Talk:Kerala

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kerala article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Kerala is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 9, 2006.

Article Milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 21, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
January 27, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current Status: Featured article

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India.

Quality: FA-Class (see comments)

This article is maintained by the Indian states workgroup.

This article is maintained by the Kerala workgroup.

[edit] കേരളം or േകരളം

Copied from Talk:Kerala/Archive01#കേരളം or േകരളം ([1]):

േകരളം - is not correct, even though it looks better than കേരളം on some computers.
കേരളം - is correct, but if you see this incorrectly on your computer, please read ml:Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers to know how to enable east asian font viewing in your computer. -Bijee

-- Saravask 19:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

- Does it matters whether my computer lacks east asian font support? The objective of this page is to provide information to mostly first-time visitors, who are unlikely to have such support enabled. I see it as 'karelam' on firefox1.5.

The thing here, is that you are seeing it incorrectly due to your computer's inability to display unicode characters properly. If you are on windows XP SP2, it should display correctly on Internet Explorer. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}14:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Deepujoseph took the words right out of my mouth. Saravask 00:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:COMPLEX. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should I have to use Internet Explorer to see the word correctly? I refuse to change my browswer

[edit] Keralam does not mean "Land of Coconut Trees"

According to renowned historian Sreedharan Nair, Malayalam emerged as a language in 9th Century coinciding with the founding of Second Cheraman Empire. Oldest reference to the word 'Keralam' is found in a writing by the Emperor Ashokan who ruled about 1000 years before Malayalam evolved as a separate language.

It is implausible that the word 'Keralam' has anything to do with coconut tree since 'Kera' is a Malayalam word, and 'Keralam' Precedes the language Malayalam by atleast a millennia.

Really? I never knew he said that. I read a similar account in Keralapaaniniiyam, where it claims that "Keralam" was an alternative name for the land then known as "Malayalam" (if you think about it, it makes more sense to call the LAND "Malayalam" rather than the language) before the coconut tree was introduced to Kerala. (At least that's how I understood its explanation; Keralapaaniniiyam isn't easy to understand...) --Kuaichik 02:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Mundum Neriyathum

It was confirmed by the Kjrajesh, who contributed the image, that the lady in the photograph was wearing a mundum neriyathum (See south india talk page). I was wrong.MANOJTV 12:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

The culture of Kerala, as it says here is not derived from Tamil culture, which is very different. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.93.9.59 (talk • contribs) . Saravask 05:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Mundum Neriyathum: Yet again

In my earlier communication (see above) I accepted the claim made by the user Kjrajesh that the dress worn by the lady in the photograph was a mundum neriyathum and not a sari. Now I don't think so.

Reason: Mundum Neriyathum is a two-piece dress. The one the lady wears in the photograph is obviously a single-piece dress.

Even though the user claims (see south india talk page) that it is what is called set mundu, I don't think so. It is in all possibility a set-sari, which is nothing but a sari (in one piece) but with shiny kasavu border. It should not be confused with set mundu or mundum neriyathum, which should come in two pieces (1. Mundu & 2. Neriyathu).

When set mundu is worn, the kasavu border will be clearly visible on left side (the left thigh) of the person who wears it. This ksavu border is that of the neriyathu which is worn on the top of the mundu. (See this link: http://www.keralafashion.com/set.htm to know how a set mundu really looks like). It is not so in the photograph.

Hence the user Alniko and myself are correct. Thus the description in the photograph is changed. MANOJTV 09:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"Reason: Mundum Neriyathum is a two-piece dress. The one the lady wears in the photograph is obviously a single-piece dress. "

From the photograph , it is impossible to differentiate the two. I wonder how you have concluded that this is a set mundu.I am going to revert to its original name Bharatveer 10:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

It seems the user Bharatveer was in a hurry to edit out the changes I made and hence he did not care to read my comment in its entirety. Had he done so, he would have thought twice before reverting the changes I made. For his information, I reproduce (with a few changes - for further clarity) the significant observations I made above.

When a set mundu (mundum neriyathum) is worn, the kasavu border will be clearly visible on the left side (diagonal to the left thigh) of the person who wears it. This kasavu border is that of the neriyathu which is worn over the mundu. (See this link: http://www.keralafashion.com/set.htm to know how a set mundu really looks like). It is not so in the photograph appearing in the wikipedia.

From the photograph , it is impossible to differentiate the two, says the user. Impossible?! Even a cursory look at these photographs will bring out the difference. One need not be a Keralite to note the difference. Still, if any user finds it difficult, let him/her download the two images and view them keeping side by side.

