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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
As far you question is concerned, it is a well know fact that Mumbai police had been biased against people from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh in Feb 2008 violence as well as the more recent one. Rahul Raj encounter was a result of a similar bias. It is nothing but institutional bias against an ethnic group. Manoj nav (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you are not sure whether the Rahul Raj case is a case of discrimination or not. In one statement you say it is not; in the next statement you say that the Mumbai Police was biased. Are you trying to say that Rahul Raj would not have been killed if he was not from Bihar? or you mean to say that Mumbai police does not kill or arrest non-Biharis at all? Do you have any reliabe sources to back up such a controversial arugment? --Deepak D'Souza 06:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : It really shouldn't matter to you whether I am sure or not. Kindly concentrate just on the article and the discussion, rather then on the users. Manoj nav (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are many references to claim "it is a well know fact that Mumbai police had been biased against people from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh....". Manoj nav (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you haven't read the article well. The article, Racism faced by the Bihari community in India, doesn't makes any such claims, as of now. And so there is not need for any reliable source currently. Manoj nav (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not going to call it racism or bias, then why is it here in this article in the first place. BTW why is Anbumani's comment listed under an article on racism. Some describing his remarks as a reflection of a bias against Bihar doesn't make it racism, unless a reliable source pins it down as such. Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 11:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article and then discuss. Manoj nav (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah:-)! Thats the idea! Some nut goes beserk, starts shooting people,nobody calls him a racist; takes a bullet and it becomes racism!!!! So by the same token, wasn't Rahul Raj himself a racist who hated Marathis? So, can we have an article called Racism against Marathis?--Deepak D'Souza 11:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We will be happy if you can also contribute for this section. Manoj nav (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I wont add it there is because It is not racism, just like what Biharis face is not racism. You have reverted my edit without giving any good reason. As a general practice controversial sections are kept out untill disucssions are completed . You have readded it twice without waiting for the discussion to close. I will not revert it again because I dont want to get into an edit war. But your insistence on readding it without waiting for the discussion to close with consensus or without providing a good reason is not acceptable. Again I request you to provide a reason for keeping it in this article. --Deepak D'Souza 12:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Rahul Raj entry is significant. It is part of the REACTIONS part of the entry. Bihari ractions to the events in India are also an important element of the discrimination/ racism entry. It marked a new phase in Bihari reactions; more violent and and itself more discriminatory. It also marked a turning point in Bihari nationalism. It was a consequence of the attacks on railway exams. (de Menezes shooting)de Menezes killing on the London Underground is well known. Mr Menezes did not hijack the london underground, his community was not attacked for taking railway exams in Britain, and Brazialisans do not face racism in Britain. Brazilians, and British pakistanis, also are protected by the state from ant immigrant groups. They are free to move to any part of the UK without the fear of local goons making a mockery of the law, and they are protected by the Race Relations Acts. Not-Ashamed (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please help us to decipher what BNP stands for? Manoj nav (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moral of the above discussion : Doesn't the above discussion suggest that various users were interested in just attacking the article and not reading and understanding it. How can any genuine user raise issues like - "How does the Rahul Raj encounter become "discrimination"?" after reading the article. I would request the concern users to continue debating on the topic or accept their fault. Also please avoid mixing up various topics in the same thread. Manoj nav (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The BNP (British National Party) is a far-right racist part active in the UK. Happy you yourself note the cpmparison with the MNS...Note racist party as it supports a white only Britain rather than the multi cultural UK advocated by the government. Unlike in India, in the UK (to their credit) the state is stong and protects migrants, including the 1 million Indians, 500,000 Pakistanis, 250,000 bangadeshis, the new 1 million East Europeans.
Below illustrates is the different between India and the UK.
You lost me completely there. Never mind. When there is no evidence that Rahul Raj's encounter is a result of racial bias, you can't list it here under consequence of racism faced by Bihari community. What the two editors involved majorly in this article do not understand is, I am not saying that there is no prejudice agaisnt Biharis per se. Nevertheless, you need to define the fine line between prejudice and "other" incidents. Do not try to put different things together which makes the whole article questionable.
Anbumani's statement is one such, where he stated an incident and the doctor who caused the issue could have been from anywhere else too.
Other one is Goan Minister's comment where he states "Mostly all the beggars are from other states and train scheduled from Patna to Goa will create the problem". He did not say that the beggars are from Patna. If you think it is a racist comment, show us some RS which states so defenetely. Should we take that you chaps calling him Goan minister is anti-Goan racism if we apply the same formula as of Anbumani's statement that specifying someone as Bihari is racism!
Please get an RS that the Supreme court judge's comments were racism. May be we should declare Shahrukh Khan's ennada rascala mind it as racism against South Indian. :D
I reckon we can just go on and on and on. Like earlier chaps, I am listing the issues here in hope that you guys would help sort the anomalies. I really do not wish to remove them if they are notable bias statements. But if they are not sorted, I will for sure have to remove them. I hate tags, am sure you guys do too. Cheers Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 18:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ref ( http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14798187 ) says - "Before being shot dead, Raj had said that he wanted to kill Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray for inciting his party workers to attack youths from Bihar who were in Mumbai for a railway recruitment examination." Rahul Raj's anger was a side effect (read consequence) of violence against Biharis in Mumbai. Kindly start separate threads to discuss other issues. Manoj nav (talk) 05:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see any reference which cites Rahul Raj incident is related to racism and therefore removed it. Manoj nav and Notashamed, pls read wikipedia policies. Docku:What up? 21:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
all these notable incidents I removed are certainly notable but there is no reliable source calling them racism. For anyone here to assume this is racism and add in this page which deals with racism is therefore WP:OR, WP:SYN. Docku:What up? 22:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Racism is race-based prejudice, violence, discrimination, or oppression. According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination. All these notable incidents are notable incidents of prejudice, if it is readable clearly. I am reverting back your edits. Kindly participate in the discussion here. The references cited supports it. Manoj nav (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material which advances a new position, which constitutes original research.[1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this same argument in relation to the topic of the article
”
In this case, A. All the notable incidents are descrimination (this itself is original research) B. United Nations conventions claim that ethnic descrimination is also racism C. Your synthesis of A and B: The ethnic descrimination faced by Biharis according to UN conventions is racism. This is a text book case of synthesis.
