Talk:Naugachhia

Confusing Informantion from 210.212.20.75

This article has been made very confusing and possibly vandalized by the user "210.212.20.75". I tried to revert it myself but failed. Someone should revert it to a previous version. Thanks. -OperationEnduringFreedom (talk) 05:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the sections of concern are: "Education" "Village" "Temples" "Movie Theatres" and "Notable/Important Residents". Thanks again in advance. -OperationEnduringFreedom (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The link for Naugachia, is visible on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.227.63 (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Collagenaugachia-Recovered

Naugachia - The City

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iprungta (talk • contribs) 06:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Why did you revert my article?

Do you know the area of Anga region? Which territories come under it? Whithout knowing anything you edit the article. [Naugachhia] comes under Anga region. Because it's a part of Bhagalpur district. Bhagalpur is also a part of Anga Region. Don't do that.

Regional affiliation of Naugachhia

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

According to the Vrihadvishnupuran, Anthropology of Ancient Hindu Kingdoms: A Study in Civilizational Perspective, and other regional texts, Naugachhia has historically and culturally been considered part of the Mithila region. The Ganga River is traditionally described as the southern boundary of Mithila, while the Anga region begins only after crossing the Ganga to the south. Therefore, Naugachhia lies within Mithila’s boundary and not Anga.

The sources cited to support Anga affiliation do not explicitly state that Naugachhia belongs to Anga. By contrast, there are multiple historical and cultural references which affirm its association with Mithila. Like

• Anthropology of Ancient Hindu Kingdoms: A Study in Civilizational Perspective
• Vrihadvishnupuran(Regional Text)

I believe we should consider these references and discuss further to reach a consensus. In keeping with Wikipedia’s policies on verifiability (WP:V) and neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), it would be best to represent the historical and cultural context accurately and with reliable sources.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts so that we can improve this article collaboratively.

— PurabAnand9 (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

PurabAnand9 (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

References

RFC: Regional affiliation of Naugachhia

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There has been ongoing disagreement about whether Naugachhia should be described as part of the Mithila region or the Anga region.

• • Position 1 (Mithila affiliation):**

Some sources, including the Vrihadvishnupuran and scholarly works such as:

• Jha, M. (1997). Anthropology of Ancient Hindu Kingdoms: A Study in Civilizational Perspective. M.D. Publications Pvt. Ltd. (pp. 27–42)
• Vrihadvishnupuran indicate that Naugachhia lies within Mithila , with the Ganga River as the traditional southern boundary of Mithila and Anga beginning only after crossing it.

• • Position 2 (Anga affiliation):**

Other editors have suggested that Naugachhia belongs to Anga, though the provided sources so far do not explicitly state this. By contrast, there are multiple historical and cultural references which affirm its association with Mithila .

• • Request for Comment:**

Based on the above, how should the article describe Naugachhia’s regional affiliation? Should it be:

1. Presented as part of Mithila , 2. Presented as part of Anga,

Please provide reasoning and reliable sources per WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:V.

PurabAnand9 (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

References

AI text

I have flagged AI text here: this April 2025 rewrite; note WP:AISIGNS e.g. superficial analyses, promotional tone, vocab distro typical of LLM output from mid-2025, etc

Note that this is completely unrelated to whatever apparently edit warring has gone on after this, the text is from last year. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)