Talk:North India/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Government Definitions #3

Allahabad district

Gyanvigyan1, the more I go back and re-read your comments, the more I realize that the article pretty much already says 99% of the things you want. Which precise sentences are triggering a concern for you? I think you may be reading too much into the lines, i.e. imagining motives behind the words or something else, because the article pretty much already includes Bihar and UP in North India except flagging Bihar as Eastern in some sources in the Anecdotal section, but that also flags Punjab as Northwestern too. I would imagine that if you simply re-read the article with a fresh mind, you'll find most of your charged objections will be gone. You may simply be getting trapped in a discussion here which has no consequence for the article itself (pretty much no one ever reads a talk page except for contributors). --Hunnjazal (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The picking and choosing of Govt cultural zones, over several others is not the only problem with the article, which still contains several biased statements -- like what some Punjabis might think and several statements about UP are still both biased and incorrect. Also remember, that just because something gets published doesn't always make it a valid source to merit inclusion into Wikipedia. The main problem is that the article lacks the proper substance that an article of this importance should have -- rather is in abstracts, putting together several stereotypes as forming the meaning of "North India." I'm sure I can write up something that everyone here can feel satisfied with, just give me some time.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC))

Okay, but make your specific proposals here and get consensus. Thanks. I don't see this vague Punjabi bias you speak of. You should go back and reread the talk threads. The insistence of East UP and Bihar as non-Northern came from someone from Allahabad & it was *not* accommodated (i.e. they were still listed as Northern). --Hunnjazal (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"The insistence of East UP and Bihar as non-Northern came from someone from Allahabad & it was *not* accommodated": This person you're talking about must have a bias or something against East UP or Bihar. Punjabis are not the only one with such biases. The problem however, is not just the biases. It treats such an important issue so lightly -- which is why I have issues with including the North Zone Cultural zone demarcations, selectively, as some kind of authorised 'govt definition.' There are so many things that this article should be talking about, and it can be arranged in a much better way. I'll definitely take a consensus.(59.180.148.193 (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC))

You seem to think being defined as North Indian is some great prize or something. That's a value judgment that affects your POV. His well-reasoned, but ultimately unconvincing, argument was that Bihari languages are non-Hindi and are actually Eastern IA, which is true for current linguistic classifications. He was from Allahabad, so that's in or on the border of East UP (i.e. it isn't West UP for sure). You say: "It treats such an important issue so lightly" - why is this issue so important to you? What does "North Central" say to you? It still sounds pretty Northern. No one would think E, W, S based on that name.--Hunnjazal (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm amazed at how blatantly you put forth your bigoted views as though they were some kind of facts (like saying people from western UP don't marry people from eastern UP -- and they rather marry Punjabis), and when confronted you say things like "being defined as North Indian is no prize." Unfortunately, the entire article smacks of the same bigoted approach that tends to blatantly stereotype as per the whims of a few misguided people.

As for Allahabad, this shows your bigotry once again, and also how little you know about North India. Being on the border of East UP isn't the same as being in East UP, is it? Will you say Patiala is in Haryana/UP because its border is near these states? In the nearly 5000 years old history of Allahabad/Prayag/Kaushambi, it has never been a part of the East or even East UP. Can you bring me any written text that is more than 20-25 years old, that puts Allahabad in East UP? All texts before that put Allahabad in the Doab, along with Saharanpur and Agra, and if at all East or West UP terminology is used, it is put as part of Western UP (specifically, South Western). In any case, like I pointed out earlier, UP itself is not very ancient, and cannot override earlier, more traditional regions. Don't forget that Kaushambi has been the capital of the Kuru clan that comprised of the entire Doab, Delhi and Haryana. That is the earliest we know of this region -- and the region has remained more or less unchanged in its 5000 years old history. Oh, and Allahabad is actually the final frontier of North Western India, if you you're coming from the west, and the gateway to the North-Western India, if you're coming from the East.West UP and Doab Lachhipura, Allahabad, North-Western Railway, Ajmer zone

Unfortunately, the politics of the past 20 or so years is pushing Allahabad to the East by some vested interests -- because the centre of power has shifted from Allahabad to Delhi, and Mayawati has included it in Purvanchal, but the people of Allahabad surely resent the move.

