't right about what I read. Now I understand the technical/legal sense in which the claim was correct, but the overall impression initially given was certainly wrong. What was wrong is that normal people normally think of "metropolitan area" when they discuss the size of cities, whether or not the city borders correspond very well with a metropolitan area. The point need not belabored in the entry, but it should not be omitted entirely. --Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why you or anyone else would be "considerably surprised" to hear that Bangalore is India's third largest city. It was always a major city and is now the fastest growing city in the country and has been for sometime. I doubt you are going to elicit any element of surprise from anyone living in and familiar with India with that statement.

You also go on to say "..but what about Mumbai, Calcutta, Dheli, which I know are huge?!". Well, what about them??? Two out of the three cities you just mentioned are larger than Bangalore in terms of the population of the city and the urban area. There really is no contest between Delhi and Bangalore or Mumbai and Bangalore. Those two cities are many times larger than Bangalore. You also contend that "several" smaller cities have larger metropolitan areas. This is untrue. Out of all the cities in India that are smaller than Bangalore only Calcutta and Chennai have larger metropolitan areas. [1]. That's not exactly "several".

I don't know what all that "technical/legal sense" talk was all about. If I say Calcutta is the 4th largest city in India, I mean it is the 4th largest city in India! If I want to talk to the metropolitian area, I'd say Calcutta is the 3rd largest urban agglomeration in India! I don't see the reason for any rider or caveat there. It is only misleading if you don't understand the difference between a city and urban area.

All that aside, I will incorporate some sense of the variation in city vs. urban area in the edit I'm about to make. AreJay 23:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm perfectly happy with the way you phrased it now (almost the same as my first try, in fact). Remember that not all readers of Wikipedia are demographers, legislators, or urban planners. For 98% of readers, the distinction between "city" and "urban area" is fuzzy, and mostly accidental. If the state of CA USA were to change the boundaries of Los Angeles, or the state of West Bengal were to change the boundaries of Kolkata, each city could triple in size overnight without anyone moving in our out (and such administrative/jurisdicational changes are far from unheard of). The ordinary, predominant, sense of "city" that does not necessarily reflect jurisdicational boundaries is really very sensible. Moreover, the entries for a large majority of the cities listed in Wikipedia (at least from the limited sample I've checked), and certainly in Brittanica or the like, give both city and metro-area numbers for clarification. --Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Notice also that Wikipedia itself is far from as unambivalent about the meaning of city than AreJay proclaims is self-evident. The definition given in Wikipedia does not say: "A geographic region under common jurisdiction" but rather "A city is an urban area, differentiated from a town, village, or hamlet by size, population density, importance, or legal status." In fact, the first part of the definition claims, contra AreJay that a city is an urban area; the second clause lists legal status as just one of several possible differentiating factors. --Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Glad we're on some sort of agreement. I'd just like to point out though that you don't have to be a demographer, legislator or urban planner (I certainly don't claim to be any one of them) to know the distinction between a city and an urban area. As you correctly point out, most entries on Wikipedia give both city and metro-area numbers for clarification. You will find that the Bangalore article has always displayed statistics on city and metro-area numbers and clearly distinguished the difference.(see right hand side table on article page). They are updated as and when new numbers are available. AreJay 13:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no way Bangalore is bigger than Chennai or Calcutta, even including all its suburbs. No data official or otherwise would support this claim. Bangalore is a major city, but please do try to portray it bigger than it actually is.

City Planning

I feel that Bangalore's infrastructual problems should also be mentioned under City Planning - Probably just a sentence saying that Bangalore's city planning is poor. (Being a Bangalorean myself, I feel that shoddy planning has been done, and this is the reason why Bangalore is now losing its glitter.) Let's atleast mention a sentence about infra problems under city planning.