Again, if any user uploads an image to wikipedia claiming that it represents something, the image should be unambiguously representative of the object of the phtograph. The image should also bring out precisely the uniqueness of the object represented. It it does not, such an image will only confuse the wikipedia users and hence should not be used.

I hope I have made myself clear. I once again correct the description of the image in good faith. MANOJTV 06:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idukki in Northwestern Kerala?

I know this is a minor edit, but I just wanted to point it out and discuss it (if anyone objects to my proposed edit). Under the "Flora and Fauna" section, both illustrations mention the "nortwestern Idukki district." Since when was Idukki in northwestern Kerala?! Shouldn't that be SOUTHEASTERN rather than NORTHWESTERN? (Or at least EASTERN??). I am planning to change the word "northwestern" to "southeastern." If anyone has any objections, please reply to this message (either on this page or on my talk page). --Kuaichik 03:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Be BOLD, Kuaichik. :)-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 15:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Deepu. I was just using a Wikipedia tactic that I've used before on the Tongyong Pinyin talk page: propose a modification and see whether anyone objects in a month! Athre ulluu. But I guess I should be bolder than that...anyway, I made the change. :) --Kuaichik 02:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parasurama legend in the opening sentence of the History section — necessary?

The History section opens with the Parasurama legend and the legend's own origin!

"Popular legend has Kerala saved from the aggressing sea by an act of Parasurama — an avatar of Mahavishnu. This legend however, is a Brahmin appropriation of an earlier Chera legend where a Chera King, Velkezhu Kuttavan, flings his spear into the sea to claim land from it."

Is it necessary? It seems out-of-place to me. Can we not move it to some other section perhaps? Just wondering. &mfash;Veliath 14:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

IMO, it would look extremely out of place in any other section. The legend also has a possible scientific explanation, so it shouldnt be left out of the article. Anyways, where do you suggest we move it to?-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 14:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. I've seen the Parasurama legend mentioned in connection with the geology of Kerala. Apparently the kinds of rocks and soils of Kerala seem to have been under water once or some such thing. There is atleast a reference to recovery fom the sea. Perhaps it can be moved there? —Veliath 04:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I guess that would be fine, given that you let it blend along with the flow of the article.-- thunderboltz^(Deepu) 04:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ഇന്നുമെന്റെ കണ്ണൂനീരില്‍ നിനോര്‍മ്മ പുഞ്ചിരിച്ചു..

ഇന്നുമെന്റെ കണ്ണൂനീരില്‍ നിനോര്‍മ്മ പുഞ്ചിരിച്ചു.. ഇറന്മുകില്‍ മാലാകളും ഇന്ദ്രധനുഷ്‌ എന്നപോലെ. സ്വര്‍ണമല്ലി നിര്‍ത്തമാടും നളെയുമീപൂവ്നത്തില്‍ ത്തെന്നല്‍ കൈചേര്‍ത്തവയ്ക്കും പൂവോണപൊന്‍പണപോല്‍.....

[edit] Set Sari Caption

The "Demographics" section of this article apparently includes a picture of a woman wearing a set sari. The caption for this image describes the woman as a "Keralite Malayali."

1. Isn't "Keralite Malayali" a redundant phrase? Isn't it like saying "Frenchie Frenchman"? :)
2. Isn't the word usually spelled "Malayalee" rather than "Malayali"? Just asking!

I'm going to change the words "Keralite Malayali" to "Malayalee" for now. If anyone has an objection, please discuss your views in this section. kEraLiyar malayaaLialle??? --Kuaichik 21:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I think I'll change it to "Malayali" instead. --Kuaichik 21:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Keralites are those who reside in the state of Kerala while Malayalis are those whose mother-tongue is Malayalam. Many of my Tulu, Konkani & Tamil friends who grew up in Kerala make this distinction very assiduously and refer to themselves as Keralites. My two cents. —Veliath 04:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That may be so, but I think "Keralite Malayali" is still somewhat redundant. I think we can safely assume that a Malayali woman shown wearing a sari in an article about Kerala is in Kerala. In any case, it is not crucial information, and it sounds odd anyway. I think some NRI Malayalis call themselves "Keralites" as well. --Kuaichik 05:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit in the "History" section

This is regarding the part of the "History" section which alludes to when "human inhabitation" of Kerala took place. I had on two occasions deleted a few lines that appear(ed) rather absurd to me. I would like to know if "human inhabitation" took place only in the 10th Century BCE, as to how the "prehistoric" remains in places in Wayanadu and Idukki and even other districts came into being, and why they are dated to beyond 6000 BC at the least by very conventional scholars. Those who affirm to the "10th Century BCE inhabitation" - I have a few queries - 1) Are those remains not human? Or 2) Are they a hoax altogether? Or 3) Are the dates wrong? Or 4) What is the great secret that you know that escaped the dumb scholars who deemed those places as "prehistoric human remains" and dated them to beyond 6000 BCE at the least? I wish to be enlightened. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anup Ramakrishnan (talk • contribs).