"why is this issue so important to you?": You're either trying to manipulate me or you really don't get it. It's about putting in unbiased, facts on Wikipedia, not misplaced or bigoted opinions of a particular group or community. You may have any views about how things should be defined, however, facts are facts. You shouldn't be playing with them here. Your intentions are quite clear by the kind of bigoted statements you've kept throwing at me on this talk page. In the beginning I decided to counter them (I've actually written a long answer on my computer), but decided, its not worth it, and I'd rather concentrate on the article.

"What does "North Central" say to you? It still sounds pretty Northern.": The way its used in this article, it smacks of cultural hegemony to redefine and control what is North India, by certain vested interests. North Central is a new sub-division of North India. It cannot overrule the earlier traditional or accepted definitions of North India. It can add to it. There is no "North" and "North Central." North Central, North Western and North Eastern are all parts of North India. This article pretends otherwise.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 09:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC))

This is just whining passing for argument. 'Vested interests'? 'Bigoted views'? I think you have a severe POV problem. You should really recuse yourself from this article. You're getting super-emotional on it and it's clearly affecting the way you're approaching this article. I've been trying really hard to assume good faith on your part, but you're approaching this with a preconceived notion of people conspiring to do something 'hegemonistic'. Propose *specific* changes here on the talk page and get consensus. And what is all this - the politics of the past 20 or so years is pushing Allahabad to the East by some vested interests -- because the centre of power has shifted from Allahabad to Delhi, and Mayawati has included it in Purvanchal, but the people of Allahabad surely resent the move. All this is really going to warp your participation on WP. First of all, this is super-random on your part because, jeez, look at a map - where does Allahabad look like it is to you? It is clearly in the South-East of UP. Second, even if this political fact were true (which I seriously doubt) Wikipedia is not the place for you to engage in political action - please take this up with the Governments of India and Uttar Pradesh. Third, your perspectives on this are so charged with emotion that it's bending the way you're perceiving this article. Rajasthan is both in Western and Northern zone. Should they be complaining about some conspiracy that they're being pushed to the 'West'? --Hunnjazal (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You call correcting your misrepresentations of facts with evidenced references, as 'political action?' I can see why this article looks so warped. I hope we can remove the objectionable, non-verifiable or bigoted views from the article, or I may have to take this article for arbitration.

As for the map, you can see the reality only when you learn to see things in totality. Although, Geographic location of Allahabad is in Southern UP, Just like its neighbouring Banda district. However, you may not merely see its relative position in present day UP state. When specific geographical/cultural/historical regions jut into another region (as with mountains, Doabs, deserts, etc.) they are considered part of the original reigon, despite their relative position on the map, which may tally with the other region -- and that is why Allahabad has always been considered to be South-Western UP, as Doab runs along the western border of UP, from north to south, which is also corroborated by every documented text before 20-25 years. To get the picture in totality, you have to divide UP in its original regions. And, yes, Allahabad has been the capital of North-Western Province of Agra, twice, during the British rule, over an area comprising of Doab, Delhi and Jaipur-Ajmer (that was the original form of states, before UP was formed). The jurisdiction of Allahabad university spread over the entire North-west, including Punjab, as Allahabad was the only university in the region at that time. Oh, and here is a site I found that flies flat in the face of "people from rest of North India don't marry people from East UP," or that there is a strong East-West UP divide," statements. http://kayastha.com/kayastha/?page_id=223

But, frankly, I'd rather get down to the article than discuss your personal opinions, which have no bearing on this article.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC))