Feel free to add facts. I think Bangalore was never planned as a city of this magnitude. It was more or less a place of retreat. That's why, now they're finding it difficult to manage the growth. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) June 29, 2005 04:59 (UTC)

Astroturfing in external links (esp. myaarzoo.com)

Of late, the external links section has become a cesspool of astroturfing links. To the author of the mgroad blog, I think the pictures are nice, but it is just one of the thousands of personal image galleries around, I see no reason why it should be included in an article about Bangalore. Please discuss it here before you go and add it again. Also it wouldnt hurt to log in. Jbritto

Please stop vandalizing the page with blatant advertising for myaarzoo.com. Do you realize you are only spoiling the credibility of your site? Especially after you removed the entry for glogblog.com? Jbritto

Source of Language Statistics?

What is the source for the percentage of people? To me, it looks like the numbers have been arbitrarily changed by a few people to what suits them. Case in point: The edit 02:39, 5 August 2005 by 212.151.200.37 switched the percentages of people speaking Tamil and Telugu, without any explanation! Can someone cite a correct source and use those numbers here please? Thanks. Jbritto

Push to FA

Comeon Bangloreans, push your city towards Featured status! See Wikipedia:Wikiproject Indian cities. User:Nichalp/sg 07:43, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think its time Bangalore becomes a FA. With Nichalp involved, it should happen sooner than you can expand FAC. :-D Pamri • Talk 17:14, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Something is wrong with the population density number

Dividing the population in the info box by the area stated gives a density of over 16,500 rather than below 3,000 as listed. CalJW 00:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Officially Bengaluru

Someone needs to fix it. It's officialy Bengaluru now. http://www.centralchronicle.com/20051226/2612305.htm

No, it's not! The article says the name will come into effect November 1, 2006. AreJay 02:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

native name

Hi

Please wait till the name of Bangalore is officially changed - later this year. The native_name field in the infobox refers to the name as documented in government gazettes, which is Bangalore as of today both in Karnataka and Indian government gazattes. Once the name is official, the head title can change. Till then, it would be proper to refer to any other names only in the actual text of article.

Pizzadeliveryboy 17:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well,somebody had written that there is a significant population of minorities in bangalore.i beg to differ.please dont think i am communal or something.the number of muslims in bangalore is less compared to other parts of the state like gulbarga,coastal karnataka.i agree there is a population,but it exists in small groups in areas like tilaknagar,yarabnagar,cox town,commercail street,near south end.their areas are very small and relatively peaceful sompared to the muslim areas of mumbai. as far as christians are concerned,most of them are converts from tamil nadu,kerala who came here primarily as labourers and now have settled in slums areas in shivajinagar,hosur road,kengeri. so as i said,it isnt that significant as it is in case of hyderabad or mumbai.--Jayanthv86 19:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was comparing the proportion of minorities in Bangalore to those of Hyderabad or Mumbai. All that statement did was to assert that the city did have a significant proportion of minorities, which should come as no surprise anyway, given the population of the city. AreJay 21:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

well are jay,i have vsisted many cities and in a cosmopolitan city like bangalore,the evidence of large populace of minorites is not visible and atleast not evident in the culture and potrayal of the city.the areas i have listed are the only significant areas where minorities live,and those areas are very small and underdeveloped.and i am sorry you are misunderstood,my statement never asserts or is trying to assert that minority population is large in Bangalore.--Jayanthv86 19:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

veracity of edits

Can anyone please verify jayanthv's edits?

Pizzadeliveryboy 19:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Language spoken

On second thoughts, jayanthv86's addition of a Language Spoken clause in the infobox is a good idea. Any idea how this is done?

Pizzadeliveryboy 19:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Language was one of the items in the old infobox that existed over a year ago. That was ultimately removed because of the vagueries associated with the term, especially given Bangalore's cosmopolitan character and the cosmopolitan character of some of the other Indian cities. Not to mention the fact that in India, states are divided linguistically, not cities, so the term "Language of Bangalore" would really have no meaning.

AreJay 21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

edit reverses

re. the edit reverses in Bangalore:

'Bangalore has significant proportions of groups that would otherwise be considered minorities in India, including Muslims, Christians and Anglo-Indians.'

