Talk:Angika

Untitled
Angika is a language of Anga desh. Angika is spoken by nearly 50000000 people of the world.

(ma 06:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC))It appears from the parliamentry proceedings that around 30 million Angika speaking population reside in Bihar, West Bengal and Jharkhand only, which form a part of Anga desh. Beside around 10 million reside in the other parts of India. Additional 10 million people belong to rest of the world, mainly the south east asian countries-Cambodia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Laos etc., U.K, U.S.A., Russia,and U.A.E. It seems in India alone more than 40 million people used to speak Angika in their daily routine.

NPC:Angika language speaking area of Nepal and West Bengal and Orissa should also be taken in to consideration. This imparts huge population who speak Angika.

Related to Khmer???
The second paragraph of the current version of this article claims that this language is closely related to Khmer, a language from an entirely different family.

Might have been related to old form of Khmer.


 * Languages don't change their typologies! Angika is an Eastern Indo-Aryan language that has no natural typological affinities to any language families of South-East Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.215.222.90 (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The confusion could arise from the fact that Angika is an Indic language, and Khmer historically borrowed a lot of its vocabulary from Indic languages (Sanskrit and Pali, predominantly). Although Khmer is not at all an Indic language, much of its vocabulary does have Indic roots. --SameerKhan (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of Angvani on this page???
The article is related to Angika Language. Relevancy is not justified. To be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.199.41.18 (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Revert by Samyo
User Samyo used the undo function to revert my earlier edit. I have reverted it back because he did not use any reliable references to support his claims. The edit Samyo reverted to has numerous problems. One is the unreferenced claim of the number of Angika speakers. Per the verifiability policy reliable references are required to back up material that is questionable. A website such as http://164.100.24.208 that Samyo is reverting back to is not remotely reliable. Something scholarly would be needed especially since 30 million is a drastic contradiction to the Ethnologue source. Another problem is the claim of Saraha being an Angika poet. As has been pointed out in the past in the edit history of the article, the Modern Northern Indo Aryan languages such as Hindi and Angika did not exist in the 800 AD. Precursors of them did, but it would require highly reliable sources to support that Saraha wrote in Angika specifically. Another problem with the edit is removing the mention of the relation to Maithili with is easily established by any source. Reliable references are required to add material to an article and particularly for challenged material. - Taxman Talk 20:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

To Angpradesh
No language is older than others, assuming language itself arose only once. Languages are, however, conservative to a different degree. Now, I understand that you're proud of your language (most of us are), but why don't you write something about how Angika is more conservative than others instead of coming up with a clearly false claim. (The same claim has been made about Greek, Sanskrit, Lithuanian, Basque and the list goes on.) All the best 85.220.126.72 (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: In any case, the article has next to nothing to say about the language itself. You would do everyone a favour by doing so. The only bit of information is "Angika shows a regular contrast for animates", which is anything but unique. Cheers 85.220.126.72 (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Age and number of speakers
Here is the Ethnologue report on Angika. Its estimate is 740,900 speakers in all countries. So where does the figure of 50 million come from?

Another thing is its genealogy, which is listed Indo-European, Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryan, Eastern zone, Bihari. So if Angika is so old, shouldn't it be "older" than Proto-Indoeuropean or Sanskrit? Or does "old" here simply reflect the wish of a native speaker to put some sort of "quality-stamp" on his language? In any case, if one language is "one of the oldest languages in the world", that should mean that that language (and presumably a few select others) were in existence long ago while the rest of humanity didn't have speech! Please drop this assertion, heard over and over about various languages, all equally false, and concentrate on the real points of the languguage. And comments about a language's "genius" etc. don't belong in an article about it. The article should be a description, and then others can draw their own conclusions. All the best Io (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The number 30,000,000 (3 crores) was mentioned by Shri Subodh Roy in a parliamentary discussion. Now which is more believable, the estimate of professional linguists or a politician trying to sneak in a probably invalid number? Cheers Io (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A bit of research (Ethnologue) leads to the conclusion, that you get over 30,000,000 if you count Angika and Maithili as one. The article, however regards these as separate languages (and so does Ethnologue). You can't have your cake and eat it too. Cheers Io (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Claim for Age and Number of Speakers are based on Real Evidences

