Talk:Renaming of cities in India

message: The page lists that there's a proposal to change Hyderabad's name to "Bhagyanagaram". Hyderabad was always called "Bhagyanagaram"; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.254 (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Hyderabad as Bhagyanagaram

message: One thing that has never been quite clear to me is: why do we use the names "Florence", "Moscow" and "Vienna" to describe cities which are called no such thing by their inhabitants, (not to mention countries, i.e., Germany/Deutschland) but we can no longer use "Bombay" to refer to "Mumbai" in English? Sylvain1972 02:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One reason could be that many people in India have English as their native language. So, when the official names of the cities are changed, so are also the names in Indian English. India can't however decide if British English, American English, Australian English etc. should follow the change in Indian English. It's up to the people (and in some aspects the governments) of the UK, the US, Australia and of other English speaking countries. Btw Москва is written Moskva with Latin letters. --Boivie 14:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I had not thought of that. Sylvain1972 17:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Another reason: because Italy, Russia, and Austria don't want us to, whereas India has asked nicely. 69.140.12.199 08:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that Italy, Russia and Austria wouldn't prefer that we didn't make up our own names for their cities/countries. Sylvain1972 15:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason is misplaced post-colonial guilt: it isn't a good reason. It might be more pertinent for Western Governments to reduce tariff barriers for former colonies or pay for educational schemes, instead of which we salvage our consciences by heeding every spurious name-change by corrupt (and sometimes ultra-nationalist) post-colonial elites. 'Bombay' was renamed to 'Mumbai' (an invented name with no historical resonance) by the Shiv Sena-controlled Municipality, who are fascists and responsible for several pogroms against Muslims and Sikhs in the city: there is no way we should be paying attention to any of their renamings. With Madras and Calcutta it is different: these have always been Chennai and Kolkata in Tamil and Bengali respectively - but not in Indian English. Consequently Indians who are not Bengali or Tamil speakers mostly continue to use the original names. I would also like to make the point that there is a difference between re-naming a street, city or country with an overtly Imperialist name (Cecil Square, Salisbury, Rhodesia springs to mind) and attacking perfectly innocent corruptions of local names as overtly 'Imperialist'. 'Calcutta' is derived from the Bengali 'Kalikata', 'Bombay' from the Portuguese 'Bom Bahia', and Madras frm the Portuguese/Tamil 'Madraspatnam'. There is nothing particularly English about any of these names, any more than there was about 'Chowringhee' in Calcutta, which for some incomprehensible reason was renamed Jawaharlal Nehru Road. Does anyone use this name? Do they hell! Other names are English, but simply descriptive and politically neutral (such as Marine Drive in Bombay, now renamed after the controversial Indian Nationalist Subhas Chandra Bose by, you've guessed it, the Shiv Sena). Finally, frequently in cases where the name does have overtly imperialist overtones, a popular indigenisation has already taken place, e.g. 'Veetee' for 'Victoria Terminus'. So why not let the names evolve naturally? Because politicians always want to make their mark, make speeches, be present at unveilings, and this is a cheap and easy way of looking active and 'radical' whilst doing precisely 0 for your constituents, who have better things to do than worry about new road signs (ask a taxi-driver to take you to "Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Marg" in Bombay and you'll soon see what I mean). In the West we are terrified of accusations of post-colonial arrogance, so we never interrogate this issue in the way we should. Sikandarji 21:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "It's absolutely clear that the names were "colonial" seeing as the place was a colony, how much more colonial could it get." well, that's a circular argument if ever I heard one. By that definition ALL Indian place-names are "colonial", but clearly that is not the case. A perfectly good example has been given of comparable mis-spellings in a country which was never colonised, which is all the evidence that is needed to show that this is not a peculiarly colonial phenomenon. As for legal judgments - since when have municipalities had the power to legislate on English language usage? Perhaps they're the ones who need some references. It's not as if the British went around calling everywhere "Piccadilly Circus" (as they often did in Africa). There are a very few names of this type, mostly in Pakistan (Abbottabad, Lyallpur) but even in this they were just following the practice of the Mughals. There is nothing "colonial" about Madras, Bombay or Calcutta. These are cities which did not even exist before the British presence, so they cannot be said to have been "renamed", and in any case these names are quite plainly not English - no-one ever 'decided' upon them at all, they evolved. That's the point.Sikandarji 12:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Firenze, Mockba and Wien

message: What do you mean 'starting in 2005'?
Since when was it a only a controversy from that year and why?
hydkat 07:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to this, the lead section of this article semms to suggest that the renaming started in 2005. However, for the big examples given at the end of the lead 1995, 1996 and 2001 are the dates given in their atricles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.199.103.77 (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'starting in 2005'? 

