Jump to content

Talk:North India/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Why people here have so much anti-Bihar sentiments?

Bihar is a part of North Central Cultural Zone as well as East Cultural Zone. Similarly Rajasthan is also a part of North Central Cultural Zone and West Cultural Zone apart from North Cultural Zone. Bihar is as much a part of North India as Rajasthan is. No Goverment agency puts Jharkhand, West Bengal and Gujarat as a part of North India. Because they entirely represent their respective zone, culturally, linguistically and ethnically. This article has become bullshit, Just I could see is Rajasthan crap all over here. Since when Jaipur became largest city in North India? Jaipur is even north? Like people of Punjab refers to Bihar and eastern UP as Purabias, we Eastern UP and Bihar people have same perception of Rajasthan as west India. And not north India. Why isn't it included here? Stop being biased guys. This is wikipedia, not some of your facebook shit. Please someone sensible admin intervene in this matter and seek a solution to this Rajasthan guy doing everything to put his state in North India. Wikipedia article has deteriorated by such edits. Also Include Rajasthan in West India article as it is an integral part of West india. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.212.159.77 (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2017‎ (UTC)

Why did you remove "Other states sometimes included are Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Gujarat and West Bengal.[citation needed]". The consensus was to keep this line for sometime with a citation needed tag before we find some source or we remove it. It should be noted that in common parlance, India is sometimes divided into just North/South regions which is based on Indo-Gangetic/Deccan regions. Bihari people/Eastern UP people have cultural/linguistic/ethnic as well as broader geographical similarities with West Bengal/Assam/Odisha while the same can be said about Gujarat and Rajasthan. Magadhi language which gaves rise to Bhojpuri, Magahi, Maithili, Bengali, Assamese are all 'Eastern Indo-Aryan' langiages. Secondly why did you remove one of the sourcesFylindfotberserk (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk:,First off this is off topic. Secondly the people of Bihar and Eastern UP have absolutely ZERO to do with you Bengalis. They're part of the Hindi belt and our major castes can't be found anywhere in Bengal. Bihari languages aren't even mutually intelligible. Please stop spreading falsehoods. ThanksDamien2016 (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

What sources did I remove? Where is it that India can be divided just into just North-South? West Bengal and Gujarat are essential part of their region ie, East and West respectively. And if you are referring to languages here on north India page which should be mostly about geograpgical location then Rajasthani language is developed from Old Gujarati language alongwith modern Gujarati language. And is classified as Western Indo-Aryan language. Then why Rajasthan is an integral part of North India and Bihar is not? Both Bihar and Rajasthan belongs to North-Central Cultural Zone. And both belongs to East and West Cultural Zone respectively as well. Although Bihar is totally above the tropic cancer whereas Rajasthan is not. Bihar qualifies more for North India than Rajasthan This artical is totally absurd at this point of time. Earlier it was so sophisticated,unbiased article which openely accepted all the states which are considered on a popular basis as a part of North India. But now some West Indias have taken over this article and declared Jaipur the biggest city of North India. I mean seriously? 103.212.157.55 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You have removed this source: http://www.culturenorthindia.com which includes Rajasthan but not Bihar. You also forgot that the link you kept i.e. http://www.portal.gsi.gov.in/portal/page?_pageid=108,957826&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL , doesn't include Bihar. Moreover this link :-

http://interstatecouncil.nic.in/genesis/ mentions Bihar as strictly Eastern Zonal Council. Moreover Bihari Languages are part of the Eastern Indo-Aryan Languages(Magadhan languages). As far as Rajasthan is concerned, Geological Survey doesn't include Rajasthan as North India which is reflected in the Article. You are the one seemingly more biased so stop VANDALIZING Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

When I talked about Western Indo-Aryan language why didn't you care to listen about it, when you are the one who first talked about Eastern Indo-Aryan language? Rajasthani langauge is a part of Western Indo-Aryan language alongwith Gujarati and not Northern or North Western! Moreover Bihar and Madhya Pradesh are included in North Central Cultural Zone. See http://www.nczccindia.in without this overlapping partof north India, you won't even get Delhi, and Uttar Pradesh as a part of North India. So you are taking a cultural site as a reference for this article, why do you forget this site then nczccindia.in ? Is it not biasing? You once use North Zonal Cultural Centre site as a reference and another geological survey of india site so as to leave no chance to eliminate Bihar and MP? Even The Hindu newspaper includes Bihar in the North Page of their daily news paper. Geological Survey of India doesn't include Rajasthan. But still you have used it as a shield to portray them wrong, or make your readers believe that there is a fault in Geological survey of India site which has mistakenly included Delhi and UP but not Rajasthan and chandigarh. And you are saying I am biased? Few weeks ago this article was written with sophistication and totally unbiased. But now you have made it a piece of crap. I am not against Rajasthan. I've nothing against Rajasthan. I was just trying to prove a point to you. You have already vandalised this page all according to how you want to see it. Using reference from sites, which only prove your state as a part of North India and you say I am biased? Moreover, Everybody knows Delhi is heart of North india. And is the largest city in North India. Now you have made this article so crappy that now when some reader sees that Jaipur is the largest city of North India, he/she would be like wtf? This is why people nowadays don't use wikipedia as a relaible source of information, and people like you are solely responsible. 103.212.156.124 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

We need reliable sources defining North India as you suggest. The North Page of The Hindu newspaper sounds extremely useful - please provide a link. Batternut (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

You want reliable source? I give you reliable source: http://www.nczccindia.in you can open this link and there you can find Bihar and Madhya Pradesh as one of the component states. As this North India page currently is using NZCC site as first reference, then you must know North-Central Cultural Zone is an overlapping cultural Zone with North-Cultural zone and the former one includes states which are a component state in the latter one as well like states of Rajasthan, Haryana, and Uttarakhand. And also when these two Zones are combined we get North india in its entirety. Like it was earlier on this page until it was totally vandalise and Rajasthanised Otherwise if you just use the NZCC component states, you wouldn't even get Delhi and UP as a part of North India. Which makes this article abstruse and biased. Bout your newspaper suggestion, I don't know how it is extremely useful but I said it is the daily newspaper where there is one section "North" mostly on page 2 or 3 of the Hindu daily. But after you demanded for a link. I opened the newspaper site but couldn't find that page because in online edition, they put 4 or 5 South indian states and then "other states". There is no sectional division of the news from various part of the country like North, South, East and West. But I did something. I went through printed edition of the newpaper of past few days and clicked pictures of the "North" page of The Hindu daily where there are news from North India which includes the state of Bihar and MP. Here these pages are https://www.dropbox.com/sh/12qm2uzgokj3n74/AAB8MYR9brTeCt77uHCtK13ka?dl=0 I made them digital for you. Although sometimes they put news from bihar in east category as well and this is obvious you can find Bihar on east india page as well. But news from gujarat, Jharkhand and West Bengal are specifically printed on their respective pages ie, West and East. 103.212.158.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - those scans are useful, and I have used them as a reference in the article. Copyright issues may be raised, but someone else can handle that!
Regarding the overlapping cultural zones, yes they often overlap, but why include the North Central Zone and not the North East Zone - they are all generally North? Batternut (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for using my link as a reference on the page. And no there won't be any copyright issue because that is my work. Coming to your question why we include north-Central and not north-eastern, because north-eastern is not overlapping with north india. NZCC site depicts Jammu and Kashmir,Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttaranchal and Chandigarh as North India. Whereas NCZCC site includes Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Rajasthan, Uttaranchal (Uttarakhand), Madhya Pradesh and Haryana. So do you notice the overlapping states here? Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Haryana? So it suggests that North Central is nothing but the continuation of North Indian culture which descended down till Madhya Pradesh in South, Rajasthan in West, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi in Centre and Bihar in east. Also this is why Rajasthan is also put under West Indian Cultural Zone, Bihar under east and Delhi and UP essentially under north central only. It is easily comprehensible. 103.212.158.11 (talk)

