Talk:Proposed states and union territories of India

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 2006[edit]

If this can be verified, and actions are being taken to achieve this, then it might be merge-able to India.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RJFJR (talk • contribs) 13:51, March 18, 2006‎ (UTC)

December 2009[edit]

Kodagu is a single small district of Karnataka, and the demand for a separate state for it is far from popular. Should not we put a threshold on which regions/groups-of-districts to be mentioned as aspirant states.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atif.hussain (talk • contribs) 21:38, December 9, 2009‎ (UTC)

Separatist movements of India[edit]

The article Separatist movements of India does not deal with all states listed in this article. Is this correct? Indya1000 14:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indya1000 (talk • contribs)

Deleting North Malabar, Central Travancore[edit]

Removing North Malabar: Original research; no references; written more like a suggestion. Removing Central Travancore (from template): Not even there in the article. Please discuss here if some one has an alternate view Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gondwana[edit]

I can't find information on this. As I understand it, the Gonds mainly live in southern Chhattisgarh, with populations in neighboring states, especially Andhra Pradesh Anybody have any information on who is advocating Gondwanan statehood? Is it as a homeland for the Gonds, for tribal peoples in general (like Jharkhand), or on a regional basis? --Quintucket (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Region of Bihar & Jharkhand, proposed for Mithila State in India.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Region of Bihar & Jharkhand, proposed for Mithila State in India.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Region of Bihar & Jharkhand, proposed for Mithila State in India.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More Districts should be included in Bihar (Magadha)[edit]

Why Bihar (Magadha) is being split into such a tiny piece? The no. of districts in Maithili will be 31 while only 7 in Magadha in Bihar. This is because even those districts that are not Maithili speaking districts are being included in Maithili as a Maithili speaking areas and being carved out of Bihar. Let us not rush into splitting Bihar. Let us first correct this error.

My request to the government is that following districts should be included in Bihar as opposed to Maithili because they are not Maithili speaking areas of Bihar:

Sheikhpura – Magahi Speaking Area
Hajipur – Bojpuri Speaking Area
Lakhisaria – Magahi also spoken and Angika
Jamui – Angika Speaking Area
Banka – Angika Speaking Area
Mugner – Angika Speaking Area

Let us first include these districts that are not Maithili speaking areas to Bihar (Magadha). This will help Bihar (Magadha) increase little bit in size compared to its proposed neighboring states. In its current state, Bihar (Magadha) will become very small in size, which is not helpful for Bihar (Magadha). Bihar (Magadha) will be better off if we add more districts that are not Maithili speaking area yet have been included in Maithili state as a Maithili speaking area. Let the voice of those who care for Bihar reach to the government so that we can stop the unfailr proposed split of Bihar.

Showmeusername (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article exists to describe existing proposals, not to promote or debate them. —Tamfang (talk) 03:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is ok as long as Bihar will really not be divided as proposed in this article. 104.34.27.126 (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kindly be reminded that this article proposes nothing; it only reports proposals made elsewhere. —Tamfang (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright. But, there should be a policy or procedure put in place to determine whether or not a proposal made is fair or acceptable. And, if a proposal is not fair then it shouldn’t be undertaken.

Although Sheikhpura and Lakhisaira are Magahi speaking areas of Bihar, the map of Maithili wrongfully includes Sheikhpura and Lakhisaria districts as Maithili speaking area.[edit]

Although Sheikhpura and Lakhisaira are Magahi speaking areas of Bihar, the map of Maithili wrongfully includes Sheikhpura and Lakhisaria districts as Maithili speaking area. See the links below https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikhpura https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakhisarai


Let us take these two districts out of this map and add it to the map of Bihar (Magadha). In addition, three more Angika speaking districts – Jamui, Banka, and Mugner can be added to Bihar (Magadha). In fact, Magahi is also a major language in these areas. It is extremely important to add these three districts to Magadha in Bihar to ensure that after the proposed new states are established Magadha in Bihar do not become too small to develop. 

76.169.0.43 (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikipedia[edit]

Sheikhpura and Lakhisaira Magahi speaking areas are wrongfully included as Maithili-speaking regions of Bihar in Mithila. 

I removed the two Magahi districts; Sheikhpura and Lakhisaira as Maithili speaking district of Bihar from Mithila.

In addition, Jamui, Banka, and Mugner are Angika speaking districts. I removed these three districts as Maithili speaking districts of Bihar from Mithila also. These districts can also remain in Magadha in Bihar because they are not Maithili speaking districts while Magahi is widely spoken language in these districts. After this revision, the number of districts in Magadha will be 12 while 25 in Mithila in Bihar. Wikipedia, this revision should also be reflected in the map of Mithila.


76.169.0.43 (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Order of states[edit]

Should this list be ordered somehow, most appropriately in alphabetical order? Magicolo (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhili people[edit]

What aboute state for Bhili people? Is there attempt?--Kaiyr (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magadha[edit]

Hello Wikipedia

Why doesn't the map for aspirant states also show Magadha on the map? My request to the government is that no. of districts in Magadha should be comparatively equal to proposed Bhojpur or Maithilia state. Otherwise, this proposed division of Bihar will not be fair and hence is unacceptable. It will be unfair use of national power. Instead of dividing Bihar so unfairly why not just divide the nation into half. Won’t this be more effective way to manage development and growth of Bihar?

