Talk:Kerala/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Kerala. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Matrilineal system was widespread

It's really misleading to say only Nairs were matrilineal in Kerala society along with muslims in Malabar(also in Lakshadweep). In fact, majority of the castes were/are matrilineal in Malabar, including Payyannor Namboothiris. In fact, matrilineality is not even unique to Kerala society in South India. Tuluvas were also matrilineal. And terming all Tiyyas as patriarchal is totally wrong as many of them were matrilineal(I suppose even in South Kerala).

Manjunatha (16 Mar 2006)

While the idea was alright, the line Many Keralites (especially the Hindus and Muslims of Malabar) follow a traditional matrilineal system known as marumakkatayam. now gives the impression that all Hindus, or all Hindus of Malabar, practice matrilinear system. Neither is right. I am going to change it to 'some Hindus'. This is will make 'especially' out of place, so I removing that too. If anyone changes this again, please make sure that the old effect does not come back. Tintin (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Tintin. Saravask 22:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably, sentence should be rephrased or a new section should be added to give the present and past situation. I suppose, matrilineality is mostly dying out. Malabar in the article could be misleading. It should be, many Hindus throughout Kerala practiced matrilineal system. I suppose, historians even talk about matrilineal system in Travancore.

Manjunatha (21 Mar 2006)

We did have some discussion on how to phrase this. Can you also take a look at Talk:Kerala/Archive01#Matrilineality Tintin (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Probably, article meant only Muslims of Malabar :-).

Manjunatha (21 Mar 2006)

Though it may not be obvious, the comma in Many Keralites (some Hindus, and the Muslims of Malabar) was intended to seperate Muslims of Malabar and the Hindus :-) Or should we change it to mention Muslims of Malabar first ? Tintin (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

A note of discontent on Proto-Tamils

I'm not sure of how many of you aware of Tulu people and their culture. Were there no studies dealing with Malayalee-Tulu connection? I'm from Mangalore and for me Tulu, Malayalee cultural connection is striking. Be it matrilineal system, spirit worship(Theyyam in Malabar and Nema in Tulu Nadu).

Probably, because of linguistic studies it's felt that Malayalees were infact Tamils before. However, we have to see that Tulu or Proto-Tulu branches out of South Dravidian language along with Proto-Tamil-Kannada(supposed to Proto-Tamil here). Please find the reference here. In my opinion a big chunk of Malabar Malayalees might have Proto-Tulu origins. Probably, Proto-Tamil origins dominates in South(As far as I know, Theyyam is restricted to Malabar region).

Well, it's bit naive to think Malayalees spoke Tamil before and developed their own language. India's linguistic transitions were always complex. Tamilakam need not to have ruled over only Tamil regions. People, might have adopted Tamil because of that. Don't we know how much Astro-Asiatic and Dravidian languages got replaced elsewhere in India?

Of course, if a linguist proves that Dravidian languages in fact originated in the region of Tamil Nadu, none of my words make any sense. At present, it still has Northeren origins. Kerala might not have been inhabited until neolithic times but that was not the case with Karnataka and Tulu Nadu.

PS: A present genetic study(Sengupta et al.) says Dravidian languages might have their origins in South-West of India and that is again coastal Karnataka, including Tulu Nadu.

Manjunatha (21 Mar 2006)

regarding the picture of a politician in the article

Please remove that picture from the article as it seriosly violates the neutral point of view of the article Bharatveer 08:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does it ? And why is he labelled a politician in the picture ? He could be just anybody. Tintin (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Because the same picture in the Commons was labeled as such; but I removed "politician" anyway. Saravask 23:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

well. incidentally; the first pic was m a Baby of cpim now it is cm oommen chandy of cong. either way, i don't get the point in using politicians as models for illustrasting how a mund is worn; if kerala article must contain oc's photo, why should it say, "pic of a man from kerala". also no point in switching from pic to pic to make a political point; ie which poitician more adequately represents the common man (in this particular case of two, forgive me, neither!). i don't see the need for the pic at all. -Pournami 10:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Couldn't recognise Baby though I am familiar with the name. Been away from Kerala for too long, I guess :-( Tintin (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering, I wasn't the one who originally put that image in. I agree (now that I've found out who that man was) we should find an image of a non-political figure. Saravask 22:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The Baby pic was put in the article by me. When User:Robin klein asked why there is no pic of Kerala dresses, I searched the commons and that was the only pic I could get. --Raghu 14:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem — didn't mean to assign any blame, as I'm sure it was just an accident. :-) Saravask 02:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that you are using the picture of Sri.Oomen Chandy , either label him properly as Hon.Chief Minister of Kerala or remove the picture altogether Bharatveer 05:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Got a pic of friend wearing mundu. Let me use that. Nowdays, is politician are the one only using mundu in Kerala:) Georsha 07:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Kerala's Cuisine = Pachakam???

Surely that is incorrect.. Can i remove that?? Bharatveer 06:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Pachakam is Malayalam for 'cooking' or 'cookery' and the usage isn't specific to Kerala cuisine. So I guess Bharatveeer is right that it is wrong the way it currently appears in the article. Tintin (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am going to remove it now Bharatveer 08:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed idli from the kerala cuisine as it is not an ethnic malayalee dish. also the qualifier spicy to sadhya as there are many dishes which does not come under the same.Sree nath

Malayalam Calendar

I think it should be Malayalam calendar instead of Malayali Calendar. Bharatveer 10:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I support this. Though logicaly it would seem that Malayali calendar is better, that is not how the common usage is. A simple google search will show this.--Raghu 14:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

After looking around, I have no problem with restoring the original name ("Malayalam calandar"). Saravask 02:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Image gallery deletion

Pl join the discussion at [Articles_for_deletion/Kerala_image_gallery] on deleting the image gallery attached to kerala Pratheepps

Dravidian or other ethic groups

I think that the sentence [Virtually all of Kerala's 3.18 crore (31.8 million)[47] people are of Malayali Dravidian ethnicity.] should be remoulded.