Any chance of finding a good reference for your statement "North Central is nothing but the continuation of North Indian culture"? That would be very useful... Batternut (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
It sounds like as if every line, every statement on wikipedia is backed up by a strong reference from another site! Is it true? Do I even need to give reference to my existence? 103.212.159.57 (talk)
Not every line and statement, but "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed" per WP:Verifiability. Otherwise we just get an endless edit war. Batternut (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
It should be noted that according to this site http://gov.bih.nic.in/Profile/default.htm, The State of Bihar is considered Eastern Indian, Moreover the Geological Survey of India and North Zone Cultural Centre does not include Bihar as North India. I do not think the news paper link in a DROPBOX is substantial to consider it north Indian when the State Govt itself considers it Eastern. Newspapers do it a lot for convenience especially when Bihar is part of the Hindi Belt. I think Proper sources need to be referred for this purpose.
So first of all I suggest you that Cultural site shouldn't be even there! Why is it there on this more precisely geographical division of a country? Geological survey of India provides ample reference. Link of cultural site should be somewhere at other place like there are other definitions of North India. What do you think? You should remove Rajasthan and chandiarh at first place because Geological Survey of India doesn't have any reference to these states/ut. 103.212.159.57 (talk)
And Mr. 103.212.158.11, I was the one who suggested to keep the whole line, otherwise Batternut had suggested to remove it alongwith the name of Bihar. And why do you think I'm a Rajasthani, I might not even be an Indian. As far as languages are concerned, I remind Eastern Aryan for Bihar because you in your edit specifically pointed out that Rajasthan and Bihar to be 'linguistically' part of North group which is not the case for both. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Mr. Fylindfotberserk, You were the one who suggested to add west bengal, jharkhand and gujarat in this topic even when there's not a single reference for these three states? Earlier it was Rajasthan, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh. Why did you remove it then? Geological survey of India site didn't include these states but these states were there because they were part of North or North Central Cultural zone. What was need to use north zonal cultural site as a primary reference? And eliminate north-central zone? This gives a clear idea of who you are and where you are from. But this is not something we are here to discuss. About Languages, even though Bihari languages are classified as Eastern Indic languages but still it is included under "Hindi" as a dialect except Maithili. Which is similar and true for Rajasthani language as well. 103.212.159.57 (talk)

Another site strictly says Bihar is Eastern while Rajasthan is Western Indian http://www.mapsofindia.com/zonal/.
According to Indian Zonal Councils BIHAR is in Eastern Indian Zone while RAJASTHAN is in Northern Indian Zone. It seems there are more official sites and evidences which makes BIHAR an Eastern Region rather than a Northern while there are much more references of Rajasthan being a Northern State. http://interstatecouncil.nic.in/genesis/ The wonder how SCANNED pictures of a Newspaper are enough to warrant a new header Wider definition as well as overrule all those official references.Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Why do you keep ignoring the NCZCC site when you used NZCC site as a primary reference here so as to include rajasthan? LOL keep doing your every bit to eliminate Bihar and MP from this article. I've known many bihar haters. 103.212.159.57 (talk)
I don't think the statement "Other states sometimes included are Bihar" overrules the official positions. We should be aiming for a WP:neutral point of view (NPOV), requiring "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources". The NPOV page also talks about getting the right balance, and not giving undue weight to any view.
I think The Hindu is a reliable source, but it gives no definitive statement such as "North India consists of X, Y, Z, ... and Bihar", so for now the official views carry greater weight. With this in mind, it might be that some states including Bihar are given undue attention in the body of the article. While more references are turning up to support the wider definition of "North India" I am happy to wait a bit.
Btw, I have no connection to either Rajasthan, nor to Bihar. Batternut (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I hope I am not intruding or anything of that sort, but I had read through and hope to provide some information to clear up this dilemma. If you visit this page: http://www.indiaculture.nic.in/about-us/autonomus-bodies/zonal-cultural-centers. You will find the source that was linked earlier. To further reiterate, Bihar is considered to be apart of North India a far greater deal over Rajasthan. As stated earlier, if you visit India, Bihar is more notably classified as a North Indian state while Rajasthan is considered to be rather a state apart of the West. Also, the Bihari languages such as Bhojpuri and Magahi are often classified as apart of the Hindi Belt, and should not be classified being similar to Maithili, Angika and Eastern languages. BigNasty (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree with BigNasty. There is only one thing I smell here is anti-Bihar (i) sentiment which is quite common among Indians. And it is not anymore concealed or hidden to anybody. I have nothing against any state. I just see other users (don't know if they are admin or not) pre-occupied and prejudiced against my claim over this issue. They are picking up only those links which will eliminate Bihar and MP from this region which is not even strongly backed up by any government sources. Bihar, popularly and culturally was always considered a part of north India especially it's western and central regions. Mithila region is a different case, of course. But it is comparable to cultural divide between West UP and East UP. Moreover, Bihar is not a North-Eastern (Seven Sisters+1) state and lies completely above tropic of Cancer which, if taken into consideration by sophisticated, unprejudiced, unbiased minds, presents Bihar, geographically as a part of North India. And Delhi and UP are a part of North-Central Cultural Zone, so is Bihar. Delhi and UP are culturally considered North India, so should be Bihar. So now it is upto you guys. One thing more I'd write here that Indians don't deserve to be admin here on Wikipedia. They just can't get over their prejudiced mindset! #No offence 103.212.156.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@ Mr or Mrs 103.212.x.y, if you would stop ranting and find some reliable source it would (a) be useful, and (b) people will listen to you. Batternut (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Bihari Sentiments LOL...Listen Mr.103.212.159.57 or whatever because you Seem to be using Proxies as your IP is changing constantly, I have seen a lot of Biased people play the Victim Card to Further their own Personal Agenda (which in your case seems to be pushing Bihar into North India despite overwhelming evidences, geographical, official and links) by attacking me of all people when I was the one who suggested to keep Bihar alongwith other states in the first place. On the other hand you removed other state names and added rhetorical statements. It seems like you are BIASED against Western and Eastern Indians despite your own State Government(Bihar) mentions it to be Eastern Indian. I've seen you editing BIHAR out of the Eastern Zonal Council. Funny how Jharkhand was part of Bihar less than 2 decades ago but you seem too keen to remove it. As far as Rajasthan and Bihar, The Zonal Councils need to be given priority which strictly adds Bihar in Eastern Indian Zonal Council and Rajasthan is in Northern Indian Zonal Council. As far as Cultural Zones are concerned, Rajasthan is in north, north central and western while Bihar is only in north central and eastern only. So Rajasthan is more likely to be highlighted than Bihar in this article. I think Bihar is given more than enough importance. You don't want Indians editing

wikipedia for neutrality, how ironic. You are the one being most prejudiced waving your victim card especially when the Only thing north about Bihar is its inclusion in the nczcc. Secondly, by latitude logic, NE states should be included as majority of them are totally above Tropic of cancer despite latitudes don't give a damn about East-West directions. So the position of Bihar in the article is just appropriate.

Batternut I agree with your stance on Hindu newspaper regarding Bihar, but I would suggest merging of Wider definition, Latitude-based definition, Anecdotal usage into a single Topic. I wonder how Latitudes can be a solid evidence considering its ambiguity regarding West and East Cardinal directions. If Latitudes can be used as a marker for North India, then North Eastern States as well can be referred as most are above the Tropic line. Secondly Gujarat, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, West Bengal can also be linked as Big parts of them are above it. Moreover latitude being a political thing, while Indo-Gangetic plain being a Physical thing, States of West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat can be added as the Historical definition of North India was Indo-Gangetic Plain/ Aryavarta and link may be taken from the Manusmriti souce


BigNastyHindi Belt is an umbrella term where people can speak standard HIndi but might be geographically separate. Bihar Govt said it belongs to the Eastern region. Secondly linguists put BIHARI languages in the Eastern Aryan Category Bihari languages. Thirdly according to the Zonal Councils, Bihar is in the Eastern Zone
http://interstatecouncil.nic.in/genesis/
Another link puts Bihar in Eastern India http://www.mapsofindia.com/zonal/

