Talk:Bihar
Template:Wikiproject Indian states
Yes, Bihar the Land of Buddha
Hi everyone ... For last few days, I have been editing Bihar and reorganising texts and sections. Let us come closer and continue to contribute and improve this article.--Bhadani 09:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Bihar, an independent article
I find that the article Bihar has been edited by some one and changed to Bihar (India), and other articles with the same name has also been referred there. I feel this is not a wise step. The matter requires assistance and discussions so that the article Bihar gets its former name. Please try to do something.
The edits of 17 April 2005 by User:Hottentot has been reverted by me as already there was a section in the article Bihar – Bihar (disambiguation) and as such there was no justifiable reason to change the main character by the name Bihar. The edits regarding Bihar by Hottentot are being placed in the section Bihar (disambiguation) . Here, it is also pertinent to note that though wikipedia sets its own standard, but even in Enclopaedia Britannica Bihar has been separately dealt with, and in my humble opinion the case with wikipedia should not be different. The article Bihar represents a state of India and 100 million people reside in Bihar and Bihar has a recorded history of 2500 years. In any case, the position of Bihar as a separate article was already accepted by the community of wikipedians as the legend Bihar (disambiguation) was there along with the main article of Bihar.
I trust that the position has been clarified.--Bhadani 04:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My message to User:Hottentot
Hello everyone. I am giving below a message which I have posted on the Talk page of User:Hottentot
QUOTE My dear sir, why you are reverting my edits of Bihar? Please be considerate.
The edits of 17 April 2005 by you were reverted by me as already there was a section in the article Bihar – Bihar (disambiguation) and as such there was no justifiable reason to change the main character by the name Bihar. The edits by you shall be placed in the section Bihar (disambiguation) . Here, it is also pertinent to note that though wikipedia sets its own standard, but even in Enclopaedia Britannica Bihar has been separately dealt with, and in my humble opinion the case with wikipedia should not be different. The article Bihar represents a state of India and 100 million people reside in Bihar and Bihar has a recorded history of 2500 years. In any case, the position of Bihar as a separate article was already accepted by the community of wikipedians as the legend Bihar (disambiguation) was there along with the main article of Bihar.
I trust that the position has been clarified. In case, you donot agree, you are most welcome to discuss the matter further.--Bhadani 04:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)Unquote
This page has again been reverted by User:Hottentot. Ok, I understand his feelings, but let all wikipedians should come closer to resolve this issue. With thanks ...--Bhadani 06:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My response
Mr. Bhadani,
My appologies for not explaining my edits. I just found out that Bihar around 1910/1914 had a population of 582,132 people, a lot less than the Bihar of India. So yes, I suppose that you are correct on the fact that Bihar in India is more prominent and more known (and also has more people) than the historical county of Hungary, also called Bihar, which no longer exists. (It is divided between Hungary & Romania) So I guess you can let Bihar in India be the main page if you want.
Sincerely, User:Hottentot
Yes dear User:Hottentot, Thank you
I find all wiki users are very considerate, as the above message indicate. I have sent my reply to "MR Hottentot" which I am quoting below: Quote Thanks Yes, what I should call you ... I donot know your name, anyway dear, I saw your kind message on the Bihar Talk Page. Your response is very balanced. However, let the matter rest for some time, as I had appealed to some more Users ... who have been using wikipedia for a period longer than me and you. In any case, I thank you for your kind response. I am searching the materials about "Bihar County" and try to contribute positively as soon as possible. Let all should come closer and build a great wikipedia --Bhadani 07:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)Unquote--Bhadani 07:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Corruption
Bihar is particularily noted for its political corruption, partly because of Laloo Prasad Yadav. Something about that is worth mentioning in the article. --GatesPlusPlus 13:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- And also because of Sardar Buta Singh I think. I could be wrong. --Hottentot
New Table
I'm trying to make a new table that looks like most of the other ones in the different Indian state articles, but it's missing a lot of information. Here's what I have so far. Please add on to this and help make it complete. --Hottentot
bihar in devanagari script
the name 'bihar' in devanagari script appears to be incorrectly spelt, it is rendered as "Bahir" in my browser (firefox 1.0.4). Doldrums 12:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
edit questions
Just finished a full copyedit. How do I get rid of that "seal" and "footnotes" in the "Bihar" box? I don't see anything about them when I use "edit this page". If it's part of some bigger states-of-India project, apologies, but until clicking on them doesn't get all sort of threatening "copyright violation" and "your article will be deleted" messages it seems to me best simply to omit them.
--Kessler 01:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Rollback
I have rolled back as the information removed by editor User talk:DogsBreakfast as a POV was plaintly unwarrantted. Perhaps, he is very new to the topic of Bihar. Please see my comments of date on his talk page. --Bhadani 15:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Lawless
I think that Bihar's lawlesness is well known by many Indians. I realise that this is an unfortunate fact that many would rather not mention. But in my opinion it is an important fact and we should mention it, we can at least warn tourists who want to visit this state to be alert because this is no "ordinary" Indian State. Comments? Mieciu K 21:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. It's an encyclopedia article. However bad it might seem, the lawlessness is a fact and has to be mentioned. The phrase "Bihar, India's most lawless state" is used even in international media. Not mentioning it here will not change that description. It will only make this article incomplete or inaccurate.
While this is an encyclopaedia and it has to reflect truth as it exists, I am not sure if asserting that Bihar is the most lawless state is as undeniable truth as is made out to be. The subjective assertion above appears with a BBC article of 2004 giving statistics of crime of 5,000 homicides and 12,000 other incidents of rioting and abduction per year. Does that make it the most lawless place given the size of Bihar and the same statistic viewed as a percent?
The "agreed" statement of the anonymous user wtih unnamed statements from international press does not make it a statement of fact either.
To me, this only appears an attempt to perpetuate a stereotype which is dubious, questionable and objectionable. There are many related issues and qualifiers that would have to be mentioned if this has to remain here - and it would become a discussion on the law and order situation of Bihar rather than an article on Bihar.
I am deleting it as an encyclopaedia is not a place to denigrate a place nor to perpetuate stereotypes that serve the vested interests of some people. Nor for that matter a place for travel advisory.
I tried to go to the page of the user Mieciu K. I would encourage him to list all the places wtih an unsavoury past where a similar denigrating statement has been put in the first wiki paragraph itself. I am afraid that would mean all the places in the world for for I dont believe any place with a history can be without any unsavoury past. Once he has prominently displayed this in all other places, he can then moralise to have his "truth" to be put on the Bihar page.