Kerala society has arguably major Indo-Aryan elements in it including infusion of Indo-Aryan blood in a not-so-insignificant way and it is this fact that makes it possible to distinguish Malayalees from the Tamilians. It is also true in the case of Malayalam language which has 70 per cent infusion of Sankrit in it. Hence i think it is not an anomaly to think that the Malayalis have at least 30 per cent of Indo-Aryan blood in them.

So what i am driving at is the enthnic and racial classification of Malayalis is very difficult to titrate. So wouldnt it be better to tread through the topic rather delicately and desist from sweeping statements that would only satisfy the taste of a particular ethnocentric agrument.

User:Maabahuka 12:30 April 4, 2006

Be WP:BOLD and make any necessary changes. Saravask 07:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how my friend Maabahuka came to the conclusion of 30% Indo -Aryan blood in Malayalis. As DNA studies have proved the B$hitness of The Aryan Invasion Theory ; the whole references to it should preferably be removed Bharatveer 08:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Bharatveer please go through what i have written carefully in the talk page. I am not subscribing to The Aryan Invsion Theory but i am bringing to your kind notice that there was a peaceful migration of Aryan population into Kerala (No historian is denying this fact). So why are you so reluctant to accomodate what even the historians have recorded.

User:Maabahuka 2:10 April 4, 2006.

my dear friend Maabahuka , you are just clinging on to the Aryan migration Theory (As per scholars, it is a modified version of AIT ). You should understand that In Indic culture , Arya was just a word literally meaning "Noble". All other racial connotations ascribed to it is the creation of european scholars of nineteenth century. Bharatveer 09:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What is so special ...I mean.. unique in Indo-Aryan blood? Please let us know male genetic lineages that are unique to Indo-Aryans(whoever they may be) but not found in Tamils. Please let us know the unique Tamil genetic male lineages that are not observed in Indo-Aryans. Kind enough to understand that Indian caste male and female genetic lineages derived from the same gene pool.Except for few historical West Asian and European lineages, Indian lineages make distinct set of Y-chromosomes when compared to Western European(Indians lack R1b and E3b) or North-Eastern European ( I) lineages.

Indo-Aryan and Dravidian must remain linguistic identities. Please do not bring bad blood into it.

Here ethnicity must been linguistically homogenous group. I have reservations about Proto-Tamils here because I feel majority Malayalees could have been Proto-Tuluvas, as Tulu not only branched from Proto-South Dravidian the earliest but also Tulu and Malayalee cultures resemble each other.

Manjunatha (11 Apr 2006)

Overlooked and understated semitic influence

True it cannot be said that Kerala is solely Dravidian, however there is not much substance in an Aryan claim. There is a tendency for people to attribute Aryan descent for even slightly pale skin colour, such correlations are illusory.

The diversity in the people of kerala comes becomes of its unique position of being the centre of the pepper trade between the mediterranean world and the east, in ancient times, spanning for over three millennia.

Through this long spice trade, Kerala has had the settlements of Levantine Jews and Jewish-christians from Israel and around the mediterranean world. It also had extensive settlements of Arabs in the Malabar coast. Kerala indeed has a diversity of people in terms of racial origins but that is because of its overlooked and understated long semitic influence, which many people try hard to deny.

Besides, it is the syntactic structures of a language that determines its linguistic influence and language family. The syntactic structures Of Malayalam language is that of ancient tamil. Languages might Include loan words from any language and to any extent, still retaining its syntactic structures.

The earliest reference of brahmins in the malabar coast comes only from the 8th century CE, while mediterranean coins and other objects from the mediterranean world from several centuries earlier have been found in kerala.

(see this article from south Indian newspaper 'The Hindu':

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2104/coins.html

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mag/2003/08/17/stories/2003081700370800.htm )

The studies of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza in population genetics stresses the importance of studying genetic admixture and influence in terms of the proportion of world population. It is important to keep in mind that in population genetics, the estimated popualtion of the entire ancient world over two thousand years ago were few millions and not billions as today, while many nations and linguistic groups had populations in few thousands. Keeping that in mind one could realize the significant impact of the continious settlement and comixture of thousands of mediterranean-semitic people in the malabar coast. Robin klein 08:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

So what do you want us to do to the article? Saravask 19:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Saravask,

You asked what is to be done about semitic influence to the article kerala, just look at it with NPOV and you will know what is to be done, if people are not caught up in the web of nationalism.

the above author User:Maabahuka seems to imply that people in kerala looks different from the people in tamil nadu despite both being of largely dravidian descent, because kerala has a high comixture of aryan- sanskrit (brahmin) etc.

the medieval Cholas circe 840 CE invited the brahminical families like parthasarathy, chakravarthy (common bengali and tamil brahmin names) in the 9th century. They are now the Iyers and Iyengars. So there is a significant presence of brahmin-aryan influence (that is if you consider bengal as aryan which is another contention) in tamil nadu and that too more so than that of kerala. so the explanation that kerala people look different from tamil nadu people because of aryan-brahmin influence is inaccurate. because if both of them have brahminical influence they both should look similar, at least going by the premise of User:Maabahuka.