Even Indian Railways puts Bihar and Eastern Uttar Pradesh in East Central Zone. There are more evidences putting Bihar in East despite that I would like it alongwith the rest to be mentioned in the article.Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I have little skin in this as I rarely edit articles like this however I don't agree with you spreading falsehoods. Firstly as I have previously mentioned, Biharis are nothing like any of you Eastern people (Bengalis, Odias etc). If you read anthropological sources you will find that Biharis as a whole actually look down on Bengalis (based of these sources, not my view). Secondly there is no such thing as a "Bihari ethnic group" or language. There are three main ethnic groups:

With this in one you cannot group them all within one Eastern group. Also Bihar has many castes that are only found in North India are none in East India like Rajputs, Yadavs, Bhumihars etc. There are zero of these castes in East India. Damien2016 (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Just because I point overwhelming evidences that Bihar is considered an Eastern region becoz of Geography, etc, you resorted to Racist Attacks. I'm not the one grouping Bihar in Eastern India, it's the Indian Govt doing it. Cry to them instead. Besides why consider me a Bengali? Biharis looking Bengalis down?? That's a laugh becoz it is the other way around. It is Bengalis, Punjabis, Marathis who look Biharis down becoz of their being in BIMARU state. Genetic studies on Indian populations put them in a distinct South Asian gene pool. According to Fornarino et al West Bengalis, UP Brahmins, Rajasthan Rajputs, Punjabi Lobanas are related in mtDNA. Moreover Bengalis have ~40% R1a1a Y-DNA while Bengali Brahmins have it at HIghest 72%. If you go by that logic, you know what R1a stands for. Yes there is a BIHARI LANGUAGE Page which I quote. FYI, I didn't create it either. So I suggest don't get carried away by your Bihari Supremacy.Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
If you read the page properly then you would realise that it's Bihari languages with an S. That means it's a group of languages, do you understand now? And also it's the work of just one linguists, Grierson. And why are you talking about random outdated genetic studies and and going off topic? Just take one look at Bangladeshis and that will tell you how Punjabi they look LOOL. Look, please understand. Biharis don't like Bengalis and they don't want to be grouped with you Bengalis. This is not my words but those off British era gazzeteers. I can provide sources if you want.
You are clearly unhappy with so you're resorting to off-topic posts and personal attatcks.Damien2016 (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I am very familiar with the term of Hindi Belt. It is an umbrella term grouping the Hindi languages and dialects, not where people solely speak Standard Hindi. The Eastern Aryan languages is a group including languages such as Bengali and Oriya. The Indian Government classifies the languages Magahi and Bhojpuri as dialects of Hindi. Also Batternut you should see that I included the dialect Chattisgarhi, which is spoken to some extent in neighbouring states. I wasn't including the state Chattisgarh. North India is more so defined on the fact of the States that have Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi and Kashmiri as a primary language.BigNasty (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Damien2016, You're being unhappy so you attacked me with your racist antics and why obsessed with North India?? If you could read my older posts then you would realize that I did put Bihari languages with an 'S' multiple times and there are studies by Western people who clubbed Bihari languages into a single language. I wonder how much credibility or logic the hundred+ years old British gazetteers have which in your view are 'more' important than current INDIAN GOVT Ministry of Home Affairs Zonal Council divisions, Cultural Divisions, Geological Survey, Basic Geography, Linguistics and most importantly your own Bihar govt. which mentioned the state in Eastern Region just because those gazetteers seem to conform to your POV. Biharis don't like Bengalis sounds like a crap rhetoric by someone who thinks himself to be a Bihari leader. In real life, Bengalis don't like Biharis and don't want to be clubbed together. However Indian Administration wouldn't give a damn about British gazettes or what different ethnicities think about themselves. I know of many Bihari/Eastern UP friends who admire Bengalis and Bengali culture and want to be clubbed with them to the point of studying in Bengali medium schools and taking up Bengali as subjects(you'll find many examples of them in West Bengal).
Outdated studies! Genetic studies are never outdated nor Random. Older studies are being referred to by Newer Studies and compliment eachother. It is not like Indian Census data that changes everytime and needs to be updated. Moreover you are the one going off topic who wrote Biharis look Bengalis down which seemed totally Racist and attacked me personally. If you had just mentioned Biharis don't want to be grouped with Bengalis then I wouldn't have put the genetic details. But you sounded Racist and again now when you say Just take one look at Bangladeshis and that will tell you how Punjabi they look LOOL like some Racist Guy ranting in Youtube, Facebook or any forum. Want to be grouped with Punjabis, too bad Biharis don't look like Punjabis and Punjabis do not want Biharis in their state who seem to be flocking there en masse and taking their menial jobs(ground reality) and do not want to be clubbed with you Easterner Biharis either. As far as looks are concerned, every Indian ethnic group/region has every type as categorized during your esteemed British Period as gracile Mediterranean(proto-egyptoid), alpine-dinarics, proto-nordics, orientos, proto-greeks, turkic, etc similar to how the Nordicists did with Europe with some being most common than others. So Punjabis and Bangladeshis would share some types especially proto-greek, turkic, gracile Mediterranean, but Punjabis would have higher presence of proto-Nordics while Bangladeshis will be high in Alpine and Dinaric elements. That being said Biharis and UP people don't look like Punjabis, Haryanvis or Kashmiris either nor are genetically closer to them. Neither Eastern UP, Bihari people can be grouped with Western UP Jat dominated people. Bengalis of India and Bangladeshis cannot be grouped together in precise conditions since every person in Bangladesh essentially calls himself Bengali and owing to Bangladeshi's higher Turkic, Middle Eastern affinities which is reflected in their genetics.
Yadavs, Bhumihars are not found in Punjab or Kashmir neither Jats are found in Bihar/Eastern UP, but Sadgops and Ghoshs of Bengal are essentially Yadavs. And Bhumihar meaning land grabbers are comparable to Zamindar Brahmins of Bengal. So you cannot generalize things like that, Castes, Linguistics, Looks in South Asia which are much more complicated to be summed up in few sentences, that's why for NPOV Indian Govt Institutions are to be referred. Bihar has essentially become like Poland which is considered Eastern European linguistically but geographically it is in Central Europe. That being said, I agree that Bihar is the strongest contender to be considered North Indian out of 'Bihar, Jharkhand, Gujarat, West Bengal', but then again according to Indian Govt Institutions not so much and Rajasthan will definitely have a higher preference.
And why you keep calling me Bengali? I'm not a Bengali instead I stayed in every Zone of India for substantial period of time each and secondly I'm not someone from Indian Govt who decides which states to be put in what zone. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


Why are you forgetting the fact that Bengali Brahmins score 48% ASI while Bihari Bhumihars score only 34% ASI?
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2225-Experimentation-with-Admixture-Software/page81
Why are you forgetting that Bengal was not a part of Aryavarta? Why are you so desperate to to associate yourselves with Aryans? Did you know that the British classified Bengalis are Mongolo-Dravidians? We must face the facts that Bengalis are not Aryans. Very few male actors come from Bengal however Bihar has produced Sushant Singh Rajput, Narendra Jha, Aham Sharma and many more. The British never recruited Bengali soldiers because they considered them to weak. Bihari upper castes like Rajputs, Bhumihars and Maithil Brahmins are closer to people from UP, Nepal, MP and Rajasthan then to any Bengali. None of these are personal attacks but facts that I have provided.Damien2016 (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Bengali Brahmins scored ~80% ANI in a 2016 study. Why forgetting Bihar, UP, Rajasthan, MP, Delhi people are classified as Australoid/Mongoloid by Charleton Coon.

Why forgetting your link didn't prove anything you say but IRONICALLY proves UP Brahmins are Closest to Bengali Brahmins(5.03 distance) than UP Kshatriya(6.7) LOL. Admixture tests are not facts because they vary a lot between companies, as they work on different samples, formulae, scales and reference populations. People in forums even make their own admixture calculators. Bengali Muslim was closest to Bihari Muslim, and so on. Ultimately South asians in same genepool which I was pointing since day one and UP Brahmin, West Bengalis, Punjabi Labana and Rajasthanis are closer as per Fornarino et al. That's why published papers on specific haplogroups carry more weight. As per Indo-European theory, R1a is considered by some to be Aryan Marker in India, so by percentage, Punjabis at 47% makes them one of the most Aryan groups while Bengali Brahmins at 72% makes them the most Aryan caste in India. While by age, Gujaratis, Saharia tribals, Kashmiri Pandits, Mohana tribe from Pakistan are the oldest carriers of R1a thus older/purer Aryans. For the record Bengali Brahmins have 8% of Western Haplogroup H (mtDNA), the most common type in Europe which the UP Brahmins didn't show. Bengali Shudras have 36% West Eurasian(Middle Eastern/European) mtDNA while UP Brahmins have only 8% and Biharis 0% in the tests.