You are right. Neolithic inhabitation did exist in Kerala. I've marked the statement as possibly incorrect. I request other editors to voice their opinions before rewritting the sentence.-- thunderboltz^(Deepu) 04:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Deepu, since some "editors" here have shown the discourtesy of just deleting statements without even following it up in this section, I am having to show a bit of the same, albeit less as I am at least writing this.

First is the creating/revealing and saving/retrieval of Kerala, where as a Hindu who has read a bit, Kerala figures (as a part of Dravida) in all the epics before that dealing with Parasurama. (Incidentally despite the AIT and everything almost all the epics in Hindu lore till before the Mahabharata base their most ancient and greatest events in the deep South Dravida.) Parasurama is supposed to have only saved PARTS OF THE COAST OF THE REGION and this legend is shared by all Brahmins from Kanyakumari to Gujarat alike, not just by those in Kerala - in Kanyakumari, Malayalanadu, Tulunadu, Konkana, the Maharashtra coast and the Gujarat coast i.e. But the only things in support of creation (and not retrieval) seems to be old outdated "Government documents".

Its even worse in the case of the "Prehistoric remains" where very recently there was an international conference by archaeologists and other scholars in Idukki at Munnar where the rock art is dated back to at least 7000 BC. Not to forget those found at places in Wayanad (Edakkal) etc. Again some old outdated "Government document" has been cited in support of the same.

Regards, Anup.

Anup, you said, " Parasurama is supposed to have only saved PARTS OF THE COAST OF THE REGION.. ". Well this is not correct. The legend in Kerala is that Parasurama regained the entire land of Kerala from the sea, which got immersed in the ocean, after the reign of Mahabali. So, the changes you made in the article is not accurate. Please revert the changes. Thank You, -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me...)} :-) 19:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted them. Anup, please do not delete refs and implement bizarre formatting (like striking out text) without discussion. Also, ensure that your prose is FA calibre. Saravask 22:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I owe an apology for that striking out though I don't know what there is to discuss about what are facts. I shall not be making any more changes to the main article even with discussions anyway.

On the Parasurama legend about retreiving or getting back the lost land, that lies in the realm of either prehistory or mythology, and either way I cannot argue, just like anybody else cannot for that matter. However I do know for sure that ALL Brahmins of the West Coast believe that a part of the West Coast was saved by Parasurama from the aggressing seas for his atoning for his having killed Kshatriyas some 21 times over. In fact Goa is called ParasuramaKshetra. Namboodiris, Pottis (Tulu Brahmins), GSBs of Konkan and Goa, Marathi Brahmins and Gujarati Brahmins all share this legend.

It is not very surprising given the way these states, especially Kerala, suffer from erosion of land every year (Greenhouse Effect etc apart). My roots lie in the Northern and Central parts of the State. Even in my teens and then my early twenties till the earlier part of this decade, we could see the sea as we travelled along the coast by bus or by car, northwards from Palakkad and Thrissur - four years back onwards, big walls have been totally blocking out any possible view of the sea.

Anyway, while I have nothing more to say on that, I am providing a few links (non-Kerala ones to avoid any possible "bias") that give dates way beyond "10th C BC") to places like Edakkal in Wayanad and Marayoor in Idukki. Please make what you will of the same and here too as to whether changes are to me made and if so what, are left entirely to you.

www.wayanad.org/conference/

www.datesaregreat.com/index_files/page0003.htm

www.ourkarnataka.com/Articles/starofmysore/weekend.htm

www.religiousyouthservice.org/projects/details/2006/9.23india.htm

www.hindu.com/2004/12/06/stories/2004120604900300.htm

http://www.bashr.com/en_bio_pics/Marayur

[edit] Temples section

I think the section on temples in the article is unncessary and only adds to the length of this article (which is already over the prescribed limits). I propose to delete the section. Comments anyone?-- thunderboltz^(Deepu) 04:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Since there has been no opposition, I am removing the said section from the article.-- thunderboltz^(Deepu) 17:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

Somebody pls revert this page to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kerala&oldid=75841189 all the important portion lost.--Praveen 06:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Done.-- thunderboltz^(Deepu) 06:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Population growth chart

The graph of population growth rate seems to be wrong (assuming the population graph is correct). The growth rate shown till 1991 is %age increase per 10 years, and in subsequent part it is per 5 years, with the result that an artificial dip shows up at 1996. This should be corrected, by dividing the values upto 1991 by 10, and dividing the values after that by 5, and in the right handside axis, changing the label to "Annual growth rate (%)" (optionally, changing the range of that axis to 0% to 3%).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.134.236.181 (talk • contribs).