However the premise of User:Maabahuka fails to explain as to why kerala in the malabar coast is so diverse than the rest of south India. The explanation based on the fact of black pepper trade and ancient navigation between the mediterranean world and the malabar coast even a millenniuum before 9th century CE as mentioned in the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea explains quite logically why the malabar coast which saw trade with the mediterranean world for thousands of years and continious mediterranean-semitic influence of nasranis, cochini malabari yehuden, yehuda knanaya nasranis, mapilla, etc is indeed so amazingly diverse and distinct from the rest of south india. Robin klein 03:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Could people (Maabahuka, Robin klein, Bharatveer) provide sources for their claims? I don't have an opinion on this, since I don't know how numerous or influential Indo-Aryans or Jews were in Kerala. Saravask 02:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Saravask,

The Cochin Jews or Malabari Yehuden are not the only source of semitic influence in kerala. The Nasranis are 5 million (according to the Indian census report of 2004) people in kerala (many of whom are descendants of levantine Jews and also local converts) thanks to the long pepper trade. Also the knanaya people belong to the same group of jews as the cochin jews called as Meyuhassim. The Knanaya are Jewish people who follow the christ, in kerala their population is over a quarter of a million. (according to the census report). The other source of semitic influence are the numerous Arabs that also settled and mixed with the local people in course of the pepper trade between the malabar coast and the mediterranean world. Combining the Nasranis, Cochin Jews, Knanaya and mapillas the total semitic-mediterranean influence today in kerala is in millions. Yet you have dismissed it as 30,000 by only taking the cochin jews. Also you assumed that Kerala's people are 25% aryan without any source. Robin klein 03:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Semitic influence... understated and over looked ....??? What next ?? my friend?? Bharatveer 09:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That's true Robin Klein, Kerala is not solely Dravidian nor is its Semitic influence to be underplayed. But i think Maabahukka has made a pertinent point there. He has tried to acknowledge Kerala's Aryan influence without downplaying its predominantly Dravidian essence.

User: Mist_n_legend April 4, 2006

pls see Aryan_race Bharatveer

The problem here is you people want to create stereotypical Aryans and Dravidians. They never existed in Indian society. Even if the big chunk of Malabarees are light skinned that hardly means the founding population of light skinned people must be proportionate. Please understand that skin colour is one of the highly selected traits. Also, sexual selection plays a major role in it. So even with negligible light skinned population the selected traits could spread rapidly. To understand the Semitic or Arab influence in Malabar population we have to consider the major Y-chromosome Haplogroups in those populations and observe their presence in Malabar population. I am not sure any studies have been done in this regard. I suppose two of the major haplogroups of Arabs are J and E. However J is a major Haplogroup of South Indians(including Tamils), therefore, we have to observe occurrence of E. However, I'm not sure of any such studies. For the time being we should wait for further studies. But just because Malabarees are relatively lighter skinned should not be the criteria for any conclusions. Also, admixture analysis based on non-neutral markers are still controversial. So we should concentrate on the studies based on Y-chromosome lineages(or descent from the person carrying a particular muation).

Manjunatha (11 Apr 2006)

The problem is the whole 'circular' argument going on about the NON EXISTENT ARYAN AND DRAVIDAN RACES.Even the proponents of the AIT theory now say that the "aryan dravidian " difference is not a Skin colour issue any more; they say it is a case of two different languages/ culture issue.Just wait for some more years for this dumb theory to go as well Bharatveer 17:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Transliteration

കേരളം is written as Kēraḷaṁ. What is the standard used for this transliteration? The letter 'r' does not really represent a ര properly unless there is a separate symbol or letter for റ. --Grammatical error 17:36, 6 April 2006

(UTC)

Politics

"Keralites, compared with most other Indians, are keen participants in the political process." This sentence have no factual basis and should be removed Bharatveer 18:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Some examples: [1]; [2]; [3]; [4]. Saravask 19:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Changed Proto-Tamils to Proto-South Dravidian

According to a latest study, Proto Dravidian language was spoken first around Godavari basin. Therefore, the regions of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka were speaking Dravidian languages before the region of Tamil Nadu. Tulu, Kannada, Tamil and Malayalam are part of South Dravidian-I(Telugu is part of South Dravidian-II). So when it comes to "Proto", we are not sure, the identity should be of Tamils. I have changed it to more NPOV Proto-South Dravidian. Please read this article discussing how the archaic nature of modern Tamil has led to its political construction of being the oldest.

Manjunatha (18 Apr 2006)

The largest city in Kerala

The following is copied from Talk:Thiruvananthapuram, as I believe it deserves wider attention. thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 13:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about the cities of Thiruvananthapuram and Kochi. You must have noticed the areas of Trivandrum and Kochi. TVM is 184 sq KM and Cochin is 87.5 sq Km. These are considered as the city area. In this city area TVM is having around 8.5 lakhs of population and Kochi is 6 lakhs. Some guys must have added the population of the near by municipalities with Kochi. If we do the same thing with TVM, it will have around 2.5 million populations

I will post the detailed information about the population in these two districts soon.

Also you must have noticed contradictory things in the cochin site Area 87.5 km² ,Density 10840/km² then how come a population of 1,660,000 is possible?

So we must help this site to show the truths, not as some promotions

Thanks,
Sathya

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sathyalal (talk • contribs) 07:06, 20 April 2006.