The section in bold should go since it kind of sounds parochial and abrasive. I think it kind of suggests that minorities need to continuously reminded that they are indeed minorities. just mentioning that specific communities also live in BLR should be enough.

The rest can remain. Please enlighten.

Pizzadeliveryboy 01:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

List getting longer

Adding every college/school in BLR will only make the section unreadable and unweildly after some time.

It would be a better idea to stick to some really well known (internationally, if possible) institutes like IISc in the article, and give a link to a seperate article on a list of colleges.

Any thoughts???!!!

Pizzadeliveryboy 16:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This also holds true for the list of companies and (until recently) the list of religious festivals...we need to stick with just 3 or 4 entries in each list. There's a difference between trying to accentuate a point and just overloading an idea with bajillion entries in each list. AreJay 16:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Who decides which of the names to top the list and which ones to be ommitted and referred in the specific article?????

Pizzadeliveryboy 17:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know? Perhaps someone who knows enough about the topic can provide the names of two or three of the most common/popular entries associated with that list. I'm kinda against "lists" per se given the nature of Wikipedia — people are going to keep coming and adding entries to the list and it just becomes hard to manage. AreJay 03:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

well are jay,i have vsisted many cities and in a cosmopolitan city like bangalore,the evidence of large populace of minorites is not visible and atleast not evident in the culture and potrayal of the city.the areas i have listed are the only significant areas where minorities live,and those areas are very small and underdeveloped.and i am sorry you are misunderstood,my statement never asserts or is trying to assert that minority population is large in Bangalore.--Jayanthv86 19:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jayanthv86 — according to Wikipedia, the definition of "cosmopolitan" is "cosmopolitan describes something influenced by many cultures from around the world". By definition therefore, does it not imply, if we are to refer to Bangalore as a cosmopolitan city, that the culture of the city is characterized by various strains of cultures including that of the majority culture? If the presence of other cultures in Bangalore is not evident, as you say, is the city cosmopolitan at all? Any thoughts? AreJay 03:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities are a good place to follow, if you have any doubts about style/content. --Pamri • Talk 05:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes,i agree with AreJay that the lists have gotten longer,and moreover the school's name was added by anon ip's.So,i have deleted it.Moreover i am a user against advertisements(see my user page).Mention of technical colleges is good.But mention of secondary schools and PU colleges will make this a mess.Hence,i have removed all school names.i repeat:No advertisements in Wikipedia.--Jayanthv86 18:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

City History

...silver coins of Roman emperors Augustus, Tiberius and Claudius have been excavated in and around present-day Bangalore, but have not revealed much about its contemporaneous inhabitants.

Can the person who added this clarify its validity and / or cite the source? I am not a historian, but for some reason doubt the validity of the statement. Are we saying there was contact between Ancient Rome and India? AreJay 17:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes please cite the source,or else you can find me with a spade digging the aldready battered Bangalore roads searching for rare ancient coins.--Jayanthv86 18:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That's hilarious! :-) AreJay 19:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ghettoization

A recent trend in the urban development of Bangalore is the ghettoization of the city's IT and knowledge economy workforce into self-contained gated communities. Moreover, a bulk of the IT and knowledge economy workers are not domiciled within the state of Karnataka. This has led to a general perception in state level political circles (who derive a bulk of their political power from rural Karnataka) that Bangalore is not a potential vote block during elections, and hence infrastructure development activities within the city do not carry high political weight.

Can someone who understand what this paragraph was intended to convey reword it so that it makes sense? I can't seem to understand what the idea behind the paragraph is. What is a "self-contained gated community"?? AreJay 14:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

City Taxi numbers

Would it amount to advertising if we gave the citi taxi phone numbers ? With so many unconnected citi taxi operators, (each mostly operating in one area of Bangalore) it may be worthwhile to give some numbers but then, the list may grow too long. Hmm... Wikicheng 05:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)