 * The article does not claim that Angika is the oldest language of the world. Rather it claims that Angika is among one of the oldest languages of the world. The reference is also cited for the same. It is not correct to assume that the age of all the languages is same.
 * Angika being an Indian Langauge, the Indian version of discussion should be taken as more realistic. Hence the number 30,000,000 (3 crores) as mentioned by Shri Subodh Roy in a parliamentary discussion is valid.
 * A bit of research conclude that the every fact and data as mentioned in 'Ethnologue' or 'SIL' is not correct. For example, 'Ethnologue' and 'SIL' shows that Bihari is a language. However in real life Bihari language does not exist.
 * Suggestion to say it archaic is not correct, because it does exist in modern period and not out dated.

Angpradesh (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not what archaic means in this context. One says that a language is archaic or retains archaic features, if it has features that were present in its predecessors long ago. Please use a dictionary sometimes. Io (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And professional linguists are generally more reliable than politician. Being an Indian does not make you an expert on Indian languages, not even your mother-tongue. That requires study and, needless to say, that goes for the rest of the world. I take it you have had very limited linguistic training. Try reading a few books on the subject. Io (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally, it makes no difference, whether a language is said to the oldest or one of the oldest in the world. The point is, the word "old" does not apply. All languages are equally old, some are just more archaic than others. Io (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, Ethnologue does not claim that Bihari is a language. It claims that it is a group of twelve languages. Could you at least, please, try to understand what you read before you use an (in this case, non-existent) argument? Cheers Io (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reworded the "speakers" section to present the various estimates. Two more claims for 25 million/2.5 crores have been added as sources. A times of india article showing how Angika speakers are sometimes counted as Hindi speakers has been added.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Angika
MithilaDesham ! Do no try to prove Angika as a dialect of Mathili. There is an independent existence of Angika. even it is a so called dialect of any language. Angika article is entirely different than the article "Maithili". Once upon a time Angika,Magahi, Bhojpuri,Bajjika and Maithili combinedly were known as the dialect of Hindi. All languages are dialects of any other languages. Like Maithili or Angika or other Bihari Languages are the dialects of Hindi Language. It does not mean that there was not any article on the topic of Maithili. Please do not adopt wrong practice of proving any thing right in to wrong. -- — Angpradesh   —  talk 13:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I wish In Future Angika will be recognized as Separate language. But, The present day status of the language is that this language is a dialect of Maithili. And the trusted organizations have proved this. It is neither me nor you to decide.