Kochi does indeed have a population of 1.66 million as stated by the Kochi article and as referenced here, here and here. This is as per the Greater cochin census conducted in 2001. Also, according to [5], Kochi ranks as the 24th biggest metropolis in India, while Thiruvananthupuram is at 42. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}

But still Trivandrum is the biggest corporation in Kerala--Altruist 09:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Either way, the density of population is a problem to be fixed. http://www.censusindia.net/results/miilion_plus.html has the population of Kochi as 1,355,406 and looks fairly authoritative. Tintin (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

See this http://cyberjournalist.org.in/towns.html .Trivandrum indeed is the biggest corporation in Kerala. And this population as on 1991 http://www.kerala.gov.in/dept_municipal/details.htm --Altruist 10:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the density of population given is only an aggregate figure. Anyhow, I do not think the website cyberjournalist.org figures as a reliable source as per WP:RS. thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}

But the Kerala Govt site is reliable.--Altruist 15:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No it is not. I've found many hokey and blatantly incorrect statements on that site (I can give specific examples if needed), which is why I tried to rely mostly on research papers from the Kerala Research Programme on Local Level Development. On the other hand, Tintin's www.censusindia.net data is far more authoritative, and I haven't found any inaccuracies with it. Get a better source. Saravask 22:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Kochi corporation(city area) alone has got around 6 lakhs and some polititians carefully manipulated in some records by adding Thrippunithura,Kalamassery, Fort Kochi and Alway population to the same

If you do the same thing with TVM its population will be around 2.5 million. You have to understand the fact that there is more continuity of (except Varkala) the city to its municipal towns than that of Kochi with its muncipalities like Alway

So if we add just two municipalities(not even attingal) of TVM with corporation , population will be more than what cochin is projecting with 4 muncipal towns(1.6 million). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sathyalal (talk • contribs)

User:Sathyalal, pleaase understand that we are not trying to advertise Kochi in any way, as you say. We are only trying to protect the integrity of wikipedia. Most disputed changes and claims are added to wikiepdia articles only after a discussion, when a concensus is reached regarding the issue.
Now regarding the kochi and tvm issue, I would like to provide as reference the website of the urban developement ministry of India. The Urban anglomeration population of a city is calculated by considerig the population of the city as well as that of nearby areas. However, the U/A of TVM, even adding nearby areas attingal, neyyattinkara, etc (which in my knowledge is very far away from TVM too) do not figure in the list (while Kochi is at 20), contrary to your claims on my talk page. I hope you and your band of sock puppeteers see the light at least now. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 11:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is said there abt Corporation population. --Altruist 14:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC) .And I have given u links stating TVM is the biggest corporation.

References in support of Cochin are more convincing. No point arguing excessively and editing without consensus. --Raghu 15:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sathyalal Guys should understand, neyyattinkara is having more population than thrippunithura, the proposed technocity area is nearear to attingal than TVM. Also imagine a situation where TVM population does not count technopark population, at the same time Cochin count Alway population. Alas! Think guys, who needs light? I have pointed how absurdly the calculation is made with specified pop dencity. I think, this has to do nothing with convincing.They do not want to get convinced.

The guys who removed the state capital from the map, added their city ref in TVM site and removed so many facts from TVM site is still trying to pretend. They do not want to believe Kerala gov site http://www.kerala.gov.in/dept_municipal/details.htm or http://www.cyberjournalist.org.in/towns.html

We can understand the sick minds of people who removed tvm from India map. Please see what the national sites(railways &airports) say

FACILITIES OF TOP CITIES http://www.southernrailway.org/city/facility.asp, they consider only tvm from the state.

CHENNAI ,MUMBAI ,PUNE ,NEW DELHI ,HYDERABAD ,KOLKATA ,BANGLORE ,TRIVANDRUM

Also look at http://www.airportsindia.org.in/aai/airports-frame.htm

First of all, understand that wikipedia is not a soapbox (WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox) like http://skyscrapercity.com from where all of you suddenly came. (As is obvious on browsing the member list of the forum)

Also, the city was not removed from the map by anyone. The original designer of the map, which is from wikipedia commons by the way, had not included the city in it. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 02:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Forget the soap box thingy, people are going to dispute you vociferously, if you provoke them at the level you did. And dont trash other free forums in the web. Doesn't matter where we, who are disputing you, got the message from (and I did not get it from SSC, though I visit that site), but we came to know this whole charade that you seem to be orchestrating and it is not going to go unchallenged, for wikipedia is used as a reference by a lot of people and what you are trying to promote subtly is an untruthHarig 02:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Deepu, cool down. Got who you are and got why you are not convinced about the fact(How a city with 60 members in the corporation is smaller than that of 86)you guys only carefully manipulating the facts. Who has updated the map to the site? Do not try to fool the people. All political map(gov approved) includes the capital and also all the gov sites are having Thiruvananthapuram with more prominence( I have posted railways/ airports). I have to say the same thing. This is not a soap box, but fact box. So we will all put the facts there. Whatever it be. Other wise no body is gaining. Only the state is loosing. So be realistic. We can put all the facts there, what I say is the mix from all the sources.

Got who I am? And you know why I amn't convinced? Man! This is so ridiculous.

- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 10:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)~

Dear Deepu,you are not conviced because you are from kochi and promoting the place(from your page).But nothing wrong in promoting it.

I was willing to leave this issue, if justice was in your side. But fact is with me.The link you provided, it is the population of Urban Agglomeration. What we are debating is the city. ie 'largest city' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sathyalal (talk • contribs)

Maybe You can modify the sentence as "Kochi is the largest city in terms of Population ".That would remove the ambiguity of the sentence Bharatveer 14:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this is not going to stop. Maybe in the infobox and places were it says largest city we can say it is Kochi and add one line that Trivandrum, the state capial is the state's largest corporation. --Raghu 16:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've briefly skimmed through the above text, and as a longtime city-related editor this is how I would define as "largest" city.