message: Quoth the article: 
For example, Mumbai's Victoria Terminus railway station has been renamed Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus, for reasons which to many remain obscure, given the tenuous connection between this 17th century Maratha warrior and the coming of the railways to India.
The sentence sort of implies that the reasons for changing the name period are obscure, but  I don't think the reason that you'd want to take Queen Victoria's name off of things would be all the obscure, honestly.   Perhaps is this more in line with the intention?
For example, Mumbai's Victoria Terminus railway station has been renamed Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus.  The reasons behind the new name chosen remain obscure to many, given the tenuous connection between this 17th century Maratha warrior and the coming of the railways to India.
Even so, the sentence seems a bit cantankerously POV.  Must every railway station in the world be named after someone railway-related?  Is the urge to name prominent public buildings after national heroes that mystifying? --Jfruh (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Obscure"? 

message: When was Bombay and Calcutta renamed?  I don't see the information in this article nor in the Mumbai article.  It should be made more prominent.  --Ben Houston 22:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for more information

message: "Furthermore the politics of some of these name changes are questionable, those in Bombay being in response to the demands of the Hindu Nationalist Shiv Sena party. 'Mumbai' is probably derived from the temple of Mumba-Devi in Bombay, and although there is no evidence that it was the name of a settlement before the arrival of the Portuguese, who called it Boa Baía (good bay), it has long been the name of the city in Marathi and Gujarati, whilst Hindi-speakers called it Bambai.[1] However, some argue that as the renaming was part of the Shiv Sena's Bhumiputra (son of the soil) policy, it is an attempt to erase evidence of the city's cosmopolitanism and multi-lingual character.[2]" Loaded with POV. Allegations stated as fact.--Babub→Talk 14:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the assumption that the politics of Hindu nationalism are questionable? "Furthermore the politics of some of these name changes are questionable" Wikipedia is not a propaganda site. You don't tell the readers what is questionable, notable etc. Let them decide.--Babub→Talk 12:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let them decide, without giving them any indication of the issue they're deciding. Propaganda is not propaganda, I guess. 208.111.222.96 00:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I have tagged this claim as dubious, on the grounds that it conflicts with the well-sourced statement on featured article Mumbai. Could someone with understanding of the subject reconcile the two please. DWaterson 22:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: José Pedro Machado's Dicionário Onomástico Etimológico da Língua Portuguesa, one of the leading sources on onomastics and etimology in Portuguese, records the origin of the Portuguese toponym Bombaim as being the nema for the goddess Mumba (references can be found at the Mumbai article) and seems to reject the "Bom Bahia" alternative (which, by the way, doesn't make any sense whatsoever if you speak Portuguese). Gabbhh 21:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Boa Bahía"

message: Whatever is written about Bangalore under the Controversy sub-heading has no real relevance to a Controversy.deejaylobo 17:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: Transliterations are not misspellings, and that other languages have different names for the same place is not indicative of one's being right. POV zzz 208.111.222.96 00:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transliterations 

message: the first paragraph is misleading, because the controversy is not to change the names how they are called in english but to change the way they're called in the indian languages wich is the way they are called in english--Andres rojas22 18:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  controversy section tag pov 

