Talk:History of Uttar Pradesh

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

Hi![edit]

Hi! Everybody,
Please expand this article about history of Uttar Pradesh by your contributions.
- Sayed Mohd Faiz Hiader Rizvi (talk) 13:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article still lacks section(s) on last 150 years comprising of following periods:
  • The British period (c. 1857 to 1947), and
  • The post-independence period (1947 to the present).
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article is copy and paste from other articles on Wikipedia[edit]

This whole article is a direct copy and paste from other articles on Wikipedia. This article should be only about history of Uttar Pradesh and not copy and paste materials on the general era or empire (which this article directly copied and pasted from). The article need to erased completely and start over again from the begining with original material that directly reflects the history of Uttar Pradesh only. Tarikur (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article needs to be erased completely, under headings information more specific to U.P. should be put. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a history of India, but only of UP[edit]

It is ridiculous to call this article a history of UP, it's a history of the whole of north India back to the stone age! UP is a modern political unit. This article should not duplicate other acticles, and should confine itself to the history of UP. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone responds to this with an argument about why all this material which is not relevant to the history of UP as a political unit should be retained, I am going to delete it. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with this argument that only a bigger region has history. Every small place has a history being part of a bigger region. If you don't think this article should exist, then you can file an Afd, and get this discussed over there.--GDibyendu (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please list your concerns specifically, the general argument you are putting is of no help. Anyways, history of North India & UP will be overlaping as UP is part of North India (UP means Northern State/Province). All the portions of article are related historicaly to present day UP in one or another terms. History of Benares, Lucknow, Allahabad, Agra, Kannauj, Rohilkhand, Braj, Awadh, Doab, Poorvanchal, Bundelkhand, Baghelkhand, etc is history of UP as UP is constituted of these parts.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 08:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@GDibyendu: I didn't say it should be deleted, I said it should be confined to the history of UP.
@Faizhaider: UP has existed only since 1950. The United Provinces, on which it is based, came into existence in its earliest form in 1902. Before that it was the North-West Provinces of Bengal, and before that part of the Moghul Empire. What happened in north India in the neolithic era or under the Gupta Empire has nothing to do with the history of UP. That is part of the History of India, where it should be dealt with, and from where all this superfluous text was copied. This article is clearly in breach of Wikipedia's rules of relevance, and it must be cut back to deal with its actual topic, the history of UP. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Intelligent Mr Toad, please correct you facts, in entire history there has been no place called "North-West Provinces of Bengal", I think you mean North-Western Provinces which came into being on 1 Jan 1836. Your logic "What happened in north India in the neolithic era or under the Gupta Empire has nothing to do with the history of UP. That is part of the History of India ..." is self-contradictory as there was nothing called India in the neolithic era or under the Gupta Empire, there were number of kingdoms & states & their vassals. Present entity of India came into being on 15 Aug 1947, even under British it was not in present state. In addition, there are articles like History of Tamil Nadu, History of Andhra Pradesh, History of Karnataka, History of Kerala, History of Odisha have topics from antiquity to current ones even, these states came into existence in present form in 1950s only.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 16:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I do know when the Indian state came into existence. But the term "India" has a wider meaning than that. It's a geographic expression, and also refers to a definable cultural and political area, which goes back at least 3,000 years. I'm sure you know that. So the History of India article can and should look at the history of the Indian sub-continent back to the neolithic era. But Uttar Pradesh does not have any such history. It's a recent political creation, formed by the British from territories they seized from the Moghul Empire. This article should go back no futher than that. I haven't looked at History of Tamil Nadu, History of Andhra Pradesh, History of Karnataka, History of Kerala etc, but if they make the same mistake, they should also be cut back to include only relevant material. At the moment I'm concerned only with this article. I will make the necessary edits tomorrow. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to me History of a place should be linked to the earliest records found within the current geographical/political boundaries. For example, if X incident happened within current boundaries it should be included, if x record found within current boundaries throws some light on the history of the area that should be included. All Countries, Provinces/States are very recent creations, that does not mean that History starts with the formation of a political entity. If there is verifiable information in RS about historical events/incidents within the current boundaries that should be mentioned, and I think that is the established norm on Wikipedia and else where. Amartyabag TALK2ME 11:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not, and "according to you" is not how things are done here. Articles have to make some effort to be relevant to their stated topic. UP covers much of northern India. The history of the area down to the 19th century is already described in History of India, Moghul Empire and various other articles. This article is about the history of the political entity called UP, and nothing else. The furthest back it can go is the British conquest of the area. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you have real courage, try removing pre-colonial history from History of the United States or History_of_texas#Pre-Columbian_history from History of texas.--GDibyendu (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uttar Pradesh refers to the modern Indian state and that should be the primary focus of this article. Obviously, pre UP history should be covered in the article, but it should be briefly summarized in a couple of paragraphs (with links to detail articles) and the majority of text in this article should refer to the modern state of Uttar Pradesh. I would divide it up into a pre-colonial, colonial, and post-independence periods with the majority of the article's text being in the last part (which could be divided into multiple sections). As written now, I have to agree that this is more a history of Northern India, than it is of the state.--regentspark (comment) 14:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that Intelligent Mr Toad is seriously out-of-step with the general view on Wikipedia over this. His is very much a minority view. The history of an area is generally referred to within articles on modern political entities, otherwise there is no context. A history of Russia would be utterly meaningless if it failed to mention events during the period when it was part of the Soviet Union (or the original state of Rus), and similarly a history of Zimbabwe makes no sense unless you refer to the Rhodesia period. Here in the United Kingdom, the historical sections of articles on counties and districts are supposed, according to the guidelines set out by Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography, to give details of any prehistoric periods, Roman, Saxon and Danish rule, all long before the modern counties were established. Similarly, histories of states in the United States customarily refer to the pre-Columbian period, and to the period following colonial settlement and prior to them acquiring statehood. There is no reason why states in India should be treated differently to the rest of the world. Clearly the establishment of the current state is a significant part of the history of the area being discussed, but its history starts a long time before that date. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting debate. I have a hypothetical question: if UP were split up into several smaller states (say, as Mayawati proposed), what would become of this article? What if none of the newly formed states retained the name UP? What if one did?