I'm planning on fixing this -- it happened because I was in a rush to do the graph before this appeared as the TFA. Thanks for your patience. Saravask 19:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strange claims

These were produced by speakers of a proto-Tamil language from northwestern India, suggesting that Kerala and Tamil Nadu once shared a common language, ethnicity and culture; this common area is known as Tamilakam.

- Proto-Tamil is not Proto-Dravidian. Proto-Tamil is part of Proto-South Dravidian. The North-West Dravidian language(Brahui) belongs to North-Dravidian and not South Dravidian.

- Proto-Tamil speakers had to cross Karnataka or Andhra Pradesh to reach Tamil Nadu and during movement the language had undergone many sound changes.

Manjunatha (24 Sept 2006)

[edit] Malayali vs Malayalee and Keralian vs Keralite

I think 'Malayali' would be a better spelling in the sense that it would be pronounced as 'Malayali' in many other languages also, as well as in English, whereas the anglicized 'Malayalee' will sound so only in English.

I suggest that the silly 'Keralite' be discarded and 'Keralian' be used instead.Esskay 20:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, about the 'Malayalee' spelling: many Malayalis may have become so accustomed to that spelling that 'Malayali' might look rather strange to them. It need not be so strange. The pattern has alreadybeen established in India, as in Bengalee becoming Bengali, Hindoo becoming Hindu, etc.Esskay 20:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neolithic and Megalithic

Dolmens (megalithic tombs known locally as muniyaras) in Kerala's Marayoor region, erected by Neolithic tribesmen.

That is a confusing statement. The Megalithic period of India(more precisely South India) was between 900 BCE to 300 CE. That shows it was Iron age. In fact, from the burial site people have excavated iron tools(at least in Andhra Pradesh). Is there any reason for using "Neolithic tribesmen"?

Manjunatha (31 Oct 2006)

[edit] Excess detail in "Culture"

User:Samaleks, two paragraphs on just visual arts is overkill -- I've already condensed the removed info into one sentence. Please put the excess detail in one of the subarticles. Regards, Saravask 00:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The details can be moved to the sub articles. Btw, dont change Kochi urban agglomeration to Kochi, as it create ambiguity with the Kochi city page. --Samaleks 17:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Saravask 00:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

The first few lines in the second para of the Introduction, from "First settled in ...." to "....elevated Kerala to Statehood", are not needed there. It should be part of the History section. And that line about the suicide rate should be moved somewhere else in the article, that is, if it should be in it at all.

Um, no. I disagree. Other geography FAs like Australia and Seattle, Washington have this info in the lead. Please familiarize yourself with WP:LEAD and WP:WIAFA. Regards, Saravask 18:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you too. Those you refer to are better said than the way these lines are. These lines sound awkward. There is nothing wrong with introducing points in the lead in, that would be expanded upon in the appropriate sections later. But these lines are neither here or nor there. They don't mean anything.

Please remember the idea is not to fill pages with all kinds of lines as seen to be done in many India and Kerala related topics. What is being said should be appropriate, relevant, meaningful and convey the proper information to anyone who reads it, not jut to those who already know the subject in question. What is in this particular para in question, are a jumble of things that don't connect well. Esskay 21:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just hidden away

Anybody who cares about making this information more available might fix the redlink at Kerala, India. You might take note that some links in other articles were red because this didn't exist. Likely other similar articles that could do with some redirects as well. Gene Nygaard 00:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Saravask 02:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Literacy Rate

It says 91% in this article, but in the Democrafics section in the India article, it says that "The state of Kerala leads the country with a literacy rate of approximately 94%." What exactly is it? IronCrow 17:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Largest Metro

Kochi urban agglomeration is different from Kochi city. Infact, the UA is much bigger and comprise many more areas around Kochi city. Masking the UA name with the city page name will obviously create confusion. Better not to change that. -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me...)} :-) 17:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the spelling of Keralam in Malayalam reads as Karelam. Please correct that. -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me...)} :-) 17:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] God's own country