message: A Scotsman, I do not mind Edinburgh, being Edimburgo in Italian and Spanish, Edinborg in Icelandic, Edinburgas in Lithuanian. likewise the Italians do not seem to mind their cities being known by English names, eg. Leghorn, Livorno; Florence, Firenze; Naples, Napoli etc. Why is it that there is such a problem with people referring to Bombay, Calcutta and Madras by their accepted and common names in the English language? By all means the use of the local vernacular name should be used when speaking the language, but not in English.
When I go to the city in Sweden, I do not go to Goteborg, I go to Gothenburg. Brendandh 21:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the earlier thread about this, above. Sylvain1972 14:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Please explain this to our Indian politicians, not us ---->>> Kensplanet (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Chinese changed the name of Peking to Beijing. Ceylon became Sri Lanka. Burma became Myanmar. How come people don't have issues with that? I don't think the people of India care what somewhat in Iceland or Lithuania refers to - they merely changed the official name. In French, London is Londres, in Danish - India is Inde. You are free to call it whatever you want in your country - just as Indian should be free to call it whatever they want in theirs. DemolitionMan (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the correct Danish term for "India" is "Indien". Related words: "an Indian" = "en inder" (plural: "indere"); "Indian" (adjective) = "indisk") 83.89.16.138 (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Well the Indians have their own languages and they can call their cities whatever they want in their language.  The issue is, when they try to use post colonial guilt to try to push their language and culture on the rest of us English speakers who had little to nothing to do with their colonialism.  BTW, I'm typing from a place nearby Saint Paul, MN, which would be San Pablo in Mexico, Sankt Paul in Dutch and Sao Paulo in Portuguese (Brazil be damned, hehe).  Keep the local names in the local languages and let the international speakers name it whatever they want.   They're named the names they have in the respective languages because it's hard for non-native speakers to pronounce the names of those towns.ColdRedRain (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: U are absolutely right.</br>I think in English, even Sao Paulo in Brazil should be known as St. Paul in English. The Brazilian Govt. should allow it. All countries should allow other international speakers from other countries to name it whatever they want. This will also increase freindship and mutual understanding between cultures. ====== Kensplanet (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as long as Saint Paul, Brazil gets to share its weather along with its name with Saint Paul, Minnesota.  It's freezing up here. 
ColdRedRain (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indians have their own languages and English is one of them - it is an official language of the State of India. How come there were no reservations when Peking became Beijing? And Indians are definitely not gonna care about feelings of post-colonial guilt. The official names should of course be of India's choosing. DemolitionMan (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I am from Bombay and shall continue referring to it as Bombay. Same for Bangalore or Madras. Foreigners are encouraged to do the same. (122.169.79.202 (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that - do us a favour and write to the BBC tell them the same. I have to say, although the subject was tragic, it was faintly absurd to see a BBC interviewer talking to the Indian former head of anti-terrorist operations about the terrorist attack today, when the BBC presenter insisted on referring to his city as Mumbai, whilst the senior Indian police official consistently used Bombay in his response. Lordrosemount (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sad thing is this renaming of everywhere, has just created confusion and damaged the economy. There is enough Bureaucracy in India already without adding on this needless burden / handicap. Dual naming would have solved all that. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Plain silly

message: I think this article should be renamed Renaming of cities in India. In its present form it is a factually inaccurate article, appears to have been more of an attempt at POV pushing than a legitimate article. The very first sentence is factually inaccurate The Indian renaming controversy is a result of a movement, it is not any "movement", and it is not "controversy". The opposition to the renaming is depicted as controversy. What exactly the definition of "controversy"? There is no need to have an article like this under the present name solely to push a political agenda. But by moving to the proposed tile, more information about renaming can be included, not only the opposition. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title concerns 

message: To move this back to Indian renaming controversy.
===Support===
===Oppose===
# Per Otolemur crassicaudatus in title concerns. There's a serious concern of NPOV vios as it is. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move request 

message: # Per Otolemur crassicaudatus in title concerns. There's a serious concern of NPOV vios as it is. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: # "Madras to Chennai" is given as an example of European to Indian renaming. According to our article, the names are both derived from small towns or villages which were part of the early city development.
# "Bombay to Mumbai" is given as an example of "successful" renaming - while the West seems to have adopted it, I have heard a reporter remark "Mumbai - or Bombay as the locals call it".  Any furthre RS about this? 
:Rich Farmbrough, 19:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Two queries

message: Given that our article on that reasonably well known city is puzzlingly located at Kozhikode, I'd think it should be listed here?  john k (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calicut? 

message: Two contrasting examples:   Calcutta to Kolkata.    This is obviously the same word spelled differently.  Is a Kampground really different to a Campground ?    Madras to Chennai.   This is obviously a completely different word.Eregli bob (talk) 08:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is changing the spelling the same as renaming ? 

message: Is there an article here on wikipedia that goes in depth about the renaming of colonially named places by their indigenous inhabitants? Does anyone know the name of the larger movement this is a part of? Is there some kind of overarching source of information about this? Username policy1211 (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Part of a larger movement

message: This article is fine as it is, but other than a few examples of name changes it should not include an extensive list. That should be reserved for List of renamed places in India. There is also a list at List of city name changes. This is crazy. One list would cut down a lot on administration and make the whole process of cataloguing more efficient. In addition we should think of formatting the list in a way that would lend itself to downloading onto a spreadsheet. BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging with other articles and Spreadsheet capability required

message: Why are there two lists? Are they all "Notable city names that were officially changed by legislation after independence" as the text explains? Or only the first group? Rmhermen (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Rmhermen I agree, it's wierd having two lists describing the same thing. I propose to merge them. -- DaxServer (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: City list

message: what reason that the Indian goverment change the name of the cities, railway stations and public places of the India 122.176.44.167 (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  what reason for changing the names of cities and stations in india.