Talk:Bihar

My response

Mr. Bhadani,

My appologies for not explaining my edits. I just found out that Bihar around 1910/1914 had a population of 582,132 people, a lot less than the Bihar of India. So yes, I suppose that you are correct on the fact that Bihar in India is more prominent and more known (and also has more people) than the historical county of Hungary, also called Bihar, which no longer exists. (It is divided between Hungary & Romania) So I guess you can let Bihar in India be the main page if you want.

Sincerely, User:Hottentot

New Table

I'm trying to make a new table that looks like most of the other ones in the different Indian state articles, but it's missing a lot of information. Here's what I have so far. Please add on to this and help make it complete. --Hottentot

{{India state infobox|
state_name=Bihar |
image_map= IndiaBihar.png |
capital=Patna |
latd = ?|longd=?|
largest_city=Patna|
abbreviation=IN-BR |
official_languages=?|
legislature_type=? |
legislature_strength=? |
governor_name=Sardar Buta Singh |
chief_minister=Presidents Rule |
established_date=[[1947]] |
area=94,163 |
area_rank=? |
area_magnitude=? |
population_year=2001 |
population=82,878,796 |
population_rank=3rd |
population_density=880 |
districts=37 |
seal=[[]]|
footnotes = | 
}}

more to add

Hi, I've been using this article a lot for a project which I'm doing and I've noticed that the topic of economy does not have that much information to it. Also under culture, there is not a section of about clothing. I think that if either of these topics were fixed, the article would be much better. If anyone feels up to it, these sections need a little help.

Socio-Economic Elements

This title in the article is not required according to me. Please comment. Manoj nav (talk) 09:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The title "Socio- etc" is so vague as to be almost meaningless, I can't comment on your move, but - in general - think the article suffers from a lack of clear, simple grammatically standard English. My only involvement with this (and some connected pages), was a wish to help clarify the language used.Pincrete (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I will try to edit the article. Manoj nav (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Lede

I have removed this from the intro as the intro is supposed to summarize details found in the body of the article. Also, the rah-rah tone of the deleted text sounded as if it came from Bihar's Chamber of Commerce. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the edit. Now the introduction is more balanced. Manoj nav (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Languages

Hi,

1) In Bihar many languages are spoken, of which Bhojpuri is the most common. - > This is a original research and not supported by reference.

2) Hindi—the co-official national language, with English—and Urdu are constitutionally recognized languages of the state. - > Your reference http://www.diehardindian.com/demogrph/moredemo/histlang.htm doesn't exists.

3) Urdu—which is the mother tongue of Muslims, who form about 17% of the state's population—is very much secondary to Hindi in official use, although nearly 25% people in Bihar read and write Urdu. - > This is also original research not supported by reference. Urdu is not the mother tongue of Bihari muslims.

Kindly discuss so that we can present correct information.

Manoj nav (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Manoj nav:

1) In the "Main articles" under "Language and literature" you'll see that Bihari languages lists Bhojpuri as having the most speakers, at ~38 million, about 50% more than the next most widespread, Maithili. Now, that doesn't say that Bhojpuri is the most common Bihari language in Bihar itself, but the statement that it is is at least a reasonable extrapolation, assuming that B. Languages is well sourced. It is not fairly termed "original research".

2) The URL has been changed. It's now here. Also, it's not *my* reference exactly; it was put there by someone else. That fact is also in the infobox at the article on India. If it's untrue, the India article needs to be changed as well, if not first.

3) Urdu I can't speak to at the moment, and I question some of the verbiage, which can be adjusted. Do you have a source refuting what is said there? It's been a fairly longstanding statement (it was here in similar form when I copy-edited this section some months ago), and has to be credited with at least passing muster with the tens of thousands of people who read this page a month (not all of whom read this section closely or are linguists, of course), however apparently unsourced at the moment. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

1) From you reference I will conclude that Bhojpuri, Maithili, Magahi and Bajjika are the major languages of Bihar and not just Bhojpuri.

2) The URL you have provided is still not reachable. My stand is that India doesn't have a national language. Hindi and Udru are the only official languages of the state. Also since Bihar doesn't have a separate constitution, saying - 'English—and Urdu are constitutionally recognized languages of the state', has no meaning.

3)If you don't have a reference which says Udru is mother of Muslims in Bihar, then it should be removed. Urdu and Hindi are derivatives of Hindustani, which originated in the court of Mughals located about 1200 km away from Bihar, some 400-500 year back and Urdu was 1st introduced by British in Bihar some 140-150 years back. It is not the mother tongue of Bihari muslims.

Manoj nav (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Manoj nav: 1) Yes, the others are major languages, too. That doesn't negate that Bhojpuri is the most widely spoken in Bihar, although that predominance is no longer stated as it once was. 2) What supports your stand? The article on India declares that Hindi and English are "official languages", with elaboration in the hidden section. I think we could consider dispensing with the part about English, which is meant to be parenthetical to the main part of the sentence, if that is confusing. 3) I think "mother tongue" is a rather indefinite way of putting it, and it could be changed. However, I'd like to see a "citation needed" put there, to give people a chance to find support for the statement, rather than the more drastic step of removal. That section doesn't seem particularly outlandish or contentious (I suspect that what is meant is that Muslim children study Urdu). Dhtwiki (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

1) I have added - > Hindi and Udru are the official languages of the State. Other languages of the state are Maithili, Bhojpuri, Magahi, Bajjika and Angika with 21 million, 38 million, 20 million, 8.7 million and 0.7 million speakers respectively, of which only Maithili is recognized by the government of India. ref-> 1. http://unicef.in/State/Bihar 2. http://hillpost.in/2012/09/bhojpuri-is-not-the-only-language-in-bihar/50489/ . I have given proper reference.

2. Hindi is only one of the official language of the central government of India and few other states and not the national language. ref - > http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/hindi-not-a-national-language-court/article94695.ece . English is not the official language of Bihar -> http://unicef.in/State/Bihar . Hindi and English are the two official language of the Indian central government and Hindi and Urdu are the two official languages of the state of Bihar. I am removing the earlier statement.

3. 'Citation needed' added. Lets agree that if there is no reference in a month time then we remove this line. Manoj nav (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)