A caste-based site is absolutely *not* a reliable source. Are you joking? Do *not* vandalize this page, which is what you're heading towards doing. If you make unreferenced edits or attempt to censor information, which is what you're basically saying you're going to do, it will absolutely be opposed by me and, I am certain, others. GoI culture zone definitions are authoritative, referenced, extremely relevant and in current reality. This is simple fact, whether you like it or not. During the Kushan Empire, Mathura was a capital for a state that included parts of Uzbekistan. That does not make Mathura an Uzbek city *today*. If Uzbekistan expands in the future to engulf Mathura, then yes, it will be an Uzbek city. There are 6 definitions of North India in this article and Allahabad is included in North India in 5 of them. That's insufficient for you. You want to 'cleanse' out facts that don't singularly make it North Indian without any qualifiers like 'North Central'. What's actually bugging you apparently is the existence of *other* definitions under which Allahabad wouldn't purely be a North Indian city. So you want to censor out something you don't like. Unfortunately, that cannot be accommodated because such definitions have been created by the current Government of India. So I will repeat it: Do not attempt to vandalize this page. --Hunnjazal (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"During the Kushan Empire, Mathura was a capital for a state that included parts of Uzbekistan. That does not make Mathura an Uzbek city *today*." This is an extremely absurd comparison, however, I'll play along with it. If somehow the facts were such that Mathura fell in the same geographical/ cultural region as Uzbekistan, rather than in India, and had Mathura been established and inhabited by the Uzbeks rather than Indians, and had the very reason for the establishment of Mathura was to serve as the capital of Uzbekistan from the earliest history of Uzbekistan -- and had it remained the capital of Uzbekistan off and on, throughout its 5000 year old history, and had Mathura been, for its 5000 years the most important religious and cultural centre of the Uzbeks, and if for the entire political and cultural history of Mathura, it had always been an integral part of Uzbekistan and not of India, then the politics (economic or otherwise) of today cannot force Mathura to be in India.

"A caste-based site is absolutely *not* a reliable source." Enough. No more talk on this. This site I gave (It talks about a family from what you call 'western UP,' who have extensive marriage contacts in what you call 'Eastern UP,' (although, which is Central UP) and Rajasthan). It was not given for the purpose of Wikipedia, but to counter your personal misinformation campaign that you've spewed on this talk page. You've no business spewing such baseless stereotypes without extremely well-established sources. However, this talk page is not meant for such discussions, which have no relevance for the article, and let's not drag this topic any further. I am sure, whether you accept it or not, you stand corrected. Perhaps you were not really biased, just misinformed. Who cares.

"There are 6 definitions of North India in this article and Allahabad is included in North India in 5 of them. That's insufficient for you." If you think, this is about Allahabad, you're only fooling yourself. Allahabad will always be in North India, you cannot change that. I was arguing against your including it in Purvanchal ethnicity in your loose remark -- and that is not even mentioned in the article, but only on this talk-page. How can Allahabad be my motive here? If you think that by ascribing me some kind of personal motive, you can make me stop objecting to the tone of this article and some gross irregularities, you're mistaken. I'm not going to stop even if you make a concession for Allahabad, if that is what you're inferring. My objection to this article is not about one particular city or sub-region. My objection to this article is its attempt to redefine what is North India and who are North Indians, based on unsubstantiated false stereotypes forwarded by certain factions.

"GoI culture zone definitions are authoritative, referenced, extremely relevant and in current reality." Very well, we will take this issue to the appropriate forum for arbitration.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC))

You spoke of Allahabad, so I addressed Allahabad. You're just citing your *opinions* throughout this paranoid diatribe. I couldn't care less whether Allahabad is Uzbek, North Indian, Pashtun or German. I do care, a lot, about NOR. I was attempting to understand your motive because it is still pretty tough to understand in which way any idea of North India is being altered in this article. But it continues to be as mystifying as ever because the article doesn't in fact run counter in any serious way to your stated ideas. This makes me feel there is something else going on in your mind which isn't related to the article here or your conversation with me. Maybe it's some other conflict with Punjabis elsewhere (since you've brought that up) or something which is coloring your perception here or maybe it's your unhappiness with the proposed UP division plan that puts Allahabad somewhere you wouldn't want (which you seem to view as some conspiracy - maybe it is, I wouldn't know and Wikipedia isn't the right place to debate this anyway), but it is clear you're missing perspective. So, I am going to stop trying now - not because you're frustrating or anything, but simply because it's really tough to understand what your real issue is (I am not sure you know yourself, frankly). Propose *specific* changes with reliable refs that we can talk about. --Hunnjazal (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Definition of "North India"

The term "North India", especially when academics use it, can also refer to parts of the Indian Subcontinent which are not in modern-day India. I added it to the article lead. 182.185.58.237 (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan is in India?