Largest by way of population (not area or density)
City area, not the urban agglomeration (metropolitan area) – in simple words, the lower figure of the two.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 18:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Because of the fact that there is a difference between the largest city and largest urban agglomeration in Kerala, both should be appropriately represented. I have added a conditional variable in template Infobox State IN to accomodate largest urban area. Also, the convention thus far on Wikipedia is to reference World Gazetteer (http://www.worldgazetteer.com) for references to city/UA populations since the website also provides calculated 2006 figures, while the Indian census figures are only as of 2001. AreJay 19:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Kochi is the largest city in Kerala

Trivandrum corporation boundaries are regularly expanded to reach 194 sqkm, while Kochi stays at 94 sqkm for decades. This is only a technical limit. This shows that many areas inside Trivandrum corporation are not urban areas. This is reflected in the population density of Tvm corporation being 3500/sqkm while that of Kochi is 6500/sqkm. Census machinery knows this manipulation.

Moreover, to expand Corporation PANCHAYATS are added to it. This means they have not even become MUNICIPALITIES. How can villages be added to a city. Tripunitra, Kalamassery, Trikkakkara and Eloor are municipal with population wise. To avoid increase in taxes the latter two named as "town panchayats". This means Kochi has hardly any panchayats on its large boundary. (Every time corporation boundaries are expanded, vested interests scuttle it by screaming out against increase in taxes. Trikkakkara panchayat (which include realty pie of Kakkanad)today have more skyscrapers than the whole of Trivandrum city. Still they want to remain a panchayats to evade taxes, ie, some vested interests think that they must get all the facilities of urban area without paying taxes.)

This is why Kochi is the largest city and rightly counted so by census. Under JNNURM, Kochi is the ONLY city to be selected under million plus category from Kerala. Trivandrum is selected for its capital status. This is clearly stated by Kerala Local Admin. Dept. How else did the largest "city" have such a low population density and smaller urban agglomeration around it ??

So there is a capital fudging done to make Trivandrum the largest corporation.

Summary : Kochi is the largest city of Kerala. Trivandrum is the largest municipal corporation of Kerala.

- User:Alniko aka Nik aka Nikolas

Dear Alniko aka Nik aka Nikolas,

Wikipedia is a fact box. It is an encyclopedia. I understood your arguments. Kochi is larger than Thiruvananthapuram when the UA (Urban Agglomeration) is considered.

The larger city is defined by the area and population (not by the density).

Please look at the facts below :
Total Area of Trivandrum city : 194 sq.km
Total Area of Kochi city : 94 sq.km
Population of Trivandrum city : 745,000
Population of Kochi city : 650,000

Remember, these statitics are about the so-called CITY, defined by the Government of Kerala. The city is being administered by the Corporation. You can see these facts about Kochi in the city site. It was a move by the GoK, in 1999, to submit the UA details of Kochi to the Census of India, to claim for the funds from the Central Government, which will be only given to million plus cities.

Whether villages are added to the Tvm city or not, it was done by the Government of Kerala, and hence we had to reflect that accordingly. And thus technically, the city is 194 sq.km. big.
As long as, this is not done with city of Kochi, we cannot reflect that here.

The JNURM fund is for all million plus cities and UAs in India; not only for the cities alone. And regarding your statement, " there is a capital fudging done to make Trivandrum the largest corporation. "; whether this is correct or not, we are forced to follow the techincal details.

Afterall, the page, 'Kochi' is about the city of Kochi, not about the Urban Agglomeration of Kochi.

You can paste your details in the Kochi UA.

Hope you will coporate with us.
Cheers...

-From Samaleks, Talk --Samaleks 08:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Largest Corporation can be concocted

But largest city as defined by census cannot be. It counts urban area defined by inhabitation, not by the boundaries political parties change to suit their needs. Kochi has a vast urban area surrounding it. That is, even in if Kochi corporation expands to 150 sqkm, it will have more population than Trivandrum with its 194 sqkm. Political parties try to gerrymander boundaries, for example CPM tries to add more panchayats to Trivandrum (mind you, panchayats not even municipalities !!) Congress opposes this as it will affect them adversely in terms of electoral politics. But Congress-ruled Kalamassery regularly opposes its merger with Kochi, claiming that it will lead to increase in taxes (real reason is that they will lose hold over the power). This is a omnipresent phenomena. This is why census people have differentiated between urban area and corporation limits. Former is technical - decided by population density while latter is decided by manipulation. Hence when we talk of a city, we talk about technical term not the political administrative set up.

Hi Alniko aka Nik aka Nikolas,

Please sign up here when you are making some entries, using your user_name and user_talk with the date/time stamp.
And please understand that wikipedia is not a soapbox (WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox) to advertise your feelings (passion for your city and hatred for the other).

I can judge you from the messages by you to a soap box (skyscrapercity) and your blogs related to Cochin (cochinmasala, voxcochin, etc). I can make out how much hatred you are carrying to your neighbouring city. I got to know about your aggressive passion for Kochi. I can understand your colour-blinded prejuidice. But Wikipedia is not the stage for you. See, how many times you vandalised the pages of both [6]Thiruvananthapuram(history) and [7]Kochi(history).
You have been editing from the IP addresses :203.199.213.66 and 203.199.213.67 (from Chennai using the ISP of VSNL) and also using your user id Alniko (which is also from the same IP-further the editions were also the same).