Unless you have a reliable reference for C, we should just remove the whole stuff. Docku:What up? 05:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
United Nations conventions have never been referred in the article. I used the article racismor so called 'United Nations conventions' just to educate myself about Racism. Manoj nav (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Docku has explained it well. Synthesis seems to be a big problem with this article. If you do not have RS stating Rahul Raj's case as we all the comments by people (Anbumani, Goan minister and Judges) as cases of racial discrimination, you cannot have them here willy-nilly. I am removing those sections as well as the sections on Ms Dikshit's comment (stopping immigration is not racism) and unsourced entry on Kamath's comments. Please explain if you want to add them back, without synthesis and OR. Thanks Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 08:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andhra Pradesh judge's comments : Ref - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Hyderabad/MBBS_scam_in_Bihar_style_HC/articleshow/2212504.cms"Nobody has heard of this type of revaluations in the entire country. Bihar may be the only exception," the Bench commented. This is prejudice, stereotyping of Bihar. They used the line - "Bihar may be the only exception", even when Bihar was not at all involved in the incident.
Comment by Indian Health Minister: Ref - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Ramadoss_sorry_for_remark_on_docs_from_Bihar/articleshow/2639161.cms"Union Health Minister A Ramadoss on Thursday publicly apologized for his remark that a doctor from Bihar was the reason why UK derecognized Indian medical degrees in the 1970s." He could have said the name of the doctor, instead of called a doctor from Bihar. This is again manifestation of a prevailing stereotype in India.
Comment by Sheila Dikshit: Ref - http://www.patnadaily.com/news2007/may/050907/sheila_dixit_blames_biharis.html "Yet another career politician who thinks an Indian state is a personal property of certain chosen ones created an outcry when she openly blamed people from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh for settling down in the capital city and causing road congestions and contributing to other ills of New Delhi. Sheila Dikshit, the Congress leader and Delhi Chief Minister, while laying a foundation stone of a new flyover in south Delhi on Wednesday, said she wished there was a way to stop migration from other states particularly Uttar Pradesh and Bihar."
The claim, that the above incidents are 'incidents of prejudice', is supported by primary references. Secondary references would also be put up soon. I am reverting back the recent edits. Manoj nav (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more time - give us references that state that these are acts of discrimination. Instead, unfortunately you have resorted to editwar. I am not going to involve myself into one, however tempting this scenario may be. Will be added soon is not the same as adding it. I do not think any of us want to spend time in an RfC. Please note that I did not remove the whole section, but only the sections that are pure synthesis. You (Manoj) have reverted the removal without sorting the issue. Believe me or not, this is serious breach of goodfaith. Cheers Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 08:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Manoj nav and Notashamed, you guys are apparently driven by rage and dont see reason. I would recommend you both read wikipedia policies and remember wikipedia is not a NOTSOAPBOX and please dont turn this page into spreading your personal opinions and pro-Bihari propaganda. Docku:What up? 14:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under a more generic and neutral article title, most, if not all, information could have stayed. As of now, almost everything in the article is original research and synthesis. Docku:What up? 14:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doku, Branding us with "rage" and being "pro Bihari" does still not entitle you to delete portions of the entry. for your information, if you actually care to check the history, the title was changed by another user and not us both. You may wonder why I would add Political criminalisation as a section if I was "pro bihari". I am not interested in being Pro Bihari. ALL the statements are SORCED and RELIABLE sources. you too need to find reliable sources that discounts what we have said. As for the propadada, you need to state which line, and source is propaganda. Please list them here, and the attached sources, I urge you to TAKE THE TIME to check all the sources. Isnt NDTV, Times of India, regional newspapers, India Today enough for you? Perhaps it isn't. Indeed, this isnt really about being Bihari its about an entry of racism/ discrimination against a noth Indian community in India. You prove there isnt any, and I expect all the sources we have found to back the entry you will have equally reliable sources to back your claim that we provide "pro Bihari" "propaganda" and we have "rage". Our aim is to inform readers who are interested in Bihar and its culture. There are Biharis who are intersted in Marathi culture and vice versa if you didnt know. For your information I added the part of racist attacks against innocent Marathis as well. Perhaps I was being pro Bihari here also. Racism is wrong everywhere if you didnt know. Racism is either swept under the carpet or dealt. Before you go alleging "pro Bihari" sympathies by myself it may interest you to know that I am neither Indian or a Bihari, nor do I live in India. I am intersted in Bihar and its affairs. Not-Ashamed (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notashamed, for the last time. Show us reference that says that those incidents are indeed racism or discrimination. Lengthy replies are really not going to solve the issue. I have waited enough for a reasonable reply and did not get any. If you guys want to, we can get into RfC and waste more time. Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 18:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notashamed, i know you are an excellent person and you certainly intend to mean well. My only worry is you dont understand policies well enough. Having just sufficient reliable sources that these incidents have happened are not enough. Restating Wikiality, we need reliable sources which explicitly claim that everything in this article is racism including the notable incidents. Please read my earlier pointer on WP:Synthesis.