The introductory para has a line, "North India includes northern and most of eastern India and the Indus Valley of Pakistan. Is this a joke, how can one even say that sub division of one country also has the territory of other country? 115.252.47.159 (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Facts are being twisted here. Only between 1947 and the present is the Indus region part of Pakistan. Not in other periods. Secondly, India is also an English language name for the entire Indian subcontinent. 182.185.35.16 (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all, 115.252.47.159, please stop making unilateral changes based on your opinion. I have already flagged the Pakistan thing as OR. Either there will be credible references that support it or there won't. Your emotional appeal based on your (I am sure well-intentioned and heartfelt) sentiment doesn't really have significance here. As a historical statement and as a cultural concept, Northern India could probably legitimately include many parts of Pakistan. As long as the statement makes that clear, I don't see a problem with this. Secondly, the terms Shumali Hind/Hindustan and Uttar Bharat cover the name of the region for the vast majority of languages there. In terms of script also, the Perso-Arabic and Nagri are really the only two significant scripts in the region. There are no others (except maybe Tibetan for Ladakhi and Gurmukhi for some speakers of Punjabi, which are relatively small). Other zones in India are dissimilar, with more divergent scripts, except maybe for Western India which have Nagri and Gujarati only. One parallel for the territory could be Tibet vs Tibet Autonomous Region. A historic+cultural area vs a present-day political entity. --Hunnjazal (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The map showing the Government of India definition

The Government of India definition had incorrect information. I have corrected it. But the map showing the North and the North Central cultural zones of India still display incorrect information. This needs to be updated as well. For the correct information, please visit: http://www.culturenorthindia.com Apalaria (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I updated the map as well as the ref links and restored some good content. --Hunnjazal (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to remove Pakistan then please also remove the line "The dominant geographical features of North India are the Indo-Gangetic Plain and the Himalayas, which demarcate the region from Tibet and Central Asia."? Because the Indus river flows mostly in Pakistan not India. 182.185.29.139 (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Indo-Gangetic plains, refers to geographical area, not a political division, this page is about NORTH INDIA, a subdivision of India. In addition to that, the river "INDUS" flows and in fact originates from India. 115.252.47.159 (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

So many things wrong with this. First, the Indus watershed and the Ganges watershed are one continuous plain. It is the Indo-Gangetic Plain, singular. Second, the Indus system is actually heavily shared by India. In fact, of the six main rivers in the Indus system, every single one of them flows through India and three of them are specifically earmarked by the Indus Waters Treaty as primarily for use by India, under international law. Read the articles please. If you look at this region, Himachal, Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir are all Indus-based. Rajasthan is arid, but afaik, even it depends heavily on Indus-system waters (see Rajasthan Canal). --Hunnjazal (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Bihar is in North-Central zone, Chhattisgarh is not in North India

The map now includes Chhattisgarh (which is not in North India) and excludes Bihar (which is in North India). It should be modified to exclude Chhattisgarh and include Bihar. Apalaria (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. The graphic had been altered by another user who clobbered the image. Should be okay now. --Hunnjazal (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Section on Culture

This article does not carry any information about the culture and cuisine of Northern India. Culture does differ from state to state, but there should be a brief overview of the culture and cuisine. Please see the article on East India as an example. Apalaria (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction

"North India is a loosely defined region" with a population estimate to the nearest 10 people and an area calculated to the nearest 10km2. That's ridiculous. At the least we need a ref for those figures. We also list the official languages of North India. Please provide a source that the govt of North India has declared those languages to be official, or that the govt of India has declared the official languages of North India.