There are certain norms for the editing in Wikipedia.
" Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles written as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies." For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam.
Also read Wikipedia:Five_pillars
You can be even blocked, if you are not complying to the norms.
--Samaleks 12:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hate for Trivandrum

The attitude is not good from some guys driven by hate. They derive some happiness in tarnishing Thiruvananthapuram sites. We have already discussed this issue and settled during the previous talks.

In Kerala Thiruvananthapuram is the largest city corporation with around 8.5 lakhs population and 86 corporation wards. Cochin is smaller with 6.5 lakhs(60 wards)

Thiruvananthapuram is the largest city in area too.

But cochin has formed a conglomerate mainly supported by political needs and has added population of near by towns like Thrippunithura,Kalamasseri , Alway, Fort Kochi etc. If you do the same thing for Trivandrum it is much bigger in Area(as it is currently) and population. Last time we have agreed to add those things separately in Kerala page to avoid ambiguities. This discussion is there in Kerala discussion--Kerala. So please do not try to create hate here don’t try to fish in muddy waters.
--Sathyalal Talk 11:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Chakara

Chakara is pretty unique to Kerala (S America being the only other place where it is observed). Perhaps we should add some detail about it in the article? -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}

Deepu try to get it into the DYK. Maybe you can mention something from Chemmeen also.--Raghu 05:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Deepu — IMO, I think you can add a few words under "Flora and fauna" and get it to DYK. Saravask 19:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Does anybody know what the scientific name of this phenomenon, if it exists, is? Also, any idea what is it called in South America? -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 07:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the same phenomenon in Coastal Karnataka(Tulu regions) is known as Palke. However, I read it long back and not very sure about the exact name(but sure about the phenomenon). I will try to get it confirmed and also if anybody aware of that here please let me know. Thanks.

Manjunatha (7 May 2006)

I have deleted the vandalised portion from the history.Bharatveer 17:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

With all due respects to the contributors let me convey my feeling that the main article about Kerala is getting cluttered with too much details about history all crammed into one page. Why not redirect some of these topics into 'Topics Related to Kerala' and lessen the clutter felt in this fine page of ours which had even been featured in the Featured articles list. Let me take a few seconds to congragulate the efforts of a long time contributor Saravask along with many others whose efforts had much helped to take this article to the Featured article list. Thanks. (Maabahuka 06:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC))

Vandalism

with regard to constant removal of passages with citations relating to syrian nsaranis by people including Maabahuka: One cannot remove passages with cites and references under the pretext of the page increasing in size or being cluttered. removing passages with references is vandalism. Robin klein 08:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Spin doctoring

Mr. Robin Klein do not use words like vandalism and so on out of context. I have innumerable citations to quote to prove the contrary of what you are saying but i known showing a citation will not become an endorsement to an issue which has no historical backing. There is not even proof that Jews have settled in Kerala prior to the 400 C.E. at the time of Knai Thomman. So i feel it would be appropriate to paint a neutral picture of the issue about the Syrian christian community of Kerala. On the other hand what you are doing is typical of spin doctoring. Pleaseee end your jewish fixation as is evidenced from your talk in the Kerala Talk page previously and let us put the facts across the page in a neutral and objective way. Here i am asking the view of others in this matter. please respond. (Maabahuka 08:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC))

Mr Maabahuka you have been deleting passages with references and that is the typical work of a spin doctor. Your deletion shows your brahmin fixation. Robin klein 15:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC) _______________________________________________________ Both of them might be having fixations jewish/brahmin but there is reason for the protests of Maabahukka. First of all there is no referance anywhere about "Brown Jews" as Robin Klien says. Maybe he is referring to "black Jews" see: Jewish Encyclopida.com http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=558&letter=C

Even if Robin Klein is speaking about Black jews, they were not in Kerala in the 1st century A.D. So the talks about the brown jews or black jews and St. Thomas coming to convert them are all cock and bull stories and unencyclopedic. So understand why i am deliting the folklore portion. Why not add the folklores in a separate section titled Folklores of Kerala. (Bluubyrd 09:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

Jewish and Nasrani settlements

I have provided references and citations by Jewish scholars for the arrival of Black\brown Jews to kerala long before the first century CE, and the arrival of st thomas to Kerala for proselytizing the Jewish settlements Robin klein 06:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

On the Syrian Christians (Nasrani Mappilas) and their origins --Veliath

Discussion moved to the Kerala Noticeboard. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}14:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Khairallah

"Khair" in arabic means fine/ good and that makes it allah's care and not allah's own country. Besides it is improper to add the personal opinion of a fundamentalist politician in this article.Bharatveer 04:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

OK — thanks for providing your reasons. Saravask 04:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Use of inote

There was a {{inote}} in the lead for the article which I have stripped out as it meant that a backlink from the citations wasn't working. I generally disagree with the use of inote - it was meant as an alternative to using bulky reference and citation templates, until mediawiki produced an "official" referencing system. We now have cite.php so inote's original purpose is no longer relevant. Of course, the reason that inote was being used in the lead is that, as a general rule, lead sections shouldn't have references. However, this merely stems from a more important rule - the lead should be a summary of the article; any claims raised in the lead should be examined in greater depth later and it is there that appropriate citations should be made. What appears to be being referenced (though I lack access to the source so can't tell what the scope of the citation is meant to be) is the statistical impact of Kerala's social reforms, which is extensively covered in the "Demographics" section (though peculiarly not to the same source as given in the lead!). I will leave this to be dealt with by those who have access to the sources - my suggestion is simply "please don't {{inote}} references", and if you don't actually want a citation to appear in the lead, just put the citation where the relevant material is covered again? TheGrappler 11:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Largest city etc

Infobox states largest city is tiruvanantapuram while largest metro is Kochi. So Kochi is a metro that is smaller than a city? and Tiruvanantapuram is not a metro despite being a city that is larger than another metro? How is that?--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, its like this: The population of TVM city is larger than the population of Kochi city. However, the poulation of the urban agglomeration of Kochi is larger than that of TVM. So Kochi is the larger urban area in Kerala, while TVM becomes the largest city. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 10:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved Maabahuka entry of 10:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC) to the relevant section above

Keralam Or Kerala

I think Kerala is a wrong and corrupted english translation of Keralam, So why should the English name of Keralam be 'Kerala' and not 'Keralam'?, 'Kerala' is almost meaning-less in malayalam ,and is never used while speaking in malayalam.