Tourism department's slogan is just a slogan. It is not even an original one. The phrase is also used in some other places of the world by people to describe their favourite places. Just because it is being heard again and again does not make it relevant to be included in this article. If it should be included anywhere, it should be in the tourism article. 192.30.202.20 18:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

User Bharatveer has reverted to the God's own country catchphrase, with the summary "unnecessary deletion." I think his is unnecessary reverting. Seems like there is a conspiracy of people loving catch phrases instead of substance and they seem to want complete control of this article. 192.30.202.20 17:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can find some historical or cultural significance of this "catchphrase" then its inclusion in the article is justified. However, as far as I know, it is just a slogan made by the tourism industry to attract tourist to Kerala! Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --Incman|वार्ता 19:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I am the one who originally deleted the phrase form the lead. I thought it was excessive self-promotion for an FA; however, I've seen it used in books and other sources outside of a tourism context. Maybe others can comment on this. Saravask 21:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The slogan was not coined by the tourist dept or industry as almost all people of/from Kerala seem to think. They just adopted it for their slogan, if not hijacked it. 'God's country' and 'God's own country' are expressions that existed in North America long before Kerala tourism discovered it. Anyway, the reason why it is irrelevant to be included, (besides the fact that it is just a commercial slogan,) is this: What is its bearing on the etymology of the name Kerala? 192.30.202.19 22:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

So what shall it be? You guys want to continue to be at the level where frivolity and catch phrases continue to give you tremendous joy and enjoyment? where removal of irrelevance from the article is considered 'controversial' (because the phrase is popular or its deletion is just plain 'unnecessary') and indulging in reverting gives you personal pleasure? 192.30.202.20 16:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] kerala too much population in middle east

Hello, I spend a lot of time in Dubai, and was very astonish that there are too much keralites population,in almost all walk of lives.The same in Saudi arabia and other GCC countries. I dont know really that why this trend is but too much population is as well in Indian state of about 13800 sq km just. They people are very active in life as they have own tv channels,education policies,language,religion trends and job specification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GeoIslam (talk • contribs).

[edit] What I see in these pages is this: Revert Meisters Rule

If user 59.92.94.241 thought that he could do any edits here, he was naive as some others who may have thought the same thing and made attempts to improve the article. I had noticed that particlular line user 59.92.94.241 tried to edit, would have done the same thing myself, but I know better from what I have seen on this and other article pages. It just is not worth the effort. Why? Because,like on many of these pages, here too is a clique of people who want to protect whatever they have written, hovering around like hawks to swoop in on anyone who make any attempt at any kind of edit. They are the Revert Meisters. They will always have their way. So anyone who is naive enough to believe that they can contribute anything meaningful here or to some of the other article pages, please do not waste your time. The Revert Meisters won't give you a chance. If they want to revel in their mediocrity, just let them. Wikipedia says be bold and edit, that is just the theory. In practice, the clique won't just let you. --Esskay 17:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The comment above is not about valid reverts such as removal of vandalism etc. but only to reverts based on the reverters' idea of what should be right.

Please read 'he or she' where 'he' is used to refer to user 59.92.94.241 in the first line. Esskay 19:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] translators needed at Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Translation

Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Translation Please add your name under translators--D-Boy 13:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Kerala Community

If anybody have an Orkut account can join the "Wikipedia Kerala Community". Search for this community and just join. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kjrajesh (talk • contribs) 07:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Unemployment and Suicide Rate

In the introduction it is stated that Kerala has rates of suicide and unemployment that are among India's highest. However, when you look at the page of the source referenced (page 26), this is not what is actually stated. That page states that Kerala had, at the time of the report, India's third highest rate in terms of crime. The paper also points at Kerala's high (and increasing) incidence of reported Rape cases. I think that the mention of suicide rate should be removed, unless a better source can be located... and perhaps the introduction should include mention of Kerala's crime rate and the increasing number of crimes against women. [Too often, Malayalis take pride in all of Keralas statistics, without admitting some of the problem areas in our culture.] Another source should be listed in the case of unemployment.

[edit] Kerala userboxes

Hello,

Here are a few Malayalee userboxes for people to use. Wiki Raja 12:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] [2] <-- its not kerEla, its kerAla

Hi webmasters,

please make the change right away. The wrong spelling for Kerala appears only on the public url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerela; and thankfully not anywhere across the corresponding article.

Thank You. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Punarnava (talk • contribs) 08:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/e/r/Talk%7EKerala_96f5.html"

Archives
Archive 01	Archive 02
Archive 03