104.34.27.126 (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • What's unfair about making states of unequal size? Anyway, this is not the place to debate proposals. To answer your one relevant question, probably the map doesn't show Magadha because the article does not mention Magadha. —Tamfang (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not unfair to make states of unequal size. However, what is unfair is to make the orginal state; for example, Magadha with the capital city Patna in Bihar way smaller than it should be while making the proposed states being carved out of it way bigger than it should be. 104.34.27.126 (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And how do you measure what "should be"? —Tamfang (talk) 06:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you know how many districts will remain in the parent state of Magadha with capital Patna if Bihar is divided as proposed in this article? The no. of districts in Magadha in Bihar will be only 7 districts. While the no. of districts in the proposed states like Mithila and Bhojpur or Purvanchal will be 30 to 32 districts. Is it fair for Magadha? No. Magadha will become too small to develop and prosper compared to the proposed states in Bihar as well as in India. Consequently, it is important that no. of districts in Magadha are equal to the proposed state like Mithila and Bhojpur being carved out of it in Bihar. So, how do I measure what “should be”? I measure it should be; for example, 69 / 3 = 23 districts in each of the new proposed states e.g. Magadha, Mithila, and Bhojpur in Bihar. 104.34.27.126 (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Puducherry's smallness make it poor? Does India have internal trade barriers? —Tamfang (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are not Haryana and Punjab also being split? Are they poor? Why are then proposed state in Bihar are being made as big as 30 to 32 districts? Why are they not being proposed to be made as small as Puducherry? Moreover, from your response one thing is very clear that you yourself are not from Bihar. A fact is that no Gujarati or Punjabi can care for Bihari or Utter Pradesh just like no Bania can care for Kurmi Kshatriyas. They why should they have power at the parliament when it comes to us? Is splitting a healthy size state of Bihar to the smallest state like Puducherry' the only one way to elevate poverty? Then why don’t you try this formula to other big states like Haryana or Punjab that are not being split or the proposed big states like the ones in Bihar?104.34.27.126 (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, if India doesn’t have trade barrier does it mean that parent state of Magadha in Bihar should be made as tiny as Puducherry's. And, Madagah should be made resource less in order that it will have to sustain its needs by solely relying on trade with the proposed big states in Bihar. How in world this kind of argument is justified? Rather this kind of statement just sounds like an excuse to break healthy state like Bihar into tiny piece for political purpose for few powerful and advantageous at the one sided parliament. 104.34.27.126 (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you see it is important that more districts should be added to the parent city of Magadha with capital Patna before the proposed split takes place in Bihar? Do you see making a healthy size state like Bihar to one of the smallest states like Pondicherry is not the justifiable way to elevate poverty? 104.34.27.126 (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let us also have some say at the parliament when it comes to the size of our state after the proposed split of our state of Bihar. And, the way the split of Bihar is being proposed in this article is not fair for parent state Magadha with capital Patna in Bihar. Thus, it is not acceptable. 104.34.27.126 (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Show the Magadh Region also[edit]

Hi Wikipedia,

Can Magadha and its regions in Bihar also be shown in this article?

2602:306:CC45:68D0:D8BC:1F1A:D6A8:E391 (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi do we have references for this? Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Below are two references:

1) Magadh is a proposed state comprising of Magahi speaking districts of Bihar and Jharkhand. 14 to 18 million speak Magahi. It is spoken in Patna,Nalanda,Nawada,Gaya and 5 other districts of Bihar. In Jharkhand it is spoken in Bokaro,Koderma,Girdih and 4 other districts…

https://www.quora.com/pinned/Magadh-State

2) Which state has more Magahi speakers, Bihar or Jharkhand? Magahi is spoken in ten districts of Bihar (Gaya, Patna, Jehanabad, Aurangabad, Nalanda, Nawada, Arwal, Lakhisarai, Sheikh pura, and Jamui) and eight districts of Jharkhand (Palamu, Chatra, Hazaribag, Koderma, Deoghar, Jamtara, Bokaro, and Giridih).

https://www.quora.com/Which-state-has-more-Magahi-speakers-Bihar-or-Jharkhand


103.206.11.233 (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, those are WP:SPS and thus unacceptable here. We need WP:RS for it to be added. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you will accept another Wikipedia article as source either. Do you? 103.206.11.233 (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No because of circular reference. But which article is it? Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article name is Magahi Language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.206.11.233 (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Proposed states and territories of 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Proposed states and territories of 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not delete this page?[edit]

This page promotes bifurcation of Republic of India. The sovereignty of Bharat is under threat due to this page. Vinayakavm (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the issue you just raised has received substantial discussion in WP:RELIABLE sources, it should probably be mentioned in the article. But the article's topic as such is notable, and will be kept, because Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. It is not our job to prevent (or promote) political change. We report upon topics when they are WP:NOTABLE, that is the only criterion relevant here. Paradoctor (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed area which are cross state[edit]

There are regions like Bundelkhand (UP & MP), Baghelkhand (UP & MP), Purvanchal (UP & BR), Mithila (BR & JH), etc. should be dealt in separate section. We should split the regions to inter-state & intra-state.--Fztcs 12:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polls[edit]

Is there any oponion poll about proposed states and union territories of India?--Kaiyr (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Bharat0078 (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Map[edit]

The map used there is inconsistent with the map of India agreed upon and used across Wikipedia. The "fantasy" map used here shows Chinese and Pakistani territory that no Indian has set foot in for 80 years as part of 'India'. 173.61.150.246 (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proposed_states_and_union_territories_of_India&oldid=1204937045"