Why did you let the other editor, User:Shrivastava1984, change the article title? You could have reverted back to previous title? For me, it doesnt matter, whether you are from Bihar, but your claim that you are not from Bihar just contradicts your own user page User:Notashamedhere and makes you sound dishonest. Docku:What up? 19:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because the other editor made his/ her case and I accepted it. I don't spend much time on my user page making it look pretty. I am greateful for those who appriciate what I do, and the Bihar group in particular. In fact, if users wish to honor me with being a Bihari then I am happy that they have selected me. As fgor your changes. says more about you than me. The Bihar working group is watching.Not-Ashamed (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were also some edits that slurred a few living people. What about putting up referred comments of those living people who slurred and insulted a group of living being (read community), which led to political unrest and controversies. Manoj nav (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you guys both one and the same, atleast in perceptions. One goes, here comes the other. There is nothing wrong in adding what all these politicians did or said, it is just wrong to call them racists without secondary sources. Why dont you pls first read the discussion we went through with Notashamed yesterday. Docku:What up? 18:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
insulting a group of living being (read community) again and again.. What's this if not racism? Primary references have been provided. Till we find secondary sources, I support starting a new section titled Controversial statements and putting up deleted content from Incidences of Prejudice to the new section. Manoj nav (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me or others can also see that this article is still going on with WP:SYN for nearly two years? Any incident that involves Biharis have been included here as anti-Bihari sentiment/violence. This seems to be clear synthesis. The Karnataka incident, even by the citations provided by the user, can be at best called as Kannada nationalism. The Tamil Nadu incident is a clear case of illtreatment of workers in an industry. Can the editor explain himself, that too after being told not to involve in synthesis this many times. Isn't this repeated violation of norms? Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 11:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The text presents Bihar and UP as the central areas of the Indian rebellion of 1857. However, the key areas of conflict were in the United Provinces (Oudh, Cawnpore, Rohillakhand) and the Central Provinces (Jhansi, Gwalior, etc) and, of course, Delhi. I'm not against an article on discrimination against the Bihari community (is racism the right word?) but there is little sense in overstating the causes and history.--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 22:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly a story underlying this article and is grossly over- and mis-stated including the history like you just pointed out. It is mostly because of users Manoj nav and Notashamed's unwillingness to work within the framework of wp guidelines. It will be great if responsible editors like you will help out a bit. Docku:What up? 22:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bbc source says nothing at all about Bihar and certainly does not indicate that discrimination against Biharis can be traced back to the rebellion. The Gupta article text that I deleted at least makes a broad argument about the effects of the rebellion on the Hindi heartland (though, again, not Bihar in particular), but this one says nothing at all. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 23:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Regent, I meant to point out the map of the civil war as determined by the British. This includes modern Bihar, all of Uttar Pradesh. My argument is that Bihar was a central part of the uprising. Of course, the map on the BBC site isnt enough. Other surces are, which back Bihar's stromng involvent;
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/65099/Bihar/46155/History
British took place in Chota Nagpur, the most important being the Ho revolt of 1820 to 1827 and the Munda uprising of 1831 to 1832. Later, Bihar was an important centre of the Indian Mutiny of 1857–58. Bihar formed a part of the Bengal Presidency under the British until 1912, when the province of Bihar and Orissa was formed; in 1936 the two became separate provinces
http://india.gov.in/knowindia/history_freedom_struggle.php
Government of India Interpretation
The rebel forces soon captured Delhi and the revolt spread to a wider area and there was uprising in almost all parts of the country. The most ferocious battles were fought in Delhi, Awadh, Rohilkhand, Bundelkhand, Allahabad, Agra, Meerut and western Bihar. The rebellious forces under the commands of Kanwar Singh in Bihar and Bakht Khan in Delhi gave a stunning blow to the British
http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article248.html
Pir Ali of Patna who incited the uprising of the Danapur Garrison which slaughtered over 200 British soldiers sent by the Commissioner, Patna to put down the mutiny at Danapur. The civilian participation in Bihar was so strong the British later filed a case against an entire town Arrah vs Regina which had been briefly liberated but later failed. The fighters were often from the lower castes. Babu Kuer Singh, the acclaimed hero from Shahabad in Bihar who time and time again defeated the British and fought his way to Benaras and Kanpur and MP and died fighting, though 80 years old, and other heroes had their land confiscated by the British Government and sold to native zamindars for a song. THE 1857 uprising underlined the sense of nationhood among Indians from every part of the country. Though its focus on north India, like Barrackpore in Bengal, where Mangal Pandey was the first to rise in rebellion aided on his contact by the redoubtable Babu Kuer Singh of Shahabad district in Bihar, who at the age of 80 gave fright to the British by the courage with which he fought, also aided at his invitation by Haji Begum of Sasaram in Bihar. It was joined almost simultaneously by the mutiny in Meerut, Kanpur and Lucknow in UP where the mutineers laid a siege to the British Residency for months and killed many before they could be rescued by reinforcements from outside and the mutineers captured; the mutiny was joined by soldiers in Punjab and the South as well. These brave soldiers called the bluff that Indians acquired a sense of nationhood for the first time under the British Raj without which they would not have had it.
Why did you remove the Gupta comment, it links it to the 1857 events. Gupta is a noted and respected figure regularly quoted in respected Indian magazines and epapers
http://www.rediff.com/election/2005/feb/16inter2.htm
most of those involved in the 1857 mutiny were from Bihar. After the mutiny, the British clamped down hard on Bihar, and the Biharis in retaliation turned against everything British or Western. Thus they failed to modernise and accept new ideas that were sweeping across India in the late 19th and early 20th centuries
indianetzone
The Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 began as a mutiny of sepoys (soldiers) of British East India Company`s army on the 10th of May 1857, in the town of Meerut, and soon ignited into other mutinies and civilian uprisings, mostly in the upper Gangetic Plain and central India, with the major aggressions restrained to present-day Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, northern Madhya Pradesh, and the Delhi region. The uprising posed a substantial peril to Company power in that region, and it was checked only with the fall of Gwalior on 20th June 1858. The uprising is also known as India`s First War of Independence, the Great Rebellion, the Indian Mutiny, and the Great Revolt of 1857.