  • Nepalis are heavily East Asian/Mongoloid even the Chhetris and Brahmins as per tests. Funny for someone hating mongoloids. Ask a Rajasthani if he's related to a Nepali lol.. Rajasthanis speak West Indic, Maithilis speak Eastern Indic(their script is also similar to Bengali) while Nepalese speak Northern Pahari. Only Rajput caste is shared among them, they are ethnically, genetically different. People in your links are not close minded. One Bihari guy says Gupta Kings might be from Bengal and how Whole north India had been dominated by Bengali Palas and Gaudas.

British said this, British said that spoken like a true serf of the empire, ironically British themselves are least Indo-European genetically. It was one ethnographer, who was criticized for incorrect classification and manupulating migrations. Later British time researchers put Bengalis as Indian Alpo-Dinarics and Mediterranean, Irano-Scythian etc. Why are you desperate to make Aryan of yourself when British equated Indians with African people. They didn't even call Iranians as Aryans but mixed with Semites and Dravidians, let alone Bihari/UP people who according to your "british study" were heavily Dravidian, categorized alongwith Sri Lankans and were considered darker than "Scytho-Dravidian" and with Curly Hair.

1)Why you keep forgetting that Bihar was NOT part of Vedic Sapta Sindhu. You should accept the fact that Biharis are not Aryans because Vedic Sapta Sindhu region didn't even include UP and Rajasthan let alone Bihar.
2)You should accept that Indo-Aryan culture originated outside of India according to most archaeologists/linguists and whole South Asia was Dravidian speaking homeland.
3)You should accept the fact that Aryavarta included Bengal as per Manusmrti and North West subcontinent was NOT part of it because of Iranian Scythians and Indo-Greeks influence.
4)You should know Aryavarta is the land where Blackbuck was found i.e the Whole Indian Subcontinent. Point is Aryavarta changed boundaries a lot based on supposed adherents of ARYAN CULTURE which itself is foreign while the basic Indian/South Asian race/genetics stayed the same.


British considered Biharis, UP people, MP people "weak, non-martial and crafty" as well after they recruited "Loyal" Sikhs, Gurkhas and Pashtuns soldiers. Bengal region during British Times was like a caste/class system in itself and Bengalis being the most learned group enjoyed good positions in the Govt. British were rulers; Bengalis were Govt Officials, Police officers, Professors; Marwaris were Traders, Businessmen and Biharis were the Workforce(chose them as labourers in Caribbean) so no need for Bengalis/Marwaris going outside of their occupation. Rajasthani Marwaris, Gujaratis were not in the British army either or Pathans now. Famous Bengali strength athlete e.g. wrestler Jatindra Charan Guho, Mr. Universe bodybuilder Manohar Aich never heard of bihari strongman

Mr. Fylindfotberserk or whatever you are, First, when you are so smart to notice my changing IP address, why aren't you smart enough to do a quick research about my IP addresses? It's my ISP who is doing this not me. Now, you talked about Victim Card can you elaborate what is it? Who is the victim here of what? And if I'm playing victim here then it makes you the culprit but of what? Not letting Bihar in? Dude, I've enough references to my claim, likewise you used NZCC site as a primary reference, I can use NCZCC site as well here which includes Delhi, UP, MP and Bihar alongwith Rajasthan, Haryana and UK. And this site alongwith NZCC was here on this article for years before you started vandalising. And also, The Hindu pages on dropbox or anywhere provide enough evidence for it. The Hindu is a prestigious national daily. And It chooses to put Bihar under its North page in its printed edition newspaper. So in order to make it digital, I'd only option, scan it and upload to a cloud server. And this is what I did. But your privileged mind has objection over it as well LOL. And I am biased? Anyway I have no plans to amend this article using my references and go on an endless edit war with people like you. I want a clear concensus on it. And moreover now you have accepted that Bengalis look down upon Biharis, provide me a reliable source/reference for this! This is language used here. Provide reference for each and every statement you say here. And yeah do not mix Bengalis with Punjabis and Marathis. These three group of people are completely different from one another linguistically, culturally, and ethnically/genetically. And now since you have talked about genetics and all that R1a1 thing. Let me tell you, it is somehwat linked to a migration theory most probably Indo-Aryan migration theory. Because South Asia is rarely considered to be a possible place of origin for this haplogroup. So you might be a believer of Indo-Aryan Migration theory (as you've mentioned somewhere about Aryavart as well), so you should be knowing that It happened from North-West to East. Not the other way around. There is vast streches of Bihar and Eastern UP enroute Punjab to Bengal. Bengali Brahmins didn't fly from west UP to Bengal at the time it happened. Bengali brahmins most probably entered Bengal through Bihar. So it is obvious Bengal can never have more population with R1a gene than Bihar in any case. And provide a reliable source for your claim that Bengali people as whole group have ~40% of R1a1 genetics. I've found 2 Bihari groups with higher percentage with R1a1 haplogroup ie, Brahmins (with around 60%) and Paswan (with aroud 40%), and the latter one is an untouchable caste in Bihar and UP. You seems to have enjoyed very much about doing research about this, do some with population of Bihar and eastern UP too. You'll find out what I am saying. "Bangladeshi's higher Turkic, Middle Eastern affinities which is reflected in their genetics." Would you like to explain it? Everybody know how Bengalis and Bangladeshis look like. Look at the entire cricket team of Bangladesh. LOL yes you are a bengali who looks down upon biharis and think that you are somehow similar to Punjabis and north Indians in looks or genetics. Before deteriorating the page there was nowhere West bengal or gujarat mentioned. You brought them here. And you are entirely being racist and manipulating facts and trying to tarnish the image of Bihar. Coming to looks, Earlier Bengalis were grouped as Mongolo-Dravidian whereas People from Bihar, and entire UP, Uttarakhand and even Himachal Pradesh were grouped as Aryo-Dravidians. And they had most probably did it on looks of each ethno-linguistic group. Here are the links http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00maplinks/modern/racialmap1925/racialmap1925.jpg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:India1909PrevailingRaces.JPG In previous section, I found you talking so much about Indo-Aryans and Aryavart, moden day Bengal (including Bangladesh), wasn't even a part of Aryavart. Anga region of Eastern bihar was the easternmost boundary of Aryavart. Jharkhand was a part of Bihar some 2 decades ago. 2 decades or more precisely some 17 years. It is quite a long time. And it was divided. Why was there a need to divide it? Because culturally it is more like East India and less like North. Huge amount of Biharis living in Jharkhand doesn't make any difference. Jharkhand is more like west Bengal. Even their attire is similar to Bengal. "Red and white sari for women". And Jharkhand is not a part of NCZCC.

Btw, this is not a Bihar-UP vs Bengal discussion. It's about why people here have anti-Bihari sentiments? Why Bihar was removed from this article and later added alongwith Bengal and Gujarat which will ultimately be removed? Bihar was a part of then Aryavart. Tropic of cancer, which at many points is supposed to divide India roughly in two equal halves, north and south doesn't even pass through Bihar. Bihar is totally above tropic of cancer (not half or major portion, because wb and gujarat was majorily below tropic of cancer also, if it is to be considered, they'd be most likely central region because they are neither completely in north nor in south) Bihar is culturally classified as North-Central Cultural zone and It should be an integral part of this article. Bihar qualifies every bit to be a part of this article. No matter, what government agencies put Bihar under eastern region. It's totally upon the editor of the site. And there is Bihar present on the East India page. But it doesn't mean that it is not north. 103.212.156.165 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Listen you Racist Troll if your judgment hadn't been clouded by Racism, you would have seen that I in my last post specifically mentioned that Bihar is the Strongest contender from the group of states not typically North despite the only North being North-Central in case of Bihar, I've explained time and Again that I did not write the sentence which included 'Gujarat, Bihar, West Bengal', I only reverted an edit by you which you outright removed. Since you are 'too intelligent' to open up revision history and check it, I provide you with page before my first edit in the Article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_India&oldid=772122490 or you are using me to vent your Anger on Bengalis now and previously Rajasthanis?? Bengali vs Bihari racist crap was started by Damien that's why I countered with Genetics.