Another point is 'Malayali' or 'Keralite?' I think Keralite is an ugly and contrived word, and should not be used , in such an article of truth.

user:Slime_mould (9:27 pm , 6 June 2006 (IST))

Actually, "Kerala" is used, just in a slightly different sense as in "Kerala Sarkar" "Kerala Varma" etc. It is used to refer to something of the state in Malayalam, but it has become the common English form.--Grammatical error 16:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, if I am correct, the Government of India recognises the state officially as Kerala, and not Keralam. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

should the article show the correct translation of the name or should it show the name accepted by Government of India? would you argue that 'Kerala' is a truthful represetaion of the name of the state , though it may be accepted by the Government of India? --User:Slime_mould 12:27am , 8 June 2006 (IST)

Slime_mould, we cannot have Original research on wikipedia. Therefore we have to accept the official name. And as Grammatical error pointed out, we use the term 'kerala' all the time.-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 05:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A Malayali is a person who can speak Malayalam. Therefore people from Lakshadweep and possibly anybody who can speak the language would come under the category. However 'Keralite' would only be reffering to a person from Kerala. Quite rarely, I've even seen the usage of 'Keralese' instead of Keralite (eg. Kerala School). -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 11:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the same distinction made. Keralites who speak Konkani, Tamil or Tulu in their homes or amongst family do not refer to themselves as Malayalis - i.e. their mother-tongue is not Malayalam. But they call themselves Keralites. --Veliath 13:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Not Keralites , it would be Keraleeyar (pl) and keraleeyan (s) . Bharatveer 14:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Malayalam means not just the langauge but also the land ,thus malayali is indeed , the correct word and the most commonly used word for a residant of Keralam. --User:Slime_mould 12:29am , 8 June 2006(IST)

I understand the context of Malayala mannu that you are trying to convey. But then, how would you describe a person from Mahe or Lakshadweep where Malayalam is the native language? Arent they Malayalis? -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 05:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Malayalee is defintely the correct usage. There is no watertight classification that joins geographical, cultural and linguistic identity. "Keralite" is a anglicised term. The authentic term is "Malayalee". Are natives of "Karnataka" called "Karnatakites" ot "Kanadigas"? The problem is that the word "Malayalee" does not intuitively flow from the word "Kerala".

Crewcut 14:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Tourism Section

We need a separate section on Tourism as it is so critical to the state. The kanataka page has a tourism section Crewcut 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We already have one page dedicated to it: Tourism in Kerala.-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}09:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Can there be more links to this page? There are references to tourism throughout the text especially a key reference in the introduction but I could find only one link in the bottom blue bar.Crewcut 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link in the lead.But the toursim page needs a lot of copyediting. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}06:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

On the origin of the name

Keralam being the lands of kera is not the prevailing theory, it is just a vulgar (popular)assumption. Historically it very often attributed to Chera Dynasty that ruled over parts of Kerala. Cruxit 17:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the name: 'alam' means valley, certainly not "place" (that would be 'aalayam'). Keralam almost certainly did not come from the words meaning "a place of coconuts!" Most certainly it refers to an old king called Keralaputra. I think the buck stops there - it is not necessary to delve into the etymology of THAT name, so... zeinab 19:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Lakeshore hospital photo is pure advertorial. It needs to be removed. Cruxit 18:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can point us to an image more representative of Kerala's demographics (e.g., a pic of a rural clinic), we'll be happy to replace it. Saravask 03:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In what way a pic of a rural clinic would be more representative of Kerala's demographics!!? Range & types of picturs included should help to illustrate the diversity of the state than try to fit it into some sort of historic stereotype or perception. I think the combination of pictures included (depicting the urbun/rural, modern/traditional, new/historic,.... scenario of the place under the title ) demonstrate what is in reality. Pratheepps 06:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Less than 26% of resident Keralites live in urban areas. Saravask 04:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably.But then waht's the point. Some times stats & bookknowledge about a place can fool. First of all see the geography of Kerala. It's a north-south strip with an average 50 km width(some places a bit more, some places less).Also understand this is a more or less homogeniously developed place.(at least in a scale compared to other states). Now mark the cities and towns from north tiop to south tip. Circle each with say 20-30km radius circles (the access span of the town centre in abot 30 minutes travel). What remains out. It would be a over packed array of circles from north to south, often with multiple overlaps. My point is the so called rural places in kerala is in one way or the other integrated to a town/city. Thre is no such thing as a rural area which is isolated (at least not as a norm). People in the 'villages' access the town on a daily basis as a matter of fact. There a huge diffience between waht looks like a village and what lives like a village. Probably the whole of kerala looks like a countinous gigandic village from noth to south, the towns every 50km as a hotspot. This may be the reason people localy call their state as 'Metro Village!'. Statistics say 26% of kerala live in urban,It reminds me one of my teachers who used to say 'Statistics is like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive but what they conceal is vital'. btw, i lived in the this state for more than 20 years..... :) Pratheepps 09:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this discussion is wandering... the lakeshore pic is inappropriate. Lake Shore represents a hospital that is inaccessible to all but the elite of Kochi, let alone Kerala. Secondly, the picture is almost a dressed-up thumbnail, probably converted from a gif. It doesn't have the look and feel of a journalist photo (which it isn't). Instead, it shows exactly what it is: it belongs in an advert brochure.--zeinab 19:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the pics, wouldn't it be better if you could simply remove the (repeated) references to Marayoor? Those are all great pics and they are all of Marayoor... But to someone casually looking, Marayoor would seem to be the only spot worth seeing! Instead, one could just say "Idukki". I think Marayoor is representative of a whole lot of scenic places in Idukki...--zeinab 19:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding page length