I'm not saying that the mutiny did not take place in Bihar. It did, no question. But, even if we ignore the fact that your citations in that section of the article barely mention the mutiny, what you're saying is that discrimination against Biharis is (in part, I presume) because of the mutiny. It is that leap of faith that is not borne out by your citations. (None of the articles mentioned above, on this talk page, explicitly connect the mutiny with discrimination against the Biharis, except for the Gupta article. More on that below.)
I removed the Gupta comment because, while it is an interesting article, it makes a larger point about the Hindi heartland being seen as culpable for the mutiny. By that reckoning, all of the United Provinces, Central Provinces, and Bihar should be the targets of discrimination. The Gupta article you quote above is the only one I've seen that explicitly links the mutiny with discrimination against Biharis. But, even there, the linkage is not as a cause for the discrimination faced by Biharis today, but rather as one cause for the backwardness of the state. In fact, the article makes absolutely no mention of discrimination against Biharis but instead (as did the article I removed) talks about the need and possibility of developing a Bihari identity that is similar to a Bengali or Punjabi or Tamil identity. Now that is an interesting question, but is distinct from discrimination. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 02:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Well, I checked all the references cited in the 1857 section and none of them tie (most don't even mention) discrimination against Biharis to the rebellion. I'm going to delete the entire section as unsupported - synthesis doesn't describe it because there is no support for the premise, let alone for a synthesized conclusion. I'll hold off till the references can be recovered. Again, by overplaying the history and causes (not to mention the number of references) you are actually downplaying the problem (which does exist but needs to be framed better). Best, always, to stick to the main facts. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 00:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
(I'll read the above in a bit!)--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 00:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking of a new title to the article. The new title ought to be general, non-controversial, neutral and backed by secondary sources in that it embodies the historical causes, political criminalisation, economic failure, migration and discrimination. if someone can think of such a title? Docku:What up? 23:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. For a number of reasons, this title is not good. First, there is the issue of race. Discrimination against Biharis can hardly be called racial. Then there is the long descriptive title, something snappier would be nice. And, the secondary sources are a good idea. What we need is secondary sources that coherently discuss the causes and effects of this discrimination. Ideally, these sources should be academic rather than features in newspapers or websites but the latter is fine for supporting information. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 00:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well said, may be we will tag the article till then. Docku:What up? 00:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Biharis themselves decribe themselves as a race. Its not up to anyone else to tell another who are and are not races. So, pls find supporting evidence that Biharis are not a racial group.
Docku, as you have now tagged the entry; i have read throough all of the references.I mean ALL. Now, as a respected editor, could you read off the refered sources and where these back your claim on the tag. Note, there are 128+ references and thousands of words. Not-Ashamed (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is you are not understanding what WP:Synthesis means and you are not willing to understand. may be it helps, if you click that blue link just once. Let me quote the first sentence, "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources." Synthesis may not have been as big a problem if you did not arrive to the conclusion that it is either racism or descrimination and titled it rather generic. hope it helps. Docku:What up? 01:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Biharis themselves decribe themselves as a race. Its not up to anyone else to tell another who are and are not races. So, pls find supporting evidence that Biharis are not a racial group. That is 100% original research. Docku:What up? 01:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Next you will say calling Russians a race is origonal research. Then calling the English a race as 100% origonal research. This actually means there isnt anything that isnt really 100% research to you. I take note that the description of the Goa minister of Bihais as beggers has been removed. Lalu Prasad felt it was offensive enough to phone the offending minster. But there you go, its original research. You use the rules for your own ends. Do as you will. Thats not origonal and nor is your research.Not-Ashamed (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try again. Goa minister may have called Biharis beggers. That is probably verifiable. I have no problem with including that. I also dont have a problem for you and me to call that incident racism or descrimination. But, wikipedia has a problem if such decisions (calling this incident racism or descrimination) made by you and me in the talk page to be included in article main pages. That is what WP:OR and WP:Synthesis are all about. In other words, you can include the incident in the article but not call it racism unless there is a secondary source which says so. now? Docku:What up? 01:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me simplify it for you. There are two components.
Goa minister's begger comment
What Goa minister said is racism
verifiable
not verifiable
Since the second part is unverifiable, adding that to article is original research. hope it helps. If this doesnt, I dont know. sorry. Docku:What up? 01:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
^ CNN-IBN, State of neglect: Deluged Bihar falls off Govt map,Aug 28, 2008, "Does it hurt when Goa minister Ravi Naik said that people of Bihar are coming across and bringing poverty, when Raj Thackeray said that the people of Bihar must get out of Maharashtra? When racism and prejudice is directed against the people of Bihar, does it hurt and one feel that there is something that one must do for the state?"