  • I know Indians like you like to take support of Old time Decaying British Data and that too by a crappy biased ethnographer for their own outrageous Racial Claims when they have no base in Modern Genetics. Not a coincidence, this Racial Classification came first in 1911, the same year British India capital shifted from Kolkatta to Delhi obviously to Pander to North Indians. Did you know Bengali anthropologists worked alongwith the British to stratify Indian groups. That was the time of Scientific Racism when English-German Nordicists claimed Russians, Turkey people and Finnics are Mongoloids as well and Celts as 'Mediterranean(including Australoid)' and Negroid affinities. While themselves as pure 'Xanthochroic Nordics'. Ironically like most Hindi belt people, the English/Germanics are found to be most mixed in Europe while Slavs are considered forbearers of Indo-European culture in Europe and Celts the purest race in europe. It should be noted that later Both Bengalis and Russians were claimed to be mostly Alpine-Dinarics when Alpo-Dinaric as a race came to be which supposedly originated around Hindukush in later anthropology by the British while Dravidian essentially means Palaeo-Mediterranean(Proto Egyptoid) which is the basic type of South asians. According to M K Bhasin Bengali Races are Alpine, Dinaric and Proto-Greek apart from the basic type Proto-Egyptoid.
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.502.3632&rep=rep1&type=pdf Besides why do you want to be Punjabi, they according to your colonial data are Indo-Aryan while you are Aryo-Dravidian. According to a more general and balanced and well referenced work by Herrmann Julius Meyer[[1]], Most of Northern Indians including Bengalis, Punjabis, Kashmiris all are mix of Aryan and Dravidian races.


  • Nice circumventing 72% R1a of Bengali Brahmins to counter West Bengal Whole %age with your 2 bihari groups LOL...Grapes are Sour right?? Genetics is much complex for you to understand. The regions a Haplogroup is hypnotized to originate most of the time do not have the highest percentages. R1a1 originated in either Central Asia, Gujarat, or Iran and all these places have lower R1a1a presence than West Bengal(39), Punjab(47), Poland(55), Russia(45) etc and most likely migrated from West India not NorthWest India. ~40% R1a in Bengal as a whole 39% to be precise data comes from KIVISILD ET AL 2003b if you care to check instead of your Rantings. Like a typical Racist you failed to check the Research which says Bihari Brahmins are 60% R1a. This study Sharma et al 2009 also says Bengali Brahmins to have highest percentage of R1a of any Indian group at 72%. Secondly according to Sharma et al data, Bengali Brahmin R1a is Third oldest among Indians preceded by Kashmiri Pandit and Saharia R1a. Bengali Brahmin R1a was also grouped with Sindhi, Balochi, Makrani R1a rather than UP, Bihar, Punjab Brahmins despite regional distances even if they migrated 'through Bihar'. Moreover R-lineages including R1a, R1b, R2 are Asiatic Alpinoid. High percentage of R-lineages in West Bengal(~70%) alongwith very low Arabian DNA unlike you people gives Bengalis more Alpine look similar to Russians. Moreover R1a in India has nothing to do with Kurgan Hypothesis, the one you seem to be supporting for Indo-Aryan Migrations which only seem to be cultural but not genetic like Muslim and British Invasions of India. Bangladesh have more Middle Eastern/Central Asian lineages is obvious becoz a lot of Arabs, Pathans, Turks have settled there historically.


  • As far as Female lineages(mtDNA) is concerned, East Eurasian(Mongoloid) lineages are Highest among Tamils(24%) and Kashmiris(21%), Gujarat(5%), Punjab(5%), Maharashtra(5%), UP(4%), Kerala(4%). West Bengalis show it at only (1%)(Kivisild/Metspalu data). Now tell who is more mongoloid?? Bengali females are closest to Rajasthani females as per this research and Fornarino et al. UP people also showed African mtDNA at 1% as well(Kivisild/Metspalu data) while paternal mongoloid lineages e.g. Haplogroup Q, is found at Kashmiri Pandit(6%), UP Brahmin(7%), Bihar Brahmin(5%), MP Brahmin(5%). Australoidness is explained by Haplogroup C and F* with kash pandit(6%), Punjab Brahmin(7%), HImachal Brahmin(21%), Bihar Brahmins(3%) all as per Sharma et al 2009.



  • Aryavarta in Manusmriti included region from the East Sea to the West Sea, which means it included Bengal. [[5]] Anga kingdom also included parts of Bengal and Bangladesh check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ancient_india.png and Anga's brother Paundra and Vanga created more kingdoms in Bengal. Present UP/Bihar people cannot be compared to ancient ones. That's the reason that Eastern Biharis are Alpinoids mostly. Invasions from North West by Indo-Scythians, Turks, etc pushed the original people of those region farther east explained by . Becoz of migrations of Mlechchhas like Sakas, Kambojas, Gurjaras to North West, that part of the country was not considered Aryavarta either.


  • Stop falsifying facts, traditional Jharkhand culture and attire [6], [7] has nothing to do with Bengali culture/attire. Yes they wear white red sarres sometimes but the way they wear it is totally different. Their men wear dhotis similar to UP, Bihari people as well. Bengali men traditionally wear Kurta/Pyjama. Wearing Shirt/trousers do not make Indians European neither Kurta/Pyjama makes them Iranic. They have nothing in common with Bengali people genetically, instead UP, Bihari and MP people has much more paternal genetic affinities with Santhalis especially Kols, Gonds, Paswans and even among Brahmins, Bhargavs, shia, Sunnis on the contrary Bengali Brahmins are much more genetically pristine with only R1a(72%), R2a(22%) and H1(6%). Ever heard of Ululation? The tradition is followed by people across diverse cultures Middle Easterns, Central Asians, Europeans and among Eastern Indians.


  • No matter, what government agencies put Bihar under eastern region. It's totally upon the editor of the site. And there is Bihar present on the East India page. But it doesn't mean that it is not north spoken like a true bully is it. My way or the High way ain't it. Funny how being a Bihari (as you claim) you disrespect Bihar Govt. You are also disrespecting Indian Govt. Administration Zonal Councils which put in east. You are clinging to NCZCC which is just a cultural centre, Ministry of Home Affairs are associated with much more practical work than cultural ministry. That too Bihar is never considered part of NZCC. However stating the obvious shouldn't make me an Anti-Bihari or Tarnish the image of Bihar.