With concerns like this in mind, I feel RegentsPark's model for the article is best. If that is not the standard practice (as Skinsmoke suggests), we can start a new article History of Uttar Pradesh (since 1947) about the modern state, and leave a hatnote at the top of this article.—indopug (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a hypothetical question when we have the real world example of Uttarakhand, which was split from UP in 2000. As far as I can see, this article more or less neglects the history of Uttarakhand barring a few trivial mentions. I don't see why the same procedure cannot be followed if UP is split up into more states. This history of geographical region vs history of political entity is not a new debate and the consensus has seldom sided with the latter. For instance, see this discussion related to Pakistan where this debate is far more pertinent. I am alright with RP's model though maybe not for the same reasons. What weight a section on post–1950 history of UP should have in the article should only depend on editorial judgement based upon availability of content in secondary sources, nothing else. Splitting out History of Uttar Pradesh (since 1947) from this article also looks good. Regards. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 15:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CK, the problem with your approach is that historical boundaries don't necessarily confine themselves to modern ones. For example, looking at this article itself, entire sections really refer to pan-Indian regions rather than to the modern region of UP. The Buddhist-Hindu kingdoms were more dominant West of UP while the Magadha, Nanda, and Maurya were centered in Bihar rather than UP. The Sunga's moved more Westward into Uttar Pradesh and beyond but then the Indo-Scythians are centered far to the West though they had a presence in Western Uttar Pradesh and modern Madhya Pradesh as well. I could go on but the point is that what we end up with is a long history of northern India which will essentially be duplicated in History of Bihar, History of Uttarakhand, History of Haryana, etc. The focus of a history of a modern entity should be the modern entity if we're not to have this sort of redundancy and, dare I say, dragging in of histories of adjoining regions merely because boundaries are fluid. --regentspark (comment) 16:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse regentspark view, regarding giving more importance to post colonial history and keeping summarised information of the earlier events. Amartyabag TALK2ME 04:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RP has a valid point, but let's not jump the gun here. Most of the article appears to be about the whole of North India rather than Uttar Pradesh specifically because most of the sections probably have been copied as it is from the respective articles. These sections definitely need to be summarized better and rewritten with a focus on the geographical region that is modern day UP. But this task is not as hard as it seems. To an interested editor, figuring out how much impact a particular empire or dynasty had on lives of people in UP and its corresponding weight in the article shouldn't be difficult. For instance, Nandas should be rewritten with focus on Mathura rather than Magadha, Kannauj Triangle should be dealt with in more detail, parts of Prehistoric Period and Revolt of 1857 need to be summarized etc. I have made some changes to this effect and a lot more are definitely required. However, IMO, it's best to leave determination of due weight of the sections to involved editors like Faiz Haider rather than putting it to a !vote. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 04:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At 9959 words this article barely within the maximum limit of a readable prose size of 10,000 words. The version before I started editing stood at more than 16000 words. This is something editors of this article should keep an eye on. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 05:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh By Om Gupta http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/Copper-hoard-found-in-Auraiya/articleshow/2385245.cms and others. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Uttar Pradesh. 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) 08:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Uttar Pradesh. 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) 23:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Uttar_Pradesh&oldid=1195043059"