CNNIBN knows what Ravi Niak said? They have verified it to be racism.Not-Ashamed (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Out of 120 odd references in the artcle, all you can show is one IBN news report and one sentence taken from the article to tie together the rest 120 references. Classical case of synthesis. Are you kidding me? not sure if you are not understanding the spirit of my conversation or you just dont want to. Why Wiki San Roze, Ravichandar84, RegentsPark and I are seeing OR and Synthesis problems in the article and you and your cohort Manoj nav dont? Is it your incompetence, ignorance and adamancy or ours? Docku:What up? 13:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IBN article quote NotAshamed has used gives us two questions 1)Does it hurt when Goa minister Ravi Naik said that people of Bihar are coming across and bringing poverty, when Raj Thackeray said that the people of Bihar must get out of Maharashtra? 2)When racism and prejudice is directed against the people of Bihar, does it hurt and one feel that there is something that one must do for the state?. It nowhere states that Ravi Naik's comment was racism. It would be so if it said When racism and prejudice is directed against the people of Bihar such as these comments, does it hurt and one feel that there is something that one must do for the state? Once again, is RfC the only way to set things straight. I really got my doubts that this article itself will survive after an RfC since it might bring more editors into the scene. I'm trying to be as reasonable as possible with the two editors who have toiled to create this entry. Everyone would agree that the very subject of this entry is enough to draw criticism. If all those are to be avoided and meet standards of an encyclopaedia (rather than an essay) the rules have to be met. Like Yellow Monkey pointed out a bit above, when you are stating about living people, keep in mind the rules that govern them. Referring to WP:BLP might be of help here. You can very well argue that this is not a biography. Nevertheless, the rules of BLP are made so that Wikipedia is not sued for ruining somebody's reputation (correct me if am wrong here). Be cautious when talking about living people. Once again - please don't make us take it to an RfC, there are so much of precious time wasted on Wikipedia on such processes. Thanks Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 14:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine. Where does that leave most of Wikipedia?
Not-Ashamed (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the 128+ references is the problem here. From what I've seen so far, the references, at best, make ancillary points, do not support the arguments in the article, and provide support for the Synthesis allegation. A few good references that directly address the issue of discrimination against Biharis would be a better way to go. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 16:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about Bihari diaspora having sections on causes and effects, the latter including discrinimations as a subset? Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 16:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sounds fine to me, descrimination can be branched off into a new article as and when more reliable secondary sources emerge backing that claim. Right now, the article sounds like a POV fork of another article which is yet to exist. Docku:What up? 16:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm comfortable with having an article on the subject. I've been reading some of the references and there does seem to be active discrimination against Biharis. I like KnowledgeHegemony's Anti-Bihari sentiment in India as a title (see the afd), why was it moved from there?--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 16:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Bihari sentiment in India is certainly better than descrimination or racism and is more closer to reality. But it would still mean removing most of tangentially related contents especially the history and causes and some rewriting. Bihari diaspora is a good article to create. I am surprised that it still doesnt exist. Why not Manoj nav and Notashamed put their effort also into creating such useful articles as well. I dont mind whether we move this article to Anti-Bihari sentiment in India and create a new Bihari Diaspora or vice versa. Docku:What up? 17:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very good idea. A Bihari diaspora article that talks about the how, when, where, why of Bihari migration. And a sub-article on Anti-Bihari sentiment in India that talks about the prejudice, ridicule, and violence that Biharis face. Much cleaner. Notashamed and Manoj nav, what do you think? --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 18:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Bihari sentiment in India makes Indians biased against Biharis. This very sentiment motivated anti-Bihari attacks in Maharashtra, Punjab, Assam. But as per wikipedia rules WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, it would be difficult to justify if Biharis face racism in India because of this Anti-Bihari sentiment. In my opinion Racism faced by the Bihari community in India, is justified.
One of the problems (and there are many) with this (racism) article is that it talks about migration as well as discrimination and the two don't always go together. Splitting this into two will make a lot more sense. If we eliminate every reference that does not explicitly talk about racisim from the article, there will be precious little left and the migration part will largely disappear into a couple of sentences on the causes underlying anti-bihari discrimination. BTW, I'm open to the article being moved to Discrimination against Biharis in India if you think that anti-bihari does not cover the subject matter adequately but racism does not seem right. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 18:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about discrimination against a community. I see no difference between racism and discrimination here. Manoj nav (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RegentsPark, Splitting this into two will make a lot more sense. If we eliminate every reference that does not explicitly talk about racisim from the article, there will be precious little left and the migration part will largely disappear into a couple of sentences on the causes underlying anti-bihari discrimination. Splitting the two doesn't necessary means deleting contents form the article. It's considered a good practice on wikipedia to built up background of an article. The section need not always be titled background. Manoj nav (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not what you see, but what reliable sources see. Unfortunately, almost everything in this article is synthesized and WP:OR. Unfortunate, because many of the cited articles are quite good and would make very nice supporting material if used properly. Take this statement in the article: After the conflict, many regions saw Biharis as having sided with the disliked Mughal dynasty in Delhi. Notably, Bengalis of the urban regions, in the erstwhile Bengal province which included Bihar, saw Biharis with contempt and disdain. [12][13]. Reading this statement one would think that the Bengalis of urban Bengal saw the Biharis as having sided with the disliked Mughal dynasty in Delhi. Of course, if you read the two references cited, neither makes that claim. Let alone connect the two statements, the EPW article does not even mention the mutiny. The Gupta article says that the region was neglected after (and because of) the mutiny, but makes no claim that Bengalis disliked the Mughal dynasty in Delhi or saw Biharis as having sided with that 'disliked' dynasty. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 19:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. You are most welcomed to edit the article constructively, from a NPOV. But NPOV doesn't means justifying the racists and saying it's their anti-Bihari sentiment which forces them to victimize Biharis because Biharis roam around freely in India. Manoj nav (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please just read what RegentsPark typed above just once. Docku:What up? 19:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly go through this as well as related edit history to understand why it is so and why the article has been rated as start-Class. Some of the inline citations are missing. In that case a new editor should use citation tag to remind the concern editor, instead of deleting the content. Fill up the article with citation tags, but do it genuinely. Manoj nav (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's not how it works around here. According to wikipedia's verifiability policy, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. If you feel that a citation can be found for material that is being deleted, you need to find the citation first. