Talk:Purvanchal

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: Uttar Pradesh / Geography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Uttar Pradesh (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup (assessed as Low-importance). This article was last assessed in July 2012.

We don’t need to divide state. It is not being done for the good for the state, but for good of few in the west who are taking advantage of one –sided president power to reduce and disturb east for their own good. If splitting had any advantage then Haryana and Punjab would have also been divided. Why just split state rather split entire nation into two or four halves each having their own president and center so that they manage development instead of inefficient and dictator like parliament in the hand of few bureaucrat.

Showmeusername (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

== Let the 9 districts of Bihar be

in Bihar   ==

This split is destructively reducing the size of Bihar state to only 7 districts. Purvanchal is already getting 24 districts from Utter Pradesh. . Therefore, why not let 9 districts of Bihar in Bihar. The following line should be edited as it is not necessary. “may also include the western districts of Bihar where Bhojpuri is the predominant language”. This is not needed. Bihar needs its districts back to maintain its size in proportion to its neighboring states. I hope government will listen to voice of its citizens and not act like dictators.

Showmeusername (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Purvanchal. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120511221708/http://upgov.nic.in/ to http://upgov.nic.in/

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) 19:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

FRP नहीं हुआ हैँ तीन दिन हो गये नम्बर चालू हुये — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:A688:BA81:4933:2B85:2B53:982D (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits dubiously conflate this region with the Bhojpuri region while the latter is specific to the language, this is used in the context of Indian state politics. The references obviously do not support it (the only mention being predominance of speakers which I have incorporated into the body), the edits being WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Just because regions overlap should not mean they be conflated with each other. Gotitbro (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Varanasi Prayagraj Ayodhya Gorakhpur Jaunpur Mirzapur Azamgarh Ashutoshchaubeyabc (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Hamhan bhojpuriya you are invited to discuss on the talk page rather entering in edit war. Blaada (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

the data given in this article looks totally fake and created. Purvanchal was a map proposed by Mayavati government of Uttar-pradesh but it was rejected by Union government. In the proposal, Purvanchal consisted in 32 districts of eastern Uttar Pradesh. But there is no such mention here. The map given is also totally fake. The distribution was not on linguistic basis but here language is being enforced. Blaada (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The history section is copied from History of Prayagraj. Prayagraj district being part of Awadh has nothing to do with Purvanchal. So the history section should be removed. @Garudam @Anupam what's your suggestions? Or the article should be portrayed as the map proposed by Mayavati govt which had 32 districts of east and central UP in Purvanchal. The current map here has no historical proof. It's totally made randomly Blaada (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You're right in the mapping part, we should remove the current unsourced map. For the history section, yes it was copied from History of Prayagraj which in turn copied from Prayagraj, the section was actually added by myself in both articles, just that we can't own the content so attribution is a procedural task. – Garuda ^Talk! 12:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

If there is information that is unsourced or the sources used to buttress the same do not mention "Purvanchal" specifically, then it can be removed. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 14:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Garudam if history section is there, the whole article should be based on mayavati map of Purvanchal. If history section is removed, the information and territories should be limited to only Bhojpuri speaking districts. Suggest what should be done. You are invited on my talk page to discuss about languages. Blaada (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Some editors are confused between Purvanchal and Bhojpur. Purvanchal is just a part of Uttar Pradesh which is proposed as a state. It doesn't address other Bhojpuri regions of Bihar and Jharkhand. The proposal was initiated by former CM of Uttar Pradesh Mayawati who proposed to bifurcate state of Uttar Pradesh in 4 parts for better governance. While the Demand of Bhojpur is quite old and it is for all Bhojpuri regions of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand. Blaada (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Purvanchal is already a proposed name of Bhojpuri speaking state, and this map is only a representation of just how insecure Awadhis are about the term Purvanchal , no linguistic state in India has a perfect linguistic boundary, even if this state is formed it will surely have some Awadhi speaking minority, point to point boundaries as shown in this distorted map is just a foolish idea that too when bhojpuri speaking areas have been kept out 103.211.54.50 (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Purvanchal wasn't proposed as a Bhojpuri speaking state. But now it is being seen as a Bhojpuri state so only those parts are displayed in the map which are Bhojpuri speaking. Thanks Blaada (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)