Talk:Maharashtra

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2026

in the languages section of this page there is ' wrong link inserted for a language "Lodhi". ' Rahul Gamer 2103 (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Removed the apparently incorrect wikilink. Day Creature (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2026

There are no additional languages for Maharashtra state please remove English and Hindi as official Language. MAaharashtra has only one primary language that is Marathi. ~2026-40552-19 (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Day Creature (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

please refer this document and read Marathi is the official Language for Maharashtra and not English or Hindi https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15763/1/the_maharashtra_official_languages.pdf ~2026-40656-19 (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: A review of the statute you've provided indicates that English and Hindi retain official status for certain purposes, making it appropriate to describe them as additional official languages. Day Creature (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Isn't it a responsibility of Wikipedia to give proper sources for information it hosts rather than someone to give source against it. 1 of 4 in this sources doesn't open and other 3 never mentioned Hindi or English as additional language except it says English may continue to be used “in addition to Hindi and Marathi” for the transaction of business in the State Legislature. This doesn't mean its an additional official language. ~2026-46339-15 (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Biased view of British rule in "History" section

The British ruled the Maharashtra region from 1818 to 1947 and influenced every aspect of life for the people of the region. They brought several changes to the legal system,[71][72][73] built modern means of transport including roads[74] and railways,[75][76] took various steps to provide mass education, including that for previously marginalised classes and women,[77] established universities based on western system and imparting education in science, technology,[78] and western medicine,[79][

Partialy true,however glorifies and only talks about one Part of British rule,if the passage is mentioning the daily life changes, it should mention all rather than single biased pro-colonilism view

The literacy rate under British Raj throughout all censuses was extremly low with it being less than 10% for most of the time ,For women it was less than 3% (for most of India aside from urbanised area) for most of the British rule,All Educational institutions established were not up to The standards of the west and explicility designed to create English speaking civic workforce for the Raj and were used as an political tool with biased racist view of the Indian history ,Poverty increased to all time high in history of Subcontinet to 80% below subsitance levels at the end of colonial era,Infant mortality increased to 200/1000 babies dying at Birth,the average lifespan remain stagnant and declined in some cases to around 25-27 years (compared to global devloped standard of ~60s in averge life expectancy),most of the medicine remained inaccessible and unaffordable to common people while local medical systems were reduced,making the healthcare and medicine in abyssmaly stagnant state relative to Growing Global standards ,along with this the native industries were actively De-industrilaized and had to pay exxtreme taxes or outright bans,pritorizing material exports (like cotton) ,while British imports faced near 0% import duty ,Also standardized Castism and listed Sevreal "lower" caste and nomadic tribes as Criminal from Birth (Millions of people) increasing margilization,Recruited Civil staff based on Religion,Gender and caste for political purposes,As per 1931 census Female involvement was almost completly absent and had declined from all Adminstrative,political and social positions and was listed under "unskilled labour" Similary The railways were built with Indian taxpayers money,and the taxpayer money would be used to subsdize any losses,this led to the British only contractors stalling on projects and taking as long as possible to Earn money and several times more expensive railways than in UK or Austraila or US,the passage is framing it as "bought" in both medicine and Railways,which is false as it was fully funded and built by the taxpayer money

If throughout 150 years of your rule the most basic literacy rate (not even secondly or higher "education")(being able to read a letter) stays in single digits (%)less than 5% of females literat And the Downward Filtration Theory by British state explicity states that The Raj did not have any resources or desire for education of masses aside from the small upper caste minority

then it is not mass education in any way as stated in orignal text,Plus you cannot state that British bought "Education" or "mass education' to India,as India had residential universities predating the Holy roman rule and formation of modern day Britan,Also during British rule all funding was canceled or diverted from local vernacular schools or Pantoji that existed before that were giving "mass" education to common people to create centrallized english speaking education infrastructure in urban centeres,Plus early British officals like Mountstuart Elphinstone documented that almost every large village in Maharashtra had a functioning school funded by the local community, providing basic literacy, accounting, and agricultural mathematics to the local populace,and estimated existence of Thousands of Village schools, so education part is totaly false and in some aspects opposite of the reality as by basic English definition 90.5% percent population being illeterate after a century is opposite of "mass" education and is "upper minority education" (aside from the fact that the tiny literate percentage population was alredy higher castes and literate since centuries regardless of British rule and the "Mass" education system did not start with 0% literacy rate but with alredy existing 6-8% literacy rate,so a mere 2-3% increase in literacy rate as the rest of the world industrialised and grew with far more better educational and quality of life standards)

Also it totaly erases the suffering and Wealth drain caused during the British rule

Sources Notes on Criminal Tribes Residing in or Frequenting the Bombay Presidency (1882) by Edward James Gunthorpe

"Land and Labour in a Deccan Village" by Harold H. Mann (1917, 1921):

The National Planning Committee Reports (1938–1940):

Cenuses of India 1931,1941....