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 19:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Manoj nav, you are not reading others comments. I am waiting for your detailed response on the last and previous post by RegentsPark. If you are not responding specifically to the points made by him, agree, accept, acknowledge, deny or disprove, I am going to assume, you are wasting our time. Docku:What up? 20:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcomed to edit the article constructively, from a NPOV. This automatically means I accept. What I want to say is this - "After the conflict, many regions saw Biharis as having sided with the disliked Mughal dynasty in Delhi. Notably, Bengalis of the urban regions, in the erstwhile Bengal province which included Bihar, saw Biharis with contempt and disdain. [12][13]." Reading this statement one would think that the Bengalis of urban Bengal saw the Biharis as having sided with the disliked Mughal dynasty in Delhi. was not done intentionally. I request the new editors to use citation tags instead of deleting the content. Manoj nav (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) No worries, manoj nav. Like I said, I think the topic itself is fine, so let's all work on making this a good article. Perhaps we can also leave the title alone for the time being if that makes it easier. We can always revisit that at a later date since both Discrimination against Biharis in India as well as Anti-Bihari sentiment in India both redirect here anyway. Meanwhile, we can try to organize the causes and effects of the racism/discrimination. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 20:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I think about it again, I reckon that this article can stay independent. An entry on Bihari diaspora would be a good idea. Just as I said earlier in the template deletion discussion, we need a series of articles that relate to each other before a template be made. One of them can be Bihari diaspora. I see that there is a bit of misunderstanding with the two editors who have contributed heavily to the article, that all other users are trying to get rid of this entry. That is surely not the case. I know am not. I know that Docku voted against the deletion of the article and Regents Park had just a post above said that he wants this article to stay. None of us can deny that Biharis are indeed looked down upon by many. This is not fiction. Nevertheless, we need to draw a line between what is a racist comment and what is not. Are all statements sourced? Are all views expressed without bias. These are the points that we are trying to sort here. Anyways, to stop with my grumbling, lets move ahead. Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 10:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reading all the comments, I have a feeling the consensus is Anti-Bihari sentiment in India though not supported by everyone. I am going to be WP:BOLD and move the article. Docku:What up? 16:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cant move it and am going to request an administrator. But before that, I want to be assured that the title will be stable. Docku:What up? 16:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
plural doesnt sound right. See anti-American sentiment. For the record, I still have some reservations (though I had accepted this same title earlier) and not in 100% agreement with Anti-Bihari sentiment in India. The title is still so much better than the current one. I would be happy if someone else requests for page move and I wouldnt oppose it. Thanks. Docku:What up? 08:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
absence of secondary sources calling it so. WP:Naming conventions,Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject. In its absence, only a descriptive name will suffice. Docku:What up? 03:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. How about discrimination against Biharis in india? The 'racism' word in the title makes me uneasy and seems too strong (even if a few sources seem to use it). --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 03:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The artcle has plenty of references dealing with violence against Bihari immigrants in many parts of India, Maharashtra, NE states, Punjab and other parts. I am afraid we are depicting "violence" as equivalent to "descrimination". Of course, one can argue that the violence is due to descrimination and anti-Bihari sentiment. Can we just not call it Violence against Bihari migrants in India? Or you think it is downplaying the reality? Docku:What up? 04:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit that this is all very confusing. There seems to be discrimination against Biharis (for example, when there are protests against their presence, or when politicians rail against their presence) which is independent of violence, though is sometimes accompanied by violence. It also appears to be true that there is ridicule directed against Biharis. Which is why discrimination seems ok to me as does anti-bihari sentiment. Racism seems wrong because Bihari is hardly a racial category (though, the term does cover more than just race). I don't know, perhaps we should leave the title as is until the article is rewritten (unfortunately, I'm really busy and can't do much on wikipedia till January). --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 21:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, we disagree and that is fine. But atleast, we agree that the current title is totally inappropriate for the reasons you just mentioned and I dont think it serves any good to leave it as it is. Like I said I wouldnt oppose if someone requests a page move to Anti-Bihari sentiment in India. Docku:What up? 23:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of Bihari asmita has become political issue and is slowly gaining top priority in election manifestos. Racism faced by the Bihari community is going to play very important role in the future politics of Bihar.
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was MoveParsecboy (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing that this article be moved to Anti-Bihari sentiment in India. Please indicate your support or opposition below (and remember to include reasons since this is a !vote!).
Several reasons. First, that was the consensus after the deletion request failed, the article was moved, but then was moved back without discussion or a new consensus forming. Second, what the Bihari community faces in India is not racism but is rather a combination of being viewed as coming from a state that is a social mess and is economically backward, and being the victims of violence directed against economic migrant workers. Racism is a completely inappropriate term. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 17:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
exactly. Let us say, anything which is not Bihari-specific has no scope in this article and can be shoved into other relevant ones or deleted. Docku:What up? 00:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what remains once we've gone through the references, removed non-Bihari related things, and removed any uncited conclusions. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 01:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
guess most of the credible info will go away if we are going to have to strictly restrict to Bihar unless we broaden the scope of the article by generalising the title. Docku:What up? 04:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regents. Some of your changes are unacceptable. The reference to the 2003 attacks on Biharis will have to be included back in to the entry as does the Feb March 2008 attacks on Biharis in Maharashtra. Biharis were targets, just because people of UP were also targets does not make it unviable.Your changes have also messed up a number of the citiations and refences, whish I presume you will restore. correct?
"My suspicion is that the disdain with which the Thackerays treat people from UP and Bihar — the so-called Bhaiyyas — is part of a wider trend. As India develops and transforms itself, UP and Bihar are increasingly being perceived as the laggards. Once, Bihar was India's best-administered state (do not laugh: an international study came to this conclusion in the 1950s); now, it is seen as a wasteland."