  • If you are so interested in Bihari sentiments, why not create an account instead or are these IPs your sockpuppets. and for the last time I'm not a Bengali. Probably seen me edit eastern pages, so like most close minded racist Indians cannot fathom the fact that Wikipedia is not bound by ethnicity and people can edit whichever article they want. For your Information, my forefathers migrated from Kashmir Valley and settled in Bengal, then in North East India.Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay so Mr. Craphead buffoon now you have labeled me Racist too. I'm wondering what are you gonna label me next after this reply? LOOOOOLLL You know what? The truth is you are the biggest racist ever whose entire focus is to prove Bengalis to be like Punjabi or even Kashmiris, Russian white, with Central Asian and Middle eastern looks, LMFAO OMG Really? Hahahahah OMG still can't stop laughing! In reality I've never even seen a single Bengali with light skin and caucasian features both simultaneously. Though I've seen some light skin bengalis but with mongoloid features. When I was in school, there were few bengali students too and they were clearly different, a Bihari student would look like a typical north India whereas bengalis will have flat face like mongoloids and dark skin. Look at Bangladeshi cricket team. https://talecup.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Bangladesh-team.png this is Afshan Azad (the harry potter cast member remember?) and her father http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/21/article-0-0CDAAAAD000005DC-881_224x332.jpg and brother http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/20/article-1340222-0C8BB376000005DC-948_224x423.jpg bengali actor with "light skin" http://sim06.in.com/8d9fd6cede3a4a06c4bd6ae5a0fbcf92_m.jpg Netaji subhas chandra bose http://www.netaji.org/images/banner4.png Mamta bannerjee (the bengali brahmin) http://www.topnews.in/law/files/mamata-banerjee_119.jpg OMG I never realised Bengalis are so beautiful and white and Caucasian LOL just Look how many of them do you think look middle eastern or russian or central asian or even punjabi? Not a single! And this is entire cricket team and other bengalis including brahims! Why none of them are among those 40% people with R1a haplogroup or 72% in case of brahmins?? And not a single person has a Caucasian look let alone punjabi light skin! Not even brown, they are darkest of brown. They are just like a mixture of tribals austro-asiatics from jungles of west bengal, jharkhand, odisha and chattisgarh and and Mongoloids probably from North East. Mongoloid gave them light skin (very limited) and tribals gave them their looks. This is what they are, stop this bullsh*t about genetics. Look at the MK Bhasin's genetic rsearch you shared look at the map of racial groups in india. Biharis are clubbed with North Indians under tag "Mediterraneons, Orientos & Proto-Nordics" and Bengalis under "Paleo-Mediterraneons, Mediterraneons and Alpo-Dinarics" You racist idiot! From your very first comment I knew what you are! I told you I had nothing against any state! Not a thing untill "YOU ESCALATED THIS ISSUE FROM BIHAR TO BIHAR vs BENGAL AND RACISM" and you did it so fast! People like you don't even deserve to be on this platform like wikipedia and quora, you are doing good on your facebook or youtube. And about my profile, I've had many profiles in past 7 years on wikipedia, but then I realised how it is full of racist ignorants like you, and that is where I took my leave from this wikipedia going more crappy everyday! You bigot, I don't understand what is your problem with Bihar and UP. You seem to be okay with all other states but Bihar? 103.212.158.108 (talk)

"Ohh Fylindfotberserk said Bihar govt and Central Govt calls it an East Indian State. He said Indians are part of the same genepool and Rajasthani Rajput, UP Brahmin, West Bengalis and Punjabi Labana mtDNA are closer. OMGBBQ.. How racist of him" LOL... I understand you and Damien started attacking Bengalis just to distance Bihar from east and catapult it into Northern India. Ironically Bengalis are most tolerant of Bihari people and most Biharis and Bengalis I've met have mutual respect. I said Indian ethnicities were grouped ANALOGOUSLY like Europeans ethnicities by Ethnographers so they grouped Eastern and Western Indians as mostly Brachycephalic/Alpo-Dinaric/Scytho-Iranian similar to how they classified Celts and Russians in Europe, but you incoherent moron couldn't comprehend this simple thing, started crying that I linked Bengalis to Russians and spewed all sorts of bullsh*t like beauty, skin color and your own inferiority complex with Europeans, etc. As for Beauty, the first Miss Universe winner from India Sushmita Sen is a Bengali, never heard of a Bihari Miss Universe. According to Bhasin - Scytho-Iranians who had infiltrated from the ethnic intrusion of the Sakas, Huns, Kushans and Abhiras. Today the stronghold of this type is in Bengal, Rajasthan and Gujarat. Bhasin also considers Bihar as Eastern Region and group it with Orissa.

I wonder why you NRIs are too primitive when it comes to looks and believe in stereotypical crap by Nordicists about european looks. Most of the europeans are Broad headed, small eyed and a lot have rounded features. As for your obsession with Europeans, Ancient Europeans like Ancient Indians didn't have R-lineages and were not pale [[8]]. Original Ancient Europeans had Blue/Grey eyes with Dark Skin [[9]] and had some haplogroups similar to Ancient Indians, East Africans, East Indian Tribals, Tibetans, Andamanese people. They got mixed with Pale skinned dark eyed Middle Easterners. Then came the Indo-Europeans with Medium skin and Brown eyes who have their roots in East Asia/Siberia where R originated whose ancestor P originated in South East Asia. These original Indo-Europeans are most closely related to Native Americans.

West Bengalis have low presence of Middle Eastern DNA J2 but have a very high presence of R-lineages 70% combined R1a(40%), R1b(7%), R2 (23%). In any region with high R lineage, people look more Alpinoid. That doesn't make Russians Bengalis, Gujaratis Welsh or vice versa. Your pictures also proves the same alpinoidness of bengalis

Some Bengalis with proto-Nordic and Mediterranean features - Rabindranath Tagore Young [[10]], Victor banerjee [[11]], [[12]], [[13]] [[14]] Secondly, Bengalis from diff region look different. Bengalis from North Bengal and North East are more long headed, proto-Nordics and I have seen lighter haired and Green/Grey/Blue eyed Bengalis in North East.

  • "I saw them at school..blah...". Ask any non-Bihari in another state, they'll tell what I'm saying. Most of Biharis I saw while growing up in Different parts of India(Punjab, Bengal, NorthEast) look like Australoid-Mongoloid (as per Charletoon Coon's races) being dark, low nasal bridged, high cheekboned like typical JHARKHAND SANTHAL PEOPLE, whom you hate so much despite cohabiting with them until recently. It's only in Patna I've seen other types.

examples:- http://bho-hyb.biblesindia.com/mlsp-visuals/508/33.jpg, http://www.bhojpurishubhsandesh.com/mlsp-visuals/508/11%255B1%255D.jpg, [[15]], [[16]], Bihari bodybuilder [[17]]

Why obsessed with Bangladeshi Cricket team?? Are you a Bangladeshi Bihari? 'They come from poor backgrounds mostly but they look better than these bihari cricketers [[18]], Umesh Yadav [[19]]. The Pathan, High Caste Bengali and Turkic descent Bangladeshi's are into movies and stuff but you'll not see that. Some proto-nordic/Iranic/Arab Bangladeshis [[20]], [[21]],
Actors jalil-ananta-image.jpg, [[22]], [[23]], [[24]]
Stop comparing Bengalis from West Bengal to Bangladeshis? Bangladesh is a country not an ethnicity where everyone calls himself Bangali even if they have different origins. Secondly, Bangladeshis are not genetically very close to West Bengalis, it's like comparing Sindhis to Pashtuns. Bangladeshis have higher East Eurasian mtDNA 5%-10% of which most are Turkic/Central Asian/Native American while West Bengalis have only 1%.

  • East Eurasians are not restricted to North East India. They flank the whole Northern India now and in history. Tibetans, Turks, Mughals all. Have some common sense. East Eurasian mtDNA is higher among Northern Indians than Southern Indians and Higher among higher castes than among lower castes and tribes except tibeto-burman tribes.
  • Every Indian ethnicity has every type of looks/skin color, they are not factory made LOL. Punjabis, Bengalis, Gujaratis and other plains Indians can be Very Dark Skinned to Iranian like light skin. I've seen Very Pale Tamils as well. Among Indian looking people, the fairest are the Semitic types and this look is highest among us Kasmiris.