Criminal Tribes Act (XXVII) (1911 and 1924 Amendments)

Women and Law in Colonial India: A Social History" by Janaki Nair

The Peel Commission Report (1859) and The Eden Commission Report (1879)

"Lord Roberts and the 'Martial Races' Policy" / Forty-One Years in India (1897) by Field Marshal Lord Roberts

"India's De-Industrialization Under British Rule: New Ideas, New Evidence" by David Clingingsmith and Jeffrey G. Williamson

The Economic History of India Under Early British Rule" (1902) by Romesh Chunder Dutt:

De-Industrialization in India, 1814–1946: The Changing Structure of the Workforce" by Daniel Thorner (1962):

"Masks of Conquest: Literary Study and British Rule in India" (1989) by Gauri Viswanathan:

The Indian Education Commission Report (The Hunter Commission, 1882):

Sir Charles Wood’s Education Despatch (1854) / "Wood’s Despatch":

Thomas Babington Macaulay’s "Minute on Indian Education" (2 February 1835):

William Newmarch’s Address to the Statistical Society (1860s):

Poverty and Un-British Rule in India" (1901) by Dadabhai Naoroji:

The Report of the Select Committee on East India Finance (1871–1874):

the above passage is absurdly biased through omission and lies and should be removed entirely or changed to include both sides,similary same is not done with other local kingdoms mentioned in the page,I could go on to write much more but I don't have time — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-41846-17 (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Codename AD ^talk (he/him) 18:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Please point out which of the below sources are not reliable (i cannot directly post links  : ~2026-41846-17 (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:Reliable sources, age of the sources matters as a part of their reliability. And a lot of these sources are over 100+ years old and well before the British Raj ended, which does affect their reliability. Furthermore, if you need help in general on Wikipedia, you can visit the Teahouse. Codename AD ^talk (he/him) 19:13, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

yes that's true but almost all of the sources are objective Stastical or Empirical descriptions of the time during British rule

There is no way of there being an modern day source detailing stastics or conditions of the rule at the time while not drawing from previous sources or descriptions dating to. The era (aside from them being oure opinonated bases)

As for reliably majority of the sources are from Offical administrators or Censuses of literacy and life ecpectiacny from the ruling state itself ~2026-41846-17 (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, if a source comes from a official of a government, or a census of a government or ruling state, those are called primary sources, and while they can be used, they are supposed to be used for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. And modern reliable secondary sources is exactly what your edit request needs in order to get approved. Codename AD ^talk (he/him) 19:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Alright I'll add modern day sources and changes needed to be made tomorrow morning (since it's 1 15 AM),

Also by definition statements like "bought medicine" "steps to bring mass education" or "help to Marganlized groups or women" are contradictory if by descriptive primary data, illiteracy rate is 90% (98% for woment) for 150 years or averge lifespan is 25 years,and marginalized tribes are criminzlied by birth into camps or killed,is the evidence of that enough to Remove those statements? (Or "imparting education in Science and technology" when institutes to do that previously existed?) ~2026-41846-17 (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

And if you go by by offical wikipedia policy Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources (History):"Historical commentaries or uncontextualized primary documents from older eras can contain outdated perspectives. Therefore, Wikipedia articles should rely on high-quality, modern secondary sources that interpret these primary materials."

It requires old sources be of modern day secondry sources interpreting them

However almost all my sources are primary (like Cenus or Adminstraitive notes) you cannot have an "opinion" on census data,it is by definition primary,by your same logic diary of Anne Frank or hundreds of footnotes using British data would be an unreliable source ~2026-41846-17 (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

for modern day secondry sources for de-industrilization,Criminal tribes,or low literacy rate you can check out

Chaudhary, L. (2011). Taxation and Educational Development: Evidence from British India. The Journal of Economic History, 71(1).out

Schwarz, H. (2010). Constructing the Criminal Tribe in Colonial India: Race, Identity, and Sociology under the Raj. Wiley-Blackwell.

Broadberry, S., & Gupta, B. (2010). The early modern great divergence: wages, prices and economic development in Europe and Asia, 1500–1800. The Economic History Review, 63(1). ~2026-41846-17 (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

(well my upper comment doesn't have any sources even though i listed them they disappeared but orignal passage end has Sevral sources) ~2026-41846-17 (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

the page has ignored the vidarbha region of maharastra

the page has actively ignoring the vidarbha as the entire page is created and amintained in the pune and mumabi perspective, it is cleared from that ther dhammachakra pravartan din, celebration pic is added for aurangabad, instead it should be for nagpur originally, the pune refereces has been introduced lot more times, the vidarbha perspective is not included enough, the nagpur ,second capital of state, having the one of the first five universities in agriculture since 1905 in india, has not even mentioned.the above things should be mentioned in the page, along with proper sources with extensive research Viwashanti (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure. Give us sometime, will try to incorporate all regions of the state. Thanks.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 08:19, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Please feel free to add content pertaining to Vidarbha, and of course with reliable sources. All the best. Jonathansammy (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Please refer to Shivaji as Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj

At Multiple instances , Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj is referred to as Shivaji. This needs to be altered to provide right salutations to King Shivaji Maharaj David96K (talk) 08:48, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
 Not done and won't be done

Please see WP:TITLESINTITLES. Rasnaboy (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Please also see the detailed explanation, specifically about Shivaji,, here - Arjayay (talk) 09:49, 22 September 2026 (UTC)