""Why is Raj Thackeray so obsessed with people from UP and Bihar? If it's taxi drivers that he's concerned with, then why doesn't he object to the Sikhs who run the taxi trade near the airport? (Could it be — as Manas Chakravarty suggested on this page a couple of weeks ago — because Sikhs are tall and burly?)"
""It's not just Raj Thackeray. Uncle Bal is at it too — daring Lalu Yadav to perform chhath puja on Madras's Marina Beach apparently on the grounds that Tamil Nadu chief minister M Karunanidhi would disapprove of this Bihari encroachment on local culture. His statements suggest that the issues raised by his delinquent nephew may not go away even if the violence has died down. " Not-Ashamed (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not-Asamed. You have been avoiding, unwilling or unable to discuss and improve this article based on wikipedia principles. How do you think emotional discussion is going to help? It has just been a hindrance so far. I just dont know how to deal with you guys. Docku:What up? 13:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Docku; thanks for being condescending. It doesn’t rally help your argument still. And you are back to labeling. Let me help you understand....in an entry on discrimination against Biharis it makes logical sense to include the March 2008 attacks against north Indians. It included Biharis in the attacks and thus makes perfect sense to include it. The attacks specifically targeted Biharis, they didn’t get drawn in to a north Indian v Marathi fight. Thus, it deserves to be included. As for 2003 Feb, the same principles apply. The Hindustan Times references and quotes supports that Biharis, along with people of UP were specifically targeted.Not-Ashamed (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Apologies for messing up the references. Anomiebot usually takes care of recovering references and will hopefully do that here as well, otherwise I'll take care of it. About the 2003 campaign, the reason I deleted that section was because the references don't explicitly state that Biharis were being targeted (most say 'outstation candidates'). In the case of the 2008 campaign, most references again say 'North Indian' but a couple explicitly mention Biharis so I've left that in. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 19:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Regents for not labelling me, I appricate your reasons. I will get the references you seek and get back to you Not-Ashamed (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sena threat stalls exam
"ANAND SOONDAS
Mumbai, Nov. 21: The Shiv Sena today openly threatened to disrupt the railway recruitment tests scheduled for Sunday but the board moved fast to avert a showdown by putting them off.Party leader Raj Thackeray said students from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh should not try to sit for the exams as they will be sent back."
Fury over railway recruitment: Wages of jobless growth
Praful Bidwai, writes from New Delhi
Thu. December 04, 2003
What triggered off the orgy of violence was the denial of entry to 50 students from Bihar to Railway examination halls in Assam on November 9. The backlash began immediately. Trains bound for the Northeast were attacked in Bihar, and some of their occupants manhandled. In reaction, the All Assam Students' Union organised a protest. This escalated into a senseless witchhunt of ethnic Biharis living in Assam, many of whom have never even been to Bihar. Since then, extremist groups like the United Liberation Front of Asom have taken over the "agitation", perpetrating murderous attacks upon the poorest of Biharis, such as rickshaw-pullers and casual workers. Biharis have become the targets of xenophobic violence in Maharashtra too. There, the ethnic-chauvinist, quasi-fascist Shiv Sena organised vicious attacks on people from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh arriving to sit for Railways recruitment examinations. They were mercilessly beaten and bullied into missing the test.
“We will throw out those who have come from outside,” he said, referring to Biharis and people from Uttar Pradesh. It is time to speak up and take matters into one’s own hands, he added
The Nagpur bench of the Mumbai high court has issued notices before admission to railway minister Nitish Kumar and railway recruitment
authorities on a petition accusing them of favouring candidates from Bihar in railway recruitments. This comes close on the heels of resentment and attacks by the Shiv Sena in Mumbai on outstation candidates appearing for railway recruitment tests, and large scale violence against Biharis in Assam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notashamed (talk • contribs) 09:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why March 08 attacks deserve to be part of the entry
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=COLEN20080042337
Bombay's North Indians were being targeted for petty gains by a politician on the make. Grim faced news anchors nodded their heads .. This was all a drama and we know who the villain is they seemed to suggest. An open and shut case, don't you think? Well, yes and no.
Let's for a moment look at the entire incident ...the first inaccuracy is that this is a campaign against North Indians, it isn't, this Marathi angst is specifically against the migrants from UP and Bihar. So to term this as an anti North Indian drive is misleading, more so because no one in North India, and here I am talking of the states of Punjab, Himachal, Uttrakhand, Haryana and Rajasthan, considers people from eastern UP and Bihar as North Indians!!! The term used to describe them in these states? You guessed it -Bhaiya
No one would disagree with you that the Marathi "angst" is against people from Bihar and UP. But, sadly, this article is titled not to deal with the plight of people from UP but only Bihar. Docku:What up? 03:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Docuku: I dont understand what you have just said. pls clarify. This is about anti Bihari sentiment, and these ar anti bihari sentiments.
