# Talk:Mumbai

115.129.73.128 (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Put an official language of Mumbai is Marathi and Hindi

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Joy goel, I added an image of Dharavi in the Poverty, inequality, and the cost of living subsection of the Economy section. You have removed it, stating that it is not needed but have given no adequate reason as to why. I believe the image is very relevant to the section and also very useful for readers EarthDude (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude sorry but i dont think that the image is needed as it looks very shabby on a otherwise very well constructed page please do not add that image or any other image of slums on this page thanks. Joy goel (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
But you give no reason as to why it is shabby. It gives a much more accurate and holistic view of the city. Mumbai is not just about skyscrapers and money. The image is also relevant to the subsection which speaks of poverty and inequality EarthDude (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
@EarthDude the reason is simple it tarnishes the image of a great city, i have been editing this page for more than 4 years now and there has never been an image of slum on this page please do NOT add slum images to this page thanks Joy goel (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Thats a ridiculous reason. You cannot reject facts and reality just to save face and reputation, a violation of WP:NOTPROMO. You are also violating WP:NPOV, which is perhaps Wikipedia's most fundamental policy. I am re-adding the image. If you want to remove it, please do not edit war. I would suggest you gain consensus to do so, or open an RfC for removal. Cheers EarthDude (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
@EarthDude I am not going to let you impose your will here this page will not have a slum image  thanks Joy goel (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Brush up on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This platform is not to be used for promotional content as you are suggesting. We are an encyclopedia, and a holistic one at that. I am not imposing anything. I am simply stating the facts. Your actions violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOTPROMO. I suggest you do not edit war and open an RfC on the issue EarthDude (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
@EarthDude my actions do not violate any policy its just an image that is not necessary and you are acting like a WP:bully i will have none of that. Joy goel (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Your arguments and actions are directly in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTPROMO. WP:NPOV is a wikipedia policy regarding a neutral point of view. WP:NOTPROMO is another such policy against making promotional content for articles. Your repeated removal of the image for the sole sake of not "tarnishing image", directly contradicting well known facts, is clearly promotional and biased in tone. EarthDude (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
@EarthDude well im going through the policies you cited i am violating none of them by just removing an image, im not removing reliable sources or anything. Joy goel (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
this policy WP:NPOV - states that information should be reliably sourced and no original research im not violating that.
WP:NOTPROMO - states that wikipedia is NOT a repository of images ;inls and media files im not violating that either.
you are the one imposing your will and forcefully adding an image which this page has never had in 20 years. Joy goel (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
You are violating WP:NPOV by repeatedly removing an image, an extremely important image of one of the world's largest slums which exists in the city, for the sole reason of not tarnishing the city's image, even though the image would be very relevant in the subsection, thus violating a neutral point of view. Your insistence on maintaining a good image also violated WP:NOTPROMO because what you are saying is fundamentally promotional in nature.I have added this discussion to Wikipedia:Third Opinion, so we can seek the view of someone uninvolved, which should hopefully help in this issue between us. Cheers EarthDude (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
@EarthDude I am not violating any of those polices, its a request please dont be so adamant in adding such as degrading image.
please read this https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/property-/-cstruction/dharavi-redevelopment-project-plans-to-house-indias-next-prime-business-district/articleshow/122146256.cms?from=mdr dharavi is under redevelopment and work is started many months ago this slum wont even exist in a few months then why add an image of something that will not exist. Joy goel (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
https://www.hindustantimes.com/real-estate/dharavi-redevelopment-master-plan-for-indias-largest-slum-nears-completion-6-key-highlights-101744373561893.html dharavis redevelopment started in january 2025 we dont include images of things that will not exist Joy goel (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
i agree with EarthDude that this photo should be included. the photo depicts an important part of Mumbai. some people may find it unpleasant, but wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED
according to the HT source, only half of the slum will be redeveloped, and the government says it will take 17 years. so i don't agree with your argument that "this slum wont even exist in a few months" Rainsage (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@Nemov but Dharavi is under redevelopment a project that started in January this year and it has made significant progress i think we should wait for a while until the project is completed and then take action.Its very unfair to included an image of something that is a work in progress. This slum will not even exist in a year or so. Joy goel (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
For the time being, I am readding the image to the article. If you wish to remove it, open an RfC. An RfC is a discussion among several editors over the inclusion/exclusion of content from the article. It is used to gain consensus and compromise, and to avoide edit warring EarthDude (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
I would recommend reviewing WP:CRYSTALBALL. Please don't ping me if you don't have a policy argument. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I appreciate it EarthDude (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

This article gives an ancient figure of 12.5 million as Mumbai's population. The source cited is the last Indian census of 2011. The Indian census is done every 10 years, but the 2021 census was cancelled because of COVID. It is misleading and unhelpful to give the 2011 populations without an alert.
Second, it is necessary to clarify which area is referred to by the word Mumbai. The two revenue districts of Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban District combine to form Greater Mumbai or Brihanmumbai, and come under the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation. The area under BMC is 603 sq km, but the oft-stated population of 12 million is from the 2011 census. 
The much larger Mumbai Metropolitan Region has an area of 4355 sq km, and a population around 20 million, though it is unclear how this number has been calculated. 
Based on this complicated picture, the saying that Mumbai's population is 12.5 million is neither accuirate nor useful, as it does not define Mumbai and its source is 15 years old. Gopi (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The very first line "Marathi Saar, Speak Marathi saar, We are Educated saar", what is this supposed to mean and why is it here? It looks like making fun of a certain community. Can the wikipedia team please check why it was added and if it should really be there 2A02:8086:CA3:A80:3A4E:613F:B66C:B595 (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

It was an obvious case of vandalism. It was removed and the ID blocked. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

There are uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. These should be cited.
The article is over 10,700 words long. After skimming the article, I noticed lots of places where information can be removed or moved to a spun out article. This included outdated information that has been updated (2008 demographic information), information about the city's history, and the "Culture" section.
There are several references with "cite errors". These should be resovled.
"Catherine of Bragança (1638–1705)". claims it is from the BBC, but the link does not go to a BBC website.
Sportskeeda is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia and should be removed.
Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)