This page is becoming a bit too long. It is currently 76 kbs - the bulk of which must be caused by the references. But nonetheless, it is very much higher than the wikipedia prescribed page size. I think we need to seriously think about trimming it up, and add all new/semi-relavent data to the sub pages. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}13:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Its true the page size is very huge for small bandwidth internet connections, so we have to do something urgently.-- talk Rajesh Kakkanatt

Hope someone has some ideas. Saravask 21:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Namboothiris and brahmins

"Feudal Nair-Namboothiri Brahminical city-states," What nonsense is that? Namboothiris are brahmins, no need to tell them apart. Savemalayalam 20:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"To its east and northeast, Kerala borders Tamil Nadu and Karnataka;" The wording is clumsy because there is no balance. As such the cluase gives prominence to TN and Kar. Passive voice would shift the emphasis back to Kerala; "Kerala is bordered by... I would prefer re-writing with the verb adjoin. Savemalayalam 20:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Saravask 20:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No elder sister role playing here please!

The revert was totally unwarranted and inappropriate. I suppose the guy who did that would see sense and restore the polemic on a very important point of history. Savemalayalam 16:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Reason why the comment was removed:

You were resorting to personal attacks despite several warnings.
It was an exhibition of incivility.
WP:RPA
It was a copy of your discussion with another user, on your talk page.
Totally unrelated to this page.-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}05:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I checked your user page. You will be the last one I should be harsh towards. But I would like to mention one thing. Real things happen when you put the rules under strain rather than abide by them in a book-kissing manner. The difference between the former and the latter is simply that between conformism or smugness on the one hand and battering, bettering I mean, on the other. Savemalayalam 05:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a typical article by a Kerala user

[[8]] See the article on Kallayi. Should a person totally unfamiliar with the subject matter write an article on that? To write that Kallayi is on river Chaliyar is one of the baddest thing a user can do on Wiki because it is a blunder. Kallayi is on Kallayi river, a very small river that runs only about 22 kilometres. To confuse it with Chaliyar, which is a major river in Kerala, is unpardonable. Those who have not even a smattering of the suject matter should desist from creating articles. Savemalayalam 17:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Chenda- nonsense

The article chenda [[9]]has too many blunders I suppose. I believe that it does not accompany kootiyattam (no d for t for me). It is not "suspended from drummer's neck" except in reare occasions, I think. It does not "hang vertically" most often. It has no parchment. The users need to be aware of the threat to quality from inept editing and creation. Savemalayalam 04:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Rather than criticising articles, may I kindly request you to make the necessary changes to the article itself? You also have the authority to tag incorrect pages as {{disputed}} and to discuss the inaccuracies on the article's talk pages. Only such a positive attitude can foster a positive growth for wikipedia. Thank you.-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}05:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

A warning on a point of Kerala history

Please note that one article titled Running Amok had an extremely misguiding argument related to a particular episode in Kerala history. It seems that the erroneous part was kept for quite some time and diffused into a few other articles until this user removed it through mere deletion. The misguiding argument is actually a blunder and you can see it below in a part excerpted from zamorin and deleted from there by this user since.

"The Samoothiris had an interesting tradition which dictated that every Samoothiri who ruled over twelve years would have to publicly cut his throat. In the 17th century, this tradition was modified and led to an annual event where the Samoothiri declared that after an annual 12-day festival (Mamankam festival), it was lawful for anyone wishing, to try to assassinate him. The Samoothiri would be seated in a national assembly, surrounded by guards. This revised tradition led to the development of suicide squads, called chaver, by neighbouring states (particularly Valluvakkonathiri ) with the objective of killing the Samoothiri."

Anyone with a smattering of Kerala history will at once know that this is not history. No zamorin is ever recorded to have killed himself thus. There is no such custom in the collective conscousness of the local people, not even in the form of a far-fetched myth. This user doesn't know if Alexander Hamilton, cited to prop this falsity in the original article mentioned earlier, recorded such a custom at all. Even if he has, I can positively state (after consulting two historians) that the argument is false. I would also like to point out that non-native accounts of Kerala history should be considered with a fair amount of skepticism. In Encylopedia Britannica zamorin has been referred to as a Muslim prince under the article Cabral. (Mark the irony;Zamorins are known to have betrayed Muslim chieftains to foreigners.) The blunder has been sustained over decades. Savemalayalam 05:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Kerala Tourism

I found the page Kerala Tourism at WP:DEAD and while looking for a place to merge first thought Kerala#Economy would be the logical target before I found Tourism in Kerala, basically by accident. If tourism is of economic or cultural importance in the state giving it a section or mention in a section heading might be a good idea. Eluchil404 20:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)