Dear Notashamed, why is this article not titled "Anti-UP and Bihari sentiment in India?" Docku:What up? 14:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Docku, if there is an incident in which Biharis are specifically targeted as well then why cannot it be added here? The 2003 railway exams attacks were Bihari centric and should be ehere as an act of violence against Biharis. From the references it is fairly clar that you are, sadly again, wrong. Not-Ashamed (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe most of the new edits and the new title would to be reverted in time to come. So guys stop wasting your energy. Also attack on north-Indians also means attack on Biharis in general. So it has very much a place in the article. Manoj nav (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much time these days. So I am not able to participate in the discussion now. Also it's funny to see the secrete page move request to meet vested interests. Manoj nav (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vedic literature displays open hostility and disgust towards Magadha[edit]
The history of Magadha from the earliest times to the dawn of the Buddhist age is not well known. The entire Vedic literature displays open hostility and disgust towards Magadha, because Magadha was a great stronghold of the pre-Aryans and refused to be absorbed in the sterotyped Brahmanical pattern.[1]
..Mention is also made of Magadha (South Bihar) and Anga (South-eastern Bihar), although these region had not yet been Aryanised and their inhabitants were regarded as strangers... (Later Vedic period) [2]
..Magadha and Anga were still regarded with aversion. For in a text of the Artharvaveda fever is wished away to the peoples of these lands. The Magadhas are also contemptuously described as Vratyas, outside the pale of orthodox Brahmanism, and speaking a strange unintelligible language... [3]
It appears that Biharis faced prejudice in ancient time as well. I will suggest interested people to do reading on this and gather more information.
^Maitra Asim, Magahi culture, Cosmo Publication, 1983, pp. 45
^Tripathi Rama Shankar, History of Ancient India, pp 41-42,
[1]
^Tripathi Rama Shankar, History of Ancient India, pp 47-48,
[2]
Hope everyone agrees that the title should change to reflect the reality of who was targetted
Not-Ashamed (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are evidences which suggest that even Dr. Rajendra Prasad faced racism when he when outside Bihar. That was long time ago. So in my opinion this ill feeling surely didn't originate in last 30 years or has much to do with Lalu Prasad Yadav and his politics which is popularly believed in India. Surely this topic needs research.
I have responded to title issue of the article - 2008_attacks_on_North_Indians_in_Maharashtra in the concern talk page. Manoj nav (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence These demeaning situations in Pakistan have even prompted some Biharis to immigrate to Bangladesh. is quite relevant in the context as it shows the situation of the Biharis in Pakistan that has forced them to leave the country. --Zayeem(talk) 18:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The articlew is not about immigration. There is NO mention of their immigration, either to Pakistan, or either to Bangladesh, therefore adding this paragraph is irrelevant. This will not give the readers any info regarding context. Faizan 10:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The situation of the Biharis in Pakistan has forced them to immigrate to Bangladesh. It's quite relevant here as it gives a sense of the disfavoring situations for the Biharis in Pakistan. --Zayeem(talk) 12:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My dear, if you mention immigration in Pakistan only, that would be a dual standard. Mention it in other countries too, i.e. from Bangladesh and India's state of Bihar. There is no mention elsewhere, and a new irrelevant thing will misguide. Faizan 12:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've already mentioned why the sentence is relevant here.--Zayeem(talk) 13:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source you're quoting does not even say anything about Biharis returning to Bangladesh. It only mentions the story of one Bihari man who migrated from Bangladesh to Pakistan and then went back to Bangladesh. That is a single narrative, that implies nothing about other Biharis. The sentence These demeaning situations in Pakistan have even prompted some Biharis to immigrate to Bangladesh is therefore not only a case of WP:OR but also a gross misrepresentation of the source that it is cited to. Misrepresentation may not aptly describe it either, this is actually an abuse of a source where the source says something else, and a different meaning is created from it. That's called WP:SYNTHESIS. Mar4d (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an abuse of source as it clearly states that the disfavoring situations in Pakistan have prompted the person to move back to Bangladesh. However, the phrase some Biharis might be misrepresenting. I've reworded the sentence anyway. --Zayeem(talk) 19:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That source is ridiculous at best a desperate attempt by Zayeem to push a pov a single man reported by a indian news source "demeaning situation" is pure UNDUE I have written it in a way which expresses the reality of the source instead of the misleading attempts of Zayeem 86.151.237.220 (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use biased words like claimed that, see WP:W2W.--Zayeem(talk) 10:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from Zayeem "The sentence These demeaning situations in Pakistan have even prompted some Biharis to immigrate to Bangladesh. is quite relevant in the context as it shows the situation of the Biharis in Pakistan that has forced them to leave the country. --" How does one biased tabloid story about ONE bihari represent the situation of ALL biharis in Pakistam? Zayeem you need a lesson on NPOV my friend 86.151.237.220 (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rediff.com is a biased source? Prove it! I had earlier change the sentence to There was a report that the demeaning situations in Pakistan have prompted a Bihari to migrate to Bangladesh. this is exactly what the source states, nothing POV.--Zayeem(talk) 10:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your just not getting it are you? Rediff CLAIMS that ONE BIHARI left due to so called deaming situation how can this apply to the WHOLE BIHARI populace? you seriously need to take a wikibreak or read NPOV asap! you tried to mislead everyone by stating biharis in pakistan face bad conditions when this is total bullshit and you based your pov accusations on a indian tabloid which states the situation of ONE man this makes it even more biased I have seen your previous edits your nothing but a pov editor 86.151.237.220 (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about Anti-Bihari sentiment, and the report by Rediff is about a Bihari, it is surely relevant here. Now, the sentence which I added is There was a report that the demeaning situations in Pakistan have prompted a Bihari to migrate to Bangladesh. it's exactly what the source is claiming, so what's POV here? Clarify your point or reinstate that content. I'm not willing to reply on personal attacks.--Zayeem(talk) 17:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Anti-Bihari sentiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
I have just modified 3 external links on Anti-Bihari sentiment. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.
I have just modified 3 external links on Anti-Bihari sentiment. 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.
I have just modified 3 external links on Anti-Bihari sentiment. 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.
Many of the references used in this article do not even mention Biharis explicitly and many of the few relevant sources can easily be moved to the Biharis article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MADHEPURA2018 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The contents of the article under violence is not about anti-bihari sentiment but violence involving biharis.[edit]
Seems like even the editors themselves are anti-biharis. DreadLordaj (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.