MithilaDesham (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Till date Angika is not granted its separate status, and it is treated as dialect..... Certainly it will be dialect of Maithili. No other Language is so close to it as Maithili is. MithilaDesham (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * MithilaDesham, I've moved the article back to "Angika". Where did you get this name "Southern Maithili" from? Ignoring Wikipedia mirrors, there are only 9 Google results for Southern Maithili and Angika, none of which classify as reliable sources. Even the CIIL link cited by you contradicts you and mentions Angika as an "Eastern" dialect, not Southern.
 * Please use Requested moves for any debatable moves.
 * Also, I've removed some of the sentences added by you - these are classic examples of original research and unsubstantiated point-of-view:
 * "The most trusted institute of Indian Languages"
 * "This survey is the most trusted survey,till date and this reference is used for most of the linguistic studies in India."
 * "So, This status can not be challanged."
 * As for the issue of a dialect/language, the status of Angika is debated, just like that of Maithili was debated before 2003. In accordance with WP:NPOV, the Wikipedia article should contain both the viewpoints. Trying to include only one of these viewpoints and removing the other is POV pushing.
 * Non-inclusion in the 8th schedule does not mean non-recognition as a language - it just means that the speakers are too few for it to be classified as a major language. For example, Rengma language is not listed in the 8th schedule either - that doesn't mean it is a dialect of one of the languages included in the 8th schedule. The demand for recognition of Angika as a scheduled language is pending with the Government:
 * Home Minister's statement in Lok Sabha
 * A news report
 * Angika has a separate ISO 639 identifier. Here are some sources which mention Angika as a language distinct from Maithili:
 * Government of Bihar
 * SIL Ethnologue
 * Angika Bhasha Ka Dwanivaignanik Adhyayan book published by CIIL
 * Registrar of Newspapers of India
 * Central Board of Film Certification
 * The reference cited by you actually calls it "a newly emergent language" as well. Several other books also mention it as a distinct language - a couple of examples:
 * In accordance with the Neutral point of view policy of Wikipedia, when different reliable sources make two conflicting assertions, we should simply mention both the assertions with attribution, instead of presenting them as direct statements. utcursch | talk 17:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thanks User:Utcursh for giving this explanation. I renamed Angika to Southern Maithili (Angika), thinking it to be more popular name among outsiders. While the original name was given in Brackets. I regret that I did not discuss this thing on Talk Page. The reason behind not discussion is that Many times on Many article Talk Page my message has remained unanswered. Fearing the same here, I considered to move it without discussion. I assure, I won't repeat it again.
 * NAME: As far as name is considered, May it be Angika, it won't make any difference.
 * Also, I acknowledge the fact that Maithili and Angika have their existence, independent from each other. But, In present day situation Maithili is the language closest to Angika. (considering Bhagalpuri Angika be the standard Angika). Different people have different opinions about its status. And discussion of this particular topic may go endless.
 * IMPORTANT: In 2001 linguistic survey, Angika was NOT recognized at all; neither as Dialect nor as Independent Language. Maithili and Angika speaker were collectively registered to be speaking Maithili (correct me if I am wrong). So saying- "Angika was previously considered to be dialect of Maithili " is wrong. It is still considered so. Whether IT IS or NOT comes later. But, such consideration still exists.
 * Here is the link of GOI- Ministry of Home Affairs: Census 2001. The PART-A Table lists all the 22 scheduled Languages and their respective dialects. But, Angika is not Listed under Maithili in Part-A.
 * PART-B lists all 100 non-scheduled languages. Angika is not in this list even. What does this indicate ?
 * ABSTRACT OF SPEAKERS' STRENGTH OF LANGUAGES AND MOTHER TONGUES - 2001
 * As far as my understanding says, Angika is missing from Both the lists. This indicates that ANGIKA & MAITHILI speakers were collectively registered under Maithili. (Say, What you think on this ?) MithilaDesham (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the link of GOI- Ministry of Home Affairs: Census 2001. The PART-A Table lists all the 22 scheduled Languages and their respective dialects. But, Angika is not Listed under Maithili in Part-A.
 * PART-B lists all 100 non-scheduled languages. Angika is not in this list even. What does this indicate ?
 * ABSTRACT OF SPEAKERS' STRENGTH OF LANGUAGES AND MOTHER TONGUES - 2001
 * As far as my understanding says, Angika is missing from Both the lists. This indicates that ANGIKA & MAITHILI speakers were collectively registered under Maithili. (Say, What you think on this ?) MithilaDesham (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point. WP:NPOV means that if different sources differ about a topic, we should include both the viewpoints in the article. So, if you find a source X which states that Angika is a dialect of Hindi, go ahead and add it to article: "According to X, Angika is a dialect of Hindi". Similarly, if you find a source Y which states otherwise, add it to article too: "However, Y regards it as an independent language". utcursch | talk 05:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, Wikipedia is not a place for original research, so synthesis based on different sources should be avoided. For example, someone else could interpret Angika is not Listed under Maithili as the evidence that Angika is not considered a dialect of Maithili. So, this should not be used as a reference to support either of the arguments (dialect or independent language). The sources should clearly state that "Angika is a dialect of Maithili" or "Angika is considered an independent language". utcursch | talk 05:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Error in Angika speaking Regions of Bihar
Sheikhpura and Lakhisarhrai are Magahi speaking regions of Bihar. If you click the two districts on Angika page, it will take you to the wiki page for these two districts. The website for these two districts show Magahi as the official language of these two districts. So, why are these two districts incorrectly being included in the Angika? These two districts should be included in the Magadha.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Showmeusername (talk • contribs) 23:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Lakhisarai comes in the region of Mokama & barahiya which is predominantly part of Angika speaking region. Due to dialectal variation there is a little change in the angika spoken in Lakhisarai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.43.112.98 (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism Observed
It is observed that User:Jakichandan has been involved in vandalising the Articles related to Angika Language during last few days. User:Jakichandan is requested to undo all the things as earlier of my edit on 1st March 2018. Samyo (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * He has redirected years back old page of Angika language to Angika along with Talk page and history pages without any discussions on talk page of the Article.
 * He then deleted all of the old content cited with reliable sources and replaced the same with unreliable sources.
 * He then redirected no. of other angika related topic pages to a single page to Angika.
 * He tried to harass me on my talk page when I tried to keep the article intact.
 * Thereafter he started hiding the important discussions held on talk page of the article Angika language.
 * Ultimately he made the Talk page hidden so that his vandalism activities can be covered up.