My removal of this nonsense was reverted with the objection that the article on South India etc. was just as bad. That's not an excuse: it only means that the nonsense in the South India article needs to be cleaned up.

The area and population estimates have been removed. Batternut (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

There is also no linguistic definition of "North India".

See the "Government of India definitions" subsection. Batternut (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, every ref I have checked has failed verification. Most of them speak of northern India or are even less precise than that. — kwami (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

All the refs for the "Government of India definitions" subsection are good. Batternut (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Are Bihar and Gujarat part of North India?

The lead does not include Bihar or Gujarat however they are mentioned many times throughout the article, should the lead be amended or should references to Bihar and Gujarat be removed?Damien2016 (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Whether they are part of North India or not depends on the definition, and multiple definitions of North India exist. The lead already says "Other states sometimes included are Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Gujarat and West Bengal", so the issue is covered, no change is required. Batternut (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Not really because that's a contradiction, especially the map and the info box.Damien2016 (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the infobox should not have listed Uttar Pradesh or Delhi. The map you have just put in is an improvement - it accurately shows the Ministry of Culture definition of the North India, but you have incorrectly added Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh. Of course, if you have a 'more official' definition of North India, please produce it. Batternut (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Returning to the main question, little evidence is offered in the article for Bihar being part of North India, just the unsourced "Latitude-based definition", and no evidence for Gujarat. Nor indeed for Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand or West Bengal. I suspect they should all be removed. Batternut (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Bihar, Gujarat, West Bengal, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh are considered part of North India when referring the historic geographical division ie Indo-Gangetic plain and the Deccan. Sometimes Odisha and Maharashtra are also added informally in accordance with the Indo-Aryan and Dravidian divide. So I suggest these state names be kept with a 'citation'Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You may well be right. However, no citation, no keepy! Batternut (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

My Bad, I was actually saying to keep the names of the states with a [citation needed] as it is currently in the article. If you visit India, you'll observe that a lot of people, in day to day talk, broadly classify Indo-Aryan speakers as Northern Indians while Dravidian speakers are considered South Indians probably coming from the definition of Aryavarta/Indo-Gangetic Plain in Manusmriti. So I suggest to keep them for now.. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The meaning of northern Indian along Aryavarta/Indo-Aryan linguistic lines may well still be commonplace. However, in terms of listing the constituents of North India, that implies itemizing everywhere from Maharashtra to Assam! It would be easier to say North India is everywhere except the Dravidian states, and maybe the non-Assam seven sisters. Either way, I think that is outside of the useful scope of this article. Batternut (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

That is why this line "Other states sometimes included are Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Gujarat and West Bengal.[citation needed]" needs to be kept as it addresses both the general notion of North/South divide as per Indo-Gangetic Plain/Deccan as well as that the word 'sometimes' points to the fact that they might not be official as per the cardinal directions. The belief 'North indian is everywhere except Dravidian states' comes when people divide India only into North and South and this belief is much more prevalent among Southern Indians. However North easterners as well as some Nepalis are considered separate owing to their 'different' looks. This is the kind of feeling you'll get if you stay in India. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I am happy to leave it in for a while, to allow people time to find sources, but sooner or later unsourced claims will be removed. Batternut (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Uttarakhand is in the North zone only by Government definition

I had pointed out earlier that the map showing the Government of India definition needs to be updated. I believe it was modified, but it still displays incorrect information. The following portion of the map needs to be corrected: States/ UT that are in north zone only are J&K, Himachal, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Chandigarh. Currently Uttarakhand is incorrectly colored. Apalaria (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Good catch and confirmed in source. Fixed now. --Hunnjazal (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

But the official site of NCZCC shows Uttarakhand as a component state of North Central Zonal Cultural Centre see: http://www.nczccindia.in/ Mywikieditbh (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Hunnjazal: Uttarakhand still coloured incorrectly in File:North India Zonal Map 14July2013.png. Shall I edit it? Batternut (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)