Northern Indians with dark and australoid looks- Bhumra [[25]], [[26]], Nihangg sikhs [[27]], [[28]], [[29]] [[30]], [[31]], [[32]], Even among Kashmiris kashmiri boy [[33]], [[34]], Rajasthani [[35]], [[36]]
Mongoloid looking North Indian : Khanduri [[37]], Harish Rawat Daughter [[38]], [[39]], daler [[40]], [[41]], [[42]], [[43]], Niranjan Jyoti [[44]], [[45]], Bharati Singh[[46]]

Point is that every region has every type of looks. It's only non-Indian racist crapsters like you who like to stir up baseless things which have no place in the minds of today's Indian people. Secondly I'm neutral towards Biharis but your idiotic Bihari supremacy irks me..(talk) 18:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


I'm not sure what to address you by as you use a proxy, and consistently change your IP address, but nonetheless if you want to make a valid point and argument I suggest finding a way to address this in a proper manner, not by calling one another names. I absolutely agree with you that Bihar should be included on this page, but in order to put this through you and I need to find a reliable source to validate this, instead of making rash accusations. Now to referring to the whole community, the term "North India" is more so defined by linguistics, which includes the languages Hindi(Hindi Belt, includes Bhojpuri and Magahi), Punjabi, Kashmiri and Urdu. There are sources and the majority of Indian society, which list Bihar as a North Indian state. I will try and find a source to uphold this. BigNasty (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

BigNasty no i am not changing my ip address, it's my ISP doing this. And there is no rule where only wikipedia account holders only can make constructive changes on wikipedia pages. And I know, from what and how this discussion has come to this! It's making no one good! I totally acknowledge it. But if you go through, you'll find out it was not me. It was this Fylindfotberserk user who brought all these genetics, race and racism thing into this discussion. I'll happy to be no part of it. Only if this bigot shuts up! And my primary concern over to start discussion was to incorporate Bihar into this article. Because we always thought, and know that Bihar is a part of North India on popular belief/basis. And Bihar was here a fewmonths ago. But then came this or some other guy and started vandalising. And added gujarat and west bengal here, removed UP, Delhi. Made Jaipur the biggest city of North india LOL and Rajasthanised this article. And nobody was even talking about Punjab or Kashmir, my concern was just over Rajasthan. Because Bihar qualifies more for North India than Rajasthan does. But he brought in Punjab and Kashmir, and said they do not want to be clubbed woth Biharis and what not! As if North India is all about Punjab and Kashmir. Well let it be. I'm also up for finding solid references for my claim! 103.212.158.108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@BigNasty: Also you incorrectly stated that Mithila is an "eastern region". Modern day linguists all place Maithili as being close to neighboring languages like Bhojpuri and Magahi with some Nepali influence. It is not an "eastern region" at all.Damien2016 (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Damien2016: Maithili isn't considered to be one a language related closely to Bhojpuri and Magahi. As the latter two are grouped under the Hindi languages, Maithili is not. Maithili is spoken in the Eastern areas of Bihar, thus it is far more closely related to the Eastern languages. Please link where Modern day linguists have stated that Maithili is closely related to Bhojpuri. As a native speaker of Bhojpuri and Awadhi, I can tell you those two are far more closely related than to Maithili. BigNasty (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
No one said that Maithili is closer to Bhojpuri then Bhojpuri is to Awadhi. I said that the closest languages where Bhojpuri and Nepali. "Eastern areas of Bihar", as Fijian you clearly have very weak understanding of the socio-linguistic make up of Bihar and this statement just demonstrated that. Maithili is spoken in North Bihar and the standard form of Maithili is found in Darbhanga and Sitamarhi neither of which are in the East. Eastern districts of Bihar like Kishanganj speak Rajbanshi and Surjapuri both of which are Bengali dialects.

The Maithili speaking region doesn't even border Bengal, whereas it shares a border with Bhojpur and has an overlapping dialect in the form of Bajjika.

Ethnologue groups it as part of the continuum with Bhojpuri:

https://www.ethnologue.com/language/mai Damien2016 (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Damien2016: My apologies. I misread. As a matter of fact I do have an understanding in these socio-linguistic circumstances, as my ancestors are from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. Although there is an overlap, the Bajjika dialect is not very close with Bhojpuri. In fact, may I ask where you are from since you have such an understanding in this matter? BigNasty (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Wrong information in infobox

Infobox information is wrong since uttar pardesh, Bihar and Madhya pardesh are not in the source given in the infobox. I think mistake has to be corrected and these states name deleted from the infobox.Khairaarsh (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

First of all it is not "Pardesh" but "Pradesh". I see what you are trying to say about the link but Uttar Pradesh is part of North India according to Geological Survey of India. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You overlooked what I told. Link in the infobox does not show UP, Mp and behar as North India. http://www.culturenorthindia.com/. It says Punjab, Jammu, Kashmir, Himachal pardehs, haryana, Rajastan, Uttarakhand not Uttar pradrsh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar. Look at the pictures. People of those states do not look like UP, Bihar, MP people and there attire is different and physiacally culturally different. Only western UP Jatts look and dress as punjabis, haryanvis.Khairaarsh (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Listen man, Uttar Pradesh is part of North India according to Geological Survey of India. Check [[47]]. Article is not about culture only. It has more to do with Geography and Administration.Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"The term North India has varying definitions - the Ministry of Home Affairs in its Northern Zonal Council Administrative division included the states of Chandigarh, Delhi, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab and Rajasthan.[2][3] while the Ministry of Culture in its North Culture Zone includes the state of Uttarakhand but excludes Delhi[1] whereas the Geological Survey of India includes Uttar Pradesh and Delhi but excludes Rajasthan and Chandigarh.[4]" I understand about Uttar Pradesh now but look at the paragraph taken from article. There is no Bihar and Madhya pardesh in govt sites. I don't have problem with bihar, MP, bangal, gujjrat in "Other states sometimes included". I don't think any state not in Govt website should be in infobox. I don't understand why you biharis not understand Bihar and Mp is not in North India officially. We are not look same and the link in ifobox do not mention these states.Khairaarsh (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Stop talking about looks. Indians are part of the same genepool if you understand what I'm saying. And people of different types of looks are found throughout India. Some looks are more common in one place than another. Stop going off topic. And I am NOT a Bihari. Coming to the topic I understand what you say. As there are no govt sources on Bihar and Madhya Pradesh, I believe both can be removed from infobox, but Uttar Pradesh stays. Bihar and Madhya Pradesh are part of East and Central India, but Uttar Pradesh is definitely in North zone.Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Khairaarsh since you are talking so much about looks. What do you think Punjabis or Indian Jatts or Indian gujjars or even rajasthanis look like? Do you think they look like Afghans and Persians?? Then who are these people? http://s2.firstpost.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Punjab-protest-PTI.jpg ?? http://images.newindianexpress.com/uploads/user/imagelibrary/2017/1/23/original/jatagitation._AP or https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y8UrHMWEvBg http://www.rajgovt.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Rajasthani_folk_artists.jpg ?? And how do they look different that rest of Indian population? It is just your perception of looking at people! I live in delhi and have been to punjab several times and everyday i meet several punjabis. They look normal Indian to me! Of course, I am not saying that they look like an average tamilians or kannadigans. They are on an average some shades lighter than south indians. And Haryanvis, (according to your perception) don't even look like punjabis! They look like a typical north indian, i see them many times in delhi metro, they speak haryanvi and look like an average bihari worker/labourer. It is just your mind is too much obsessed with "north indian look"! And coming to dress, it is just your women wear a kameez shalwar, which is an afghan influence and not even traditional dress of punjabi or haryanvi women. Otherwise, punjabi and haryanvi men also wear same dress like people from uttar pradesh and bihar ie, dhoti-kurta with a headgear! And sometimes a shalwar kameez! 103.212.157.84 (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You are lying. Punjabi and Haryanvi male clothing is never Dhoti-Kurta. A lot of UP and MP Jatts also wear Kurta Pyjama. Sorry if I hurt somebody but take a lot at Punjabis and biharis, both look totally different, that's a fact. Biharis in Punjab can be easily identified. Haryanvis are darker than Punjabis but they don't look UP Bihari either. I didn't say Afghan or Persian, but yes Punjabis and jatts have some Scythian, getae origins.Khairaarsh (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Khairaarsh: Can't help but ask why did you say Pyjama is traditional dress of Punjabis, Haryanvis and Jats? Pyjama Trousers were adopted from Iranians, Turco-Mongols. Pyjamas are worn by most groups of Indo-Gangetic plain since and is not restricted to North West, but they are definitely not the native garb of South Asians. Secondly you said Jats are Scythians and Massagetae. Genetically all South Asians incuding jats are part of the same genepool both through Haplogroups and autosomally. And yes Pathans are part of South Asian genepool but not Iranians. Kannadigas are much lighter skinned than Tamils. And refrain from using words like lying. That's not how people should talk here. Dhoti/Lungi has always been the traditional garb of south Asians. For more info check the Wikipedia articles on Dhoti, Lungi and how Pyjama has foreign origin.Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Please visit punjab to see what I mean. In villages and most cities people wear pajama. Same is with Haryana. I know other indians also wear it but not traditionally. I say that jats are related to scythians and messagetae because it is writtien in other sources. Visit "jatland" site. It clearly say under Jat gentics in jat people page that jats came from Ukraine. It also says that women are of Indian origin. Pathans speak Iranian so they should be related to Iranian people.