Please address the issue of WP:RS, WP:OR and WP :V and WP :assume good faith. Doing a cleanup in good faith doesn't count as vandalism. Thanks. Jakichandan (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Please take a look. Thanks. Jakichandan (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you. Editor blocked for 48 hours: this ongoing disruption is unacceptable. Samyo, you want to accomplish something, do it without reverting. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Jakichandan (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The article lede in 2022
The current version of the lede is a mess. The very first sentence contains no fewer than four references. Two of them cite different pages from the same volume in Grierson's LSI, and judging by the article history, appear to have been used only to support the name Chhika-Chhiki. The other two refs are: They were added in September last year, and their only purpose appears to be to support the statement that Angika is a language, presumably in contrast to being something else, such as a dialect. Not that those sources have stopped people from changing the article text to insist – in two separate places within the same sentence – that Angika is a dialect of Maithili. Now, I'm going to remove that nonsense, but I'm not going to keep those refs, as they can't really be used for anything in this article. The first one (available online at ) is only about folk songs. The second one (online at ) appears to contain some useful information on grammar and vocabulary, but its quality isn't great (you can see for yourself, you don't need me to add that the journal it's published in – PalArch's Journal of Archaeology of Egypt / Egyptology – has very likely become predatory starting in 2020).
 * Tosha, M., & Dwivedi, R. R. Angika Folksongs and Physical Environment: A Critical Perspective on Parallel Decline.
 * Kumari, K., & Upadhyay, R. K. (2020). SOCIO-CULTURAL ASPECT OF ANGIKA. PalArch's Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology, 17(6), 6797-6804.

The best thing in the first paragraph is the citation of Ethnologue (of all places), so I'm going to pare the text down to what is verifiably stated there. – Uanfala (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Angika-Maithili and Standard Maithili both are same like a American English and British English. However Both are Maithili, they have no any major difference between these two form of Maithili language because both are Maithili. And there are lot of reference and evidence proves that Angika is a dialect of Maithili language.You can also check glotto and language family where It is already mentioned that Angika is a dialect of Maithili language. GOI also declared Angika the dialect of Maithili language.

So please make the correction of this Article. Thankyou.

Abhinav400 (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Are there reliable (that is, linguistic) sources for these statements? Note that Glottolog does not classify Angika as a Maithili dialect . – Uanfala (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes,There are several sources that proves Angika is not a scheduled language of India. Angika is not listed in the 8th schedule of the constitution of India. Indian Government of India does not declared Angika as a language. For any doubt you can also Check my statement on Internet. Abhinav400 (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Language" does not mean "scheduled language". There are 22 languages designated as having official status, but the total number of languages (with or without official status) is much higher: Glottolog, for example, lists over 500. – Uanfala (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)