You say to check Dhoti, Lungi articles but the Pajama article says it is of indian origin and traditionally worn by Sikh men.Khairaarsh (talk) 10:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Khairaarsh: Jatland is not a reliable site. It seems full of propaganda and supremacist ideology with very little real information . By origin in Ukraine, the editor of the page you are talking about is probably refering to Y-DNA R1a. For your information, it is common throughout South Asia. Even many tribals have them at elevated levels. Different studies on R1a suggest its origin in different regions like central Eurasia, South India, Anatolia, etc. According to Underhill et al 2014, it's origin is likely in Iran from where it supposedly migrated to both Asia and Europe. As far as Pathans are concerned, they are part of south Asian genepool with some central Asian/East Asian influence as mentioned in Reich et al. 2010. Language shifts, for exp., people of Turkey are genetically related to neighbouring populations of Caucasus and Middle East but speak a Turko-Mongol language, a legacy of the turkic invaders of that land.
Pyjamas of now might be "Indian" since British adopted these from India and popularised it throughout the world, but if you see the origin of the term, it was borrowed from Persian "pāy-jāmeh پايجامه lit. 'leg-garment'". Obviously leg garments like these originated in far colder weathers than in South Asia.Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: If pajamas are from outside then how come villagers mostly wear them. Villagers typically wear traditional clothing. It makes pajama a traditional clothing. How can jatland site be so wrong when I have heard these theories many times. There are many theorists both indian and foreigner who say Scythian origin of jats. Here a link to some genetic thing from Jat people article [48]] I don't know what it is. Khairaarsh (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Khairaarsh:I don't know how to put it man. Just tell me why Bhangra dancers wear Tamba lungi then? And villagers wear whatever is comfortable to them. I've stayed in Punjab and have seen people working fields and doing other stuff wearing lungi as well and sometimes even shirt-pants. Now don't tell me shirts and pants are Indian. Coming to genetics, the link you provided is just the homepage of a gene testing company. It doesn't link to any research paper. Thing is, genetics is much more complex than quoting biased books based on assumptions and vague links. Some admixture calc. do compare Scythian ancestry but it typically shows up in every Indian group and might be because of relations to far more ancient groups in Asia. As I already said, Indians like other people, do share some paternal/maternal lineages with other populations broadly and it is typically the case with other world populations as well. But when it comes to specifics, South Asians possess their own specific sub groups. For exp. R1a has two distinct branches for European and Asian/Indian groups. The ancestor of these groups might have originated in Iran which ultimately came from Siberia and before that South East Asia. For more info, you can check R1a and other articles in Wikipedia and across the internet. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

You may be right but pajama has become important part of our culture. I go through the internet for our origin. Thanks for the informations.Khairaarsh (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on North India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Add all the "Other states sometimes included" to the map

I noticed that some states in the "Other states sometimes included" are included in the map in a light color while others are not. I think all the states from "Other states sometimes included" should be in the map.A145029 (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Languages

The section on languages cites quite a few sources (most of them non-linguistic and conveniently obscure), but it's mostly gobbledegook. Presuming the absence of people willing to do the legwork necessary in rewriting it, should most of the section be removed? I guess no content is better than bad content. – Uanfala (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've removed most of it, replacing it with a very brief overview of the major languages. – Uanfala (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Economy section

Regarding this change. Older reports can be kept with proper mention of time and year. That is the reason why we have information on old reports like census, and other statistics in many articles. Made relevant changes [49]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Image of Taj Mahal Comment

Added an image of the Taj Mahal, one of the most notable monuments of this region. The specific file used is this one. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 20 October 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. I note that the nominator has been blocked indefinitely. There have been many, many discussions on Wikipedia before with sockpuppets, and we were able to survive. (It's especially ridiculous in an RM discussion, which is so explicitly WP:NOTAVOTE.) (non-admin closure) Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


– per MOS:COMPASS and WP:MOS. These are regions/parts of India not separate territories/countries. Like in case of other countries' regions "ern" is always used, for example we use Southern United States not South United States, Northern United States not North United States. similarly we have Northern England not North England. Yes we have names without "ern" too but all of them are used only when we are talking about "Two different countries" for example North Korea not Northern Korea, South Sudan not Southern Sudan, North Macedonia not Northern Macedonia. Some more examples of United states are Culture of the Southern United States not South United States culture, Cuisine of the Southern United States not South United States cuisine. Also for reference we have one page related to India with "ern" see Western India, so i think we should add "ern" with other regions of India as well. Farisjaved (talk) 10:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

North India

All commonly spoken languages and dialects in North India 103.166.244.37 (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Region

Hello @Fylindfotberserk, I opened this discussion to discuss about the meaning and the region covered by th term "North India". So, of the sources provided, none of them actually deal with "North India". All of them are government classified divisions for the Geological Survey of India, Inter-State Council Secretariat and Ministry of Culture and deal with official political divisions called "Northern Zone" and "Northern Region", for which a dedicated article already exists. This article is about the term "North India" and the much popular interpretation is that part of India excluding the South (and the North-East). The region indicated by this article doesn't very commonly refer to North India and again, an article on Northern Zonal Council, already exists. None of the sources provided actually deal with "North India".

I do not request the scope of this article be completely change but instead, both interpretations be mentioned in the lead, instead of just the one currently present, such that readers aren't confused. PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008: How do you intend to do it? I kinda agree that using administrative classification to refer to this piece of land is WP:OR. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps the lead can look something like this:
 
"North India, in a broader geographic context, typically refers to the northern part of India, encompassing all the northern region of the country, excluding the southern states. However, in a more specific and sometimes cultural or administrative sense, North India can also be used to denote a smaller region within this broader expanse, often centered around the Western Indo-Gangetic plain and the Thar Desert"
 
And the infobox could include the maps of both the interpretations. I know the lead doesn't seem perfect and is a bit lacking on details but it can be improved. PadFoot2008 (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk. PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
"Western Indo-Gangetic plain" would include Gujarat, so have to excluded it per administrative definitions, so something like - "Northern Indus, Western-Gangetic plain and the Thar Desert" IMO as the lead para? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk: Yes, that is much better. I am adding it then? You can change anything else required in the article. PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

North India historically included Pakistan and Bangladesh?

Is there any way to include the historical broader interpretation of North India, in which Pakistan and Bangladesh would also be included? For example, I can't think of any reason why Bangladesh wouldn't have been considered North Indian before Partition if West Bengal was considered so.

Perhaps, as a way to avoid the controversy of equating foreign countries with India, we can include a line in the article equating North India in its broadest interpretation with the predominantly Indo-Aryan parts of South Asia? This might also include a place like Nepal into the region, though the Sinhalese parts of Sri Lanka would have to be excluded because of geographical separateness. GreekApple123 (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be fine, perhaps we could add a line at the end of the first paragraph. Something like this: "Historically, in its broader sense, North India also included the modern-day sovereign states of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal, where the population is predominantly Indo-Aryan, in contrast to South India where the population is predominantly Dravidian." Pinging @Fylindfotberserk. PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned references in North India

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of North India's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "PetragliaAllchin":

  • From History of India: Michael D. Petraglia; Bridget Allchin (22 May 2007). The Evolution and History of Human Populations in South Asia: Inter-disciplinary Studies in Archaeology, Biological Anthropology, Linguistics and Genetics. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-4020-5562-1. Quote: "Y-Chromosome and Mt-DNA data support the colonization of South Asia by modern humans originating in Africa. ... Coalescence dates for most non-European populations average to between 73–55 ka."
  • From India: Petraglia & Allchin 2007, p. 10, "Y-Chromosome and Mt-DNA data support the colonization of South Asia by modern humans originating in Africa. ... Coalescence dates for most non-European populations average to between 73–55 ka."

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_India/Archive_4&oldid=1249363198"